Talk:Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires

Reliable sources

Is a link to the website of the LNDP, a fringe party with links to Русское национальное единство really what Wikipedia considers a "reliable source"? Also, I would perhaps also question the impartiality of LENTA.RU as a news media source, at least on this issue. Besides, the article cited, by Сергей Карамаев, is a journalistic treatment of an historical subject. A scholarly source (i.e., one with footnotes referring to archival documents, etc.) would be more in the spirit of this encyclopedia. Zalktis 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Found better source for Podgaje statements from Polish version of Wikipedia. Link to LNDP website replaced. Zalktis 12:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Citation is not needed when stating what a thing is not. If someone wants to bullshit and pretend the Latvian Legion was involved in a warcrime the burden of proof is on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.170.36 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting, I disagree with the IP user's reasoning above, but the citation was required in lead, per WP:LEAD the lead should be summary of the article, the sentence in question summarizes views of different parties discussed and properly referenced later on and it would be ore appropriate to ask for citation there, it makes no sense to require citation for statement that there are different views of the situation, which is the cause of major controversy - this is as clear as the fact that grass is green and sky is blue. ~~Xil (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Latvian Legion - Waffen SS

How could the Latvian legion not be a nazi unit if they were part of the Waffen SS? That would mean that Waffen SS had not nazi units...--HCPUNXKID 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

No Waffen-SS members were Nazi party members. Not Waffen-SS members swore any oath to Nazism. The so-called "volunteer" foreign Waffen-SS units were combat units operationally subordinated to the Wehrmacht, separate and distinct from the pre-war elite Waffen-SS "armed wing" of the Nazi party. Hope this helps. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. Some members of the Waffen-SS did indeed join the Nazi Party-depending on their German ancestry. Research some books on the subject. That said, I have never read that the Latvians were ever party members. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason why you have never read that Latvians in the Waffen-SS were members of the NSDAP, is because the bulk of Latvians in the Waffen-SS were conscripted, i.e. did not voluntarily join the Waffen-SS. Philaweb (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

They are Nazi

It is not just Russia that calls the Legion Nazi. The legion was in the Waffen SS and members swore their undying allegiance to Hitler. Jewish groups have strongly condemned the march. These are Nazis. Many were former members of the Arjas commando which exterminated Latvia's Jews. Anybody who pledges allegiance to Hitler is a Nazi.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

By your logic, Soviet Army were the Nazis, because many "Nazi" legionnaires after served in it. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, not a tribune for personal fantasies. Egilus (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this some sort of joke? The USSR didn't go out of their way to look for Legionnaries to recruit into the Red Army, they were punished if their Nazi activities became known. SS recruits make a pledge of undying allegiance to Hitler, which is Nazi idealogy. By your logic here, I should not say that the 100th Kazakh Rifle Brigade was a Soviet brigade? Should I also not say that the 255th Separate Chechen-Ingush Cavalry Regiment was "Soviet"? Maybe I we should also stop calling the Korean People's Army "Korean"? Why are you so hell bent on defending Nazis like Cukurs? Or do you think he was also not a Nazi even though he was in the Nazi Party?--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Please suggest specific edits backed up by reliable sources. This is WP:NOTFORUM. Alaexis_¿question? 19:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

"The Waffen-SS (German: [ˈvafn̩ʔɛsˌʔɛs]; Armed SS) was the combat branch of the Nazi Party's paramilitary Schutzstaffel (SS) organisation." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS. So there is consensus on Wikipedia that the SS is Nazi.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to show that reliable sources refer to them as such. Alaexis_¿question? 05:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's sad that you don't know history. Yes, the USSR took captured legionnaires into the Red Army to fight the Germans, and the Latvian legionnaires were not members of the Nazi party and even technically could not be one. --Egilus (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It's sad you don't know your history. The Waffen SS was literally part of the Nazi party, so it is Nazi by definition. They took a pledge of allegiance to Hitler which is obviously a Nazi pledge - unless you think Hitler himself was not a Nazi, in which case please see a physiatrist. Here is an article from the Times of Israel, a permitted source. "Man arrested for displaying a poster of soldiers killing Jews during world’s sole event [remembrance day for the legionnaires] for former Nazi fighters". Now, are you telling me that "former Nazi fighters" are not fighters for fought for the Nazis in the past?--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know whether you are deliberately confusing subordination to a higher authority (and the Nazi Fuhrer was indeed supreme there) and status in the party. Can you name at least one Latvian legionnaire who would have been accepted into the Nazi party? Especially considering the fact that only Aryans were accepted into it, to whom the Latvian legionnaires - ethnic Latvians, Russians, Poles and others - did not relate in any way?

The fact that some “allowed source” (I wonder if in your version the Latvian permissions are also allowed) simplified the matter to the point of error only means that he did it. --Egilus (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Being part of the Waffen SS makes you a Nazi and saying that the Waffen SS is Nazi is not an error. The Latvian Legion was part of the Waffen SS and the Waffen SS was Nazi, there's nothing error about it. You don't have to be an ethnic German to be a fascist, being part of the Nazi Germany military means you are Nazi soldiers (be it the Kriegsmarine, Luftwaffe, Waffen SS, Wehrmacht, or whatever). Do you think that soldiers in the 100th Separate Kazakh Rifle Brigade of the Red Army were not Soviet soldiers just because they weren't Russians? Do you think that the Pamiris/Tajiks in the PLA are not soldiers of China? Do you think members of the Latvian legion get the SS tatoos in their armpits (a common litmus test for being Nazi)? I am sick of your silly mental gymnastics. It reminds me of the time that a different mental gymnastics editor said that moden Kazakh oral tradition is propaganda and cultural appropriation of Kazakh culture! How stupid can we get? Are you next going to tell me that Cukurs and Arājs weren't Nazis? And how many times do I have to tell you that Blogspot does not count as a reliable source? Sounds like you need some Wikipedia bootcamp.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Apparently, you still deliberately confuse the government affiliation of the soldiers and their views and political affiliation. Just as the Kazakh soldiers were Soviet, but basically they were not commies either in their views or in their party affiliation, and did not become so because the country was ruled by the Secretary General of the Communist Party, so the Latvian legionnaires were German soldiers and for the most part were not Nazis neither by views nor by party affiliation. Your example destroys your own argument.

Cukurs, of course, was not Nazi by his opinions - he is known as collaborant of communists in 1940. Actually, that’s why he went to Arājs - to atone for his "sins" before the new government. Claims against him are for his deeds - real or alleged - and not for his views.

As for training courses on Wikipedia, one definitely wouldn’t hurt you. Both in the ability to debate, and in knowledge and adherence to the rules (of which you obviously read only the part that you liked). This, by the way, also applies to your campaign against often imagined violations of the ban on freedom of panorama.

While you are distracting people here with your falsifications, my wife and son are sitting in Ashdod under your Muslim missiles. Moreover, your country is openly in alliance with Russia, which is committing the same genocide in Europe. Therefore, listening to the accusations of Nazism that you expressed in various Wikipedias from a person with a similar nickname is at least strange.

Sorry to the moderators. I don't often lose my temper like this, but judging by what I've already read, Wikipedia's rules on respect for others have stopped working and I also have rights to anser in such ay.

The reliability of sources in the Latvian Wikipedia will be decided by the relevant community of Wikipedians, and not by you or me personally. Just like in English, Russian and all the others. So it was and so it will be. You apparently still haven't realized that Wikipedia is a team effort and not a place to impose your personal views. --Egilus (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, we get it, you are a Nazi apologist. If not even the butcher of Riga to you is a Nazi war criminal then get off Wikipedia and join Stormfront. FoP violations are not "imagined" I don't write the copyright laws. Misuse of photos of statues can cost users millions of dollars like it did the US post office with the Vegas Statue of Liberty. I am sick of your Nazi mental gymnastics to try to justify fawning over people who burned Jews alive. You think because you are Latvian and the communists were supposedly cruel to your people (they were quite soft on Latvian compared to people like Chechens) that makes it OK to celebrate the highest level of war criminals only because there were not technically German. You keep saying Cukurs crimes are alleged but there are far more than 4 male witnesses, many of them non-Jews who say his crimes. Do you think Hitler's crimes should be called "alleged" because he didn't stand trial? How about Mengele? He also didn't stand trial, but that doesn't mean he isn't a savage scum war criminal. I'm not going to argue with you again. People who wear march around in SS uniform are Nazi. Go back to your Nazi echo-chamber. "My Muslim missiles"??? Lol you seriously think every single Muslim has a personal supply of missiles to fire at you? You know that Kazakhstan recognizes Israel, right? Do you think the rockets are also Azerbaijanis fault too? This is absurd. Hamas rockets are every Muslims fault but even the Butcher of Riga Herberts Cukurs can't be called a war criminal? You should see a psychiatrist.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 15:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Let me remind you that they tried to trial Cukurs in Latvia. Result? Court did not found his personal guilt greater than his very presence in the assassination team. For me personally, this would be enough to decide on the death penalty, but the court works differently. And if the courts recognize some of the statements of witnesses as evident fantasies, then it is worth asking why. For example, why did witnesses “see” Cukurs in different places at the same time? In Latvia, local Jewish historians not associated with the Latvian state have written a lot of interesting things on this subject. And you came here as an expert, knowing nothing on a topic that was studied in detail by all sides. Just like the question of who is a Nazi - this has already been studied not only in Latvia, but also Soviet communists, and the Western allies, and the Nuremberg Tribunal came to the same conclusions that a uniform does not make a Nazi. But, of course, you don’t care about the opinions of those who fought against Nazism itself. You have your own truth and no one’s opinion is your decree.

Regarding copyright - the law (at least Latvian) allows the free use of images of statues and other objects of copyright under certain conditions, for example, when they do not occupy a dominant position in the image. You clearly don't take this into account.

The nickname "Riga Butcher" is purely propaganda (according to EnWiki - created by his killer) and, of course, was not used at that time. As the director of the Jewish Museum in Riga noted, Cukurs was a scoundrel, but a person of absolutely no level to deserve such a title.

I leave the nonsense about the “Nazi apologist,” as well as your ideas about my motivation, to your attending physician, since you are so fond of discussing psychiatric topics. It is obvious that for you, as for any fanatic, any neutral opinion is extremistic. However, I can easily communicate with radicals of all sides if they - unlike you - are interested in the quality of articles, and not in the unilateral imposition of agitprop. Egilus (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Guys, this is not a forum. Please propose concrete edits supported by reliable sources. Alaexis_¿question? 17:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna outsource my citationing to @K.e.coffman: since she is a lot more experienced than me in this field.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I maintain that "Nazi apologist" is not an absurd way to describe promoting a blog with articles by Mark Weber that called the gas chambers "alleged", says that "the Jews" should be punished for remembering the Holocaust, and praises officers of the Arajs commando.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you also outsource your commenting to her? NOWHERE in the article does it even mention Weber or any of his blogs, let alone use them as references. I can only repeat what Alaexis has already said twice: this is WP:NOTFORUM! –Turaids (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The Cukurs blog that Egilus loves and insisted was reliable that you think is no big deal has lots of articles by Weber in it. Stuff like "alleged gas chambers", stuff that is undeniably Holocaust denialism. And calls for Jews to be punished for talking about the Holocaust, just read the articles linked in the blog archive. Go to the read the part about "Simon Wiesenthal: Fraudulent 'Nazi Hunter' By Mark Weber" and tell me if it is my imagination that is says "by mark weber". The entire article "A Brief List of the Conveniently Deceased" is dedicated to Holocaust denialism.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Remembrance Day of the Latvian Legionnaires article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". –Turaids (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You said that there was no mention of Weber. I told you exactly where in the blog it was. Now, back to the scoundrels in the Latvian legion - the SS was part of the Nazi party, ergo the legion is Nazi. Saying the SS isn't Nazi absurd.--QazyQazyQazaqstan (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

By "the article" I'm referring to the article, whose talk page you're spamming right now, not some article on the blogspot you're so obsessed about. –Turaids (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)