User talk:Morgan Hauser/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hello

Hello. I found your articles on the Reichgau Flanders&Wallonia and District of Brussels highly interesting. However, I wonder if there are any references for the information presented. If articles could be referenced within 3 days, they could be nominated to T:TDYK. --Soman (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I provided some footnotes to ease back-checking. A lot of the information is actually derived from similar German and Dutch entries, with most of the original sources in foreign languages. --Morgan Hauser (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Nazi Germany. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. (Hohum ^@) 19:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Reichsgau Flandern

Hello! Your submission of Reichsgau Flandern at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —mono(how's my driving?) 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Reichsgau Flandern

Hello! Your submission of Reichsgau Flandern at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages - editing note

Per the relevant portion of our Manual of Style, only one term (generally the article itself) is wikilinked per item of a disambiguation. Thus, your recent edit to New Order has been reverted. I thought you'd want to know why. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reichsgau Flandern

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reichsgau Wallonien borders

Hi, I found your articles about the Belgian Reichsgaue interesting. However, I remember reading that the Letzeburgish-speaking region of Arlon was planned to be annexed directly to the Reich, and presumably connected to Moselland. I was able to find only two sources to back up my claim, though. Mvaldemar (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. I wouldn't be surprised if that indeed was their official intention regardless of their plans for Wallonia. The Nazi leadership had a notorious habit of laying claim to an enormous range of territories for whatever reason they could think of: irredentism, revenge, pan-Germanism, pan-Germanicism, security, pragmatism, because they felt like it, or just plain old imperialism.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

History of the Low Countries

Hi Morgan. In a recent edit to Template:History of the Low Countries, you accounted for the period when Belgium and Luxembourg were occupied by Nazi Germany. I was wondering why you didn't include the Netherlands in that same box. Thank you. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - it's not simply detailing their wartime occupations. That particular addition was to account for the fact that Luxembourg and Belgium (the latter of which only de-jure) were outright annexed by Nazi Germany (1942-1944 and 1944-1945, respectively). The French Empire did the same thing - though much more humanely - more than a hundred years before when it also reduced these countries to mere provinces.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

GAN Greater German Reich

Hello, Morgan Hauser. You have new messages at Talk:Greater Germanic Reich/GA1.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P. S. Burton (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nazi Gaue

Be aware, when you changed the Template:Nazi Gaue in the "name" section from Nazi Gaue to Administrative division of Nazi Germany, you actually broke the link in the view of the template, meaning, if somebody klicked view, it went to Template:Administrative division of Nazi Germany, which does not exist. If you wish to change the name within the template, you will also have to move the template to its new name. Calistemon (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Reichskommissariat Turkestan

The opening and final paragraphs are both unreferenced. As a general rule, if you have a paragraph not ending in a citation, there's a problem there. Ironholds (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

POV issue with maps

Original request--Morgan Hauser (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. If you have problem with any info in any map that I created, you can describe exact nature of that problem in proper talk page of each map in Wikimedia Commons and I will examine your comments or proposals there. Due to the general problems that you described on my personal page, I can give you only general answers. Speaking about question of "illegal fascist borders", do you have some evidence that such borders were considered legal by some relevant international bodies? Such borders were recognized only among several fascist countries (i.e. they recognized each other), but were not recognized by Allied countries, neutral countries or international organizations. Contrary to this, Yugoslav government in exile had wide international recognition during entire time of occupation of Yugoslavia. Maps are simply describing the nature of international legality from that time and nothing else. In fact, I created few other maps of WW2 fascists states (see examples here: [1], [2], [3]) and there I did not elaborated the legal/illegal nature of these borders, but in the case where I presented occupied Yugoslavia, the legality of such occupation was an important subject. Also, the question whether some territories were occupied or annexed is much more complicated: from the point of view of fascist/Axis states these territories were annexed, but from the point of view of legality of (de jure) existence of Yugoslavia during the war, these territories were nothing but occupied Yugoslav territories. In fact, I used in my maps both descriptions (occupied and annexed), so they representing both views, which is quite NPOV way of presentation. PANONIAN 17:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if you had preferred I didn’t open a dialogue on your user talk, but the most logical resort was to directly address the contributor – both because file talk pages rarely if ever are visited by anybody, and also because this issue seems to apply in the same extent to a number of your maps, not any individual one.

The files which I’m referring to are:

• File:Fascist occupation of yugoslavia.png
• File:Fascist genocide in yugoslavia.png
• File:Fascist concentration camps in Yugoslavia.png

In addition to their derivatives in other languages.

To start with the term "illegal fascist borders" - I was referring primarily to your use of the word "fascist", not the international legality of those occupations. Correct me if that wasn't your intention, but the nature of your wording strongly implies that you were using "fascist" pejoratively, not to describe the nature of the occupying countries’ state ideologies - adding "illegal" to it only hammers down the point even further. Reversing the situation, it would be the same if I were to draw a map of the political situation in Europe in mid-1942 – with all the pre-war borders inaccurately intact mind you – and labelling the Czechoslovak border as the "free and democratic border of the Republic of Czechoslovakia". It’s pointless and needlessly advancing a particular viewpoint. It’s also not even correct as a purely descriptive term, since not all of these countries were Nazist/Fascist - both Hungary and Bulgaria were militarily aggressive yes, but conservative monarchies politically. In general, "fascist" as used in these maps should be replaced with "Axis" - the above example would for instance be rendered as "internationally unrecognized Axis borders", and the title "Fascist occupation of Yugoslavia" as "Axis occupation of Yugoslavia".

As for map content – either your objective was to show what parts were occupied by what country (in which case all it should show is a German zone in the northeast half, an Italian zone in the southwest half, and the several smaller Bulgarian and Hungarian ones), or you intended to show the political re-organization which the Axis powers implemented after their conquests, in which case it is factually wrong for a number of reasons which I can elaborate further on. The main difference between you and I is that we are looking at it from different perspectives - de jure and de facto respectively. Right now they're just a weird blend of both.

Appreciate the work you did on those other maps, btw.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the term "fascist" did emanated from Italy, but it is also used as synonym for word "Axis" and as a description of all states that were allies of Nazi Germany. Since you claim that Hungary and Bulgaria were not fascist states, would you be so kind to explain why we found so many google hits for Hungarian fascists and Bulgarian fascists. Sources are numerous and I also listed some of the sources at pages of these maps in Wikimedia Commons. You can also see these maps from external links: this one is named Fascist Europe and this one clearly describe Hungary and Bulgaria as fascist states. this one is also named Fascist Europe, etc, etc. So, I do not understand what exactly is a problem here? Sources are clearly here and if you say that these sources are wrong then please show me some sources that are claiming that these states were not fascist or that occupation of Yugoslavia was in accordance with international legality and we can then discuss statements from such sources. Also, the question whether is justified to present territory of Yugoslavia in maps after it was de facto divided by fascist/Axis states can be answered by existence of other similar maps in external sites: [4] - you can see there that such maps are using term "occupied" for occupied parts of Yugoslavia. And that is not "reversed situation" - Yugoslav government in exile was recognized as legal government of Yugoslavia during entire war. See quotation from this source about that: "German forces invaded Yugoslavia and Greece on April 6. On the 10th Zagreb radio announced the establishment of an independent Croatian republic under their nationalist leader Ante Pavelic. On the 11th Italian and Hungarian Army divisions launched cautious attacks on Yugoslav positions. Belgrade surrendered to Gen. von Kleist on the 12th; on the 14th King Peter fled the country; and on the 17th, former Foreign Minister Cincar-Markovic signed an armistace with the Germans, who lost fewer than 200 dead in the Yugoslavian campaign. Ten days later, Athens fell to the Wehrmacht. Despite the armistice, a Yugoslav government-in-exile was recognized and operated out of London throughout the rest of the war." So, the problem is not whether I will use terms "fascist" or "Axis", but the question why I should not use term "fascist". In all Serbian history books term "fascist" is always used for this subject and the term is also widely used in English sources. You did not gave me a strong reason why I should not use that word (of course, if you present some sources that are contradicting to ones that I presented, we can always discuss differences in these sources). As for my goal regarding that map, my goal was to show two things: areas of occupation and de facto quisling states created on Yugoslav soil and, in that part, my maps are similar to those from Yugoslav history Atlases that I have and to maps from external links that I presented to you. There is no info in these maps that could be described as my original research because I looked to use only sourced info there. We can discuss the accuracy of every info that appear in these sources if you want. PANONIAN 20:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, given the length of your responses and the number of points you raise I’m switching to a quote-reply format (removed the links to ease formatting, left the brackets).

Well, the term "fascist" did emanated from Italy, but it is also used as synonym for word "Axis" and as a description of all states that were allies of Nazi Germany.

Wrong. Western and English-language political and historical discourse (such as these historians [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]) uses terms such as the Axis powers and/or the Tripartite Pact to denote that specific military alliance, not "the Fascist countries", or "the Fascist alliance". To name but two examples, the Empire of Japan was a militaristic and authoritarian state, not a fascist one. Finland was a liberal democracy, not a fascist state. In regard to the domain which encompassed that alliance's overall territorial conquests on the European continent, Axis-occupied/controlled Europe, or even German- and Nazi-occupied Europe (if only Nazi German conquests are considered), and the "New Order" are by and far most often used by academics and historians in those contexts.

Authoritarian and/or dictatorial tendencies are by no means exclusive to regimes which practice a fascist ideology, and a country militarily or politically allying/alligning itself with a country that does doesn't by necessity make it fascist in turn.

What exactly is your point with „Western and English-language political and historical discourse“ issue? Do you want to say that historians from other parts of the World (including eastern Europe) are not credible enough to be a source for an history map? Sorry, but English is an World language today (not only "the language of the west") and Wikipedia is not obligated to follow official policy of any country, including policies of so-called "western countries". The question why these historians are preferring word "Axis" instead "fascist" is mainly political and is related to the fact that word "fascist" (besides its usage as description for some historical states and regimes) is today also used pejoratively for some modern political and state organizations. It is only because of this possible double meaning of word "fascist" that these historians are using alternative word "Axis", but in historical context, both words ("Axis" and "fascist") are accurate and both are used by the historians (including English and non-English literature). I see no reason that we discuss cases of Japan or Finland because these countries did not occupied Yugoslavia, but it is evident that word "fascist" is certainly used for all countries that did participated in this occupation. And speaking about exact definition of "fascism", I have in my personal library one interesting Bosnian language translation of this book: "Kevin Passmore, Fascism, Oxford University Press, New Your, USA, 2002." That author claims that there is no an generally accepted definition of fascism and that different authors are using different definitions and that they are also using term "fascist" as a description for different regimes. So, depending of a definition and a source, it is justified and historically accurate that my map use term "fascist" as a description for states that occupied Yugoslavia, especially because it is undisputed viewpoint of Yugoslav historians. In all maps that I created, I tried to respect the views of local historians and to make maps in the way that they are not insulting for local people. That is exact reason why in this map of WW2 Hungary I used descriptions that are acceptable for Hungarian historians, while in maps of occupied Yugoslavia I used descriptions acceptable for Yugoslav historians. As I already said, Wikipedia is not obligated to strictly follow any official policies or any historical views, and therefore, viewpoint of Yugoslav historians (which is also supported by one number of "western" historians) is a valid viewpoint to be presented in Wikipedia maps. I am not going to change these maps only because its descriptions are not fitting into somebody's view about "political correctness" because such view clearly contradicts to views of other people and to things that I learned long time ago in elementary school. All in all, objections to descriptions in my maps of Yugoslavia are clearly of POV political character and are not related to map's inaccuracies. However, if that satisfies you, I can add some note on map's pages or in the articles where these maps are used, where I can say that some other sources are preferring and using term "Axis" instead "fascist". If that does not satisfy you, then in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policy of dealing with POV disputes, you are free to draw your own map of occupied Yugoslavia and to use whatever descriptions you want there. PANONIAN 09:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Since you claim that Hungary and Bulgaria were not fascist states, would you be so kind to explain why we found so many google hits for [Hungarian fascists] and [Bulgarian fascists]. Sources are numerous and I also listed some of the sources at pages of these maps in Wikimedia Commons.

First off, those Google searches prove exactly nothing. Going by your logic there are/were more "Serbian fascists" than Bulgarian ones, and those keywords you used can refer to any number of different things and events (modern-day parties and movements, historical ones that never held any power, individuals of those nationalities who expressed such convictions, etc.).

Hungary was a monarchy (regency) officially, but an authoritarian dictatorship in practice. There was exactly one (short-lived) fascist Hungarian state, the 1944-1945 puppet regime led by the Arrow Cross Party that the Germans installed after the Hungarians tried to switch to the Allied side. Bulgaria was a constitutional monarchy with a prime minister that was democratically elected under normal circumstances, but were appointed by the Bulgarian king/tsar after a military upheaval in 1935. Even Romania (which did not actively participate in the invasion of Yugoslavia but nevertheless expressed an interest in the Banat region), while once again a kingdom officially but an authoritarian dictatorship in practice, was not a fascist state, aside from the short-lived National Legionary State.

I did not say that you should count google hits for Hungarian and Bulgarian fascists, but that you should open and read some external sources that google can find for you (perhaps some google book). I will give you just one example for each: Hungarian fascists (Barry M. Lituchy, Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: analyses and survivor testimonies), Bulgarian fascists (Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar - The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples). So, as I said, sources that describing these countries as "fascist" are evident and the question of whether this term should be used or not is not a question of accuracy, but of personal viewpoints. Having in mind that my maps are not dealing with histories of Hungary and Bulgaria, but with history of Yugoslavia, and that these two afore mentioned countries committed an aggression, occupation and genocide against Yugoslavia and its citizens, it is completely historically justified that term "fascist" is used for these countries, especially because such term is supported by huge literature in both languages that I can speak and read, Serbo-Croatian and English. You should also have in mind that most of the Yugoslav territories occupied by Hungary and Bulgaria had mainly an non-Hungarian and non-Bulgarian population and therefore their aggression against Yugoslavia could be performed only because of their expansionist fascist ideology, not because of the wish of "liberation of their own people from Yugoslav rule". PANONIAN 09:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You can also see these maps from external links: [this one is named Fascist Europe] and [this one clearly describe Hungary and Bulgaria as fascist states]. [this one is also named Fascist Europe], etc, etc. So, I do not understand what exactly is a problem here?

Ignoring the minor borders errors in that first map, it outright lies when it declares countries like Turkey, Finland, Bulgaria, and Hungary as fascist. The second is obviously an alternate history map which identifies countries as independent when they weren't (France, Greece, Albania, etc.), German-occupied when they weren't (Montenegro, Banat) and is also misinformed about the nature of some German-administered regimes (Reichskommissariats in Soviet Russia, Generalgouvernement in Poland), and the third one you showed doesn't even make any pronouncements about the state ideologies of the Axis members whatsoever.

Well, you are right about second map - it is indeed an alternate history since Germany never conquered so large parts of Russia, but nevertheless (speaking about other maps and sources), you cannot claim that something is lie only because it uses different viewpoint than you. Sources that describing these countries as fascist are numerous and, due to the lack of an general definition of fascism, there is no single proof that such sources are wrong. PANONIAN 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources are clearly here and if you say that these sources are wrong then please show me some sources that are claiming that these states were not fascist or that occupation of Yugoslavia was in accordance with international legality and we can then discuss statements from such sources. Also, the question whether is justified to present territory of Yugoslavia in maps after it was de facto divided by fascist/Axis states can be answered by existence of other similar maps in external sites: [link] - you can see there that such maps [are using term "occupied" for occupied parts of Yugoslavia]. And that is not "reversed situation" (*) - Yugoslav government in exile was recognized as legal government of Yugoslavia during entire war. See quotation from [this source] about that: "German forces invaded Yugoslavia and Greece on April 6. On the 10th Zagreb radio announced the establishment of an independent Croatian republic under their nationalist leader Ante Pavelic. On the 11th Italian and Hungarian Army divisions launched cautious attacks on Yugoslav positions. Belgrade surrendered to Gen. von Kleist on the 12th; on the 14th King Peter fled the country; and on the 17th, former Foreign Minister Cincar-Markovic signed an armistace with the Germans, who lost fewer than 200 dead in the Yugoslavian campaign. Ten days later, Athens fell to the Wehrmacht. Despite the armistice, a Yugoslav government-in-exile was recognized and operated out of London throughout the rest of the war."

Maybe I mistakenly used the wrong word ("primarily" rather than "specifically") to convey what I was saying, so I’ll just have to repeat myself. I am not arguing the legal validity of the invasion and/or occupation of Yugoslavia. In terms of international law it was a breach of the Kellogg-Briand Pact which forbade aggressive wars of conquest, and which the German Reich and the three Kingdoms of Italy, Hungary, and Bulgaria were all signatories to. This is a debate about semantics first, and the political nature of the occupation second.

And the map you showed entitled Partition of Yugoslavia is once again, incorrect. Either German-ruled Croatia and Serbia should be merged if it's simply meant to show which invading country was assigned a predominant position in what part of pre-invasion Yugoslavia, or it should just show the entire administrative overhaul/re-organization that those countries implemented after the invasion.

(*) - Now you’re just taking my words out of context. What I did there was illustrate by example what an overly vulgarized term such as "illegal fascist borders" which you so adamently insist on using would look like if your rendered it in an opposite ideological extreme (the "free and democratic border of the Republic of Czechoslovakia"). It frankly comes across as quasi-propagandistic because it gives off the impression of having hand-picked all the various "buzz-words" of politically unacceptable concepts rather than something more objective such as "internationally unrecognized borders established by the Axis powers".

Sorry, but your own political views could be described as politically unacceptable by many historians when issue of occupation Yugoslavia is in question. Yes, my maps are in accordance with point of view of Yugoslav historians and there is no Wiki rule that forbid that certain viewpoints are presented in maps. But, views that you trying to impose are not NPOV, but just example of another POV (this time POV of a historians from a countries that occupied Yugoslavia). PANONIAN 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So, the problem is not whether I will use terms "fascist" or "Axis", but the question why I should not use term "fascist". In all Serbian history books term "fascist" is always used for this subject and the term is also widely used in English sources. You did not gave me a strong reason why I should not use that word (of course, if you present some sources that are contradicting to ones that I presented, we can always discuss differences in these sources).

I can not vouch for the use of this term in Serbian literature, but if that is your principal motivation for using it here then it’s simply a case of you forcefully trying to inject your country's own terminology into an English-language academic resource (Wikipedia), which is also frowned upon in this community. Simply put, “Fascist” is not synonymous with “the Axis”, no matter what some incensed (mostly Eastern European) scholars and media might assert.

As I said, term "fascist" is well used in English language literature too and in the Global village World of today English language literature cannot exclude Eastern European scholars. In fact, your expressed animosity towards Eastern European scholars is something that could be described as insulting by many people. PANONIAN 11:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

As for my goal regarding that map, my goal was to show two things: areas of occupation and de facto quisling states created on Yugoslav soil and, in that part, my maps are similar to those from Yugoslav history Atlases that I have and to maps from external links that I presented to you. There is no info in these maps that could be described as my original research because I looked to use only sourced info there. We can discuss the accuracy of every info that appear in these sources if you want.

I never said anything about OR - the issues here are NPOV and historical accuracy.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To keep things readable I moved your latest replies to the bottom of the page if you don’t mind.

Before I continue I’d like to point you to the following:

Wikipedia: Civility

Wikipedia: No personal attacks

What exactly is your point with „Western and English-language political and historical discourse“ issue? Do you want to say that historians from other parts of the World (including eastern Europe) are not credible enough to be a source for an history map? Sorry, but English is an World language today (not only "the language of the west") and Wikipedia is not obligated to follow official policy of any country, including policies of so-called "western countries".

Now you’re evading the issue by trying to paint this discussion as some sort of cultural struggle. This seems to be a matter of national pride for you, while you shouldn’t be treating it as such. The fact of the matter is that this term doesn't carry any wide-spread acceptance as a catch-all description for all of those countries outside of (so you say) Serbo-Croation literature, which advances this minority viewpoint. I'd like to point you here for what is likely the single-most authoritative source for detailed descriptions on fascist movements and its political ideology. Fascist elements did not hold any political power in Hungary until the 1944 deposition of the Horthy government, and only Marxist-Leninist scholars decry the Bulgarian Kingdom as a fascist regime, with other sources expressing a more nuanced view.

The question why these historians are preferring word "Axis" instead "fascist" is mainly political and is related to the fact that word "fascist" (besides its usage as description for some historical states and regimes) is today also used pejoratively for some modern political and state organizations. It is only because of this possible double meaning of word "fascist" that these historians are using alternative word "Axis", but in historical context, both words ("Axis" and "fascist") are accurate and both are used by the historians (including English and non-English literature).

It is rejected as an appropriate label on technical grounds because not all of these governments were fascist. Two out of three of its main members (Germany, Japan, and Italy), as well as many smaller puppet and quisling states were – but not all of them. Instead, nearly all of them were highly authoritarian and militarist in nature, not ruled by a fascist party or government.

I see no reason that we discuss cases of Japan or Finland because these countries did not occupied Yugoslavia, but it is evident that word "fascist" is certainly used for all countries that did participated in this occupation.

Your original assertion was "any member of the Axis alliance is by definition a fascist state" – now the goalposts have been moved to "any country which invaded Yugoslavia is by definition a fascist state". And this is not horribly POV why exactly?

And speaking about exact definition of "fascism", I have in my personal library one interesting Bosnian language translation of this book: "Kevin Passmore, Fascism, Oxford University Press, New Your, USA, 2002." That author claims that there is no an generally accepted definition of fascism and that different authors are using different definitions and that they are also using term "fascist" as a description for different regimes.

If one accepts that conclusion then it just makes it so meaningless a description that it shouldn't even be used at all.

So, depending of a definition and a source, it is justified and historically accurate that my map use term "fascist" as a description for states that occupied Yugoslavia, especially because it is undisputed viewpoint of Yugoslav historians.

It's not just the existence of a source that is taken into account, but also their reliability. These are advancing a minority fringe-view.

In all maps that I created, I tried to respect the views of local historians and to make maps in the way that they are not insulting for local people. That is exact reason why [in this map of WW2 Hungary] I used descriptions that are acceptable for Hungarian historians, while in maps of occupied Yugoslavia I used descriptions acceptable for Yugoslav historians.

We’re not here to protect the sensitivities of anyone, but to present the historical information as it occurred and without bias. If somebody feels more comfortable believing that some country held a political ideology that it actually didn’t that is entirely their own problem, not ours. I'm not going to entertain the notion for instance that modern-day Iran is a humanitarian paradise because it would hurt the feelings of its inhabitants. It is currently ruled by a theocratic dictatorship.

I am not going to change these maps only because its descriptions are not fitting into somebody's view about "political correctness" because such view clearly contradicts to views of other people and to things that I learned long time ago in elementary school.

You just directly insulted me by asserting that my intellect doesn't go beyond primary-school knowledge, and had to resort to putting words in my mouth to continue to back up your argument. Where exactly did I express an interest in PC? I already pointed out my concerns previously: historical accuracy and objectivity.

All in all, objections to descriptions in my maps of Yugoslavia are clearly of POV political character and are not related to map's inaccuracies. However, if that satisfies you, I can add some note on map's pages or in the articles where these maps are used, where I can say that some other sources are preferring and using term "Axis" instead "fascist". If that does not satisfy you, then in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policy of dealing with POV disputes, you are free to draw your own map of occupied Yugoslavia and to use whatever descriptions you want there.

I don't think we'll be able to reach a compromise, sadly. This is much too sensitive an issue for you.

I did not say that you should count google hits for Hungarian and Bulgarian fascists, but that you should open and read some external sources that google can find for you (perhaps some google book). I will give you just one example for each: [Hungarian fascists] (Barry M. Lituchy, Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: analyses and survivor testimonies), [Bulgarian fascists] (Matjaž Klemenčič, Mitja Žagar - The former Yugoslavia's diverse peoples).

Actually you did. You were referring to "google hits" specifically. Just try to be more clear. Those sources you provided are respectable on the topics that they cover in great depth, yet still abuse this terminology.

As I already said, Wikipedia is not obligated to strictly follow any official policies or any historical views, and therefore, viewpoint of Yugoslav historians (which is also supported by one number of "western" historians) is a valid viewpoint to be presented in Wikipedia maps. [...] So, as I said, sources that describing these countries as "fascist" are evident and the question of whether this term should be used or not is not a question of accuracy, but of personal viewpoints.

You don't get to pick and choose your political definitions as it suits your needs. It makes them useless as a result.

Having in mind that my maps are not dealing with histories of Hungary and Bulgaria, but with history of Yugoslavia, and that these two afore mentioned countries committed an aggression, occupation and genocide against Yugoslavia and its citizens, it is completely historically justified that term "fascist" is used for these countries, especially because such term is supported by huge literature in both languages that I can speak and read, Serbo-Croatian and English.

So now your main criteria for what constitutes an "inherently" fascist state is that it needs to have practiced either ethnic cleansing, genocide, or military conquest. Yet I doubt you would identify every single country which committed those actions as fascist on that basis.

You should also have in mind that most of the Yugoslav territories occupied by Hungary and Bulgaria had mainly an non-Hungarian and non-Bulgarian population and therefore their aggression against Yugoslavia could be performed only because of their expansionist fascist ideology, not because of the wish of "liberation of their own people from Yugoslav rule".

That’s another claim I never postulated, but even that (completely unrelated) issue is not fool-proof. Greater Bulgarian agitators considered the Macedonian Slavs to be ethnic Bulgarians, and there was (and still is) a significant Hungarian population in the Backa, but that is beside the point. Those countries' motives for invading Yugoslavia were irredentist revisionism, not "minority protection".

Well, you are right about second map - it is indeed an alternate history since Germany never conquered so large parts of Russia,

Then you shouldn’t have tried to use it to back up your argument. We’re dealing with recorded history here, not fiction. And it wasn’t just wrong on the extent of Axis imperialist control. It also blatantly misrepresented the state ideology and level of political autonomy of many of its members.

but nevertheless (speaking about other maps and sources), you cannot claim that something is lie only because it uses different viewpoint than you. Sources that describing these countries as fascist are numerous and, due to the lack of an general definition of fascism, there is no single proof that such sources are wrong.

Please, feel free to explain to me how Finland, Turkey, Hungary, and Bulgaria were fascist states exactly. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were. These weren’t (excepting Hungary during the last stage of the war). All you've presented me with so far are unreliable sources.

Sorry, but your own political views could be described as politically unacceptable by many historians when issue of occupation Yugoslavia is in question.

Let’s be absolutely clear here: what are you accusing me of now, exactly? What are my "personal political beliefs" according to you?

Yes, my maps are in accordance with point of view of Yugoslav historians and there is no Wiki rule that forbid that certain viewpoints are presented in maps.

No there isn't, but NPOV is one of the core policies of Wikipedia in general, which you are trying to dilute by arguing that your POV is actually just one of many, and therefore somehow has as much currency as the one that is much more widely agreed on.

But, views that you trying to impose are not NPOV, but just example of another POV (this time POV of a historians from a countries that occupied Yugoslavia).

This is just the pot calling the (clean) kettle black. Most of those I pointed out were Americans and British, so I assume you’re referring to the German ones. You’re actually saying historians such as Joachim Fest and Gerhard Weinberg are politically motivated or somehow sympathetic to the Nazi regime because they use the appropriate terminology in denoting some military alliance from World War II? Anybody who has read but one page of their work would know that is nothing but pure slander.

As I said, term "fascist" is well used in English language literature too and in the Global village World of today English language literature cannot exclude Eastern European scholars. In fact, your expressed animosity towards Eastern European scholars is something that could be described as insulting by many people.

Again you are putting words in my mouth, but my sincere apologies if it was interpreted as such, as that wasn’t my intention. It’s also not true by any stretch of the imagination. Poland under Nazi occupation for instance is one of my favourite works by Polish scholars on the subject of the WWII-German occupation of their country and its unprecedented brutality towards their people. Bohemia in History, which also covers that country’s 1938-1945 period in vivid detail is another example, this one by Czechs. And note that I emphasized “some”. Some. My comment was raised only towards those individuals who (for mostly nationalist reasons) seem to think that using “fascist” as a thinly veiled insult (in the case of Hungary and Bulgaria) while trying to conceal it as an accurate political description (which it is not) is considered academically acceptable.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 12:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, even thought that I am more active in en Wikipedia these days because it is too cold outside to go anywhere (and my health problems are requiring that I stay inside where is warm), I do not have enough time for discussions in which same things are repeated over and over. Since my maps of Yugoslavia are located in Wikimedia Commons they are made in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policy, i.e. they are uploaded with proper license and they are sourced (whether somebody like these sources or not, they are there, and that is all what is required for Wikimedia Commons files). If you do not like these maps, you are free to pick any other similar map from this category and to use that map in what ever Wikipedia article you want (you are also free to draw your own map with preferred descriptions and to use your map where ever you want). By the Wikimedia Commons policy, POV disputes like this one are solved in the way that each of the sides upload its own file with preferred descriptions, but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case. So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files. So, please, do not disturb me with this any more - just draw and upload your own map and use it where ever you want or pick another one from category in Wikimedia Commons. Ok? PANONIAN 21:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

And just one more comment: I actually in my maps of occupied Yugoslavia did not used term "fascist countries", but "fascist borders", which is not same thing. Since such borders were established by Nazi Germany and fascist Italy (for whom you certainly cannot say that they were not fascist) I do not see what could you find wrong in "fascist borders" description? Even borders of Hungary and Bulgaria (for which you claim that they were not fascist) were established by the will of their "big fascist brothers" (Germany and Italy). "Fascist borders" does not have same meaning as "fascist countries" or "borders of fascist countries". There is simply no single description in my maps that specifically claim that Hungary and Bulgaria were fascist countries. PANONIAN 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I got idea about possible compromise - perhaps descriptions in maps can use both words, fascist and Axis, so that our both points of view are included, something like "Axis/fascist borders"? PANONIAN 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I’ve been away pretty much all of last week, and had next to no internet access during that time.

Since you don’t bother responding to my above arguments I can only assume that you either can’t counter them effectively or are just trying to ignore them.

Moved your latest replies to the bottom of this sub-page as usual.

Well, even thought that I am more active in en Wikipedia these days because it is too cold outside to go anywhere (and my health problems are requiring that I stay inside where is warm),

Best wishes, and hang in there.

I do not have enough time for discussions in which same things are repeated over and over.

The only thing that's been happening is your arguments being taken apart at the seams.

Since my maps of Yugoslavia are located in Wikimedia Commons they are made in accordance with Wikimedia Commons policy, i.e. they are uploaded with proper license and they are sourced (whether somebody like these sources or not, they are there, and that is all what is required for Wikimedia Commons files). If you do not like these maps, you are free to pick any other similar map from this category and to use that map in what ever Wikipedia article you want (you are also free to draw your own map with preferred descriptions and to use your map where ever you want). By the Wikimedia Commons policy, POV disputes like this one are solved in the way that each of the sides upload its own file with preferred descriptions, but original file usually remains in accordance with point of view of original uploader, which would be me in this case.

Granted. Being obstructive purely out of spite is your given right according to those rules, after all.

So, I heard your point of view, I do not agree with it, and I do not agree with any change in original files.

You're still muddling the issue by deceptively painting off this legitimate objection I raised as somehow being "my personal opinion" when I already presented you with reliable sources, debunked yours (*1), and effectively countered all your arguments at every turn. From that I can only assume that you're just intentionally POV-pushing this minority viewpoint (which once again, does not carry any acceptance outside of Serbo-Croatian (so you say) as well as Communist/Soviet literature) for the sake of national pride.

(*1): Barry M. Lituchy for instance is an admitted (pan?) Serbian nationalist, an open admirer of Milosevic, and a denier of the Srebrenica Genocide.

So, please, do not disturb me with this any more - just draw and upload your own map and use it where ever you want or pick another one from category in Wikimedia Commons. Ok?

Let’s not even kid ourselves here about just who is bothering who with this. In your first reply you insinuated that you find it a personal grievance to take up an "accusatory" matter on someone’s user talk (which you then confirmed by not stating that my subsequent apology and justification was unnessary), yet have had no qualms since then to do me the same "injustice" in a long, drawn-out, and (most likely conceived to be so from the start) ultimately pointless debate. I guess my skin is just a lot thicker.

And just one more comment: I actually in my maps of occupied Yugoslavia did not used term "fascist countries", but "fascist borders", which is not same thing.

"Fascist borders" does not have same meaning as "fascist countries" or "borders of fascist countries". There is simply no single description in my maps that specifically claim that Hungary and Bulgaria were fascist countries.

You're blatantly double-tracking on your original statements. You have repeatedly stated and re-stated that WWII-era Hungary and Bulgaria were fascist countries, and also that those borders which the Axis occupiers of Yugoslavia established were thus fascist in turn, and expressed this as your motivation for detailing your map that way.

And "fascist borders" does actually have the exact same meaning as "borders of fascist countries" (or "borders established by fascist countries" if one were so inclined), which means that those countries are "fascist countries". Unless of course you're implying that the borders themselves are sentient and show a remarkable admiration for fascist political ideology.

Since such borders were established by Nazi Germany and fascist Italy (for whom you certainly cannot say that they were not fascist) I do not see what could you find wrong in "fascist borders" description? Even borders of Hungary and Bulgaria (for which you claim that they were not fascist(*2)) were established by the will of their "big fascist brothers" (Germany and Italy).

This is just pointless. That’s the second time in a row that you resorted to arbitrarily moving the goalposts after I already met your criteria. Your original demands (*3) have changed from "prove to me that not all members of the Axis alliance were fascist states" to "prove to me that Bulgaria and Hungary weren’t fascist states" and now to "prove to me that Germany and Italy weren’t fascist states". I don’t have to. One can’t because they were, and I never argued otherwise.

The precise border delimitations were dictated mostly by Nazi Germany's leader Adolf Hitler, who did so in a juggling attempt to accommodate the competing claims of his allies and satellites in the Southeast-European region. If Italy for instance had the final word on the matter all of Yugoslavia would have been resigned to an Italian colony. Hungary actually desired everything north of the Danube river, as well as a re-establishment of Hungarian rule over Croatia, while Bulgaria wanted every scrap of territory that was included in its 1878 borders proposed by the Treaty of San Stefano. The point is that Hungary and Bulgaria were driven by their longstanding irredentist desires to re-establish the Greater Hungarian and Greater Bulgarian realms that lead them to invade and then incorporate those parts of Yugoslavia into their own countries. The assertion that Hungary and Bulgaria do not actually hold any political responsibility for establishing and then maintaining those boundaries (the exact contrary of which is what you were vehemently arguing until just now, and which I never at any point disputed), which by extension implies that they were not even responsible for that invasion itself, is complete nonsense.

(*2): Your frankly tiring proof by assertion is no proof at all.

(*3): Which were already shifting the burden-of-proof, since you were demanding me to prove a negative.

Well, I got idea about possible compromise - perhaps descriptions in maps can use both words, fascist and Axis, so that our both points of view are included, something like "Axis/fascist borders"?

That erronously presumes that these "different views" (irrelevant thesis, BTW) carry equal weight, so no - I must decline unfortunately.

To sum up, this just seems to be leading nowhere. It's like talking to a brick wall. Your argumentation is so weak and prone to change, your rhetoric's logic so fallacious and deceptive, and your sources so biased and unreliable that there’s actually no discernible need for me to address any of them anymore.

Panonian, what you’ve been failing to understand all this time is that assessing those two countries' past political systems as not being fascist ideologically or that "fascist" by itself is needlessly vulgar is not an admonition that the campaigns of military conquest and the humanitarian crimes (genocide, ethnic cleansing) that were committed in Yugoslavia and elsewhere were any less severe, horrific, or unforgiveable than they completely and justifiably were. A monarchic dictatorship is equally as capable of committing those as a fascist or Nazi-led regime is - that's the gist of your disconnect.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, despite your long post, you failed to answer the most important question: is compromise solution that I proposed acceptable for you? I would not deny that term "Axis" might be most common English term for countries that occupied Yugoslavia, but you also cannot deny that there are numerous sources that using term "fascist" for these countries (no matter of your or mine personal opinion about these sources[*], it is undisputed fact that such sources are existing). So, due to data that come from all these sources (those that using term "Axis" and those that using term "fascist"), I am proposing compromise description "Axis/fascist" and inclusion of a note that will say that term "fascist" is considered inaccurate by some scholars. Is that OK for you? I believe that this is quite fair compromise. PANONIAN 21:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

<Sigh> Once again, verifiability is one of the ground rules of Wikipedia, but the mere existence of a source is not enough for the standards of this wiki. The sources also have to be reliable, written in an uninvolved and non-biased manner. To assert that every fringe-theory has as much currency as the majority academic concensus is both false and giving them undue weight. If the Commons regulations truly state that the only thing any upload actually needs over there is just a source regardless of its actual reliability, then it's simply a regulations loophole which you’re abusing for your own purposes.

[*]: For the last and final time, stop trying to distort this issue as somehow being nothing but my personal opinion. Most people probably refrain from bringing these kind of matters up to you because they know you’d immediately engage in a flame-war with them over it. Your many run-ins with NPOV are well-documented, and I already presented you with many sources and unravelled every single argument that you brought up in this past discussion.

I suspect my own compromise solution, while reasonable, would be unacceptable to you.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I tried to propose compromise, but you behave unreasonable. Anyway, as a expression of my good faith, I will change maps in accordance with compromise that I proposed. I accepted your basic claim that term "Axis" might be main term used in literature, but you did not presented a single evidence that sources that using term "fascist" are biased or unreliable (instead of sources, you just presented your rhetorics and that is simply not evidence for anything. You claim that you presented sources, but I do not see them on this page. Just for the record, I checked all our discussion again and, besides your opinins and wiki links, the single source that you presented is this: [13] - author of that book has his definition of fascism, but as I already said, other authors are providing other definitions. It is not up to us to decide which author is right and which is wrong. We are here only to present what they say). Therefore, I will use compromise term "Axis/fascist" (and a note that there are different definitions of fascism) in these maps (due to data from presented sources) and I see no valid background for any other changes until some hard evidence for validity of such changes is presented. As for my past behavior, would you be so kind to present an evidence of my "many run-ins with NPOV". And just not to be confusion about sources, here are numerous Google Books hits for both countries for which you claim that they were not fascist: fascist Hungaryand fascist Bulgaria. I simply do not see how all these sources could be "unreliable" or "fringe"? PANONIAN 10:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

First of, concensus is a goal that wikipedians should strive for, not a requirement. I feel like replying in full and countering all of this again (which I can, and effectively for that matter), but I'm not going to. This whole discussion is pointless and doesn't lead anywhere. No matter what evidence, no matter how much of it, whether it be arguments or sources I would present to you, you'd still find a way to flat-out deny that you've lost any part of a discussion or falsely repeat ad nauseam that I haven't proved anything at all. Feel free to do whatever you want with that and any other file – no matter how outrageously POV-centric it may be. I’m not touching a debate even remotely related to a topic like this again, even if I had a ten-foot pole. I have neither the time nor the intention to sit through all this petty battleground drama just because somebody feels his national pride is somehow at stake. For both our sakes, let's just drop this.

We’re done here.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN mentioning you by name

User:PANONIAN wrote on ANI only POV problem with these maps is personal opinion of user Morgan Hauser that different terminology should be used there However I find this statement to be highly misleading to single you out first as having only a "personal opinion" when in fact you had one based on sources and secondly as if you are the only one who has a problem with POV issues regarding MAPS of PANONIAN which is certainly not true. Hobartimus (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for that, I changed my post and your name is not there any more. PANONIAN 12:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Hobartimus - Thanks for the heads-up.

@ Panonian - Just for the record, I didn’t accept that insult whitewashing, especially considering its half-baked nature. Now you’re just directly referring to me ("a single Wikipedia user") with false and distorted claims without actually mentioning me by name. Let me preface this by saying I don’t know any specifics, but simply taking a quick look at your past contributions and discussions reveals that you have an extended history of NPOV disputes, downright hostile behaviour, and even blocks. I didn’t consider your deceitful and lying behaviour warranting of further action however since you neither threatened nor harassed me.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I said sorry because you was involved in this incident. User Hobartimus is harassing me for years and you should check his own edits and his history of conflicts with other users to see why he contacted you (he simply tried to find an "ally" that will help him in this harassment). Again: I apologize for mentioning your name there. PANONIAN 10:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I was only concerned with your behaviour, not his. I don't even know this other user, nor of any history between you and him.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let start again

Ok, Morgan Hauser, let forget some things that I said before and this recent incident with user Hobartimus, and see my compromise proposal:

• 1. instead descriptions "fascist occupation" and "fascist borders", I can use terms "Axis/fascist occupation" and "Axis/fascist borders" (in that way, your basic point that term "Axis" is more valid would be accepted, but description would also include view from the sources that using term "fascist". Due to the fact that word "Axis" would go first in my proposal, it would imply that it is more preferred word).
• 2. I can add some kind of a note on the bottom of the maps that describing possible controversial nature of word "fascist". The note could look something like this: "Some scholars are suggesting that term "fascist" is not a proper description for all countries that participated in occupation of Yugoslavia, while some other (including those from Yugoslavia itself) are using this term as a description for all these countries."

Is that acceptable for you? PANONIAN 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

See the bottom of our first back-and-forth.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

WW2 Serbia

By the way, just to show you that I appreciate your opinions, perhaps you have one about article naming problems on this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nedić_regime PANONIAN 10:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, no involvement. But a word of advice regarding the violent dispute you and a bunch of other contributors seem to have over that article’s name and scope, the military-political situation is actually much more comparable to Greece than to Norway. It would be best split into "German occupation of Serbia during World II" and "Nédic’s regime", much like Axis occupation of Greece during World War II and Hellenic State (1941-1944) (those years are only there to distinguish it from the 1828-1832 one).--Morgan Hauser (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Morgan Hauser. You have new messages at Magog the Ogre's talk page.
Message added 18:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nazi Germany

• Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss

Hello. If you're going to revert the map, can you please contribute your opinion on the talk page? Someone complained about it and I share their thoughts. I'm certainly open to other opinions, but rather than simply reverting, it's much more productive to discuss the disagreement. Otherwise edit warring happens- that's never good. Please stop by the talk page. Regards, Swarm ^X 03:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for that. I wasn't aware there had been a past discussion on this at the page talk. I'll express my thoughts over there.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Himmler's "desire to kill 80% of the British and French"

Hi there, I've added the complete source to the discussion page Talk:Operation Sea Lion, have a look and judge by yourself... greetings - (134.99.242.164 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC).

RSHA-Gouvernement

Hi! Since you have been working on the Reichskommissariat articles, I thought I'd ask you about the planned "RSHA-Gouvernement Nordrussland - Westsibirien", as I've been considering starting a new article on the topic. Do you have any books or other reliable sources in mind which discuss this planned administrative entity? What exactly was its function supposed to be? Generalplan Ost mentions that some 31 million "racially undesirables" were to be expelled from Eastern Europe to western Siberia to make way for German settlers. Was the RSHA-gouvernement supposed to be the "dumping ground" for these people in a similar manner as the General Government was for Poles and Jews? I suppose that the area was to be under the rule of a HSSPF or HöSSPF or Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD, not a general-governor? Actually, in practice what is the difference between the offices of SS- and Police leader and BdS? I guess the HSSPF is superior to BdS, but their authorities seem to collide?

Any additional information would be helpful. Thanks! Mvaldemar (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You’re going have a really hard time in that case. Academic sources or discourse on this topic is virtually non-existent. The only reason we even know about it at all is because of its appearance in two different maps that were made available online:

• [14]
• [15]

The first of these shows the complete extent of the territory that was to be included, the second using an eastern limit defined by the Archangelsk-Astrakhan line, and an incorrect one at that. The A-A line actually followed the course of the Volga river from Kazan to Astrakhan rather than in a completely straight line.

The boundaries of the district indicate that it was part of the early political planning (1940-1941 period) for the occupation of the Soviet Union carried out by the various Nazi government agencies, since Karelia is included as part of the German occupation area rather than that of Finland. It’s not mentioned in any of Alfred Rosenberg’s work as far as I’m aware (he intended to make the Archangelsk region a part of Reichskommissariat Moskowien, and wanted to give Eastern Karelia to Finland pretty much from the start), and seems to be a purely SS-creation. Since it was supposed to be subordinate to the RSHA it was most likely proposed by Reinhard Heydrich, and if not detailed under the direct auspices of Himmler, it must at least have met with his explicit consent. And no, it most likely wasn't to be used as a dumping ground for population expulsions. For one it would only create an even bigger partisan problem in the heavily forested areas of Northern Russia, and Generalplan Ost specifically mentions Siberia (beyond the Urals) as the expulsion site for future deportations.

The best way to go about gathering more information would be to request what actual wartime documents or second-hand accounts it originated from, and if anyone has written anything more about it since then. You could send an email or letter to either the Munich Institute for Contemporary History [16] (not the Dokumentation Obersalzberg [17], which is just a public exhibit), or the Deutsche Bundesarchiven. I'm sure they'd be more than willing to help for the purpose of academic coverage on the subject.

About the Commander of the Security Police and SD vs. SS-and Police Leader - administrative overlap and infighting is par the course for Nazi Germany, even within the SS itself (the exact nature of the relationship between the SD and the Gestapo, for instance). In practice these two offices were very vaguely defined, far-reaching in their authority, and enjoyed no substantial difference between each other. The first of these was first used to consolidate the German internal security forces (which included the German police) under Himmler's sole authority. The second also included the Gestapo in theory.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I've done additional research on this issue, with poor results. However, it seems to me that the RSHA-Gouvernement was intended to accommodate at least some Jews and/or other undesirables. Heydrich's wife mentions in her memoirs a planned "state" situated at least partially in front of the Urals.[18]Mvaldemar (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm... interesting. I don't know how knowledgeable Heydrich's wife was about her husband's crimes, but it seems like he's simply trying to ease her mind about the Jews' predicament. The detailed nature of his intentions would indicate otherwise, but the decision to completely exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe had already been made by that point in time (July 1941 to be precise, long before the Wannsee Conference). If intended as some sort of "Jewish state" (in reality a country-sized concentration camp) by the RSHA, it presumably wasn't intended to last indefinately.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Luxembourg

you tell me luxembourg wasnt part of third reich ? i wonder then why on nazi germany page are those 2 maps with luxembourg part of greater german reich.... Administrative regions of Greater German Reich in 1944 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BogdaNz (talk • contribs) 15:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, exactly?--Morgan Hauser (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Are you a Pan-Teutonist? Greater Germanic Reich is an interesting article about an interesting idea. Nice work. Alphasinus (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment on the article I suppose, but no I'm not. I'm an anti-Nazi and a non-Nationalist.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Axis power negotiations on the division of Asia during World War II

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kola

Hi, this might interest you. It seems that Terboven was to function as the economic exploiter of the Peninsula separate of his office as Reichskommissar. When it had become apparent that this would only support Norwegian territorial claims (also to the Finnish Petsamo region which the Quisling regime desired), the idea was dropped. Mvaldemar (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the information – that should be conclusive as to Terboven and Norway's status. If any subsequent official wasn't appointed to this post afterwards it would be all the more reason to conclude that the "Kola annexation plan" was abandoned permanently by the Germans at that point.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 20:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalisation Question

Hello Morgan Hauser. I have a friendly question to ask about the Reichskommissar and Reichskommissariat articles. My question is about Capitalisation of the names of the Reichskommissariats upon translation from German-to-English.

Example:

Reichskommissariat Niederlande translated to Reich Commissariat of the Netherlands

Would not the proper English Capitalisation be Reich Commissariat of the Netherlands and not the Reich commissariat of the Netherlands. What I am trying to politely say is that I would like to edit the capitalisation of commissar to Commissar and commissariat to Commissariat resulting in the translations, respectively,

Reichskommissar into Reich Commissar

Reichskommissariat into Reich Commissariat

and the specific territories,

Reichskommissariat Niederlande into Reich Commissariat of the Netherlands

Reichskommissariat Norwegen into Reich Commissariat of Norway

Reichskommissariat Ostland into Reich Commissariat of the Eastern Lands

Reichskommissariat Ukraine into Reich Commissariat of Ukraine

Reichskommissariat Moskowien into Reich Commissariat of Moscowvy

etc., and etc.

Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter, sincerely ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't really see why you're asking me (in a super-honorary tone no less) rather than just performing the edit. I have contributed a lot to those articles granted, but unlike what you seem to think, I have no delusions that I "own" any of them. I streamlined the article introductions a while ago to simplify them (many had multiple names; Moskau/Moskowien, Kaukasus/Kaukasien, etc.) following a contribution to that effect made by someone on one of them, not because I was worried about the spelling.

As for the issue itself, yes you probably would be right, but for different reasons. The word commissariat by itself requires no capitalization; as it is part of a state name however, it does in this instance. Commissar/commissar depends on the situation. Since you’re putting it next to the automatically capitalized Reich it would make more sense to do likewise.

Two of your translated names are a bit off however. Ostland is Eastland in English - not Eastern Lands, which would be Östliche Länder. Moscowvy I think you just misspelled, since that word doesn’t even exist. You probably meant Muscovy.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello Morgan Hauser. Thank you for your kind and thoughtful reply. I appreciate it very much. As per using the "Honourific Tone" I meant no disrespect ... it was a sincere attempt at being polite. I have spent many years in Academia (and have been un-employed for the last 10 years), ... writing in "Honourifics" kinda got ingrained in me. Sorry for that.

Anyways, the reason I asked you first it that I am "trying to clean-up my act" on Wikipedia. I have a huge block-history for edit-warring and I am trying to change my ways. So I asked before I changed anything. Does the Capitalisation of comissariat to Commissariat sound ok to you? Take care ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I don’t know anything about your past circumstances but ok, appreciate the sincerity. You just overdid it a tad, is all (overlacing something with politeness elements actually tends to have the opposite effect and comes off as artificial in most types of communication).

My point was that you don’t need my nor anybody else's permission for an edit as minor as that (capitalization versus non-capitalization of Reich Commissariat/Reich Commissar). Major or potentially controversial edits to an article should ideally carry community concensus through that page's associated talk page. So go ahead - you're right about this issue anyway.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Howdy Morgan Hauser. Thank you for you kind response. I appreciate it very much. With regards to the edits,

Reichskommissar into Reich Commissar

Reichskommissariat into Reich Commissariat

Reichskommissariat Ostland into Reich Commissariat of Eastland

Reichskommissariat Moskowien into Reich Commissariat of Muscovy

are ok with you? ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds about right.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Neuropa

Hello. As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know that I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuropa. Robofish (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeniseysk and Tuva

Hm. I remember that, for whatever reason, I wrote that article rather hastily, but I can verify that most of the information came from the source cited in the "References" section. That, however, would only be the post-1920 information. Where the pre-1920 stuff came from, I wouldn't remember if you put a gun to my head! Quite embarrassing, actually. I kinda sorta remember that it was something solid (i.e., not a random bit off the internets), but for the life of me I can't recall what it was, nor can I recall why in the world I didn't list that source along with the other.

Anyhoo, if you have sources attesting to the contrary of what that particular sentence states, then please by all means rephrase the sentence and cite your source. If I happen to stumble upon the material I used, I'll let you know. And sorry about the confusion!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 20, 2011; 13:33 (UTC)

Well, since I'm obviously as stumped about where the claim came from as you are, you can replace it with another positive claim and add evidence to back it up :)

As for Tuva's status, I may have some books about Tuva's history (with the emphasis on its administrative status, since this is the kind of books I collect) in storage, but it may take me a while to get there and look. If I find anything interesting that may be of help to you, I'll let you know. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 21, 2011; 17:31 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to check out what I have in storage, but I've dug up something else that confirms the inclusion of Uryankhay Krai into Yeniseysk Governorate. This article in "Tuva Asia" says that the krai was included as a part of the governorate, and it is sourced to a quite authoritative source by Dubrovsky. I don't know if this helps you any, but it should be a good starting point. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 12, 2011; 18:34 (UTC)

Archive 1