Jump to content

Talk:Pērkonkrusts

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

[edit]

This article requires considerable revision; even the date of Ulmanis' coup is incorrect (it took place on the night of May 15-16, 1934, not 1933). The question of Pērkonkrusts' collaboration with the Nazis is complex and is discussed in detail by Andrew Ezergailis, the author of The Holocaust in Latvia, here. The leaders of Sonderkommando Arajs were not members of Pērkonkrusts, and only about a dozen of the men under Arājs were. The relationship between the 1990s extremist group that took the name and the original group was virtually non-existent. Pērkonkrusts did not "suggest a Latvian religion" so much as look to Dievturība, a pagan revival. There is nothing "ironic" about Pērkonkrusts being anti-German; it was a virulently ethnocentric, Latvian group whilst the Nazis were devoted to German hegemony. Etc., etc. --Pēteris Cedriņš 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're an expert in the subject please do make whatever changes would improve it; what other sources can you recommend? --Stlemur 02:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert by any means, but I read what I can find on the subject -- most of what's available is in Latvian, and that would include the highly recommended Ebreji un diktatūras Baltijā 1926-1940 (Jews and the Dictatorships in the Baltics 1926-1940) by Aivars Stranga, published in an expanded edition by the University of Latvia's Center for Judaic Studies in 2002. Parts of that work may have been translated, I believe; it focuses especially on the group's anti-Semitism but also gives background, and Stranga is a fine historian. The article by Ezergailis I linked to above (also in Latvian) details the group's attempts to collaborate with the Nazis, and the Latvian language Vikipēdija article is fair. On the 1990s copycat group, there is accurate information in English in the article "Extremism in Latvia" by Nils Muižnieks. If nobody else gets to it, I'll edit it, but I do have a slew of other articles I'm working on... --Pēteris Cedriņš 03:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that this article drawed my attention some time ago, all I could find on this organization was at Historia.lv and had english translation - latvian version of that in-depth report is pasted in latvian wikipedia (altoght maybe that article is different now) - I also noticed that somewhere in latvian wikipedia someone said that this author from Historia.lv has permited to use his writings on wikipedia (could not find that note anymore), I wasn't sure if that includes english wikipedia so I didn't do anything in the end -- Xil/talk 13:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Answered at User talk:Xil re historia.lv and permissions. --Pēteris Cedriņš 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The text on collaboration I linked to above, by Andrew (Andrievs) Ezergailis, is available in English as a .pdf file -- "Collaboration in German Occupied Latvia: Offered and Rejected". --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

About the Russian Mission's “Involvement of the Lettish SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Latvia”--The Russian government continues to "convict" the Latvian SS at Nuremberg; when in fact the Waffen-SS in Eastern Europe were largely illegally conscripted and were not the same as Hitler's convicted Waffen-SS: the SS convicted in Nuremberg had nothing to do with the "SS" in Eastern Europe, including the Latvian SS. The notion that Latvia is trying to rehabilitate those convicted in Nuremberg is simply false. I suggest removing it as a reference and any information that it contained. --Pēters 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your counter-source? --Stlemur 14:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, the Nurnberg findings as well as a U.S. Congress resolution made the distinction. (So, if you were an Eastern European conscripted into the Waffen SS you could still immigrate into the U.S. and not be a "war criminal.") I will try and track down. Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Nuremberg Trials, in declaring the Waffen SS a criminal organisation, explicitly excluded conscripts in the following terms:
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 organisation 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 organisation 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.
In April 13, 1950, a message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by John McCloy to the Secretary of State, clarified the US position on the "Baltic Legions": they were not to be seen as "movements", "volunteer", or "SS". In short, they were not given the training, indoctrination, and induction normally given to SS members. Subsequently the US Displaced Persons Commission in September 1950 declared that:
The Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States.
--58.169.78.46 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also se this .pdf -- Xil/talk 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name in need of correction

[edit]

Everything related to Pērkonkrusts seems to redirect to this article. In fact, Pērkonkrusts is the Latvian word for Swastika and as such an article on the symbol Pērkonkrusts should be created with that name. This article should be renamed to the official name of the fascist organization since Pērkonkrusts is only its nickname. Latvian Wikipedia has an article on Pērkonkrusts (Latviešu Tautas Apvienība), which is the correct title that could be translated into English. --Philaweb 13:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that the word "Pērkonkrusts" in English most often occurs in connection with the political organisation described here — and then most often in context of the Holocaust. I will add a link to swastika, though. — Zalktis (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is the "problem" that the Latvians used the pērkonkrusts and not just in crafts long before the Nazis coopted it for their nefarious purposes. See, for example, www.latvianaviation.com for "Nazi" biplanes. I have even seen people make such ludicrous claims that it proves Latvians were already Nazis in WWI. I agree with Philaweb that this is not the appropriate use for the primary appearance of Pērkonkrusts in WP--and the article itself was not doing well on basic facts. It fell off my radar screen, for which I sincerely apologize.
   There is a WP article on the Swastika. I think it would be a vast step forward to make this, similarly, an article on the pērkonkrusts and its role in Latvian symbolism and use in crafts. For example, I have seen it in other ethnic woven crafts, but never to the degree of ornamentation and development as I've seen in Latvian woven belts.
   The article can then carry a "See Latvian People's Union for the political party colloquially referred to as Pērkonkrusts" and "See Swastika for a more general history on the origin of the pērkonkrusts symbol". —PētersV (talk) 13:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, though, when the word Pērkonkrusts (or any mangled representation thereof) appears in English scholarly publications, it is almost exclusively in the context of a) Holocaust studies; or b) fascist studies. In my mind, this makes it appropriate for the fascist organisation to receive the primary entry in English Wikipedia. I'm not denying that there are other possibilities out there; I'm just saying that if you ask a non-Latvian English-speaker, if they actually recognised the word Pērkonkrusts, sadly, they're most likley thinking of Celmiņš & Co. — Zalktis (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pērkonkrusts was not a "nickname" it was the proper name. According to the statutes the full formal title of the party was Latviešu Tautas Apvienība "Pērkonkrusts". The "LTA" part was just a generic descriptor. In my opinion, to say that the present article should be renamed "Latvian People's Union (Pērkonkrusts)" is like insisting that it is most proper to call the (yet unwritten) article on Aldaris brewery something like "Akciju Sabiedrība (Aldaris)". —Zalktis (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then without the parens? Latvian People's Union Pērkonkrusts, redirect Pērkonkrusts there, then "see alsos" with some slightly more descriptive name for the folk symbol(s) article title? I just think it's a disservice to Latvian culture to title an article about fascists with a single word which stands for one of its most prominent folk symbols. Ignorance on the part of non-Latvian English speakers shouldn't be a final determinant of article titles. I could live with the redirect to a more descriptive title or a Pērkonkrusts disambiguation page. —PētersV (talk) 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks for the correction as always! —PētersV (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Pēters. As can be seen, I'm trying hard to improve this article through intensive procrastination from my "real" work! As for the disambiguation issue, there is already an underdeveloped section Swastika#Baltic. And with "Nazi airplanes", the similar Finnish case is discussed in Swastika#Finland. Would it perhaps not be better to improve the information on the Baltic symbol within Swastika first, before separate, in-depth articles are created on specific Latvian-related sub-topics? —Zalktis (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century#Latvia —Zalktis (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we can do better with the paltry summary sections (Swastika#Baltic and Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century#Latvia. I'm away from home and most ref's are still packed, but I think I have Dzērvītis' Latvian Ornament book handy, I'll try and add at least a little bit of meat.

Ugunskrusts

[edit]

I've made it so that Ugunskrusts no longer redirects here, but is a disambiguation. Unlike pērkonkrusts, from my lessons in Latvian folklore as a lad in Toronto I seem to recall that ugunskrusts was the more common name used for the Latvian swastika ... perhaps due to it being less politically compromised? —Zalktis (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also re-worked the entry for Thunder Cross a bit. I hope this is acceptable. Note the use of lower case in some and not others instances is deliberate on my part. —Zalktis (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag removed

[edit]

I've re-added some of the allegedly "disputed" material with proper sources. Generally, the article is now quite well referenced. If you have a dispute or think a reference is required, flag/tag that sentence or section, not the whole article, please! —Zalktis (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Šiškins and forbidden symbols

[edit]

I guesed that only "forbidden symbol" far-right wing activist would use would be swatika, which shouldn't be forbidden as it is used in Latvian folklore, so I googled for Šiškins and found that the court turned down the case for having no substance (according to this blog) ~~Xil * 18:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrested" (in a democracy) does not necessarily mean "convicted". Even better is this (see "Visu Latvijai! vadītāju soda par PSRS karoga sadedzināšanu"), where he wore a swastika t-shirt during the first Riga Pride—again, the cops don't do nothing, 'cause, y'see, it's just "folklore". Right. I'm sure Šiškins is also a mainstay of the Baltica folklore festivals... —Zalktis (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latvian air markings (Interwar Period)

[edit]

A red swastika on a white roundel. Anything to do with this political party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.2.56 (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I was just perusing my comment above about "Nazi" biplanes. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:PK Arajs Tevija 04.07.41.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:PK Arajs Tevija 04.07.41.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pērkonkrusts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pērkonkrusts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pērkonkrusts&oldid=1216363339"