Talk:Razing of Friesoythe

Investigation, or not?

The article says that there was an investigation, and also says that there wasn't.

The Canadian Army official history states "Investigation established that German civilians had taken part in this fighting and had been responsible for the loss of Canadian lives.

There was no investigation, and no Canadian was ever charged.

Also, the latter is unreferenced. (Hohum ^@) 13:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Hohum: The first statement is in the Context section and relates to the destruction of houses in Sogel. The second to Friesoyethe. I am struggling to see how I can clarify this - help or suggestions welcome.

I am painfully aware that the article ends on an unreferenced statement. But trying to evidence a negative is difficult. It seems that it is information which a reader would want, but it may be that there is no reference. I am basing the lack of investigation largely on the official historian's "There is no record of how this came about"; he was personally present the next day so would be in a good position to know what actually happened. That this is the official view is a pretty strong indication that there was no investigation, but not the sort of evidence that could be referenced to. And the lack of charges on little other than if a Canadian soldier had ever been charged with war crimes it is likely that a reference to it would be easy to find. I have just had an another trawl through what references I have and can find nothing. It seems that it was shrugged of as just another incident in a brutal war. I will have a more in depth search. If not I will see if I can rephrase. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - a different place. I should read more carefully. (Hohum ^@)

It seemed relevant to show that Friesoythe was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

How is it part of a pattern? The Army's official history says outright it's the only incident he is aware of that could be considered a war crime carried out by Canadian troops. 174.0.48.147 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The official history states a page earlier "as a reprisal and a warning, a number of houses in the centre of Sogel were ordered destroyed". This is quoted in the article. As are the Laws and Customs of War (Hague IV) regarding the destruction of civilian property. To me they were both war crimes, but as there isn't a source calling Sogel one would be OR.

@Hohum: Source found for "no investigation". Not a very good one, but so far as I can see the ref is largely for form's sake. And page number added to picture caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Not sure where to add this, sorry: the location of the town on the map is wrong. It's correct on the contemporary Friesoythe page, a few hundred km north. User:Donald unregistered user

Burial and memorial records

Unsure whether this adds to the article, but the CWGC and Canadian Virtual War Memorial records for Frederick Ernest Wigle are:

• Lieutenant ColonelWIGLE, FREDERICK ERNEST (CWGC)
• Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Ernest Wigle (CVWM)

The latter has a photograph of Wigle. The names of some of the others who died that day are also recorded: Privates John Brown and Cecil French. The account of what happened given in Zuehlke 2010 on page 307 should maybe be used in the article? Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth:That's excellent. Many thanks. This is also up for OTD on the 14th; I was going to let the dust settle then do a major review, possibly with a view to an A class nomination. This will be helpful for that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I see the A-class nomination has been made and the review has started. Have you considered adding anything relating to the burial and memorial records? It risks taking the article off at a tangent, but does give some wider context. (Zuehlke gives an account of the initial burial of Wigle and four other Argylls, which could be a starting point for such a note - the bodies were clearly later exhumed and moved to their current location at Holten Canadian War Cemetery when the CWGC were concentrating grave burials of Canadian soldiers in the region.) Carcharoth (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Informal review

As discussed on my talk page, please see below for some suggestions on how the article could be further developed ahead of a FAC:

• "2nd Canadian Corps" - Corps usually use roman numerals: II Canadian Corps is probably the better name  Done
• The context section would benefit from a substantial expansion which discusses the state of the fighting at this time, given that this is key to explaining both why this happened and the fact that while it was unusually cold-blooded, similar events occured across Germany. I'd suggest it cover:
  • The German Army being in a state of collapse, with most soldiers recognising that the war had been lost and wanting to surrender to the Western Allies.
  • Some fanatical German commanders, units and individuals fighting pointless, but often fierce, rear-guard actions as the western Allies overran Germany.
  • The Allied troops being, not surprisingly, highly risk adverse by this stage of the war and easily angered by any casualties given that the war was clearly won and the German resistance was pointless. When they encountered resistance they tended to use massive firepower to overcome it. As US Army units approached German towns they tried to determine if the local authorities intended to surrender. If they did not, they usually bombarded the town with artillery. I imagine that the British and Canadians used similar tactics.
• It's not clear what Note 2 refers to  Done
• "There is no record of the deliberate destruction at division, corps or army level" - I suggest clarifying that this is referring to official records at the time, given that the event was recorded through many other means.
• "The war diary of the 8th Anti-Aircraft Regiment records..." - was this a British regiment? If so, do any sources discuss why it was recorded in a British war diary but not any Canadian war diaries (which may not have been a coincidence)  Done
• "After a German act of perfidy" - what did this involve?  Done
• The article is a little bit on the short side, though this is OK if it reflects the amount of material in the sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thanks for that. This was my first article from scratch, and pretty much the first I had done serious work on. So I was striving to be "encyclopedic" and probably only managed "terse". I shall expand all of it in my sandbox, especially Context, which should be easy enough, work in your points above, and let you have another look. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

War crime, or not?

1) The subject of this article is categorized as a war crime, which is a very serious description. But reading the lead, there isn't any real indication of its evaluation as a war crime. The only hint the reader gets that the razing might have actually been quite a bad thing, is the statement that the Army official history glosses over it.

2) Does Stacey actually consider the event a "war crime"? In the quotation given, he only uses the noun phrase "unfortunate episode", which seems rather different. What comes before the given quotation?

3) What is the purpose of the quotation-box of Vokes in the aftermath section? Given that it's not directly related to the subject of the article, Is it supposed to be a piece of irony for the reader?

— Ruyter (talk • edits) 07:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

"Reprisal"

This article repeatedly refers to this and similar acts as "reprisals", with links to the Reprisal article. However, from reading that article, it seems that "reprisal" has a specific meaning in international law, that these acts didn't meet:

• There had to be a previous act by the other party that violated international law.
• Reprisals had to be preceded by an unsatisfied demand for reparation or compliance with the violated international law.
• There must be proportionality between the offence and reprisal.

"Enemy soldiers attacking your HQ and killing an officer" isn't a war crime, and punishing civilians for the acts of soldiers isn't a valid act of reprisal. Would it not be more accurate to refer to this as "revenge" or "retaliation"? Iapetus (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wardog, and thanks for the thoughtful query. Wikipedia is not, of course, a reliable source; an article which has been internally assessed as inadequately referenced and cited especially so. I was asked to put in the link by a reviewer, and while not keen on it I went along. With hindsight I should perhaps have argued for a Wiktionary link - wikt:reprisal - or thought about adding a new red-linked article to disambiguate the usage.

Reprisal is the correct "technical" term. Note that the Canadian official history uses it to describe both Sogel and Friesoythe - see p 558 of this. Their author is quoted in the article (from a different work) as using it specifically in relation to Friesoythe. Briddescombe uses it to describe Vokes putting "the stamp of his own rugged personality on reprisal policies." Putting "reprisal" and "1907" into the ICRC database gets this, even though it doesn't contain the word. In sum, the usage is pretty well sourced.

What would you think about switching the Wikipedia link to a Wiktionary one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to keep it in quotes? 93.136.46.218 (talk) 16:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions

It seems very unlikely that the Canadians wrote their SHAEF's manual, Combating the Guerrilla, in a way that advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions. This is alledgedly the claim of Briddiscombe (1998), a book that I don't have access to can't double check. The idea that the manual's statement that commanders could take "stern measures" against civilians as a rapid response to guerrilla attacks somehow translates into allowing commanders to murder civilians in response to guerrilla attacks is sensationalist to the say the least. "Stern measures" does not obviously equate to murdering, despite the fact that German units frequently took such actions against civilians on all fronts when attacked by guerrillas.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Monopoly31121993(2) and thanks for commenting on the talk page per WP:FAOWN. I have reverted per WP:BRD and look forward to discussing your proposed changes in more detail. In particular to your pointing out where the article states that Allied troops were given carte blanche to murder civilians, or that the Canadians murdered any at Friesoythe; I don't believe that it does either. I am pinging in Nick-D who originally introduced the Briddiscombe material. If we can't reach a relatively rapid consensus I will ping in the editors who approved the current version at ACR and FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for requesting additional support. To me this article reads like a Nazi apologist's wet dream (ie. "Germany and her poor civilians were the victims of the cruel, callous and unlawful actions of Allied soldiers"). You can practically see Joseph Goebbels penning something about uncultured cowboys bringing devastation to helpless German Fräulein... There's just so many things wrong here: The article's picture is a scrap book photo of a bunch of smiling Canadians holding a Nazi flag (supposedly after committing a terrible war crime) not a photo that actually shows the Razing of Friesoythe or the razed town. The article is peppered with anecdotes about war crimes committed by Allied soldiers against Geramns and even had a mention of "the cannibalism of [concentration camp inmates]" (!!!) discovered a day after the town was razed. I don't see a single mention of German army massacres of POWs or the civilian population in almost ever country that they occupied. The entire article also seems to rely on just a couple of popular history books. No newspaper articles, government reports, or academic studies. You know, reliable sources. It's a shame that this has made it to FA status on Wikipedia. This needs serious work for a NPOV article. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

You claim that a problem with the article is that it doesn't draw on any academic studies, yet you're campaigning against a work written by a well credentialed academic historian and published by a university press... Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

From [[WP:FAOWN}}:

While Featured articles (identified by a bronze star in the upper-right corner [[ Image:LinkFA-star.png|14px]]) are open for editing like any other, they have gone through a community review process as Featured article candidates, where they are checked for high-quality sources, a thorough survey of the relevant literature, and compliance with the Featured Article criteria. Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first. Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership.

The FAC review can be found here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort that heavily relies on consensus. This article underwent a GAN review in 2018, a A-class review in 2018 and a FA review in 2019, meaning that in the past 2 years a strong consensus has been developed for the article to exist in its present form. While this does not mean that the article can't be or shouldn't be improved by editors, it does mean that before introducing significant changes to the article, an editor should seek consensus for them in the talk page.
I think that the editor challenging the consensus should: (1) explain what makes the sources present on the article unreliable - the whole lot; (2) present new, stronger sources that support their views; (3) provide an image (entirely compliant with Wikipedia's image use policy, of course) of the razed town, instead of demanding it; (4) AGF about the editor(s) that spent several hours of their free time contributing to the improvement of this article. You have to actually work to reach a consensus, otherwise anyone can just start going around articles changing stuff to fit their worldview. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Monopoly31121993 is indulging themselves edit warring and other disruptive conduct in an attempt to make some kind of point which they seem curiously unable to provide references to support. For instance, tagging Briddiscombe's book as being unreliable is obviously disruptive as it was published by an academic press. Modern works on the ground war in western Europe now routinely note that the Western Allied troops sometimes committed various crimes. This obviously isn't to claim that they were in any way comparable to the Germans. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

This section is titled "Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions." Can we begin by discussing the Claim by Briddiscombe that Army's SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions? It seems very unlikely that the Canadians wrote their SHAEF's manual, Combating the Guerrilla, in a way that advocated the violation of the Hague Conventions but this is what this article currently states they did.

Do any other reliable sources state that ""stern measures" against civilians as a rapid response to guerrilla attacks... was in breach of the Hague Conventions."? I have my doubts this is what Briddiscombe actually says in his book but I have no way of accessing page 256 in his book to see what he actually says. Please include the actual quote from the text.

I've added a single source tag to this section because everything in this section is a claim by Briddiscombe with the exception of the first sentence which just provides background and doesn't address the Razing of Friesoythe.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 04:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

If you can provide reliable sources which discuss this issue and provide additional detail or differing views, that would be great. Otherwise, no-one is interested in your personal views and your speculation about sources you haven't read. Similarly, tag bombing the section with a claim that it needs more sources isn't helpful unless you can demonstrate what those sources might be, as well as to note any issues raised by experts regarding the source used. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

removing a totally valid tag is not going to improve Wikipedia. There's a reason why this tag exists and it's for sections that "relies largely or entirely on a single source" which is exactly what this section is. I'm sorry if you personally authored it and feel offended but that's tough. Also, try to assume good faith and stop sniping me. Have some respect for your fellow editors and practice civility. I would like to see this article improved. I hope you do too.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Not only stop editing warring, but per Nick-D your speculation about what may or not be in Biddiscombe's book is completely irrelevant. What evidence are your "doubts" based on? Biddiscombe is Professor of History at the University of Victoria, and the book is published by University of Toronto Press. He is well published on the history of the Nazi irregular forces and de-Nazification. Obtain access what is obviously a reliable book and verify what is being cited to it, or find other reliable sources that contradict what he says, or forget anyone taking you seriously about this. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Found the book and I included the quotes. Briddescombe absolutely never says the Canadian army or its field manual advocates for violating the Hague convention. Sorry.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 07:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

While military courts were sufficient to deal with resisters who were caught, an infinitely more difficult problem involved German guerrillas, stragglers, and francs-tireurs who disappeared after launching sudden ambush attacks, presum-ably because they were hidden by the civilian population. The unfortunate answer to such situations was collective punishments, even despite the ques-tionable legality of such expedients. SHAEF had announced, during the 'Stras-bourg Incident' of November 1944, that Allied forces would act strictly in accord with 'international law,' although this they did not do. Article L of the Hague Rules of War (1907) specifically stated that 'no general penalty, pecuni-ary or otherwise, shall be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly or severally responsi-ble.' In addition, Article XXV prohibited bombardments of undefended towns, Articles XXVIII and XLVII prohibited pillage, and Article XLVI committed occupation forces to respecting civilian lives and private property. The SHAEF counter-insurgency manual, Combatting the Guerrilla, implicitly recommended contravention of these principles under certain circumstances. The handbook stressed that, while it was desirable to isolate partisans from the population, there was a proper time for 'stern measures,' including forced labour and the seizure of hostages. 'Prompt, efficient and effective counter-measures,' it advised, would be necessary to suppress partisan activity - 'Ineffective or half-hearted measures in the early stages will tend to be the greatest incentive and encouragement not only to the guerrillas, but also to all potential guerrillas and active sympathizers.' Similarly, a SHAEF Joint Intelligence Committee paper noted that it was 'important that the most drastic measures be taken whenever the Werewolves achieve a success or when any are captured.

Biddiscombe, P., Werwolf! The History of the National Socialist Guerrilla Movement, 1944-1946, pp 255–256.

Assuming that the book is quoted correctly in the article, this is an important correction to make. "Questionable legality" does not mean illegal and on a sensitive point such as this one, it's important to get things right. buidhe 07:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The book is being misquoted by Monopoly31121993. Briddiscombe states that the Allies "did not" meet their commitment to "act strictly in accordance with international law", SHAEF's manuals "implicitly recommended" violating the Hague Conventions under certain circumstances and this amounted to a "deliberate breach of the rules". The material Monopoly31121993 added contrasting German conduct with Allied conduct also somewhat misrepresents the source, as Briddiscombe's argument is that "SHAEF actually looked to to the hated enemy as a precedent even though German security services had recently proven themselves willing to act outside all set norms of civilized conduct [in their anti-guerrilla campaigns" (the next page notes that the Allies didn't adopt the German policy of collective punishments, but saw their tactics as having been effective in stopping acts of resistance). From re-reviewing the book, I reckon what I added reflects what it states. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, How can I be misquoting the author when I'm using his exact words? That simply doesn't make sense. I wrote the following before you deleted it and replaced it with your own text.

" In Briddiscombe's book, "Werwolf!" [Specifying the source the information], he notes that [direct quote:]"even though German security services had recently proven themselves willing to act outside all set norms of civilized conduct [in their anti-guerrilla campaigns]" the SHAEF's manual Combating the Guerrilla stated that there were circumstances where commanders could take "stern measures" against civilians (e.g. hostage taking) in response to guerrilla attacks "despite the questionable legality of such expedients" [again, a direct quote] in relation to the Hague Conventions.

Nick-D, please stop preventing me and others from editing this page. You don't own this. Wikipedia is a collaborative site and looking in the edits I notice that you have been active in this page for quite some time and reverting the edits of other users when they change text that you have personally authored. Trying taking a step back and allow others to help end the page.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Please gain consensus for your proposed changes. From the above, there's little support for your position. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Title "Razing of Friesoythe" Seems to be only on other wikis

I can't find single reliable source that actually refers to the battle in Friesoythe and the resulting destruction of 80/90% of the town as the "Razing of Friesoythe." Did someone just decide to call this article that? What are the reliable sources for this? As I said, I can't find any sources that use this. Also I don't find any other "razing"s on Wikipedia. Not even for similar events on a much much larger scale (e.g. Destruction of Warsaw, Siege of Leningrad, Coventry Blitz, etc.).Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

There's Razing of Anogeia. I think the event is primarily notable for the razing, hence the title. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC. The term "raze" as a description of this event appears in several reliable sources including Zuehlke and Vokes (who quotes himself using the word, and it is quoted in the article - what he said is then quoted in several other reliable sources). I fail to see what the problem is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Possibly useful newish source

The book Civilians at the Sharp End: First Canadian Army Civil Affairs in Northwest Europe that was released last year might be worth consulting to see if it covers this incident or provides useful background/contextual material. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Nick-D, thanks, but sadly not. Not even a mention of Vokes. One paragraph on April and May in Germany. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That's a shame. It's an interesting oversight given this must have been one of the most dramatic incidents in Canadian civil affairs during the campaign! Nick-D (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)