Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

A certain edit appears to misrepresent what a source states

Paul Seibert added the following text:

"German occupation authorities had not been properly established yet when mass killings of Jews and Communists erupted in Riga. It began with spontaneous killing and pillage of Jews, and, ceased after 2,700 Jews were murdered."[1]

citing Eric Haberer (2001): Intention and feasibility: Reflections on collaboration and the final solution, East European Jewish Affairs, 31:2, 64-81. I just accessed this paper and Haber uses the terms "erupted" and "spontaneous killing" in reference to Lithuania:

"Simultaneous with the beginning of the German invasion and the first killing actions of border police and Gestapo commandos, pogroms erupted in Lithuania, targeting communists and, within days, especially Jews. The indigenous terror unleashed by the mob and Lithuanian partisans (Baltaraisciai) claimed thousands of victims……….The eruption of mass violence as witnessed in Lithuania could not have been invented..."

Haber goes on to state that what happened in Lithuania did not occur in Latvia:

"Although pogroms on the scale witnessed in Lithuania did not occur in Latvia and appear to have been absent altogether in Estonia, a groundswell of pro-German sentiment on the one hand, and hatred of communists and Jews spearheaded by fascist and extremist nationalist groups on the other, was very much in evidence."

and Haber acknowledges that the so-called "spontaneity thesis" with respect to Latvia is disputed by other scholars:

"In this context, Ezergailis takes issue with what he terms the 'spontaneity thesis' (p. 234, n. 34) of the Riga pogrom, arguing that neither this pogrom nor others erupted spontaneously (pp. 178-81). Objections to this view, especially when dealing with the initial phase of the Riga pogrom, are expressed by Margers Vestermanis, 'Der lettische Anteil an der "Endlösung": Versuch einer Antwort', in Uwe Backes, Eckhard Jesse and Rainer Zitelman (eds.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit: Impulse zur Historisierung des Nationalsozialimus (Frankfurt: Ullstein VIg., 1992), 426-49; in the same volume, see Hans-Heinrich Wilhelm, 'Offene Fragen der Holocaust-Forschung: Das Beispiel des Baltikums', 403-25."

Clearly when a particular thesis is in dispute it cannot be stated as fact. Thus it seems Paul Seibert misleadingly applied this source in the context of Latvia. Thus I have removed the text in question. --Nug (talk) 05:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't if you got a full access to this source, however, during my work on this text I was trying to transmit the main author's idea so accurately, that my major problem was to avoid copyright violation. The source you got access to says:

"The German military authorities had not yet been properly established when pogrom-like disorders broke out in Riga. Indeed, the Latvian capital witnessed its 'Kovno' just after the departure of Soviet troops and the arrival of German army units in the early days of July. It began with mass arrests, pillaging and random murders of some 400 Jews and, under the supervision of the newly arrived Einsatzgruppen chief Stahlecker, ended a few days later with the shooting of 2,300 more Jews."

In connection to that, I admit that, to avoid plagiarism, I probably oversimplified the text which initially contained a mention Arajs' contacts with SS. However, I removed it when I noticed that he was mentioned twice, here, and in the sentence about Arajs. However, since I didn't write "had not been installed", but "had not been properly installed", it should be clear from the text that the described events occurred when the Germans had already established some control over Latvia. Therefore, I see no misinterpretation there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that I tried to use more neutral tone then the sources I used. For example, another source used by me described activity of Arajs Kommando as follows:

"They were active in Riga and moved around all of Latvia; parts of the group were sent to Byelorussia. The guards in camps located in Latvia were Arajs Commando members. The killing actions were extremely gruesome, with the perpetrators literally wading in blood, getting drunk during the killing, and afterwards participating in large celebrations. Survivor accounts describe the terrible conditions under which the Jews were kept in the basement of the commando headquarters. There they were tortured, degraded, and raped."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no concrete evidence for the "Germanless" Holocaust in Latvia. Indeed, there is an active school of German scholars bent on placing responsibility for the Holocaust on the Eastern Europeans has taken the German propaganda line--exculpating the Germans and characterizing the Holocaust as Eastern Europeans spontaneously arising and bludgeoning their centuries-long neighbors to death. (Hitler stated the Estonians were wreaking their vengeance on the Bolshevik Jews following German liberation--unfortunately, at the time, the Germans hadn't even reached Estonian territory.) To pursue this line of reasoning, some German scholars have even gone so far as to openly criticize Ezergailis's research for referencing records of German war crime trials--which conflict with the Nazi propaganda narrative. The Germanless Holocaust has no place here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, see the quote above, especially, the text I underlined. BTW, I agree with this your edit. This text was added not by me, and I myself was thinking about its removal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you appear to be suffering from WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, at issue is your insertion of text[2] that implies that the pogrom "spontaneously erupted" in Latvia, when in fact the source mentions that occurred in Lithuania. "Pogrom like disorder" is not "eruption of spontaneous killing". You even acknowledge that source states the killings in Riga occurred under the supervision of Einsatzgruppen chief Stahlecker. Yet you re-insert this text. I have the full source, this does not appear to be just mere misinterpretation, but in fact it seem you are wilfully misrepresenting what the source actually states. --Nug (talk) 19:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry. I didn't know Riga is a capital of Lithuania. Obviously, the author meant that, since the pogroms started before German authorities were properly installed, they were spontaneous. However, I agree that the word "spontaneous" should be removed. The reason is as follows. I found some source that claim that Latvian killing squad were organised by SS, whereas others maintain Arajs himself made a contact with SS after pogroms started. I need to read more.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This [3] is a direct misinterpretation. Just compare the above quote with what you have written: where did the author say that the killings began after Stahlecker's arrival?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul Siebert is edit warring having re-inserted that line yet again rather than discuss the issue. Are sure you want to persist with this Paul, as I recall a certain editor was perma-banned for willfully misrepresenting sources relating to Nazi collaboration, are you sure you want to go down that path? If not then I suggest you revert yourself so that this can be discussed. --Nug (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You write:

"(...the Latvians at first greeted the Germans as liberators.) However under the supervision of Einsatzgruppen chief Walter Stahlecker, mass killings of Jews and Communists began in Riga."

Firstly, what is "however" supposed to mean in this case? IMO, it is pure apologetic.

Secondly, if you admit you have a full access to the source, you should have to know that the source says (I am reproducing it again for you):

"The German military authorities had not yet been properly established when pogrom-like disorders broke out in Riga. Indeed, the Latvian capital witnessed its 'Kovno' just after the departure of Soviet troops and the arrival of German army units in the early days of July. It began with mass arrests, pillaging and random murders of some 400 Jews and, under the supervision of the newly arrived Einsatzgruppen chief Stahlecker, ended a few days later with the shooting of 2,300 more Jews."

Obviously, the source says they started in Riga before the German took full control of the city, and that Stahlecker arrived later. In contrast, you write that the killings began in Riga under his supervision. That is a direct misinterpretation of the source, and, taking into account that you have a full access to it, you did that knowingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "I recall a certain editor was perma-banned for willfully misrepresenting sources relating to Nazi collaboration". Are you threatening me with WP:DIGWUREN? Well, if you fill you have sufficient amount of evidences, feel free to file AE against me, otherwise do not spam talk page space with futile threats.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see that you have removed "spontaneous" "eruption", but still are claiming that "murders of Jews started" before the arrival of the German, which the source does not say. It only states that "The German military authorities had not yet been properly established when pogrom-like disorders broke out in Riga", not killings. Then it states:

"Indeed, the Latvian capital witnessed its 'Kovno' just after the departure of Soviet troops and the arrival of German army units in the early days of July. It began with mass arrests, pillaging and random murders of some 400 Jews and, under the supervision of the newly arrived Einsatzgruppen chief Stahlecker, ended a few days later with the shooting of 2,300 more Jews."

In other words the pogrom started after the departure of Soviets and arrival of German army units. After all, who had the power to conduct the "mass arrests" along with the "pillaging and random murders" other than the German occupation forces, since the Soviets had disbanded the Latvian police? So you are still misrepresenting the source. --Nug (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote provided by you is correct, although, for some reason, you decided to split it onto two parts. However, there is no break between the first and the second sentences, so "it began" relates to "pogrom-like disorders in Riga", which were Riga's own Kovno. The source presents the sequence of the events quite clearly, and no ambiguous interpretation is possible here: Soviet troops departed, and, before German troops arrived, disorders (arrests, pillage, random murders) started in Riga. Later, they were supervised by SS personnel, but the source doesn't say they were organised by them. With regard to your "who had the power to conduct the "mass arrests?"", the answer is simple: everyone who has sufficient power for that. For example, a self-organised crowd, among whom were former policemen and military officers, which would become Arajs Kommando members, could easily do that, and I think that is exactly what the author meant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the source, I realised that the source doesn't say that pogroms happened before arrival of Germans, just before the Germans established proper control of Riga. Therefore, your last edit cause no my objection.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, I am not completely satisfied with this change. According to the source, "pogrom-like disorders" did not "occurred", but "broke out".

The statement "mass arrests, pillage and murders of Jews started in Riga after the arrival of German army units and continued under supervision ..." is also misleading, because the author is speaking about Riga's Kovno ("The indigenous terror unleashed by the mob and Lithuanian partisans (Baltaraisciai)" that "claimed thousands of victims.") In contrast, your wording implied the active role of Wehrmacht in the killings ("murders of Jews started in Riga after the arrival of German army units"). At least, that is how an ordinary reader will understand that. I suggest you 1. To change "occurred" back to "broke out", because your statement distorts what the source says, and, 2. add a clear and unequivocal explanation of the fact that mass killings in Riga were performed by the mob and partisans, which later were secretly supervised by SS. I think the word "secretly" is important because in many cases Nazi tried conceal their role in killings of Jews. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When I read the text

"Indeed, the Latvian capital witnessed its 'Kovno' just after the departure of Soviet troops and the arrival of German army units in the early days of July."

I don't see anywhere the word "before", so clearly Riga witnessed it's 'Kovno' after (the departure of Soviet troops and the arrival of German army units). But here lays your dilemma: this article is about collaboration with the Axis powers, therefore if you are contending that Latvians independently initiated a pogrom before the arrival of the Germans and the Germans had no hand in instigating it, then where is the collaboration? Collaboration by definition involves occupied people but you are contending that this occurred before the Germans had established control. Therefore what you are suggesting is in fact out of scope of this article. --Nug (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I agree that there was no word "before" (that is my mistake; "before" had relation to establishment of German authorities, not to arrival of German troops). However, that does not change the fact that my first request should be fulfilled: the source says "broke out", so your "occurred" is a misinterpretation. Please, self-revert.

Secondly, your second change describes the circumstances (arrival of German troops), but it explains nothing on the perpetrators. Had those pogroms been perpetrated by the Germans (a reader may conclude from your text that they had)? You must fix that, and to explain that murders were perpetrated by the mob and Latvian partisans. Please do that asap.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your edit was unacceptable since the source does not state it was "The mob and local partisans". It seems Paul you are perpetuating Nazi propaganda by attempting to build a narrative that a spontaneous pogrom by the local inhabitants erupted in Riga before the Germans arrived. Andrew Ezergailis quotes Stahlecker's report:

"It was significantly more difficult to start similar clean-up operations and pogroms in Latvia. However, after exerting appropriate influence on the Latvian Auxiliary Police, it was possible to initiate a Jewish pogrom in Riga during which all synagogues were destroyed and approximately 400 Jews were killed. Since the general pacification of the population in Riga occurred very quickly, further pogroms were no longer viable."[4]

As you know, the Latvian Auxiliary Police was a paramilitary force created by the Nazi German authorities after the occupied Latvia in June 1941. --Nug (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:DIGWUREN says: "All editors are warned that future attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground—in particular, by making generalized accusations that persons of a particular national or ethnic group are engaged in Holocaust denial or harbor Nazi sympathies—may result in the imposition of summary bans when the matter is reported to the Committee." You accused me in "perpetuating Nazi propaganda". That is a strong accusation, which needs strong support. What facts support your claim? Let's see.

You claim that the source does not say the killings were perpetrated by the mob and partisans. Well, and what does the source say? It says (you yourself quoted that text above):

"Indeed, the Latvian capital witnessed its 'Kovno' just after the departure of Soviet troops and the arrival of German army..."

What happened in Kovno? The same source explains earlier that

"The indigenous terror unleashed by the mob and Lithuanian partisans (Baltaraisciai) claimed thousands of victims. A horrendous illustration of these events is the murder of nearly 4,000 Jews in Kovno between 23 and 27 June 1941. Beginning with the arrival of German troops, but ahead of Stahlecker's forward detachment of Einsatzgruppe A, partisans indiscriminately seized Jews and literally bludgeoned many of them to death..."

Obviously, the author writes that events in Riga reproduced Kovno's scenario: killing of Jews by the mob and local partisans. I added nothing to that. Of course, I could add this information about Kovno to the Lithuania section, and give a reference to it (I'll probably do that), however, I don't think it would be correct to resort to Haberer's allegoric language: this is encyclopaedia, so, instead of writing about "Riga's own Kovno" we need to describe, in simple words, what happened in actuality.

In addition, your accusations are simply illogical: if the murders were perpetrated not by the mob, then who is responsible for that? German military? Communists? Martian aliens? In my opinion, it is clear for every reasonable person that Haberer wrote that Kovno events (killing of Jews by mobs and partisans) repeated in Riga, and no good faith person can question this author's thesis. Your attempts to question this fact are awkward and silly.

Moreover, this your edit again re-introduce the same misleading statement: you imply that arrests and murders were perpetrated by Germans (I realise that formally you do not say that, however, that is how the text will be understood). The author is clear and unambiguous: the killings were perpetrated by the locals, they started before SS came, and your attempts to conceal this fact create an impression that some strong POV is behind that (I would be very glad to learn I was wrong).

I already faced accusations in "parroting Soviet propaganda". No you accused me in "perpetuating Nazi propaganda". Based on my experience, I do not expect any apologies from you. However, I inform you that this diff will be presented to the arbitrators after your second accusation of that kind.

To summarise. I revert your edits. There is no need to attribute the statement "German occupation authorities had not been properly established yet... etc" to Haberer, the fact that pogroms started immediately after arrival of German troops is obvious, and the fact that some time is required to establish occupational authorities is obvious. What is not obvious is as follows. There is not clear from the sources what was the role of Walter Stahlecker in that: Haberer says that he came later, other sources say he probably supervised killings from very beginning; some authors believe Stahlecker when he writes about his hidden role in organisation of the killings, whereas others argue that he simply ascribed spontaneous outburst of violence to his own credit. I am trying to read more on that to present the fact adequately, and your posts just distracts me from that activity.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Before I got a chance to revert you, you modified the text further. I see some problems with your edit. Thus, you write:

"Mobs of former members of outlawed fascist organisation Pērkonkrusts"

Firstly, my source describes it otherwise. Why did you replaced one source with another?

Secondly, Pērkonkrusts it is unclear why they were outlawed and by whom. In actuality, they were outlawed along with many other parties, and that had no relation to their fascism. Your edit is misleading, and I'll think how to fix it.

By the way, you add attribution to the statements you seem to dislike, but do not see any need in attribution of the statements you add by yourself. I don't find that correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your source does not explicitly identify who this mob were, where as my source does. --Nug (talk) 16:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your source says:

"...poorly organized but determined mob, which was made up of former members of Thunder Cross and Aizsargi paramilitaries, as well as of other ethno-nationalist groups, had been authorized to manifest restoration of "order" with torture and murders." (p. 65)

The author makes neither specific stress on Pērkonkrusts ("Thunder Cross") nor says that they were outlawed. In actuality, they were, along with all other left, right and centrist parties banned in 1934 after the Ulmanis led coup d'état. This your statement is a synthesis that advances a position that only few pro-fascist groups participated in murders. That is not what the source says, so you deliberately misinterpreted it. I revert you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, pro-fascist groups participated in murders, predominantly Pērkonkrusts (Thunder Cross), that is born out in the text as I will show. You seem to be attempting to advance the position that Latvians, in general, harboured Nazi sympathies and participated in the murders, how else one explain repeated removal of the identification of the specific group identified as Pērkonkrusts[5],[6],[7], or in fact the initial drafting of your "spontaneous eruption" narrative[8],[9], which was found to be attributed by the source to Lithuania but applied by you to Latvia.

In fact the author does makes specific stress on Pērkonkrusts, discussing them at length on pages 13-15, identifying them as "ethno-nationalist right-wing extremists .... organised along paramilitary lines". In regard to their banning the author writes about the curtailment of political groups on page 15:

"This applied all the more to the extreme political right. The followers of the Thunder Cross, inasmuch as they were not in prison, went underground"

in other words outlawed. On page 66:

"At the police station everything was topsy-turvy. Amid the confusion of of uniformed persons, Latvian police and civilians - some were wearing the red and white armbands of the Thunder Cross"

On page 69:

"the militia men, frequently identified as from the Thunder Cross, hoped to find prominent victims there. When they were not looking for a specific person, the Latvia militia went from house to house and took along every Jew known to them."

One unlucky person describing the experience during these searches on page 70:

"one evening, when we were already on the floor of our bivouac, the door opened and two Thunder Cross men with flashlights entered."

As you can see, the Pērkonkrusts were frequently identified in the events, more so than any other group, so please revert yourself. --Nug (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be attempting to ascribe to me the idea some nation as whole should be blamed for some crime. That is an unacceptable and false hypothesis. I just stick with the source, which lists Pērkonkrusts, Aizsargi, along with other nationalist organisations, and does not make a stress on any particular role of the former in this concrete event. Moreover, the author says "poorly organized but determined mob", which implies that no particular political organisation played key role when the pogroms started. What the author says is clear: the pogromists belonged to the nationalistic part of the Latvian society, many of whom were the member of one or another nationalistic organisation. BTW, Haberer writes essentially the same. Neither the authors not I are attempting to blame a nation as whole, however, it is clear that the support of the perpetrators was considerable among the nationalistic part of the population. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "or in fact the initial drafting of your "spontaneous eruption" narrative[10],[11], which was found to be attributed by the source to Lithuania but applied by you to Latvia." Refusal to get a point. As I already explained, the source clearly writes that the events in Riga were developing according to the same scenario as in Lithuania, therefore, your accusations are ridiculous and baseless, and your removal of this statement was disruptive. Moreover, another source (added by you) says that the perpetrators got just "a permission", not an order. Than means that the violence was spontaneous, not organized.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Can I butt in? I would like to mention Longerich's study. It would appear that Paul Siebert has an axe to grind. ColaXtra (talk) 00:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the page available for you is not available for me (it seems to me that gbooks makes different pages available in different countries). Of course, I can borrow this book from my library on Monday, but, maybe you can simply elaborate a little bit on what concretely does the author mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you mean the chapter 11, there is a controversy over the role of Stahlecker. Some sources claim that pogroms started spontaneously, and then were supervised by him. Other sources argue that he secretly organised them in such a way that no connection could be traced between the local perpetrators and their SS masters. Different sources describe that differently, and I am currently doing a literature search to summarise all viewpoints. However, what is absolutely clear that during first days of German occupation of Lithuania and Latvia the murders were perpetrated not by some local organisation, but by poorly organised mobs.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm in London. Here's a UK proxy: —— No it's on Wikipedia's black list. Google for "daveproxy", then just paste the url into it, though you may have to fiddle with the options. Yeah, go to options and tick "Encode Page", then you're good. ColaXtra (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I still cannot understand what is your point?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that you still cannot understand ColaXtra's point. Despite the presentation of the relevant quote from page 69 you have totally ignored the author's identification of the militia members involved in this concrete event as being predominantly Pērkonkrusts. You seem intent on attempting to attribute the actions of what the author clearly identifies as extreme right-wing ethno-nationalists co-ordinating with RHSA agents to some kind of spontaneous mainstream nationalist mob. Nationalism is a broad classification ranging from liberal nationalism in the centre to fascism at the extreme, and by deliberately blurring that distinction by objecting to the mentioning of the role played by the extremist ultra-nationalist anti-semitic Pērkonkrusts you seem to be somewhat tendentiously attempting to attribute the violence to the broader Latvian people. Thus Paul you should take note when an outside observer feels compelled say: "It would appear that Paul Siebert has an axe to grind". Longerich's book states:

"In Riga the Einsatzgruppe succeeded in initiating a pogrom in which 400 Jews were killed, but only after 'appropriate influence had been exerted on the Latvian auxiliary police'"

which is in alignment with other sources presented. --Nug (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

The source provided by you yourself tells that "poorly organized but determined mob, which was made up of former members of Thunder Cross and Aizsargi paramilitaries, as well as of other ethno-nationalist groups, had been authorized to manifest restoration of "order" with torture and murders." It does not say that they were ultra nationalists, therefore, I see no problem with my wording. Moreover, the author says that they were authorized (if I understand the source correctly, by Weiss' speech, however, if I misread the source, please, explain, who did authorise them) to start killing, and he does not write first pogroms were organized. The source does not say about ultra nationalist, it uses the word nationalist. The only thing I omitted was the word ethno-, and the reason is that I do not understand what does it changes. Moreover, I neither introduced nor insisted on usage of the word "authorized", because I know that some controversy exists on that account. In connection to that, your allegations are totally baseless.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

PS. We need to take a break and figure out what happened in actuality. Another source (Breitman, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 26, No. 3/4) says that Latvian Auxiliary police was organised by SS, and that that unit was responsible for initial killing of 400 Jews in Riga. The source says that Stahlecker did that secretly to create an impression that the killings were spontaneous. However, the amount of killed Jews was 400, not 3,000, and the head of the police was Weiss (the person who addressed to the Latvian during the radio broadcast). However, the sources I have say that the head was Arajs, and that the number of killed was 3,000. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

On Longerich's book. I found a review that says:

"Longerich goes against conventional and well-researched wisdom, but he does so in the least vitriolic way imaginable. He discusses other historians’ arguments and offers alternative readings of the evidence. Even if he were less convincing in his interpretation, Longerich should be lauded for his approach." (Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Volume 25, Number 2, Fall 2011, pp. 303-305)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop this nonsense Paul, the review you cite refers to Longerich's thesis with regard to the genesis of the Final Solution, not his discussion with regard to the well established facts of the German orchestrated pogrom in Riga. A third party has already observed that your edits appear to be a tendentious axe grinding exercise. I've already pointed out the relevant pages were Angrick indentifies those involved as ethno-nationalist right-wing extremists. There is no contradiction in Breitman, obviously he is discussing the 300-400 people killed in the initial German orchestrated "pogrom" (which Longerich supports) that you characterise as a "spontaneous mob" while the remaining 2700 were killed under the supervision of Stahlecker via the Arajs Commando, as Angrick states. Attempting to find contradictions between sources so as to maintain the narrative of "spontaneous eruption of the mob" will not work. --Nug (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to pull in book reviews, Paul, I will too:

In the chapter "From the Pogroms to the Establishment of the Ghetto," the authors drop their empirical approach and rely on folklore, clichés, and glosses of Nazi propaganda. Ignoring alternative evidence, the authors argue that the Latvians were killing Jews before the Germans had arrived and without German orders. . . . For historians to push Nazi clichés about Latvians, even if it is done in ignorance, shows a lack of sophistication. . . . Accepting their version of the events . . . would require a major accommodation with shards of National Socialism.

Slavic Review, Vol. 69, No. 4, WINTER 2010

Glossed Nazi propaganda does not belong in a Wikipedia article. ColaXtra (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good review, ColaXtra. It seems to me that you had access to the first page only, because on the second page the author makes even a stronger statement:

"...I must reject their description of Riga in July 1941 as conceptually and factually faulty."

However, let me explain you that that source was brought not by me, but by Nug. Did I understand you correctly that you propose to remove this source from the article? I fully support that idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Paul. I have JSTOR access, and so do have the whole review; part of the above that I quoted is from the second page. With regard to your suggestion of not using the book at all, I feel I must disagree, since the review says this of the book's take on the deportations to Latvia: "there is nothing better on the shelf". I just feel that one cannot use this book as a basis for supporting your position on the Latvian pogroms. The evidence, to my mind, points the other way. ColaXtra (talk) 21:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This might be viewed as a balance to Ezergailis, who is quoted above: Slavic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Autumn, 2006), pp. 588–589

Ezergailis is right to emphasize that the Holocaust was first and foremost a Nazi operation, although it is false to argue that the corollary to Gross's Neighbors thesis is that the killing of Jews in eastern Europe was Germanless and leaderless. The argument that neighbors did not kill Jews since all the killers operated within German formations is both misguided and misleading. For one, it either ignores or plays down the many local volunteers who joined execution squads. Second, neighbors did kill their Jewish neighbors, especially in the rural districts, and sometimes initiated the killings and carried them out independently. Third, it is conspicuously silent on the increasingly vehement and violent racism that swept these territories prior to the Soviet and Nazi occupations and the overlapping agendas of the local radical right and the Nazis. Suffice it here to point to the judicious and thoroughly researched studies by Dzintars Ērglis, Michael MacQueen, and Alfonsas Eidintas on Latvia and Lithuania, respectively. In the current volume, this tirade is best answered by Dean's wry concluding comment that "neighbors did not only kill Jews."

Dean correctly points to the vast pool of helpers, most of whom were not volunteers or active participants in the extermination, and more often than not, were motivated by greed and power rather than commitment to the Nazis. But their sheer numbers and willingness to carry out such activities created an environment in which the worst atrocities were routinized and normalized. As Dean concludes, the local police, never in short supply, were indispensable actors in the Final Solution.

ColaXtra (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This review dismisses Ezergailis' stuff as "nationalist apologia". ColaXtra (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

These criticisms of Ezergailis are in regard to his wider thesis applicable to Eastern Europe generally. However at issue is the sequence of events surrounding the entry of Germans into Riga. --Nug (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The very use of the term "nationalist apologia" has to mean that the reviewer is speaking of Ezergailis' views regarding Latvia (Ezergailis is Latvian). Next, here is the quote in full (p. 66): "The case for nationalist apologia is most uncompromisingly articulated by Ezergailis. Rejecting the observations of Raul Hilberg and other Holocaust historians that Latvia abounded with willing collaborators, Ezergailis argues that all killing of Jews in Latvia and Eastern Europe was a 'German-organized project'." My emphasis, and so, according to the review, not only is Ezergailis's stuff on Latvia "nationalist apologia", Ezergailis must be claiming that the killing of Jews in Riga was a "German-organized project" that did not include "willing [Latvian] collaborators", since Riga is in Latvia ("all killing"). ColaXtra (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Ezergailis is Latvian, so what, the historians promoting the "Germanless Holocaust" thesis happen to be German. So a Latvian historian's viewpoint of German involvement is branded as "nationalist apologia" while the viewpoint of German historians of German non-involvement is not "nationalist apologia". Interesting. --Nug (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"The only way for Lithuanians to lighten the load of the difficult history of 1941 is to embrace it. However artfully presented, the strategies of denial and evasion, the finger-pointing and righteous indignation directed at the Other, serve only to further weigh society down. To admit that the country's moral and political leadership failed in 1941, and that thousands of Lithuanians participated in the Holocaust, is one of the preconditions for Lithuania's acceptance as a member of the trans-Atlantic community of nations." ColaXtra (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Re "I just feel that one cannot use this book as a basis for supporting your position on the Latvian pogroms." You should have to understand that I have no position, I am just trying to stick with reliable sources. For example, I found the source (Breitman, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 26, No. 3/4) that contradicts to the source I used initially (Haberer), and I immediately presented it on the talk page. Moreover, Nug has already used it (although, it seems to me that his wording is biased and misleading, but that is another story). That is a demonstration that I am trying to be neutral. In future, please, avoid such statements.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

OK: let us love each other from this point forward. A German and an Englishman in love. It will be great. ColaXtra (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked through the reviews provided by you, thank you. Did I understand it correctly that I appeared to be right, and two different opinia exist on Latvian and Lithuanian collaboration: (i) collaboration was involuntary and manipulated by the Germans, and (ii) collaboration was voluntarily, sometimes with zeal?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

My love, it is late now. I think I can agree with what you said, but give me time to read a bit more tomorrow, then I shall reply tomorrow evening. Have a nice day. I leave you with this—hab spass! ColaXtra (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see, I am not editing the article so far, because the problem does not require immediate actions. Thank you for the reference.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The meme of mob killings is that of the "Germanless" Holocaust which the Germans had planned prior to invading the USSR. The Kaunas massacre (various versions include a Lithuanian sitting on a pile of still-warm corposes playing a tune, etc.) was "witnessed" by three Germans. (Surprise!) Really, any time you read something about "horrified German" witnesses, or "horrified German officers" saving Jews from a subhuman Eastern European mob, read propaganda. As for Angrick, he ignores facts to pursue the propagandic Germanless Holocaust. (Ezergailis has reviewed Angrick and found him wanting in that aspect.) There is no middle ground between the Nazi "not us, no, the locals did it" propaganda and the facts. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:44, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, do not twist other's words. The issue we are discussing is, whether initial pogroms and murders were encouraged, supervised or organised by Nazi?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

What have I twisted? The Holocaust in Eastern Europe and particularly the Baltics was pre-planned and engineered by the invading Nazis in every aspect and designed to appear Germanless. The acts of collaborators were completely controlled, even Arajs' unit had to turn in their arms at the end of the day or be shot. Collaborators did not operate independently of tight German command. When it came to killing, collaborators were given rifles; it was Germans who machine-gunned the dead at Rumbula. On laying blame, there are archival documents regarding, for example, the extermination of all Jews in one Lithuanian village--attributed to Lithuanians in an official report--and contradicted by an eyewitness (non-military) letter to Berlin stating that if word got out it was the work of a small German commando unit, there would be dire public relations consequences for the Germans. Every incident must be investigated to its root, with no account taken for granted. Really, do you think the local population really sat atop mounds of smoldering Jewish corpses playing patriotic tunes on a flute? Yet that account (three German "witnesses") still is a central one to demonizing the Lithuanians regarding Kaunas, stating that incident set the stage for spontaneous locally organized pogroms across Eastern Europe. We have two incompatible bookends: believe the German account of spontaneity and unimaginable brutality of centuries-old neighbor killing neighbor, it was rabidly anti-Semitic Eastern Europeans who preferred clubs to more efficient farm instruments to kill their friends (just as did the Soviets, the invading Germans disarmed the local population); or the Germans were the brutal ones (death camps and ovens, industrialized death is not a stretch) fully aware of what they were doing and looking to deflect responsibility. These days, there is a whole school of German scholarship which takes all Nazi propaganda attributions of who killed the Jews (Germanless) of Eastern Europe at face value. The bottom line is that there are, in fact, multiple versions of the Holocaust in Eastern Europe which are fundamentally incompatible. I'm disappointed by those who appear to be pursuing (my perception, not a personal attack) the version which heaps it all on the local population to the maximum degree possible. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As for criticisms of Ezergailis (elsewhere above, but while I'm here), his is the acknowledged definitive study of the Holocaust in Latvia, published in cooperation with the United States Holocaust Museum. There is no one who knows it better, or who has better pointed out the pitfalls of incomplete scholarship. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed Stahlecker's own reports are the smoking gun that show the involvement of German elements in orchestrating the events, as shown by Ezergailis, yet this concrete factual evidence appears to be ignored by those historians (ironically who happen to be German) advocating the "Germanless Holocaust". --Nug (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Stahlecker's own reports are more primary source rather then smoking gun.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Not when discussed by historians like Ezergailis. --Nug (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unless the views of such historians have been contested.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Like those German historians promoting the Germanless Holocaust thesis? --Nug (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean Marrus?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this Nug's edit, the info from the Haberer's article appeared to be misinterpreted. I will have to revert it (fully or partially), however, I need some time to read it more carefully.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to upload any JSTOR articles, if anyone wants any. ColaXtra (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you cannot do that per WP:NFCC.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Send me a private e-mail with requests. I will upload and then e-mail you back with the location of the upload. ColaXtra (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In actuality, I also have an access to Jstor. My point is that you cannot upload it here to avoid copyright problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Herr Siebert! I want another day to look through some stuff, so tomorrow evening we can continue our discussion! Do not forget that we are now lovers! How exciting! ColaXtra (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Herr Siebert! For what my opinion is worth, I reckon Angrick is fine for Riga. ColaXtra (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

"Ezergailis . . . discards as biased and untrustworthy survivors' testimonies pointing to the zeal of local killers." Zeal: there's that word again! ColaXtra (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cola. I myself saw not too many problems with Angrick, however, since at least one reliable source expressed concern about its reliability, I would prefer to use information from it only if another author says essentially the same. However, I am not sure that can considerably affect the current text.

Regarding Ezergailis, I totally agree.

Chreers,

--Paul (talk) 23:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ezergailis preferres to rely upon evidence such as Stahlecker's reports that survivors' testimonies, how would a survivor know of the planning Stahlecker detailed in his reports? --Nug (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In other words, testimonies of victims are less trustworthy then perpetrator's testimony? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

At issue here is whether the attacks were spontaneous or engineered by the Germans, while a victim's testimony of the zeal of the Arajs Commando is no doubt reliable, a victim cannot know the degree of co-ordination existed between Arajs and the Germans. Only evidence such as Stahlecker's reports as interpreted by historians can tell us that. However some historians only rely upon survivors' testimonies rather than the evidence found in the German paper trail, that is what Ezergailis means when it is said he "discards as biased and untrustworthy survivors' testimonies". --Nug (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Did Stahlecker says anything specific about Arajs? In addition, one author expressed a doubt in Stahlecker's accuracy: he believes Stahlecker tried to get credit for organisation of violence that was initially essentially spontaneous (i.e., required just encouragement). You know this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That is kind of like saying the Wannsee Protocol was written to take credit for the actions of those genocidal East-Europeans. Many sources seem to indicate that the initial violence was directed at communists and those perceived to be communist sympathisers before being transformed into a racial action by the Germans. --Nug (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Wannsee Protocol was more a plan for future, so your analogy is fully inappropriate. And, please, do not twist my words: I just cited opinion of one author.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

One more misinterpretation

This edit replaced

"Soon after German arrival Viktors Arajs established contact with German authorities, and the Germans appointed him a chief of his group that obtained an official name Latvian Auxiliary Security Police or Arājs Kommando."

with

"After the full establishment of the German occupation authority, the activities of the Einsatzkommando were constrained, then the SS made use of select units of native recruits. Contact between Viktors Arajs and German authorities was established, and the Germans appointed him a chief of his group that obtained an official name Latvian Auxiliary Security Police or Arājs Kommando"

The source for this statement is Ruth Bettina Birn and Volker Riess (1997) Revising the Holocaust. The Historical Journal, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Mar., 1997), pp. 195-215.

In actuality, the source says:

"A classic example of non-Germans, who fit the picture Goldhagen wishes to paint of Germans, is the `Arajs Kommando'. Named after their leader, Viktor Arajs, this was a group composed of Latvian men, mainly students or former army officers with right wing political backgrounds. Within days of the arrival of the German forces in Riga, Arajs made contact with the leader of Einsatzgruppe A, Stahlecker, and offered his services."

In other words, the above mentioned edit directly misinterprets the source: not only the source explicitly paints Arajs commando in same colours as his Nazi masters, it also stresses the fact that it was Arajs who contacted Stahlecker. That happened not "after the full establishment of the German occupation authority", but "within days of the arrival of Germans". In my opinion, an attempt to conceal these facts using vague "Contact between Viktors Arajs and German authorities was established" may be interpreted as an attempt to whitewash prominent Nazi criminal and Holocaust perpetrator. I respectfully request the user who made this edit to self-revert. PS In addition, usage of passive voice is a bad style.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You ought to refactor your accusations of an "an attempt to conceal these facts" and "may be interpreted as an attempt to whitewash prominent Nazi criminal and Holocaust perpetrator". I have another source that writes that initial contact was made when old Baltic-German school friend who was now in the German Army recognised Viktors Arajs and suggested he contact German authorities. My wording was simply to reflect that. --Nug (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the cited source does not say that. Secondly, does another source say the initiative came from German "authoroties"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Angrick writes on page 66 of his book that initially Arajs occupied a police prefecture building as the Soviets retreated. Stahlecker later arrived at the building to search for leads accompanied by his Latvian born interpreter Hans Dessler. Dressler recognised his old school friend Arajs exclaiming "You're alive!". Dressler embraced Arajs and introduced him to Stahlecker. --Nug (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Was that an invitation to start massacre of Jews, or Arajs himself offered his (and his group's) service?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Clearly Birn&Riess were incorrect to state "Arajs made contact with the leader of Einsatzgruppe A, Stahlecker", when in fact Angrick states that Stahlecker arrived at the police building after Arajs occupied it and was introduced via Stahlecker's interpreter. So it is more correct to say Stahlecker made contact with Arajs. Angrick goes on to state that Stahlecker, impressed by Arajs' attacks on the retreating Red Army instructs Arajs that same day July 1st to set up a Commando. It was on July 2nd, Angrick states, that Stahlecker instructed Arajs that his commando had to unleash a pogrom that looked spontaneous. --Nug (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

@Siebert, your arguments appear to be pointless except to demonstrate your POV. The Germans established immediate control. An hour after their arrival, days after their arrival, any time period after their arrival is after they established control. It is your WP:SYNTHESIS that the Germans weren't totally in control. And if you are not synthesizing that, then nothing has been misrepresented as you allege. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Which POV? That, according to Birn&Riess, Arajs is an example of non-Germans who fit Goldhagen's definition of "willing executioner"? That he himself offered service of his group to Germans? That, according to Breitman, the murders started before German control was properly installed? What other POV are you going to accuse me in? And when will you stop your baseless allegations?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

We see already that Angrick contradicts Birn&Riess and it was in fact Stahlecker who made contact with Arajs. As far as Breitman is concerned, "before German control" means before the establishment of the formal German occupation authority. As Breitman writes, the Einsatzkommando operated in the grey zone before that formal authority is in place (which occured about a week or so after the arrival of Einsatzkommando). --Nug (talk) 04:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, if one source contradicts to another, you cannot just change the text leaving old references unchanged: this is a misinterpretation of what the old source say. New information should be supported with fresh sources.

Secondly, I have to read Angrick by myself, and, if it contradicts to Birn&Riess, then we probably should use your wording, because it is not clear who contacted whom. Btw, the same info (both from Angrick and from Birn&Riess) should be added to the article about Arajs himself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There are serious questions about your use of Birn&Riess. Firstly Angrick's monograph exposes some serious factual errors in the Birn&Riess article. Secondly that article is in fact a book review of Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners, and as such does not go into great detail about Arajs, also book reviews are not peer-reviewed. Thirdly Goldhagen rebuts Birn&Riess book review in a paper titled "The Fictions of Ruth Bettina Birn," German Politics and Society, vol. 15, no.3 (1997). Given these serious issues I don't think we can use Birn&Riess book review as a source. --Nug (talk) 03:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with Birn at all. She and Norman Finkelstein absolutely annihilated Goldhagen's... "scholarship". Even using that word in quotation marks feels too kind when speaking of Goldhagen. Have you ever read Goldhagen's book? I mean, what a disgrace. Just complete and utter garbage. I'm getting a little tired of the anti-German sentiments being aired in Herr Siebert's direction. I will have more to say later. ColaXtra (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not see how Angrick's monograph "exposes some serious factual errors in the Birn&Riess article": these two sources just contradict to each other in some aspects. Angrick neither explecitly nor implicitly challenges Birn&Riess, and the statement you remove have not been contested by Angrick. Therefore, I restore the statement that has been removed under false pretext. Do not attempt to remove it again.

Secondly, you have been explained on the RSN that the articles of that type should not be confused with short book reviews. The article we are talking about is a full size article where the authors dispute Goldhagen's views. This article is a high quality reliable source, and, if you have any doubts about that, go to RSN.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Cola.

Martin, in light of the evidences presented by Cola I believe we can conclude that any contradiction between Angrick and Birn (a "world leading expert in archives", according to Finkelstein) should be resolved in favour of the later. There is no problem with this source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how that follows, ColaXtra cites sources critical of Goldhagen's work and you say on that basis favour should be given to Birn over Angrick. This "world leading expert in archives" epaulette comes from her co-writer of "a Nation on Trial", so hardly unbiased. --Nug (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Finkelstein and Birn were not co-authors. Their independent essays were later published together in a book, that is all. ColaXtra (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

More on Birn, from Le Monde Diplomatique: "Ruth Bettina Birn is chief historian of the war-crimes division of Canada’s Department of Justice. She is thus very familiar with the archives kept at Ludwigsburg by the agency which the former West German government set up to investigate Nazi crimes. It was she who drew Daniel Goldhagen’s attention to three files that provided the material for his thesis." ColaXtra (talk) 19:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well oddly enough she seems to have overlooked the testimony of Hans Dressler during the Arajs trial about how contact was made, implying that it was Arajs' initiative in her polemic against Goldhagen's thesis of common Germans being "willing executioners". Birn cites the example of Arajs to imply non-Germans were even greater "willing executioners" than Germans, which is some what ironic given that Arajs apparently had a German mother. The point is that you cannot dismiss Ezergailis because he is Latvian, yet cry foul when others point out the ethnicity of Ezergailis' critics. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean under "Arajs initiative"? As Angrick says, his activity started before German arrival. By the moment of SS arrival he already assembled some group, and he needed just encouragement from his SS masters to start massacre. Your edit misinterpreted even Angrick himself. In addition, you (deliberately or not) broke chronology of the events. Please, recognise the obvious, and stop that.

Re "the example of Arajs to imply non-Germans were even greater "willing executioners" than Germans, which is some what ironic given that Arajs apparently had a German mother". Firstly, it seems obvious that Arajs' murderers were more willing executioners then the Germans in general. Regarding "a German mother", are you going to accept European concept of nationality ("nationality = citizenship"), or Nazi/racist concept ("nationality = ethnicity")?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We do not propose to "dismiss Ezergailis". Gerhard P. Bassler did that. More precisely, he dismissed Ezergailis not because he is Latvian, but because of his "nationalist apoligia". Interestingly, he does not dismiss such Lithuanian authors as Suziedelis or Bubnys.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ezergailis is a US citizen, so what Bassler means by his unfortunate label "nationalist apoligia" I have no idea, but clearly German-born Bassler is referring to Ezergailis' ethnicity when he states further "Disappointing are the blinkered and dated perspectives of Latvian historians whose work informs the Latvian History Commission and Latvian government policies", it is well known that Ezergailis' work has informed the Latvian History Commission. Why you should put undue weight on the opinion of Bassler while disregarding the fact that Ezergailis' publications have been widely praised by scholars[10] is beyond me. --Nug (talk) 00:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Whereas his publications have been really praised by scholars (I myself took some facts about Arajs from them), some concrete Ezergailis' concepts have been criticized. This criticism (see Bassler) is serious and it has not been contested so far.

Judging by your responce, you seem to have no counter-arguments on my other comments... --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Judging by your response, you appear to be unable to comprehend my arguments. --Nug (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Being that Ezergailis apologizes for no one, Bassler's criticism cited here is of no value. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not just Bassler. Here's Stanford's Amir Weiner:

The defensive position reaches a sad climax in a lengthy diatribe by Ezergailis . . . Ezergailis is right to emphasize that the Holocaust was first and foremost a Nazi operation, although it is false to argue that the corollary to Gross's Neighbors thesis is that the killing of Jews in eastern Europe was Germanless and leaderless. The argument that neighbors did not kill Jews since all the killers operated within German formations is both misguided and misleading. For one, it either ignores or plays down the many local volunteers who joined execution squads. Second, neighbors did kill their Jewish neighbors, especially in the rural districts, and sometimes initiated the killings and carried them out independently. Third, it is conspicuously silent on the increasingly vehement and violent racism that swept these territories prior to the Soviet and Nazi occupations and the overlapping agendas of the local radical right and the Nazis. Suffice it here to point to the judicious and thoroughly researched studies by Dzintars Erglis, Michael MacQueen, and Alfonsas Eidintas on Latvia and Lithuania, respectively. respectively. In the current volume, this tirade is best answered by Dean's wry concluding comment that "neighbors did not only kill Jews" (259). Dean correctly points to the vast pool of helpers, most of whom were not volunteers or active participants in the extermination, and more often than not, were motivated by greed and power rather than commitment to the Nazis. But their sheer numbers and willingness to carry out such activities created an environment in which the worst atrocities were routinized and normalized. As Dean concludes, the local police, never in short supply, were indispensable actors in the Final Solution.

As Christopher Browning even-handedly points out,

Without the active support of mayors, city councils, housing offices, and a plethora of local administrators, the identification, expropriation, and ghettoization of the Jewish population especially in rural areas would have exceeded the limited logistic capabilities of German occupation agencies. . . . Whatever crimes non-Germans committed, it was the Germans who, by establishing a pattern of systematic persecution, posed a much deadlier threat to Jewish existence. At the same time, events like the pogrom at Kaunas or the murder of Jewish women and children in Sculeni presented important lessons for German observers and participants on all levels. Such atrocities contributed to the shaping of anti-Jewish policy by providing additional stimuli.

And stop trying to hide behind your claim that Ezergailis is a US citizen! His wife is Latvian-born, and your evasive use of "US citizen", rather than "American" makes me doubly willing to bet Ezergailis was born in Latvia. Even if not, it means nothing, since the "diaspora nation" is often more partisan than their counterparts in their "motherland"! Just look at certain slices of American Jewry and their blind support for Israel, or Armenian Americans' dogged insistence in Turkish acknowledgement of their genocide as a precursor to good relations! Armenia itself is just getting on with developing relations with Turkey, and even supported Turkish accession to the EU. ColaXtra (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You seem somewhat emotional on the issue, are you yourself perhaps a member of a "diaspora nation"? Have a cup of tea. And please don't make accusations like stop trying to hide behind your claim that Ezergailis is a US citizen, it's just plain silly. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary! It is your tone that is becoming shrill! Beyond that, there is nothing else to say, since your response contained neither a question nor an argument. Perhaps, in future responses, you should provide something of substance rather than issuing inflammatory rhetoric. ColaXtra (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Allegedly my tone is "becoming shrill" says you using exclamation marks. What next, bolding text to get your point across? I don't see how my comments are inflammatory, but since you evidently feel yourself being inflamed I stand by my advice to you to have a cup of tea. --Nug (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nug, I can only see another response devoid of argument and questions; no more need be said of it. Be that as it may, if your tone does not revert to its previously constructive one, I will simply begin editing the Latvia section as I see fit; if you then attempt to stop me, I will be forced to report your obstructive behaviour and shall point to your current attitude here. I do not wish for that—Wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative enterprise, and I seek only understanding—but you are now showing no willingness to engage on the issues, perhaps because you feel as though you have been forced to concede some ground and are upset.

Several contributors are concerned to distance the Latvian Legion, formed from 1943 onwards, from the killings of 1941. That was true in the case of many, but hardly all Latvians involved in the Legion . . . Soviet court files . . . throw light on the notorious Arajs Commando. The fact that part of the commando was incorporated into the Latvian Legion further undermines the distinction noted earlier between the events of 1941 and 1943.

Review of V. Nollendorfs; E.Oberländer, The Hidden and Forbidden History of Latvia under Soviet and Nazi Occupations 1940-1991: Selected Research of the Commission of the Historians of Latvia

The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Apr., 2007), pp. 364-365

My advice remains the same: if you can't take it, do not involve yourself in this article any further. As it currently stands, the article needs amending to accurately reflect the role that Latvians played. ColaXtra (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's more:

Soviet propaganda used the wartime period to denounce the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians as "the fascists' henchman", often distinguishing between their behaviour and the losses and suffering of the Russian population. Needless to say, coming from the Soviet occupier, this line of propaganda induced a closing of minds, denial and national identification. An open, public debate could not take place, and there was no access to the historical truth. It is not particularly surprising that, today, public discussion on the war years remains emotional and acrimonious.

"Collaboration with Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe". Contemporary European History, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Jul., 2001), pp. 181–198.

Open your mind, Nug. It can be hard sometimes, but it is necessary. ColaXtra (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's more:

The West needs to know about the behaviour of Latvians during the short-lived interregnum between Soviet and Nazi rule . . . [A] core of people [were] prepared to help the Germans and staff their Latvian Self-Administration. The West needs to know precisely which small group of Latvians participated in the holocaust and why they did so. . . . What is particularly striking for a Western scholar about The Hidden and Forbidden History is the indulgence shown towards those who co-operated with the German occupation.

"Review of V. Nollendorfs; E. OberländerReview, The Hidden and Forbidden History of Latvia under Soviet and Nazi Occupations, 1940-91". Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 57, No. 7 (Nov., 2005), pp. 1084–1085.

ColaXtra (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's more:

In small Latvian towns, as Dzintars Erglis shows, killing assumed a highly personal character and Germans were not usually present in these operations involving small groups of Jews.

"Review: The Hidden and Forbidden History of Latvia under Soviet and Nazi Occupations, 1940-1991: Selected Research of the Commission of the Historians of Latvia by Valters Nollendorfs; Erwin Oberländer; Eva Eihmane". Slavic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, Autumn, 2006, pp. 590–592.

ColaXtra (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't for general discussion per WP:NOT#FORUM. If you have some specific improvement to discuss, start a new topic. this one was originally a productive discussion about how contact was made between Arajs and Stahlecker until you arrived and transformed it into some kind of weird "Open your mind, Nug" thread with a focus on quotes from book reviews such as "The West needs to know about the behaviour of Latvians during the short-lived interregnum between Soviet and Nazi rule". Seems to me that you may be approaching this with some kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality rather than trying to improve this article, which is about collaboration. If you want to add stuff about the Holocaust in Latvia, add it to that article. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been very much enjoying Valdis O. Lumans' book "Latvia in World War II" (2006) recently, in my effort to better understand the origins of contemporary Baltic nationalism. I've also simply become interested in the nature of Baltic collaboration with and resistance to the Nazis during WWII. I really do believe that the political and historical context of collaboration should be understood by editors and faithfully described in Wikipedia articles: otherwise neither we nor our readers will understand how and why this collaboration occurred. Nevertheless, I am appalled that some editors appear to view editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology, or excuse for the intersection of nationalist ideology and fascist collaboration. This is history, and editing as a nationalist partisan (Soviet, German, Lithuanian or Latvian, etc.) is simply unacceptable. -Darouet (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I think your comments are way off beam, buddy. No editor is "view editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology", we are discussing the utility of Ezergailis as a source. If you cannot contribute without personally attacking editors, then just don't. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

His comments were politely expressed and reasonable in tone, which is more than can be said for your own. If you cannot handle legitimate criticism and commentary on an issue that is obviously close to your heart, perhaps you should refrain from involving yourself further on this article. ColaXtra (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. Attributing bad faith so some editors here as "editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology, or excuse" is a clear breach of WP:NPA. This thread was concerned with Birn's apparent mistaken implication that Arajs took the initiative to contact Stahlecker when it fact it was the other way around, and you jumped in defence of Birn and your somewhat odd statement "I'm getting a little tired of the anti-German sentiments being aired in Herr Siebert's direction". Please do explain what you mean. --Nug (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks; no editor is mentioned. He is expressing a valid view, that whitewashing history to serve a nationalist agenda is not acceptable. ColaXtra (talk) 13:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Darouet said "I am appalled that some editors appear to view editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology, or excuse", given that there are only a couple of editors here the implication was clear. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And what these implications are? Whom concretely did Darouet mean, in your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him, Paul. While we are on the topic you started this thread with the slur that my edit was "an attempt to conceal these facts using vague "Contact between Viktors Arajs and German authorities was established" may be interpreted as an attempt to whitewash prominent Nazi criminal and Holocaust perpetrator"[11]. I pointed out that my edit was based upon Angrick who writes on page 66 of his book that initially Arajs occupied a police prefecture building as the Soviets retreated, Stahlecker later arrived at the building to search for leads accompanied by his Latvian born interpreter Hans Dessler who recognised his old school friend Arajs and subsequently he embraced Arajs and introduced him to Stahlecker. You have access to that source and have no doubt verified that my edit was an accurate reflection of that source. I don't demand an apology but you ought to now strike out that slur above, because it may well be that Darouet was misled by it and thus was incited into stating "some editors here are editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology, or excuse" without reading the full thread. --Nug (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, whereas the statement "some (unnamed) editors appear to view editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology, or excuse" is not a personal attack, the statement "you started this thread with the slur" is an open personal attack.

Secondly, your statement "edit was based upon Angrick" is not true. The edit that caused my criticism was made based on Breitman and Birn&Riess (at least, that piece of text contained no references to Angrick). Taking into account that I am not able to read your thoughts, I had no possibility to understand that you used Angrick. Therefore, not only my statement was not a slur, it was absolutely correct (in that situation).

Thirdly, you misinterpreted even Angrick. The last paragraph on the page 65 says:

"One man in particular played a leading role in the first days of persecution, a man who had taken a lead even before German forces arrived in Riga".

It is clear from the subsequent text that Arajs started to prepare to collaborate with Germans even before German military arrived, and that does not contradict to what Brietman/Birn say. Therefore, not only your edit was not accurate, by selective citing Angrick and by misinterpreting Brietman/Birn you seem to do exactly what Darouet described as viewing "editing on this issue as an exercise in acquittal, apology, or excuse". (Sorry, Darouet, if I misinterpreted your thought.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to evade admitting you were wrong is sad. Your accusation "an attempt to conceal these facts using vague (language)" is a slur because it assumes bad faith. Given that you admit that you cannot read my thoughts how can you claim my edit was an "attempt to conceal" anything other than by assumption of bad faith? In fact your specific accusation was "the above mentioned edit directly misinterprets the source… …it stresses the fact that it was Arajs who contacted Stahlecker". What is truly laughable is your accusation of selective citing Angrick, quoting:

"One man in particular played a leading role in the first days of persecution, a man who had taken a lead even before German forces arrived in Riga"

but if you read Angrick further on the same page he gives detail on what this action actually was:

"In the resulting confusion, Arajs had slipped into the east side with his men and, according to his own information, launched larger attacks on the retreating Red Army"

Did you selectively forget to cite that? Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house Paul. --Nug (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

You replaced:

Soon after German arrival Viktors Arajs established contact with German authorities, and the Germans appointed him a chief of his group that obtained an official name Latvian Auxiliary Security Police or Arājs Kommando."

with:

"Contact between Viktors Arajs and German authorities was established, and the Germans appointed him a chief of his group that obtained an official name Latvian Auxiliary Security Police or Arājs Kommando."

without changing the source (Birn), which says:

"Within days of the arrival of the German forces in Riga, Arajs made contact with the leader of Einsatzgruppe A, Stahlecker, and offered his services."

As I already explained, I cannot read your thoughts, however, the first explanation for this change (which misinterprets what the authors says) is that someone tries to conceal that Arajs needed no supervision to start collaboration. Yes, Angrick says otherwise, however, you didn't cite Angrick. Therefore, your complaints are totally unsubstantiated.

Re Angrick. Yes, I did read the page 66. This page describes Arajs collaboration with Germans, and the fact that he was arresting or killing Communists (or perceived Communists, or perceived collaborators) changes nothing: this article is about collaboration with the Axis in general, not only about collaboration in killing Jews. Therefore, I forgot nothing, the text you are talking about describes more instances of collaboration with Germans, although not necessarily in killing Jews.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"Persecution" would be an unlikely word to describe "attacks on the retreating Red Army." -Darouet (talk) 23:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct. However, I am not aware of any evidences of attacks of retreating Red Army by Arajs & Co, except his own words. According to some authors, the attacks were directed against Communists, Jews and Red Army stragglers, which is not the same as "attacks on the retreating Red Army."--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes Paul, this article is about collaboration, but since these attacks against the retreating Red Army (or Communists, Jews and Red Army stragglers according to you, a cite would be useful for verification) occurred before contact was made with the Germans, how are these actions considered collaboration? Anything that occurred before contact was made is simply out of scope of this article. --Nug (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you seem to trust the words of Nazi criminal Arajs. The author you cite does not say he attacked Red Army, he just reproduce Arajs' words with needed reservations: he does not know if Arajs did that, he says Arajs claimed that.

Secondly, according to Angrick, Arajs started to prepare to collaborate even before the contacts with SS had been established (that was not an unusual situation during the WWII). Angrick's words hardly allow double interpretation, and I simply do not understand why do you continue this dispute. I am trying to find any reasonable motif behind your behaviour, but I can't.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You said "According to some authors, the attacks were directed against Communists, Jews and Red Army stragglers", I asked for a cite, is that too difficult to provide? --Nug (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of well sourced material by Pluto2012

A well sourced material from the book "Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust" written by academic historian and former chair of historic department of Millersville University of Pennsylvania Jack R. Fischel was removed here and in other places too. The removal was done without any explanation on this talk page and without any evidence on another talk page. Here is the material: [12]--Tritomex (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. 5 editors told you here in great detail why that source is inappropriate for wikipedia. Failing to get any endorsement for it there, you went and plunked it here, on another page, and Pluto (whose views are diametrically opposed to mine, for one, but who is very scrupulous about quality sourcing and is thoroughly versed in the subject) rightly reverted you. It is improper to sneak in material on a page that, elsewhere, has been comprehensively showed to come from an unreliable source. Don't do that. Any reader can find a large arsenal of ammo shooting down al-Husseini for his collaboration with Nazism and Fascism, on that page (Hajj Amin al-Husseini). Poor sources that muster material in circulation that authorities on a subject don't deign to touch because it fails scholarly verification (so far) are by that fact alone neither noteworthy nor encyclopedic. The scholars we quote there uses archives, are specialists, know the relevant languages. Fischel has no such qualification, and Holocaust studies under university imprint by specialists cover everything we would ever want to know. There is no need for citing mediocre material recycled in nondescript books. Nishidani (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

4 editors came in support for the wording here: [13] as the removal of this well sourced academic work was based only on WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT The only reason so far given for the exclusion of Millersville University history professor was that he is currently teaching at one Jewish college in Pennsylvania.--Tritomex (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, anyone opposing you on this is antisemitic, etc. You google for 'stuff' that you want to hear, and couldn't care less about the source or status of the author (Chuck Morse, Thomas Tartsch, et al.) The important thing is to defend Israel on wikipedia. We are actually obliged to edit per WP:NPOV, neutrally. If you actually read these guys, rather than googling, you'd see that Tartsch for one example thinks the Six Day War took place in 1948, and that his book is self-published? Do you know what that means? Do you realize how comically stupid that mix-up of dates, out by 20 years, is and what is suggests for the author's competence? Go and read or parse WP:RS. Nishidani (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the question of appropriateness for Wikipedia as whole beyond the scope, let me point out that the present article is about collaboration in territories occupied by the Axis. In connection to that, how can we discuss Palestine if this territory never was under Axis occupation? The whole Palestine section should be deleted, because it is beyond article's scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

what you say is right regarding the current lead.

Should not India be removed too ? Pluto2012 (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Deliberately inflammatory language

Collaborators had to kill their enemies. No one was murdered, the kills were all under the direction of a sovereign. Murder is only applicable to civilian homicides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.65.213 (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, language isn't always neutral. And I also wonder what the proof for the specific claims is. In war one needs to be careful not to be trapped by atrocity propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by --41.151.109.5 (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Skanderbeg Division

Was drawn from both Albanian KoOsovars and Albanians. See the article on the division (which is FA). Thanks, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Remove "needs additional citations for verification" tag

The "needs additional citations for verification" tag should be removed from the top of this article. The vast majority of sections have sufficient references. If there is a specific sections that lacks soucres to back up the text a tag should be added to that part only instead of highlighting the entire article as a "problem" as it is now. --E-960 (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120205105823/http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/20110721PONARY/Broszura_Ponary.pdf to http://www.msz.gov.pl/files/docs/komunikaty/20110721PONARY/Broszura_Ponary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080922030921/http://ipn.gov.pl:80/portal.php?serwis=pl to http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal.php?serwis=pl&dzial=194&id=3327
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060827155850/http://holocaust.kiev.ua:80/bulletin/vip7/vip7_3.htm to http://www.holocaust.kiev.ua/bulletin/vip7/vip7_3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070319024827/http://www.panzer-reich.co.uk:80/30th-waffen-grenadier-division-of-the-ss-2nd-russian.htm to http://www.panzer-reich.co.uk/30th-waffen-grenadier-division-of-the-ss-2nd-russian.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct x 4. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Lokot

RONA did terrible things in Poland, so I'm not a fan of them. But the people were terrorized by the Soviets before the war and by Soviet partizans during the war, so they defended themselves at the beginning.Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hollywood

Hollywood producers were eager to adopt their movies to Nazi standards to sell them. It's collaboration, isn't it?Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Golden teeth

The article doesn't describe where do the Jewish golden teeth went from German government. Starving Soviet P.O.W.s had to collaborate to survive, many free nations sold their consciences.Xx236 (talk) 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

From my recollection most of the fillings, jewellery, money, artwork, etc. went into Swiss bank accounts... and, no, it wasn't ordinary people/soldiers who opened the accounts and deposited them for use after the war. I'm not even going to go into the "Get Smart" joke (that is, the original 60s series) about the West keeping the world safe for German scientists... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration

Collaboration is the process of two or more people or organizations working together to realize shared goals, which includes e.g. Soviet-Nazi collaboration 1939-1941.Xx236 (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom

What is 27 troops?Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Clarified, plus reference added. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit

I removed this section as uncited WP:OR. Please let me know if there are any concerns:

• Requirements for collaboration: The Nazis did not consider everyone equally fit for cooperation. Even people from closely related nations were often valued differently in accordance with Nazi racial theories. The Jews were considered to be worst of all races and thus unfit for cooperation, although some were used in concentration camps as Kapos to report on other prisoners and enforce order. Others governed ghettos and helped organize deportations to extermination camps (Jewish Ghetto Police).

K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)