Talk:258th Lithuanian Police Battalion

0

Lithuanian Polisce Battalions allegiance to Nazi Germany

Recently, information about their allegiance to Nazi Germany was removed from the infobox in articles about Lithuanian auxiliary police battalions (259th, 258th, 256th, 10th). In my opinion, this is a mistake and it should be reverted to the previous state of affairs. These battalions were units formed from ethnic Lithuanians that were subordinate to German authorities and carried out their orders. It is enough to quote the researcher of collaboration in Lithuania Joachim Tauber: The Development or Labor Services very quickly progressed into Lithuanian auxiliary police battalions, which were subordinate to the Commander of the Ordnungspolizei. These battalions consisted largely of volunteers with a background in the military or in the police, and from the start their duties involved not only security, but also ideological matters. Some of the units became nothing more than murder squads and served as the executioners of entire Jewish communities, or as the guards of the ghettos into which the survivors were crammed. [Tauber, Joachim (2021). "Collaboration in Lithuania". In Bitunjac, Martina; Schoeps, Julius H. (eds.). Complicated Complicity: European Collaboration with Nazi Germany during World War II. p. 129.] Marcelus (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed [1]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really, we should add parameter "allegiance = Nazi Germany" Marcelus (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It was not part of the Wehrmacht, so adding Ordnungspolizei is more accurate.--[[User:

Discussion removal

@Elinruby, why did you remove large portion of the above discussion, including my comments? Please restore it. Marcelus (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I had to suddenly stop typing and run after a bus. As I warned you I might, had you been reading at the time. Later I grabbed some public wifi later in the day to remove the already-posted half of a complicated explanation that you were clearly not reading. Your comments were swept up by accident but imho this was a collateral benefit to you, as they did you no credit. It's telling that you are only now noticing a major change to the talk page.

I think I would like to talk over how to handle this over with Piotrus. I will be more available for this tomorrow. Meanwhile, It looks like you lucked out at AE and the thing stayed with people willing to read. My best suggestion to you at the moment is that you familiarize yourself with the academic literature concerning the word "collaborationist", starting with Stanley Hoffman, who coined the word. I understand that it is widely misused at Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is as we all know not a reliable source. And I would like to know, please, as dispassionately as possible, why you think that the soldiers of this unit were collaborating. Lets say in a day or so. I will stop reading the second I see the word whitewashing, mind you. I have to go RL.

Cukrakalnis since I am in here rtnow and probably can't come back today, please do me a favor and explain your proposed taxonomy changes to me, preferably someplace else like my talk page, or a sandbox, or the talk page of some other article where it applies. I think I understand it and I do defend the idea of making these changes, but I'd like to examine the specifics in a context where he isn't calling you a Nazi sympathizer and you aren't calling him a bigot. Bonus points for explaining of why you can't source some of the contested points to some other writer than Bubnys. I am not disparaging him, mind you, but surely there are other historians even if we restrict the field to Lithuanians, which I don't think we should. I really really have to go now but also, what's up with this alleged copyvio? Elinruby (talk)