Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

article name

Is there a source for this translation ("Local Lithuanian Detachment") of Lietuvos vietinė rinktinė? That might be a more direct translation, than say, "Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force" but that's the one most used in English sources. E.g. [1] [2] [3]

Btw, some interesting research about German mobilization attempts here heqs 15:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I used name from this article - Mečislovas Mackevičius - Lithuanian resistance to German mobilization attempts 1941-1944, Lituanus, Volume 32, No. 4 - Winter 1986. Ed. Antanas Dundzila (Cached version: [4]) Sigitas 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... he seems to be referring to it as a "local Lithuanian detachment", rather than saying "that is its name" (i.e. not capitalizing Local and Detatchment). I suggest a move to Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force (1944) to be more clear. Here's another book using it (same publisher as [2] above) [5] heqs 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sigitas 16:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this paragraph:

The Germans acted ferociously in liquidating the detachment. On May 15, Plechavičius, the commander of the detachment, was arrested together with the other staff members. He was deported to the Salaspils concentration camp in Latvia. For example, they publicly executed 12 randomly selected soldiers in a Vilnius line-up which consisted of some 800 men. En route to the city of Kaunas, while transporting some arrested members, one of the prisoners escaped. In retaliation, the Germans then selected non-commissioned officer Ruseckas for execution on the spot. Since the German regular army guards were stalling the execution, a German SS commissioned officer did the actual shooting. Many soldiers of the Territorial Defense Force were deported to Germany, died or were deported to Soviet prison camps.

Escaped soldier

My grandfather was apparently in this unit, and mentioned to me after having been arrested jumping off of the train and later learning people were shot upon arrival. Could whoever added it provide the the source of this information given I am interested in researching this. It is possible he might have been the man who escaped? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.92.168 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 June 2007.

It seems that the source for this (included in the references list) is: Mackevičius, Mečislovas. Lithuanian resistance to German mobilization attempts 1941-1944, Lituanus, Volume 32, No. 4 - Winter 1986. Ed. Antanas Dundzila. That particular info was added to the article, I believe, by User:Legionas. heqs ·:. 08:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Murowana Oszmianka

The battle now has its own page Battle of Murowana Oszmianka - this means a lot of the stuff in the middle section of the article is now duplicated. The info on the two articles needs to be checked against each other so no information or cites are missed, and then this article needs to be shortened - with a 'main article' link. An exercise for someone with half an hour to spare. Cheers. Stevebritgimp (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Oath

Piaskunowicz notes that soldiers of the LTDF was required to swear an oath to Hitler from the very beginning, just as other Nazi auxiliaries were. So how come the oath could have caused trouble later? This needs some citation.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most probably because they weren't Nazi auxilaries and they didn't give oath to Hitler in the begining. Does Piskunowicz say - thet they did it, or he simply says they would (or should) have done like the other similar/analigic forces.--Lokyz (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Waffen SS relevant ?

How is the 1943 German attempt to create a Waffen SS unit relevant to the article about territorial defence force ? --Lysy^talk

I guess it is the background of Nazi attempts to create a Lithuanian force.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

It should be noted that the early version of this article was mostly a copyvio of this source. Although mostly changed, there are still some sentences that could use more throughout rewrite.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll cleanup this article shortly. And speaking about copyvio [6] and this [7] does not seem to be Piotrus original writing. Realax, all the WP:OR will be removed from this article sooon.--Lokyz (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

B-class

To satisfy the last remaining B-class parameter a photograph, painting, table, chart, graph, or other visual aid needs to be placed in the article somewhere. It matter not what the nature of the visual aid is, just along as it is in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any photos, although considering the existence of the veteran Union of Soldiers of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, I would expect we should get some photos of insignia in the future. I cannot think of any table/graph/chart that would be useful. Surely - just as for the GA articles - the visual aid is recommended if possible, but not required for the sake of it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Photos of the insignia will fo nicely. As to the if possible part, I must confess I am nit sure. Roger or Kirill may be in a better position to answer that question, if you would like to ask them I am sure they would be happy to offer input on this matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Referenced material removal

Piotrus, would you please explain why did you remove well referenced material with this edit [8]? Another case of WP:IDONTLIKE?--Lokyz (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What content, can you be more specific? Parts of your additions are in so poor English grammar I that they cannot be rewritten and I had to remove a few incomprehensible sentences. Most of the content was preserved, some was moved to a more appropriate section or paragraph.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah the English? Splendid. What part of this sentence you did not understand"The Staff of LVR and also many officers and soldiers refused to take the orders and started dropping weapons, and this led to decision of Hintze and Jackeln to disband the unit.", what part of thhis you do not understand Upon hearing this order Plechavičius immediately ordered Marijampolė cadets to go home, he also ordered Lithuanian battalions to retreat from Vilnius Region stop hostilities with AK forces and return to the permanent stationing location. On May 10th Plechavičius refused to meet Hintze and send his chief of staff Urbonas who told Plechavičius words that he never ment to be an SS officer, nor ever wanted to serve in this structure .

And what part of this you do not understand? On May 9th General Plechavičius received an order by Jackeln, signed on April 15, that all 7 battalions present the moment In Vinius region were under control by Jackeln, all other battalions were to be transferred to German regional commandants, and the unit has to wear SS uniforms and salute by rising hand.

And what did you not understand in this? Germans constantly attempted to use LTDF to their means, and constantly demanded to mobilise more people. Most of such demands were blocked by Plechavičius, most notably the large scale mobilisation attemt in the creating list of conscripts in end of April and the mobilisation in the begining of May (it was completed on May 9th-12th). Germans attempted to use fot the mobilisation LVR commandants offices. The mobilisation failed completely, with only 3 to 5 percent men of conscription age arrived, and most of them wereot fit for military service. Plechavičius has personally ordered to ignore the mobilisation order.

It's all referenced and removed by you, with a clear undo and a bit of covering editing.

You clearly are trying to support Piotrowski's version, even if it does not correspond with facts - main reason of LVR disbandment was that Lithuanians refused to take commands from SS, and also sabotaged the mobilization attempts. Also for Piotrowski's citation about nazi collaborators - Bubnys clearly states, that since December 1943 no Lithuanians were in Paneriai.--Lokyz (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S this is also Noted in Jackeln's speech before officers - main reasons of the disbandment was sabotaged mobilization and attempt to create Lithuanian national army and prepared an jumping-off place for anglo-saxonian troops invasion.--Lokyz (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dropping weapons is not correct, I am not sure what is meant by that. I don't think they were dropping weapons on the ground or whereever they were. Did they turn their weapons back to the Germans? I thought they were taking their weapons into the forest? The part about the cadets is in the article. Did P. really order LVR to stop hostilities with AK? I missed that, feel free to restore it. The rest of the text is in the article. It is clear that there were two related reasons for LVR disbandment: growing tensions with the Germans, and its defeat in skirmishes with AK. As for Ponary, this is an interesting point, feel free to add it to the article, per NPOV we should present both versions if they are contradictory (Piotrowski states... but Bubnys states otherwise...).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Marijampolė cadet school turned weapons against Germans. Yes Plechavičius did order to stop hostilities, although the communication lines with Vilnius were rather poor, contrary to Marijampolė, where it did reach cadets sooner. The main reason of the disbandment, was that LVR soldiers and officers refused to obey to SS commanders orders (this is ment by dorpping weapons), the skirmishes with AK did not influenced this decision. The decisive day was May 8th, (the day of mobilisation) as it became obvious, that mobilistion attempt had failed completely. That's why the order to transfer the troops under direct SS control was given to Plechavičius the next day. The following six days was only the further escalation, s it became obvious that LVR will not succumb to SS orders. After Germans disarmed Vilnius branch battalions (most of them were not completely formed at the time) - Germans first arrested officers and used them as hostages. After hearing that all other battalions started disappearing in forests with guns and unifoms. Then the staff and Plechavičius personally were arrested.--Lokyz (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And in the meantime, the LVR battalions in field were being broken by the AK... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not related - Šiaulaii, Panevėžys ad other batalions simply dissapered with their weapons, after hearing that tehy should wear SS uniforms. This was not a part of the deal, and those soldiers never had an intention to serve in SS.--Lokyz (talk) 09:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this is not contradicted by our article...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean this disrupted article? After recent massive removal of referenced information I can only state, that this article is nor NPOV nor balanced. I do not intend to waste my time editing articles to see all referenced information removed with dubious reasoning on the verge of WP:IDONTLIKE - this is by far not the first article, and I'm afraid by far not the last. --Lokyz (talk) 21:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S - following the recent series request for "facts" - should I reference every single sentence in the sentences, or it would be enough to mark a paragraph as such? Because It thought that referencing paragraph would suffice, to not overuse references.--Lokyz (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article contains all the information there were added to it and were grammatically coherent. If not, please list them here.

And yes, please reference sentences. Otherwise in some time, when sb else adds something in the middle of your para, we will now it does not come from your source. Or when somebody wants to copy part of your para, he will now which sentences are referenced to which source. And so on.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why I should put any material on talk page. I do have the same rights as editor as you. I'll put referenced information into article, as usual, just to see how long it will last. --Lokyz (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

References

Referenced material removal (again)

Please, could someone comment on this disruptive edit, massive removal of referenced material (including references and clarifications requested by the same user who did remove them). This is getting tiresome. The edit summary to neutral version (Polish-American sociologist claims... give us a break is rather funny, because Piotrus himself suggested to put it this way. Please correct me If I'm wrong - according to the Tadeusz Piotrowski article author of the cited book is sociologist, and he is Polish-American. If one does not like attribution, there is no need massively remove citations. I'm restoring the referenced version.--Lokyz (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more specific what removed references do have to do with WP:WESEL violations, and what exact part of wesel (?) policy prohibits attributing, and what part of the same poliy does not allow to replace {{fact}}{{clarify}} with references. As a matter of fact, WP:WEASEl is rather explict about this: It is, of course, acceptable to introduce some fact or opinion and attribute it in an inline citation. e.g. "Research by Wong et al, 1996, has shown that rabies can be cured by acupuncture". As for me the removal of referenced material is a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKE.--Lokyz (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange enough recent addition of sociologist follows my footstep on including it into article, that was reverted under the pretense of Wp:WEASEl. Piotrus, would you comment on this?--Lokyz (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Another disruption of referenced material - This resulted into creation of armed force, that would only act in the borders claimed byof Lithuania (including, however, territories with Polish majority) and would be commanded only by Lithuanian officers. - the striked out are insertions, that Bubnys did not write, but were inserted into cited text. I did restore proper citation.--Lokyz (talk) 22:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Date matching

... LTDF defeat in the Battle of Murowana Oszmianka on May 13–14 ...

This is weird because the order to make LTDF subordinate directly to Germans was issued on May 9, one day after the failed mobilization to the German army ended. The order to disband was given on May 12. On May 15 repressions started against the former members. The "proverbial last drop" came after the LTDF was disbanded... Renata (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find reference for "LTDF was disbanded on May 12". The article states "On May 12, Plechavičius refused to meet with newly appointed Kurt Hintze and sent his chief of staff Urbonas, who told Hintze that Plechavičius never meant to be an SS officer, nor ever wanted to serve in this structure". Am I missing something? Btw, I've rearranged some events in a more chronological order. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Generalbezirk Litauen

Few days ago Lokyz added this useful clarification (w/out referencing it) to a related article. As it seems uncontroversial, useful and more or less a WP:PIPE, I've copied it here as well, yet this is now challenged ([9]). What's the difference between those two articles - why a clarification there is useful and a clarification here is not? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact Piotrus has a provided a schematics of Reichskomissariat Ostland [10] It is not exaclty a map, sinc there are only several cities mentoned, and it is rather difficult to understand where particular villages were. Although the location of a town/village does not relate to referenced material as one editor suggests [11]. The references presented do not relate to the nazi established Generalbezirk Litauen, they do state "Lithuanian lands". I do refer to Bubnys and Piotrowski publications, and since I've asked twice [12] [13] to provide sources to support Generalbezirk Litauen in the references that were altered by one editors will I did get a rather strange answer [14]. Is the WP:RS and WP:V not an official policy in Wikipedia? And another question - ist there no subsection of Reichskomissariat Ostland called Generalbezirk Litauen and is there no schematics as mentioned earlier provided by establised editor shown in the image.

That clearly shows the existance of the administrative unit named Generalbezirk Litauen

Finaly, I do fail to understand how the image and the Wikipedia link could have influenced the scholars, who have written their studies before Wikipedia was even established. So I ask once again - either editors could provide citations supporting Generalbezirk Litauen in the mentioned scholarly publications or they should drop disrupting the provided references. I hope the scholarly atmosphere and referenced materials will prevail. It's our common goal, isn't it?--Lokyz (talk) 20:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid I am unable to understand some of your arguments; you may want to rework the English above. My point is that, first, you've added a similar clarification to Generalbezirk Litauen in another article, so I would like to hear your rationale for why this was appopriate there but is not here. Second, "Lithuanian territories" is imprecise, and disputed - for example interwar Poles would certainly disagree that Wilno was an "Lithuanian territory". Since it was however assigned to Generalbezirk Litauen, it seems a helpful and neutral clarification. We have plenty of sources for the existence of Generalbezirk Litauen during WWII, as a territories under Nazi German/Nazi Lithuanian administration, and it is much more precise then some vague "Lithuanian lands". If you disagree, please provide us with a map of those "Lithuanian lands" that the LTDF was to operate on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm affraid you should ask Bubnys for clarification since the vague argument is in the scholarly citation, and Generalbezirk Litauen is not. If I would interprete the source to my liking it would be rather WP:OR, as is the putting Generalbezirk Litauen. --Lokyz (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is it OR here but not in the other article? Can you clarify this, because your statements above are very hard to understand?radek (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:V - it is not in the sources presented. BTW, what other article are you referring to? Is it sourced? And another question - if it is sourced, does the reference support the altering of references for solely WP:POINT? Let the Peace be with you.--Lokyz (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Piotrus, Lokyz introduced the link to show where geographically a certain village was located, not to clarify what territory LTDF was supposed to operate within. The sources are vague on what was meant by "Lithuanian territory" and it should be left that way. Renata (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Renata, "Lithuanian territory" is simply not neutral - just as calling this "Polish territory" would be. Poles living in Wilno during WWII considered it occupied Polish territory, not Lithuanian. We need a solution to avoid this POV-quagmire. My early solution was the phrase "Lithuanian-claimed territory", but using the official administrative title that provides a useful link and does not assign the territory to any of the factions that claimed it seems a better solution. It's as simple as that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to "territory claimed by Lithuanians" or some such because it is not clear how much they claimed at the time: borders drawn by the 1920 treary with Soviets? borders pre-June 1941? borders of Generalbezirk Litauen? Who knows? Sources do not specify. Assuming one or the other is guesswork & unsourced OR. Renata (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the vagueness of this term is another reason to avoid using it. I still think that my solution "in occupied Lithuania (Generalbezirk Litauen of Reichskommissariat Ostland)" is much more helpful - it contains neutral terms and useful links. Still, if you want to remove them and use "territory claimed by Lithuanians", go right ahead - neither is well sourced, and both are more neutral then the plain "Lithuanian territory" (which if we use some definitions could include all territories of the former GDL...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do want to use "territory claimed by Lithuanians" and yes, I will go ahead with it. Renata (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why there are some disagreements as to what constitutes Lithuanian territory, but these sorts of disagreements are hardly unique to Poland/Lithuania and we rarely use "claimed by" in articles not directly related to disputes over the territory itself. "Claimed by" is not neutral in this context. We could just as easily say, "including lands claimed by Poland." Especially since modern Poland and Lithuania agree to the current borders, the language may give the impression that such disputes still exist. I would leave it out and rely on the likelihood that few, if any, people who are interested in the LTDF are ignorant of issues related to the disputed territory anyway. Vygramul 15:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygramul (talk • contribs)