Talk:Slovene Home Guard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of paragraph added by anonymous user[edit]

I have removed the claim that "However, the Domobranci wanted to ally with the Allies, but as a result of the Yalta Conference, the Allies chose to ally with the Partisans forcing the Domobranci to ally with the Italians and the Germans in order to gain supplies and munitions. Stalin persuaded Roosevelt to side with him in choosing to ally with Tito and the Partisans, where as Churchill was against this idea. The Domobranci's main goal was to live in an independant Slovenian state at any costs".

Firstly, SD was originally set up by General Rösener in September 1943. It is illogical to say that they wanted to "ally with the Allies", as this would have put them into direct conflict with Rösener, who was providing them with weapons, uniforms and training. At his speech when SD took oaths of allegiance to Hitler, Rösener said "On 24 September 1943 I issued the command for the foundation of Slovensko domobranstvo. From the few troops of the so-called White Guard legionnaires, as per my order, Slovensko domobranstvo has grown. With the help of the Greater German Reich, we have trained, clothed and armed you. Today you have taken an oath, that you will, together with the German Army, the military SS and police fight for the freedom of all of Europe”.
Secondly, the reference to Yalta is not correct, I'm afraid. the Allies had been directly supporting the Partisans since the break with Mihailović in early 1943. After the Teheran Conference in 1943 the Partisans received official recognition as the legitimate national liberation force by the Allies. In September 1943, at Churchill’s request, Brigadier General Fitzroy Maclean was parachuted to Tito’s headquarters near Drvar to serve as a permanent, formal liaison to the Partisans. In any case, the Yalta conference did not happen until February 1945. What was agreed at Yalta regarding Yugoslavia was the following:

"VIII. YUGOSLAVIA

It was agreed to recommend to Marshal Tito and to Dr. Ivan Subasitch: (a) That the Tito-Subasitch agreement should immediately be put into effect and a new government formed on the basis of the agreement. (b) That as soon as the new Government has been formed it should declare: (I) That the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the National Liberation (AVNOJ) will be extended to include members of the last Yugoslav Skupstina who have not compromised themselves by collaboration with the enemy, thus forming a body to be known as a temporary Parliament and (II) That legislative acts passed by the Anti-Fascist Assembly of the National Liberation (AVNOJ) will be subject to subsequent ratification by a Constituent Assembly; and that this statement should be published in the communiqué of the conference.

Nor is it logical to say that SD's main goal "was to live in an independent Slovenian state at any costs". It might be logical to say that their main goal was to avoid being part of a Partisan-led Yugoslavia at any costs but that is a quite different matter entirely.

"It is also appropriate to bear in mind that SD swore allegiance to Hitler on two occasions in 1944 and 1945":
"Prisegam pri Vsemogočnem Bogu, da bom zvest, hraber in svojim nadrejenim pokoren, da bom v skupnem boju z nemško oboroženo silo, stoječo pod poveljstvom vodje velike Nemčije, SS četami in policijo, proti banditom in komunizmu kakor tudi njegovim zaveznikom svoje dolžnosti vestno izpolnjeval za svojo slovensko domovino kot del svobodne Evrope. Za ta boj sem pripravljen žrtvovati tudi svoje življenje. Tako mi Bog pomagaj".
"I swear by almighty God that I will be loyal, brave and obedient to my superiors, that I will stand in common struggle with the German armed forces, stand under the command of the leader of Greater Germany, SS troops and police against bandits and communism and their allies; this duty I will carry out conscientiously for my Slovenian homeland as part of a free Europe. For this struggle I am also ready to sacrifice my life. So help me God!"
This photo sums SD up clearly: http://www.mladina.si/tednik/200742/clanek/slo-tema--borut_mekina/img/tema-prisega.html-l2
AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also appropriate to bear in mind that SD swore allegiance to Hitler on two occasions in 1944 and 1945" - Please be advised that this was a forced gesture. The Partisans swore allegiance to Stalin as well.

NPOV[edit]

Please see the discussion at User_talk:AlasdairGreen27#NPOV:_.22Gregorij_Ro.C5.BEman.3B_Ljenko_Urban.C4.8Di.C4.8D.3B_Domobranci.22 Viator slovenicus (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Just as a comment to the discussion on the above link: Boris Mlakar (see reference above) and others have shown tha Romžman left the podium before the oath was taken. He never saluted the Domobranci as the passed by (as is also clearly visible from the photos): this however a minor issue. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would read what the article actually says before you throw your tags around. It says "The ceremony was followed by a parade where Leon Rupnik, Gregorij Rožman and SS General Erwin Rösener stood on a pedestal in front of the Ursuline Church saluting the Domobranci as they marched past". This statement of simple fact is supported by photographic evidence which nobody except you disputes. If you want to say that Rožman wasn't "saluting the Domobranci" because he was standing there with his hands by his side, that's your privilege.
It seems you are confused, so I'll make it all clear for you. There were two occasions where SD swore allegiance. The first was 20 April 1944, Hitler's birthday. On that occasion, Rožman went to the stadium and read the mass before the ceremony. Then he apparently left the stadium prior to the ceremony itself. The oaths of allegiance were taken after Rožman had left. This is what Mlakar and others (Pečar goes on about it at length in Rožmanov proces: it was her central argument for distancing Rožman from the oaths of allegiance) are talking about.
The second occasion was 30 January 1945, the 12th anniversary of the Nazi takeover of power in Germany. On this occasion, Rožman (as far as I am aware) did not go to the stadium. The mass was read by his curate, Ignacij Lenček. Why this changed from the procedure the first time I don't know. After the ceremony, there was a parade through Ljubljana. Rožman, Rupnik and Rösener stood on a podium outside the Ursuline Church as the SD marched past. Rupnik and Rösener gave Nazi salutes; Rožman did not. However, nobody would take Rožman's presence on the podium, in the middle, between Rupnik and Rösener as anything other than approval for what was going on. Now, what does the article say? The article does not say "Leon Rupnik, Gregorij Rožman and SS General Erwin Rösener stood on a pedestal (...) Nazi saluting", as that is not what one of them did. What it says is that "Leon Rupnik, Gregorij Rožman and SS General Erwin Rösener stood on a pedestal (...) saluting the Domobranci..." If you are unsure what 'to salute' means, the definition is here [1], among other things "to pay respect to or honor by some formal act"; "to address with expressions of goodwill, respect, etc.; greet"; "to make a bow or other gesture to, as in greeting, farewell, or respect" and so on.
My problem, Viator, is your willingness to add POV tags to articles without reading them properly or having a clear understanding of what happened or what Mlakar or others have said.
I hope I have made things clearer. I have removed your tag from a statement which, if you read it, is just an account of what happened. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Viator slovenicus (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm sure that together we can make the article better, but that'll be impossible if you charge around like a bull saying "I'm right! I'm right!" Please at least read it before changing anything.-- AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bias[edit]

The entire article seems to speak another language than the historians' speak. It calls the Domobranci "white reactionaries" and other words typical for Communist terminology. Also, it does not take the historical development into consideration, e.g. the Communist Partisan attacks against Slovenian villages and clergy. The Domobranci did not consider themselves Nazi Party members or Nazis.Smith2006 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith2006, you will have noticed that I have removed your tag. For the purposes of us having a reasonable discussion, would you be kind enough to explain what exactly it is about this article that you think, from your obviously highly-informed and neutral standpoint, is not NPOV? Apologies if it is not immediately clear to me, but what should be changed, and why? Many thanks in advance for taking the time to set out your points. Regards, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that there has been another round of discussion about the NPOV label. Although the article needs a thorough reediting, I believe that the labels can stay as they are until then. Right now, only the two sections which contain misleading or incorrect statements are labeled non-neutral, while the whole article is not. If truth be told, there is little coherent information outside of those two labeled sections, but as far as I see it, it is not incorrect. Viator slovenicus (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Polish Home Guard (Armia Krajowa) was condemned as collaborationist by Soviet sympathizers but later revealed to be a nationalist group that simply was not supporting the communists. Could well be the same situation here to some degree, since anti-communists were repeatedly equated with Nazis in Soviet propaganda.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong translation of the oath[edit]

I just noticed that there is a mistake in the translation of the oath. To avoid any further missunderstanding on this topic i'm going to explain it here.

In the original we have:

But then in translation:

The first bolded word, stoječo, refers to the German armed force, but the second, stand refers to domobranec taking the oath. The correct translation should be standing, but to make it even more clear (because some people still think this was an oath to Hitler), I'm going to make it which stand. Tadej5553 (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But this was basically an oath to cooperate with Hitler. Your rhetorical spin can't change that fact. In saying "v skupnem boju z nemško oboroženo silo, stočejo pod poveljstvom vodje velike Nemčije", they are swearing that they will collaborate with the German forces that are being led by their leader (Hitler). It's basically an oath to collaborate with Hitler.

If they say that they will fight together with them in a common struggle instead of 'under their command', it doesn't change what they're basically saying - that they will colloborate with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.61.112 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your words don't really come as a surprise to me, we can see on a daily basis the Domobranci apologists doing everything in their power to conceal the truth of their responsibility in what happened. They even go so far as to say their cause was legitimate, while the Partisans' wasn't.

They are turning history upside down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.61.112 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you must be a genius to figure that out. All I wanted to explain was that this wasn't an oath to Hitler, I couldn't care less about you ideological bullshit... Tadej5553 (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the fact that they did it on his frigging birthday was a complete coincidence.

Justice and Reason (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from a WP:RS (Tomasevich 2001, pp. 124-125). 'the Home Guards took a solemn oath to fight together with the SS and German police under the leadership of the Fuhrer against the Communist guerillas and their allies'. Good enough for me. Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot state that the Domobranci had allegiance to Nazi Germany as they were the occupying country. "The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation" Stirk, Peter (2009). The Politics of Military Occupation. Edinburgh University Press. p. 44. ISBN 9780748636716. " (talk) 11:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocities at Sveti Urh & lists of opponents[edit]

I think there should be some mention of the atrocities the Home Guard committed at Sveti Urh.

Also, there should be mention of the lists that the Home Guard wrote of their opponents that they gave to the German occupiers to "take care of".

Justice and Reason (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits of a Banned Editor's Sock[edit]

In order to ensure accuracy and integrity of the editing process I reverted all the edits of the Socks of the banned editor Irongron. I was away from editing due to obligations and missed what what happening until much later. Please see the banned editor's sock investigation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JamesBWatson&oldid=618034898#A_Very_Strong_Probable_Sock_of_an_editor_you_permanently_banned_in_April_2014_User:IRoNGRoN The IP 178.216.122.254 and ☭Soviet☭ User talk:Иронгрон Иронгрон is Irongron written in the Cyrillic alphabet... are both socks of ☭Irongron☭User talk:IRoNGRoN

That may be true, but in blanket reverting you have removed material sourced from Kranjc and Tomasevich, which should be verified and restored immediately. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to do so. I do not have the time to spend to much time on all the socks edits. It is SOP to revert a socks edits but in some cases I have left them as is. Many I have reverted due the inaccurracy, direct copying of texts, tone, conjecture or other issues I am familar with of the banned editor. Please do improve the article as it is something you have a passion for. 208.54.35.169 (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiance to Nazi Germany[edit]

As Bohsie is a new editor, I am assuming they don't understand WP:BRD, which I have mentioned to them on their talk page. According to Tomasevich 2001, pp. 124-125. 'the Home Guards took a solemn oath to fight together with the SS and German police under the leadership of the Fuhrer against the Communist guerillas and their allies'. That sounds like allegiance to the Germans to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot state that the Domobranci had allegiance to Nazi Germany as they were the occupying country. "The significance of the temporary nature of military occupation is that it brings about no change of allegiance. Military government remains an alien government whether of short or long duration, though prolonged occupation may encourage the occupying power to change military occupation into something else, namely annexation" [1] " by Bohsie


The domobranci fought against the Nazis (prior 1945) and then against the Partisans in 1945. The majority of domobranci did not swear allegiance. The domobranci was fighting for the Slovenian homeland, not the german homeland. Germany was also occupying their country. Many occupied citizens have been forced to swear allegiance to occupying militias, and that doesn't state that they have an allegiance with them. Did the French have an allegiance with Germany once they were occupied? Some put up Nazi flags, and collaborated with the Nazis that were in France. Some even swore allegiance to the Nazi flag, did that mean all of France had an allegiance to the Nazis?

You have to also understand that the domobranci came from all portions of Slovenia, so the majority of the ones that fought were not in Bezigrad. So it is completely misleading to continue to post on here that the Domobranci had allegiance to Nazi Germany. That is part of the propaganda that the Partisans used back in 1945, and it looks like even people are using it today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohsie (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source you have used doesn't say that the Home Guard didn't hold allegiance to the Nazis, it makes a general comment about the effects of military occupation on the allegiance of citizens of an occupied country, in this case Yugoslavia. Just because what is now Slovenia was completely occupied by the Germans after September 1943, that doesn't mean that all Yugoslav citizens had an allegiance to the Nazis. But this is not similar to that situation at all, and is much more specific, and they did swear an oath, unlike normal everyday citizens. In this case the Home Guards swore an oath to fight alongside the SS and German police under the leadership of Hitler. That means that they did have allegiance to Nazi Germany, in fact, they swore an oath to that effect. I will post a Request for Comment to get a wider community view on this issue. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is also this which clearly states that the Home Guard swore allegiance to the Third Reich. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If allegiance to Nazi Germany is restored in the infobox for this article, the article Slovene Partisans should include a parallel item on allegiance to the Soviet Union in its infobox. The Partisan oath is available here (see Čl. 6 'Article 6' at mid-page). Doremo (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that, if a statement about Partisan allegiance to the Soviet Union is found in reliable secondary sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably any of these: "the Partisans, led by Josip Broz, known as Tito, and loyal to Moscow" (Work Out Modern World History GCSE, 1990); "recognition of the communists' supremacy within Yugoslavia: their allegiance to Moscow" (The Great Crusade: A New Complete History of the Second World War, 2008); "Both during and immediately after the Second World War, Tito remained totally loyal to Moscow" (Congressional Record Vol. 126, Part 8); "the Yugoslav Communists were slavishly loyal to Moscow" (The Soviet Union, Congressional Quarterly, 1 Jan 1990). It seems like parallelism in these two related articles would be appropriate. Doremo (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that keen on the sources (I mean, a high school GCSE text?), except maybe The Great Crusade, which might be ok for our purposes. It would be better to have a specialist academic-level source on WWII Yugoslavia similar to Tomasevich than some generic broad-brush history of WWII. Surely there are better sources for this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first published source material that came up in my Google search. Someone interested in the topic could spend time digging up additional sources, including in other languages. Doremo (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you are advancing the case that there should be a similar mention of allegiance in respect of the Partisans, surely you would be willing to find a reasonable academic source that supports that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more: "Tito's Partisans, whose loyalty lay with Moscow" and "the Yugoslav Partisans based their National Liberation Movement on the principle of unconditional loyalty to the Soviet Union". Doremo (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you can come up with something better than that? Something published by a university press? The first one I can't view, and the second one seems to be a "Free Europe" Cold War organisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say what's wrong with your browser; the link works for me (it's to Operatives, Spies, and Saboteurs: The Unknown Story of the Men and Women of World War II's OSS, 2014). Otherwise: "there was almost complete unanimity within the British and American governments that Tito would remain completely loyal to Moscow" (Beacons in the Night: With the OSS and Tito's Partisans in Wartime Yugoslavia, Standford University Press, 1993); "...through the Partisan struggle .... must nevertheless be described as a thoroughly revolutionary group of men, loyal to Stalin, the Comintern, Bolshevism and Tito's new party line" (Creating a Socialist Yugoslavia: Tito, Communist Leadership and the National Question, 2016). And, on later revisionism: "The myth that every Partisan was a Communist, for example, was now being revised downward to suggest that fewer than 10 percent had pledged allegiance to Moscow" (Only the Nails Remain: Scenes from the Balkan Wars, 2001). Doremo (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excerpt from Slovenia 1945: Memories of Death and Survival After World War II by John Corsellis (page 247) - "When the domobranci were set up in 1943 their leaders bargained with the Germans to maintain their independence, with mixed results. They avoided being drawn into SS units, and won a pledge they would deployed on the ‘Adriatic littoral’, which lessened their fears of being sent to fight with German forces on the Russian front. But the Germans insisted orders and documents should be in German as well as Slovene, and put SS General Rosener in overall command. Within siz months, one of the domobranci general staff was complaining their own role was being diminished as more and more German officers were attached.... It was the oath which caused the deepest misgivings among the domobrnaci. It caused uproar among the general staff when first mooted. Many wished to avoid any specific commitment, except to their Slovene homeland. The exact wording was negotiated over weeks with the Germans, who were intent in mailing them down. Rosener threated them with dissolution if they did not fall into line. The Slovenes obtained that they should swear allegiance to the fight against Communism rather than to Hitler. But the Germans insisted on the reference to German leadership and timed the ceremony for Hitler’s birthday. On the day, ten domobranci refused to parade and were arrested.... "Swearing the oath of loyalty did harm. It was not good, even though we could not avoid it, and one should consider the extent to which it was made under duress.” The Partisans too swore an oath – to fight alongside the renowed Workers – Peasant – Red Army of the SOVIET UNION (exhibit in the Museum of Contemporary History, Ljubljana – capitals in original)."

Just reading this discussion it talks about the Nazi bias, and how this Wikipedia page is different from what the historians say. It sounds like there is some motivation to label the Domobranci Nazi's when even the historians see that was not the case. I can provide numerous excerpts from numerous historians, such as Slovenia 1945by John Corselius (an true outside reflection from an Englishman not a Slovenian). Bohsie (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in labelling anyone, the article just needs to reflect what is in all the reliable sources, not just the ones that paint the Home Guard in a favourable light. The article needs to reflect that they swore allegiance to Nazi Germany and the circumstances under which that occurred, as well as the fact that according to the source you have quoted regarding the duress under which it was done. But the fact is that many of the reliable sources describe the Home Guard as collaborators with the Axis, and that must also be in the article. I have no issue with the article on the Partisans mentioning that they swore allegiance to the Soviet Union either. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one is argueing that the Domobranci didn't collaborate with the Nazis, the Germans were the occupying force, they fought against them at the beginning and then made a deal with them to fight the Partisans instead. All we are stating is that the Domobranci wasn't fighting for Germany, they were fighting for Slovenia, free of the communists. Labeling them as allegiant to Nazi Germany is incorrect. History shows that the Domobranci were between caught between two enemies, and choose collaborate with the enemy they felt was the least of the two. The Nazi's were not mass killing Slovenians like the Partisans were. And this then also lead to 12,000 Domobranci being sent back to a Communist controlled Slovenia from Vitkring and ultimately their deaths. Thankfully 6,000 of them were saved by a Canadian, Major Paul Barre (http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20050325.OBBARR25/BDAStory/BDA/deaths). My concern is that the narrative on this page focuses on their involvement with the Nazis, rather then the numerous other important parts of the Domobranci history, like the mass execution of 12,000 of them that were tricked into being sent back. That isn't even a section on this page. How sad!Bohsie (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support a balanced approach to the article. Personally I don't think it is clear enough in the lead that these people were collaborators. I'd also like to see a reliable source for the claim that these people fought the Germans prior to September 1943. Most if not all of them were either part of the MVAC under Italian rule or were recruited after the Italians surrendered. The MVAC did not fight the Germans. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure you support a balanced approach. You just stated that it isn't clear enough that these people were collaborators. From what I have read, it was less collaboration, and more cooperation. Who do you think the Domobranci were fighting for? The germans? The key aspect to Slovenia at that time was that Germany moved into Slovenia in the middle of a vicious civil war between Catholic Slovenes and Communist Slovenes. This was a civil war in the middle of a world war. There were no black and white sides. All Slovenes wanted the Italians out, as well as the Germans, but they were also fighting one another in a Civil War. It's not like Catholic Slovenes wanted to become part of Germany, they created an armed force called the Slovenia Homeguard. So I guess I don't know why the narrative of this Wikipedia page focuses on the cooperation with Germany, rather than the Civil War itself. It seems like you are solely focused on the Domobranci being Nazis that you feel that is more important on this page than the horrific acts the British army did in Vitkring, sending over 12,000 Slovenes back to their deaths. No mention of the mass graves that are still being uncovered to this day in Slovenia at the hands of the Partisans. Who is the one with the agenda? Bohsie (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above, I’d like to point out that the second German Collaboration section mentions the SD oath to the Nazis, same as the first Collaboration with Germans section, but with additional apologia for this act. Clearly the oath to “the Leader of Greater Germany” is to Hitler, and no one else. Second, Leon Rupnik’s own secretary, Stanko Kociper, wrote that the oath was the idea of the Home Guard leadership, and that Rupnik specifically added the part about the battle "against communism and their allies", which includes the western allies. Also, if we compare the speeches of Rosner and Rupnik at the second oath, Rupnik clearly comes off as the much greater Nazi, with a vicious screed against the Jews, and their Bolshevik and Western allies, while Rosner mainly talks of soldierly duty. I therefore suggest this second German Collaboration section be deleted, with perhaps only the exact text of the oath being added to the first, Collaboration with Germans section Thhhommmasss (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with deleting the second section in toto. There are a number of elements of it which should be integrated into the earlier section, and the earlier section has a few redundancies of things already explained in the Background section. If there is additional information about whose idea the oath was and who wrote it, that should be incorporated, although I think we should be careful about taking the word of SD personnel about such things. What this article really lacks is information about SD operations. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2nd section is almost entirely about the first oath, and in my view has lots of less important info (flags flying, anthems playing, etc). Regarding caution for taking the word of SD personnel, I agree, but then I suspect claims that the oath was imposed on an unwilling SD by the Nazis, came mostly from SD members/supporters, after the war, with no documents or proof for such self-serving claims. I think it helps to judge personal accounts by:(1) were they in a position to know, and (2) are they being self-serving. As Rupnik’s secretary, Kociper was in a much better position to know the facts, and he tells a tale that is not purely self-serving. Btw, the claim that the SD “protected villages and towns” from the Partisans is also hard to take, since Slovene researchers, like Tominsek-Rihtar, write that the occupiers, plus the SD and other allies, killed more than 90% of Slovenes during the war, including 16,000, mostly civilians, exterminated in concentration camps and shot as hostages, with, as Gregor Kranjc writes, the assistance of collaborating forces Thhhommmasss (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Stirk, Peter (2009). The Politics of Military Occupation. Edinburgh University Press. p. 44. ISBN 9780748636716.

SD helping Allied airmen[edit]

Regarding the sentence that the SD "occasionally helped Allied airmen who had been shot down over the province", it is worth noting that both Tomasevich (p. 125) and Gregor Kranjc offer only one example of SD members attempting to help Allied pilots, carried out by 2 low-level SD soldiers in November 1944, near the end of the war, and this in fact failed, since the Germans captured the Allied pilots. I’ve not seen documentation from reliable sources of any other such attempts. On the contrary, Gregor Kranjc (p. 145) quotes official SD policies to capture Allied pilots and turn them over to the Germans, with confirmations from SD leaders that they turned over all Allied pilots to the Germans, as well as documentation of specific examples where the SD captured and turned over Allied pilots to the Germans (it should also be noted that this contrasts with over 800 documented pilots and other allied personnel saved by Slovene Partisans, alone, including a joint airfield built by the Allies and Partisans on liberated Slovene territory, from which hundreds of Allied personnel, saved by Partisans, were evacuated). Thus I believe more specifics should be provided here – e.g. that there is only one documented, failed attempt to help Allied pilots, vs. multiple official SD policies, confirmations and documented SD actions of turning Allied pilots over to the Germans Thhhommmasss (talk) 22:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Slovene_Home_Guard&oldid=1210410138"