Jump to content

Talk:14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Rename this article!!

It's funny. As it is now, the title of this article is half German, half English!! The correct title should be, in my opinion: «SS Division Galicia», as it is currently known. There has only been one SS Division with this name! In the body of the article you could then specify the whole official name, in English: «14th Waffen SS Infantry Divison 'Galicia' (1st Ukrainian)» (you can't avoid the German word 'Waffen', because it makes specific sense in the 'Waffen SS' expression, which is different from 'SS'). I have already renamed the French version of this Wikipedia article, which was entirely in German. JBarreto 10:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Even funnier: the official name of this Waffen-SS unit didn't include the word "Ukrainian", because the Germans didn't allow it!!! So this should be changed too. JBarreto 00:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The 7,000

On Polish Wiki there is a sentence: (in Polish) Tylko 3 000 żołnierzy zdołało się przebić do Niemiec. 4 000 zasiliły oddziały UPA, a kolejne tyle zginęło lub zostało rozstrzelanych po wzięciu do niewoli.

(in English) Only 3,000 soldiers escaped to Germany. 4,000 joined UIA, and as many died or were shot after imprisoning. I'll ask the author about their sources.--SylwiaS | talk 20:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Heike (Wolf-Dietrich Heike - The Ukrainian Division "Galicia" 1943-1945) write that about 3000 soldiers escaped from the encerclement.

I do't know the source of the 4000 figure. Altough, before Brody the 14th had 14000 men. --Compay 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All the numbers seem reasonable, it would just be good to have them sourced. The 7000 POW is sourced, and the 3000 that escaped is sourced too, and if you have the number 14000 sourced also, then the 4000 is just mathematics.--SylwiaS | talk 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I don't know how to open a new section. I add my comment here. The article says: >"The Galician Division bore the brunt of an unnusually fierce assault by the Soviet Second Air Army, who in only a five hour >period on July 15 flew 3,288 aircraft sorties and dropped 102 tons of bombs on it and on two panzer divisions as they >attempted a counter-attack [2], an amount of explosives that exceeded the bomb tonnage of the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima or >Nagasaki [1]" My comment is the japanese nuclear blasts tonnage was about 16000-22000 tons. So it is much more than the tonnage here.

Huta Pieniacka

Unlike the crimes in Warsaw Uprising, the information about the killings in Huta Pieniacka are not allegations any more but findings of the investigation. I would like to change the wording to reflect this. --Lysy (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you can. The person who edited the article clearly said so [1]--SylwiaS | talk 18:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitulation

I'm concerned with this sentence:

On 7 May, under his influence, the division left the front line, separated from Soviet forces[citation needed] and capitulated to the British and Americans.

as far as I know the division has been sent to Slovakia to suppress the Slovak Uprising and then to Austria and Slovenia. Can anyone confirm/explain the above statement ? --Lysytalk 10:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's from the IPN article [2]. The division was sent to Slovakia in the beginning of October, 1944, then to Slovenia in the end of January 1945. From April 1st, 1945, it fighted against Red Army in Austria. It capitulated on May 7th, 1945.--SylwiaS | talk 12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After the War

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2005/highlights_aug/aug3/default.htm

83.248.161.206 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Number

I have read that there were around 80 000 candidates, but just 18 000 were considered activ for the war ... Source "L'allemagne Nationale Socialiste et l'Ukraine" by W Kosyk, Paris, 1986

Galizien

I'm not sure but this division hadn't been named oficialy "Galizien" by Himmler. Would bee good if someone could check this information. beegees —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beegees (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Tag

Without reference to the merits of the underlying issue, any section that includes rebuttals of "conventional wisdom" without actually stating the conventional wisdom at appropriate length, is likely to be unbalanced. So tagged. --Relata refero (disp.) 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A hoax

added by editor citation

The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in its work on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and UPA concluded that "the SS-Galizien Division...had nothing in common with the elite SS divisions formed with fanatic Nazi doctrine and which stained themselves with war crimes...the Galician Division is mentioned in many books, but little is known about 2 Russian SS Divisions."

is fully incorrect in terms of origin - [3] it's not

  • Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in its work on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and UPA as claimed

but

  • claeraly noted as a conclusion by group of historians appeared at pro-OUN time (since 2005) under Kyrylenko aegis.

The actual work Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in its work on the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and UPA http://history.org.ua/oun_upa/oun/16.pdf p.283-285 - concluded that Galician "freewillers" from SS under SD command (5 and 6 Regiments) together with UPA is responcible for ethnic cleaning of Poles (mean) war crimes.

It's long lasting way of misquoting, misusing and distorting of texts by editor which enrich WP with p.242 of Krokhmalyuk, Makivka and Black Forest and other "funny stuff" about nazi collaborators posed in WP as "regime fighters" and Galicians as Ukrainians [4] the men of the 14th SS Division saved their lives by claiming to be Galicians after all
,. Sad story about WP reliabilityJo0doe (talk) 11
57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
And same story about
  • John A. Armstrong. (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 170-175
twist, distort, ommit and OR - a brief conclusion about this source usage.

like in article The Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) opposed the idea of creating the division

  • in source
OUN-B did not really work against the creation of the division. Shukhevych found division as valuable opportunity for ukrainian youthsJo0doe (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
There you go, being abusive again. I won't be provoked by you this time, but will warn you that further disruptions and abuse will have consequences. As for your points:
  • For the first, one, describing conclusions (or alleged conclusions) by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. You are the one practicing original research in terms of what was written on pp.283-285. This described the role of elements of the SS Galicia division in the murder of Polish civilians in specific instances. That stuff is cited in the article by me. It does not invovle a general conclusion. The general conclusion is near the end of the chapter here: [5], the first and only paragraph on page 22. PErhaps other editors fluent in the UKrainian language can confirm. Your editorialization is false.
  • With respect to the line about OUN-B's opposition that you objected to. That line about the OUN-B's opposition to the formation of the SS Division was in the article prior to my addition of material taken from John Armstrong's book. I did not put it in there in order to mislead readers about what Armstrong said; it was already there. I have added the correct reference now. Your words about "twist, distort, ommit and OR" are uncalled for, as usual.
Please refrain from disrupting, or threatening to disrupt, this article. I just spent 20+ minutes addressing your "concerns", that could have been spent productively on editting articles. But perhaps that was your intention.Faustian (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for add "Idea and Chyn № 8" and Bulletin № 11 Doctored by Lebid in 1945-47 for HURI. But why not include data from Armstrong
Father Laba calls upon Galicians to help "Hitler and German people" destroy Bolshevism

I really appreciate for your productive input - some listed above. While why you unable to comprahend difference between Фаховий висновок робочої групи істориків при Урядовій комісії з вивчення діяльності ОУН і УПА. appeared in 2005 and [6] - "Наукове видання" in 2004. There no editorialization - are you unable to find words about 4 and 5 regiments SD belonging, ethnic cleaning by UPA and SS-Galicia? Or killing Poles becouse they were Poles - it's independence movement activities?

Just more abuse. Whatever you say, any disruptions will just be reverted. The citation from the Instittue of History was an accurate translation of the last paragraph of the chapter. Frankly, I don't understand what point you are trying to make above, other than to be abusive.Faustian (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Look like reliable data at WP are treated as abuse and discruptionby some editors. Funny "lost in translation" with Instittue of History work and State Commision - indeed why you not add such details into "Alleged war atrocities" (indeed intresting to see why allleged ?). So actually how many 29 and 30 SS Division personnel known as alive and freely attribute themselves as "freedom fighters" and "regime victims"?
One more question - Orest Michael Logusz vs John A. Armstrong. (Again "Galician history" won?) So why not to add - "To Battle - The Formation and History of the 14th Galacian Waffen-SS Division"

by Michael James Melnyk (Brother of SS-Galicia member). Helion ISDBN: 1-874622-41-8 ?Jo0doe (talk) 10:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no contradiction between Armstrong's and Logusz's work. Read the note on page 171 of Armstrong's book: "Underground OUN-B publications of this period are very definite in their opposition to the Galician Division, however...these sources (which were unavailable to me when the first edition of this book was written) appear to demonstrate that at least the Galician headquarters of the OUN-B fought the establishment of the division in its early stage; as noted below this overt oppostion evidently ceased before the end of 1943." Please read the sources thoroughly before making accusations.Faustian (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
?Again - it's story about doctored by Lebid "publication" originated from interview 58 as a source for WP? What about p.170 - last 3 lines of text? Could you spell it below and explain why you omit scholar conclusion and instead gives an emphasys to interview 58?Jo0doe (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Your claim about whether an intervew was "doctored" or not is irrelevent. The source just stated what I quoted above. The article includes the information on page 170+ that the OUN-B didn't interfere in the creation of the Division and that it sent its members into it. So what is your problem?Faustian (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Does I'm mentioned an intervew - I refer to "sources" - see Himka for more (you know were it placed). You again playing the game with text - source statated what OUN-B did not really work against the creation of the division. Shukhevych found division as valuable opportunity for ukrainian youths and mentioned in ref that ""Idea and Chyn № 8" and "Bulletin № 11" claimed "bla bla bla" - so you distort scholar text and put other in misconseption by claiming that Armstrong conclude similar to ""Idea and Chyn № 8" and "Idea and Chyn № 11" - while in text he provide absolutely different conclusion.
You are using your interpretation of Himka to justify claims about Armstrong's work, which is original research. Armstrong did not claim that those interviews were "doctored". YOu did, based on your reading of Himka. That's called Original Research.
  • Himka found what "Idea and Chyn" and rest OUN-B propaganda sources was doctored by Lebid after WWII - so Armstrong posess a doctored version. Is it clear ?16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, you forgot to inlcude the previous sentence when you quoted Armstrong. "Since the war, Bandra's supporters have used this circumstance to maintain that they always (my emphasis added) opposed this form of collaboration with the Germans, and have denounced the other nationalist groups in supporting it." Indeed, Armstrong notes that by the end of 1943 the OUN-B changed its mind and chose to use the DIvision for its purposes. Armstrong's words that you dismiss as "blah blah blah":Underground OUN-B publications of this period are very definite in their opposition to the Galician Division, however...these sources (which were unavailable to me when the first edition of this book was written) appear to demonstrate that at least the Galician headquarters of the OUN-B fought the establishment of the division in its early stage; as noted below this overt oppostion evidently ceased before the end of 1943."
To summarize: No contradiction within Armstrong and no contradiction between what Armstrong wrote and what this article says. It's interesting that when Armstrong says something that doesn't agree with your POV you dismiss it as "blah blah blah". This is an example of you cherry picking from a source.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And same story with all rest "contribution"
Background section
decribed at p.168 (last section)-170 - clearly identified as Himmler and Rosenberg project for loyal Galicien to "fight Communism" (you know OUN "ardent supporters of Communism" Jews, Poles and Russians) - ommited by editor
That can be put in. Why not?Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So - prego - you know my English is bad for cooperative for such inclusionJo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
added ref for .[citation needed] by Armstrong
absolutely misrepresent the text -
  • The division was organized by the non-political Ukrainian Central Committee, headed by Volodymyr Kubiyovych with the active involvement of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.
see page 168-169 who actually organized the SS Galicia - Alfred Rosenberg and c
It doesn't say that they "organized the Divison." It says on page 169 that SS officers persuaded Himmler to authorize its creation. Please don't misreprsent what the text says.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
OOOPs - you again forgot p.169 -170 " This new departure in SS policy...."Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No mention of organizing. That's why you don't quote it. Because it's not there. But look what's written on page 171:
The prime organizer and highest ranking Ukrainian officer in it (the commanding staff was German) was Dmytro Paliiv, formerly the leader of one of the smaller legal parties in Poland."'
Please read the text before making accusations.'Faustian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not misrepresent scholar text - Alfred Rosenberg idea supported by Himmler (168-170p) - but you spoken about

field orgenizer - I'm spoken about the decision makerJo0doe (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Paradoxically, the division therefore often included volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine who were averse to the extreme fascist ideology underpinning Bandera's
No such text in Armstrong found - only Galicien to "fight Communism"
Summary of facts that anyone familiar with Ukrainian history would know. UNDO was a democratic political party.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you engage in OR and fix it through Armstrong - charming. Also which one Ukrainian history - a Galician one? With "democratic SS"?Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Summarizing isn't OR WP:SYN:
were in Armstrong text - included volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine - it's ORJo0doe (talk) 10
47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
"Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim."
  • democratic UNDO movement that before the war had been opposed to the extremist Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists.
No such text in Armstrong found
Do you doubt that fact? Not every reader of this article can be expected to be familiar with Ukrainian politics before the war. If we include UNDO we should also state what it is - a democratic political party opposed to the OUN. This helps the general reader by briefly describing what UNDO is.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Let we return to volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine who were averse to the extreme - any suggestion on page number?Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Summary of what was written. According to Armstrong, the SS Galicia attracted supporters of UNDO, and the exiled Ukrainian National Republic. Those guys were averse to the OUN's fascist ideology. Understand now?Faustian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Let we return to volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine who page number pleaseJo0doe (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • who saw it as a counterweight to the Banderist-dominated UPA
Reread the pages.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate which one from provided by you range ?Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Any actionJo0doe (talk) 10
47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No such text in Armstrong found
  • Although the Germans made no political concessions...
Armstrong noted - was left to nationalist leadership = well known about "similarity of objects" of OUN and Nazi - see IMT and many other and at least
Except as Armstrong wrote the OUN didn't take over the Division. So your implication above is false as usual. As well as obvious synthesis/original research.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
armstrong noted left to nationalist leadership - there no sintesis or OR - you know it's well know facts from IMT timesJo0doe (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Laba's calls upon Galicians to help "Hitler and German people" destroy Bolshevism
well known what many middle and low level galician clerics were ardent supporters of "liberators"
  • Indeed, Nazi indoctrination was absent within the Division
quote out of context
Your claim. We see above that your claims need to be taken with a grain of salt.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you don't like Armstrong text? Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Armstrong text is fine. Your misuse of it is not. Please don't quote it ut of context, Jo0doe . And read it before you comment on it.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
any suggestion on page number?Jo0doe (talk) 10
47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Among its members was a son of Mstyslav Skrypnyk, the Orthodox Bishop of Kiev
No such text in Armstrong pp 170-175 found
Read the note on page 173. "The son of Mstyslav Skrypnyk, the vicarial bishop of Kiev, joined the Division. Please read the text in question before making false accusations.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Funny - do not read text - read note. I'm not asking about notes - I ask about textJo0doe (talk)
So according to you a "note" is not "text"? Nice approach to sources. From now on, if someone can't verify your use of a source it should be excluded.Faustian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
why you include data from June 30 1944 into "formation" section covered Spring 1943 - I'm asking about article text which related to formation section- you play the gameJo0doe (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Clear similar long lasting habit of Makivka and Black forest (OR covered through not WP:V) and "despite the stated opinion" (misrepresent mentioned in source) and "Polish-Ukrainian hatred was often provoked by Soviet forces" (quote out of context).

I hope it's clear?Jo0doe (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that you include information from sources that fit your POV while dismiss other information as, in your words, "blah blah blah." It's clear that you engage in cherry-picking. It's clear that you make accusations without apparently having read the source (you already did it twice in this discussion). It's quite clear, above, that your efforts only succeed in wasting editors' time by forcing those editors to defend themselves against obviously false accusations. Thanks for making that clear.Faustian (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"Idea and Chyn" doctored by lebid - it's bla bla bla anyway. Thank you for your effort but - there still a lot of unanswered issues above. Or you plan to use only footnotes (indeed intresting why you include data from June 30 1944 into "formation" section covered Spring 1943 ???) from Armstrong and your own incertion posed as Armstrong and forget the Armstrong text itself? Really intresting Jo0doe (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As a summary from above - editor refuse to provide page numbers for alleged Armstrong work, misuse it and dicided that proven as false counter-accusation it's a good manner of consensus building. As from previous practice - page will be flooded with lot of symbols - but no answers as expectedJo0doe (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Your "summary" is as false as your use of Armstrong, as shown above. However it proves that you engage in OR, quote out of context, quote selectively only those facts that fit your POV rather than the work as a whole, and that you conveniently "forget" certain facts in the text. Given this approach to sources, it is prudent that from now on if someone can't verify what you claim a source says, that info ought to be removed. Faustian (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
what about page numbers for democratic UNDO movement that before the division therefore often included volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine, why you not mentioned Alfred Rosenberg idea supported by Himmler background? why you include data from June 30 1944 into "formation" section covered Spring 1943 ? Why you use note instead of text. Thank you for "unique democratic and good christians SS" for WPJo0doe (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
By all means include Himmler and Rosenberg into the article. As for UNDO - Armstrong stated that they were in the Division. I added that UNDO was democratic because this is what it was - do you doubt it? Here is historian Timothy Snyder of Yale: [8] "the OUN was a smaller organization than the democratic UNDO." and on page 218 "the head of the left-leaning and democratic UNDO." So, the 14th SS Galician included many members from the "left-leaning and democratic UNDO." Should I include this in the article? Hmm, I guess I will. Wikipedia articles are written for general readers, who cannot be expected to know all about interwar Ukrainian political parties. Information about the Church's invovlement in the Division - particularly its hierarchs - is well referenced. Do you doubt that, too?Faustian (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's we return to issue - you've refernced in article huge chunk of text by
  • John A. Armstrong. (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 170-175
As far as I've this book (while in general it not WP:V source) I've found what there lot of text which does not exist in it (see above) while rest misused and selectively cited out of context. So taking into the account that you refuse to fix possible mistakes - I can suppose what it was intent action to spoil WP:reliability - see WP:NOHOAXES for more. As far as you do not use Timothy Snyder work (known his "positive" vision about all that stuff) - but you use only Armstrong - it's not good. You again failed to reply why you used July 30 1944 in Section related to Spring 1943 and why you use doctored in post WWII times propagandistic OUN-B publication claims mentioned by scholar in footnote instead of article text itself. Were is a page number for volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine - while in artilce it's clear mentioned what they fight against Bolshevism (as all SS did)?You know - many in Shnider it's a weasel words - how many from 80 000 mostly peasants volonteers was "UNDO"? Ukrainian political parties - funny word - please use correct name - Polish party - with Galicians support. Ukraine a "little" biggerJo0doe (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So according to your logic is the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists also a Polish party (or organization) with Galician support rather than a Ukrainian party? As for number of 80,000 recruits (source, please, for the claim of "mostly peasants") into the SS-Galician and their political affiliation - sources say the UNDO was the dominant party before the war. Do you have information to suggest otherwise? Faustian (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Again you refuse to provide a page number(s) for referenced by you text – [9]. Shnyder called one source not many; Yale’s Trawniki man is self evident – so there a lot of sources better than suchJo0doe (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Timothy Snyder of Yale - "left-leaning and democratic UNDO" - so may be here is origin of the "Lithuanian names" of Trawniki man. Look like "histrian" never seen program of UNDO. So well known what from 1938 UNDO lost most of it supporters - so spoken in 1943 about 1930 5-10 y.o ."many members " - it's a sad story about Eastern History Yale branchJo0doe (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So you don't like Timothy Snyder of Yale University as a source either? Well, that's your problem. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not on sources that JoODoe happens to like or that happen to support his POV. Unlike you I base my edits on sources rather than POV. I will definitely include the negative information about OUN-B and UPA info from Snyder into the relevent articles, as I have time.Faustian (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Misusing Margolian

Harold Margolian provides a generally objective acount of 14th SS Veterans' efforts to come to Canada: [10] which naturally is misued by Jo0doe in his edit: [11]. For example, on page 135 Margolian states "as a result fo the Vatican's efforts, the British government...", which in Joe's hands becomes "As a result of the Vatican's interference". Joe then adds a passage about "the great majority of war criminals and collaborators" without any page number for verification, and without any evidence that this phrase was specifically applied to the Division. Indeed, on page 145, Margolian writes, in reference to efforts by the Canadian Jewish Congress to exlude all members of the Division from Canada: "the government conducted additional inquiries in tot he activites of the DIvison. CJC also compiled a brief. Unfortunatyely, the CJC was uanable to produce hard evidence that the 14th SS was rife with criminal elements. Nor did any information of an adverse nature result from the government's supplementary inquiries." Page 146 in Margolian: "only a few dozen of the 1,200 - 2,000 members of the Division who were admitted to Canada were subsequently revealed to have had previous auxilliary police service." He then describes that the most plausible explanation is that relatively few of the 14th SS who were accepted into Britain (and then moved to Canada) had been members of the auxilliary police.

Page 133, last paragraph: "The extent of the 14th SS Division's criminality is difficult to ascertain. If prior service in auxilliary police units is used as a measure, then the 14th SS was far less permeated by criminal elements than, say, the 30th SS..." He then described that more than half of the members were recruited through grassroots recruitment drives in Western Ukraine, and others from Ukrainian laborers in FRance and Germany. "Only a small percentage were recruited from established auxilliary detachments. Of the transfers, some were members of a coastal defence unit that had been stationed in France since its formation in January 1944. The others came from two auxilliary police units (204 and 206 battalions)that had not been established until the spring of 1943. These units had been formed to late to have participated in the Nazi slaughter in 1941-1942 of approximately 60% of Ukraine's Jewish population...morevover there is no evidence that these units took part in anti-partisan operations or reprisals prior to their incorporation into the 14th SS." Margolian also states that these facts don't suggest that the Division deserves the clean bill of health given to it by the Canadian government. He notes that the 5th regiment was involved in anti-partisan activites and that according to reports by the Polish AK this regiment was involved in several civilian massacres in early 1944. He notes that a significant number of its recruits, particularly those in battalion numbers 204 and 206, appear to have seen prior service in Ukrainian irregular formations which had been involved in atrocities against Jews and Communists, and a few members had served with German police detachments, and it is "possible that some elements of the Division may have been implicated in crimes against civilians during its tour of duty in Slovakia." (my emphases added). He also notes some circumstantial links between the Division and forced labor camps. "There is no direct evidence linking the division with the day-to-day operation of the camps. Yet it would not have been unusual for Waffen-SS recruits to have taken guard and prisoner-escort training htere."

In other words, no smoking gun linking the Division to war crimes. Even with respect to Huta Pienicka, Margolian doesn't state definitively that the 5th regiment did it - only that the Polish AK reported that it did. Personally, I believe that it probably did, but that it irrelevent.

All of this can be verified through googlebooks: [12].

So, thanks JoODoe for providing another good source for this article. Thank you also for showing yet again how you cherry pick from sources, read or use only part of them, to push your POV.Faustian (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

  • So you simply remove the facts which you don't like -
The great majority of Nazi war criminals and collaborators who settled in Canada after the Second World War were admitted not on purpose, but as a result of the absence of, or inaccessibility to, information about their wartime activities.
Please tie that quote to the Division, specifically, before including it. It's not a matter of like or dislike - as we see from discussion about Armstrong's work [13] YOU leave out info you don't like. With respect to the quote above, you have not shown whether it is applied specifically to the Division, and I didn't see it in the book on the pages specifically devoted to the Galicia Division. Prove that the author used it with reference to the Division and of course it should be included, why not? Faustian (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that your misuse of Armstrong's work has been documented quite thoroughly there, thank you.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I will include a lot of Margolian's info that I've placed on this talk page in the article, later when I have time.Faustian (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's remind me

The Ukrainian-Canadian community attempted to counter their government’s skepticism through “strong representation” trying to convince the government that the members of the Division did not pose a threat to the country and would not become public charges, but “valuable and desirable citizens” and usually present them as “western minded, religious, democratic, good, strong and healthy workers”

While UNRRA report– Bandera fraction – “Terrorist organization that was particularly eager to seize control of the camps” self –administration of the Camp “Western Ukrainian to override the Eastern Ukrainian” “This was due to the great political and religious differences existing among the Ukrainian population … this can probably be explained by the low degree of education of the Ukrainian people, their ignorance of democratic way of life and sectarianism of their leaders”. Many UNRRA official “assumed that both organizations (OUN(B) and OUN-M) are partially staffed by German collaborators” – that’s explain their unwillingness to be repatriated. Bandera Underground army – “there was a certain elements which collaborated with all and sundry including the Germans”. Jo0doe (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you stick to the topic of this article? This talk page is not a blog.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you suggest what UNRRA does not deal with displaced persons (as SS-galician was)?! - while this stuff shoud be added to Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II and UPA and OUNJo0doe (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
It is only "self contradictory" if taken out of context, which is apparently what you've done. You refused to provide the page number for one of the quotes. And still do. Why? And what relevence does the other stuff you wrote have to this particular discussion. Trying to change the subject?Faustian (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Try google - find a scholar rewiev of that book - it's called summery - thus page number was not provided. So - you was unable to comrahand

there is no evidence and have seen prior service in Ukrainian irregular formations which had been involved in atrocities against Jews and CommunistsJo0doe (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The information above was written about the Division so I included it in the article. However the quote that I removed was not tied to the Division.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So you claim what there no contradiction? Great. The quote you've removed referenced to whole war-criminals entered in to Canada by please from BUC, USRL, UNF, UHO and rest nationalistic formation - including an SS-Galicia - thus text is relevant.Jo0doe (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The article is about SS-Galician, not BUC, USRL, etc. etc. Use only quotes about the Division, not elsewhere in the book about others entering Canada. Remember that the chapter in the book that includes info about the Division is entitled "The Exception that proves the rule."Faustian (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Any text referring to the Division will be used in the article. Text not referring tot he Division will not be. Is there a problem with this?Faustian (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Text refereed also to a Division - see Margolian text above Jo0doe (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This is what you claim. But you havenm't provided the page number of that passage and that passage does not appear in the parts of the book devoted to the Division.Faustian (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
See aboveJo0doe (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, see above. Please don't take quotes out of context.Faustian (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
A note on the Margolian stuff. The information about the Division within Margolian's book Unauthorized Entry: The Truth about Nazi War Criminals in Canada, 1946-1956. is in a chapter titled Exceptions that Prove the Rule.Faustian (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Any comment?Faustian (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Which one expected?Jo0doe (talk) 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
See above.Faustian (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So – great it’s continued story with 1988 Subtelny all Ukrainian UPA popularity – please do not engage in OR. Citation

The great majority of Nazi war criminals and collaborators who settled in Canada after the Second World War were admitted not on purpose, but as a result of the absence of, or inaccessibility to, information about their wartime activities.

Text provided by you noted that the significant number of its recruits, particularly those in battalion numbers 204 and 206, appear to have seen prior service in Ukrainian irregular formations which had been involved in atrocities against Jews and Communists, and a few members had served with German police detachments. So, which one alleged we are spoken aboutJo0doe (talk) 12:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the evidence is indirect and not direct. We do not know for certain that they did engage in atrocites - "they appear to have seen prior service." We do not know if the members, specifically, actually did have prior serive. They a[ppear to have. Ande even if they did have prior service in those units, there is no evidence that they engaged in atrocities. It is likely that they did, given the information above, but until it is proven that they did, it is allegations. Correct English, please.Faustian (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So you engaged in OR?Jo0doe (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
No, you did.Faustian (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union 1941-1945. Moscow. 1962

In article The Galicia Division bore the brunt of a fierce assault by the Soviet Second Air Army, who in only a five hour period on July 15 flew 3,288 aircraft sorties and dropped 102 tons of bombs on it and on two panzer divisions as they attempted a counterattack.

Source does not provide similar info. Look like someone would like to repersent here a mighty Ukrainian-SS which cannot be defeated nor by Soviet Second Air Army nor by IS-2 tanks - May be need to rename Lvov-Sandomierz_Offensive - Soviet Army against SS-Galicia Offensive?Jo0doe (talk)
Prove your claim.Faustian (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Visit Library - ask for История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза 1941— 1945. Т. 4. М., 1962 from История Великой Отечественной войны Советского Союза. 1941—1945» (М., 1960—1965 you - know I just come from library - [15] Jo0doe (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of Ukrainian State Commission on OUN/UPA activities summary report

While front cover of the report mentioned it clear.
  • concluded that
On page 20 clear mentioned what Ukrainian State Commission on OUN/UPA activities does not studied the SS-Galicia case
  • but little is known about 2 Russian SS Divisions
ommited the numbers of divisions - 29th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_RONA_(1st_Russian) and 30th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (2nd Russian) - so readers will mislead by such citation - as far as facts about both "divisions" ommited - 29 was never was a Russian division while story of 30 is self evident - 30 does not have similar to 14-SS Galicia long history and military capacity - nor covered by Holy SeeJo0doe (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind inclusion of all those things. They're basically clutter not very relevent, but no problem with their inclusion. Claiming that their ommission is "misuse" is uncivil, of course, but what else is new?Faustian (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Just noting the facts - of misuse and misrepresent the source and celective citing - it's self evdent and easy provableJo0doe (talk) 10:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
How is not including specific numbers of the SS Divison "misuse" and "misrepresent."?Faustian (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Try to see more text.Jo0doe (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Another thing there is a fine line between UPA and OUN. Is the author who wrote on the Pidkamin massacre is sure it was one and not another? Just simply stating an opinion of a single historian in my perspective should be noted especially if the fact is not established. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Using Michael Melnyk's Book As A Source?

I don't have this book about the Division, but am wondering if I should try to find it. Melnyk is not a scholar and is apparently an amateur historian. However I found this comment about his book, written by David Glantz who is considered amongst the foremost American scholars of the war on the Eastern front and a member of Russia's Academy of Science. Glantz writes [http://www.amazon.com/BATTLE-Formation-Gallician-Volunteer-Division/dp/1874622418]:

"This book is a fine addition to literature on WWII and serves as a model of how history should be written. Recently a host of poorly researched and often sensationalised works have been published on the German Army and in particular SS formations. This work stands in vivid counterpoint to these 'potboilers'. The author's impeccable scholarship is readily apparent and the book will be of lasting value." David M. Glantz."

Glantz also btw served as a consultant for Logusz as he wrote his book about the 14th SS Division.Faustian (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

See WP:QS for wider explanation - Orest, Antin, Omelko - and rest divisional members kins, brothers (as Melnyk) hardly to provide a relible neitral informations - it's indeed usefull and intresting but claims about "elite paratrupers) and 13 km of front - is self evident. Better use to German origin of sources - it's much less "spectacular" but a reliable one - see for instance Wolfdieter Bihl “Ukrainians in the armed forces of Reich: The 14 Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS.” and dozens work of scholars - but pitty they not given them as Fighting for Freedom: The Ukrainian Volunteer Division of the Waffen-SS - they are mostly a military one assesment (as this article of WP suppose to be). Thank youJo0doe (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm more impressed by Glantz's assessment of the book rather than yours. Glantz's credentials are more impressive. As for family emembers - in that case, do you propose that the work of all sons of Soviet, German, American etc. soldiers are "Questionable Sources" with respect to World War II or do you limit this assessment only to UKrainians?Faustian (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Great - a new "scholar" category - amateur historian. I highly reccomend you not to visit amateur surgeon. You know - Galicains - it's Galicians Jo0doe (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Other than insults, anything substantive to say? Right now we have the endorsement of [[David Glantz]] and the condemnation of Jo0doe for the use of Melnyk as a source. Hmmm... Jo0doe or Glantz? Whom shoul;d we trust as an authoritative judge of a source? The military historian Glantz, America's top specialist on the Eastern Front and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, says that Melnyk's book "is a fine addition to literature on WWII and serves as a model of how history should be written. Recently a host of poorly researched and often sensationalised works have been published on the German Army and in particular SS formations. This work stands in vivid counterpoint to these 'potboilers'. The author's impeccable scholarship is readily apparent and the book will be of lasting value." Jo0doe says, "Great - a new "scholar" category - amateur historian. I highly reccomend you not to visit amateur surgeon." I wonder whose advice is better?Faustian (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that Glantz wrote, "The author's impeccable scholarship".Faustian (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that Glantz wrote, Melnyk is not a scholar and is apparently an amateur historianJo0doe (talk) 06:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope - I wrote that. Again, read more carefully. Glantz wrote: "The author's impeccable scholarship". Faustian (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

my name is Michael Melnyk - author of To Battle. herewith a couple of points to consider; 1. my FATHER not my brother was a member of this unit (he was conscripted at gunpoint) 2. Other works on this unit include 'On the Horns of a Dilema' by Prof HUNCZAK (who was a former member of the 'Yunaky' (wartime German anti aircraft crews recruited by the Germans from Ukrainians) and Galicia Division by Orest LOGUSZ whose father was also a member of the Galician Division.

I spent 15 years studying this unit. Herewith the text on sources and style

Author's Archive - [AA] Archives of the Brotherhood of Former Combatants - [ABFC] Archiwum Panstwowe w Lublinie - [APL]

  • Bundesarchiv, Koblenz - [BA-KO]

Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv Freiberg im Breisgau - [BA-MA] Imperial War Museum -London. - [IWM] National Archives, Washington DC, USA - [NA] Public Record Office, Kew, London. - [PRO] Statni ustredni archiv v Praze - [SUAP] US Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives [USHMMA]

  • When this work was almost complete, the German military archive at Koblenz transferred all its 3rd Reich material to the new archive established in Germany at Berlin-Lichterfelde. The files deposited here retained their original references.

This study is based predominantly on original source materials namely; documents, manuscripts, the unpublished memoirs and papers given to or prepared on request of the author, questionnaires, six volumes of personal correspondence spanning over twelve years and the tape recordings and extensive notes of the interviews conducted with veterans of the Division. These have been supplemented by previously published materials, reference to which can be found in the bibliography. Documents pertaining to the formation and organisation of the Galician Division (i.e. covering the period from March 1943 - June 1944) can be found at the The Imperial War Museum, Lambeth, London, England, in the Enemy Document Section, [EDS], in particular the 'Papers of the Reichsführer SS', or so-called 'Himmler File'. Documents from this file are numbered H/10/1 - H/10/81 and at the time of writing have subsequently been transferred along with similar items to the museum's site at Duxford and are available to researchers on request. To obtain the necessary supplementary material for the Division's war time existence (from July 1944 until May 1945) I consulted several additional sources. The National Archives, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, Washington DC, USA, holds further documentation on microfilms T175 roll 74 (for the most part this material comprises of duplicates of the Himmler papers H/10/1-81 referred to above), T175 - 94, T175 - 70 and T175 - 141. The alphabetically indexed SS Officer files (reference A3343-SSO) , were invaluable for establishing accurate details of the antecedents of key personalities and individual officers. Other miscellaneous items such as a copy of the audio recording of Himmler's speech made to the Division's officer corps at Neuhammer on 16th May, 1944, can be found in the Select Audiovisual Records Captured German Sound Recordings, Record Group 242- Item 206. For the battle of Brody from the German perspective, I made extensive use of the twenty seven page report by General Lange, the commander of 'Korpsabteilung C' (which led the breakout attempt), and other after action reports submitted by the participating regular army units, grouped together on Microfilms T78, rolls 139 and 142. Similar reports can be found in the Records of German Field Commands; Divisions, T315 - rolls 2147 (Abwickstab 349. I.D.) and 2152. (Abwickstab 361. I.D.) respectively. Despite extensive efforts, it was impossible to locate the Galician Division's own post battle reports prepared by its staff. The majority of the information pertaining to the involvement of the Red Army units was drawn from the manuscript entitled L'vov - Sandomierz 1944, The Soviet General Staff Study, which provides excellent background on all Soviet tactical and strategic planning as well as detailed accounts of all phases of the operation. Some exceptionally rare and hitherto unused information relevant to the Division from the last weeks of the war was obtained following the recent declassification by the Public Records Office, Kew, London, of decrypted enigma German Polizei / Waffen-SS radio transmissions. The 'Brotherhood of Former Combatants' also kindly placed its considerable archive at my disposal and supplied many rare and unique items of special interest that would otherwise have been unobtainable. A number of documents were also acquired from the Bundesarchiv- Militararchiv Freiburg, (in particular file N/756/170 referred to as the 'Sammlung Vopersal'), the Bundesarchiv Koblenz, the Berlin Document Centre, the Holdings of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum Archives and from archives in Munich, L'viv, Kiev and Prague. Lastly, individual documents as well as personal papers such as award and promotion certificates, citations, Soldbuchs and other items of this nature with few exceptions were acquired directly from veterans of the Division or their immediate families. A full reference to the provenance of each document has been indicated accordingly in the footnotes to the text and for the purposes of authentication, several hitherto unpublished documents have been reproduced in their entirety.

The extensive personal accounts which I have incorporated within the text should be judged on their own merits. The validity of their inclusion is as questionable as their accuracy, however I chose to do so as I felt it would add an extra dimension to what could so easily be a dry study. When such quotations appear I have selected those from veterans who kept diaries or whose testimony it was in many instances possible to corroborate. Moreover with the exception of occasional grammatical changes, they appear verbatim without alteration or change. Interviews are indicated by name, date and location, questionnaires are quoted by their numbers which follow numerical sequence (i.e.; Q12) and the surname of the individual involved. In a very few instances contributors have requested anonymity which I have respected.

The two principle sources of the photographic material featured in this book are the 'Archives of the Brotherhood of Former Combatants' whose unrivalled collection is meticulously and carefully administered by Mr Bohdan Maciw; and secondly the author's private collection collated over many years directly from veterans of the Division and from other sources as far apart as England, Sweden, USA, Canada, Germany, Ukraine & Poland. Several of the pictures selected for inclusion appear to have been altered. These were originally published in various war-time newspapers including the Division's own journals, the prints having first been subjected to artistic treatment by adding lines or shading in order to accentuate certain features, as was the fashion at the time. In such cases the author is often in possession of the original captioned prints (and occasionally original editions of the newspapers in which they were first published) and is satisfied that nothing of importance has been obliterated or added.

With regard to previously published materials, Wolf Dietrich Heike's memoir is an indispensable companion to anybody wishing to acquaint himself with the subject. As the Division's former 1a (Operations Officer) from January 1944 until capitulation in May 1945, his duties included assisting directly with all matters pertaining to its organisation, training and tactical command. In this capacity his knowledge of all military matters pertaining to the Division was unsurpassed, however some background to the publication of his memoirs is necessary. Originally written from memory in 1947 whilst still in British internment, without the aid of supplementary documentation except for his field diary entries and some maps, the manuscript of his memoirs lay untouched for over twenty years. Having come to light, it was passed to the executive of the Brotherhood of Former Combatants in the USA who decided to publish it in Ukrainian. To add to the historical content footnotes, photographs and maps were added. Because of the success of this edition, it was felt that a German publication would be appropriate. Heike made some minor changes to the text following which in 1973 the German edition appeared under the title 'Sie wollten die Freiheit: Die Geschichte der Ukrainischen Division 1943-1945. Finally The Brotherhood' decided to translate the work into English and 1988 saw the emergence of 'The Ukrainian Division "Galicia"', 1943-45, A Memoir'. With reference to the English translation which was made directly from the Ukrainian, a word of caution is necessary as it contains several significant errata as the result of the translator having no military knowledge or background. In spite of this minor reservation, Heike's testimony has been utilised extensively. Other works have not addressed the subject matter in sufficient depth so that their authors', despite their proficiency in Slavic tongues, have often unwittingly perpetuated important mistakes which I have attempted to rectify. Similarly, I have made little use of the many Soviet and to a lesser extent Polish publications, especially those which are the products of propaganda specialists. In the main these are tendentious, careless in details and tend to suffer from a lack of appreciation of the rules of evidence which together with their often rabid accusations does much to undermine their credibility. 

     *****			*****			*****

Adhering to current academic practice this book makes extensive use of footnotes, included not to give the impression of immense erudition on the part of the author or that the reader has mastered a learned and prodigious work, but in the case of documentary evidence, to allow the reader to verify the information from the source to which he is referred. Similarly, the suffix 'authors archive' is not intended to suggest exclusive right to valuable information or material evidence but occurs as an unavoidable consequence of my personal ownership of the said items.

For the greater part German technical terms, titles and ranks have been retained. On the first occasion when such words appear, a literal translation is given in brackets. Readers will also note the discrepancy between the various titles used to describe the Division. This is because the title by which it was known underwent several changes throughout its existence. In this book, I have therefore referred to it as "The Galician Division" / the "Division" or by part or all of the title by which it was officially known at that time (such as the SS-Freiwilligen-Division "Galizien", or '14. Waffen Grenadier Division der SS [ukrainsche Nr. 1]'). Other variations of the title occasionally appear in some of the documents quoted verbatim, for example "14. SS Division 'Galizien'", (a description used by Slovenia authors). Although these are colloquial titles, they have been reproduced as they appear in the original documentation for purposes of authenticity. Similarly, whilst he held the post of Governor of Galicia, reference is made to Governor Wächter, however after that post became redundant in August 1944, reference is made simply to Dr. Wächter.

This work is by no means claimed to be a definitive history or even free from errors, for which the indulgence of the reader is sought. As it is the author hopes that this study will add a worthwhile contribution to the history of the Division.


To date no other individual whom I know of has invested so much time or money as I did in researching this unit.

I am not an academic and I do not hold even the lowest grade of qualification in history.

Mike Melnyk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.20.46 (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you for long explanation. I agreed Koblenz to Berlin in 1997 move was a not good event. But anyway thank you for your personal interest in topic.I hope it will not lead to same story as with Dr V.Kosyk papersJo0doe (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Maslovskyy

According to the Russian wikiepia page: [16] Maslovsky communist-era historian who found himself unemployed after Ukrainian independence, after being thrown out of the western Ukrainian branch of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (and apparently, not hired anywhere else). His work can be found on Russian Nationalist/Orthodox websites such as this one: [17] or this one (the website of the "national movement of little Russia"): [18]
You forgot to cite what he was killed by "Successors" of the valuable and desirable citizens” and “western minded, religious, democratic, good, strong and healthy workers” - as they also does not like truth about the past, as some WP editors also - is'n strangeJo0doe (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the relevence. A nasty Russian nationalist was killed by equally nasty Ukrainian nationalists. See Rafal Wnuk's comments about Poliszczuk to judge what you claim to be the "truth about the past." that Maslovsky/Poliszczuk wrote about.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


What kind of sources does Maslovsky like? Well, here is one, Wiktor Poliszczuk, praised by Maslovsky: [19]. Well, Polish historian Rafał Wnuk of the Institute of National Remembrance in Lublin has categorized Poliszcuk's work as belonging to the "parascientific tradition" with "no scientific value," representing "national and anti-Ukrainian views" and noted Poliszczuk's use of exaggerated numbers of Polish victims of UPA [20]. Good to see that a communist-era "academic" unemployed after the fall of communism has such a high regard for a non-historian Poliszczuk who is dismissed by real historians. Some gems from Poliszczuk cited by Maslovsky:
"То чи було оте військо - СС дивізія "Галичина" - німецьке чи українське? Якщо українське, то з якої рації сучасна Німеччина ...платить їм пенсію?"
"Віктор Поліщук вказує також на те, що у В. - Д. Гайке, начальника штабу дивізiї СС "Галичина", в його книзі "Українська дивізія "Галичина" є карта, де вказано, що окремі підрозділи дивізії (видно, поліцейські) брали участь у розправі над повстанцями у Варшаві."
I.e., Maslovsky repeats the discredited idea that Division units took part in the suppression of the Warsaw uprising.
Sounds like a was a bitter washed-up Ukrainophobe. That's pretty much all that needs to be said about Maslovsky.Faustian (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your assesment - you know WP:Talk is not right place to promote any type of political visions.
Then why don't you follow that advice? I just presented evidence that your beloved Maslovsky is a darling of Russian nationalists, and that he supported and uswed the work of writers who had been dismissed by real historians. I guess that truth is uncomfortable for you.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
So what actually you forgot to mentioned - instead of divisoinal kins (which wision you extencively promoted in the article - mean breaching the WP:NPOV he
Why does the fact that someone's father served in the Division, in itelf, make the writer a NPOV. According to you, does the work of the children of Soviet, German, American etc. also get labelled NPOV also? Or do you single out Ukrainians.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
PHD in History and got a several scholar works published instead of "book-shelf". As far as I remember you state several times what there no WP editor about scholar work is notable for WP - I would like thank you for assessment of non-nationalistic inspired scholar work which carefully assessed all available at that time works about division Jo0doe (talk) 07
11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to his biography on Russian wikipedia: [21] Maslovsky got a Ph.D. in history during the communist regime and was unemployed when the Communist regime fell from power. His work mostly is found on Russian Nationalist websites. He is such a "historian" that he cites extensively the work of Wiktor Poliszczuk. There's even more. Maslovsky apparently idolized Yaroslav Halan, the man who in the 1940's, while the Soviet were deporting 100,000s of western UKrainians and liquidating the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, wrote that UKrainian Catholic priests were "outlaws who wear the cassock only because it is easier to hide a knife under it" and "thanks to Soviet rule and thanks to the Soviet constitution, the descendents of those who fought and suffered for the Orthodox faith today have an unrestricted opportunity to return to the faith of their ancestors." (taken from pg. 410 of Magocsi's book on Sheptytsky). Yeah - "Ph.D. in history". Thanks for showing the kinds of sources you support.Faustian (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

non-political Ukrainian Central Committee

  • As far as widelly accepted Ukrainian Central Committee in Kracow was created mostly by OUN(M) after Bandera betrail in 1940.

OUN(M) - a non political institution?Jo0doe (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources? Moreover, the personal affiliation of most of its membrs does not make it a political organization.Faustian (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice approach.Sources for what? Actually could you find a page number at Armstrong (as far as you cited non-political by him)?. Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I didn't cite that section to Armstrong. Perhaps you should reread the article? It is well-known that you have trouble with conveniently not reading sources properly.Faustian (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Russavia/Template:Notpropaganda Bobanni (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - see below. Are you success with GleaningJo0doe (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Unique WP-Waffen SS Article

We’ve a sole in WP Waffen SS Article which has POV section “Alleged war atrocities” despite the facts provided. We got irrelevant to article topic Deschênes_Commission with Cold war sentences like “Communist propaganda” despite the recent finding - The great majority of Nazi war criminals and collaborators who settled in Canada after the Second World War were admitted not on purpose, but as a result of the absence of, or inaccessibility to, information about their wartime activities. So adding a SELECTIVELY CITING TEXT : Both the Canadian government and the Canadian Jewish Congress in their investigations of the Division failed to find hard evidence to support the notion that it was rife with criminal elements. Create a wrong impression because no explanations were given why they failed to do so - result of the absence of, or inaccessibility to, information about their wartime activities.

That's your OR and your selective citing of text. Margolian described invesitagtions of many Division members, which produced no results. The section about the Division was in a chapter called "Exceptions that PRove the Rule." You selectively cite text and then use it out of context.Faustian (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:IDL? No results because of absence of, or inaccessibility to, information about their wartime activities – as far as Baltic and Ukrainian Community strongly appeal to reject evidence from East - so such investigation can not have any results from the beginning - Paul_Blobel also would be a good citizen if use same approach – he also fighting Bolsheviks – as SS-GaliciaJo0doe (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • division was sent to put down the uprising in Slovakia
  • it fought Tito's partisans

All above are indeed a good matched with “fight against the Red Army from nationalistic motives” – which one nationalistic motives were harmed in uprising in Slovakia and Yugoslavia – or may be here we should suppose that Galicia SS-man comes and beat all above in chess tournaments?.

Thanks for your opinion and OR.Faustian (talk)
Any intent to provide page numbers for "Armstrong" [23]? So - what about you OR in article?Jo0doe (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed great

  • maintaining friendly relations with Serbia's anti-communist Chetnik guerrillas
author forgot to mentioned that Chetnik was supplied by SS and SD at least from 1943.
So?Faustian (talk)
  • 1st Ukrainian Division UNA
would be interesting to see how named on Germans map a military formation which transferred to Austrian soil. How named formation supplied by SS with arms, ammunition and fuel? Which uniform they are used ? Fanny article about good “Catholics, valuable and desirable citizens” “western minded, religious, democratic, good, strong and healthy workers” – unique amongst all rest SS.
Thanks for your opinion that it's a fanny article. All descriptions of democratic and religious elements within the Division are referenced. So what's your problem? WP:IDL?Faustian (talk)
Why not Brigadefuhrer Pavlo SchandrukJo0doe (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Shandruk, the recipient of the Virtuti Militari who was condemend in emigration by Banderists as a Poloniphile? Not a bad example.Faustian (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
SS units commanded by SS ranked men - any difficulties to comrahend?Solution - Visit library - read scholar works not Antin's shelfbookJo0doe (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Who is denying that Shandruk was in the SS?Faustian (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
So why you remove this info from article?Jo0doe (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Nice to see here a childish E-Poshta arguments hided by fraud of the Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine text

it is alleged that a small detachment from the Division (the Division was in training until May, 1944)

Institute of Ukrainian History, Academy of Sciences of Ukraine clearly identify 4 and 5 regiments of SS-Galicien “”freewiller” under SD command (per IMT conclusion all SD agents regardless they member of SS or NOT are war criminals) participate in many war crimes from the autumn 1943 which raged from the beginning of the 1944 – “During Jan-Mar 1944 polish settlements suffered assaults of the UPA and detachments of the SS-Galicia across all Stanyslaviv region. – p.283 At p. 284 “As known 4 and 5 regiments of the SS-Galicia was under SS and SD command of GG.

pp. 285 – “there no doubts remains about SS Galicien “”freewillers” participation in Polish citizens massacre”.

  • Article Look like nationalistic propaganda about good anti-communists instead of WAR-Criminals - as confirmed

Jo0doe (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Some sources claim this happened, others don't. All POVs need to be represented in the article.Faustian (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean some WP:QS like e-Poshta claim what Division was on formation while WP:RS like Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences and many others mentioned such crime. Also would be interesting to mentioned Gal. SS-Freiw.Rgt. 4,5,6,7,8 activities under SS and SD command.Jo0doe (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Since when have I used e-Poshta as a source?Faustian (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Division was on formation and "rest funny stuff" - it's geniune e-Poshta Jo0doe (talk) 07:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong on UNDO

More of the obvious, on page 18-19: "Ukrainian National Democratic Union, which was definitely democratic in character, with varying amounts of Catholic, liberal, and socialist ideology embodied in its program."Faustian (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Any Amstrong on UNDO in SS-Galicia???See WP:SYN for OR There a quite a lot of scholar work regarding Pre 1939 Poland political party- they gave broader details Jo0doe (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Armstrong, page 171: "The prime organizer and highest ranking officer in it (the commanding staff was German) was Dmytro Paliiv, formely a leader of one of the smaller legal parties in Poland. With him were associated a large number of UNDO members like Luiubomir Makarushka, while numerous old UNR officers like Generals Petriv and Omelianovich-Pavleno lent their moral support." I'm really shocked that you continue making comments that indicate you haven't read the source, yet keep making comments on it.
So, to summarize, according to Armstrong UNDO was "definitely democratic" (page 18) and a large number of this party's members entered the Division, and one of these many UNDO members' associates was the prime organizer and highest ranking officer in the Division (page 171). Why do you find such facts unpleasant? Are you motivated by something other than wanting WP to reflect what sources say?Faustian (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your OR - please not insert it in article untill it was clearly appeared in scholar textJo0doe (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
You keep saying tha this is OR but have not showed it to be OR. So, how is the above OR? Armstrong clearly stated that UNDO was "definitely democratic." He also clearly described "many" UNDO members in the Division. Where is the OR?Faustian (talk) 13:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
"many" UNDO members in the DivisionJo0doe (talk) 16
30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Reread page 171, second paragraph: With him were associated a large number of UNDO members like Luiubomir Makarushka. Thank you.Faustian (talk) 05:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you unable to comprahend the difference between "him were associated a large number of UNDO" in regards to formation activity and many UNDO members in the Division in regards to 80000 volonteers?Jo0doe (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The article states: "The Division's prime organizer and highest ranking officer, Dmytro Paliiv, had been a leader of a small legal political party in pre-war Poland, and many of his colleagues had been members of the pre-war moderate, left-leaning democratic UNDO movement [2] [3] that before the war had been opposed to the authoritarian Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists."
Please explian how this is an inaccurate use of Armstron's text.Faustian (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
See wider explanation at WP:SYN regarding ORJo0doe (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You refuse to expain, of course. Faustian (talk) 22:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
try to see at pages number and sections name - you draft one set of words from one section merge it throug other and push at as Armstron's text - no - it's called a Faustian's text - again read carefully WP:rulesJo0doe (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
(sigh). Once again. The book: Armstrong, page 171: "The prime organizer and highest ranking officer in it (the commanding staff was German) was Dmytro Paliiv, formely a leader of one of the smaller legal parties in Poland. With him were associated a large number of UNDO members like Luiubomir Makarushka, while numerous old UNR officers like Generals Petriv and Omelianovich-Pavleno lent their moral support."
The article: "The Division's prime organizer and highest ranking officer, Dmytro Paliiv, had been a leader of a small legal political party in pre-war Poland, and many of his colleagues had been members of the pre-war moderate, left-leaning democratic UNDO movement [2] [3] that before the war had been opposed to the authoritarian Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists."
The description of UNDO was added for the sake of readers unfamiliar with Ukrainian politics and is clearly referenced to page 18 of Armstrong and to another RS. Based on this you accuse me of "you draft one set of words from one section merge it throug other and push at as Armstron's text - no - it's called a Faustian's text ". Faustian (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

SS Grenadier Division Galizien in Slovak appraisal – a war crimes

14. SS Grenadier Division Galizien - from 8/10/44 - Brigf Fritz Freitag - divided into KGs Wittenmayer, and Wildner

KG Wittenmayer - from 15/10/44 - Hauptstuf Wittenmayer - 3 bns of 14. SS Gren Div


KG Wildner - parts of SS Gren Div 14 - from 15/10/44

And a good friend to assist -

SS Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger - transferred 14/10/44, fights 16/10/44 - 4000 men - Osttьrkischen Waffen-Verband der SS attached to unit Dr Korcek, Dr Stanislav and the village chronicle all confirmed that the Wittenmayer unit was involved in an attack on the village of Smrecany, burning down the village as a reprisal for allegedly helping the partisans. Dr Korcek and Dr Stanislav also confirmed an attack by the same unit on the village of Nizna Boca, where the Ukrainian SS men stormed into the pub, interrogated the men folk and then executed 5 villagers as alleged partisans. One of them, Cyril Zahradnik, was just 15 years old and died calling out for his mummy. He was arrested for having a Russian coin in his pocket.

14. Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS (Galizien Nr. 1) v historickej spisbe protifašistického odboja a SNP Prof. PhDr. Karol Fremal, CSC., (Katedra histórie FHV UMB, Banská Bystrica) plk. Pawel Szandruk povýšený na SS-Gruppenführera a od 12. novembra 1944 sa zmenil aj názov divízie na 14. Waffen-Grenadierdivsion der SS (Ukrainische Nr. 1)

"Esten, Russen und Ukrainer in der Waffen-SS" dokumentiert ISBN-10: 3938392258 ISBN-13: 9783938392256

Verlag: Winkelried-Verlag Autor: Michaelis, Rolf


  • as regards to e-Poshta indulging Huta Penyatska Massacre “Division was on formation” – German record - *

16.02.44 bis 20.03.44 Einsatz als Kampfgruppe Beyersdorff im Raum Zamosc Jo0doe (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

: ) I was really waiting for you to mention Slovakia. Here's another account of the situation:


http://www.day.kiev.ua/DIGEST/2001/08/den-pln/dp1.htm


Lies Cloaked as Truth

­­-


By Mykola MUSHYNKA, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Director of the Ukrainian Studies Department, Presov University (Slovakia), foreign member of the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences

­­-


The Day (No. 2, January 23) has already broached the painful subject of


Ukrainians during World War II as officers and men of the Waffen SS Division Galizien (Dyviziya "Halychyna" in Ukrainian). After Yorkshire Television of Leeds, England, aired the documentary, SS in Britain , surviving Division veterans were accused of crimes against humanity. This time we offer the reader an interesting documented view (and one totally devoid of emotion) on this problem, courtesy of Mykola Mushynka, Ph.D. in history from Presov, Slovakia, who relies on his own field studies, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the British documentary used corrupt evidence and that some of the footage was edited so as to make the viewer believe that the Galicians took part in crushing the Slovak National Uprising in 1944.

FROM DIALOGUE: HISTORY, POLITICS, ECONOMICS, NO. 1 IN THE THIRTIES AND FORTIES UKRAINE WAS A CHIP IN THE GAME OF EUROPEAN

GEOPOLITICS.

Last spring, Canadian television aired SS in Britain produced by Julian

Hendy of Yorkshire Television Ltd. It is about Ukrainians allegedly committing crimes as officers and men of the 14th Galician Waffen SS Division, in suppressing the Warsaw Uprising in August 1944 and Slovak National Uprising in the spring of 1944. Among other things, the documentary claims that Ukrainian combatants killed men and minor children in the Slovak village of Nizna Boca.


...


The British documentary offered "fresh evidence" concerning alleged purges by Ukrainian soldiers of the civilian populace at Nizna Boca. This so-called evidence, however, is very biased, as Ukrainians are attributed criminal acts they could not have perpetrated simply because they never took part in that particular combat mission. Thus, the narrator says a Ukrainian unit of the SS Halychyna Division entered the village of Nizna Boca in October 1944, and we see two old women residents of the village sharing their memories.

They speak Slovak and we hear off-screen translation. One of them says that they (members of the punitive detail - Author) first burst into the local tavern and began to drink. The other adds that they searched village homes and locked all the men in the school. Five captives, among them 15-year-old Zagradnik, were kept there until morning. The first woman says those detained were shoved around and beaten. The other says the men were interrogated, sentenced to death, and shot. Zagradnik was just a boy. The first says he cried and called for his mother. He cried at the school, shouting mother, dear mother, you will never see me again. The other woman interjected that the boy was crying with despair. What did he do to deserve it? He was not even a soldier. And he cried so! He was led out of the school, taken to the bridge and shot there. He fell from the bridge into the water (we see the bridge and hear the water splashing). The first exclaims that the whole thing was horrible and that no one would ever forget it.


After these emotional and sincere words the narrator again declares that, according to German documents, Wittenmeyer's unit of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizien entered Nizna Boca that same day. One of the documents has it that Ukrainian volunteers with the 14th SS Division took part in hostilities and fought the rebels with utmost cruelty. If, until now, the audience did not know who the war criminals were as mentioned by the two women from Nizna Boca, after the above commentary everything is clear. They were Ukrainians. And an old woman adds to the commentary (which she never heard or saw) that they found no partisans and that her and other women's husbands had to pay for this with their lives.

The British commentator goes on to say that the Nazis dispatched 40,000 troops, including two divisions, to crush the Slovak national uprising. To this Prof. David Ceaserani confidently adds that the Slovak uprising was a bloody violent conflict, killing tens of thousands of civilians without mercy from either side. Assuming that Ukrainian units did take part in suppressing the Slovak Uprising (he says), they could not have avoided involvement in that brutal ruthless campaign. In other words, what was earlier presented in the documentary as an actual fact, albeit retouched by the old women's emotional eyewitness accounts, is referred to by the professor and expert in his field as an assumption; he has no documentary proof of Ukrainian participation in such massacres. Supposing that the authors of the documentary are in possession of such evidence, it stands to reason that those Ukrainians were indeed brutal and ruthless. In fact, this concept dominates the televised film, alternating authentic Slovak statements with the narrator's biased anti-Ukrainian commentary. To enhance the factual aspect of the production, we are shown the school in which the civilian victims were interrogated, graves of those shot, and a memorial in Nizna Boca with the names of those killed in the massacre.

Among others, we see and hear Jan Stanislav, director of the Slovak National Uprising Museum, author of numerous papers dealing with the subject. In one of his works, Fascist Reprisals in Slovakia (Bratislava, 1989), he maintains that a total of 3,965 persons were killed during the Slovak National Uprising and buried in 186 mass graves. He lists dozens of Sonderkommando, including Wehrmacht, police, and the Slovak Hlinka Guard punitive units as taking part in the massacre. Not a word about any Ukrainian units. Now in the British documentary he allegedly refers to the Halychyna Division war criminals, saying that arson, terror, plunder, and vengeance were the basis of their craft. Being an unbiased researcher, he could not have referred to the Ukrainians. He certainly referred to the German punitive units. And the old women interviewed could not have ascribed mass shootings of innocent civilians to Ukrainians. From the British documentary it follows that the Ukrainian officers and men of the SS Halychyna Division were the most ruthless [war] criminals when crushing the Slovak National Uprising.

To verify the alleged facts provided by the British producers, I traveled to where the on-location shooting had been made. I spoke with Jan Stanislav, director of the SNU Museum, staff archivist Maria Cemanova in Banska Bystrica, the two elderly women featured in the documentary: Pavlina Begmerova (b. 1921) and Etela Begmerova (b. 1917), Nizna Boca Village Elder Marcela Gerichova, et al. All confirmed that no Ukrainians of the SS Halychyna Division took part in suppressing the uprising at Nizna Boca.

They further said that the statements they had made for the British documentary referred to Nazi SS-men and Hlinka Guard punitive units doing the shootings at the village. This part of the statements was edited out of the film. What the women had spoken about before the camera had nothing to do with Ukrainians, but everything to do with the Nazis and Slovak fascists. In other words, their truthful eyewitness accounts had been tampered with and deliberately made anti-Ukrainian by the producers, something the Slovaks featuring in the documentary would even dream of.


While in Nizna Boca, I photographed a memorial plaque and two memorials of NSU victims. They make it perfectly clear that residents of that village had been shot by "German fascists [i.e., Nazis] and members of the Hlinka Guard punitive division." The village chronicle written immediately after the uprising was crushed, bearing the village council's seal, has several pages dealing with the shootings, stressing time and again that the innocent villagers were shot by the Germans and Slovak fascists. The chronicle makes no mention of Ukrainians and the document was made available to the camera crew.

Both women interviewed in the documentary were positive that no Ukrainians took part in suppressing the uprising at the village, although both had been prompted to testify to the contrary by the authors of the film; they had been asked whether any of the Sonderkommando men spoke Ukrainian or Polish, whether any sported the tryzub [trident, the Ukrainian national emblem] as part of their insignia, and so on. And both women said no time and again, stressing that they were all Germans and Slovak Hlinka Guards. I taped their testimonies.


I spoke with Jan Stanislav, manager of the NSU Museum in Banska Bystrica, and he also resolutely denied any Ukrainian involvement in or with the shootings of Nizna Boca insurgents.

Incidentally, Julian Hendy, the producer of SS in Britain, promised to send copies of the documentary to the museum and Nizna Boca. He never did, for reasons best known to himself. In other words, the people figuring in the film learned what it was all about from me. They were outraged by the politically manipulated story it presents.

.......

Here is the website of the Slovak National Uprising museum: [24]: try to to find evidence of Ukrainian participation here or contact the museum and see what they say.Faustian (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

A much more detailed account of Professor Mushynka's trip, including transcript of testimomy by the mayor of the village where the atrocity occurred, the words of the Director of the Slovak National Uprising Museum Dr. Jan Stanislav, the actual handweritten village chronicle, etc. all of whom deny involvement of the Division in the massacre there: [25] Faustian (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
So awful copyright violation
  • Ph.D. in Philosophy – a nice historical qualification.

Nice collection of “sviy do svogo po svoe” – Nice to see try to dismiss Huta Pieniacka case. While pitty – no Pidcamen mentioned. Again childish play around name of Waffen-SS and forgot to tell a story about Gal. SS-Freiw.Rgt. 5,6,7,8 under SS and SD order.

  • but look like Director of Museum of the Slovakian National Uprising -

my answer was that true volunteers, in that division were very few. The majority of them were forcibly taken into the German army from occupied territories, and sent there for penalty. There were also former war prisoners from the Red Army, who joined that division to saving their own lives.

is not familiar with what they are spoken about – hardly expect such replay from historian.
  • Wittenmeyer's unit of the 14th Waffen SS Division Galizien entered Nizna Boca that same day
- clear Ph.D. in Philosophy
  • men spoke Ukrainian or Polish, whether any sported the tryzub [trident, the Ukrainian national emblem] as part of their insignia
with same results they cane ask does they have present Canadian or British Passports. And why Polish? Under Nazi officers command why speak Polish???
  • Jan Stanislav, in our conversation, expressed that until today he has no documents of any Ukrainians from SS-Division "Galicia" that caused any atrocities on their own initiative.
So – he specifically mentioned their own initiative – SS-man as most high-moral soldiers always perform an orders – it’s well known.
There you go cherry picking again. The next sentence that you "conveniently" forgot [26]: "To the contrary, he expressed their positive behaviour toward Slovak population, as well as the Slovak population toward them.".Faustian (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
indeed childish attempt to search Ukrainians amongst Galicians in SS-uniform which swear in thier loyalty to Great Hitler – as all SS-man
)
  • So we’ll stick with historian works (14. Waffen-Grenadier Division der SS (Galizien Nr. 1) v historickej spisbe protifašistického odboja a SNP and "Esten, Russen und Ukrainer in der Waffen-SS" dokumentiert, Ukrainer in der Waffen-SS, Die Waffen-SS: Dokumentation uber Die Personelle Zusammensetzung Und Dem Einsatz Der Waffen-SS ) -
Sorry, archival research is a no-go on wikipedia. We know that you like to look through archives and cherry pick data that seems to support your POV.Faustian (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

were fact is - 14. SS Grenadier Division Galizien - from 8/10/44 - Brigf Fritz Freitag - divided into KGs Wittenmayer, Beyersdorff and Wildner And

“Kampfgruppe Wittenmayer in process of occupying Nizna Boca (10 km S of Krl. Lehota). Road between Rosenberg and Poprad therefore now free of the enemy. The Ukrainian volunteers of the 14 Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS used in the operation fought excellently.”

  • While indeed sad to note about editor’s “waiting” - and no effort whatsoever to provide a tiny page number(s) for OR inserted by he/she and no effort traced to fix the awfully historically idiotic content in the article itself - all facts relayed on the use WP to illustrate a point. Sad
Jo0doe (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Jan Stanislav, the director of the Slovak National Uprising Museum, cannot be expected to be an expert on the Galician Division (who its members were, how they were recruited, etc.). However he is an expert on the Slovak National Uprising. And this is what he says about the Division's role in it [27]:
"On Slovakian territory the division was just in the early stages of formation and in training. Its main task was to defend the railroad line Bahumin-Zlina-Ruzmberok-Kocice, which was used as a supply line for the German eastern front. From time to time, some penal units were sent strictly under the command of German officers, together with Wehrmacht units, and Hlinka Garda . They never took part in any major acts of oppression. Germans had 2500 of their own well trained thugs in Slovakia, who caused most of these brutal crimes, and their helpers, Slovak enthusiasts of the penal units of Hlinka Garda. To assert that the SS-Galicia was a Ukrainian military unit, consisting of Ukrainians only, is nonsense. The 14 Division SS-Galicia never acted as one unit alone on Slovakian territory, and we absolutely have no documents to substantiate that "crimes" were committed by that division. All my writings in detail about that subject is written in, Facisticky represiij na Slovensku (in the above mentioned book p. 215- 266), in which not even one word was mentioned about any "brutality" caused by the Ukrainians. Although that work was written and edited during totalitarian communist regime, I am still willing to put my signature to that right now."
SS-Division "Galicia" is mentioned only once in that book: its members together with the Edelweiss group and the penal unit of Hlinka Garda in Zilina October 18 1944 in the village Ustredije near Zazriva, took part in destroying partisan telephone lines in the post office, and killing three partisans (p. 225).
Your evidence seems to be from archival research and as such has no role in wikipedia. Given your proven habit of cherry picking information, it only arouses suspicion.Faustian (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
See book not from Orest Omelko and rest amatuer kins of SS - called Die Waffen-SS: Dokumentation uber Die Personelle Zusammensetzung Und Dem Einsatz Der Waffen-SS. Much better then Philosophist researchJo0doe (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually documents and archives are to be limited in wikipedia: [28]:
"Our policy: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."
Unless they are not controversial in any way, any of your additions sourced to documents such as from "Die Waffen-SS: Dokumentation uber Die Personelle Zusammensetzung Und Dem Einsatz Der Waffen-SS" will be removed.Faustian (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Any effort on [29]? Thank you.Jo0doe (talk) 16
29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's been covered. You should reread [30]. Thank you.Faustian (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as from the time of hoaxing the WP you've change some Armstrong ref to Orest one - still unclear were in Armstrong Paradoxically, the division therefore often included volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine who were averse to the extreme fascist ideology underpinning Bandera's OUN and therefore reluctant to join the ranks of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) Why "Among its members was a son of Mstyslav Skrypnyk, the Orthodox Bishop of Kiev" - who appead in SS as of June 30 1944 - included in the Spring 1943 section. Were is prove for Ukrainian Orthodox chaplains in the Division? Sheptytskyy not belonged to Ukrainian Orthodox etc.Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Paradoxically, the division therefore often included volunteers wanting to fight for Ukraine who were averse to the extreme fascist ideology underpinning Bandera's OUN and therefore reluctant to join the ranks of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)" is a summary of the referenced information that follows in that paragraph. Summaries are acceptable in wikipedia. They aid readability. Where is your evidence that Mstyslav Skrypnyk's son appeared in the Division in June 30, 1944? The reference to his presence there was dated June 30, 1944 but it doesn't state that he appeared there at that date. Cheack page 173 of Armstron's book. You ought to read more carefully before making claims. More interesting is why you seem to be so desperate to have this information removed. I guess it doesn't match your POV.Faustian (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you refuse to provide a page number(s) . Thus I fill that facts about OR covered by non-V:WP was not incidental but intent - it's realy sad facts discoveredJo0doe (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
If you don't see the page numbers, check again.Faustian (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A tiny figures - please Jo0doe (talk) 07:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Perfect example of Source misuse

In article recently added

  • The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences concluded that the Division's 4th and 5th regiments did indeed kill the civilians within the village, but added that the grisly reports by alleged eyewitnesses in the Polish accounts were "difficult to believe." [19] (Follow the link above for more details.)
Which actually cannot be called otherwise than hoaxing the WP – so awful the twist and distort about text appeared at p.284.
Why don't you translate the second paragraph of page 284, then: [31].Faustian (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I whait untill you fix your possible mistake, I hope. Please try to comprehand whole section about SS-Galicia freewillersJo0doe (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • While so many irrelevant to the topic UNDO 1988 Subtelnyy added.
Your opinion. Armstropng states that many UNDO members joined it. Readers ought to know what UNDO is. And there aren't "many" added, just a couple sentences.Faustian (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank for your source misuse Armstrong does not state so. Dissapeared in 1938 party is irrelevant to SS formation - try to visit library to posess a scholar bookJo0doe (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
article not about political party of pre war Poland
I kindly ask an editor to fix such possible mistake. I also hope what there will be resolved the issues mentioned [32]. Thank you.

Jo0doe (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

THose issues were all covered: [33] Or have you stopped reading that section?
See in section above. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

partisan reprisals

my father was a member of the 14th so i would like to find out the truth.

The big problem is that fact and fiction are being mixed up to try and prove points

Anyone involved in partisan activity is usually considered a traitor by the occupying force and so can expect reprisals - nowhere does any account deny that the people executed in Nizna Boca were NOT aiding/part of the partisans. Similarly the "boy" was 15, an age similar to many in the 14th.

As for the documentary from UK tv - a reply was made by Julian HENDY, Director of the film, SS in Britain in a Ukranian paper :- "We discovered additional material in the Nizna Boca village chronicle, which confirmed that those responsible were SS troops along with Hlinka Guardists." he goes on to say :- "Additionally we found two surviving witnesses who were able to testify to what happened in the village that day. It’s important to realise that it is not surprising that these witnesses, who were frightened and in hiding when then atrocities were committed, are not able, after more than 50 years, to identify precisely which individual SS unit (out of some 30 divisions) was attacking their village and killing their menfolk."

i cannot accept this as credible evidence as it clearly states that the women did not know who the SS soldiers were.

This is NOT eyewitness testimony, and the evidence from the town records is NOT as stated in the program

can someone clarify please ??

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You should check this out: [34].regards, Faustian (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Too late to find it out - almost all vitnesses diedJo0doe (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • [35] see the SD section In dealing with the SD the Tribunal includes Amts III, VI, and VII of the RSHA and all other members of the SD, including all local representatives and agents, honorary or otherwise, whether they were technically members of the SS or not.
I explain why dealing with SD – well known the facts that the division was formed and acted as SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien" – note – no Waffen-SS even in Slovakia appraisals it mentioned as “14. SS Grenadier Division Galizien”. Despite many claims what until 27 July 1944 it was on training – the 4-8 Gal. SS-Freiw.Rgt. was in anti-partisan actions since October 1943. Germans command corps at division comes from 4th_SS_Polizei_Division as

Anti partisan activity carried out accordingly to infamous “1942 order” and under SS and SD aegis. Anyway it’s not possible to distinct does the specific SS-man was only a gunner at 150mm howitzer or “deal with partisan”. We know what almost all genuine first draft soldiers (which was not member of 4-8 Regiments) was lost in Brody. Division was resurrected through SS regiments. That’s why actually describe why it not used at front line during all soviet offences for 1944/45 (instead of other non German Freiwilligen Divisions) – but inline with their main proposes – to fight partisans. Story about “battle activities” in April/May 1045– a tricky – well known what at the end of Vienna offence Soviets does not move further then Graz. Known that German commanders are not idiot and will never decide to put non-german division which has no front battle experience against Soviet tanks. So please summarize the facts – from late 1944 division composed almost completely from SS - SD regiments engaged from october 1943 in their “ordinary” duties. From that time it was used only in not front-line area (mean against partisans and civilians) in 1945 it absorbed 31 SD battalion (know for it criminal activities) – so it’s mostly composed definitely not from ordinary front-line soldiers and per war-time approach (and IMT conclusion) they are war-criminals. So – if you father comes to late 1944 Division from Brody pocket or was one of survivors from 5 SS 5th SS Panzergrenadier Division Wiking more chance what he is not otherwise – hard to prove his responsibility for any of known and unknown crimes of SS and SD formation of the Gal. SS-Freiw.Jo0doe (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Short list of war crimes can be found at Sk:WP [36] - so it should be note what SS Dirlenvagen was for some time under 14.SS Galicia command and they operate together. So that is the facts. Rest - simply apply division deployment area on map of crimes - and match similarity.Jo0doe (talk) 12:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice examples of original research. But thank you for openly confessing your POV: that the 14th Waffen-SS Division were mostly war criminals. Reliable sources, of course, have a different assessment than your personal POV. For example, Harold Margolian [37] states on page 146 "only a few dozen of the 1,200 - 2,000 members of the Division who were admitted to Canada were subsequently revealed to have had previous auxilliary police service." He then describes that the most plausible explanation is that relatively few of the 14th SS who were accepted into Britain (which includes the ones who subsequently moved to Canada) had been members of the auxilliary police.Faustian (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You "forgot" about Argentina roots and forgot what as of April 1945 Division has 22K members. While it's expected from "Austrian officer" way of misleeadingJo0doe (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Even in triple time doctored in distorted story about Division can be found prove what division responcible for war-crimes at Slovakia - (ask Faustian for assitance in Galician-English translation)

Очевидно, що в діях, коли цивільне населення сприяло партизанам, часом було дуже важко уникнути прикрих інцидентів. ... Але і тут українцям також почали приписувати вчинки, яких Дивізія ніколи не робила. Командування Дивізії дуже рішуче виступало проти таких неправдивих обвинувачень. (Again please note that text was triple time doctored and noone from SS really intresting in providing a true-story which can be lead to at least jail). So "incidents" really taken place - fairy tails about that somebody from SS was punished for that - lay in full on OUN fantacy and imaginationJo0doe (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The Ukrainian text simply comfirms that ugly incidents to civilians happened occasionally during partisan warfare. Nobody denies that. So far the incidents involving the division and civilians were little different from what happened tragically to Vietnamese civilians during the Viet Nam war (the most famous example being the My Lai Massacre, where only one person was convicted), Afghanis during the Soviet war, (and today - recall the wedding parties bombed from the sky) etc. It didn't seem to be systematic, such as the rape of 2 million German women by the Soviet soldiers: [38] although that is another discussion.Faustian (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you call Director of SNU as denier - as he allegedly (per Ph.Philisophy claims) deny any facts of such (you include it in article). Nice tryJo0doe (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting approach. PErhaos he is also a "deniar" that MArtians committed atrocities in Slovakia. SOrry, he testified that Ukrainians didn't.Faustian (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There no Ukrainians is Slovakie - you know - only SS troopsJo0doe (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not use WP to illustrate a point

So nice example of such breaching [39]

  • No explanation on talk page – no concerns – simply remove well referenced facts (as similar action in other articles with similar referenced facts).
  • Article “reweighed” per Orest Loguz “true story” – scholar works nominated as “archival” research without any doubts.
  • An "approved" version only allowed [40]

Look like editor does not like facts and dates - Significant number of volunteers -80-90 thousands (depends on source) allow to form not only division itself but also a 4,5,6,7 and 8 regiments of and one SS battalion which initially operated separately under SS and SD command and later used for reinforcing the Division itself. First battle action was conducted against soviet and polish partisans from mid February till end of April 1944. April 24, 1945 and surrendering to the US and British troops by May 10 1945. Other source indicate division at Brody consist of 15299 soldiers, including 346 officers and 1131 under-officers, about 1,000 were able to avoid destruction in encirclement, 1,200 was not encircled intitially – an approximately 3000 soldiers and officers returned training camp in Neuhammer.

No, such info just doesn't belong in the article's lead. When I have time I will incorporate it into the article but I have no obligation to do so. If you add these numbers in disruptively they can by all means be removed.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So - you solely decide which belongs, which not - charming. Have you pointed out what not all information are from the leadJo0doe (talk)
But like hoaxes – and thus reinstate it
No hoax there.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A Hoax - Shandruk memoirs claim - for your referrence was provided an OKW data - were no 1div nor UNA. Could you actually explain

what reformed as the first division action mean? Were is the refs?Jo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • The Galicia Division bore the brunt of a fierce assault by the Soviet Second Air Army, who in only a five hour period on July 15 flew 3,288 aircraft sorties and dropped 102 tons of bombs on it and on two panzer divisions as they attempted a counterattack.
Referenced info.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Was mentioned above - no such text in the book exist Jo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Two other divisions were also planned but were not formed. The Nr. 2 "Lemberg" tank division and the Nr. 3 "Karpatien" Artillery division[citation needed].
No reference for this yet. I don't oppose it's removal.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
But anyway you return it. Why? Look like you've try in addition to "unique good Christians" invent a new type of military formation - Artillery division. Fun. But what about WP:ReliabilityJo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Nice approach to a RS sources for WP - www.telusplanet.net/public/mozuz/articles/torontostar20001227
  • WP is a branch of Toronto-based newspapers funny.
It's a transcript of the interview with the Director of the National Uprising Museum, on the newspaper's website. It's not a claim by the Toronto newspaper. Understand the difference?Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
A RS for WP history article about WWII - funJo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice “neutral” source http://lib.galiciadivision.com

A transcript of the book by Heike is on that website. So?Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not to use book itself - I was unable to find nor 13 km, nor story about 3rd airborn, nor about info what Soviet Forces was near Greaz at April 1 1945. Glorious story about "repulsed a Soviet counterattack" at book more look like scouting attempt - 3 killed 4 cuptured. Counterattack by 10 men? FunJo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So to use anything to illustrate a point. While referenced data

  • According to M.Orest Logusz, Division maintaining friendly relations with Serbia's anti-communist Chetnik guerrillas,[1] which was maintain cooperative actions against Yugoslav Partisans with SS and SD detachments [2] At this area Division absorbed 31 Schutzmannschafts Batalion of SD known also as Ukrainian Self Defense legion or "Ukrainische Selbschutzlegion". [3]
Didn't have time to integrate that info.
So - you've time to remove it and wright a dozens of text lines. May be better not so hate my edits?It's only line of text - you knowJo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
However you must be the first person to engage in Original Research even with respect to referenced. Logusz is listed as "Michael O. Logusz" on the book: [http://www.amazon.com/Galicia-Division-Waffen-SS-grenadier-1943-1945/dp/0764300814]. YOu dug around and found out that his middle name is "Orest", and then use his middle rather than first name when referencing him. This is a great example of how you twist things to your liking rather than just report them the way they are.14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
So - why not to add Orest? If trust to IP sighned as Melnik his father was an SS-man - he not historian - thus is a QS.Jo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Removed
  • Also “we” don’t like an OKW documents - The Galician Division nominally became the 1st Division of the Ukrainian National Army. Despite of this claim on April 30, 1945, the following order of battle was recorded by the German Army High Command (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht: German 6th Army location- north of Graz has IV SS Panzer Corps which included 3rd Panzer Division , Danish, Dutch, and Norweigen 5th SS Panzer Division and Ukrainian 14th SS Grenadier Division.

And German officer of the division itself - Wolf-Dietrich Hieke (officer of the division) mentioned SS-Brigadeführer Fritz Freitagas division commander – until his suicide in May 10 1945. Division lead the spearhead of hasty retreated German troops- and first of all SS –members - which don’t want to be captured by Red Army. It surrendered to British and US forces by May 10 1945.

I wonder how you misuse Heike, as you misues "Orest Logusz." And it's funny that when HEike is mentioend regasrding GLeichenberg you complain about the source, but then you use his woprk for your purposes.14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I've use facts which confirmed through other RS. Any comments on OKW removal?Jo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again – no effort traced to fix “mistakes” mentioned before. [41] [42] I’ll wait – may be editor really does not have time to fix it 10:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I just wasted 1/2 hour that could have been spent improviong the article, addressing your "concerns." Maybe tonight I'll get a chance....Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's easy to preserve your time - cite fairly, use sourced text, limit your edits to grammar and spelling and do not enagage in OR.Thank you Jo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Or, even better - stop playing games with a disruptive editor and just revert what needs to be reverted, and change what needs to be changed, without wasting time on conversations.22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed intresting comment in terms of what already appeared at text page - so editor which perpetrate hoaxes in WP - it's good editor - edior which tried to made WP as a reliable source - a disruptive editor. NiceJo0doe (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

One more hoax

Instead of remove hoax originated from Orest Logusz from article text editor indulge it through note

cited in Michael Logusz's Galicia Division: the Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945. Altglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History, pg. 490. "Although SSSR 1941-1945 does not identify exactly the two tank and one infantry division conducting the counterattack on 15 July, the "Galicia" Division was the infantry division dispatched for the counterattack."

I think editor expect what WP visitors comes to read notes. As far as I've note what editor refuse to visit library to check this by themselvesJo0doe (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC) So why not to use google- The huge six volume set "History of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union, 1941-1945" in the Russian language gives a detailed description of the battle of Brody as well as of armaments used but does not even mention the Ukrainian Division "Galicia".Jo0doe (talk) 17:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that therefore Galicia Division wasn't at Brody? Faustian (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
And why do you refer to the guy by his middle name? Do you usually do this? Do you particualrly like the name Orest? Faustian (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you alraedy visit library to check the book itself? You do not believe to galicia web page?Or it's simple a word games and intent to spoil the WP:reliability to serve nationalistic POV?Jo0doe (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The guy is listed on his book as "Michael O. Logusz." You are the one playing word games. Why?Faustian (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please grow up. His name is Michael Orest Logusz - Michael O. Logusz. He refers to himself as Orest Logusz and has done in every way in letters, private correspondence etc. He can call himself whatever he likes and that happens to be Orest Logusz. Mike Melnyk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.20.46 (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The oath

The Oath varied with time. This was the version first used in November 1944 but authorized by Himmler in February 1945. Ukraine is mentioned for the first time (it wasn't in the previous versions):

"I swear before God this holy oath, that in the battle against Bolshevism, and for the liberation of my Ukrainian people and Ukrainian homeland, I will give absolute obedience to the Commander in Chief of the German armed forces and all fighters of the young European nations against Bolshevism, Adolf Hitler, and as a brave soldier I will always be prepared to lay down my life for this oath." From An den Reichsführer-SS und Reichsminister des Innern" den 5.2.1945, NS19/544, BA-KO, cited in Melnyk's book pg. 215.

I'll incorporate it into the article somehow, when I have more time.Faustian (talk) 05:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Indeed intresting - so in addition to Unique SS-Whermacht Division - we'll have a SS formation which taken oath twice - before the oath text was adopted - why division story was postponed to 1945? Or they fight Bolshevism without taking oath? You know Melnik not historian - so his nice book is not RS - see WP:RS for more details. While why not to mention the original SS oath -
”We pledge to you, Adolf Hitler, loyalty and bravery. We swear obedience to you and the Superiors appointed by you, even unto death, as God is our witness."

The main issues of the article

Again originated from same approach to game the system, not follow the WP:Rules and twist and misuse the source. That’s why actually WP:article about Nazi SS formation appeared as a story about “valuable and desirable citizens” “western minded, religious, democratic, good, strong and healthy workers” – mean deliberately usage of WP as vehicle for nationalist propaganda.

Just because something doesn't agree with Russian nationalist propaganda a la Maslovsky: [43] doesn't make it Ukrainian "nationalist propaganda." All of my edits come from reliable sources, such as Armstrong, Subtleny, and a bit form Logusz and Melnyk (see discussion on the latter). Claims ofs "twisting" etc. are just that - claims by an editor who has already been banned from one topic due to his soapboxing etc.: [44]

So I once again kindly remind to editor with long story of WP “valuable contribution” the following facts (may be it’s difficult to comprahand).

  • It’s article about military formation (Division) of the SS drafted from non-German personnel

– but editor still try to

  • try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that "it is verifiable, so it should be in."
Such as?Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • argue for the inclusion of material of dubious reliability; for example, using commentary from partisan think tanks rather than from the scientific literature
Which ones?Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV, or give undue weight to fringe theories - marginal nationalist or historic viewpoints
Maslovsky's work certainly constitutes "fringe", and his ideas are the ones you copy.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So please follow the rest SS military formation article practice about text included in the article – as far as I provide you at least page number(s) (if not number of lines of text). It can be achieved by follow – instead of story about Galicia – better to add a story about first freewill Galician formations under Nazi command. The decision-making processes (Himmler, Rosenmberg), Melnyk apply etc. Do not limit division origin- do not forget 201 Shuma batallion staff. So in article also would be add a brief story about training times - SS-Truppenьbungsplatz Debica / Heidelager and about 4,5,6,7and 8 SS Gall. Regiments together with 204 Shuma batallion also composed from Galician frewillers. Gives more general details on battle and do it from the beginning not from the mid.

This stuff ought to be in the aticle. Unfortunately yuou have a bad track record of twisting and distorting what is written, as well as cherry picking from sources. You might not be the person to do it.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please fix or remove hoaxes

  • Ukrainian leaders of various political trends desired an armed force to fight the Soviets early in the war (hint – to fight Moscovite-Jewish Bolshevism).
Referenced to Armstrong's work published by Columbia UNiversity. A fringe theory aording to you?Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The decision was made by the German Governor of District Galicia (hind Himmler and Rosenberg)
  • and Ukrainian Orthodox) chaplains
  • The creation of foreign SS units had been carried out previously—in the name of fighting against communism; with French, Dutch, Latvian, Estonian, Croatian, and Belarusian units, among others, had been created (hint – first non-nordic SS-Division (together with 13 SS) and first mono-ethnic - Galician)
I didn't write that.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The creation of a Ukrainian SS division was perceived by many as the first step towards an independent Ukrainian state, and finding volunteers was not a problem (hint – Galiciens)
So Galicians aren't UKrainians according to you?Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Nazi indoctrination was absent within the Division. (hint not Nazi germany – but Nazi Galiciens – same objects you know IMT)
Referenced from Armstrong.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • the Bandera faction of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B) strongly opposed the idea (hint – do not forget to cite doctored by Lebid after war Idea and Chyn propaganda – while Shukhevich find the division usefull).
Armstrong didn't state "doctored by Lebid." That's your claim based on original research.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • 600 German officers were released by Berlin for the formation of the division (hint – SS from Police units)
Not what I wrote.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • There were also 300 officers of Ukrainian ethnicity who had previously served (hints – do not forget Shuma 201 Officers and rest SS formation)
See above.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The division was sent to the front at the beginning of 1944 (hint is there a “Polish front” at Zamosc area?)
  • The division was sent to the area of Brody, where heavy combat was underway (hint check the time of division departure)
Referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Together with six under-strength German infantry divisions, the Galicia Division was responsible for holding a frontage of approximately 80 kilometers. (hint – second and third line of defence)
Article uses a referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Galicia Division bore the brunt of a fierce assault by the Soviet Second Air Army, who in only a five hour period on July 15 flew 3,288 aircraft sorties and dropped 102 tons of bombs (you know)
Article uses a referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Despite the severity of the fighting, the division maintained its discipline and most of its members were able to break out of the encirclement (hint – 500 members)
Article uses a referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Germans rebuilt the division over several months using reserve units (hint – SS regiments, 1,5-2 months)
  • Jan Stanislav, the director of the National Uprising Museum in Slovakia, denied that the Division or that Ukrainians took part in any brutalities committed against the Slovak people at this time (hint – find a RS)
Jan Stanislav is a reliable source about what Jan Stanislav says.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • While fighting the Communist partisans, the Division maintained friendly relations with Serbia's anti-communist Chetnik guerrillas (hint – Yugoslav Partisans and SS and SD friends)
  • From April 1 until the end of the war, with a strength of 14,000 combat troops and 8,000 soldiers in a Training and Replacement Regiment, the division fought against the Red Army in the region of Graz in Austria (hint – check the dates)
Article uses a referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The division at this time successfully maintained a 13-km front. (hint -find a 13km in RS)
Article uses a referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The Galician Division nominally became the 1st Division of the Ukrainian National (hint – add the date)
  • added that the grisly reports by alleged eyewitnesses in the Polish accounts were "difficult to believe."
Article uses a referenced souce.Faustian (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Alleged war atrocities (hint – start with facts about 220000 – put explanations about 1000-1200 later).

While I again plan to visit library to conduct good research about Nachtigal - so fill free not to engage in text sport on talk page - I'll not follow itJo0doe (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

thanks

hi guys

thanks for the reference faustian

& jo0doe (who points me to a website dedicated to remembering holocaust not to actual source material)

is it me or is jo0doe a bit against the 14thss >?

joodoe - what is your connection to the 14th SS, and under what banner do you come here to add material ? I do not appreciate you telling me that unless my father joined after late 1944 he was a war criminal

he joined when he was 16 and he was born in 1926

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a good indicator of JoODoe's motivations on this and other articles:

Maslovskyy

According to the Russian wikiepia page: [45] Maslovsky communist-era historian who found himself unemployed after Ukrainian independence, after being thrown out of the western Ukrainian branch of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (and apparently, not hired anywhere else). His work can be found on Russian Nationalist/Orthodox websites such as this one: [46] or this one (the website of the "national movement of little Russia"): [47]
You forgot to cite what he was killed by "Successors" of the valuable and desirable citizens” and “western minded, religious, democratic, good, strong and healthy workers” - as they also does not like truth about the past, as some WP editors also - is'n strangeJo0doe (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


What kind of sources does Maslovsky like? Well, here is one, Wiktor Poliszczuk, praised by Maslovsky: [48]. Well, Polish historian Rafał Wnuk of the Institute of National Remembrance in Lublin has categorized Poliszcuk's work as belonging to the "parascientific tradition" with "no scientific value," representing "national and anti-Ukrainian views" and noted Poliszczuk's use of exaggerated numbers of Polish victims of UPA [49]. Good to see that a communist-era "academic" unemployed after the fall of communism has such a high regard for a non-historian Poliszczuk who is dismissed by real historians. Some gems from Poliszczuk cited by Maslovsky:
"То чи було оте військо - СС дивізія "Галичина" - німецьке чи українське? Якщо українське, то з якої рації сучасна Німеччина ...платить їм пенсію?"
"Віктор Поліщук вказує також на те, що у В. - Д. Гайке, начальника штабу дивізiї СС "Галичина", в його книзі "Українська дивізія "Галичина" є карта, де вказано, що окремі підрозділи дивізії (видно, поліцейські) брали участь у розправі над повстанцями у Варшаві."


Section

I.e., Maslovsky repeats the discredited idea that Division units took part in the suppression of the Warsaw uprising.
Sounds like a was a bitter washed-up Ukrainophobe. That's pretty much all that needs to be said about Maslovsky.Faustian (talk) 06:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Two other divisions were also planned but were not formed. The Nr. 2 "Lemberg" tank division and the Nr. 3 "Karpatien" Artillery division[citation needed]. No reference for this yet. I don't oppose it's removal.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC) But anyway you return it. Why? Look like you've try in addition to "unique good Christians" invent a new type of military formation - Artillery division. Fun. But what about WP:ReliabilityJo0doe (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I added this section. This comes from Chuyev's Russian language book on the Legion. I can add the page number later. Bandurist (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Brody

Detailed info in this book: [50], pages 74-84, claiming that the 14th SS performed well at Brody. Is the author a reliable source? Here is his biography: [51] and a list of his books: [http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Samuel%20W.%20Mitcham%20Jr.&page=1]. I'm considering including his description of Brody.Faustian (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Poles in the 14th Division SS

Hi all

can someone check whether this addition to section "The Division's Support" by IP should be included, but if so definitely should be moved somewhere else

Ethnic Poles were enlisted into the division <ref> Mark Rikmenspoel, Waffen SS Encyclopedia, page 190 </ref> <ref> Gordon Williamson, SS Hitler's Instrument of Terror, pages 123-4 </ref> alongside Ukrainians.

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

This is new to me. Perhaps they were Ukrainians with pre-War Polish citizenship ? I'm trying to follow the links but without results. 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galicia was not for Poles to my knowledge. I posted a question on Polish board for help --Jacurek (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed that for now because I think it is wrong--Jacurek (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Rikmenspoel is a known author, although I have asked him on the Feldgrau website if he can comment on this, I do not think it needs to be said here, an ethnic pole is one who comes from a Polish back ground, and so - just as you pointed out - as most of Ukrainians living in Galicia could be said to have at some point been part of Poland, it seems a bit pointless.
As for Williamson, he is also a known author but the ref should read "The SS: Hitlers..." - I can find this however on page 123
"...paper at least, of the Ukrainian National Army under Pavlo Shandruck. Shandruck was a former general staff officer of the Polish Army, and the division was intended to form part of his force..." which leads back to my first comment, many "poles" were Ukrainian, It is hard for people to get over the Ukraine/poland/ukraine/poland/ukraine thing.
Also there is this comment on a review of the Williamson book [52]
"Also, a warning, to all. Mr. Gordon Williamson, although a great writer, has been known to mix up the facts, or just to put something down that just didn't occur. This book is for the 'beginning' students of history, it gives you a brief over view of the SS organization. But the book contains many tiny errors here and there."
However, if these are true, then I am sure we can include it in the text somewhere
As a matter of interest, can some people go and look at this on the same website and comment and perhaps send in some suggestions to the site owner ?
thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for checkig and your comments.Cheers--Jacurek (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All Eastern European countries had volunteers in various divisions of the SS. Poland is not the sole exception. I have supplied TWO well known references that there were Polish in the SS, but Wikipedia has a long history of 'picking and choosing' published sources. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have read two long books devoted specifically to the SS-Galizien (the one by Logusz and the one by Melnyk). To the best of my knowledge, none of them mentions ethnic Poles within the SS-Galizien. If a general book, suitable for beginning students, contradicts what the specialized books say, I would go with the specialized books' information.Faustian (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I just did some research on mine own and you are right Faustian, there was no ethnic Poles in SS-Galizien.--Jacurek (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Didn't you read Williamson and Rikmenspoel ? They know more than you do, and they say there were Poles. Lots of them. And does it surprise you ? Poland is the most antisemitic country in Europe, it always was, and still is. Listen to the popular Radio Maria some day and you'll see.65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
...thanks for your comment.... Case closed.--Jacurek (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, seems someone got out of bed on the wrong side, anyway, the reference link you have provided, 65.32.128.178, goes to a blank unviewable page. This article is about The Division, and if there were ethnic poles in it, and we had proof, then it would go in without question as long as it was of note. Your problem is the "ethnic" bit.
Definition 1 "a: of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background b: being a member of a specified ethnic group
Definition 2 "a member of a minority group who retains the customs, language, or social views of the group" - this sort of person would not have been in the 14th division, they would have been considered unsuitable as unfortunately the germans regarded poles as subhuman and were not allowed into SS divisions. As I said above, Galicians considered themselves to be under Polish rule, and most did not wish to be part of Poland, the Hungarian empire, or Russia
Next to me on my desk is Logusz, I have looked through all references to Polish people in the division, and there are none.
Furthermore, since Ukrainian uprisings in Galicia existed sine 1870's, in 1875 Tsar Alexander II signed Ukaz- effectively outlawing Urainian national practice. After WWI Poland tried to gain ownership of Galicia, there were further Ukrainian uprisings, ending with the Ukrainian-Poland treaty in April 1920. Lviv was started in 1250, by Ukrainians, not Poles, that means there have been fights over its ownership for over 700 years and uprisings have been put down by the Russians and the Poles and just about anyone else who wanted control of the area.
As for "picking picking and choosing" sources, that is correct, we choose them very carefully and do not put in unsubstantiated information - and your other point about Poland being anti-semitic, I cannot say whether or not that is true, but it does make me wonder what your real intent is here.
thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There were whole divisions of Slavs in the SS. Hitler twice wrote in Mein Kampf that Russians are a 'Great people', so obviously Hitler did not consider Slavs subhuman at all. The two sources I provided are Williamson's book and Rikmenspoel's book, these are BOOKS not websites. Both of these BOOKS say there were Poles in the 14th division SS - and it is wikipedia policy to accept sourced material ! 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If that information is verifiable, yes, so far we cannot verify it, and so it must remain out of the article until it ahs been verified. Hitler, as you say, called the Russians a great people, however Russians are not Poles ! I know you are concerned that your work is not being allowed to be added, but please do not think that we don't care about your contribution because we do ! All I can do is keep repeating that until it is verified it has to remain as unsubstantiated, and so we are seeking to verify it.
Mark Rikmenspoel is a member of a forum and I have entered discussions there to ask him about this matter, If you have williamsons book, why not scan the pages you talk about and get them on the web so that we can see it ? Unfortunately the page and link you gave us earlier [(your link from your talk page)]led me to a blank page that said "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book"
It is not about "you are wrong and we are right" it is about "This has been verified" or not.
--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't remember giving a link. I simply quoted pages in both Williamson's and Rikmenspeol's books. I don't have a scanner and wikipedia's rules don't require me to have one. Williamson's book is a standard reference. Also, Hitler never said that Poles (Slavs) were subhumans, never ! In fact, Hitler called Russians (Slavs) a 'Great people' in Mein Kampf.65.32.128.178 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link to Williamson's book's page 124, which you claimed states that ethnic Poles were in the 14th Division: [53]. It says no such thing on that page. I assume you're putting this info in to support your stated POV that "Hitler twice wrote in Mein Kampf that Russians are a 'Great people', so obviously Hitler did not consider Slavs subhuman at all." and "They know more than you do, and they say there were Poles. Lots of them. And does it surprise you ? Poland is the most antisemitic country in Europe, it always was, and still is. Listen to the popular Radio Maria some day and you'll see" (as if the Division was particularly antisemitic).Faustian (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for posting it. You there see that the last divisional commander was a general staff officer of the Polish Army, and that Polish General Anders recognized them as Polish. If however you want more then go to Rikmenspeol's book page 190. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but you claimed that Williamson wrote that there were ethnic Poles in the 14th Division. General staff officer in the Polish army does not equal ethnic Pole, nor does being a Polish citizen (30% or so of the citizens of the second Polish Republic weren't ethnic Poles). Indeed, virtually everyone in the 14th Division were Polish citizens. As were almost everyone in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army that masacred 10,000s of ethnic Poles. I can't access Rimenspeol's book online but since you've been shown to have misquoted Williamson the burden of proof is now on you to show that he wrote what you claimed he wrote.Faustian (talk) 04:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Rikmenspeol is extremely clear, his page 190, it is a standard reference. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you quote the specific sentence where he claims there were ethnic Poles in the 14th division, as you stated? We now have several sources that don't claim this (Logusz, Melnyk, Williamson).Faustian (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
One of the fellows above is contacting Rikmenspeol. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rikmespoel is not a "standard reference" he is an author of more recent years and his books, although published are of a general nature, not necessarily specifically related to a topic such as this. As you rightly say I am waiting for him to get back to me on a forum I, and he, are members of - yet again, you do not seem to understand the difference between Polish, being a subject of a Polish occupation, in the Polish army, and being a Ukrainian living in a Polish occupied state--Chaosdruid (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or the anonymous contributor could simply qrite out the sentence or two on page 190 that purports that there were ethnic Poles in the division.Faustian (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rikmenspeol is explicit. His Page 190 there are two paragraphs that say Ethnic Poles served in both the SS and the Wehrmacht. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm afraid that IP 65.32.128.178 is simply trolling.--Jacurek (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well at least it's gone from "in the 14th" to "in the SS and Wermacht".
So now I feel I must say that your comments on Tintin, George Orwell, Benjamin Franklin and others seem to be based entirely on a desire to get your information into the articles, however "Poland is the most anti semitic" is not a very good idea, and certainly cannot be true, as many Poles are/were Jewish or of Jewish descent.
I must also say that your comment "they know more than you do" is very dodgy. My father was in the 14th SS as was Mr Melnyk's, so were my godfather, my 2 brothers godfathers, our dance teacher, and about 50 other Ukrainians I knew when I was young. They CERTAINLY knew what the truth was far more than either of the authors you quote.
I believe that your intentions are good, but you lack the knowledge to distinguish between fact and supposition. This particular page is for discussing the 14th Waffen SS Galicia, and I am thankful that most people here discuss that - please just look up the page and see how much time has been wasted on just this one subject, trying to prove whether or not 2 authors said that there were ethnic poles in the Division - If you repeat again "its there cause I read it" then that will be a very bad mistake, as I am the only one here who at the moment is trying to support your "good intent", and you have taken the argument and made it into a ridiculous battle where we explain, and you just repeat.
I do not know if you just read those books and decided that you should say something on WIkipedia about it, but you have to understand that trying to mention something here it has to be supported by evidence. The other talkpages have sent you messages, and you did not even remember the fact that you posted a link on your own chat page so I am sure this is getting very distressing for you. It is also hard to believe that you just read them when you cannot even quote from them or put a page of text here for us to read.
Stop, take a deep breath and come back here in two or three days to find out what we have discovered, or alternatively wait until I post it onto your chat page or this one or both.--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Your text from above:-
1 There were whole divisions of Slavs in the SS[citation needed]. Hitler twice wrote in Mein Kampf that Russians are a 'Great people', so obviously Hitler did not consider Slavs subhuman at all[citation needed]. The two sources I provided are Williamson's book and Rikmenspoel's book, these are BOOKS not websites. Both of these BOOKS say there were Poles in the 14th division SS [citation needed]- and it is wikipedia policy to accept sourced material ! 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2 "I don't remember giving a link ( Its here). I simply quoted pages in both Williamson's and Rikmenspeol's books[citation needed]. I don't have a scanner and wikipedia's rules don't require me to have one. Williamson's book is a standard reference [citation needed]. Also, Hitler never said that Poles (Slavs) were subhumans, never ! In fact, Hitler called Russians (Slavs) a 'Great people' in Mein Kampf.65.32.128.178 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)"

3 Rikmenspeol is explicit. His Page 190 there are two paragraphs that say Ethnic Poles served in both the SS and the Wehrmacht[citation needed]. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, there is no need to reply to this - I am only pointing out to you that we need references and you need to take some time to think about what you want from wikipedia. You already have 4 warnings against you for disturbing pages and talk pages and you need to calm down before you get yourself blocked or worse.--Chaosdruid (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exact quote here it is: Rikmenspoel on page 190 states, quote: Ethnic Poles..served in all branches of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. - Unquote. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. So no quote specifically stating that ethnic Poles were in the 14th SS Division. You ought to review the policy on Original Research. You have now mistakenly quoted two sources (remember Williamson).Faustian (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Added new cite after deletion of ref

In answer to the broken (and removed link)

First, it is beyond me that people cannot be bothered to first look and try and fix the link, second they cannot put the (Broken Link) tag on the ref, thirdly if they cannot be bothered to do the work, wait for a day or two or even be nice enough to mention it first, then they can choose to be rude and just delete it.

I have restored the Rimini ref and changed it for UK Rimini emigrants - will search for Canadian one also which I will [ut in in an hour or so once found..

thanks --Chaosdruid (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Translation of reference - 176 soldiers joined Polish Army

Hi all - concerning the ref in Rimini section:-

Faustian (many thanks) has translated the relevant section from the website [54] for us non-Ukrainian speakers:-

According to a Ukrainian-language website:

Завдяки старанням генерала Шандрука Дивізія "Галичина" - 1-ша дивізія УНА не була видана на розправу большевикам, незважаючи на всі їхні домагання. Давні зв'язки Шандрука з польськими генералами, а зокрема особисте його знайомство з відомим ген. Владиславом Андерсом - організатором польської екзильної армії (де, до речі, було бл. 20 тисяч вояків-українців у Другому корпусі), дозволило деяким дивізійникам (польське джерело подає 176) уникнути навіть довгого сидіння в англійському полоні в Італії після закінчення війни - вони перейшли до армії ген. Андерса, що вважалася "аліянтською".

The translation: Thanks to the efforts of general Shandruk, the Galician Division - 1st Division of the Ukrainian National Army - was not given over to the Bolsheviks despite all their efforts. Longstanding ties between Shandruk and Polish generals, in partiuclar his personal acquaintance with general Wladyslaw Anders, organizer of the Polish army in exile (in which 20,000 Ukrainians fought, in the 2nd corp) allowed some Division members (Polish sources claim 176) to avoid long waits as English POWS in Italy after the end of the war - they went over to the army of gen. Anders, which was considered "allied"....

That isn't of course the most reliable source. Faustian 04:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As he says, this is not necessarily a reliable source, and so I would ask if anyone can back this up. A polish source could be someone telling him that happened which would not necessarily be enough for inclusion in Wiki.

--Chaosdruid (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens a bit. The connection here appears to be Pavlo Shandruk the commander of the Ukrainian National Army. After SS Galicia got slaughter at Brody, the remainders of this division got incorporated into UNA under Shandruk. According to Polish wiki, Shandruk and UNA eventually found themselves in Austria at the end of the war in an area that was controlled by Anders' army. Shandruk requested a meeting with Anders which he relays in this letter: [55] which appears to be from Shandruk's memoirs. BUT. First I think the above website may be associated to the other one that's suspicious so it's still not RS. However, if it can be confirmed that this is in fact a letter by Shandruk then at least the fact that Shandruk requested a meeting with Anders can be confirmed (though the motivation could've been simply that Anders was the top Allied commander in this region). Second, we still have no confirmation of the 178 individuals. The Polish wiki states that Anders intervened with British authorities himself to prevent Shandruk's army being sent back to the Soviets but it's very sloppy in providing a reference for this (it just tells you to read standard books on WWII and Soviet Union). Additionally it notes that Anders himself never mentioned Shandruk in any of his writings. Then it says that in 1975 Anders gave the order of Virtuti Militari to Shandruk, which is weird - not sure how this worked, I'm assuming what was left of the Polish Gov in Exile kept awarding the medal. At any rate, the cite for this is "Jerzy Giedroyć, wstęp do: Pawło Szandruk Historyczna prawda o Ukraińskiej Armii Narodowej, Kultura nr 6/1965." Now THAT would be a reliable source if we could actually confirm it. Anyway, still no 178.radek (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Here's IPN [56]: "Warto wspomnieć, że według ukraińskich źródeł 176 żołnierzy dywizji, już po kapitulacji, przeszło do armii Andersa. " (It's worth mentioning, that according to Ukrainian sources, 176 soldiers from the division, after capitulation, joined Anders' army". And: " Zmiana nazwy dywizji, fakt, że jej żołnierze byli do 1939 r. obywatelami polskimi, wreszcie interwencje Watykanu i być może gen. Andersa, uchroniły ją przed deportacją do ZSRR. " (The change in the name of the division, the fact that until 1939 its soldiers were Polish citizens and finally the intervention of the Vatican and perhaps of gen. Anders, saved them from being deported to Soviet Union". So it looks like IPN's heard the same rumors but isn't confirming them. Maybe we can have the statement, cite IPN and have an "allegedly" in there.radek (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Radek. "allegedly" and link to IPN works for me for now.--Jacurek (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

joining Anders/Not RS

"According to Polish sources[24], 176 soldiers of the division..." - the ref is a Ukrainian website which most likely would not be considered a reliable source by itself (even if it wasn't for the fact that if you click ismoria you get skoro budje) and the website only refers to "Polish sources" - which ones? I think this should be removed or at least fact-tagged until a RS can be found to support it.radek (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, the layout and design of the website was weirding me out a bit cuz superficially it looked like it was a cite *celebrating* the division. My Ukrainian's not that good (I can do it but I'm slow) but looking through the site, sure enough, there's a link to "Blood & Honor Ukraine", a neo-Nazi group and RUN (Radical Ukrainian Nationalism). Now, like I said my Ukrainian's not that good so there may be some legit reason why this site is linking to these webpages but for all intents and purposes this looks like NOT a reliable source. Here's the link [57] (neo nazi links at bottom).radek (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

...good point...and you are right, the site does link to what appears to be a Neo Nazi site which is *celebrating* the division....--Jacurek (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
some reading in English from the same web page[58]--Jacurek (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean from same web page ? is it the same page translated as it is a different website?--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I followed corner link--Jacurek (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Here is something about the Ukrainians who served in the Polish Army of General Anders[59] [Thousands of Ukrainians served in the Polish army of General Wladyslaw Anders and fought with him on the British side in Egypt, Libya, and Italy] there is some references also...but still nothing about those 176. I have to confirm that now or I will not sleep tonight..:)
Lol - that was me last night - i didnt go to bed till 07:00 as was looking for refs to the bloody 176 lmao
Are you Polish ?--Chaosdruid (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I'm Polish (kind of mix)...I remember seeing Ukrainian graves at the Polish cemetery at Monte Cassino and I have no doubts that there were many Ukrainians in the Ander's Army.....--Jacurek (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I asked as it says that it was from a Polish source and if you speak/read Polish then maybe you have a better chance of finding it :¬) --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that since the info is referenced to the Institute of NAtional Remembrance (a reliable source) the other source, which is not so reliable, is unnecessary and can be removed.Faustian (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Cool - good work mate ! I just went there and there are lots of forms to fill in just to get info out so I may do that, but if you can get in there that would be much better ! --Chaosdruid (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

During the period when the Galician Division was interned in Rimini 176 men volunteered to join General Anders Polish Army. Most men preferred not to have anything to do with the Poles but clearly 176 men were happy to join. This lends some weight to the argument that there were "ethnic poles" in the division, that is to say these men may well have considered themselves to be first and foremost Polish or perhaps they had one Polish parent. As to the question of as to whether there were any ethnic Poles in the division, consider this:

Following the cessation of hosilities the greater part of the surviors of the Galician Division were interned by the British in Italy at the POW enclave at Rimini where they were gaurded by 55 Lt. A.A. Regt.

The unit included some free 'POLES' who had escaped German occupation and made their way to England whereupon they enlisted in the Second Polish Army Corps, commanded by Polish General Wladyslaw Anders. One such 'POLE' who left his home at the time of the Geman invasion and fled to England, found his own brother who had remained at home, amongst the 'Ukrainian' prisoners he was guarding.

From memory (but I will have to check) on one of my father's identity cards (he was born in the village of Koropec, Ternopil Oblast to Ukrainian parents) his nationality is described as 'Polish Ukrainian'.

It would appear that the term 'Pole' with all it's connotations was translated very liberally by many individuals depending on circumstances.

best wishes

Mike Melnyk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.73.146 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mike - nice to see you're still around.
The whole subject is a little confusing, were they Poles, ethnic poles (I still am unsure as what is meant by that term lol) or just people from Galicia trying to get home. My father told me his name was spelled in the Polish way by a Pole who was taking details in Rimini so I assume that particular Pole was working for the British there. That spelling stuck with him as he could not get it reversed.
Do you know if the Poles joined the 14th when they were Waffen SS or were picked up along the way as the Division moved south and tried to cross to Italy?
Anyway, hope to see you on here again and thanks for your comments.
Cheers --Chaosdruid (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • One of the members of my choir here in Toronto, who was in the division and quite active in the activities of the former members of the division stated that there were a lot of Poles in the Galizien division, and also a significant number of Dutch members. Bandurist (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Logusz, M. (1997). Galicia Division: The Waffen-SS 14th Grenadier Division, 1943-1945. Altglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Military History.
  2. ^ Hronologija oslobodilačke borbe naroda jugoslavije 1941-1945 (Belgrade, 1964)
  3. ^ WOLF-DIETRICH HEIKE.UKRAINISCHE DIVISION "GALIZIEN". Geschichte der Aufstellung und des Einsatzes (1943-1945) 1970
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)/Archive_1&oldid=954515487"