Talk:Helmuth von Pannwitz

== The XV Cossack Cavalry Corps (formerly 1st Cossack Division) were up to the last day part of the Wehrmacht although the units were placed in the last month of the war in the organizational structure of the Waffen-SS in terms of replacements and supplies without making the Cossack units a part of the Waffen-SS. Refer to Documents H/22/31 and H/22/41 Imperial War Museum, London and "Cossacks in the German Army by Samuel J. Newland ISBN 0 7146 3351 8, 1991 (pages 143-145. Bargen 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

There is no historic proof or indication that there were any connection between General von Pannwitz and Vlassov nor his Russian Liberation Army. Only Colonel Kononov himself (Commander of the Plastunbrigade within the XV Cossack Cavalry Corps)had left his troops in April 1945 to offer the corps services to the Vlasov army (ref. Cossacks in the German army, Samuel J. Newlands (ISBN 07146 3351 8), page 170. Bargen 19:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, secret stuff

Prince Bernhard, Catalina von Pannwitz & the KLM Nazi flights to Argentine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.117.147 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nikolai Tolstoy

@Peacemaker67: I'm okay with removing The Minister and the Massacres as well. BTW, your revert seems to be in contradiction with the earlier discussion we had that Further reading should contain works by reputable historians. Why not get rid of Tolstoy instead? Could you clarify? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My revert was a bit POINTY, but the point needs to be made. I applaud your cleaning up of the language in these articles, but I haven't seen any discussion of that source on the talk page and why it is unreliable due to its author, publisher and/or context. As you found with Kumm, some authors and publishers that appear unreliable for opinion are fine for basic information about deployments, casualties etc. Removing them means that no-one knows they exist, and they could still be mined for the basic information. For example, I am using a biography of Johann Mickl to expand his article at present, the book is co-written by the man that served as his divisional Ia in the Balkans. One would therefore expect the material to be positive towards Mickl, and generally it is, but I ignore the occasional bit of hero worship and use the deployment information. What you are doing with this is akin to something I've heard tell of on German WP, where every source written by a former Wehrmacht of Waffen-SS officer or soldier gets removed from articles. This isn't de WP, and we don't operate like that here. An overzealous approach to this work will eventually irritate enough people that it may bite you. I'm not the only one watching this work closely. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree. The Wikipedia is written for the general audience, not history specialists, so if people see a book "recommended" in Further reading, they are going to assume it's reliable and a valid source. Before I started down the path of the Waffen-SS, I definitely did not know the scope of historical revisionism that has been undertaken.

Why not point people in the direction of books written by reputable historians and not by apologists or conspiracy theorists? Instead of reverting, you could have improved the article by simply removing Tolstoy. Why "mine" his books (or Kern's) for any bits of useful information, when there are books by reputable historians written on the subject? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

PS - Also, this was in Further reading, and not in References nor used for citations. If I wanted to have a source removed, I would have started the discussion on the Talk page. I treat Further reading similar to WP:EXT - is the information accurate? would it add value for the general reader? It was 0 for 2 in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Because sometimes these books are the only, or one of the only, books in English that provide the basic information on the movements and actions of a particular unit or formation. You can place a note on a source to underline its limitations. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree Peacemaker. We should not run the risk of book burning or any other kind of censorship without a solid explanation (backed by other sources and not an editors personal opinion) to the greater audience why the source is to be excluded. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Newlands & Michaelis as sources

The statements below paint Pannwitz in a rather positive light; I highlighted the questionable areas in bold:

• At the award ceremony in Berlin ... on January 15, 1943, he told Hitler that the official Nazi policies which caused Slavs to be regarded as subhumans (Untermenschen) were totally wrong.

• Because of the respect he showed for his troops and his tendency to attend Russian Orthodox services with them, Pannwitz was very popular with his Cossack troops. Before the end of the war, he was elected Feldataman (German rendering of Supreme Ataman, the highest rank in the Cossack hierarchy and one that was traditionally reserved for the Tsar alone.)

• By the end of the war, the SS took control of all foreign units within the German forces. The Himmler file in the Imperial War Museum contains a record of a conversation which occurred on August 26, 1944, between Himmler, General von Pannwitz, and his Chief of Staff, Colonel H.-J. von Schultz. An agreement was reached that the Cossack divisions, soon to be the Cossack Corps, would only be placed under SS administration in terms of replacements and supplies. However, by February 1, 1945 the corps was transferred to the Waffen-SS. Despite the refusal of General von Pannwitz to enter the SS, the corps was placed under SS administration and all Cossacks became formally part of the Waffen-SS.

On Rolf Michaelis, please see De Wikipedia: "His writings on Waffen-SS are characterized by reputable media as ranging from apologetic to right-wing extremist." (full bio)

On Newland, The Myth of the Eastern Front by Smelser & Davies critiques a different book of his (What If), but notes the revisionist tendencies, such as listing Kaminski's Lokot Republic as alternative occupational policy the Germans should have implemented.

For Kaminski's success in pacifying the areas (including having killed more than 2000 partisans and moved out 12,500 civilians), the Germans rewarded him by letting him set up the Lokot Republic under the German administration and organize RONA.

The Germans used this "successful" model in dealing with another ethnic minority, the Cossacks, who also moved West as the Germans retreated. "For Newland, this strategy held great potential for the Germans, who could have combined this benign integrationist approach with their many battlefield victories."

The reality was much different, note Smelser & Davis, as the brutal suppression of the Warsaw uprising demonstrated. Even the Germans were appalled (it should be noted that RONA troops were experienced murderers by that time, having honed their skills in Russia prior to the arrival to Warsaw.)

"To presume that Kaminsky assisted the Germans in pacifying rear areas to create safe and loyal regions ignores the fundamental fact that his men earned an unwholesome reputation for rapine and pillaging," they conclude.

In view of the De Wiki info and the above critique, I would not consider these sources to be reliable for the positive, exculpatory statements above. I'd like to begin by tagging them as "Unreliable source" and see if better sources can be produced. For example, Jozo Tomasevich can be used to back up the transfer to the W-SS, but w/o the narrative of protests and arrangements that Himmler went back on.

Please let me know if there are any objections. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)