Talk:Indian Legion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Indian Legion is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
September 4, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted

older comments[edit]

Tiger Legion and Indische Freiwilligen-Legion Regiment 950 discussess the same unit. Indische Freiwilligen-Legion Regiment 950 is a more detailed and objective article and therefore should be merged into this. 15:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'legacy' section bears all the hallmarks of POV OR; a cherry-picking of sources and an over-reliance on primary sources where many secondary sources are available. Tagged. Hornplease 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Secondary sources always bear hallmarks of POV. Otherwise they would not be secondary sources. That is why authentic primary sources are always preferable.
If you think it is "cherry picking", then it is up to you to pick your "counter cherries" and add them to the fruit salad, but stop blatant name calling: Designating articles as "cherry picking" without any proof is blatant name calling. (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The very last paragraph is very much made up of opinion & lacking in fact or sources. I'll remove it in a few weeks time unless anyone has objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I Wouldn't. IMO, it might need some editing (a bit long) but provides a quite useful perspective in the light of the section's title (legacy). --Henri Hudson (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think that a statement is lacking in fact or sources, then you have to designate precisely which statement that is and according which standard it lacks "facts or sources". Otherwise YOUR statement bears all hallmarks of POV. (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Were they prosecuted or not?[edit]

The article says they surrendered to or were handed over to the British to face treason charges, but then doesn't say what happened to them after that. Richard75 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

A few of them were charged in the INA trials (that page discusses the trials generally in more detail) along with members of the INA proper, as mentioned in the text, and presumably the rest would have been. But because of the tension the trials produced, most of the trials were halted before independence, presumably including those of Legion soldiers. All the Indians who fought for the Axis were released in 1947, including the three who had been sentenced—but as the British insisted they were never allowed to serve in the new Indian Army. —innotata 19:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


What is the reason this article isn't at "Indian Legion of the Waffen SS"? A Google Books search for "Indische Legion" gives 81 hits here, and "Indian Legion" comes up with 108 hits here. Not only that, but highly regarded books on the Waffen SS (such as Stein) refer to it as "Indian Legion". This is en WP after all. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I propose "Free India Legion". "Legion Freies Indien" was used as an official name when it was in the Wehrmacht and when it was in the Waffen-SS. Free India Legion gets 549 results; this German name and English translation seem to be most commonly used in sources on the unit. —innotata 11:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You need to go to the last page to get the real number of hits, and your search actually comes up with 58 hits per this Stein is one of the foremost scholars on the Waffen SS, and he refers to it as "Indian Legion", which gets 212 hits, per this. It seems to me that "Indian Legion" is the WP:COMMONNAME by a significant margin. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess you're right, the name is more commonly used. (Please remember, though, that the unit was part of the Wehrmacht for most of its history…"Indian Legion" should be the article's name.) —innotata 17:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
That is true, but the other names will need to be bolded in the lead, and redirects created to ensure they all come here. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move to "Indian Legion"[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: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Indische LegionIndian Legion – Most commonly used name in English-language literature. This name (+"Wehrmacht" or +"SS" to avoid irrelevant results) gets more results on Google Books than the German version or the other commonly used name "Free India Legion", and is also used in respected sources such as Stein's works on the SS, see above conversation for details. —innotata 17:12, 24 June 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.


'In considering the history of the Free India Legion, the most controversial aspect is its integral link to the Nazi Germany, with a widespread perception that they were collaborators of Nazi Germany by the virtue of their uniform, oath, and field of operation.'

Whatever the motives and we can probably assume resistance to British rule as the primary motive, there can't be much more of a clear cut definition of collaboration than joining the enemy forces, wearing their colours, promising to obey their orders and operating in a war zone on their side. If we couple this with hints at atrocities committed by the Indian forces there doesn't seem to be much controversy. The point surely is that the Indians who fought in this regiment were operating on a means to an end basis, probably they did not like Nazi Germany and simply wanted freedom but that should be clarified with sources. Millions of German soldiers could probably say the same but then where do we draw the line? The use of 'controversy' in this is only in how we perceive their actions retrospectively Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The use of "controversy" in this is in how historians and reliable sources see and analyse this organisation. We offer description (not analyse, not by ourselves) all the broad standing viewpoints on this organisation so that no one feels that an organisation of people are unjustly or unfairly described as heroes or traitors (which is PoV). We do not, and I repeat, DO NOT "couple a hint of" something with a whiff of something else and add to garnish a sumptious juicy maincourse. We draw the line where referenced reliable sources agree and disagree and we dont introduce POV of our own to promote unreferenced or unpublished viewpoints and bias. I hope that answers your angst?rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you need to repeat that DO NOT ? In case there is any doubt, I understand the general principles behind wikipedia and try to adhere to them. My argument is not about the rights and wrongs of the Free Indian Legion and its not an attempt to offer some simplistic fresh views. It's about the use of language in the article and particularly the header. To make my self clearer I'm suggesting the sub -heading should be changed to 'collaboration' as the use of the word 'perception' in the heading seems to defy the fact that a section of the Indian people joined the Nazi regime. Collaboration defined 'is working with others to do a task and to achieve shared goals'. The fact that the goal they wished to achieve was independence (and I'm pretty sure it was not much else)is beside the point. The fact they may not have shared other goals is beside the point. I'm fully comfortable with the following arguments about why they collaborated and the extent of that collaboration. I'm suggesting an amendment on the lines of

==collaboration== 'Although the Free India Legion collaborated with Nazi Germany by virtue of accepting their uniform, oath, and field of operation....'

In case there is any doubt about my motives I am entirely happy that India succeeded in regaining its independence and I hate the Nazi regime but I wouldn't for a second let these biases creep into anything like an objective article and I'm suggesting that == Perceptions of Collaboration== is doing just that. Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 13:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the section as it stands is absolutely fine. Your proposal changes the statement to a definitiv " they were collaborators", from as it stands now which is a descriptive "they were perceived as collaborators by some and freedom fighters by others". Your emphasis here is the verb of collaboration which is different from the adjective of being a collaborator which all will see it as. This reminds me of a discussion I had on the talk page of what was then Collaborator page. Essentially, what you are suggesting seems to me to play with words to slide in the implication that these people were collaborators, with all the negative connotations of being quislings etc. A bit like saying a female dog is a bitch by the virtue of english language. With all the good faith in the world, I think this an unneccessary step. As it stands the viewpoint is adequately described and the opposing viewpoint is also adequately described. I see no reason why this should be changed.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd still disagree as equally 'Perception as Collaborators' as a heading slides into the implication that the Indian legion did not collaborate but were only perceived as collaborating which surely is why there is a discussion. Still to me like a heading in denial. But never mind.

I'll happily let it drop Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

As an aside as a Philosophy/Sociology teacher I met a similar form of this argument where men were presented as aggressive and violent as opposed to women being passive and non violent: infanticide statistics showed that women were more likely to kill their babies than men. This was presented as a female reaction to male violence rather than simply female violence. I felt this was the kind of argument that weakened rather than strengthened the feminist case (which showed overwhelmingly that men tended towards violence anyway) so maybe I have a tendency to leap on these things Tarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tarzan. To contribute my two pennies to the above discussion, the aggression of men and passivity of women are socio-behavioral stereotypes which would be a behavioural study and hard to define short of a case-control or observational study (I do not see a randomised control study feasible in this scenario). The statistics of infanticide perpetrated by either sex are observational reports which report a specific observation. I am sure both sexes are capable of being violent. The explanation of female reaction to male violence attempts to explain why the observation is seen, and in a wikipedia article, merely stating the observation is a start class article, but adding consensus expert opinions of these observations takes it much further. I think this discussion is a bit far removed, perhaps this discussion may shed a bit more light into why a blanket tag maybe inappropriate. It is a bit like tagging Churchill or British Raj ( as war criminal or perpetrators of genocide for Bengal Famine etc. There is more to the story than one side will tell you, hence the need to be careful about NPOV.rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 09:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating. I think a lot of the old arguments on gender are now almost museum pieces with the current proliferation of possible social identities. I appreciate that the endless attempts to revise history (often to someone's particular political ends) must make Wikipedia a bit of a minefield. I'm just an avaricious reader who occasionally sees something that doesn't quite make sense to me. The use of terms like 'criminal' for war leaders seems to part of the general progression of language. Words are simply changing their meaning. Thanks for taking the time to explain thingsTarzanlordofthejungle (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Manipulated picture[edit]

There are some strange part in the picture with General Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the 3rth of the article. It could well be, that it is manipulated. Do you know something about that? -- (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It just looks poorly exposed. Rommel definitely did meet with the Legion, at any rate. —innotata 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Indian Nazis?[edit]

Curious. The goal of the SS was to kill anyone without blond hair and blue eyes. How did they allow this? Seems like like the article is confusing something. HeinrichMueller (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)