Talk:Latvian Legion

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

16 March[edit]

I write introduction to 16 march day as 16 march links there. When article become big enhough, then spilt in Latvian legions and Legions day. AlV 09:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

There are two pages concerning this subject: this one and Latvian Legion. Latvian legion apparently is more exact title therfore I think this page should be merged into it---- Xil/talk 16:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

This page should be renamed "Latvian Legion", in the singular. Although there were two divisions, there was only one Legion. Zalktis 16:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why plural?[edit]

Petri Krohn, in your last edit, you changed the phrase "Latvian Legion" in the introductory paragraph back to plural. Why? As I explained in my suggestion for a rename above, there was only one Legion, which, on paper least, united all ethnic Latvian units subordinated to the SS/Police/Waffen-SS from 1943 onwards. Compare the consistent use of the singular in German (de:Truppenfahne (Waffen-SS)#Die Lettische Legion), Russian (ru:Латышский добровольческий легион СС), and Latvian (lv:Latviešu leģions). The current naming of the article stems from a merging operation on 12 May 2007, when this title was mistakenly given precedence over the more correct singular version. Zalktis 11:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move (was: Rename)[edit]

  1. A user who is not a native speaker of English mistakenly created a page entitled Latvian Legions in parallel to the existing page Latvian Legion. To the uninitiated, this present title suggests a plural form in English, i.e. that there were multiple Legions. It is my suspicion, however, that this usage derives from the fact that "leģions" (legion) has a final 's' (masculine nominative singular) in Latvian. (Cf. lv:Latviešu leģions)
  2. Xil noted the existence of parallel articles, and correctly suggested that this one be merged into Latvian Legion (see above).
  3. When Alex Bakharev performed the merge, however, the correct version, Latvian Legion, was mistakenly merged into this article instead.
  4. As long as the current (factually inaccurate and misleading) article name persists, other users (e.g. Petri Krohn, Philaweb) will continue to unwittingly undo edits that try to remove the usage of the plural.

— Zalktis 08:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed from Latvian Legions to Latvian Legion as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 14:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd division[edit]

In some sources there is information about ephemerical third Latvian division even sometimes with number 36 (but it's number of Dirlewanger division).--Greutungen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greutungen (talk • contribs) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

A user on Latvian Wikipedia just rised a question if introduction on Latvian Wikipedia (For those who speak Latvian - Latvijas teritoriju okupējušā Trešā reiha bruņoto struktūru - ieroču SS un policijas - sastāvā esošo latviešu militāro formējumu kopums Otrā pasaules kara laikā) is correct compared to introduction on English and Russian Wikipedias (apperently these ar simmilar, the English one is - The Latvian Legion was a Waffen-SS unit consisting primarily of ethnic Latvians). This makes me ask if English Wikipedia is correct - the title as noted before should be singular, but dose this mean that the Legion was a single unit ? ~~Xil * 22:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the LL was actually a bringing-together of new and pre-existing Latvian Waffen-SS and police (Schutzmannschaften) units under one organisational structure, it would be more accurate and precise to say: The Latvian Legion was a formation of the Waffen-SS consisting primarily of ethnic Latvians. Cf Formation (military). If this change is introduced, however, it may be necessary to change the section heading "Formation" to "Founding", "Creation" or suchlike, in order to avoid some confusion. —Zalktis (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A propaganda piece[edit]

This is a propaganda piece, guys. I`d rather you rewrite it yourself, then me, because that will certainly start a revert war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.58.63 (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War Crimes section should be expanded with crimes committed on the territory of Belarus and Poland[edit]

Russian language wikipedia has a lot of information, and here for some reason is just 'one historians say this, other say that'. Yurivict (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yes. I unfortunately don't have any sources on hand right at the moment but I have certainly read western, not "only russian" books that mentioned war crimes on occupied former-Soviet territory, for instance in Belarus. The article seems to not be neutral and supportive of the Latvian legion. Certainly it shouldn't demonize them, but it must be an objective article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.75.131 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism and enthusiasm for Hitler[edit]

"This was despite numerous members of the legion being fiercely loyal to Hitler and expressing their anti-Semitic feelings quite openly after the war." Can we please find a WP:RS for this statement? I seem to recall a statement like this in a Web of Hate by Warren Kinsella, but don't have the book close at hand any more. One could also check Christopher Simpson's Blowback. David Cesarani's Justice Delayed is also a good bet, but I don't think he goes so far as to says that Latvians were openly Hilterites after the war. At the very least, one could probably find something in the archives of The Guardian. Since Russia Today has an axe to grind with the Baltics over interpretations of history, I personally would avoid using them as a source in this case, except, perhaps to reflect the interpretations prevalent in the Russian media. Note that Soviet-era publications such as Daugavas Vanagi — Who Are They? should not be treated as WP:RS, since time and again, when Western prosecutors tried to use them in trial as evidence, the numerous factual imprecisions they contain actually made it harder to convict alleged Latvian war criminals. Anyhow, if no good source if provided for this potentially controversial statement (which does not even specify who, only "numerous members"), then I suggest the statement be removed in the near future. As we all know, the onus is on the person adding information to provide proper sources. —Zalktis (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, see also the section below. - Altenmann >t 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly referenced[edit]

For a topic with a good deal of controversy it is rather poorly referenced. All opinions, i.e., evaluations of the Legion (were they good or bad, liked Hitler or hated Soviets, etc.) must be clearly attributed to the sources which presented these opinions in argumented way. For example, a Russian newspaper which just says that Legioners were bad without citing any facts in support will not be a valid source regardless the reputation of the author. - Altenmann >t 16:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash[edit]

Once again, the Wikipedian hive-mind proves that it's far more comfortable with Nazism than communism. Every article about left-wing military forces on this site is accompanied by screeching, hysterical denunciations of its atrocities (real or imagined). The genuflecting to and special pleading for these genocidal Fascist filth is sickening. DublinDilettante (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how it connects to this article? Latvian Legionnaires were not Fascists. Dukurs (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian Legion motivation[edit]

The section that describes what motivated people could use some additional information. Typically, Latvians despised Soviet occupancy in their country, while German occupancy in Latvia in earlier centuries was more tolerable. The difference was that unlike Russians, Germans invested in Latvia and helped her get on her feet. Long story short, Latvians will always take German side if another conflict, even one involving WWII happenings, had to happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.24.222 (talk) 18:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The provisional councils of all three Baltic states in 1944 already took up resolutions on dealing with both occupying powers.
With respect to the Germans, the Latvians had no love for the Germans after 700 years of German control. It was a highly ambivalent relationship at best since "high society" was German even after independence. It is also worth noting that Latvia was originally not lobbying for freedom from Russia, only autonomy similar to that which it already had. It was the rise of Bolshevism in Russia which led to the move for complete independence from Russia.
Regarding recent edits, shame on those editors who discount factual motivations as "claims" attributed to individuals while "oath on Hitler" defending "homeland" (incorrect, oath was on God, there was no mention of homeland) is featured as the alpha et omega of Legionnaire motivation (as if they also weren't conscripted). Please desist from grossly POV weasel structuring in the future: "although... claimed... [facts]... (implied in reality)... [something evil]." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteers vs conscripts[edit]

Valdis O. Lumans. Latvia in World War II. Volume 11 of World War II. Volume 11 of World War II--the global, human, and ethical dimension. Fordham Univ Press, 2006, ISBN 0823226271, 9780823226276, on the page 271 says that 17000 was conscripted (out of which 6000 failed to report on duty) and 5500 volunteered. In connection to that, I suggest to remove "conscripts" from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, conscription was ordered. They are viewed as conscripts. The minority do not change the vast majority. And you would need 5 or 6 sources to make such a contention, not one. Lumans' work is good, but he approaches the subject from his angst over dispelled myths and so is not always the most objective. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that as of July 1, 1944 (per Silgailis) the Legion proper were 32,418 with an additional 12,159 in Wehrmacht auxiliaries the other primary conscription alternative. Latvian casualties to that point numbered 12,581.
"Choices" of service upon conscription were:
  1. service as auxilliaries with the Wehrmacht
  2. service with a Police unit
  3. service in the Latvian Legion
  4. war labor service (the trench diggers)
Between the auxilliaries, active Legion and casualties that's over 57,000 right there. Mangulis' number is even higher, likely including other unit conscripts. Total Latvian mobilization was close to 148,000 (Silgailis).
Lumans' numbers are definitely incomplete, including significantly understating the Legion alone. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a reminder from our other discussion, even Vsevolod Merkulov in wartime correspondence to Kalbērziņš, secretary of the Latvian communist party, confirmed the Latvian Waffen SS were conscripted. Surely you would not discount the Soviet Union's own account of how the Latvian Waffen SS units came to be formed. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, Paul's figure of 17000 - 6000 + 5500 = 16500 was for a particular point in 1943. Conscription continued over a period of time. If you read Lumans further he writes on page 295 :"Arriving at an accurate total count of Latvians serving in German sponsored armed formations is virtually impossible - the proverbial moving target. The varying dates of counts as well as different definitions of the Latvian Legion have resulted in discrepencies." Lumans then discusses various numbers mentioning an upper total of 87,550 in the legion out of a total of 146,510 serving in the German military. On page 104 of Breaking Historical Silences Through Cross-cultural Curriculum Deliberation: Teaching the Holocaust in Latvian Schools by Thomas John Misco (Jr), University of Iowa: "In total, 146,000 Latvians born between 1919 and 1929 were conscripted". Lumans further writes on page 389; "Since it was too difficult to distinguish between an individual's nature of service in terms of being voluntary or coerced, the DP Commission for its purposes ruled that all members of the Baltic SS had been conscripted into service". --Nug (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is why it is necessary to provide a correct translation of the divisions' names (the German names include the word "volunteer", and many English sources use this word too), and explain that, despite the formal name, the amount of real volunteers was only 5,500, and others were conscripted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused. No one has advocated for not translating the names of the Waffen SS units as they were named in German. The objection here was to your advocating that we eliminate indicating that the Latvian Legion was conscripted, a different discussion:
  • we have military units titled "volunteer" Waffen SS, including those known as the Latvian Legion
  • we have the reality that the Latvian Legion (and other units of Latvians in German military service) were conscripted.
I take your statement as indicating you retract your advocacy for deleting from the lede the fact that the Latvian Legion was conscripted (with the small exception mentioned here and already indicated in the article). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost agreed. I propose the following.
  1. To replace "conscripts" with "citizens".
  2. To explain that formally both divisions had a word "volunteer" in their names (and to change the names accordingly)
  3. To explain that, despite its formal name, the Latvian Legion consisted mostly of conscripts, and that only 5,500 legionaries were true volunteers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Conscripts stays (disagree with you)
  2. Officially units were named volunteer units (indicate full German name of units), no issue; note it was not called the "volunteer" Latvian Legion
    Put in full German name, however, also indicate they were conscripted per #1 (Lettische SS-Freiwilligen-Legion + "conscripted")
  3. Explanation is fine, we can fine tune numbers of initial volunteers if needed
Conscripts stays because after initial poor turnout, all were subsequently conscripted in multiple waves as prior age ranges of conscripts were exhausted. Additionally, Allies acknowledged they were conscripted units (post-war), Soviets acknowledged they were conscripted (during the war). That there was a small initial exception does not change the nature of the Legion as conscripts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while. I would note that the Nazis began to conscript Latvians for combat at the Eastern Front six months after the beginning of the occupation (1941 December order paving the way), and by 1945 had conscripted every male born after 1905. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oath[edit]

I tracked down Silgailis' English translation of the oath:

"I swear by God this holy oath that in the struggle against Bolshevism I will give the Commander in Chief of the German Armed Forces, Adolf Hitler, absolute obedience and as a brave soldier I will always be ready to lay down my life for this oath.", that of the German
"Ich schwöre by Gott diesen heiligen Eid, dass im Kampf gegen den Bolschewismus dem Obersten Befehlshaber der deutschen Wehrmacht, Adolf HItler, unbedingen Gehorsam leisten und als tapferer Soldat bereit sein will jederzeit fuer diesen Eid mein Leben einzustetzen."

Hopefully that concludes the discussion here and elsewhere. I've also read some accounts that "Adolf Hitler" was dropped in 1944 owing to Latvian protests but I don't have a WP:RS for that. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The regular Wehrmacht also pledged obedience, soldiers are required to obey their superior officers, there is nothing extraordinary about that. The point of difference with the German Waffen-SS is that they pledged loyalty to Hitler while the Legion did not, and the fact of the importance of "loyalty" is shown by the German Waffen-SS motto: "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" or "My Honor is Loyalty". --Nug (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's Howitt's views[edit]

Is this British politician so important that his views about Latvian Legion Day should be here? Dukurs (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just another politician indulging the patent lie that the Latvian Legion were Nazis. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he was not saying so, but I agree that a politician is not an expert on the subject of history, per WP:RS. -No.Altenmann >t 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Country[edit]

The "Latvian Self Administration" was not a country, a government, nor autonomous, nor "self-" in any way. I've updated the country to be Reichskommissariat Ostland (Nazi-occupied and administered Latvia). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refimprove tag[edit]

Many paragraphs are uncited. I tagged the article accordingly. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal character[edit]

Statament that the Legion members were aware of the criminal character of the SS is unlikely. Not to mention that no involvement in the war crimes are proven. Dukurs (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*StatEment. Criminalization of Waffen-SS was done by Allied show trials. A dubious source. War Crimes? Those that make the allegation must give convincing proof. Must be better than show trials or Soviet propaganda. --105.9.155.39 (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Latvian Legion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Latvian Legion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020 edis[edit]

I've undone this edit: [1]. It's inappropriate to accuse editors of "sheer vandalism" (via e/s). No other rationale for the edit has been provided. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you also reverted this data:"and 10% ethnic Slavic personnel" entered without a source [2] - cite it please with a quote, page # author, etc.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've fixed it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.GizzyCatBella🍁 21:17, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: My reversion was not aimed at that those particular edits. I was referring to the edits by @K.e.coffman: which as far as I can tell consisted only in removing all the historical links that had been appended to the article, deleting the background on the battle which was being commemorated, deleting the regimental flags from the infobox, changing the sentence "which were formed several years earlier for security duties" to the ungrammatical "which were formed starting in 1941 earlier for security duties", claiming to "reduce unsourced material" while deleting a source on the dubious ground that he considered it "dubious" and being happy to leave in plenty of other unsourced material, while not providing any sources of his own, all for no discernible reason other than to wreck the article. So, yes, considering your edits were unsourced, inadequately explained, purely destructive and added nothing to the article nor improved it in any way, I don't see how they could be construed as anything other than vandalism.St Judas the Lazarene (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can observe it was not vandalism. Accusing somebody of vandalism is rather a heavy deal here. If you don't agree with their edits, please discuss the issue here and if a compromise is reached, rebuild the material you think was important. Thank you for your comment.GizzyCatBella🍁 10:48, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazyrytski[edit]

I suggest Kazyrytski is not a reliable source. He cites tainted Russian archives as well as Dyukov's propagandistic pro-Soviet tome--recall, he maintains that based on "archives", deportees were resettled via coach trains, complete with doctors and nurses to look after passenger welfare, when, in fact, deportees were packed in cattle cars. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Creation[edit]

The article misinterpreted Hiden as indicating Arajs Kommando members were joined to the Latvian Legion when it was initially formed. This is not true. Also, Germans were already conscripting Latvians in early 1942 for police battalion duty on the Eastern Front. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

absurd whitewash[edit]

DOES NOT meet this standard, by a mile- Article policies Neutral point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:ADDC:1C00:409:B786:CFD9:16CE (talk) 20:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

XXXXIII Army Corps[edit]

If XXXXIII Corps's Wiki article did exist, why no one even add it's link to it when mentioned the corps? So i added its link. Minhdead2205 (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash[edit]

This article barely mentions the war crimes they committed as apart of the waffen SS on the eastern front. I feel like a translation other language wikis would help with that. Death editor (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this article is Whitewashing their war crimes and should be at least use the sources that the russian wiki uses. Death Editor 2 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latvian_Legion&oldid=1220696301"