Talk:Ukrainian Auxiliary Police

Foto

• First foto this is Wachmannschaft (Werkschutz), not UAP. --Birczanin (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Second foto this is Schutzmannschaft, not UAP. --Birczanin (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Article

• Ukrainian Auxiliary Police and Schutzmannschaft this is not the same. --Birczanin (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How so? The latter's article points directly to here--Львівське (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• If I want check this references, I must read all this book ? --Birczanin (talk) 07:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have put appropriate templates asking for the page numbers. I have not read those books but usually it is reasonably easy to figure out in what section a particular material might be found. You can also try google book search for particular words Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ukrainian Auxiliary Police was only in General Government. In the others terytories "ukrainian auxiliary police" = ukrainian Schutzmannschatft Bataillonen. --Birczanin 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • From the end of June 1941 to 1st August 1941 (in GG, in RK Ukraine later) was yet "ukrainian militia" (pl:Ukraińska milicja (1941)). --Birczanin 06:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Prusin article is the best source on the subject. It has lots of details, but doesn't differentiate between regional auxilliaries.-Galassi (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prusin text [1] does not mention "Sonderdienst made up of Volksdeutsche, the Kripo (Criminal police) Bahnschutz (railroad and transport police) and the Werksschutz " nor text Their ethnic backbrounds reflects general demographics of Ukraine, with ca.80% majority being ethnic Ukrainians, the rest shared by Russians, folkdeutsche Germans and other ethnic groups. They were drafted from the local population, as well as from the Soviet POWs. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

p.42. Hopefully you understand Russian.--Galassi (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest a citation. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Source does not contain words "Sonderdienst Kripo Bahnschutz nor claim that the 82 court case against 82 former ukrainian auxiliary police members represent the ethnic breakdown of the whole 13 016 ukrainian auxiliary police members (as of January 1942 in GeneralBezirk Kiew) - - it's 90% actually. So would be nice to clarify the text in article per source. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

renaming

I suggest the article be renamed "Ukrainische Hilfspolizei" (actual formal name) if this is to refer to a singular unit. --Львівське (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian Auxiliary Police its an English general term which comprize different German-breed formations - Ukrainische Hilfspolizei, Miliz, Hilfsmannschaften,Ordnungsdienst, Schutzmannschaften - see source text at section above.Oppose per scholar conclusionJo0doe (talk) 08:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Then it should be "Ukrainian auxiliary police" and not about a single unit--Львівське (talk) 08:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[2] was reverted without explantions given.Jo0doe (talk) 09:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Jo0doe plagiarism / further POV

here he copied verbatim of this], an unreliable source in of itself, and then lied that it was from a Hrycak book.--Львівське (talk) 06:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What are you doing? I have read Hrycak article. Stop this madness, you are removing text with sources.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

What madness? It's clear where the info came from.--Львівське (talk) 07:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

First: yadvasem is not reliable? Why? Galassi and Faustian used this source as well, second we got many sources: Hrycak, Motyka and more.--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That article in particular is hardly a reliable source and certainly not something that would qualify in scholarly works. The statements are incredibly full of a POV as well.--Львівське (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You got more here: "Utworzona przez Niemców ukraińska, litewska i białoruska policja pomocnicza uczestniczyła także w Zagładzie prowadzonej przez Niemców. Między innymi policja na Wołyniu brała udział w masowych egzekucjach Żydów. Ukraińcy służyli w jednostkach wartowniczych w obozach zagłady, m.in. w Sobiborze, Bełżcu i Treblince. " Motyka--Paweł5586 (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This quote has nothing to do with the disputed text. It's generic information that isn't under dispute at all. Where are you going with this?--Львівське (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• It's added not by me [3]. Same conclusion you can find at suggested as "best source on subject [4]". ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Would be nice

If the explanations will be provided for [5] - Does Magosci (quite obsolete source ) suggest to call Ostbataillonen as Ukrainian_Auxiliary_Police - as cited in article? Would be nice to explain why Lemberg police units activity was removed as a lot of nice tags also added. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Magocsi is one of the top Ukrainian historians in the world, hardly "obsolete"--Львівське (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

1996 book with no text which support your insertions [6]. Guess why Germany use a Nazi flag - as your edits suggested. Please be specific. Thank you P.S. [7] - guess why he not listed Jo0doe (talk) 06:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe because he's American? Maybe because you typed his name wrong? I don't know or care--Львівське (talk) 07:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it mean you are refuse to discuss text not in citation given an rest blanking?Jo0doe (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Request quote

Others included Russians, Poles, Volkdeutsche Germans, Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Georgians, and Tatars drafted from the local population and as Soviet POWs. I searched the book and couldn't find this information on mentioned pages. I kindly request quote to be inserted or the information removed if it is not within the alledged source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"...who had served as German auxiliary police and guards. The latter group also included numerous non Ukranians (Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Georgians, Tatars)..." I included another source which says similar (poles, russians, germans serving in the ukr. auxiliaries) "the "Ukrainian" Police, (Ukrainische Hilfungspolizei/Ukrainian Auxiliary Police) were often not Ukrainians by origin at all, but represented many nationalities. For instance, Poles, Volksdeutsche (local Germans) and even Russians speaking the Russian language were often called "Ukrainian" Police.". Did I cross over here? Ukr. Aux were under the command of the Germanic SS, and if there were those from the Caucasus serving in Ukr. territory as Aux police, wouldn't they be in this group?--Львівське (talk) 18:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The latter group also included numerous non Ukranians (Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Georgians, Tatars)-this is not what was written in the article which added nationalities not mentioned in the text.

Furthermore this doesn't mention Ukrainian Auxiliary Police but various different units that collaborated with Nazis. the various units drew their members from among OUN activists who had escaped arrest by the Germans and from among former Red Army soldiers who had served as German auxiliary police and guards, the latter group also included numerous non-Ukrainians(Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, Georgians, Tatars) The above text mentions several organizations "police and guards" without mentioning UAP.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC) I included another source which says similar No scholarly publicatio-and it says Moscow tried to blame UPA for anti-Jewish actions and that the people behind are Russians and Poles. This is obviously false and biased.Needs either to be attributed and described in full or removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The second source is from a legitimate published source, claiming it to be "obviously false" is silly.--Львівське (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive move

I request the article is restored to its proper name. This is not German wikipedia. Thanks. Ukranian patriot (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is its actual name and a commonly cited name for referring to the actual unit. German has nothing to do with it, wikipedia goes by common use, not translations--Львівське (talk) 00:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, this was a German unit, so its only natural to use its official, German name.--Львівське (talk) 00

57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah and the German Workers' Party was called Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, so what. This is English wikipedia, restore proper English name, thanks. Ukranian patriot (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the german acronym, DAP is used, not "GWP"--Львівське (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

and the SS is titled "Schutzstaffel" not 'Protection squadron', the SA "Sturmabteilung" not stormtroopers, Wehrmacht not 'Defense force', Einsatzgruppen not shooting squads, etc.--Львівське (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian patriotic police should not have a German Nazi name because then Ukrainians are connected to German crimes! Ukranian patriot (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

They were not "ukrainian patriotic police" but a german operated mobile police force which composed units of various nationalities on occupied territory. I dont understand the logic of your statement...--Львівське (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

English speakers don't understand "Ukrainische Hilfspolizei". Name must be in English. Please don't oppose this logical. Ukranian patriot (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Foreign names do not have to be converted to English, especially if the translation is provided in the lede.--Львівське (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The name Ukrainian Auxiliary Police is an established name used in countless sources. Please restore name that English speakers understand. Ukranian patriot (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Usually the german form is used while a variation in english is used in conjunction, ie "Ukrainian Auxiliary Police", "Ukrainian auxiliary police" "Ukrainian police constabulary" , etc. it's inconsistent --Львівське (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the majority of English language sources use the English name. Google is clear on that. Ukranian patriot (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

UH has 227 results in google books, UAP has 518 but that doesnt differentiate between the proper name and common nouns. The latter is a toss up, UH is common enough among english sources--Львівське (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "it's common enough", but Google clearly shows that the English version of the name is the preferred version. You are trying to push your own personal preferences it seems. Ukranian patriot (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the difference between the official name and the informal descriptive name. Case in point, 'German army' is infinitely more used than 'Wehrmacht'. --Львівське (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Most English language sources I have seen use Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. The "name" in German is as much descriptive as it is in English. You should restore the previous name and open a discussion if you really want to prove your point. Ukranian patriot (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

see for example here: Ukrainian Insurgent Army, according to you this would be "non-official" "descriptive" name. But actually the logic is simple English wikipedia english name, unless you can prove that somehow German name is more used in English sources something you have not even attempted to do. Ukranian patriot (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is overwhelming consensus in this case, it doesn't compare. They still use UPA as the acronym. Polish Home Army isn't used, but the Polish variant. "Ukrainian Auxiliary Police" is by no means overwhelming common use, prove otherwise.--Львівське (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? You decided to execute a disruptive renaming, so you have to prove that the name "Ukrainian Auxiliary Police" is not in common use. Ukranian patriot (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I already did, read my comments and use some common sense. Browsing through google books alone shows the amount that "Ukrainian auxiliary police" (the informal) overshadows that of "Ukrainian Auxiliary Police" (the incorrect formal). Thus, no consensus on this false translation really exists as the correct translation is "Ukrainian Auxiliary Police Constabulary" --Львівське (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you have not. You first executed the disruptive renaming without gaining any consensus for it, and only afterward tried to "cover" it with using non-logical arguments such as false translation and similar. Ukranian patriot (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule stating I need consensus to move a page if its wrongly titled. Either prove your point or take a hike--Львівське (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Only that you have not proved that the page is wrongly titled. Ukranian patriot (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel, Allgemeine-SS, SS-Verfügungstruppe, SS-Totenkopfverbände, Sturmabteilung, Wehrmacht, Reichskommissariat Ostland, Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Reichsführer SS, Führer, etc., etc. You are wrong. End of. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an equal or even larger number of articles which are under the English name, so no it's not "end of". You have to prove that Ukrainische Hilfspolizei is more common in English sources than Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. Ukranian patriot (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

As L'vivske stated above, whether or not it is referred to as a proper noun (i.e. Ukrainian Auxiliary Police) is critical, as it distiguishes the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police Constabulary (the proper name) from other units, which would be collectively refwerred to with the lowercase. The argument "This is Amurrica English Wikipedia, speak English" holds little water. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen many English sources using Ukrainian Auxiliary Police for this precise unit. Your claim above is totally unproven and You should have tried to prove it before moving the article, in order to build a true consensus. First disruptively renaming the article and then demanding the other editors prove the move was wrong is not a correct way of doing things and I believe you know this very well. Finally my argument was that the majority of English sources use the English name and thus the English wikipedia should use the English name. Ukranian patriot (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the proof provided. Do a google books search yourself and you will see the conflict between proper and common noun. The German form is not obscure in English sources by any means. You registered your account just to dispute this relatively new page, so what's your angle here?--Львівське (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have done that and frankly that's not a "proof". Provide a real proof that the Ukrainian Auxiliary Police should not be used or return the previous name. (And by proof I mean a source, not your flawed interpretation of google). I registered my account because I am interested in the topic, is that a problem? You have already accused me of vandalism and now you are questioning my motives, I would suggest you rather channel your energy in something positive instead. Ukranian patriot (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You brought up Google in the first place. What makes it unreliable now? That it can be used to support something that you do not like? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you always conduct discussions is such a dishonest way? Yesterday you claimed that the argument is "This is English Wikipedia, speak English" while in reality my argument was mainly that most of English language sources use the English name and thus English wikipedia should follow that. Today you are trying to imply: 1) that I said Google is unreliable 2) I did so because it supports something I don't like. In reality I simply disagreed with how Львівське interpreted Google results to suit his position. Ukranian patriot (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Your initial argument was "this is not German wikipedia". You only tailored it to resemble Wiki guidelines later. And furthermore, a Google books result should be interpreted. If you just present raw numbers with no analysis, then you overlook potential complications, in this case, use of Ukrainian Auxiliary Police as a proper noun vs. the informal Ukrainian auxiliary police, which is 100% relevant to this debate. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you read the comment I made in the discussion below, you can see the informal variant can cause confusion and overlap (and thus, historical errors)--Львівське (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If 200+ books citing the German name isn't proof for you then I don't know what is--Львівське (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Source? Ukranian patriot (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Poles

• Ukrainische Hilfspolizei was served only in General Gouvernment, not in the RK "Ukraine". There were units of Schutzmannschaft. --Birczanin 11:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that i can verify?--Львівське (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Only in Polish: Czesław Madajczyk - polish historician of II WW. Regards, --Birczanin 14:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe you're right. This illustrates the problem and necessity of using the german name as "Ukrainian auxiliary police" could mean any aux police, while the formal name is specific. Adding to the complication is that individual aux. police here were actually referred to as "Schutzmann" so that can easily be confused with Schutzmannschaft.--Львівське (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Poles in UH

According to http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/portal/Soc_Gum/Gis/2007_1/Prusin.pdf. Page 32 bottom "...несмотря на то, что в полиции служили представители и других этнических групп (например, фольксдойче, поляки в западных областях, русские в центральных и восточных и т.д.)..." (despite that other ethnic groups served in the police (e.g. Volksdeitch, Poles in the western regions, Russians in the central and eastern regions)...", Page 42 "автор данной статьи исследовал 82 судебно�следственных дела бывших полицейских генерального округа Киев, которые к 1941 году были в возрасте от 18 до 40 лет. Среди подсуди�мых были 73 украинца, 6 русских, 2 немца и 1 поляк, что соответствовало этнической демографии центральной и восточной Украины..." "the author studied 82 court cases of former policemen of Kiev General region... Among them there were 73 Ukrainians, 6 Russians, 2 Germans and 1 Pole that corresponds with ethnic demography of Central and Eastern Ukraine". Thus, Prusin states that among UH despite its name there were Russians, Germans and Poles Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Generalgovernment vs. occupied USSR

There seems to be some confusion with recent edits stating that the UH were police in "nazi occupied UkrSSR" vs. the previous version "in the German Generalgovernment". This is a matter of chicken and egg, and they were absolutely police of the german quasi-state, and defining it as "occupied soviet union" is incorrect since the USSR had no legal legitimacy on the territory for it to be "occupied" from them - especially since it was stolen from poland in the first place. I think pushing that it was occupied territory presents a pro-Soviet historical POV, in my opinion.--Львівське (говорити) 20:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Just trying to be historically accurate. – According to the PDF source I just added (this, by the way is the general understanding, not a pro-Soviet POV), the UkrSSR was part of the occupied Soviet Union. It was not a sovereign country, but if you care for the semantics, I don't mind keeping it separate. Poeticbent talk 20:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Occupied UkrSSR I think is fine for non-Polish territories, I don't think anyone considers the secret protocols of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact to be legal from either side. The Generalgovernment was part of the Nazis sphere of influence, separate from the UkrSSR until after it was annexed by the USSR and re-incorporated into greater Ukraine.--Львівське (говорити) 19:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Participation in Holocaust -- Ukrainian auxiliary police

In Lwow (today Lviv), the Ukrainian auxiliary police, assisted by various other Ukrainian nationalists autonomously carried out several Nazi Aktions (massacres) of Jews, and acted in tandem with the Nazis as well. At Janowska, a Jewish labor camp in Lwow that ultimately became an extermination and transit facility, and in the Lemberg (Lwow/Lviv) Ghetto, Ukrainian police also assisted in round-ups, at checkpoints, as well as guards -- also known as askaris to the Jewish prisoners. Since there are very few Jewish survivors from this city, there are very few accounts of witnesses as to the number of Jews the Ukrainians were responsible for murdering but the final numbers at Janowska alone totals over 200,000 according to Jakob Weiss in his book, The Lemberg Mosaic.

For some strange reason user"Livivski" totally deleted the above good faith contribution. Maybe the editor can explain this act in terms outside "attempted" revision of history Ukrainian ultra nationalism. Gmw112252 (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC) And note,

Putin Makes it Illegal to Deny Nazi War Crimes

Russian President signs legislation introducing harsh punishments for justification or denial of Nazi war crimes.

By Elad Benari First Publish: 5/6/2014, 5:16 AM

Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it illegal to justify or deny Nazi war crimes.

According to AFP, Putin on Monday signed new legislation introducing harsh punishments for such acts.

The legislation makes it a criminal offence to deny facts established by the Nuremberg trials regarding the crimes of the Axis powers and to disseminate "false information about Soviet actions" during World War II, according to the news agency.

Such acts are punishable by up to five years in a prison camp or a fine of 500,000 rubles ($14,000), the law says. Those making such claims in mass media are liable for the harshest punishments.

The legislation was voted through by Russia's upper and lower houses of parliament last month.

It comes as Russia makes more and more explicit comparisons between Ukrainian nationalists and Nazi war criminals. 172.12.60.6 (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Tell Putin to come arrest me then. My reasoning was in the edit summary.--Львівське (говорити) 06:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/publications/occasional/2005-10/paper.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2007-18.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 07:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)