Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Léon Degrelle

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Léon Degrelle

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Vami IV (talk)

Léon Degrelle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This is an article is about an infamous turncoat, Nazi collaborator, and later apologist - Léon Degrelle, a traitor to his God, his country, and to history. Degrelle began his professional life as a student and journalist, quickly becoming the biggest name in Belgian far-right politics. Thereafter, he became a big name in European far-right politics. And after joining the Wehrmacht and then Waffen-SS, and escaping to Spain in the death throes of the Nazi empire, world far-right politics. I am nominating this article for A-class now on the path to FA. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Brigade Piron

edit

Many thanks for your work on this article. I hope I am still sufficiently objective to be able to highlight issues for improvement. Some thoughts below.

  • Use of minor sources: I think there are a number of sources currently used in the article which may owe more to their online availability than because of their relevance to the article. This isn't a criticism of the writers - I certainly do the same myself - but does suggest that some of the more important sources on which these are based have not been consulted and this may become an issue at A/FA stage. I have particularly in mind:
  1. Goodrick-Clarke: currently used for three factual citations with little obvious relevance to the subject of his book.
  2. Black: Cited only once, and apparently superfluous anyway.
  3. Knegt: Cited only once, again, on a purely factual point with little obvious relevance to its subject.
  • Sections: I was involved in selecting the current section titles in the current sections for "Political agitation in German-occupied Belgium, 1940–1941" and "Eastern Front, 1941–1945". Although I cannot think of anything better, I think the current solution is a little awkward and a better division of these sections and sub-sections might be found - I would welcome thoughts on this.

More to follow. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Goodrick-Clarke and Black and will a fully reading of Knegt how many more times it can be cited in this article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:35, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed Knegt as well now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron: Any additional comments? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vami, thanks for this. I do have some reservations about the "Political Agitation in German-occupied Belgium" section. I think if the content from the period immediately after the German invasion of Belgium was migrated into it, it might gain a kind of coherence. At the moment, it is predominantly descriptive narrative and not particularly encyclopedic? —Brigade Piron (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've also moved the quote box, but in all likelihood I will swap its location with the Rex flag's as the quotebox doesn't really fit where it is presently. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not responding. With the caveat that I have made edits myself to address my earlier comment about the structuring, I support the nom! —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit

Will take a look at this soon, give me a ping if I forget (which happens so much more often after that concussion last winter). Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Lord, sorry to hear about the concussion. Hope you're healing up well aside from the memory impairment. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It happened back in (I think) February, doing fine except for that and some later afternoon drowsiness. I don't know the exact concussion count for me because I didn't see a doctor for official confirmation a couple times I should have, but three is probably a good guess. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after his failure at Namur, Degrelle was admitted into the prestigious Catholic University of Leuven to read law" - Is the link on law necessary?
  • "a small Catholic publishing house named after the popular youth cult of Christ the King, in 1930" - Maybe this is because I'm Baptist and am not as familiar with Catholic terminology as I ought to be, but the link goes to the specific title of Christ. Is there an organization intended to be linked to, or is this referring to a practice of youth showing particular attention to that title/attribute?
  • "In mid-1935, Degrelle morphed Christus Rex into the Rexist Party (Rex),[20] an authoritarian, populist, and strongly clerical faction" - is it worth establishing here that it was part of the far right?
  • I'm finding it a bit unclear from the article exactly when he became openly anti-Semitic. Was this when he began meeting with the Nazis, or did it start earlier?
  • "Following the January declaration, the German military administration" - the German military administration was already linked at the top of the political agitation section
  • Auschwitz is overlinked in the Holocaust denial section

I think that's all my comments. Degrelle is one of the most odious people I've ever read about. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit

Claiming my seat here. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was a ringing defeat of the Catholic Party,[28] which lost a significant amount of its voters to Rex,[29] but as such owed much to protest votes against the Catholic Party.[30] So the votes for Rex were mostly protest votes against the Catholic Party and not on the Rex Party's merits? Could be slightly reworded for clarity?
  • Degrelle's momentum was decisively broken, and though he provoked Van Zeeland's resignation in October 1937, Due to the finance scandal?
  • How did Rex conclude an agreement concerning the merging and recognition of its party without the consultation of its leaders?
    • Ah. I worded that badly. The answer is because the Flemish branch was pretty much already amputated from the main party, and the Germans had 0 time at all for Degrelle or any of his designs. So they cut him and Rex totally out of the talks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • by the end of the year he was persuaded to name the Walloons a Germanic people. Did Degrelle sincerely believe that Walloons were Germanic, or was he just playing politics within Germany's nonscientific racial ideology for his own benefit?
    • Degrelle only ever played the game to advance his own agenda; I cannot say for certain that he did not buy into SS hocus pocus, however, as none of my sources say as much. Himmler never trusted Degrelle, though, and perhaps that is telling.
  • On 8 July, Degrelle's brother, Edouard, was shot and killed in his pharmacy in their hometown. Has it been factually determined whether this was an act of political violence or simply a random act?
  • On 15 May Madrid contacted London about deporting him, but not back to Belgium. In response, Brussels, which made Degrelle's repatriation and prosecution a top priority, asked for British and American support in talks with Spain. Washington and London were ambivalent about the matter, however, as Degrelle had not been named a war criminal by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, but were moved into an active role in June by Belgian protests. Better to refer to the relevant governments directly rather than use place metonymy.
  • Since he ultimately lost the libel case, was he forced to pay any money?
  • More just a question of curiosity, but did Degrelle have anything to say about the Royal Question (including the murder of Julien Lahaut) or the end of the Belgian colonial empire (including the Congo Crisis)? Both were moments of some note in mainstream Belgian politics, or was he more concerned with more niche neo-Nazi causes by the 1950s and 1960s?
    • In my reading (mostly English sources), I saw no mention or discussion of either topic beyond the fact that the King wanted absolutely nothing to do with Degrelle. And I don't know if he found time between writing and publishing screeds denying the Shoah or German war crimes to write more of them about the collapse of the Belgium Empire. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by from CPA

edit

Buidhe

edit

Source review - pass

edit
D'oh! I forgot that Himmler was the Reichsführer!
  • In "Degrelle and a party of Rexists interrupted a meeting of Catholic Party leaders at Kortrijk, denounced them as corrupt and ineffective" "denounced them as corrupt and ineffective" is cited to page 143 of Conway 1990. Conway does support Degrelle thus denouncing, but not, as suggested in the article, during a specific meeting. Or I have missed it. Could you either clarify how you are reading the source or tweak the article.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Léon_Degrelle&oldid=1073126235"