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

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

Memorial honouring the 14th Waffen SS Division in Edmonton Canada[edit]

Illustrations are very old. I could try to get some non-copyright images of these:
https://www.theprogressreport.ca/monuments_to_nazi_collaborators_in_edmonton_vandalized_again
also:
https://www.insidehalton.com/news-story/10130501--disgusted-oakville-cemetery-facing-calls-to-remove-what-s-being-called-a-nazi-monument/
Are we sure this is really past tense? The 14th Waffen SS seems to be going strong in Edmonton!
Keith McClary (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

can we add a urgent translate from Ukraine wiki tag, there is one mention of "independence" on this article and this article is highly biased, if we take the Ukraine one as more accurate and at >85k bites quite a bit of more information and more accurate is probably best in current climes. Essentially recruited in part at least to fight USSR on the EF only, promises broken etc.. why else does Canada have memorials? so heaps of undue weight, lack of balance propaganda. 2404:4408:638C:5E00:7978:741F:E0A5:2787 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really what a {{help me}} tag should be used for. There are a fair number of page watchers, so someone should eventually be able to help you with your enquiry. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you go around closing tags and doing nothing to help for what reason? Clearing a list of items? Adds nothing, does not help the casual user, does not improve the pedia, just seems wasteful to me, you could of added the translate tab or whatever here, you, as senior admin could of moved the propaganda into draft, oh well 2404:4408:638C:5E00:A9A1:CA01:7116:CB3D (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You want content help and this talk page is an appropriate place to ask for it. The people who respond to {{help me}} tags are not doing so to provide help with content, per se. Indeed, they expect to see that template used on your own talk page. Improving content is something that happens every day on every page and is the routine way Wikipedia works. Your help request sat around for 8 hours, helpers were notified, but none of them felt it was appropriate to answer as written.
If you are not getting notice for your request here, the next level of escalation is to ask on the talk page of one of the WikiProjects that have a banner on this talk page. I'd suggest asking at WT:WikiProject Military history as a first try, see if you can get some traction. But patience is required. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 12:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) → Galicia Division – WP:COMMONNAME: Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that Galicia Division is the most commonly used name[1] (The difference is easier to see when zooming in on post-1995[2] or post-2010[3]). Ngram doesn’t allow testing long names like 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), but obviously that would be less common than the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS, and still less common than 14th Waffen Grenadier Division, which is compared in the search links above.

Mentions in the standard histories of Ukraine:

  • Serhii Plokhy (2015), The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine.
    • Division Galizien [index entry]
    • the 14th Waffen-SS Grenadier Division, known as the Division Galizien [pages 283–84]
    • the Division
    • Division Galizien
  • Serhy Yekelchyk (2007), Ukraine: Birth of a Modern Nation.
    • Galicia Division [index entry]
    • SS Volunteer Galicia Division [143–44]
    • the Galicia Division
    • the division
  • Anna Reid (1999), Borderland: a journey through the history of Ukraine.
    • SS division ‘SS Galicia’ [148]
    • the division
  • Paul Robert Magocsi (1996), A History of Ukraine.
    • Galicia Division [index entry]
    • SS Galicia Division (German: Waffen SS Division Galizien) [627–28]
    • The Dyviziia, as it was known in Ukrainian
    • the Galicia Division
    • Galicia Division [637]
  • Orest Subtelny (1988), Ukraine: A History, 1st edition.
    • Galician Division [index entry]
    • SS volunteer Galicia Division [472]
    • SS Volunteer Galician Division
    • the Galicia Division
    • the Galician Division [477]
    • Galicia Division [555]
    • Galicia Division [566–67]

I couldn’t find any mention in Andrew Wilson (historian) (2002), The Ukrainians: Unexpected Nation.  —Michael Z. 22:49, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, strongly, there is no reason to hide it was SS division Marcelus (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How does that relate to our naming guidelines? You sure you’re not trying to ignore them and WP:right great wrongs?  —Michael Z. 04:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it". It was SS division, it's a verifable fact and part of the official name of the division Marcelus (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand your point. There is a lot of verifiable information in the article, but most doesn’t belong in the title.
How does what you write relate to the naming guidelines at WP:TITLE? Please be aware of the clarification at WP:OFFICIALNAMES.  —Michael Z. 15:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All SS division are named in similar way, there is no reason to make an exception for the Ukrainian one Marcelus (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Latvian SS is titled the same way. We would have to move this one also.🤔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one also - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this one - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this - IDK, we would have to move all of them. 🤔 - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and Estonian - no, I don’t think it’s a good idea to rename. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s untrue, shown by a glance at Category:Waffen-SS divisions and its subcategories. They are inconsistent. I don’t believe there is any consensus demonstrated to name these all according to some pattern.
Almost none of the current names are a result of consensus decisions in a requested move, and where it’s been tested they’ve been moved, for example:
 —Michael Z. 17:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
🤔 27th SS Volunteer Division Langemarck - move supported by two editors .. one of them a famous sock-puppet.
36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS nobody !voted (I’m ignoring one sock puppet) 2 comments only.
🤔 This is not a wide community discussion and needs to be revisited. GizzyCatBella🍁 18:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I count seven different naming schemes among the articles under Category:Waffen-SS divisions.  —Michael Z. 00:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don’t understand why we, Encyclopedia, should start using nick names (Galician Division) instead of a proper full name. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Start? This is well established and long-standing. WP:TITLE, WP:OFFICIALNAMES is why. —Michael Z. 16:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the Galicia Division of what? Unnecessarily (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    To spring 1945 it was of the Waffen-SS, and then it was of the Ukrainian National Army. Of what is part of the article, along with who, when, where, etcetera. For WP:CONSISTENCY, most article titles on military units do not say of what, except where disambiguation is needed.  —Michael Z. 14:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was part of the Waffen-SS to its end Marcelus (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    According to whom? Anyway, the title consists of the most common name, not a discussion of its history.  —Michael Z. 16:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to not meeting WP:CRITERIA, specifically recognizability and precision. The above books also use longer names as "Galicia Division" as on its on is unclear. Mellk (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s not true. Recognizability: someone “familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area” will recognize Galicia Division because that’s what popular sources use because it is unique, while “Nth Waffen SS” sounds like any generic one out of scores (see List of Waffen-SS divisions and Category:Military units and formations of the Waffen-SS), many of them German elite units and not foreign legions. Precision: there is exactly only one Galicia Division in history.  —Michael Z. 14:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: precision, the unit was renamed several times. It was first known as SS Schützen Division "Galizien" or Galizien, then successively SS Freiwilligen Division "Galizien", 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1), 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (ukrainische Nr.1), and 1st Ukrainian Division of the Ukrainian National Army. See 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)#Division's names. Reliable sources call it the Galicia Division, for recognizability and precision.  —Michael Z. 14:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Has to have the number per WP:COMMONNAME. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence? I demonstrated above that the most commonly used names have no number. —Michael Z. 16:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As far as I can remember, the overwhelming majority of SS division articles follow the "number + ss + name (origin)" pattern. If anything, I believe we should settle for an exact formulation within that framework. I would further oppose any change that removes references to the SS from the title (of this and any article about any SS formation). Ostalgia (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

recent edit warring[edit]

there has been a lot of edit warring today over the inclusion of the standing ovation given to Iaroslov Gunka by Trudeau and much of parliament. i have restored material removed by @Msheehan1974: because it is well cited and it seems notable enough at least for the AP to cover it. .usarnamechoice (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the removal at the time was that there was zero reference to this from AP that I could see and I found it irrelevant as it's not really about their history. A lot of the other references were biased IMO especially from the Trudeau haters. Msheehan1974 (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in addition to the user removing the Associated Press link, they used edit summaries that could be viewed as misleading: "Removed irrelevant content." and "Removed disinformation not verified in any mainstream media outlet.". in both instances, the AP article is in the text removed by this user. .usarnamechoice (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crazy we live in a time with such flagrant Nazi apologists trying to re-write history. I bet you think you're one of the "good guys" too. Very sad. 2405:9800:BA00:7E1B:E0E1:70A3:4D3:656C (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "nazi apologists" here, just editors who actually understand the scope of the article. It would be more suitable to include the controversy regarding the ovation for Iaroslov Gunka on Canadian politics related Wiki articles. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial photos[edit]

Some trolls appear to be trying to shoehorn in a UPA memorial and claim its a 14th SS memorial. There is a source used, by Rudling, but it obviously fails verification since no "addition" ever took place and they are clearly two different sculptures. Obviously we can talk about the U1A logo memorial on this page, but trying to conflate it with, or create fiction about graveyard memorials fails the good faith sniff test. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify which part of Rudling's text you consider problematic? Mhorg (talk) 11:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why would one of the brave Ukrainians in Canada want to change this article I wonder 74.109.240.116 (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2023[edit]

Remove hyperlink to 'political concessions' in the third paragraph of the Organization heading. The link refers to conceding one's seat in an election, unrelated to the political concessions being referred to in the paragraph. 208.127.198.220 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Note: I looked for a better target and the best I could find was Concession (contract), which still wasn't quite right; this usage is covered in the disambig article Concession. A link to Negotiation may be appropriate, but it's a questionable pipe for that phrase and I'm opting not to include that there.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 14:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

  • 1. Were members of the unit required to actually join (become formal members) of the Nazi Party? The article isn't clear.
  • 2. What links or legacy does this unit have with the neo-Nazi para-military units (Azov, etc) currently fighting on behalf of the Ukrainian government against the Russian intervention in Ukraine? 152.130.15.98 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For question 1 - it seems unlikely that most of the members of the division would be allowed to join the actual German Nazi party as they wouldn't be German enough.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, to actually discuss this in the article needs sources.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This source [4] suggests that only Germans could be members of the Nazi Party and therefore that the Divison's Ukrapnian troops were not Nazi party members.Faustian (talk) 22:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wikipedia states on the Gottlob Berger article that this was no longer a requirement by 1943. .usarnamechoice (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That talks about membership of the SS, not the German Nazi party.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oic.. okay thanks for clarifying for me. :) .usarnamechoice (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the RSN, Jewish Virtual Library is a generally unreliable source. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023[edit]

CHANGE: 

   56- The Galicia Division (14.Waffengrenadierdivision der SS [gal. Nr. 1) should not be indicted as a group.

   57- The members of the Galicia Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada.

   58- Charges of war crimes against members of the Galicia Division have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, or before this Commission.

   59- Further, in the absence of evidence of participation in or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia Division is insufficient to justify prosecution.[55]

TO: 56. The Galicia division (14. Waffengrenadierdivision der SS (gal. Nr. 1) should not be indicted as a group. 57. The members of the Galicia Division were individually screened for security purposes before admission to Canada. 58. Charges of war crimes against members of the Galicia Division have never been substantiated, either in 1950 when they were first preferred, or in 1984 when they were renewed, of before this Commission. 59. Further, in the absence of evidence of participation in or knowledge of specific war crimes, mere membership in the Galicia Division is insufficient to justify prosecution. 60. No case can be made against members of the Galicia Division for revocation of citizenship or deportation since the Canadian authorities were fully aware of the relevant facts in 1950 and admission to Canada was not granted them because of any false representation, or fraud, or concealment of material circumstances. 61. In any event, of the 217 officers of the Galicia Division denounced by Mr. Simon Wiesenthal to the Canadian government, 187 (i.e., 86 per cent of the list) never set foot in Canada, 11 have died in Canada, 2 have left for another country, no prima facie case has been established against 16 and the last one could not be located.” [55]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals Report Part I: Public, Honourable Jules Deschenes Commissioner, Ottawa, Canada, 1986, ISBN 0-660-12172-7, p.261. Roguezebra (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: How would including more parts of this quote help this article? Please read MOS:Quote Aaron Liu (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocities need updating[edit]

part of the first paragraph should be removed or modified since it's out of date, and not factual..

the Galician Division has not specifically been found guilty of any war crimes by any war tribunal or commission. Numerous accusations of impropriety were leveled at the division, and particular members, from a variety of sources. It is difficult to determine the extent of war criminality among members of the division.

Two commissions, one from Poland and one from Ukraine have found the Galacian Division "guilty" of war crimes. So crimes have been determined.

Relevant extracts:

In 2003 The Head Commission for the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation: The commission found war crimes committed by the 4th battalion of the 14th division

In 2005, the Institute of History at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences: The 4th SS Police regiment indeed killed the civilian inhabitants in Huta Pieniacka.

Some of the other crimes that need to be added:

Division Galizien from Zolochiv conducted a pacification’ of the Polish village of Vitsyn

massacre of Poles who had sought shelter in the Podkamien monastery, the 4th Police Regiment of the Waffen-SS Galizien cooperated

12 March 1944 destruction of the nearby Polish village of Palikrowy was carried out by the 4th Police Regiment of the Waffen-SS Galizien in cooperation with UPA detachments

More examples are in ‘They Defended Ukraine’ by Per Anders Rudling


Sources:

Both 2005 & 2003 p.347-p348 Per Anders Rudling (2012): ‘They Defended Ukraine’: The 14. Waffen-Grenadier- Division der SS (Galizische Nr. 1) Revisited, The Journal of Slavic Military Studie

2003 source https://web.archive.org/web/20120923063552/http://www.ipn.gov.pl:80/portal/en/19/188/Investigation_into_the_Crime_committed_at_the_Village_of_Huta_Pieniacka.html Baelzvuv (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks! You could add the commission stuff yourself. The Pidkamin and Palikrowy massacres are already in the article though, and I could not find any records that a village called Vitsyn exists. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it would be useful to include this information. Mhorg (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I finish reading it all, and the protected status drop I'll add it in. Just I don't want to start an edit war, and wanted to get opinions from different views before editing. Baelzvuv (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to edit the article. It’s only semi-protected. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got an answer, Vitsyn is just south of Zolochiv. It was mostly a Polish town with a few Jews.. took a whole, but I found it. Town was renamed Smerekivka
Pictures of the church / monastery are in the link.. and a someone wrote a review with some of its history...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Kostel+Neporochnoho+Zachattya+Divy+Mariyi/@49.6620095,24.8123154,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x47300ad88308997f:0x874f2798f2d63197!8m2!3d49.6620061!4d24.8148957!16s%2Fg%2F11bw3zpd2s?entry=ttu Baelzvuv (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice sleuthing, though I still couldn't find any online info about Vitsyn. I've found the book in the Wikipedia Library though, and the only caveat I think to adding these is that we should put "pacification" in quotes as the quoted content is vague about what exactly happened and I have no idea what the cited source The Michael Chomiak collection, PAA, accession no. 85.191, folder 59, sheet 358, item 56/3. is. If we could access that, that would be helpful. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was easier to find using Mykhailo Chomiak
Seems to the the Provincial Archives of Alberta (Edmonton).
https://searchprovincialarchives.alberta.ca/mykhailo-chomiak-fonds
1985,191,59 in the tree
Polish-Ukrainian, German-Ukrainian Relations - continued (primarily correspondence, announcements, minutes and local activities reports from the Ukrainian Central Committee and the Ukrainian Aid Committee)"
Seems there no digital scans available. Baelzvuv (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... I've posted a topic at WP:RX, hopefully a friendly Albertan can find it Aaron Liu (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. It’s universally known in the historical community that the Canadian “investigation” was a whitewash. As op says, many war crimes have been definitively linked to this unit. 74.109.240.116 (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it's universally known, then it should be easy to find high quality reliable sources that discuss how the Canadian investigation was a "Whitewash" (particularly as the commission's article suggests that some sources claim the complete opposite) - note that Rudling suggests an alternative - that the Deschênes Commission didn't have access to Soviet sources (which were unavailable at the time). Attempts to prosecute individuals in Canada following the commission appear to have failed - partly due to inadequate evidence.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few books / reliable sources that discuss the faults of the commission and previous screening issues of the 14th members... The book I listed above "they defended Ukraine" has a section that discusses it, also Alti Rodal's The Ukrainian covers it as well,(Rudlings book sources this one quite a bit).. Baelzvuv (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn’t reference to the commission being flawed and a whitewash be included in the paragraph where it is referenced in the introduction? 2601:182:E7F:ECD0:FC77:3750:7841:8469 (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Mballen (talk) 21:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is some controversy over whether it is a whitewash or not, if you read the (peer reviewed) sources carefully. And it seems to me that that is notable. The main beef of critics is not that it is a whitewash but that A) It is almost 40 years old and a lot of information has come to light since it was written, and B) Parts of it have never been released to the public. Trudeau has just recently come out and said he is considering doing so. As far as the objection that it does not belong in the article, (because a report is not an atrocity, allegedly). It is an official document concerned with the 14-Galician's alleged participation in atrocities and is important and controversial to the point of still being in the headlines, and therefore it clearly belongs in the article. Mballen (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the citation from armstrong saying that nazi indoctrination was not present is not what the citation actually says.[edit]

"Political scientist John Alexander Armstrong wrote in 1963 that Nazi indoctrination was absent among the soldiers within the division."

When you go to the text itself, Armstrong states, "More significantly, the political training and indoctrination of the soldiers, instead of being in the hands of Nazi ideologists, was left to the nationalist leadership." John A. Armstrong (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, p. 171

This was standard practice in the SS; political officers were not present in the SS as it was pretty much expected that, by swearing an oath to the Reich and Hitler that you were on board with National Socialism.

If we then go forwards and look at who exactly the nationalist leadership of formations like the OUN and UPA were, and the things that they wrote, including the Himmler speech the article already cites, it is plainly evident that Nazi ideology was a core part of this SS division, as it was a core part of all SS divisions. To imply otherwise is to whitewash history and selectively say that Nazism was not a core part of the SS, which is factually incorrect. 137.99.142.46 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But Armstrong also says (p. 174 of the 1980 edition) "German permission to provide chaplains and the absence of Nazi indoctrination among the soldiers helped make the unit acceptable to the church." - which suggests that at least in the eyes of the Orthodox church, the Division was thought to not have been indoctrinated - this doesn't mean that all the units that got absorbed into the division (such as the Police regiments) weren't indoctrinated elsewhere.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
which suggests that at least in the eyes of the Orthodox church, the Division was thought to not have been indoctrinated Armstrong discusses that on page 174 where he goes into the reasons why the Church was "induced [...] to sanction the project", i.e. chronologically, this is still prior to the unit's formation, and not a reflection of the Church's judgment about the unit's political leanings. It's still talking about the same thing as the IP's quote: the concessions given to the Ukrainians; I see no contrast or contradiction between either passage. DFlhb (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd phrase our sentence this way: Political scientist John Alexander Armstrong wrote in 1963 that to earn the support of religious leaders, the unit's political indoctrination was left in the hands of Ukrainian nationalists rather than Nazis. or something to that effect. DFlhb (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nationalist leadership indoctrinates them with Ukraine nationalism of then , which while allied with Nazism is not Nazism. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ukrainian nationalism of then was antisemitic and called for the liquidation of Poles, Hungarians, and Roma in pursuit of a purified Ukraine. This is a distinction without a difference; if you are allying with Nazism ideologically, this is professing support for Nazism. We can very easily find leaders of Ukrainian nationalist organizations who would have been involved in the political education of the 14th professing support or otherwise swearing allegiance to Hitler and the Reich - both oaths which the 14th SS division would also have expected of its soldiers. I'm really not sure why this is not seen as being equivalent to supporting Nazism. 137.99.142.46 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023[edit]


Change "Political scientist John Alexander Armstrong wrote in 1963 that Nazi indoctrination was absent among the soldiers within the division." To "Political scientist John Alexander Armstrong wrote in 1963 that Nazi indoctrination was left to the nationalist leadership within the division."

I am using the same source to correct the small error as the source does not suggest that there was no nazi ideology in the SS division (SS are under command of the nazi party remember). It suggests they were already indoctrinated and trusted to do it themselves.

"The nationalist leaders were also encouraged to support the Galician Division by certain favorable conditions which they ex-acted from the Germans. According to Nationalist accounts, the unit was to be used only against the Soviet forces and never against the Western Allies: thus it would be in a position, they thought, to come to terms with the latter when the opportunity arose. Whether or not the Germans officially agreed to this stipu lation, it is certain that the condition was observed. More significantly, the political training and indoctrination of the soldiers, instead of being in the hands of Nazi ideologists, was left to the nationalist leadership"

From Page 171 of "John A. Armstrong (1963). Ukrainian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 170–175" Thepangaean (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done See the section above Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Canada as strikebreakers[edit]

The journalist Lev Golinkin says that the members of this division who were allowed to resettle in Canada after World War II were used as strikebreakers by the Canadian government. Should we add a mention of this to this article? Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTd8HovAG0I 173.88.246.138 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth a mention if we could fully verify. I don't think a comment on Democracy Now via YouTube is a good source for this though. Is it written down somewhere in a more verifiable way? He also doesn't say they were used as strikebreakers, but rather that they were allowed in because they were ready to act as such. Would be good to get a good source before including. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deschênes Commission[edit]

The Deschenes Commission section is out of place. it's not an attrocity and doesn't deserve it own section in this article.

Unless more is added to it, like the lack of evidence used from Poland, Ukraine, Slovenia, Slovakia and Russia, where the unit operated, the redacted reports, and political lobbying etc.. it makes what's stated a non neutral POV. Making it NPOV will make the section an article on it's own.

This line is also Original Research, I can't find any media or report that makes this statement: "In its conclusion, the commission only referred to the division as 14. Waffen-Grenadier-Division der SS (Galizische Nr.1)."

If no one has issues with this. I'm going to move a summary of the deschense commission section to the top of the atrocities section, where the other legalities are discussed adding a line saying there's criticisms to make it NPOV and link to the deschenes commission article. Baelzvuv (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that move. I might do some cleanup in the current section in advance. I'm not sure I understand the significance of the bit you say is OR. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From your edits.. "The dissertation doesn't say this - and in fact only mentions this Division once in passing" "it's a media studies dissertation. I don't think it's a good source, but I'm reading it to see what it says".
This is where the issue is.
The Duschenes commission was about Nazi's in Canada, and sparked off by reports that Mengele might be in Canada, it was not directly about the 14th SS. Requiring that sources citing the commission have direct references to the 14th SS is going to be an issue.
Should the article only include commissions, tribunals and trials that were directly against the 14th as well. That part of why I said it doesn't deserve a section in this article, because to remain NPOV it will require a whole article.
I really think it should just be mentioned in a sentence here with a link to it's own article. The 14th SS part should probably be moved there to it's own section.
Side note:
That dissertation has verifiable sources from major Canadian news at the bottom of each page for each statement, and it was archived by the National Library of Canada as part of the Duschenes commission archive, and the discussion of soviet evidence is covered on 10-12 pages of it.
You can see more on the soviet evidence topic here:
https://www.readthemaple.com/how-canada-whitewashed-the-nazi-ss-galicia-division/
http://espritdecorps.ca/history-feature/whitewashing-the-ss-the-attempt-to-re-write-the-history-of-hitlers-collaborators
https://jacobin.com/2022/11/roman-shukhevych-monument-canada-nazi-ukrainian-ultranationalism
https://publications.gc.ca/Pilot/LoPBdP/CIR/873-e.htm Baelzvuv (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marches in honour of the division[edit]

The marches are "annual", I think we should just write that clearly in the article:

Mhorg (talk) 13:11, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of them say it is annual outright and several years are missing, not to mention some of these videos are not from news outlets. You could list the years where there were marches. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source you added into the article is alright IMO. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - it's an excellent source so text is now good. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should Nuremberg be in lead?[edit]

Re edit undoing an edit I made (and so the de facto consensus): I think it is strange and WP:SYNTH to include the mention of the Nuremberg ruling in the lead, given the ruling did not mention this unit at all. I've looked at other SS divisions (see the infobox at the bottom of the article for easy access to those) and they don't include this in their lead. The lead should summarise the key facts in the body, and this is not a key fact. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhorg might make a “by association” argument Aaron Liu (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg: "The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organization with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter, or who were personally implicated as members of the organization in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes".[15]
Since we have a part in the lede where we show who thinks they are criminals and who does not, we cannot avoid writing what they said at Nuremberg. Mhorg (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's going to be in the lede I'd rather have a source that discusses the topic of the article in the context of that ruling otherwise this is very close to, or is, WP:OR Tristario (talk) 23:03, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation above: The Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph. As I read the preceding paragraphs the tribunal declared it was impossible for SS members not to be aware that they were committing crimes against humanity. The paragraph immediately preceding says
The SS was utilised for the purposes which were criminal under the Charter involving the persecution and extermination of the Jews, brutalities and killings in concentration camps, excesses in the administration of occupied territories, the administration of the slave labour programme and the mistreatment and murder of prisoners of war. The defendant Kaltenbrunner was a member of the SS implicated in these activities. In dealing with the SS the Tribunal includes all persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS including the members of the Allgemeine SS, members of the Waffen SS, members of the SS Totenkopf Verbaende and the members of any of the different police forces who were members of the SS. The Tribunal does not include the so-called SS riding units. The Sicherheitsdienst des Reichsfuehrer SS (commonly known as the SD) is dealt with in the Tribunal's Judgment on the Gestapo and SD.
Incidentally, I can find no confirmation of the statement in this page that the Germans gave in to the Ukrainian demand that the 14-Galician would not be used to fight the (Western) Allies (I'm not saying confirmation doesn't exist, but the article should provide a source for it.) I have seen the 14th Galician described as being from its inception a "Police division" and that its commanding officers were fanatical German Nazis who were former members of SS police divisions and had previously committed atrocities and mass murderer. It would appear that this is a way of saying that the duties of the 14-Galician would be restricted to a role in the so-called Partisan War, where the division would have been used to inflict collective punishment on villages (i.e. massacres of unarmed civilians) in places where German soldiers had been attacked or killed by Partisans. This was a settled practice of the Nazis both on the Eastern Front and in Western Europe, and is considered a war crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 05:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stipulation that it wouldn't be used to fight the Western allies was in Logusz's book.Faustian (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Littman[edit]

He does not appear to be a reliable source. Not a historian, but a community activist and social worker: [16]. Probably should be removed. Irving Abella, while a historian, is a specialist in Jewish-Canadian history, not World War II or Ukrainians. This is questionable.Faustian (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that he's a journalist. Why shouldn't that count? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is commenting on historical matters not current events. Moreover, the source for this is an article in a political journal and not as peer-reviewed historical work: [17]. They have other articles taking the Palestinian side, etc. It's some sort of partisan source activist source. This should be removed. Faustian (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The “historical matters” were current events at the time. Why shouldn’t old news articles be used? Providing attribution for opinions instead of stating them as fact should be enough.
As for Irving, the article only sources him for stuff about SS immigration to Canada, which is under his speciality of Canadian history. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But Irving' specialty is Jewish Canadian history, he doesn't deal with Ukrainian immigration..Faustian (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Immigration of former SS members to Canada is very close to the history of Jews in Canada. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Maple appears to be an activist partisan blog, not even a regular news website. Another of their articles is called "Is Chrystia Freeland A Fraud Or A Nazi Sympathizer?". I think any info sourced to its articles doesn't belong in encyclopedia article.Faustian (talk) 03:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the Marvin quote might be replaced with this source Aaron Liu (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could be better, but I can't access it. Ideally it would be a historian commenting or a per-reviewed historical work. This is already an old report, no longer a current event.Faustian (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a quote so that shouldn't matter. You can access it through the WP:LIBRARY and here's a direct link. It also seems like this was a newspaper article for The Globe and Mail. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Italic text" error[edit]

The first item in the "Notes" section is "John A. Armstrong (1955, 'Italic text'1963).". The erroneous "italic text" (which is ironically bold) was introduced at some point earlier this month. -sche (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)&oldid=1195686771"