Talk:Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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 Finland (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Finland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"War crimes"[edit]

Dear Mr. Petri Krohn, please, can you show any sources which claim that the unit did commit war crimes. "Panttipataljoona : suomalaisen SS-pataljoonan historia" by Mauno Jokipii, a detailed book about the history of the unit did not say anything about war crimes, nor have I seen any other sources say anything about such. If the unit has never been accused of war crimes (and according to Panttipataljoona it has not been) I dare to say that this case is clear enough. --Kurt Leyman 17:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but if you want to include that claim in the article, you have to provide a source. You not "seeing" this or that is original research. -- Petri Krohn 23:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to include claims about what this unit did not do, unless it is within the context of claims that it did do such things. In this case no evidence is lead that anyone is making such claims about this unit so there is no need to state that it did not perform war crimes. Neither did the unit invade South Africa, but obviously there is no need to put a claim in the article to that effect. The whole idea of stating that some thing or other is not true without the context of some claim, and in an encyclopedic artice some well known claim, that it is so is just stupid. Finally lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, it a very big claim to state that some unit did not commit war crimes when by the very nature of warefare records are incomplete and no one can really make such a statement with absolute certainty, better to not say anything about the subject otherwise it just looks like you are trying to cover something up. Nick Thorne talk 21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you have re-instated the negative claim about war crimes. Again, you seem unable to grasp the simple point that unless there is some claim or context that this unit did commit war crines - and I have no opinion one way or the other - then it is stupid to include a statement that this unit did not commit them. Even if such a claim/context exists then you should include some reference to that claim/context within the body of your counter claim so that it makes sense to be stating the unit did not do what you say. Once again, I point out that this unit did not do many things. They did not fly to the moon, they did not assasinate Churchill, they did not turn into invisible pink unicorns either, yet you feel no compulsion to include a statement to the effect that the unit did not do these things. Further, please put your arguments onto the talk page, not the edit summary where it does not belong. Nick Thorne talk 11:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There's the (usually, but not always, silent) implication that if the units belonged to Waffen-SS and thus, were under control of Schutzstaffel, they must have been partaken in the heinous Nazi crimes the SS is famous for, or at least they were likely to so partake. This position is not even particularly unreasonable to take, at least by somebody whose knowledge of the WWII history is superficial. Thus, even if there is nobody notable positively asserting, or even insinuating, about such war crimes or crimes against humanity, if their non-commiting by the units in question can be backed up with WP:RS, it merits a remark of a sentence of two. Digwuren 12:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are not disagreeing with me at all, read my previous comment. If what you say is true then it would be appropriate to say something along the lines of unlike other Waffen-SS units under the control of Schutzstaffel, there have been no substantiated claimes of war crimes committed by this unit or some such wording. I do not know whether this is the case or not and I certainly do not have any references one way or the other for this issue, so I will not put such wording into the article. Note that such a statement is entirely consistent with what I stated would be required to make a negative proposition in the article. I note, however, that --Kurt Leyman does not get this important point and simply re-inserted the bald assertion that the unit was not involved in war crimes - he needs to back such a claim up and provide a context as to why it is necessary to deny that the unit committed war crimes. Nick Thorne talk 13:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Right. Sorry about the confusion, it's a question of accents ...
Still, "unlike" is not entirely correct. It's generally accepted that the main line goes between Waffen-SS and "regular" SS. I'd word it roughly "Contrary to what might be expected from the unit's SS-sounding name ...". Digwuren 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"he needs to back such a claim up" It is not a claim, it is a fact unless someone brings forth sudden proves that oddly seem to have been missing for the last 67 years, and this goes to speculation. "provide a context as to why it is necessary to deny that the unit committed war crimes." Because many people seem to think (in many cases that I have seen) that all members of the Waffen-SS took part in the Nazi crimes. This information is useful (especially for people whose knowledge of the Second World War is not great), and there is nothing wrong with it. Regards, --Kurt Leyman 15:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Finnish SS Cuff title.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Finnish SS Cuff title.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation of "Panttipataljoona"[edit]

I believe the translation to "Hostage battalion" is basically incorrect and the proper term should be "Pawn battalion". The finnish word "pantti" means a pawn, whereas the word for hostage is "panttivanki", "vanki" meaning prisoner. In this case the battalion would act as a pawn for securing Germany's assistance, not as a hostage taken by Germany (which would imply Germany extorting Finland for action in the war).
Quick Google search seems to give more "pawn battalion" hits, and the incorrect "hostage battalion" translation seems to be foremostly based on a daily news article in Helsingin Sanomat, where the translation is informal (and connotationally wrong).
I did not see edit "19:50, 26 July 2010 Death Bredon (talk | contribs) (9,789 bytes) (Changed translation of "panttipataljoona" from "pawn battalion" to "hostage battalion" (nb. Finn. "panttivanki", literally "pawn prisoner", translates as "hostage").)" before, dear Death Bredon your linguistics and reasoning are simply wrong. The original word to be translated is "panttipataljoona", not "panttivankipataljoona".
--Rk1945 (talk)--Rk1945 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "Pawn battalion" is also used at [[1]] so same term should be used here for consistency. --Rk1945 (talk) 07:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)