Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force

article name

Is there a source for this translation ("Local Lithuanian Detachment") of Lietuvos vietinė rinktinė? That might be a more direct translation, than say, "Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force" but that's the one most used in English sources. E.g. [1] [2] [3]

Btw, some interesting research about German mobilization attempts here heqs 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I used name from this article - Mečislovas Mackevičius - Lithuanian resistance to German mobilization attempts 1941-1944, Lituanus, Volume 32, No. 4 - Winter 1986. Ed. Antanas Dundzila (Cached version: [4]) Sigitas 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... he seems to be referring to it as a "local Lithuanian detachment", rather than saying "that is its name" (i.e. not capitalizing Local and Detatchment). I suggest a move to Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force (1944) to be more clear. Here's another book using it (same publisher as [2] above) [5] heqs 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sigitas 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph:

The Germans acted ferociously in liquidating the detachment. On May 15, Plechavičius, the commander of the detachment, was arrested together with the other staff members. He was deported to the Salaspils concentration camp in Latvia. For example, they publicly executed 12 randomly selected soldiers in a Vilnius line-up which consisted of some 800 men. En route to the city of Kaunas, while transporting some arrested members, one of the prisoners escaped. In retaliation, the Germans then selected non-commissioned officer Ruseckas for execution on the spot. Since the German regular army guards were stalling the execution, a German SS commissioned officer did the actual shooting. Many soldiers of the Territorial Defense Force were deported to Germany, died or were deported to Soviet prison camps.

Escaped soldier

My grandfather was apparently in this unit, and mentioned to me after having been arrested jumping off of the train and later learning people were shot upon arrival. Could whoever added it provide the the source of this information given I am interested in researching this. It is possible he might have been the man who escaped? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.92.168 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 June 2007.

It seems that the source for this (included in the references list) is: Mackevičius, Mečislovas. Lithuanian resistance to German mobilization attempts 1941-1944, Lituanus, Volume 32, No. 4 - Winter 1986. Ed. Antanas Dundzila. That particular info was added to the article, I believe, by User:Legionas. heqs ·:. 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Murowana Oszmianka

The battle now has its own page Battle of Murowana Oszmianka - this means a lot of the stuff in the middle section of the article is now duplicated. The info on the two articles needs to be checked against each other so no information or cites are missed, and then this article needs to be shortened - with a 'main article' link. An exercise for someone with half an hour to spare. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath

Piaskunowicz notes that soldiers of the LTDF was required to swear an oath to Hitler from the very beginning, just as other Nazi auxiliaries were. So how come the oath could have caused trouble later? This needs some citation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most probably because they weren't Nazi auxilaries and they didn't give oath to Hitler in the begining. Does Piskunowicz say - thet they did it, or he simply says they would (or should) have done like the other similar/analigic forces.--Lokyz (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Waffen SS relevant ?

How is the 1943 German attempt to create a Waffen SS unit relevant to the article about territorial defence force ? --Lysy^talk

I guess it is the background of Nazi attempts to create a Lithuanian force.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

It should be noted that the early version of this article was mostly a copyvio of this source. Although mostly changed, there are still some sentences that could use more throughout rewrite.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll cleanup this article shortly. And speaking about copyvio [6] and this [7] does not seem to be Piotrus original writing. Realax, all the WP:OR will be removed from this article sooon.--Lokyz (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

B-class

To satisfy the last remaining B-class parameter a photograph, painting, table, chart, graph, or other visual aid needs to be placed in the article somewhere. It matter not what the nature of the visual aid is, just along as it is in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any photos, although considering the existence of the veteran Union of Soldiers of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, I would expect we should get some photos of insignia in the future. I cannot think of any table/graph/chart that would be useful. Surely - just as for the GA articles - the visual aid is recommended if possible, but not required for the sake of it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos of the insignia will fo nicely. As to the if possible part, I must confess I am nit sure. Roger or Kirill may be in a better position to answer that question, if you would like to ask them I am sure they would be happy to offer input on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Referenced material removal

Piotrus, would you please explain why did you remove well referenced material with this edit [8]? Another case of WP:IDONTLIKE?--Lokyz (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What content, can you be more specific? Parts of your additions are in so poor English grammar I that they cannot be rewritten and I had to remove a few incomprehensible sentences. Most of the content was preserved, some was moved to a more appropriate section or paragraph.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah the English? Splendid. What part of this sentence you did not understand"The Staff of LVR and also many officers and soldiers refused to take the orders and started dropping weapons, and this led to decision of Hintze and Jackeln to disband the unit.", what part of thhis you do not understand Upon hearing this order Plechavičius immediately ordered Marijampolė cadets to go home, he also ordered Lithuanian battalions to retreat from Vilnius Region stop hostilities with AK forces and return to the permanent stationing location. On May 10th Plechavičius refused to meet Hintze and send his chief of staff Urbonas who told Plechavičius words that he never ment to be an SS officer, nor ever wanted to serve in this structure .

And what part of this you do not understand? On May 9th General Plechavičius received an order by Jackeln, signed on April 15, that all 7 battalions present the moment In Vinius region were under control by Jackeln, all other battalions were to be transferred to German regional commandants, and the unit has to wear SS uniforms and salute by rising hand.

And what did you not understand in this? Germans constantly attempted to use LTDF to their means, and constantly demanded to mobilise more people. Most of such demands were blocked by Plechavičius, most notably the large scale mobilisation attemt in the creating list of conscripts in end of April and the mobilisation in the begining of May (it was completed on May 9th-12th). Germans attempted to use fot the mobilisation LVR commandants offices. The mobilisation failed completely, with only 3 to 5 percent men of conscription age arrived, and most of them wereot fit for military service. Plechavičius has personally ordered to ignore the mobilisation order.

It's all referenced and removed by you, with a clear undo and a bit of covering editing.

You clearly are trying to support Piotrowski's version, even if it does not correspond with facts - main reason of LVR disbandment was that Lithuanians refused to take commands from SS, and also sabotaged the mobilization attempts. Also for Piotrowski's citation about nazi collaborators - Bubnys clearly states, that since December 1943 no Lithuanians were in Paneriai.--Lokyz (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S this is also Noted in Jackeln's speech before officers - main reasons of the disbandment was sabotaged mobilization and attempt to create Lithuanian national army and prepared an jumping-off place for anglo-saxonian troops invasion.--Lokyz (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dropping weapons is not correct, I am not sure what is meant by that. I don't think they were dropping weapons on the ground or whereever they were. Did they turn their weapons back to the Germans? I thought they were taking their weapons into the forest? The part about the cadets is in the article. Did P. really order LVR to stop hostilities with AK? I missed that, feel free to restore it. The rest of the text is in the article. It is clear that there were two related reasons for LVR disbandment: growing tensions with the Germans, and its defeat in skirmishes with AK. As for Ponary, this is an interesting point, feel free to add it to the article, per NPOV we should present both versions if they are contradictory (Piotrowski states... but Bubnys states otherwise...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Marijampolė cadet school turned weapons against Germans. Yes Plechavičius did order to stop hostilities, although the communication lines with Vilnius were rather poor, contrary to Marijampolė, where it did reach cadets sooner. The main reason of the disbandment, was that LVR soldiers and officers refused to obey to SS commanders orders (this is ment by dorpping weapons), the skirmishes with AK did not influenced this decision. The decisive day was May 8th, (the day of mobilisation) as it became obvious, that mobilistion attempt had failed completely. That's why the order to transfer the troops under direct SS control was given to Plechavičius the next day. The following six days was only the further escalation, s it became obvious that LVR will not succumb to SS orders. After Germans disarmed Vilnius branch battalions (most of them were not completely formed at the time) - Germans first arrested officers and used them as hostages. After hearing that all other battalions started disappearing in forests with guns and unifoms. Then the staff and Plechavičius personally were arrested.--Lokyz (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime, the LVR battalions in field were being broken by the AK... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not related - Šiaulaii, Panevėžys ad other batalions simply dissapered with their weapons, after hearing that tehy should wear SS uniforms. This was not a part of the deal, and those soldiers never had an intention to serve in SS.--Lokyz (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this is not contradicted by our article...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean this disrupted article? After recent massive removal of referenced information I can only state, that this article is nor NPOV nor balanced. I do not intend to waste my time editing articles to see all referenced information removed with dubious reasoning on the verge of WP:IDONTLIKE - this is by far not the first article, and I'm afraid by far not the last. --Lokyz (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S - following the recent series request for "facts" - should I reference every single sentence in the sentences, or it would be enough to mark a paragraph as such? Because It thought that referencing paragraph would suffice, to not overuse references.--Lokyz (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article contains all the information there were added to it and were grammatically coherent. If not, please list them here.

And yes, please reference sentences. Otherwise in some time, when sb else adds something in the middle of your para, we will now it does not come from your source. Or when somebody wants to copy part of your para, he will now which sentences are referenced to which source. And so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why I should put any material on talk page. I do have the same rights as editor as you. I'll put referenced information into article, as usual, just to see how long it will last. --Lokyz (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Referenced material removal (again)

Please, could someone comment on this disruptive edit, massive removal of referenced material (including references and clarifications requested by the same user who did remove them). This is getting tiresome. The edit summary to neutral version (Polish-American sociologist claims... give us a break is rather funny, because Piotrus himself suggested to put it this way. Please correct me If I'm wrong - according to the Tadeusz Piotrowski article author of the cited book is sociologist, and he is Polish-American. If one does not like attribution, there is no need massively remove citations. I'm restoring the referenced version.--Lokyz (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific what removed references do have to do with WP:WESEL violations, and what exact part of wesel (?) policy prohibits attributing, and what part of the same poliy does not allow to replace {{fact}}{{clarify}} with references. As a matter of fact, WP:WEASEl is rather explict about this: It is, of course, acceptable to introduce some fact or opinion and attribute it in an inline citation. e.g. "Research by Wong et al, 1996, has shown that rabies can be cured by acupuncture". As for me the removal of referenced material is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKE.--Lokyz (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange enough recent addition of sociologist follows my footstep on including it into article, that was reverted under the pretense of Wp:WEASEl. Piotrus, would you comment on this?--Lokyz (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another disruption of referenced material - This resulted into creation of armed force, that would only act in the borders claimed byof Lithuania (including, however, territories with Polish majority) and would be commanded only by Lithuanian officers. - the striked out are insertions, that Bubnys did not write, but were inserted into cited text. I did restore proper citation.--Lokyz (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Date matching

... LTDF defeat in the Battle of Murowana Oszmianka on May 13–14 ...

This is weird because the order to make LTDF subordinate directly to Germans was issued on May 9, one day after the failed mobilization to the German army ended. The order to disband was given on May 12. On May 15 repressions started against the former members. The "proverbial last drop" came after the LTDF was disbanded... Renata (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find reference for "LTDF was disbanded on May 12". The article states "On May 12, Plechavičius refused to meet with newly appointed Kurt Hintze and sent his chief of staff Urbonas, who told Hintze that Plechavičius never meant to be an SS officer, nor ever wanted to serve in this structure". Am I missing something? Btw, I've rearranged some events in a more chronological order. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Generalbezirk Litauen

Few days ago Lokyz added this useful clarification (w/out referencing it) to a related article. As it seems uncontroversial, useful and more or less a WP:PIPE, I've copied it here as well, yet this is now challenged ([9]). What's the difference between those two articles - why a clarification there is useful and a clarification here is not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Piotrus has a provided a schematics of Reichskomissariat Ostland [10] It is not exaclty a map, sinc there are only several cities mentoned, and it is rather difficult to understand where particular villages were. Although the location of a town/village does not relate to referenced material as one editor suggests [11]. The references presented do not relate to the nazi established Generalbezirk Litauen, they do state "Lithuanian lands". I do refer to Bubnys and Piotrowski publications, and since I've asked twice [12] [13] to provide sources to support Generalbezirk Litauen in the references that were altered by one editors will I did get a rather strange answer [14]. Is the WP:RS and WP:V not an official policy in Wikipedia? And another question - ist there no subsection of Reichskomissariat Ostland called Generalbezirk Litauen and is there no schematics as mentioned earlier provided by establised editor shown in the image.

That clearly shows the existance of the administrative unit named Generalbezirk Litauen

Finaly, I do fail to understand how the image and the Wikipedia link could have influenced the scholars, who have written their studies before Wikipedia was even established. So I ask once again - either editors could provide citations supporting Generalbezirk Litauen in the mentioned scholarly publications or they should drop disrupting the provided references. I hope the scholarly atmosphere and referenced materials will prevail. It's our common goal, isn't it?--Lokyz (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to understand some of your arguments; you may want to rework the English above. My point is that, first, you've added a similar clarification to Generalbezirk Litauen in another article, so I would like to hear your rationale for why this was appopriate there but is not here. Second, "Lithuanian territories" is imprecise, and disputed - for example interwar Poles would certainly disagree that Wilno was an "Lithuanian territory". Since it was however assigned to Generalbezirk Litauen, it seems a helpful and neutral clarification. We have plenty of sources for the existence of Generalbezirk Litauen during WWII, as a territories under Nazi German/Nazi Lithuanian administration, and it is much more precise then some vague "Lithuanian lands". If you disagree, please provide us with a map of those "Lithuanian lands" that the LTDF was to operate on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm affraid you should ask Bubnys for clarification since the vague argument is in the scholarly citation, and Generalbezirk Litauen is not. If I would interprete the source to my liking it would be rather WP:OR, as is the putting Generalbezirk Litauen. --Lokyz (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it OR here but not in the other article? Can you clarify this, because your statements above are very hard to understand?radek (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:V - it is not in the sources presented. BTW, what other article are you referring to? Is it sourced? And another question - if it is sourced, does the reference support the altering of references for solely WP:POINT? Let the Peace be with you.--Lokyz (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, Lokyz introduced the link to show where geographically a certain village was located, not to clarify what territory LTDF was supposed to operate within. The sources are vague on what was meant by "Lithuanian territory" and it should be left that way. Renata (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Renata, "Lithuanian territory" is simply not neutral - just as calling this "Polish territory" would be. Poles living in Wilno during WWII considered it occupied Polish territory, not Lithuanian. We need a solution to avoid this POV-quagmire. My early solution was the phrase "Lithuanian-claimed territory", but using the official administrative title that provides a useful link and does not assign the territory to any of the factions that claimed it seems a better solution. It's as simple as that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to "territory claimed by Lithuanians" or some such because it is not clear how much they claimed at the time: borders drawn by the 1920 treary with Soviets? borders pre-June 1941? borders of Generalbezirk Litauen? Who knows? Sources do not specify. Assuming one or the other is guesswork & unsourced OR. Renata (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the vagueness of this term is another reason to avoid using it. I still think that my solution "in occupied Lithuania (Generalbezirk Litauen of Reichskommissariat Ostland)" is much more helpful - it contains neutral terms and useful links. Still, if you want to remove them and use "territory claimed by Lithuanians", go right ahead - neither is well sourced, and both are more neutral then the plain "Lithuanian territory" (which if we use some definitions could include all territories of the former GDL...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do want to use "territory claimed by Lithuanians" and yes, I will go ahead with it. Renata (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why there are some disagreements as to what constitutes Lithuanian territory, but these sorts of disagreements are hardly unique to Poland/Lithuania and we rarely use "claimed by" in articles not directly related to disputes over the territory itself. "Claimed by" is not neutral in this context. We could just as easily say, "including lands claimed by Poland." Especially since modern Poland and Lithuania agree to the current borders, the language may give the impression that such disputes still exist. I would leave it out and rely on the likelihood that few, if any, people who are interested in the LTDF are ignorant of issues related to the disputed territory anyway. Vygramul 15:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygramul (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311013108/http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1%2C34234%2C2262779.html to http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1%2C34234%2C2262779.html

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) 06:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of prisoners

Altogether, 52 LTDF officers ended up in Salaspils, 106 cadets in Stutthof, and 983 soldiers in Oldenburg concentration camps, this numbers are referenced to Bubnys, Arūnas (1998) Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva (1941-1944); I don't have an access to this particular book, but the numbers aren't supported by other sources, also Oldenburg camps was open in 1944, and wasn't able to accomodate such a big number of prisoners.

I check other, newer books by this author.

• In Lietuva Antrajame pasauliniame kare from 2007 he says:

  1944 m. gegužės 15 d. esesininkai suėmė VR štabo karininkus ir išvežė į Salaspilio kondagerį prie Rygos. Tą pačią dieną prasidėjo visuotinis VR batalionų likvidavimas. Rytų Lietuvoje dislokuoti VR batalionai buvo nuginkluoti gegužės 15-16 d. 84 VR karius gegužės 17 ir 21 d. vokiečiai sušaudė Paneriuose.

  "On 15 May 1944, SS arrested the VR staff officers and took them to Salaspils Kondager near Riga. On the same day, the general liquidation of the VR battalions began. The VR battalions deployed in Eastern Lithuania were disarmed in May 84 VR soldiers were shot by the Germans in Paneriai on 17 and 21 May."

• In Pasipriešinimo judėjimai Lietuvoje Antrojo pasaulinio karo metais: lenkų pogrindis 1939-1945 m. from 2015 he says:

  1944 m. gegužės 15 d. vokiečiai suėmė LVR štabo karininkus ir gen. P. Plechavičių. Suimtuosius išvežė į Salaspilio koncentracijos stovyklą prie Rygos. Tą pat dieną prasidėjo visuotinis LVR batalionų nuginklavimas ir areštai. Rytų Lietuvoje dislokuoti Vietinės rinktinės batalionai buvo nuginkluoti gegužės 15-16 d. Kebas dešimtis Plechavičiaus armijos kareivių vokiečiai sušaudė Paneriuose (yra žinių, kad ten buvo sušaudyti 84 plechavičiukai). - no mention of other concentration camp prisoners.

  "On 15 May 1944, the Germans arrested LVR staff officers and Gen. P. Plechavičius. They were taken to the Salaspils concentration camp near Riga. On the same day, a general disarmament and arrests of LVR battalions began. The battalions of the Local Line deployed in Eastern Lithuania were disarmed on 15-16 May. In Kebas, dozens of soldiers of Plechavičius' army were shot by the Germans in Paneriai (it is known that 84 Plechavičius soldiers were shot there)." - no mention of other concentration camp prisoners.

I'm not sure what to do with that. I would love to see the qoute from the oldest book, but it seems that author changed his mind, so should we. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

On page 421 of Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva (1941-1944) (in Lithuanian) by Arūnas Bubnys (1998). Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras. ISBN 9986-757-12-6 (you can find pdf in the bibliography of the article):

106 Vietinės rinktinės kariūnai buvo išvežti į Štuthofo koncentracijos stovyklą, 983 jos kareiviai - į Oldenburgo koncentracijos stovyklą.7

"106 LTDF cadets were deported to the Stutthof concentration camp, while 983 soldiers - to the Oldenburg concentration camp."

The 7 references archival material: LCVA, f. R-1399, ap. 1, b. 26, l. 59-61; ibid., b. 106, l-1-2, 9-11.

If there is no direct repudiation by the author himself, then I would not remove it. Considering that the number of 3,500 is given for the unlucky soldiers forced into German service at gunpoint, the 983 soldiers were certainly a part of that number. A possible explanation would be that they were sent to the Oldenburg concentration camp for a period of time that neither of us both know as of now and then either used as forced labor or in some military capacity like Luftwaffe anti-aircraft gunners.

If possible, the creation of an article about the Oldenburg camp would be useful. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that a fact which the author mentioned in one of his older works and then completely abandoned, and which is not found in the works of other authors, is WP:FRINGE and should not be mentioned. Marcelus (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an article by the same person from 2019 that mentions the 983: [15]. The LGGRTC mentions the 983 in this piece from 2014 [16]. I think you are prematurely declaring this fringe when it simply isn't. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, Arūnas Bubnys mentions the 983 once more on page 25 in his article Lietuvos Vietinės Rinktinės likvidavimas ir jos štabo įkalinimas Salaspilio koncentracijos stovykloje [The liquidation of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force and its headquarters' imprisonmentin the Salaspils concentration camp] from 2019 in [17]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So all the articles that mentions this numbers are from Arūnas Bubnys or based on his work? It really doesn't show this view as less fringe. Arūnas Bubnys is working for LGGRTC. Also the fact that he published in ultra-nationalist Voruta undermines his credibility as reliable source, and makes me doubt if we should use him as a source at all. Marcelus (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

So, the most expert historian on this topic, Arūnas Bubnys, is fringe, according to you.

It seems that to you, all the most important Lithuanian experts are fringe when you disagree with them. First your dehumanization of the foremost Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius, and now you claim that Arūnas Bubnys is "fringe".

Just because there is a history journal or person or military unit that you don't like does not mean that it's "ultra-nationalist", "fringe", "collaborator" or whatever smearing word that you feel like using today. Your strong WP:POVs are getting ahead of you and harming productive community work on Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I would like you to remain on topic if you are able to do so. If you are unable to present other historians that also use these numbers, I'm afraid they need to be considered as fringe. Marcelus (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you realize that the number of 983 Lithuanian soldiers sent to the Oldenburg concentration camp and 106 cadets to Stutthof was directly based on archival material? You can go check them there. Maybe even ask the archivists to send a digital picture of it to you? I don't know if that is possible because I have not asked for anything from the archives yet.

WP:FRINGE applies to opinions/ideas that depart from the mainstream view. It is a fact and mainstream academic view that the LTDF was harshly punished - giving numbers for it is by no means fringe. But what is fringe is to erase them, like you seem to be trying to do here because that would be an attempt at erasing proof of the persecution that is agreed to have happened in mainstream academic discourse.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't agreed in mainstream academic discourse, that's the point. Only Bubnys mention these numbers, all other researchers do not. And even Bubnys is doing that only in some of his works. Marcelus (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It was agreed in mainstream academic discourse that members of the LTDF were persecuted. The numbers of the persecuted are there, in the archive. Does citing archival material when no one else cites the same thing again constitute being 'academically fringe'? Of course not. It seems that you have an incorrect understanding of what fringe means.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Cukrakalnis why did you remove Bubnys name from the claim about the number of soldiers send to concentration camps? The previous wording: "According to Arūnas Bubnys Germans send 106 cadets to Stutthof, and 983 soldiers to Oldenburg concentration camps", was much better, showing that only Bubnys supports these numbers. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Not only Bubnys writes about the 106 cadets sent to Stutthof - Stasys Knezys also mentions them. That's the reason why I changed it. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide citation? Marcelus (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The citation was already in the Marijampolė military school section, but I added it again to another place in this edit. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean can you cite the source here? Marcelus (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Birželio 16-osios ryte visi mokykloje likę buvo vokiečių suimti, karininkai atskirti nuo kariūnų ir kareivių. Po keleto dienų vokiečiai 106 kariūnus sunkvežimiais išvežė į Štuthofo konclagerį.[17] pages 304-305, with the second sentence being on page 305.

The source given at [17] is:

A. Martinionis. Vietinė rinktinė, Vilnius, „Kardas“, 1998, p. 357-358. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Cukrakalnis, but this is isn't Knezys 2001, right? Can you also please provide full qoute of Knezys 2001?

So it seems that the information about 106 cadets send to Stutthof is confirmed by Bubnys and Knezys, but the information about 983 soldiers send to Oldenburg is given solely by Bubnys. That's why I think we should attribute this information only to him, because it's a fringe information. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force → Local Force – Name used by the majority of English sources mentioned in the article:

• Ivinskis 1965: Territorial Defense Force
• Mackevičius 1986: no specific name [forming a local Lithuanian detachment (Lietuvos Vietinė Rinktinė)]
• Sužiedėlis 1990: Local Force
• Petersen 2001: Territorial Defense Force
• Tauber 2021: units the Germans termed Lithuanian Special Organizations (Litauische Sonderverbände), whereas the Lithuanian term evokes quite different connotations – Vietinė rinktinė could be best translated as local selection
• Smalkyté 2022: Local Force

Other:

• Saulius Sužiedėlis, Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions, 2006: Local Force. This author is using this name also in his Historical Dictionary of Lithuania.
• The Waffen-SS. A European history, 2017: Povilas Plechavičius, was selected as the leader of the ten ‘special units’ (Lietuvos vietinė rinktinė).

Noteworthy, none of the sources use the name "Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force". 'Territorial Defence Force' alone appears in older literature, while more recent literature prefers 'Local Force'. Moreover, it seems that 'local' is a better translation than 'territorial', as it appears in texts written by Lithuanian authors. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose move - this move is based on faulty 'research'. Local Force is far too generic of a name and if the move was done, it would result in having to have this article moved again. For example, there already exists a Local Defence Force. The Lithuanian Territorial Defence Force is a perfectly suitable name for this article as it is used in numerous reliable academic sources. I have found that the term Lithuanian Territorial Defence Force was used in publications such as:

• "Lithuania in 1940-1991" (2015, ed. Arvydas Anušauskas),
• "Wars of Lithuania" (2014, ed. Gediminas Vitkus),
• Chapter "A History of the Lithuanian Partisan Underground State (1944–1953)" in "Violent Resistance: From the Baltics to Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, 1944–1956" (2020, Vykintas Vaitkevičius),
• "The Unknown War: Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance in Lithuania and Its Legacies" (2022, Arūnas Streikus) [18],
• "The Forest Brotherhood: Baltic Resistance Against the Nazis and Soviets" (2023, Dan Kuszeta) [19],

There is no reason to move this article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Strong oppose "Local force" is way too vague, period. When I google it the first results are about science. I don't see anything about Lithuania in the first couple of results. #prodraxis ^connect 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean by vague? Home Army, Home Guard, Civil Guard are also very vague. The name is used by majority of sources. Vagueness isn't a reason to reject the name if this is an actual name of the subject. Marcelus (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Home Guard and Civil Guard are broad scope articles that cover multiple subjects so it makes sense for the titles. As for Home Army, it looks like its title has been the subject of debate in the past, but then again the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title is the Polish resistance movement. Obviously when I google "Home Army" the Polish resistance is the main thing that comes up. Meanwhile like I said above for "Local force" there are tons of things named local forces in the world, and the Lithuanian defense force is not the first thing that pops up when you google it unlike Home Army where the Polish resistance movement is the first thing that pops up when googled, and there's no clear primary topic for the Local Force title either. So thus Home Army's title is completely OK, IMHO, while Local Force is not a very good title for this article. #prodraxis ^connect 17:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Local Force is a red link, so it seems it isn't really that popular; that's how this formation is called by majority of sources, we cannot go and arbitrary name it Lithuanian Local Force because we should follow WP:COMMONNAME. We can try Local Force (Lithuania), but I don't think it's needed since the name isn't used elsewhere. Marcelus (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Collaboration and allegiance

The way the article is currently written suggests that the LVR was a Lithuanian unit that accidentally came into contact with Nazi Germany. What is missing from the lede is a clear explanation that we are dealing with a collaborationist unit, formed by Germany from Lithuanian volunteers, following orders and being subordinate to Germany. The "Assessment" section shows that the opinion that there was no collaboration is isolated in the historical literature, and most scholars agree that this was a collaborating unit.

In the infobox, "Nazi Germany" must be included in the "allegiance" parameter. In turn, in the lead, there must be an unambiguous statement that it was a collaborationist unit. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You are very obviously pushing a POV that is not supported by all sources. It is absolutely false and misleading to claim that most scholars agree on your subjective and distorted opinion. You don't really care about this unit either way, you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist' when it wasn't and you know that it was not, which is why you attempted to erase the mention of how many of its members suffered due to their disobedience to German orders. Your shameful attempts to do so can be seen just above on this very talk page with your incessant questioning of the numbers provided by one of the foremost Lithuanian experts on the matter, Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe' in this edit [20], which is absolutely shameful behaviour on your part.

The LVR WAS a Lithuanian unit - all sources describe it as such. Find me at least one source calling it a German unit. Oh wait, you can't, but you don't care, because what matters to you is your OR. You are very obviously highly intent on calling this unit something that it obviously was not. This unit, that was sabotaged by German suspicions and sabotage, whose entire leadership was arrested and sent by the Germans to a concentration camp, almost a thousand of whose members were sent by the Germans to Nazi concentration camps, that was supported by the very same Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance that sabotaged German efforts of creating a SS unit, that was created with the intention of arming Lithuanians for their own intentions instead of serving somebody else, absolutely proved that its allegiance was not to Nazi Germany, but to Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist', Your shameful attempts, shameful behaviour on your part - let me remind you of WP:PERSONAL.

Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe', "fringe" isn't an accusation, but a description, of the view that is shared by a minority of scholars (please read WP:FRINGE). As you can see above I checked several other sources, and only Bubnys was giving such numbers, that's why I propsed direct attribution of this information to his name. It's pretty standard procedure.

Most sources describe the LVR as a collaborationist unit, formed and subordinated to Nazi Germany. Such allegiance cannot be omitted. It would be unfair to the reader.

@Cukrakalnis, it seems to me that you have a very personal attitude towards this unit, which does not allow you to clearly evaluate the sources and its history, and provokes emotional reactions. Perhaps it would be better if you put off working on this article? Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Poland

@Cukrakalnis please restore Wikiproject:Poland here. This article is within the scope of interest of the wikiproject. Marcelus (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)