Talk:14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ukraine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Soviet Union / Military (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force.

Unreliable Source[edit]

The same editor is using the same unreliable source, published by Nortom, in multiple articles. The following editors have deemd it to be unreliable (comments are taken from the discussion pages of more than this article):

  • Lysy [1] " cannot comment about these figures but I would also be very suspicious about the books, especially if they are published by the likes of Nortom. We should be very careful with selection of sources for this article and I'd rather stick to books witten by respected historians, where possible, and of course none of them would publish a book at Nortom, which is mainly a Polish nationalistic propaganda outlet. For the same reason I would avoid books published by Ukrainian diaspora or by Russian or Ukrainian authors clearly influenced by Soviet ideology. Can we get any credentials on these Polish authors ? Are they affiliated with any major university?"
  • radek (talk [2] "haven't really read that much about this issue so I comment with some hesitation. However, I do agree with the opinion of Lysy here [3] that publications by Nortom should not be used as sources. Additionally, I have some recollection that Leon Kieres and the IPN stated that there was no evidence of Galitzien being involved in this particular massacre. I think that Tymek went out of his way on this one to only use reliable sources and that's exactly how these kinds of articles should be approached."
  • User:Bobanni [4] "Please add reliable sources instead of deleting this tag."
  • Obviously, myself.

It should be noted that this is not a case of Ukrainian vs. Polish editors, as two Polish editors agree that the source is not reliable.Faustian (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Publihing house didnt write books, but the authors did. You have no reliable arguments. Lysy and Radek didnt say its not reliable. Stop whitewashing SS-Galizien, you have been warned by admin. You also removed antohers source like Polish radio site. As I said i Chodaczkow talk, Siekierka's book is used as source for Grzegorz Motyka book, and were reviewed by 2 polish historians.--Paweł5586 (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Authors are not historians, and one of the reviewers stated it's one-sided. Radek, a Polish editor, stated "I'd rather stick to books witten by respected historians, where possible, and of course none of them would publish a book at Nortom, which is mainly a Polish nationalistic propaganda outlet."Faustian (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
For you most of Polish historians and researchers which are writting about crimes committed by UIA, SS-Galizien arent reliable: Summary: 1. Władysław Filar - not reliable, 2. Edward Prus - not reliable, 3. Zbigniew Palski - not reliable 4. Wiktor Poliszczuk - not reliable, 5. Aleksander Korman - not reliable, 6. Władysław Siemaszko - not reliable, 7. Ewa Siemaszko - not reliable, 8. Komański & Szczepan Siekierka - not reliable, 9. Stanisław Jastrzębski (he is not the same you have found) - not reliable.

Not reliable authors = not reliable crimes. This is your strategy. How about 150 thousands butchered Poles? They mourdered themselves? You are trying to whitewashing UIA and SS-Galizien becouse you are Ukrainian.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Please avoid racist comments and false accusations of editing in bad faith and stick to reliable sources. When Yale historian, graduate of Oxford who also studied in Warsaw, Harvard, Paris and Vienna, and expert on Eastern Europe Timothy D. Snyder writes of Prus [5]: "The propagandistic publications of Edward Prus are indefensible in this regard." I take that seriously. I also take seriously the opinion of Polish historian Rafał Wnuk of the Institute of National Remembrance in Lublin [6] when he writes "The third, para-scientific trend consists of works that are of no scientific value. Their authors play freely with historical facts. They appeal mostly to the reader's emotions. Their use of sources and researchers' findings does not contribute to historical discoveries. Instead it is used to make their "true" version of events credible. It is often only politically involved publicism, not historical work. Edward Prus, Aleksander Korman, and Jacek E. Wilczur are followers of this trend." He also writes: "In the third, "non-scientific" trend there is a group represented by E. Prus, A.Korman and J. Wilczor. They all strongly support the idea that one cannot talk about a Polish-Ukrainian conflict, but only about the genocide of Poles by Ukrainian nationalists. Works by these authors are written in the form of a lampoon. E.Prus's and J.Wilczor's books do not include footnotes and have only bibliographies. This prevents a reader from confirming facts which are often more than doubtful. For instance, in one of his books E.Prus writes that in Sachryn, near Hrubieszow, Ukrainians murdered each other. However, all of Polish historiography and the memories of Home Army soldiers state clearly that it was an action of Polish underground." Just because you can list 8 or 80 names of unreliable sources doesn't make then more reliable. Reliability doesn't depend on sheer numbers.Faustian (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This is one-sided view on historians, Wnuk is involved to. He was criticized. And what about Siemaszko, Filar, Szczepański there is nothing against them except bad will. Siemaszko is better known in Poland than Wnuk. She cooperating with Polish Institute of National Membrance--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Ref 27 According to Polish historians, there is no doubt that the Division's 4th and 5th regiments participated in ethnic cleansing of Poles in Tarnopol Voivodeship.

There were no 4th and 5th regiments in the division so how is this accurate ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This regiments have same command and nationality squad as SS-Galizien, there were no diffrence beetwen them. Regiments were numbered from 4 to 8, this means it is continuation of 1-3 as SS-Galizien, after Brody battle some SS-Galizien troops also made some atrocities.--Paweł5586 (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The division regiment were not numbered 1 2 3 and just because they were the same nationality does not mean they were responsible all SS and Police were under the same command HSSPF. The way to prove your claim is to provide an orbat of the division that includes the 4th to 8th SS Police regiments. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Huta Pieniacka[edit]

The section on Huta Pieniacka and the claim from the Polish historian Grzegorz Motyka (historian) seems conclusive that it was the 4th and 5th SS police regiments that were involved in this action. Unless a reliable source in English can prove otherwise this section needs deleting as it has nothing to do with the division.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree because other sources state otherwise. I changed the wording to relflect the fact that historians are not in agreement on this issue, and fixed the link to the chapter by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.Faustian (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Do we have any reliable source that states the division was involved ? We have one reliable source that states they were not. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The chapter by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences does. As does this source by the Polish Institute of Remembrance: [7] although they have obviously made a mistake when editing the article (there was no "14th subunit").Faustian (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
There was also no 4th regiment this also seems to be a reliable source According to Yale historian Timothy Snyder, the 14th SS Division's role in the ethnic cleansing of Poles from western Ukraine was marginal. Timothy Snyder. (2003). The Reconstruction of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press. pg. 166 The Polish Institute of Remembrance text has two errors which puts all the text into doubt --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This link to the book The Waffen - Ss 3: 11.To 23. Divisions By Gordon Williamson, Stephen Andrew , [[8]] page 14 reveals that the excess volunteers were formed into police regiments this would support the above claim that it was the 4th and 5th SS Police regiments that were responsible. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You make some good points. I hesitate to support removal of this section, however, due to notability. Even if the accusations are false, they are prominant enough to warrant inclusion. I think it would be better to describe what various sources conclude and why (which would also show inaccuracies by some sources) than to remove the section.Faustian (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Russian sources (Chuyev) also state that it was the 4th and 5th SS Police regiments that took part in the action. They are often mixed up with the SS Galizien Division because they were also often called Galizien. However, when I put this in previously it was removed. 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

header 1 header 2 header 3
row 1, cell 1 row 1, cell 2 row 1, cell 3
row 2, cell 1 row 2, cell 2 row 2, cell 3

So perhaps the article should read that it was the police regiments who did this although some sources claim incorrectly that the Division did so, and describe the reason for the confusion.Faustian (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi all - just got back online with new graphics card and reinstall of windows.
I am quite appaled by some of the actions by editors pushing various views on Ukranian mass murders.
This is supposed to be a NPOV article and facts with supporting references are supposed to be included. Any references which are suspect or worng are to be examined and sections removed if not adequately supported by reliable refs.
So I am going to go through this again. There hae been many removals and additions since Feb 2009 which I am going to check up on and start getting put back to the correct and factual analysis.
This article is about the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division. Please remember that. If someone joins the division after they committed atrocitites then those atrocities should not be mentioned here as they were not committed by the 14th Div. There were 5 different divisions leading up to the 14th (Ukrainische) but only two of them can be realistically counted, the last two on this list.
SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Galizien"
14.Galizische SS-Freiwilligen-Division
14.Galizische SS-Frewilligen-Infanterie-Division
14.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr.1)
14.Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (ukrainishe Nr.1)
The 14th Waffen had a definite start date and most things before that date should really not be included here. (Chaosdruid late Sept 2009)
Hmmm - my signature seems to have dissapeared ???Chaosdruid (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight[edit]

We should keep something in mind when describing the massacres conducted by approximately 800 men (less than 5% of the Division's strength), in 2 months in 1944, who were seperated from the Division and placed under non-Division command while committing those crimes. WP:UNDUE states:

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

I argued against removal of massacre info when Jim Sweeney felt it did not belong here - clearly it should be mentioned, particularly Huta Pieniacka. However when this stuff becomes as lengthy as other sections (such as the Division's battles in Austria) we are violating the principle of undue weight.Faustian (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" War crimes[edit]

Could editors explain why documented crimes committed by this SS unit were described as "alleged"? Thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 03:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "this SS unit" you mean the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia you are incorrect. The documented crimes were by elements of the 4th and 5th regiments not by the unit as a whole. By numbers, those elements made up about 5% or so of the 14th's total strength. Your edit summary is also innaccurate, as with the exception of some of the German personnel the Divison's soldiers were not members of the Nazi Party. Even the Division's Chief of Staff, Wolf-Dietrich Heike, who transferred in directly from the Wehrmacht, was not a member of the party. Referring to the Division or its members as "Nazis" is a bit like referring to every Soviet soldier during World War II as a "Bolshevik" or "Stalinist." Innacurate and inflammatory.Faustian (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Was this unit involved in any war crimes such as murder of the civilians, Jews etc? --Jacurek (talk) 03:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Which unit?Faustian (talk) 03:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia.--Jacurek (talk) 04:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The "14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia" was not involved in war crimes such as murder of civilians, Jews, etc. no more than, say the "U.S. Army" was involved in the My Lai Massacre. In each case individual units were responsible. Specificallty, in the case of 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia, the 4th and 5th Police Regiments were involved in the massacres of a few Polish villages while in the course of their anti-partisan activities (actually, there is no evidence that Jews were being killed en masse by these two regiments, although Jews residing in them probably were along with everyone else). These elements of the Division responsible for the atrocities were not even under Divisional command at the time of the crimes - they were removed from the Division and placed under German police command, then returned to the Division once their mission was over. By numbers, about 95% of the Divison's personnel weren't involved in those massacres.
All of the above, of course, is irrelevent with respect to referring to the Division as "Nazi" which is as inaccurate and inflammatory as refering to World War II Soviet soldiers as "Stalinist."Faustian (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Faustian, I'm assuming that all you wrote is correct since you know about their history more than I do. I also understand the complex Ukrainian WW2 history and the reasons which attracted Ukrainians into German SS divisions. However at the same time I honestly sense a little attempt of whitewashing Ukrainian SS crimes. For example: they were removed from the Division and placed under German police command, then returned to the Division once their mission was over Still they were the same people. People who committed crimes already but under different command. What or who stopped them from continuing murdering civilians. Did they have special instruction to be "special" and do not murder civilians unlike all other SS ? And then that no Nazis claim? They did serve the Nazis, they fought for the Nazi cause and it is common to call SS formations the Nazis. You see where I'm coming from? This is my honest opinion Faustian and I'm not trying to prove anything I just saying what I feel.--Jacurek (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Which crimes, specifically, am I "whitewashing"? The sources tell us the German police needed troops and against the Division's protests "borrowed" a number of poorly trained new recruits, several hundreds of whom (out of a total of 12,000 in the Division, and 10,000 in a reserve pool) committed atrocities while engaging in partisan warfare (these sorts of disgusting tragedies aren't that rare in guerrilla warfare - just think of My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam which was very similar to Huta Pieniacka). I don't deny or minimize these crimes, indeed I clarify them.
Have you read this article? What kind of people joined the Division (basically, Ukrainians opposed to Bandera although later Banderists did infiltrate in large numbers) and who organized it? I am not familar with "all other SS", which units committed crimes and which units did not. What is relevent here is what this particular Division and its members did. The evidence links approximately 5% of its personnel to a handful of massacres of civilians that occurred during anti-partisan operations. "Serving Nazis" does not make one a Nazi, no more than "serving Stalin" in the Soviet army makes one a "Stalinist." If someone is not a member of the Nazi party or a supporter of the Nazi party or Nazi principles he is not a Nazi. Period. The Division's last Commander, Pavlo Shandruk, received the Virtuti Militari from Władysław Anders. Are you telling us that Anders gave the highest Polish military medal to a Nazi? Added by Faustian 06:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair answer.--Jacurek (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Oof. Ok. Just to get one thing out of the way, Shandruk received the VM from Anders for his part in the defense of Poland in 1939, not anything to do with this division. Just so we're clear on that. Other than that, I do agree that this is essentially an issue of undue weight. Some members of the division participated in the massacre - however, the argument that this kind of thing happens all the time in 'anti-partisan operations' or guerrilla warfare is no excuse. Likewise IIRC, some members of the Kaminski Brigade who were involved in atrocities during the Warsaw Uprising were also incorporated into this division later on (as well as Vlasov). So the division at various points in its existence did include some small but not insignificant proportion of individuals guilty of war crimes (5% to 20% sounds about right, at a quick glance), at Huta and elsewhere. However, I think it's correct that these war crimes were perpetrated w/o the approval, order or any kind of inspiration from the Ukrainian commanders of the division and as such do not comprise a defining characteristic of this division. So the concern of UNDUE WEIGHT is a legitimate one. Just looking at the article it seems that this massacre is in fact over emphasized here.

Of course sometimes the shoe is on the other foot and there's definitely some material in, for example, the Massacres of Poles in Volhynia, which, for very similar reasons is undue in that article. I'm talking about the emphasis on a couple of "My Lai" events (actually I think that's a bad analogy, but I'm not gonna go into that), which supposedly happen "all the time" in this kind of warfare, perpetrated by a few rogue Polish underground units, against the explicit orders of their command, which are served up as "background" for the killings of Poles that took place.

So. Please remember that what is true in one article, is also true in another. Please try to stay objective. Speaking of which, since these disputes involve multiple articles, but same arguments and issues, it might be a good idea if folks started making their way over here [9] to discuss things.radek (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points, though I suspect the figures of war criminals are closer to 5% than 20%. Divisional leaders (both Ukrainian and German) went to great lengths to try to screen and keep out criminal elements, which Germans outside the Division tried to insert into the Division, although they were not always sucessful in doing so. I realize you are quite busy with respect to German-Polish issues but your input is very highly valued on the Ukrainian-Polish stuff, at least by me. I certinly wouldn't object to moving this entire conversation into the mediation cabal section.
On a seperate note related to the Division's background, while Snyder describes the Division as largely the project of OUN-M, the historian John Armstrong of Columbia University states that the Division's chief organizer and higherst ranking Ukrainian officer was Dmytro Paliiv, a former member of Poland's interwar parliament, former member of the anti-OUN UNDO movement and opponent of OUN terrorism. Melnyk's book contains a passage about Himmler's inspection of the Division and his speech to Division officers:
"There is something I want to tell you: obedience starts the moment you receive an order to do something you find unpleasant. I know if I ordered the Division to exterminate the Poles in this area or that area, I would be a very popular man. But if I tell you or give you the order that the Division is to follow this or that route to the front in full battle order, and fight against the Russians, then that is what will be done, for the Führer will manage to handle the Poles alright- who have ill-treated you in the same way as they have ill-treated our fellow Germans in Poland. You do nothing before the order is given..."
To which Paliiv, who was present as the spokesman for the Ukrainian officers, replied: ""Let it be permissible in your presence, Herr Reichsführer, for me to state that we Ukrainians are not preparing to slaughter the Poles, and that is not why we voluntarily enlisted into the division Galicia. But after observing German policies in eastern Europe, we cannot fail to cite how you Germans continue to incite us against the Poles and the Poles against us. I feel that it is necessary to inform you that your Policies in eastern Europe are not correct and lead to nothing good. Forgive me for such an unpleasant rebuttal, but that is the way it is".
Melnyk then wrote: In the absence of any record of Himmler's reaction to Paliiv's comment, it may be assumed that he bore the embarrassment stoically enough at the time. However, such impudence from a Ukrainian whom Himmler considered to be his racial inferior is hardly likely to have gone unnoticed. It may also explain why a few days after his visit Himmler issued the following order to the Chief of the security Polizei and SD (Security and intelligence Service) designed to disassociate the Ukrainians from the elite SS establishment once and for all;
"In the criminal report of the Reichssicherheits-Hauptamtes of 26.5.44, reference is made to a Ukrainian SS man under item 2. This should be correctly defined as a Ukrainian serving in the combat units of the SS.
I ask you to ensure that the term "SS Man", which is so precious and highstanding to us, is avoided in all reports, as well as in all official and non-official announcements concerning the people of foreign race which we today organise under the order of the SS."
I have read a rumor that Paliiv, who died at Brody, had been assassinated by the Germans rather than being killed in combat.Faustian (talk) 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A significant percentage of ethnic Poles in SS-Galizien?[edit]

but initially it also included a significant percentage of ethnic Poles, some Slovaks and Czechs and incorporated Dutch volunteers and officers[1].- No other source mentions it. And if the percentage of ethnic Poles was really that significant, it should have been noticed by historians researching this subject. The book is very hard to get. Are you able to provide a copy of the mentioned page - Kleitmann K. G. Die Waffen SS; eine Dokumentation. Osnabreuck, Der Freiwillige, 1965 p. 183, Bandurist? It would be very helpful. Maybe Volksdeutche were taken for ethnic Poles. There were up to 100,000 volunteers and up to 30,000 members, therefore a "significant percentage" would equal thousands of the Poles – and that would be very hard to overlook. Although it also depends what a "significant percentage" means.--Hedviberit (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

On Thursday I went to the library to get it. It wasn't there. Picked up other books though. Ich werde in die Bibliothek wieder auf meinen nächsten Besuch zu überprüfen.--Bandurist (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC).
Perhaps the source means citizens of prewar Poland, which was a country with several minorities. No Polish source mentions any Poles in Ukrainian SS, and we can safely assume that the Ukrainians and the Germans would not have wanted Poles there. Tymek (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Poles were indeed enlisted into the division Mark Rikmenspoel, Waffen SS Encyclopedia, page 190 and also Gordon Williamson, SS Hitler's Instrument of Terror, pages 123-4 mentions Poles alongside Ukrainians. That I guess is the reason the Germans were so adiment to call it the Galizien division. It was only later that the division became almost exclusively Ukrainian. Ukrainian sources tend to avoid mantioning the fact that ethnic Poles were in the division. I asked one of the choristers in my Men's choir who was in the division. Hea slo confirmed that there were ethnic Poles in the division initially. --Bandurist (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Poles (unlike ethnic Ukrainians) were considered to be "subhumans" by the Nazi standards and were not admissible into the SS. The "Poles" you are referring to are either Volksdeutsche or other pre war Polish citizens (Masurians or people from Slask etc.) who were not pure Poles to the Germans.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The title "Halychyna" (Galicia) was used either because the Germans wished to avoid direct used of the inflammatory "Ukrainian" or to ensure tighter German control.[10]--Hedviberit (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no mention of Volksdeutch. However, the SS really lowered their requirements, scraping the bottom of the barrel. Reading about the training that the volunteers had, a good number could not read nor write because of the "education" they received between the wars left many of them illiterate, and as a result a lot of time was spent just getting the volunteers sufficiently literate to read orders. Many of the ethnic Poles however, who had previous Polsih military service, were placed in positions as NCO's because they were literate. This caused alot of friction in what some saw as a "Ukrainian" division. --Bandurist (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to include such controversial information, make sure that you can provide a reliable reference for it. (verifiable).--Hedviberit (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a quote supporting your claim (from Gordon's book).--Hedviberit (talk) 11:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Richard Landwehr as a source?[edit]

I guess as long as stuff by Nortom is kept in this and other articles, Landwehr's presence is unsurprising. But neither seems to be reliable.Faustian (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We ought to remove both this stuff and the stuff by Nortom as they are not reliable sources. I'll wait for comments before doing so.Faustian (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nortom - publishing house didnt write books, authors did. So books cant be judge this way. --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure they can. If an author isn't published by a respectable publisher such as a university press but by a Holocaust-denying right-wing privately owned publishing house - Nortom - that author is dubious and that work is very suspect. If you object to this fact we can do an RFC on this, which i am thinking of doing.Faustian (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The Landwehr book seems to be just a restatement of previously published materials I have found in other books, but written in a readable style. He does seem to feel that the soldiers of the SS were something special physically, and although he does not praise them directly, tends to point out all the positives and rarely reflects on negatives. I feel that some parts of the book can be quoted, (He has a huge number of photographs, many of which I have not seen as well as some figures), but I would shy away from anything controversial, where his opinions shine through. I will however in the future avoid him. --Bandurist (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

lol, can you show me book with Holocaust-denying in Nortom? You didnt read any book from Nortom and you are first to crticize. For your information, Siekierka and Komański arent very rich, they researched UPA crimes since 1990. After up to 10 years collecting recollections of survivors they published their book. Thats all, Nortom had nothing to his research, his results were also published in "Na Rubieży" magazine.--Paweł5586 (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can take your word for itabout Nortom - the word of someone who keeps placing info cited from Nortom books in various articles - or I can use a reliable source, the The Steven Roth Institute for the study of Contemporary Antisemitism Racism at the University of Tel Aviv which states in this article "antisemitic, Holocaust distorting, as well as Holocaust denying, books published by Rekonkwista, Rachocki, Nortom or Antyk can often be found on the shelves of respectable bookshops. After intervention by the anti-fascist Never Again Association, antisemitic publications of the Nortom publishing house were removed from the official Polish exhibition at the international book fair in Frankfurt/Main in November 2000. Nevertheless, Nortom’s books are still regularly exhibited at numerous book fairs organized in Poland." It's pretty bad that Nortom books are widely read in Poland; we certainly shouldn't use them for wikipedia articles. But if you disagree I will gladly open an RFC on this and we can then get input from others. As for Siekerka and Komanski - are they historians or just guys that gathered "information" which was then published not by a reputable publisher but by Nortom. According to the wikipedia article, Siekerka is a poliical activist while Komanski is a veteran of Polish self-defence forces in Volyn. We don't know if Komanski personally killed any Ukrainian civilians, but according to Yale historian Timothy Snyder Polish self-defence forces murdered many Ukrainian civilians in Volyn. The proof, in a book published by Yale University Press, can be directly accessed though googlebooks [here, first paragraph. So again, does a book written by a political activist coauthored by a man who belonged to a military organization that murdered civilians, published not by a university press but by a publisher known for antisemitic Polish nationalist works, get to be treated as a reliable source for purposes of wikipedia articles? I think not. Faustian (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Polish Self-defence was made to protect innocent civilians, try to rembemer that. There were some accidents and revenges against Ukrainian civilians, but it wasnt a very often. In other side UPA had been created to destroy polish population, killing innocent woman and children were a main activity of UPA members. From UPA hands died few thousand German soldiers, 8340 Soviet solidiers and 2732 representative of soviet authorities (according to Motyka) while UPA mourdered up to 100 000 thousand civilians. So stop compared UPA and Polish self-defence, its awful. Second I told you that Siekierka and Komański arent nationalists, and their book was reviewed, and were used by historians as source for description of many events. There aresnt any book in Nortom who denied Holocaust, you can find many sorts of books e.g. about Pope John Paul II. You are biased, and I am asking you to stop writting such things.--Paweł5586 (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
One more thing, there are some facts in Siekiera's book about Jews killed by UPA. So, you are trying to deny UPA and Galizien crimes, using Holocaust-denying arguments against Nortom. No matter for you what Siekierka and Komański wrote. --Paweł5586 (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your opinion about Polish self-defence forces which killed thousands of Ukrainian civilians. I have no doubt that Nortom, which publishes anti-semitic, anti-German and anti-Ukrainian works (the three ethnic groups whom the Polish National Democratic Party persecuted in the 1930's) would include info about Jews being killed by UPA. BTW, I probably added more information about Ukrainian nationalists murdering Jews than have you or most other editors - here is the section I wrote. But there you go, accusing me of "using Holocaust denying arguments." I have already given you a final warning about personal attacks against me, and here you go again. When I have some free time later in the day I will take the next step.Faustian (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is yours too? Where are informations about Lviv pogroms, about Jews killed by UPA? Have you informations how many Ukrainians were killed by self-defence? --Paweł5586 (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote much of that well-referenced section also. Some Jews were indeed murdered by UPA, although they seem to have been "collatioral damage" rather than specific targets - they were hiding in Polish villages and were the murdered along with everyone else in the village. In at least one documented case (I don't have time to dig this up) the Jews in the a village were taken out and spared, watching their Polish neighbors getting killed. Have you heard of Stella Krenzbach? There is an article about her in Polish wikiepdia here. She wrote, in her memoirs, ""I attribute the fact that I am alive today and devoting all the strength of my thirty-eight years to a free Israel only to God and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. I became a member of the heroic UPA on 7 November 1943. In our group I counted twelve Jews, eight of whom were doctors." Basically the relationship between UPA and OUN and Jews was complex - the OUN in the German police helped the Germans kill 200,000 Jews (they did play more of a supporting rather than direct role, but learned and applied thiose lessons towards the Poles) while also saving Jewish families and Jewish individuals when they were no longer motivated by the an alliance with Germany to help the Germans. As a German report indicated, the OUN was willing to eiother help or kill Jews, whichever they felt was more useful. But really, all of this has nothing to do with the 14th Galician Division, Nortom or Landwehr.Faustian (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You didnt answer on my questions, maybe this is well-referenced, but for sure this section didnt mention about many facts: 6 thousand Jews killed in Lwów, 1210 Jews killed during massacres of Poles at Volhynia•, did you know SB OUN orders about liqudation Jews in Volhynia, do you know that those Jews who were saved by UPA, was used to work for UPA, then killed. Read 17 paragraph of OUN-B resolution (April 1941 in Kraków) - Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists fighting the Jews as the support, Moscow-Bolshevik regime, and realizing the popular masses, that Moscow is the main enemy. Do you know how many Ukrainians were killes by self-defence? Unfortunately you see those facts you want to see, and you dont belive in many facts becouse you dont read other side point of view. Thats why you should read first then criticize. --Paweł5586 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Stella Krenzbach wasn't killed by UPA, nor were other Jews who survived the war and told their stories. You have no refrences for your "facts", which at any rate are irrelevent for this article which is not about the OUN or UPA. Please stop being disruptive.Faustian (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
One example didnt mean that they all survived and Jews werent killed. There were some exceptions. Facts I have mentioned, you can find in e.g. Motyka's Ukraińska partyzantka. [END of offtopic]--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

•Lviv pogroms you mention were 1941 - before the division - those topics should be mentioned elsewhere (such as here : Ukrainische Gruppe Nachtigall )
•Volyhnia is already discussed and is nothing to do with the division - (see here : Volhynia massacre) It would be better if the article was simply limited to the times that the division existed, there are plenty of other places where the massacres are discussed at length, and unreliable sources are not to be included.
At this point in time the article has been chopped and changed so many times that it resembles Galicia itself, fought over by so many different sides that people did not know to whom it belonged.
Despite several major attempts at neutral editing, warring that resulted in several editora being disciplined and general arguing for months on end the article now looks like it has been written by idiots - This is tragic the article has turned to shit and needs some serious work on it.
My father spent three years of his life fighting to remove communism and was forced to move to the other side of europe never to see his family again and for them to assume he was dead, as were thousands of other "volunteers". If you cannot understand that ANY amount of atrocity should be limited to the proportion of those committing it against those who did not then you really need to ask yourself why there are more people disagreeing with you than there are agreeing.
One of the fundamental aspects of editing is consensus.
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Gordon source[edit]

It's available here on Google books. There isn't anything on the pages cited about "significant number of Poles". There isn't anything in the whole book on Poles in SS - a search of "Poles" in the whole book only mentions Poles fighting Germans. Am I missing something?radek (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi m8 - long time no see !

I think it was mentioned before and we agreed that it is possible that 10 may be a significant amount when people want to make a point. (lol):
My father said that his name was mis-spelled in Rimini by a polish man (from the division) who was giving names to the british, so there was definately at least 1 there :¬) although it was not clear if he was already there or went there as part of the division
I have just used this to read a bit of the book [11] and cant find any reference either...Chaosdruid (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Police regiments as part o Division[edit]

Some sources and explanations:

  • Grzegorz Motyka
    • Undoubtedly, the most emotion in the history of 'the Ukrainian SS' wake committed by its real and alleged war crimes. It was first and foremost about action 4 regimental police in eastern Galicia, and 5 regimental police in the Lublin region. The most serious allegations concern the burning village Huta Pieniacka and participate in the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising.
    • Moreover, the presence of 'the Ukrainian branch of the SS "Galicia"' in the pacification of Huta pettifogging not ruled Swiatomir Foston, a former soldier of Division "Galicia", and now president of the British Association of Veterans of Ukrainian in an interview published in "Gazeta Wyborcza" Source in Polish
    • In Ukraińska Partyzantka book Motyka calls 4 regiment soldiers not policemans
  • Polish Instytute of National Rembrance
    • Analysis of evidence to indicate that the perpetrators of the crimes carried out in Huta pettifogging February 28, 1944, the ex-soldiers'4 Regiment of the SS Division "Galicia" 'the number one or two battalions, but I probably was a Battalion, so. Police stationed at the time of Zolochiv.
    • IPN recalls that 5 days in advance - 23 February 1944 - Members of an organized self-defense in Huta pettifogging repulsed the attack trying to enter the village branch of recruiting Ukrainian SS Division "Galicia", so that killed 3 members of this formation. This is confirmed by the official chronicle of 14th Division of the SS "Galicia ". [Source in polish, 3 pages
  • Prosecutor Bogusława Marcinkowska IPN
    • The Head Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation received new, previously unknown documents regarding the murder of about a thousand of Polish inhabitants of the town Huta Pieniacka by the sub-unit of the 14th SS Division 'Galizien' on February 28, 1944. Source english. We got a little mistake here by the 14th sub-unit of the SS Division 'Galizien' on February 28, 1944. Of course should be: by the sub-unit of the 14th SS Division 'Galizien' on February 28, 1944. Reading text its obviuos that Marcinkowska wrote about SS-Galizien.

We should add police regiments (4-8) to the article --Paweł5586 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there are a few problems with the documentation and the facts prtrayed in that link you have given.

On that day, early in the morning, soldiers of this division, dressed in white, masking outfits, surrounded the village

If that is true, and the details are to be believed, then how did they know what force these soldiers were from ?
This is the only mention of the documents that specifies anything about what they contain :-

Among the documents, there is a fragment of the "Chronicle of February 25th, 1944. Information inferred from the "Chronicle" remains in contradiction to the hitherto established facts of the investigation...In the 'Chronicle' it says that these were other German troops, not the entering 14th Division of SS 'Galizien'. However, it is difficult to regard the statement as true. The 'Chronicle' does not indicate which German troops committed the crime.

So we are left with absolutely nothing to go on apart from the writer saying it is true. That is so suspect in its own right it deserves no inclusion of anything which has not been verified by documentary evidence, and here they are saying the documents contradict what they say and yet they still say it.
Chaosdruid (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Georg Tessin the Galizische SS-Freiwilligen-Regimenter 4 - 7 were raised in summer 1943. In Spring 1944 Regiments 4 and 5 were transferred to 14th SS, as were personnel from Regiments 6 and 7. Thus from early 1944 all Galician SS regiments were either part of 14th SS Division or had been disbanded. --Dodo19 (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid, soldiers came to village and people recognized them. There were few survivors. Second thing is that, 23 February (ealier), a patrol of 4 r. Galizien were attacked near Huta Pieniacka by Polish AK. 2 soldiers were killed, and they got Galizien uniforms. An UPA unit came with help. This solders were buried in Brody, and the official chronicle of Galizien recognized them as first Galizien dead in "battle field". In funeral governor Wachter said: Stoimy tu nad zwłokami dwóch poległych, pierwszych poległych Galicyjskich SS-manów it means "We stand here on the two dead bodies, first killed the SS Galician" - newspaper: Lwiwski Wisti, 4.III.1944, in: Kwestia ukraińska i eksterminacja ludności polskiej w Małopolsce Wschodniej, Lucyna Kulińska i Adam Roliński, Kraków 2004, p. 322-323.

After 23 February skirmish, Germans sents more troops from 4 regiment to Huta and they made massacre.

Some explanations:

  • There were many volunteers (about 80 th.) so Germans wanted to create more divisions (later they recall this idea).
  • So Germans created 5 police regiments (4-8), and allocated them from division and send in to anti partisan actions. But (its very important) numbers these regiments started from 4 (not from 1)! This is final evidence:
    • Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 29 (galizisches Nr. 1)
    • Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 30 (galizisches Nr. 2)
    • Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 31 (galizisches Nr. 3)
    • Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 4 (Polizei)
    • Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 5 (Polizei)
    • Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 6 (Polizei)
    • Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 7 (Polizei)
    • Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 8 (Polizei)

Full name of regiments created in 1943 were: Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment - same name had division in 1943: SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien" - from August 1943 to 27 July 1944 (during training)

  • It is important that the regiments were the ethnic composition and uniform as SS-Galicia.--Paweł5586 (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Slightly incorrect -Germans does not want to create more divisions - it should a formation like Latvian SS Volunteer Legion - even some source gives name "Galizische SS legion" - while such name never user as official.

So per top rank German- sources - GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 DRITTER BAND: Die Landstreitkrafte 6—14 VERLAG E. S. MITTLER & SOHN GMBH. • FRANKFURT/MAIN ISBN 3-7648-0942-6 page 313 and here Tessin, Georg / Kannapin, Norbert. Waffen-SS und Ordnungspolizei im Kriegseinsatz 1939-1945.ISBN 3-7648-2471-9 p.52. Division untill folding into Waffen- SS was an SS Freiwilligen division which order of battle (before 22.10.43) look like

  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 1 created September 1943 see GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 VIERTER BAND:

Die Landstreitkrafte 15—30

  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 2 created September1943 see GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 VIERTER BAND:

Die Landstreitkrafte 15—30

  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 3 created September1943 see GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 FUNFTER BAND:

Die Landstreitkrafte 31—70

  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 4 - created July 1943 - see p.277 of GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 ZWEITER BAND: Die Landstreitkrafte 1—5 - placed under command of the Ordnungspolizei - Aufgelost 9. 6.1944 unter Uberfuhrung der Mannschaft in die 14. SS-Div. (Tessin, Ordnungspolizei p.52).
  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 5 - created July 1943 - see p.323 of GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 ZWEITER BAND: Die Landstreitkrafte 1—5 - placed under command of the Ordnungspolizei - Aufgelost 9. 6.1944 unter Uberfuhrung der Mannschaft in die 14. SS-Div. (Tessin, Ordnungspolizei p.52).
  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 6 - created 6. 8.1943 - see p.47 of GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 DRITTER BAND: Die Landstreitkrafte 6—14 5 - placed under command of the Ordnungspolizei - Aufgelost 31.1.1944 unter Uberfuhrung der Mannschaft in die 14. SS-Div. (Tessin, Ordnungspolizei p.52). - Police duty in France folded into 14-SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien" by end of January
  • Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 7 created 29. 9. 1943 - see p.84 GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945 DRITTER BAND: Die Landstreitkrafte 6—14 Police duty in France (Ordnungspolizei Paris) folded into 14-SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien" by end of January
TESSIN does not give any details about duty of Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 8 - but own Divisions files gives number of it personnels 1573 (as of November 1943).
Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 29 -31 - named as such at August 1944 - before 22.10.1943 - Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 1-3 after 22.10/1943 SS-Freiwilligen-Grenadier-Rgt. 29 -31 Thus it was not Waffen -SS division before August 1944- but a SS Freiwilligen Division which 4-7 regiments were under Ordnungspolizei command and lafter Brody former police personnel constitute most of it personnel numbersJo0doe (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
So according to you 4-8 were part of division or not? Were Regiments 1-3 under Waffen-SS command? The problem is that officialy this regiments were separated, but in fact soldiers 4-8 were were considered to be part of the Division SS-Galicia. The official Chronicle of SS-Galicia considered as the first killed soldiers Division Galicia members of the 4th regiment (they were killed in Huta Pieniacka 23 February 1944). Two sources: Polish Instytute of National Membrance and Grzegorz Motyka, also Swiatomir Foston president of the British Association of Veterans of Ukrainian.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You say that " they were recognised" but that refers to the first time when two were attacked ? Is it possible that the villagers knew every soldier of the division ? I think not (remember the official report you quote say they were wearing white so they couldnt see their uniforms)
You say "and a UPA unit came to help" when was that exactly ? surely not when the division were there as they would have had to fight them also ? Is it not possible that it was the UPA speaking in their native Ukrainian that came and committed the massacre ? Is it not possible that it was the Poilce that came and did this act of barbarism ? Surely the fact that the documentation from Ukrainian archives about the 14th SS contradicts the Polish Institution account would also support the facts in the divisions records that they only were responsible for the original two deaths after their initial encounters.
Yes, the "Galizien Freiwilligen" refers to all Ukrainians freely in the armed forces, the Police, the special police and the division. It is not correct to assume that just because they were freiwilligen means that they were in the division 14th SS.
Chaosdruid (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Accordingly to TESSIN - Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division has 1-7 regiments; 4-7 regiment were under Ordnungspolizei command; 6 and 7 Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt folded into division by 31/01/44 Order. 4-5 Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt folded into Gal. Ausb.Rgt. 14 (training and replenishment regiment of the division) per order 9. 6.1944. In August 1944 division was restored to 10K from Gal. Ausb.Rgt. 14.

That's actually explained the fact why it never used as front-line unit after August 1944.

Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine [[12]] p. 283-285 also state "4-й та 5-й полки дивізії СС Галичина були підпорядковані не вйськовому а поліцейському керівництву." And authors has no doubts about Galizisches SS Freiwilliger participations in several massacres - Like for Pidkamin - "не залишає сумнівів щодо причетності галицьких добровольців до мордувань поляків."(p.285), Budki Neznivski, Pavlisv (p.281) and without doubts - Huta Pieniacka (p.284) - note Galizisches SS Freiwilliger treated as German formation - (p.275) - Кривавими були також "відплатні дії" .. німецьких (дивізія СС-галичина) військових формувань Jo0doe (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Can you translate those for us please - This is the enWiki - we do not all speak or read Ukrainian..Chaosdruid (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Direct quotation. Use google [13]- nice serviceJo0doe (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The very question is : were the Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 4 to 8 under military command of Fritz Freitag as a part of 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division of SS or they were Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgtn in structure of Ordnungspolizei under police command of BdO and SS-Polizei-Fuhrer.

There is out of discussion, that Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 4 (Polizei) and Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 5 (Polizei) were responsible for war crimes agains civilians. The question is - under Ordnugspolizei or Waffen SS command.

Andros64 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

At time when the appeared 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division of SS - (Wiederaufstellung wurde am 7. 8.1944 auf dem Truppenubungsplatz Neuhammer - see Tessin p.313) all Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgtn 4-7 already folded into Division (see dates above). So answer is - yes. Also do not forgot about Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff formed from 1st and 2nd Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt - Institute of History of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine does not distinct them at 1944 actionsJo0doe (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, 23 February a patrol of 4 regiment fighted with Huta Pieniacka selfdefence and AK subunit (they were sent to Huta Pieniacka becouse a few days ealier some Russian partisants had camped in HP). There were two Ukrainian soldiers dead. An UPA unit had helped them so they were able to withdraw. This fact is confirmed by Polish IPN, historians. This two man were buried in Brody. At funeral Wachter said about first two SS- Division Galizien members killed in battle field. This is confirmed by newspaper - Lwiwski Wisti and Swatomir Fortson. Sources are above. Same regiment was sent 28 February to Huta Pieniacka, and together with UPA unit, and some nearby Ukrainian villagers made massacre.

You said: Accordingly to TESSIN - Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division has 1-7 regiments, so is this next proof that 4-7 r. were part od SS-Galizien?--Paweł5586 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences [[14]] p. 283-285 "4-й та 5-й полки дивізії СС Галичина були підпорядковані не вйськовому а поліцейському керівництву" 4th and 5th regiments of the division SS-Galicia were subject not to military but police authority." Further in the paragraph it states that this situation on the one hand created dissatisfaction among the Galician volunteers because they wanted to be within the Divisional structure instead of under German police authority and on the other hand it created a situation with very close ties between these men and UPA. Soit's clear that at the time of the massacre the regiments were close to UPA but under German police, not Division, authority. Faustian (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. So per Ukrainian, German and Polish sources 4th and 5th regiments were a part of the division SS-Galicia. Together with Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff formed from 1st and 2nd Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgts they were under general command of the HSSPF der GG while at actions- common practice in German anti-partisan activities .Jo0doe (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No - they werent according to the above comments
I think there is still some confusion about the structure taht they are trying to explain so I will try to put it like this for you:-
Galizien Freiwilligen is not a division it is ALL the people in the German forces from Galicia - police, soldiers, special police etc
The 14th division is just one member of the Galizien Freiwilligen, the other members of Galizien Freiwilligen were the police etc
Galizien SS Freiwilligen members
Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 4-8
14-SS Freiwilligen Division
Chaosdruid (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

For me best proof about regiments is a fact that there werent any Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 1-3 (Polizei). Numeration started from 4. It seems to natural continuation: Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 29 (galizisches Nr. 1), Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 30 (galizisches Nr. 2), Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 31 (galizisches Nr. 3), Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Regiment 4 (Polizei)... The diffrence is that 4-8 r. were police forces becouse usually division got 3 infantry regiments. Could anyone find others sources?. --Paweł5586 (talk) 08:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to adopt one fact given in source above - Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division became 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (gal. Nr. 1) in August 1944 - before such date it was Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division which without any doubts has 1-7 regiments. Could you agree - when we mentions - 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (gal. Nr. 1) which appeared in August 1944 - regiments names Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 29 (galizisches Nr. 1), Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 30 (galizisches Nr. 2), Waffen-Grenadier-Regiment der SS 31 (galizisches Nr. 3), - correct - at same when we mention period prer August 1944 - mentioning of such names are incorrect - becouse Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division has 1-7 regiments SS Freiwilligen Regiment. Does I'm clear? While if we spoken about the personnel - it's almost the same persons. So as for August 1944 14th Waffen SS Grenadier Division of SS= remnants of the 14. Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division (up to 3K) + Gal. Ausb.Rgt. 14 (training and replenishment regiment of the division) which actually was an 4th + 5th +6 +7 +8 SS Freiwilligen Regiments (up to 4.5-5 K)
While would be nice to indicate a source and page number which conclude Galizien Freiwilligen is not a division it is ALL the people in the German forces from Galicia - police, soldiers, special police etc Chaosdruid - could you be so kind to do so. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Voice from dewiki in this case:

Die Gliederung der Division mit drei Regimentern ist eindeutig. Der Umstand, dass das Personal der anderen 4 bzw. 5 "galizischen" Regimenter in die Division übernommen wurde, ändert daran nichts, da besagte Einheiten eindeutig der Ordnungspolizei unterstellt und nie Bestandteil der SS-Division Galizien waren. --Quasimodogeniti 19:36, 10. Feb. 2010 (CET)


Andros64 (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Source plz, we are basing on sources. Any voice cant change anything without sources. @Jo0doe, we should prepare a new section in article and put there eplanation about regiments.--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

  • GEORG TESSIN Verbande und Truppen der deutschen Wehrmacht und Waffen SS im Zweiten Weltkrieg 1939-1945. This source reserves no area for doubt in the question.

Andros64 (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Please specify Tessin vol. and page(s) numbers - I can't find any such conclusion at his nice books. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tessin text

Galizisches SS-Freiw.Rgt. 4—7 (Pol.) errichtet. Die Rgt. 6 und 7 wurden bereits am 31.1.1944 wieder aufgelost und gaben 1944 jungere Mannschaften an die SS-Div. nach Heidelager ab, auch die Rgt. 4 und 5 wurden am 9. 6. 1944 aufgelost und in die 14. SS- Div. uberfuhrt Im August 1944 wurde die Div. in 14. Waffen-Gren.Div. der SS (gal. Nr. 1) und die Freiw.Gren.Rgt. 29—31 in Waffen-Gren.Rgt. umbenannt.

So look like someone misuse the source - that's actually why WP articles is not WP:RS itself. So - please indicate page(s) .Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear - JoOdoe the term "Galizien Freiwilligen" simply means Volunteers from Galicia
They could be volunteer policemen, shoeshiners whatever, it is simply that. It does not need a page numb :¬)
You cannot quote another Wiki as a source Andros
Chaosdruid (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Please indicate a source(s) for your conclusions. I would like to remind you here we discuss personnel of the Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 1-7 from draft for Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division . And specificaly -activities of the Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff formed from 1st and 2nd Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgts and 4th and 5th Galizisches SS-Freiw.Rgt. (generally mentioned at work of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences as German division SS Galizien )under general command of the HSSPF der GG in winter - spring 1944 at south-eastern Poland. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break[edit]

How many times now ? lol
I do not need any suporting evidence, that is what it means if you look anywhere - try here Europäische Freiwillige is a German term meaning 'European Volunteers' or try here [16] [17] [18]
Chaosdruid (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No source(s)? Pitty. So we stay with fact from Tessin, Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, and Polish sources. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What is this game you are playing JoOdoe ? what exactly are you demanding sources for ? I have given you plenty of places to go and look and understand what the term means
"Facts" from Tessin are not relevant to the definition of Galizien Freiwilligen, and the comments you make are irrelevant to the translation of that phrase.
Pleas quote from Tessin where he says that "Galizien Freiwilligen" is means anything other than Galizien volunteers.
Chaosdruid (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Galizien Freiwilligen is not a division it is ALL the people in the German forces from Galicia - police, soldiers, special police etc - here Galizien Freiwilligen are the persons which was drafted for Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division and served in thier rank (Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 1-7,SS-Radf.Btl. (Gal.) 2 Kp.SS-Pz.Jag.Abt. (Gal.) 3 KpSS-Art.Rgt. (Gal.) I-IV.SS-Flak-Abt. (Gal.) 3 Bttr. SS-Pion.Btl. (Gal.) 3 Kp. SS-Nachr.Abt. (Gal.) 2 Kp SS-Nachschubtruppen ) . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The words still mean "Galizien Volunteers" - that was the issue, not the fact that some were drafted late in the war.
You need to look further up where the distinction between police divisions and 14th division are made. You asked a question about under the control of the division and yet you are ignoring the facts that there were still freiwilligen units that were not.
"Despite the order of 22 January 1944...ordering the incorporation of "Schutzmannschafts" battalion 204 to the Galizische SS-Freiwilligen Division, this was not accomplished until the end of June 1944" Logusz pp169
Chaosdruid (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

    • Your text is hard to comprehend (strange “police divisions”). Please be straight on topic - any source which object existance of the Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt 1-7 which from Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division? Can't find "Galizische Freiwilligen Schutzmannschafts 204 battalion" in text provided And please - use a scholar sources for ref. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Logusz is one of THE main scholars and important books on the 14th division ISBN 0-7643-0081-4
The text is hard to comprehend ??? It is simple and straightforwards...THere were freiwilligen battalions that were not incorporated into the 14th division.
It is not really acceptable that you accuse me of not being straight on this topic
Chaosdruid (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you advice me a University which represent Mr.Logusz? An University review of mr. Logusz book noted it as important books and his as a one of THE main scholars. (While I can see only one person and only one book???) Thanks. I remind you here we discuss
4-7 Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt from Galizische SS-Freiwilligen Division which artilce is about. While your information about freiwilligen battalions - please indicate name number and affilation (I'll check it with Tessin ). ThanksJo0doe (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the 14th Division. I do not have to establish the notability of the author as this is not about him. He is a published source from a recognised trusted publisher.
You are using a three volume work on the whole of the german army to research specifics about the 14th and as such I really think you need to accept that Mr Logusz is noteworthy and more qualified than you like to think
Logusz has BA in social studies and MA in Russian studies.
[19] [20] [21]
No University, no degree in history, no review of his book by any scholar:( Only one book by Visti kombatanta. Special edition. reprinted :( Pitty.. See Tessin [22] books. While see here [[23]] at p.137 - He was deeply suspicious of the divisional history had been compiled "entirely by Ukrainians themselves. Those men whom his team examined, Porter conceded "may be all or in part lying". So - per WP:RS better to use the German source rather then Fiction - General [24]. So any names/numbers for Galizisches freiwilligen battalions? Or source(s) which declared about something new for 4-7 Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgt ?) Jo0doe (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the book is considered one of THE authoratitive books on the 14th division.
No University ? He has two degrees - they are both from different universities - that make 2 of them
You cannot dismiss it, it meets ALL categories of good source, there are many more reviews of the book than you are saying, and you cannot decide that a book is no good especially if it meets good source guidelones.
Your ":( pitty" is obvious taunting and you must try and be more civil here
Tessin being suspiscious of something does not make him right. THe article is entitled to a neutral point of view and that is seomthing which must be retained.
You cannot say that the divisions history is lying WITHOUT PROOF just because the Ukrainian version is written by the division themselves and that the german one is correct just because it was written by a single man that you believe knows more than the men themselves.

The fact is this - the book written by Logusz, which is one of THE authoratitive works is written by a University educated man with 2 degrees, states that there were battalions that were not under division control right up to June 1944. THose facts are taken from communiques between German command and the division command.

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's really sorry - but you've not provide any secondary scholar source(s) about Mr.Logusz text scholar value. I hope you'll find it - I failed to do so. I agree with you - NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each - So we've here a Tessin, Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, and Polish sources - so dozens of Ph.D in history vs person with BA (as of 1997 and 2000)- is not really match WP:UNDUE -

four were created. They were numbered 4 through 7. As for these regiments, they never “served as a reserve forthe division.” In fact, all of its personnel were eventually incorporated into the Division.

Michael O. Logusz Sterling, N.Y.The writer is a major in the U.S. ArmyReserve. ”
While I would like again to remind you - we discuss 4-7 regiments not - battalions (while I would be greatfull for btl. numbers) .Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • four were created. They were numbered 4 through 7. As for these regiments, they never “served as a reserve forthe division.” In fact, all of its personnel were eventually incorporated into the Division.
- it describes the real situation of Galizisches Freiwilligen Regiments (Polizei)4-8 not Schutzmanschaftbatallions ( it is another question - not in this case)
Andros64 (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So you are denying, once again, that the author has no credibility even though he has two degrees a BA and an MA and his book is one of THE authoratative books on the 14th division. A quote or two from wikipedia guides to sources :-

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."
"Secondary sources write about primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them."
and one of the qualifiers is "and books published by respected publishing houses"

You also try to say that just because someone holds a military rank - what ? what are you trying to say ? THat someone in the reserves cannot have two degrees ? that because he is in the military he will lie ? what are you trying to say here?

I also would like to remind you of this - "This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources"

And so you mention "eventually incorporated" - that means that they were not originally and you have to prove the time that they were. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

If therefore, there is a conflicting opinion from a reliable trusted source, it would be POV to ignore Logusz, trying to discredit him and thereby get OR into the article. I am here trying to make sure neutrality is maintained and that facts are put in and not untrue statement. You have not convinced me that your statemnts are factually accurate - as Logusz states that there were battalions that were not included into the division as late as June 1944

Faustian "4th and 5th regiments of the division SS-Galicia were subject not to military but police authority." Joodoe "4-7 regiment were under Ordnungspolizei command;"

THe links you send to Tessins books are not working for anyone that does not have a google books account

Is this correct:-

1 You are trying to say that the 14th SS was responsible for war crimes but you do not have the proof you need and Logusz disagrees with what you are saying - that all frewilligen were under control of 14th at the time.
2 Also that there are three statements from editors that suggest there were battalions and regiments that were also not under the control of the 14th
3 That you will not accept that there were such things as "Rural police" that were under police control
4 That you disagree with the Institute of National Rememberance statements :- "Among the documents, there is a fragment of the "Chronicle of February 25th, 1944. Information inferred from the "Chronicle" remains in contradiction to the hitherto established facts of the investigation."
"soldiers of this division, dressed in white, masking outfits" "..."In the 'Chronicle' it says that these were other German troops, not the entering 14th Division of SS 'Galizien'."
"In the fragments of 'The Chronicle of the 14th Division of SS Galizien', there is the following entry on the criminal activity of Ukrainian guerilla fighters: 'In the village of Demydkowycze, the underground army fighters encountered the heavily fortified bunkers nearby where Jews were hidden. The underground army fighters crushed the bunkers. They killed two hundred Jews'."

AS for your comment "It's really sorry" once again I ask you to be civil and resist taunting...Chaosdruid (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Still any ref on any secondary scholar source(s) about Mr.Logusz text scholar value? Please be stright on topic - we discuss 4-8 Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgts (Police), information currently missed in the artice. I think conclusions of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences about SS-Galicia divisional units activities in South-Eastern Poland during winter-spring 1944 is self-evident - there no matter to discuss. I hope you'll agree with facts that the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences is high grade scholar source and prepared by Academy of Science affilated scholars and incomparable with ONE person gaining only BA in social studies and produced only ONE book on topic composed mostly from MEMOIRS of persons "may be all or in part lying" at 1947 - per Porter conclusion [[25]] at p.137. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

see Sourced text -

per Ukrainian, German and Polish sources 4th and 5th regiments were a part of the division SS-Galicia. Together with Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff formed from 1st and 2nd Galizisches SS-Freiwilligen-Rgts they were under general command of the HSSPF der GG while at actions during winter-spring 1944- common practice in German anti-partisan activities .Jo0doe (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2010 UTC(

Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences specifically indicate German SS-Galicia bloody retaliations -see p..275"Кривавими були також "відплатні дії" .. німецьких (дивізія СС-галичина) військових формувань" . I suggest conclusion by the scholar of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences deserved for inclusion in the article - backed by Polish and German sources, If we'll found any secondary scholar source(s) about Mr.Logusz text scholar value and it general notability - his opinion also may be mentioned in the article - in proportion to the prominence of his text by scholar assessment (if any).ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice example of trying to quote out of context. Institute described the specific crimes of the 45h and 5th police regiments.Faustian (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you cite in full? 4th and 5th police regiments mentioned specifically only in relation to Huta Penyatska - all other dozen times - general . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Source misused[edit]

in article village of Huta Pienacka was destroyed and between 500 by [26] while source clearly indicate загинуло понад 500 його польських мешканців - more then 500 - so strict range is incorrectJo0doe (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Strange text

The weekly publication of the Polish Home Army – the Biuletyn Ziemi Czerwienskiej (Land of Czerwien Bulletin) for 26 March 1944 (№ 12) [216, p. 8] stated that during the Battle at Pidkamin and Brody, Soviet forces took a couple of hundred soldiers of the SS Galizien division prisoner.

While uknown for military historians "Battle at Pidkamin and Brody" was after 18 of July 1944. Does Polish Home Army has a time mashine?:)Jo0doe (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

SS-Flak-Abt. (Gal.)[edit]

An anti-aircraft arilery unit of the Galizisches SS Freiwilligen Division established in Aug 1943 lost in Brody 1944 never restored again (nicht wieder aufgestellt - see Tessin p.315) - so police unit (in Aufst. SSFHA Slowakei till 1945 Jan./Marz )no need AAA defence like front-line one, Jo0doe (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Brody section[edit]

Seems have too many strange and self contradictory facts - if compare with [27] or Lange, Wolfgang. Korpsabteilung C vom Dnjeper nach Polen ( November 1943 bis Juli 1944): Kampf Einer Infanterie-Division Auf Breiter Front gegen Grosse Übermacht-Kampf im Kessel und Ausbruch Neckargemünd. Kurt Vowinckel Verlag, 1961 or F. W. von Mellenthin. Panzer battles 1939-1945: A study of the employment of armour in the second world war.[28]

  • Soviet 91st independent tank brigade "Proskurov" - "soviet" does not have ' 91st independent tank brigade "Proskurov :(

Section seems reflected MEMOIRS by the members of the Galicia division :( [29] about "dark-skinned and wrinkled face of an Asian warrior" and three Mongolians accompanied by an NKVD officer:(( Instead of scholars works citations:( Jo0doe (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It's taken from a legitimate sopurce. No need to try to disprove it using your personal original research through the archives.Faustian (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I can see a extencive citation from "Michael O. Logusz Sterling, N.Y.The writer is a major in the U.S. Army" - while data from Українська РСР у Великій Вітчизняній війні Радянського Союзу 1941–1945 рр. В 3-х т. – К., 1967, 1969, 1975 by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, seem to be more matched WP:RS. Again it's really sad to see at book 18 July WGR [30] established 7 August 1944 (see Tessin page above). So German secondary sources seems to be more reliable in comparsion with memoirs of German SS First Lieutenant Lubomyr Ortynsky erronuosly labled as "Ukrainian" (While I guess really strange SS_rank - First Lieutenant instead Unterscharführer???):( ThanksJo0doe (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • repulsed a major attack by T-34 tanks and destroyed several of the forty-six ton monsters in heavy fighting.Jo0doe (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
T-34- Model 1943 30.9 t; T-34-85 - 32 t. - [31] :(Jo0doe (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:V 91st independent tank brigade - [32] liberated Khyruv and Dobromil 27 July 1944 - see [33]. I also found at same source story how dead as of 10 May 1945 Fritz_Freitag able to surrender to Americans and ony 20 May shot themselves - really fun source - but hardly a reliable one- SS-zombie surrendered to US Army, 46 tonn T-34 tank, never existed - but defeated - "brigade" - its on first catch only - while - we've a nice scholar sources - like Tessin, Michaelis, Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences etc.etc.Jo0doe (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, all of the above is your personal research. Make the conclusions yourself, get them published somewhere and then we'll incorprorate them in the article. Until then, you are just trying to waste people's time.Faustian (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
WP:RS Sources cited and link provided - While do not try to update T--34,Fritz_Freitag and rest related articles with that realy strange claims from Mr.Michael O. Logusz citations. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 08:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Model and Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff[edit]

A really strange claims (again originated from Michael O. Logusz Sterling, N.Y.-The writer is a major in the U.S. Army) about SS Kampsgruppe performed its duty well enough that it earned the rare praise of German Field Marshal Walter Model - so per Newton, Steven H. (2006). Hitler's Commander: Field Marshal Walter Model – Hitler's Favorite General. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo. ISBN 0306813998 -

on 29 January 1944, Walter Model' was urgently sent to command Army Group North, which two weeks earlier had seen its stranglehold on Leningrad broken by the Volkhov, Leningrad and 2nd Baltic Fronts. The situation was dire (a circumstance that Model would come to be familiar with): two of the three corps of the German Eighteenth Army had been shattered, and contact lost with the III SS Panzer Corps defending Narva.


On 30 March Model was placed in command of Army Group North Ukraine in Galicia, which was withdrawing under heavy pressure from Zhukov's 1st Ukrainian Front.

So per historian, professor at Delaware State University conclusion Walter Model at the time slot- when Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff actually was in action - was not there. While I suppose it's clear that the Wehrmacht General and later Generalfeldmarschall does not care about SS police unit under command of the HSSPF der GG. I suggest such claims also need to be fixed - per historian, professor at Delaware State University data. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"Strange claims" were from Samual W. Mitchum Jr. (2007). The German Defeat in the East, 1944-1945. Stackpole Books, ISBN 0811733718. pg. 74.

Sorry, no original research please.Faustian (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation originated from Michael O. Logusz Sterling, N.Y.-The writer is a major in the U.S. Army. So per WP:NPOV we can add - Samual W. Mitchum Jr. (A former Army helicopter pilot and company commander, he is a graduate of the U.S. Army's Command and General Staff College.) citing 'Michael O. Logusz (a major in the U.S. Army) which allegedly claim that Field Marshal Walter Model highly priced SS police unit under command of the HSSPF der GG. However historian, professor at Delaware State University (as also many other sources) indicate that the Walter Model at that time command Army Group North. Also WOLF-DIETRICH HEIKE.UKRAINISCHE DIVISION "GALIZIEN". Geschichte der Aufstellung und des Einsatzes (1943-1945) 1970 - work by former head of staff - indicate that unit was acted poorly - see p.43-44. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Info about where Model commanded probably belongs in the Model article, no? Or are you trying to discredit Mitchum, Logusz or others through your original research. If so, publish your conclusions and then include those conclusions in the article. Until you do, keep it out of this article please.Faustian (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So - do you oppose to inclusion of widelly assepted data presented by historian, professor at Delaware State University? Wolf-Dietrich Heike - chief of the SS Gal staff? I don't care about former helicopter pilot or major in the U.S. Army' reserve texts - you know WP prefer to accomodate historians, professors at State Universities texts. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP IT JOODOE - you have gone beyond sense now "nice scholar sources" my arse : You cannot say "I do not care about..major in the US army reserves texts" you are approaching the stage where you will just get regarded as a troll. Anyone who ignores works by someone who has TWO degrees and is published and calls them what you did deserves Troll status already to be quite honest.
Logusz has TWO degrees and he is an "army officer" you are fast proving that you are not interested in anything other than your own ridiculous thoughts about what counts as notability - TWO DEGREES - one of the MOST authoritative books on the 14th SS and YOU still are going on about him as if he doesnt count
Chaosdruid (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil - I would like to point out - you've still failed to prove you insertion about 1997 book (at this time Mr.Logusz was only BA) - while I've already cited a dozens of scholars (PhDs, National Academy of Science etc) book. Please be stight on topic - did you oppose to Newton, Steven H. (2006). Hitler's Commander: Field Marshal Walter Model – Hitler's Favorite General. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo. ISBN 0306813998 or WOLF-DIETRICH HEIKE.UKRAINISCHE DIVISION "GALIZIEN". Geschichte der Aufstellung und des Einsatzes (1943-1945) 1970 data at p.43-44??Thank youJo0doe (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Your citations are irrelevent to this article which is not about Model. Moreover Logusz used David Glantz as a consultant for his book. Glantz is generally considered the top expert on the war on the eastern front.16:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you add a link to claim about David Glantz? Does he also suggest that the T-34 was a 46 tonnes monsters? Or Model was at February-March at charge for HSSPF der GG--Jo0doe (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I have am and remain civil Joodeo - you are not
It is ridiculous that you disregard a historian just because you do not like what he says - you puposefully keep saying that he is "only a major in the army" you state the you "do not care about a major in the US army reserves" as if he has no authority on the subject at hand.
"The term 'civility' refers to behaviour between persons and groups that conforms to asocial mode (that is, in accordance with the civil society), as itself being a foundational principle of society and law.
You are definately NOT civil in the comments I have stated above. You need to get off your high horse and accept that Logusz is a reliable, informative and acccepted source - that would be a civil act
Chaosdruid (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Which State Universities represent Mr.Logucz in 1997 (2000)? Could you prove your conclusion about Mr.Logusc by scholar source. If you posess only [34] Loguch - it does not limit WP - you can see - I've listed more then 10 scholar books.Thank you for link provided (if any)Jo0doe (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
You listed 10 books, not ten scholarly works. "by scholar source" ? Did you mean what makes him a scholar ? that would be the two degrees I told you about earlier
Chaosdruid (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One more German source for 4th regiment of the Galizien Division[edit]

  • Ostfront 1944: Tscherkassy, Tarnopol, Krim, Witebsk, Bobruisk, Brody, Jassy, Kischinew von Alex Buchner ISBN: 3895551015; (one of his 64 books about WWII [35]) - see Tarnopol chapter -
  • Tarnopol garrison:


    • "Mitscherling" Battalion (III Battalion, 4th SS-Volunteer Regiment, from Galizien Division)
    • The remnants of III Battalion, 4th SS-Volunteer Regiment (from Galizien Division) in company strength

So actually III Battalion, 4th SS-Volunteer Regiment - first SS-Galizien Division unit which was engaged in action (in fast retreat manner - Всі пішли врозтіч) with Red Army forces. That' actually confirmed not only by German but also from Soviet side - I think such really intresting information should be included into article. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

See also[edit]

I have added Category:Members of the Galizien division as a "see also"; although this category has only one member! It may not be a useful category? Hugo999 (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Chuyev as Source[edit]

From a description of his book cited here: "Новая злободневная работа Сергея Чуева представляет собой яркий экскурс в историю сотрудничества украинских добровольцев с врагами России. В книге рассказывается о предательской работе галицийских националистов против Российской империи. Впервые широкой читающей аудитории предъявлены свидетельства геноцида русского народа в Галиции и планомерного уничтожения всего русского на Западной Украине в первые десятилетия ХХ столетия." Translated: "New topical work of Sergei Chuyev is a vivid look into the history of cooperation between Ukrainian volunteers with the enemies of Russia. The book tells of the treacherous work of the Galician nationalists against the Russian empire. For the first time the general reading audience presented evidence of genocide of the Russian people in Galicia and the genocide of the Russian people in Western Ukraine in the first decades of the twentieth century." Obviuously there were no substantial numbers of Russian people in western Ukraine and no evidence of an anti-Russian genocide there. Through a quick search on google I have also not seen any evidence of his academic credentials, though he seems to be quoted on Russian nationalist blogs. This source is not reliable.

I will remove Chuyev's opinions from this article.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of source[edit]

In this edit, Jo0doe (talk) chose to remove the part in the original source (can be found here, page 284, second to last paragraph) that explictly states that at the time of the massacres the units were not under military (thus, Divisional) command but were instead placed under German police command. Given that this article is about the Division, that would seem to be a very notable fact to erase. Yet Jo0doe did just that. So why the erasure? It seems that this important piece of information was excluded in order to push a POV blaming the Division itself for this massacre. In the same edit he also changed the translation for the sentence in the second paragraph of page 284. In the original Ukrainian, it reads "Далі у звіті йдется про жахливі методи знущання над людьми, які важко вигадати і у можливість яких водночас важко повірити." Googletranslate to English is clumsy - "Next report ydetsya the horrible methods of abuse of people who are hard to come up and in the possibility that while hard to believe." My translation - Next the report goes on about horrible method of torture of people, which are hard to come up with and in whose likelihood it is at the same time difficult to believe." Jo0doe translated this, and place his translation in quotes, as "difficult to invent by anyone excluding witnesses of the real event itself." This sort of subtle twisting of sources is not good.Faustian (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you suggest a full citation, please. I"ve unable to find this, Divisional (дивізійне) - please avoid wp:OR.ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
When the source states the regiments were not under military but instead under German police command, it is not original research to state that it was not under Divisional (which was military) command. It's in the second to last paragraph of page 284 on the link.Faustian (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, later in the same paragraph, it states that "this situation...resulted in unhappiness from the Galician volunteers, who wanted to be in Divisional regiments and not under German police organization. So clearly the authors seperate Divisonal command from German police command and confirm that those regiments that committed the masscres were in the latter, not the former. Your dishonesty is so brazen, given that the source is here online for anyone to verify.Faustian (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you clarify - does at the source sentence - Як відомо, 4-й та 5-й полки дивізі¿ “СС-Галичина” були підпоряд-ковані не військовому, а поліційному німецькому керівництву, зокре-ма, вищому керівникові СС і поліці¿ ГГ.appeared text дивизійне? (as you suggest) Again - could you provide full citation of 2nd together third paragraph (which started Докладний опис у звіті свідчить про те...) ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The word division is used later in the exact same paragraph, in the very next sentence. Nice try. To quote (next-to-last paragraph, page 284, on this link): "Ця обставена ...викликала невдоволення галицьких добровольців, які прагнули бути в дивізійних полках, а не в німецькому поліційному підпорядкуванні..." Translated: This situation displeased the Galician volunteers who wanted to be in the division regiments, and not subordinate to the German police. Clearly, the author differentiates the division command from the German police command and place the 4th and 5th regiments in the latter. Since it is clear you can read the Ukrainian language this is a very obvious example of your bad faith and deliberate attempt to misrepresent the source, not to mention wasting other editors' time. You are being disruptive here. Faustian (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
See at source [36] Division (sole existed combat ready unit) itself was under command of the- Friedrich Wilhelm Krüger Höhere SS und Polizei Führer in the General Government . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, so now after having been caught you've switched to an unverifiable foreign-language source, with no link, published in Ukraine. And now that we see how you misuse sources that we can verify, we are supposed to assume that you sources this unverifiable one properly.Faustian (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Also I will be greatifull for plain English translation of the text - Упродовж січня—березня 1944 р. польські поселення зазнавали нападів загонів УПА, а також відділів дивізії СС “Галичина” вже по всій Тернопільщині (see page 283). Google suggest During the January-March 1944 the Polish village suffered attacks of the UPA units and detachmnets of the SS Division "Galicia" in all the Ternopil region Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The source is clear in stating that some elements of the Divison were removed from divisional command and placed under German police command, and committed some atrocities while outside Divisonal command. So? I'm amazed you think you can get away with BSing through this. Faustian (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you suggest me same at the text cited Упродовж січня—березня 1944 р. польські поселення зазнавали нападів загонів УПА, а також відділів дивізії СС “Галичина” вже по всій Тернопільщині. Also, since you've refused to cite Докладний опис у звіті сцен мордування в Гуті Пеняцькій свідчить про те, що дізнатися про події в селі автори звіту могли лише від їх свідків. I can suggest a google text Detailed description of the report in massacre events at the Huta Penyatska indicates that information about events in the village could only be a report of their real witnesses.Jo0doe (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Would be nice to clarify [37] sourced text removal - can you calrify confusing, difficult-to-undertand sentence. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Simple: if you choose to clutter the article with something that is dificult to understand, it gets removed.Faustian (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you suggest a WP:rule for your suggestion - text was properly sourced - If you've expirinced a difficulty with it - just ask - I'll help you with pleasureJo0doe (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Analysis of arguments:

several types of Logical fallacy applied in arguments –

  • edit[38] clearly inline with source cited and clearly suggest - regiments were under German Sicherheitsdienst and SS command of the General Government – if compare with edit -in mentioned part of the sentence- [39] state the same but for unknown reason mentioned the same thing twice.
  • Article text “The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences concluded that the 4th and 5th SS Police regiments of the Division, did indeed kill the civilians within the village” suggested as “push a POV blaming the Division itself for this massacre”
  • Insisting of non grounded [40] “catch” and a rigorous attempt to discredit a adopted by Historical branch of the Ivan Franko University of Lviv scholar source as “foreign-language source, with no link, published in Ukraine” which extensively cited few line above - [41] – namely Боляновський А. Дивізія “Галичина”. Історія. — Львів, 2000 which cited by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences work (also foreign-language source and published in Ukraine) under reference number 221 and 222 (precisely same paragraph).
  • Implication of wrong translation based an incorrect attributing 3rd paragraph of text (Докладний опис у звіті сцен мордування в Гуті Пеняцькій свідчить про те, що дізнатися про поді¿ в селі автори звіту могли лише від ¿х свідків.)at page 284 see [42] as 2nd paragraph with Verbal fallacies - “to come up” instead of suggested for вигадувати translation [43]. Also it’s really not good approach to remove well sourced information [44] from suggested by Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences –“ нещодавно опуб-

лікованій праці, присвяченій історі¿ дивізі¿ “Галичина” – source and refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Friedrich Wilhelm Krüger - Höhere SS und Polizei Führer in the General Government – early February 1944 order to the Division (as given at page 206 of the mentioned source. As well as widely adopted fact that the SS-personnel of the division located at the General Government was at the disposal of it Höhere SS und Polizei Führer. I kindly ask the editor to stop this kind of approach [45] [46] [47] – since I’ve no time and to address every instance of such kind of groundless allegation based on llogical fallacies . Thanks P.S. Please provide a full citation for witnesses accounts for article– as suggested by source cited.Jo0doe (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Another example of disruptive, semi-coherent editing and arguments. I'll repeat: if you provide sources that are unverifiable (i.e., exist only offline and in Ukraine, in the Ukrainian-language only) they will be removed. YOu have an extensive history of misusing sources, as shown on this topic and extensively shown in the past. Your misuse has been so egregious that you got blocked for a year because of it. If your "facts" can't be checked, they don't belong here. Wikipedia isn't a game where you try to find a source that nobody can verify and then do what you want with it. Secondly, no matter how well-referenced, if what you add is incoherent it does not add to the article and will be removed. While someone may do so if they wish, it's nobody's job to translate for you. Is that clear?Faustian (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stamps of the division[edit]

Dr. Balyanovskyy gives an information (see page 158-160 Боляновський А. Дивізія “Галичина”. Історія. — Львів, 2000)about at two stamps issued at March 1944 by the divisional Military Governing Committee (Viyskova Uprava). Would be nice if someone add this stuff for article. Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Division in Slovakia[edit]

Nice recent scholar source - 14. divízia Waffen SS Galizien v procese potlačenia Povstania na strednom Slovensku (1944) (roč. 4, 2009, č. 1. – Ružomberok : Historia nostra o. z., 2009. – ISSN 1336-8222. – S. 1-12) about numerous war crimes at the time of the Slovak National Uprising. Section need to be expanded and updated per scholar source. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is the author/affiliation? And more importantly, can we get it online? Otherwise, we ought't take your word for what it says.Faustian (talk) 14:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I found the source online here: [48]. I note that Jo0doe (talk) seems to be, as usual, cherry picking the individual bits of information to push his PV and ignoring the rest when he describes this sources simply as "about numerous war crimes at the time of the Slovak National Uprising." The source is about much more than that, but by that comment we know how the source would likely be misused by Jo0doe (talk). Please do not do that with sources.
Anyways, the article discusses the military activities first, suggesting those were the most improtant of the Division's activities in Slovakia. The lengthy article describes numerous incidents (retaliatory shelling of villages in which civilians died, requistioning food supplies from villages which the authors add were not as bad as what the Communist partisans did, beating people, etc.) - no masacrs or such crimes similar to the Huta Pieniacka massacre. An excerpt thanks to googletranslate from the origianl Slovak: "Apparently crime squad of Wittenmayerovej group also signed Kvačany burning village (northwest of Liptovsky Mikulas) 30 October 1944, the population which has been accused of supporting guerrillas. During direct artillery fire on the village was burnt 11 houses, killed three people (more have been injured) and five other seized and handed over to the hands of police-security services. [47] Such cases of retaliation against the Slovak population were rare, indeed, have been reported in other regions occupied 14th Halych division. Similarly Haličania acted in some villages of the district of Zilina. There Podhorie 19th January 1945 Ukrainian platoon conducted house searches. "Commander (Ukrainian), this unit has a list of suspects from the village," accused of partisan activities and for harboring Jews (8 persons), which showed the German headquarters in Lietavska Lucky. After their departure they went to the village of guerrillas and then another Ukrainian guard from the village grandmother. Of their clash at the hands of the Russian partisan Pavlova fell a Ukrainian SS man. Next day - 20 January 1945 was followed by retaliatory action. "This day will remain in living memory Podhorie village" - is set in the contemporary reports. "Late afternoon that day, German troops rushed consisting mainly of Polish Ukrainians from all surrounding crew obkolesili village and some burst into the village and began to torture people. Foot of its citizens, is accused by German soldiers, some of the people shot horespomenutého soldier and therefore gave orders that all men boarded midst village, built a wall around them to school. Each of the citizens certainly calculated to be all shot. This did not happen, but the soldiers started beating the people most flagrant manner. [...] German barbarians began to kindle economic Stavisky citizens ... "- seven barns were burned. [48] So, Communist guerrillas based in a village shot a Ukrainian soldier, in retaliation the village was captured, the men seperated from the women and tortured or beaten, and seven barns were burned. How mch weight should this an incident like this have, in order to be included in the article?
Importantly, who is the author/organization that put the info together? The article's author, Michal Smigal, couldn't be found on google. The organization publishing the info, Histroia Nostra, describes itself as "organized rings of non-profit supporters of Slovak history 20th century. Its aim is to promote and develop the historical research, education and publishing activities, organization of cultural-educational events and popularization of history in the broadest sense." It doesn' seem to be affiliated with any academic organization.
If the source were legit, info from the article should be incorporated into the article. Of course, it would be absurd to include every incident of barn burning or requisuitioning horses from villages but a brief summary about military activity against Soviet partisans as well as the effects on the civilian population would be warranted - assuming the source is reliable per wikipedia standards.Faustian (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be obvious to note that the article does not contain the word komunistický - as claimed above - so - killing civilian, shelling at the civilian villages, and joint actions with Sonderkommando 7a* a Einsatzkommando 13 -it's a numerous examples of the war crimes as described in same way at 14. divízia SS „Galizien“ na Slovensku (1944 – 1945): bojová protipartizánska činnosť a represálie P. Sokolovič. – Bratislava : Ústav pamäti národa, 2008. – ISBN 978-80-89335-08-4 – S. 212-233. . P.S. Please avoid extensive mistranslation/misrepresantation of the scholar text.Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Please avoid false claims about my posting googletranslations or that I claimed that the article explictly used the word "communist." It used the word "partisan." Is also referred to joint actions with Sonderkommando 7a* a Einsatzkommando as "sporadic" not, as you wrote above, "numerous." I also note that you do not deny the fact that you have been cherry-picking this source for specific information that supports your POV. Nor do you deny that although civilians died when villages were shelled in retaliation for partisan attacks no massacres were committed. Nor that the Division was with war crimes in Slovakia - and yet you claim "numerous examples of the war crimes as described in same way at 14. divízia SS „Galizien“ na Slovensku (1944 – 1945): bojová protipartizánska činnosť a represálie P. Sokolovič. – Bratislava : Ústav pamäti národa, 2008". Please stop misusing sources to push your POV.
BTW, from the soure, info that you totally ignored:
pasted googletranslate:"It is at this time (end of January 1945) in ensuring the long and gradual abandonment of the 14th Halych SS division began to appear more unidentified vlasovovské (Cossack) tulle unit - incidence and effect of which researchers often wrong issues and their bloody excesses were also credited to the account of the Ukrainian SS division. Their presence was as evident in the town of Zilina Podhorie district: "In early February, around the German crew started to receive in front of our village and started to show what-so relief. But this did not last long, however, and instead of leaving the invaders, came second. They were Cossacks - Vlasovci. These, beasts in human form, began to relentlessly pursue our heroes - the partisans. "[68] Also, knowledge of their occurrence have been captured from space Vyšná Boca:" On 22 January 1945 on Monday night came to us Vlasovci. These I was most worried about not only because it had over three hundred horses and hay starts, but also because they did brutally - inhuman. [...] It was deplorable that, as the Russians in German uniforms and fought against their own. Therefore, they are very hated partisans and Ca as family izmennikov - renegades homeland. "[69] In another place:" The Germans and Vlasovci arriving in the village looted by people who could. Vlasovci in the month of April 1945 burned down the house Paul Hippo, where he stayed and Stephen Čuboň, príduc after the weapons were stored there. Vlasovci opened fire, helped push the shootout ... Paul's mother hippo conquered, exiled from the village to which she returned after liberation. "[70] Most probably (as suggested historian M. Uhrin) in this case the 580th battalion East riding of Section (580th Ost-Reiter-abtailung) under the command of Major. Kalamorza. The presence of troops in the area vlasovovských Liptov Turca, Orava, Kysuce and central Považie was recorded from late January until the arrival of the Eastern Front in the area in April 1945, ie at a time when 14th SS Division was already outside the territory of Slovakia." Basically, the Russians were much worse and Russian criems were incorectly attributed to the Division.
About looting, again a googletranslation: "It should be noted, however, that such violations are perpetrated by a number of troops passing Slovak counties. As the show period records, "an army passes, and Ukrainian, German and Hungarian as, in large húfoch and the military transports and friction on the carts and motor vehicles, prenocovávajú the villages. Citizenship, lying in villages on the main road Zilina - Trencin and Bystrica - Bradford, suffers greatly those passing troops, because where are stopped, there ruthlessly take feed and straw, reflecting locks humien, stables, and SOPs, and guilty of theft in inns and private homes. "[73] It should also be added, while in several cases in Slovakia, the German military headquarters intervened and remove offenses from their own ranks, it was worse with the Slovak partisans who perpetrated the same crimes. Guerrillas operating in the mountains and forests in Slovakia "forfeited some village residents and require food, clothing, drinks, money and also pigs, cattle and horses. Such prepadávania is rampant and the population is completely helpless against this, "- has been reported from different cities in Slovakia." [74] etc.
So the summary of this source with respect to anti-civilian activites would be that in helping to crush partisans during the Slovak uprising in Slovakia, elements of the Division sporadically cooperated with Sonderkommando and Einsatzkommando, shelled villages in retaliatory strikes that resulted in civilian deaths, beat or interrogated people, and along with other armed forces but to a lesser degree than the partisans themselves confiscated grain and livestock from the civilian population.Faustian (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not sure this source comes in. It does seem nuetral, it includes a lot of info, it's just not written by a known person and the website doesn't seem to be affiliated with any scholarly institution. I have no doubt that if it couldn't be twisted to support Jo0doe (talk)'s POV he would be all over it as an unreliable source. What do other editors think about its inclusion?Faustian (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
The site is owned and run by a young scholarly kid by the name of Anton Hruboň. He seems serious enough from his videos. A PROFESSIONAL translation would be required.--Galassi (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree that he seems serious. But what is the difference between him and an ideal (that is, nuetral, well-referenced and serious) wikipedia article? I'm leaning towards keeping this info, particularly noncontroversial bits, but am not sure.21:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
  • So - a text by Ph D in history (his e-mail given stright after article end) mentioned that in village Smrečany 80% of dwellings were damaged or burned and 2 civilians were killed; at village Pleљivб - 3 civilians (including 2 years old girl) were killed; two wounded partisans were killed at shelter/hospital - etc.etc. etc - numerous activities listed at war crimes. Also PhD used words "slovenskэm povstalcom" - Slovak insurgents - not "soviet/communist partisans" as mistranslated above. Nor claims exists about good behavour of SS-man -about "helping to crush partisans during the Slovak uprising in Slovakia" and " lesser degree than the partisans themselves". Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 08:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Your last statement above is a falsehood. Civilian deaths were due to shelling. You are dshonest about what I wrote. Googletranslate says the author wrote "It should also be added, while in several cases in Slovakia, the German military headquarters intervened and remove offenses from their own ranks, it was worse with the Slovak partisans who perpetrated the same crimes." So your statement that "no claim exists" about that is yet another lie. Faustian (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Can you suggest an inline source quotation. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 06:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 07 July 2014[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Jenks24 (talk) 08:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian)14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galizien (1st Ukrainian) – All other SS divisions have their special names like 'Galizien' but it has to be in italics. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC) – elmasmelih (used to be KazekageTR) 22:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This technical request has been brought here for discussion. The title you are requesting does not put 'Galizien' in italics, so maybe you wish to consider a further change. I am unclear whether we even need 'Galician' in the article title. If may be of interest to look at the corresponding titles in the German, French and Spanish Wikipedias. Per WP:PRECISE we don't need to include more words in the title than are necessary for identification of the topic. Why are you calling this division 'Ukrainian' when the whole point for the Nazis of using the Galician terminology was to avoid using Ukrainian? The title of our German article is de:14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr. 1) , i.e. it does use Galician but it doesn't use 'Ukrainian.' EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose: IMO, this article should be at 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). Italics can be done with the display title template, it shouldn't be done with a move. I have a little bit of knowledge on this issue, having taken four non-Germanic Waffen SS division articles to FA. The original name of the division was the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), and it did all its fighting (of pretty negligible value) under that name. The reality is that this title was used because Himmler couldn't bring himself to openly acknowledge that he had recruited a division of untermensch into the Waffen-SS. In early 1945, while it was refitting after being decimated in the Brody-Tarnow pocket, the bit in parentheses was changed to (1st Ukrainian) as a concession to the Ukrainian nationalists that made up the division. The above is drawn from Stein 1984, pp. 185–187, Stein being one of the foremost neutral scholars on the Waffen SS. We could use either, as MILMOS states we can use either the name is was best known under, or its last one. I'd prefer the former, because that was the name it fought under, and is best known as, and it demonstrates the duplicity of the Germans. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator Other divisions has their 'nicknames' with them. Galizien stands for nickname. (Like 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar, 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne, 24th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Karstjäger or 21st Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Skanderbeg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmasmelih (talkcontribs)
It is not in any way a "nickname". It is an integral part of the name of the division, and it has a specific meaning (in terms of where it was recruited). Albanian, Galacian, Croatian, Hungarian, etc. Please have a look at the reliable sources. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. The actual formation didn't have a name in the English language, therefore all we offer are the possible translations with grammar based on (more-less) reliable third-party sources drawn from literature in the English language. If you look closely at the article in the German Wikipedia, you will notice that the formation changed its original German name four times in less than two years. All of the names were (at one point or another) their real designations including the last one ... no longer in the SS, but in the Ukrainian National Army.
  • SS-Schützendivision "Galizien" (Mai 1943)
  • 14. SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Galizien" (30. Juni bis 22. Oktober 1943)
  • 14. Galizische SS-Freiwilligen-Division (22. Oktober 1943 bis 27. Juni 1944)
  • 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (galizische Nr.1) (27. Juni bis 12. November 1944 - )
  • 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (ukrainische Nr. 1) (12. November 1944 bis 25. April 1945)
The article is not about the 1st Ukrainian Division of the Ukrainian National Army (25 April 1945 - ) therefore the last name in the SS would probably be most appropriate.[49] How to translate? WP:NAME policy/guideline speaks of recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. Poeticbent talk 15:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME is more specific. It states that A name originally in a language other than English should be adapted by translating common terms (such as designations of size and type) and transliterating the remainder of the name. and When a unit or base has had multiple names over the course of its existence, the title should generally be the last name used; however, exceptions can be made in cases where the subject is clearly more commonly known by one of the previous names. I suggest that this division is more commonly known as (1st Galician), the name under which it did all its fighting, rather than (1st Ukrainian) which was a sop to the Ukrainian nationalists and only happened when the division was refitting. It did not see action after the name change. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

...not been found guilty of any war crimes by any war tribunal or commission[edit]

I checked with "Judgment of the International Military Tribunal For The Trial of German Major War Criminals" and the following statement seems to be incorrect and should be removed:

"Although the Galizien Division has not been found guilty of any war crimes by any war tribunal or commission, numerous unproven accusations of impropriety have been levelled at the division and at particular members of the division from a variety of sources. It is difficult to determine the extent of war criminality among members of the division."

Source clearly says:

It is impossible to single out any one portion of the SS which was not involved in these criminal activities...
Conclusions: The SS was utilised for the purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war...
In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS"

Exception was made only for the ones who were drafted, and the ones that left SS before 1939

(c) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The statement ""Although the Galizien Division has not been found guilty of any war crimes by any war tribunal or commission, numerous unproven accusations of impropriety have been levelled at the division and at particular members of the division from a variety of sources" has a reliable source. The statement you provided does not specifically indict the Galician division. It's a blanket statement. That being said, there is no reason not to change the wording a little to "has not been specifically found guilty of any war crimes by any war tribunal or commission."Faustian (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Galizien division was indicted in war crimes as a part of a bigger criminal organization, by Nuremberg Trial. Resolution of court is quite specific, and the exceptions were quoted above. Omitting or denying this fact is a breach of NPOV, and this should be reflected in the article. The sentence I proposed to remove, is not only confusing (and word "specifically" just adds confusion, then how not specifically it was found guilty? never explained) it's not exactly scientific saying "by any war tribunal or commission", as the only commission mentioned is Deschênes Commission. At least two official points of view should be present, "International Military Tribunal" and "Deschênes Commission", and if any other tribunals, trials or commissions are known, they should be listed too. As I said your source contradicts official documents of the trial if it claims that no tribunal or commission found Galizien SS guilty or someone misinterpreted the source. -- (talk) 08:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

False picture in front of article[edit]

Source is a book by Edward Prus - not reliable. Ukrainian tryzub wasn't used by Galicia Division in 1943 - all references to Ukraine were not officially allowed (thus, use of Galician lion as symbol, and the name was Galician rather than Ukrainian). This picture is obviously either fake, or a picture of a unit that is not the Galician division.Faustian (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Image is described as one of the "Ukrainian Liberation Army" here: [50].Faustian (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Your claim that the photograph might be a fake is of course preposterous. However, I'm inclined to believe that the description at source was erroneous. Therefore I'm moving the image to infobox of the Ukrainian Liberation Army. Although blogs are not reliable either, could you please explain the following caption, especially about the Battalion 118 mentioned there: Роман Крохмалюк у своїй праці “Заграва на Сході” (ст.12) пише: “До певної міри за українською ініціятивою (ОУН) створили німці окрему парамілітарну військову формацію УВВ. Члени цієї формації переходили вишкіл у Криниці, Команчі і Дуклі. Вони брали участь у боях на Східньому фронті на розлогих теренах України”. Ще є в живих учасник УВВ Теодор Ґуль із 118-го батальйону (сот. Шудра). Poeticbent talk 07:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a history of people photoshopping swastikas onto Ukrainian images so the possibility of the image being fake is not "preposterous" though I am inclined to view it as an image of the wrong unit. The quote translated is: "to a certain extent under the initiative of the OUN the Germans created a separate paramilitary military formation UVV (Ukrainian Liberation Army). Members of this formation underwent training in Krynycki, Komancza and Dukla. They took part in battles on the eastern front on extensive Ukrainian territories."Faustian (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I requested this image to be renamed. You can see the links to online copies I've found, at the file description in Commons. If you find any other reproduction of the same b&w photo in a more reliable source, please let me know. Poeticbent talk 17:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)