Talk:Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II

Battle/Conflict Template

I've reverted back the page, adding back in the information that was removed when the conflict template was removed. This template is used in many non-battle cases. There is no reason to remove it from this article when it presents relevant information. Similar templates are used in other cases too - ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus

POVs=

- This article presents a POV - namely, that British and American allies were at fault for repatriating Cossacks to Russia. It doesn't present any basis for that claim. Moreover, it doesn't substantiate the claim that Cossack civilians who weren't complicit in service for Nazi Germany were prosecuted in Soviet Union. There are other evidence that suggests that, while cossack men (traitors and war criminals) were indeed punished and in many cases exterminated, women and children went through the same filtration system as other Soviet citizens who were repatriated after the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.251.198 (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your comment is dated, but the article merely mentions what happened, and what physical actions were done by whom; to erase the truth because otherwise the British reputation suffers is censorship at its worst and the sort of thing one might suspect if the goal is to push POV. You've also clearly presented your view in referring to these people through the language of one side and that side's own observations and labels. Or perhaps you use the term "war criminals" because you blame the entire Cossacks for what a few of them did in France - should you take that view, then we might as well take the view that all American and British were also war criminals because of what some Americans did at Dachau or what some British did at Bad Nenndorf. It is not encyclopedic by any means, and factually inaccurate.

Untitled

To me it is a story of one particular formation of cossacks who were nothing else but Nazi collaborators [ This is partisan ranting and not helpful - does the author include all the thousands of women and children raped and massacred by the Soviets in this?] . The brutality of Stalin's regime is undisputed, but the story is about the capture and , yes, transfer to Stalin, a group of people who killed Jews, Russians, Bellorusians, Ukrainians, Poles and Slovenians. I have no pitty for them at all. KS

To be blunt, what you think doesn't matter. (1) The sources in question allege that the 'relevant' Cossacks included significant numbers of civilians and non-combatants.

(2) Decossackization entailed massive pogroms against the Cossack people, and Stalin's campaigns against the Cossacks and peasantry is a history of genocide that rivals--if NOT EXCEEDS--the Shoa. Therefore, even those Cossacks who collaborated with the Nazis have at least *understandable* reasons for doing so. Let us take, in the Western imagination, the most moral state on Earth: Israel, and look at some of its bedfellows, hmm? What if we were to judge it by some of the more sordid allies it has found in its quest for survival (rabid Christian militias, dissident Arab extremists, etc)? Your reasoning is invalid, and your lack of 'pitty'--can be written off as either crass ignorance of the topic or simple callousness towards people you do not understand and have never met.

(3) Thirdly, your suggestion that the Cossacks at Lienz et al, were involved in ethnic banditry during the chaos of the 10's-20's evinces a shallow understanding of who the Cossacks are, and ideas of 'ethnic culpability' in general. Consider--do I go on articles regarding the Shoa and tell everyone that I have no 'pitty' for the Yidden because of mongrels like Iagoda, Fritz Haber, and Salomen Morel?--no. Decisions, right or wrong, are made by an individual and depend on personal circumstance--if a Cossack is implicated in a pogrom, innocent Cossack emigres that just barely escaped genocide in their own country shouldn't have to suffer for it.

Please understand the material before spewing your contempt all over the internet.

Let me assure you that I am well-aware of the subject as a grandson of Kuban cossack family half of which was "decossacked" and the other half was fighting nazies on eastern front. I am not being "ignorant" or "spreading contempt" for that matter. Quite to the contrary, I am saying that this is a controversial subject and offering my own view point which anyone has a right to. And it respectuflly remains my opinion that the cossacks who comitted war crimes in Poland, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and Ukraine and collaborated with Nazies deserved no better faith. That said, civilians being killed by Soviet troops is a disgrace. But there is no justification for those who fought against partizans and Warsaw uprisers. There is an article on wikipedia entitled Nazi Collaborators. If you read it, you will know that people had no pitty (and that the word i used) for such collaborators across europe and many were executed by the people on public squares at the time. would you call these mass murders? Also, since you mentioned Israel, let me say (as someone who is intimately familiar with Israel and has a large family over there) that the term "betrayal" of Nazi collaborators does not fly well in that country as there are people who actually suffered from these collaborators and will never change their opinion. Same applies to Polish and former Yugoslavian people's perception and collective memory. Let me suggest that French ressistance fighters would do exactly the same to these cossacks if they got into their hands at the end of the war. I hope you are not suggesting double standards here. Again, the death of the civilians is a different story and reflects Stalin's policy of total extermination of the enemies, which cannot be justified. And to be completely blunt, let me perhaps suggest that what I think does actually matter (as does your point of view as well as the one of others as this is what dispute page is for), even if you may not like it. Sincerely, KS

You're still an idiot who cannot spell 'pity' correctly. Even so, your response is a web of equivocations where you attempt to equate Cossacks fighting for Cossackdom with Nazi purists. Perhaps people didn't have pity for them. Ignorant people are always sparing with their pity, true. But even people who collaborated--from the most vile Kapo (Jews who collaborated by taking jobs in prison camps and occupied ghettos)--deserve to have their point of view understood. We are discussing one of the most extreme periods in human history, and a heavy-handed moralism is not helpful to real historiography.

Would I call them 'mass murders'? Uh, yeah: they were murders en mass, that's pretty much the definition of mass murder. This wouldn't happen anywhere in the civilized world today. Even to the Nuremberg prisoners--the most authentic Nazis in Germany--we gave these people a real trial.

You're rewriting history by assuming what the French resistance fighters would do, and its incredibly annoying. Editors like you have no place in the wikiverse. CB

CB,

Nobody gave you a right to call anyone an "idiot". I am not even getting angry but the low level of your rethorics make me think you are not worth arguing with. Expressions like "to be blunt what you think doesn't matter" do speak to your level of intelligence, which i will leave to others to comment. Your degrading to personal level is highly, hum, what would be the right word, unprofessional at the best.

As to my point and your emotions apart, yes, these Cossacks (the active adult part of them, at least) are indeed Nazi collaborators. Like it or not. How they got there is a different story. And yes, they should have deserved a trial. Too bad there was none (fair and open) in Stalin's USSR). Their armed fighting on the side of Hitler does make them Allies' enemies. They are not a friendly force by any measurement.

I am not sure what your analogy with "French resistance fighters" was supposed to mean. Whatever that was, I have high respect for these people, who are forever remembered for their courage and determination in France and elsewhere. So at a minimum I should take your analogy as a compliment.

May I suggest that yourself, for all your calling me names, ridiculing my arguments and myself personally have no right to be in the wikiverse. And well-redone article as it stands now. Whoever did the final editing, changed the name of the article and re-wrote the content, deserves a credit.

KS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.27.140 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.118.156 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is already neutral and fair - read the research and see for yourself

The relevant research has been comprehensively undertaken by Count Nikolai Tolstoy-Miloslavksy, a descendant of Count Lev Tolstoy, the famous writer.

Count Tolstoy's research is painstaking and meticulous and cites all sources very extensively and fully, taking them from government files in the West and now from the Soviet Union files. No-one has written a satisfactory rebuttal of his research nor, indeed, any rebuttal at all.

The Libel action brought by Lord Aldington in 1989 against Count Tolstoy and Mr Watts concerned a pamphlet circulated by Mr Watts and did not relate to any of Count Tolstoy's books which have never - repeat never - been challenged in the courts.

It is quite clear that the Cossacks were, indeed, betrayed and that largely by officials of the British government, particularly some in the Foreign Office. It is also quite clear that the Foreign Office illegally ordered the return to the Soviet Union of a very large number of Cossack and other emigres, knowing that they would be shot or imprisoned but also knowing that this would partially appease Stalin. British Special Forces units were tasked with the hand-over and witnessed many Cossacks and emigres being shot by the NKVD.

It is probable that this may have been a secret arrangement concluded at or after Yalta by Soviet-friendly officials in the British government, since British officialdom was, at that time, heavily infiltrated by fellow-travellers and others sympathetic to the Soviet Union, like the spies and traitors, Burgess, Philby and McLean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.45.151 (talk • contribs)

These men were serving the enemy of their own state during war. Women and children were non-combatants, but they were Soviet citizens. I fail to see how handing them over to their own state can be considered illegal. On the other hand, according to the laws of virtually any country at the time, defecting to the enemy and fighting against your own state was treason, and punishable by death. The facts may be accurate, but the whole slant of the article, starting with the title, is one of the most POV I have ever seen. Glad it did not make a good article. I'll consider renaming it to something like "Fate of Cossack Soviet Citizens Serving the Enemy in WWII". 212.216.210.234 07:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose naming it "Fate of Cossack Soviet Citizens Serving the Enemy in WWII". For one the title is confusing and misleading. It implies that all of the Cossacks and other ethnic Russians that were "repatriated" were Soviet Citizens, which many were not according to most, if not all, historians. Many left before the Russian Revolution and were never Soviet citizens. Secondly, the phrase "Serving the Enemy" is confusing. Whose enemy, the Soviets' enemy? (that could be the U.S.) the Allies' enemy? (that could be Japan?) In this situation you have to look at it from a different view than Axis vs. Allies because the Cossacks that fought against the Soviet Union did not consider themselves as part of the Axis. They did not consider the United States, Great Britain, Canada, and other Allied powers their enemies. I think if this title is seriously going to be changed, it would need to be something similar to "Cossack Repatriations of World War II". ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 12:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I frankly doubt that most of the Cossacks were not Soviet citizens, and would like to see these "most historians" stating that. We're talking about many thousands of persons. Maybe a handful of the officers had lived for twenty years in France and other countries, certainly not the bulk of the men. As to who is the enemy, it is not as ambiguous as you think. It's the enemy of their state, pretty much straightforward. Their state was at war with Germany, they served Germany, they served the enemy. That also applies to the other distinctions you make; when one takes orders from Germany in WWII, it's quite pointless that he considers himself "not at war" with Germany's enemies, such as the United States etc. It's a war and there is no halfway point. I suppose it's possible the British volunteers who served in the SS might have not considered themselves at war with their own country, but only with the USSR, for instance; they were still objectively serving the enemy. Having said that, yes, Cossack Repatrations would still be much much better than the current POV title. 212.216.210.221 13:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is good reference to most historians stating that most of the Cossacks were not Soviet citizens JSTOR. It is a review of two works about the forced repatriations or "Operation Keelhaul". One work is "Operation Keelhaul: The Story of Forced Repatriation from 1944 to the Present. by Julius Epstein, Bertram D. Wolfe" Julius Epstein is considered a leading authority on the subject. The other work is "The Last Secret: The Delivery to Stalin of over Two Million Russians by Britain and the United States. by Nicholas Bethell, Hugh Trevor-Roper". There are many other references to this fact by historians, politicians, and authors. If many of these people were not Soviet citizens then the enemy question becomes more ambiguous. The Soviet Union was not there state so they could be at war with any number of people. I am still seeking out a title that is completely NPOV but am having trouble. As is stated below, Cossack Repatriations implies that they were Soviet citizens, which we have discussed. Lienz cossacks has been considered but it makes it seem as though Lienz was their host. So I am trying to find some scholarly articles using neutral names but it is tough as the author is usually slanted one way. If you were curious, I named the article because that is the name of the famous painting of the event in Lienz and is therefore what I grew up knowing it as.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 15:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. That fact alone should tell you how absurdly steeped in POV the title and the article are. It's like writing an article about the Nazi party and titling it "Triumph of the Will". Propaganda art seldom is NPOV. But maybe you are too emotionally involved to write a NPOV article about this subject.212.216.211.250 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tolstoy cannot be used as a reliable historical source for Wikipedia. His claims were found by a court of law to be defamatory. 'Having accused Lord Aldington of being a "major war criminal", responsible for the deaths of up to 70,000 Cossacks and Yugloslavs handed over to the Communists in 1945, Tolstoy was found to have committed defamation. Over the years the trial was in preparation, much new evidence devastating to the Tolstoy "conspiracy" thesis has been gathered.' (Alistair Horne, Macmillan (1988), p. 285). 129.67.174.46 (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

British defamation laws are totally lame. You can't invalidate a source just because of a British Court. Nation-states do not define the truth. As a Soviet refugee (and a Jew, and an anarchist) I can still say that deporting anyone to the Soviet Union may not be "illegal" but is certainly deeply immoral, namely because it caused death and suffering. Churchill and Roosevelt sold out all of Eastern Europe and if the Cossacks had it bad, how about the Poles! They fought both sides. I am in favor of incorporating this article with Operation Keelhaul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.178.33 (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that, as it stands (Dec 2009) the article at least tries to be fair. BUT IT HAS NO REAL SOURCES. If you click on the various footnotes, you generally end up at some webpage or other, whose information is verified by – exactly nothing. One is a book review (in Italian) of a book called, the Cossacks in Italy. Another appears to be a Soviet style source describing the massacre in Krasnodar, with a sidebar on the Cossacks in Italy. Neither source is vouched for by anything. Another, major source for the article seems to be an article posted on the Future of Freedom Foundation, which is itself based on other sources, that is, the writer of this article has chosen an account that accords with his or her ideological prejudices, hence, not a valid source. I would say, this needs to be scrapped and started again, basing its structure on the different points of view. As it stands, though it tries hard, it's basically junk history, not even up to History Channel standards. Theonemacduff (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

Although to me a cossack, this is a touching piece, I must urge for it to be NPOVed. You must remember that at the same time hunderds of thousands of ethnic Cossacks fought for the Red Army against the nazis whether being in Cossack regiments or in others, and the tone that this article sets for how our motherland is portrayed is unacceptable and if I was more skeptical I would have given this article a thorough filtering. However since it is unfinished, I shall wait for a while and urge the author to NPOV and expand the section... The whole of my family fought for my motherland in Cossack regiments. --Kuban kazak 16:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a new title or should be merged with Operation Keelhaul article. Fisenko 17:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article definitely needs a new title because the word 'betrayal' is strongly pov. --Tomato 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs some more NPOVing but am finding it difficult to do myself because of my personal feelings towards these events. It definetly needs a new title but I can't think of one. It could be merged with Operation Keelhaul as they are essentially the same thing but from different POV (one from a British, the other from a Soviet refugee). I thought of adding something about the Red Army but didn't think it should be added to this article because it was dealing solely with those Cossacks that fought for the White Army, as they were the ones that were handed over. --Jklin 05:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

White army and Red army in sense of the Russian civil war? Then that is rather irrelevant, except for those people who fought twice against the Soviet Union. Now I am talking about those Cossacks who, once their land has been occupied made the choice of collaborating. This article should clearly mention that they only compromised a minority, that most Cossacks fought for the Red Army (athough the majority did not fight in Cossack regiments, that is true). Finally it should also mention the 1950s pardon of the Soviet Govenment.--Kuban Cossack 09:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not Soviet citizens?

Having read Pyotr Krasnov I suggest the assertion here that he was never a Soviet citizen is incorrect. He was taken prisoner during the Kerensky-Junker plot and was then released after promising "never to do it again". A promise he broke almost immediately.

On the other hand, the Shkuro case is different. As I suppose will be the case with many others.

Many of these people committed heinous war crimes, not necessarily in the Soviet Union (Yugoslavia comes to mind, and the Warsaw Uprising). Which does not mean that one crime deserves another, but puts things into perspective. --pgp 12:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

He was taken prisoner during the Kerensky-Junker plot. And ? Do you suggest that he became a Soviet citizen in the process ? This makes absolutely no sense. You simply don't understand how much people like Pyotr Krasnov hated everything Soviet. He still remained a citizen of the Russian Empire, even though it was no more. wingedhorse (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The POV! It's Blinding!

Pretty POV. Still, it covers an interesting aspect of the policy of forced soviet repatriation in the aftermath of the second world war. I'd recomend deleting the sensationlist parts, citing sources carefully, and using hard numbers rather than generalizations. I'll try to launch into a little bit of cleanup, but I suspect the big cleanup guns are going to have to come from our cyrillic reading wikipedians who have more plentiful access to specific sources.

--Irongaard 02:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the POV is blinding.212.216.211.250 08:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

If over one million people of Soviet nationality served with or in the German army one can't speak of a minority. In March 1943 they were numbering already apprx. 430.000 men which joined the German army voluntary. A great part of them were Cossacks. To be read in "Cossacks in the German army" 1991 by Samuel J. Newland, U.S. Army War College:

"When the German 14th Panzer Corps moved into the vicinity of the River Mius, during mid-October 1941, they were surprised to find an engagement in progress behind the Red Army's front line. They found not German troops but a Russian militia unit had attacked the Soviet Army from the rear. The militia group was commanded by 1st Lietenant Nicholas Nazarenko, a Don Cossack..(p.90). On August 22, 1941, with the war only two month old, the entire 436 Soviet Regiment defected to the Germans. The defection was led by Major Ivan Nikitch Kononov, a Don Cossack...(p.92). Kononow was later commanding as Colonel the Plastunbrigade in the XV.-Cossack-Cavallery-Korps in the Wehrmacht. Not to forget about General Vlassov with his Army of Liberation. All this facts needs to be considered when as suggested the article needs "thourough filtering" and NPOV.--Bargen 12:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Voluntary...well the bulk of the collaborators were Vlasovites, Soviet POWs faced with either to die (since Holocaust was not really limited to the Jews, and Soviet POWs were not treated any more humane then they were) or to join the ROA, or wait and be faced with a question: "Why are you not dead?" by the NKVD. Cossacks read the article 50,000. ... As for the 436th regiment...well if you follow the Soviet order of battle then a regiment can number between 500 up 2000 men depending on what the regiment is. Still quite far away from 430 000. Then if you include Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian and other nationalist collaborators, those did join voluntary then that is a believable figure... until then please do not feed BS by some random author who lived on a different continet.--Kuban Cossack 14:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, the bulk were Soviet origin. In the "XV. Cossack Cavalery Corps" apprx. 25.000 Cossacks were serving. Wlassow's so called Army of Liberation only came in action in February 1945 and changed side again already beginning of May in Praque.

Prague not Praque, and 25 000 is nowhere near 430 000... Which preatty matches the Soviet figures and our Cossack ones. You are forgetting however about the nearlly millions of Cossack descendents who took arms for their motherland and fought in ALL military branches of the Worker Peasent Red Army and Red Fleet. --Kuban Cossack 14:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way Samuel J. Newland is a member of the US Army War College teaching faculty and the Academic Officer for the Department of Corresponding studies. You should read his book on the Cossacks. --Bargen 09:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes...US Army, what makes him an expert--Kuban Cossack 14:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Kuban, perhaps displaying a bit of respect for non-Soviet sources would be appropriate. Jtpaladin 01:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

This intemperate tone is not entirely helpful for a debate. The figure of one million Soviet citizens (very broadly defined) fighting for Nazi Germany is about right. I say broadly defined because the question of just what areas properly belonged to the Soviet Union is a bit fluid, depending if you want to go by the frontiers of 1941 vs. the frontiers of 1939. A disproportionate number of the Ukrainian collaborators with Nazi Germany came from Galicia, a region that belonged to Poland until September 1939. Likewise, the Baltic states were annexed to the Soviet Union in June 1940, but those annexations were not generally recognized as legal under international law. Just like the Ukrainians of Galicia who welcomed the Wehrmacht as liberators in June 1941 (and provided the volunteers who wiped out the Jews of Galicia), the Germans were greeted as liberators in the Baltic states in the summer of 1941 and a large number of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians volunteered to fight for the Third Reich. Kuban Cossack is about right about the German mistreatment of Red Army POWs, which provided a motivation to sometimes switch sides. Of the five million Soviet POWs taken prisoner by the Germans between 1941-1945, 3 million died during their captivity. Of that 3 million, 2 million of those deaths occurred between June 1941-March 1942. And it is also true that Stalin's attitude was that the Red Army soldiers should fight to the death, and those were taken prisoner were essentially guilty of treason. Hence the extraordinary spectacle of Soviet POWs being liberated in 1945 and then being sent to the Gulag camps to punish them for surrendering. There were certainly pressures to change sides. Bargen is right that most of the Cossacks who fought for Nazi Germany did so willingly. The 11 Cossack Hosts of Imperial Russia had been a relatively privileged group under the old regime, and the Cossacks had lost out badly under the new regime. Nazarenko who grew up in exile in Romania is not the best example, but Kononov whose family had not fared well under the Bolshevik regime is a better example. If I might a suggestion here, it might be better to look at this subject in a historiographical sense.

Contrary to what many people think, the study of the past is often closely related to present day concerns. To present an example, in the century between 1850-1950, American universities granted about 300 PhDs in Russian/Soviet history. In the decade between 1950-1960, American universities granted about 3, 000 PhDs in Russian/Soviet history. This sudden, burgeoning interest in Russian/Soviet history in the 1950s was due to the Cold War, which had made the subject of Russian history quite sexy in a way that it had not been before. You see with this with lots of things. Note how after 9/11, there was a sudden and vast increase in books about the history of Islam and the Middle East. A lot of history-writing is not to an interest in the past per se, but is related to the present. In this regard, the subject of the repatriation of Cossacks was basically ignored in the English-speaking world until the 1970s. The subject first attracted widespread interest when Lord Bethell published his 1974 book The Last Secret. But popular interest was really stoked by a trilogy of books published in Britain by Count Nikolai Tolstoy starting with The Victims of Yalta in 1977, which was followed up by Stalin's Secret War (1981) and The Minister and the Massacres (1986). It is also noteworthy that around about the same time there was a great number of books published in general about Soviet collaborators who fought for Nazi Germany. Most of these books are not very scholarly. A recurring problem is the euphemistic and bland phrase "anti-partisan" duties being used to describe the work of these formations. In 1941-1942, about 2. 5 Soviet Jews were gunned down, and the Germans always justified these massacres as being "anti-partisan" operations. The popular slogan for German forces serving in the Soviet Union was "Where the Jew is, there is the partisan, and where the partisan is, there is the Jew". Contrary to what most people, the majority of the gunmen in these massacres were not Germans, but rather local collaborators. The fact that most of these books pass off genocidal massacres as mere "anti-partisan" operations, accepting the very nomenclature of Nazi Germany as their own is a sign of the scholarship or lack there of in these books published in the 1970s-1980s.

What is really striking about these books is there is a missed opportunity thesis, that here was a great chance to bring down the Soviet Union with these collaborationist forces that was missed in World War Two. The popularity of the genre of scholarship can be easily related to present-days concerns in the 1970s-1980s. As incredible as may seem today, for a great many people in the West in the 1970s and well into the 1980s believed it was the Soviet Union that was winning the Cold War and the West was losing. That helps explain the great missed opportunity thesis that one sees in so many books dealing with the subject of Soviet collaborators with Nazi Germany. Furthermore, the popularity of such works was due to the fact by that the 1970s, memories of the World War Two were starting to fade and Nazi Germany was not longer seen as the ultima thule of evil in quite the same way. By contrast, the Soviet Union was still around and was seen as the great enemy. This explains why Tolstoy's books, where the decisions of certain Cossack leaders to fight for Nazi Germany is presented as essentially the morally correct one, did not cause much controversy. In the books by Tolstoy and other similar authors is an attack on the "good war" thesis that is so popular in the English-speaking world. Tolstoy and others of his ilk through do not usually say this explicitly, but one does the sense from reading their books that World War Two was not a "good war", that the Soviet Union was the greater evil, and the Anglo-American decision to ally with the Soviet Union against Germany was profoundly wrong on both moral and practical grounds. It is also striking that popular interest in the subject fell off dramatically in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War.

But getting back to the 1970s and 1980s, one is also interesting about these books is the indictment of Anglo-American officials who "missed" out on the opportunity to use all of the forces the Germans had raised during the war. One sees this especially in Tolstoy's books, where American and especially British officials are condemned for what is variously presented as blindness and/or sympathy for the Soviet Union. And so might also explain the popular fascination with the subject of the repatriation of Cossacks. The Red Army POWs in Germany were also repatriated to the Soviet Union in 1945-1946 and as I already mentioned all of these men were sent straight to the Gulag to punish them for their "treason" in surrendering instead of fighting to the death. But that subject does not stir any of the same popular interest that the repatriation of the Cossacks do. The Cossacks have a romantic image, of wild, daring horsemen living life on their own terms in their stanytsia and ruled over by elected leaders in their Hosts. The Cossacks are always portrayed as capable of amazing equestrian feats, colorfully dressed in their uniforms of their Hosts and carrying around a distinctive sword called the shashka. Really, this image of the Cossacks is a sort of Russian version of the noble savage. This romantic image of the Cossacks might explain why popular interest tends to focus on their repatriation instead of the greater number of non-Cossacks repatriated at the same time. Perhaps of this romantic image, Tolstoy and other similar authors have engaged in what amounts to a hagiographic picture of the Cossacks in Nazi service as the noble anti-Communist martyrs betrayed by the governments of the United States and Great Britain. The repatriation of the Cossacks has been turned, rightly or wrongly, into a certain symbol of Anglo-American blindness and weakness before the Soviet Union. This article might do well to explore more about this aspect of the subject.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

New Title proposal

Since it seems to be agreed that this article needs a new title, how about Cossacks after WWII. Most of this information could be transferred there and more information about cossacks that fought for the allies could be added. This would also get rid of the POV title and give an opportunity to further NPOV the article in the move.--Joe Jklin (T C) 04:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Cossacks after WWII is a direct insult to millions of Cossack descendents who fought in the Red Army ranks. This article deals with a single group of those people and should be mentioned. I propose that it be moved to Lienz Cossacks, as that is directely relevant title and has been applied several times in English--Kuban Cossack 09:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the word 'betrayal' comes from Tolstoy's book and thus it can't be considered an accepted scholarly name of these events. Other possible variants are "Post-WW2 Cossack repatriations", "Lienz Cossack repatriation", "Post-WW2 Cossack transfer" and "Lienz Cossack transfer". Alæxis_¿question? 11:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is why I mentioned that information about cossacks that fought for the allies (which includes the Red Army) would need to be included in the article. Currently the only mention that I can find of cossacks after or during WWII is here. I just think it's a chance to mention the cossack's parts on both sides of WWII--Joe Jklin (T C) 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Forced return of Cossacks after WWII"? "Forced repatriation of Cossacks after WWII" might be clearer, but would tend to imply that they were all Soviet citizens. Jbhood 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the title is fine. The problem is the sub-titles. It seems to me to br wrong to imply that the betrayal was at a single camp, or two camps, and that it was a betrayal by Britain. Both major allied agreed with the USSR to return all cossacks. America is as guilty as Britain. Ultimately we must remember that Uncle Joe was the villain of the piece.124.197.15.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

As you can see, this was a difficult article to name when I created it. I took the title from the painting by S.G.Korolkoff for those that are wondering. While the title does appear to be POV it has been used by others, including Andrew Roberts and Colonel Chessernoff. I don't like "Lienz Cossacks" or similar titles because that implies that they were from a Lienz host or something when in actuality they were Don Cossacks and Kuban Cossacks. I'll keep looking for scholarly titles.~ Joe Jklin (T C) 13:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

move to Operation Keelhaul?

Maybe this should be moved to operation keelhaul, just under the sub title of "Cossacks."

Strong Oppose as the Cossack story is far greater than the story of Operation Keelhaul. Also this article is still fairly POV on what is a very sensitive subject. Rgds, - Trident13 11:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I consider that this article should be merged with "Operation Keelhaul" and the resulting article should be rewritten in a more NPOV style. The main problem is to determine exactly what was the scope of Operation Keelhaul. Was it just forcible repatriation of cossacks of XVth Cossack Cavalry Corps who in May 1945 were in a camp near Lienz or was it forcible repatriation of all Soviet (and Yugoslav) citizens from Western Germany ans Austria?

It seems to me that the former is true. Then the resulting article should be rewritten accordingly and, probably, another article "Forcible Repatriation of Soviet and Yugoslav Citizens in 1945" should be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olegwiki (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was all ethnic Russians that were repatriated, including women, children, and elderly.~ Joe Jklin (T C)

17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

AndyZ peerreviewer

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?][?]
• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?][?]
• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?][?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.^[?][?]
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?][?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 22:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem with location

This seems inconsistent with the article on Andrey Vlaslov which does not indicate that he was ever in the United States.

Other locations

Fort Dix, New Jersey, United States

While this event is often viewed as occurring only on European soil, it also occurred across the Atlantic Ocean at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Andrey Vlasov, a man who repeatedly voiced objections against Nazism and communism, was one of the men captured by American forces. His conversation with his American captor was described by Sven Steenberg in his book "Wlassow - Verräter oder Patriot?"

He began to speak, at first slowly and dispassionately, but then with growing intensity. For one last time, he spoke of all the prospects, hopes, and disappointments of his countrymen. He summed up everything for which countless Russians had fought and suffered. It was no longer really to the American that he was addressing himself — this was rather a confession, a review of his life, a last protest against the destiny that had brought him to a wretched end. . . . Vlasov stated that the leaders of the ROA were ready to appear before an international court, but that it would be a monumental injustice to turn them over to the Soviets and thereby to certain death. It was not a question of volunteers who had served the Germans, but of a political organization, of a broad opposition movement which, in any event, should not be dealt with under military law.

Andrey Vlasov was hanged August 2, 1946 for "treason as well as active espionage and terrorist activity against the Soviet Union."

Roadrunner 03:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference at the end of the section states - Some of this dirty work even took place on American soil. Epstein describes what happened to Russian POWs who were imprisoned at Fort Dix, New Jersey:

First, they refused to leave their barracks when ordered to do so...

Andrey Vlasov — the man who hated communism — the man who hated Nazism — carefully explained his position and reasoning to the American generals.

So it seems as though he might have been there, I do not know personally. However, Russian POWs were held at Fort Dix, New Jersey so the section should stay (which I'll add back) the Vlasov issue should be looked further into though.--Iosef ^{U T C} 14:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Its been there for ages, I see no reason for continuing to hold it... the controversy tag on the talk page is sufficient IMO...--Kuban Cossack 12:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Remove Fort Dix again

According to the Vlasov article and every work that I know of, Vlasov was never in the United States. He was held by the Americans in Europe.

Roadrunner 21:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Alongside a general need to review the article per the Manual of Style, the introduction is not a concise overview of the entire article. Things such as the simple statistics need to be included, mostly as part of asserting the notability of the event in an obvious way. The article in general does a poor job of stating the obvious, and needs better transitions between paragraphs and topics.

2. Factually accurate?: The article has a common problem, which is that it has a basic modicum of good sources but suffers from proper inline citations to those sources. A cite at the end of each paragraph and for quotations is the bare minimum. Citations to any fact likely to be challenged (see WP:V) is desirable, especially for a "good article". Every section now present in the article requires more thorough citations.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article would seem to cover all of the major points of interest in a focused way. The Aftermath section could do with some expansion however.

4. Neutral point of view?: This is most egregious violation of the quick-fail criteria in the article. Without solid references verifying that the incident is called the "Betrayal of the Cossacks" by a clear-cut majority of significant published sources, it is a clearly non-neutral thing to call the incident a betrayal. I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily impossible or untrue, but without proper attribution it is not kosher. I suggest that if no sources verifying this are provided, then the article be renamed to "Status of the Cossacks following World War II" or the like. This states a little more clearly the "what" and "when" of the event, without making a moral judgment. Other areas where there is also obviously non-neutral treatment are rampant in the introduction and body of the article. Attribution of statements which are similar to "...many innocent people -- ones who never fought against the Allies -- were handed over as well." might result in a more acceptable article, though toning down the partisan language is still necessary.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any major on-going conflicts.

6. Images?: Present and accounted for with proper licenses and fair-use rationales.

As the article meets one or more of the quick-fail criteria, I have failed it without a hold period for minor improvements.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky ^Talk 00:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some points. I just tried to remove labeling all Cossacks as "pro-Nazi" in this article per WP:NPOV, but user Kuban Cosak reverted all my edits at once. It is very unusual that someone who claims to be a Cossack himself wants to describe Cossacks as "pro-Nazi".Biophys (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It was not only Lienz

Cossacs were also in Carinthia (Oderdrauburg), like von Pannwitz himself, in smaller villages such as Tristach, Amlach and Lavant. -Phips 00:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

War crimes

War crimes of the cossacks in question should be depicted--Dojarca (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Hornberger

Notwithstanding the dispute about the POV of the article itself, the use of Hornberger's website is worrying to me - it's hardly NPOV either (and I wonder about the use of almost direct quotes from his site in the article text itself without verification). Also, most of the the parts quoted from his website are originally from Epstein's book - surely better to cite the book in the first place (might involve a trip to the library, though!). – sHtev (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Collaborators

If there is an indisputable fact here it's that certain Cossacks were Nazi sympathizers and collaborators as well as actively engaged in combat at times and killed allies. These were the Allies enemies during the war as well as traitors to the Russians. We can sit here and cite historical text all day long, but it is undeniable that that group Betrayed the Allied forces during the war. And they deserved what they got. Soldiers aren't the only ones who fight wars, civilians do too. They support the cause. All traitors...civilian and military alike should burn at the stake. A traitor is like a cancer...you need to eliminate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.30.203 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I am well-aware of the subject as a grandson of Kuban cossack family half of which was "decossacked" and the other half was fighting nazies on eastern front. I am not being "ignorant" or "spreading contempt" for that matter. Quite to the contrary, I am saying that this is a controversial subject and offering my own view point which anyone has a right to. And it respectuflly remains my opinion that the cossacks who comitted war crimes in Poland, Slovakia, Yugoslavia and Ukraine and collaborated with Nazies deserved no better faith. That said, civilians being killed by Soviet troops is a disgrace. But there is no justification for those who fought against partizans and Warsaw uprisers. There is an article on wikipedia entitled Nazi Collaborators. If you read it, you will know that people had no pitty (and that the word i used) for such collaborators across europe and many were executed by the people on public squares at the time. would you call these mass murders? Also, since you mentioned Israel, let me say (as someone who is intimately familiar with Israel and has a large family over there) that the term "betrayal" of Nazi collaborators does not fly well in that country as there are people who actually suffered from these collaborators and will never change their opinion. Same applies to Polish and former Yugoslavian people's perception and collective memory. Let me suggest that French ressistance fighters would do exactly the same to these cossacks if they got into their hands at the end of the war. I hope you are not suggesting double standards here. Again, the death of the civilians is a different story and reflects Stalin's policy of total extermination of the enemies, which cannot be justified. And to be completely blunt, let me perhaps suggest that what I think does actually matter (as does your point of view as well as the one of others as this is what dispute page is for), even if you may not like it. Sincerely, KS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.122.114 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"All traitors...civilian and military alike should burn at the stake. A traitor is like a cancer...you need to eliminate it. ". So much for someone from New York. This is called a collective punishment without trial. Executing "by the people on public squares" is known as Lynching. That's a bad thing. Someone from New Jersey should know.Biophys (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

And yet you judge and classify anti-colonialist and anti-imperialist separatist people that the Nazis managed to line up on their own side against the oppressive colonizer and imperialist that was oppressing said people, and you judge and classify said people for not being on the side of their colonizers and imperialists and oppressors, against the Nazis. "Oh, but those people did bad things against others who had been raised up, by those same colonizers and imperialists, to fight so that the colonizers and imperialists could win and decimate that separatist people, therefore we must distort truth and convey that only the separatist people were bad and all the separatist people were bad because otherwise it is POV" - listen to how ridiculous that sounds. So much self-righteous moralism and bias. 7 million dead in the Ukraine in the Holodomor mean nothing to you, but the Palikrowy_massacre does? Or what about the British letting 4 million Indians starve in the Bengal Famine, or doing they did in the Middle East? After all, it prevent another separatist people from joining the Axis.. It will be fun to see what historians think about all this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:B019:CEC7:997F:C1B:B0AE:D10F (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Move

Several problems with this article, have been identified, but the biggest is the title. I propose moving it to "Repatriation of Cossacks after WWII". PatGallacher (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that current title is bad. Most precise title would be Extradition of Cossacks, with different versions like Extradition of Cossacks to the Soviet Union, Extradition of Cossacks from Europe, Extradition of Cossacks after WWII, and so on. "Forceful evacuation" would be probably worse than "Extradition". More opinions needed.Biophys (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"Repatriation of Cossacks after WWII" is Soviet title.Xx236 (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising

Cossack units fighting against the Warsaw Uprising:

• Schutzmannschaft 209
• 206 (?)
• 3 Regiment, Iakov Bondarenko
• IV/57 Regiment
• 69 Kosaken Abteilung, Schlachtermund
• 572 Infantry Battalion, Zinoviev
• 579

[1], [2] If the "repatriated" Cosacks are accused, we should check, if they participated. Certainly women and children didn't participate. Xx236 (talk) 14:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Still a "Repatriation"

People living ouside the SU were also deported. Xx236 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Allied motivation

I do not claim to know the motivation of everyone on the Western Allies' side involved in the repatriation, but some may have seen them as traitors who the Russians were entitled to execute or sentence to lengthy imprisonment. Several people were executed or imprisoned for lengthy periods by Britain after the war, including William Joyce who was hanged on a very broad interpretation of who had a duty of loyalty to Britain, so some may have considered that the Ryssians were also entitled to take a broad view of who had a duty of loyalty. In normal parlance you talk about someone betraying their country, not betraying their state. These people had chosen to define themselves as Russians by fighting with Russian units, when they could have joined other units fighting on the German side. It is not clear that even if some of them had left Russia prior to the formation of the USSR in 1922 they were not Soviet citizens, since the USSR was surely the successor state to the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, formed in 1917, although it may be less clear if the RSFSR was the successor state to the previous Russian state. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no such ethnic group as Cossacks. "Evgenij Tarruski, a Coassack author" - Eugene or Evgenij Tarusski, was not familiar with Southern Russian or Cossack environment, he was an Admiralty officer and later the editor of Le Sentinelle magazine in Brussels. He did commit suicide at Lienz. There is even a Russian Wikipedia entry on Tarusski - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9,_%D0%95%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9

The article gets everything wrong, even the names of personages it describes. What a mess.

Info — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.29.119 (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

GoldenEye

There is a citation needed tag on Bond's line - I am certain he said those exact words in the movie in the scene where he meets with Zukovsky, so if I can pinpoint the exact time in the movie would that be enough for a citation? 199.20.117.176 (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113189/quotes would do? I don't have time to work out how to do a proper reference.

War crimes against Yugoslav partisans & civilians

I believe the reference should be included. It seems very innocuous to say: "so they were deployed to the Balkans to fight the Communist Yugoslav Partisans commanded by Josip Broz Tito."

See a 2002 book by Jozo Tomasevich - War and Revolution in Yugoslavia: 1941 - 1945, Occupation and Collaboration 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press. The research is well sourced. . --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Further to my note above, I would like to add the following copy and reference to the article. Addition is in bold:

Although the Cossack units were formed to fight the Communists in Russia, by the time they formed, the Red Army had already recaptured most of the Nazi-occupied territory, so they were deployed to the Balkans to fight the Communist Yugoslav Partisans commanded by Josip Broz Tito.[6] While in Yugoslavia, the division established a reputation for undisciplined and ruthless behavior, not only towards the partisans, but also towards the civilian population, and committed war crimes and atrocities. By the war's end, the Cossack units had come under the command of the Waffen-SS.

Full source for Tomasevich

• Tomasevich, Jozo (2001). War and Revolution in Yugoslavia, 1941–1945: Occupation and Collaboration. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-3615-4.

References

Please let me know if there are any concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Vladimir D'Arbeloff

There is an account of his fathers life in the autobiography of D'Arbeloff. Among those former Russians sent by the Americans to the Soviet Union was a naturalized citizen. Vladimir D'Arbeloff a Georgian volunteered for the United States military. Due to his ability to speak Russian he was assigned to guard the Cossack prisoners of war. When the Cossack prisoners were being guarded and negotiated for by the Allies D'Arbeloff was one of the officers who interacted with the Soviets. At the time the Soviets received incarcerated prisoners some of the Soviets and Americans arranged to have D'Arbeloff misdescribed. This was despite his never having served with the Germans at all.RichardBond (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC) RichardBond (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928204604/http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/cossacks.htm to http://www.holycross-hermitage.com/pages/Orthodox_Life/cossacks.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206174656/http://www.itcmarchetti.net/Sito%20con%20Frame/THE%20WAR.htm to http://www.itcmarchetti.net/Sito%20con%20Frame/THE%20WAR.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516044735/http://www.bu.edu/jeremymb/papers/paper-y1.htm to http://www.bu.edu/jeremymb/papers/paper-y1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

'Betrayal of the Cossacks'

As far as I can see, this obviously highly non-neutral 'alternative name' of the events in question is sourced in the lede to a single Russian book called 'The Great Betrayal'. This is not enough of a proof that this is a common name of the events in Russian, let alone Anglophone historical literature. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)