Talk:Latvian Riflemen

Split?
Aside from certain similarities in the nomenclature of the units, I don't think it's a good idea to include the WWII RKKA Latvian "riflemen" in this article, which was to do with the WWI/Russian Civil War Latvian Riflemen. Soviet historiography, e.g. the multi-volume commemorative works Reiz cēlās strēlnieks sarkanais..., tried to conflate the two ideas, with the WWII units being the historical/ideological successors to the Red Riflemen of the Civil War period. However, the scholarly literature in English (e.g. Geoffrey Swain, Stanley W. Page, Andrew Ezergailis) all deal solely to the WWI/Civil War Riflemen, while works on WWII in Latvia (like that by Valdis O. Lumans) make the connection in nomenclature, but in context of a deliberate PR policy on the part of the Soviets. Thus, I would say that lumping the two very different types of Latvian "strēlnieki" together in English Wikipedia is potentially confusing for the English-language user. For example, one might be puzzled as to how the frieze on the Freedom Monument (1935) could commemorate the WWII Riflemen? Or how indeed the Freedom Monument could commemorate those Red Riflemen who were also awarded the Red Banner, in part for their role in fighting aginst the Latvian state the Freedom Monument is supposed to celebrate? (Such questions are raised by the current confuguration of the infobox, IMO). Both the WWI and the WWII military formations are indeed notable, but should have separate articles, linked via disambiguation. —Zalktis (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

-- I agree, the box needs fixing. The article is not exclusively about "Red Latvian Riflemen", but the box's references would lead one to think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zmey.gorinich (talk • contribs) 17:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with the rationale for the split, as an english language user I was quite confused to see WW2 period mentioned. In english usage "Latvian Rifleman" always seems associated with the Russian revolution. --Martintg (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with split, would make far more sense.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree with split.--Dukurs (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree as well, WWI, more properly, Bolshevik revolution, and WWII being different entities. We should not propagate conflation of the two. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

XX corps
Article links to XX Corps disambiguation page. IMHO correct article is 20th Army Corps (Russian Empire) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.63.27.227 (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the same units, the Latvian Riflemen originally arose from a Latvian effort to defend Riga, followed by a more formal mobilization and under Latvian commanders. P ЄTЄRS J V ЄСRUМВА  ►TALK 18:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

around 800,000 industrial workers in Riga (beginning 20th century) ?
Pure nonsense. Regarding the population numbers of Riga. --129.187.244.28 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Latvian Riflemen. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612044731/http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2007Proceedings/Leonard_LatvianRifles.pdf to http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2007Proceedings/Leonard_LatvianRifles.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612044731/http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2007Proceedings/Leonard_LatvianRifles.pdf to http://www.unomaha.edu/esc/2007Proceedings/Leonard_LatvianRifles.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711052625/http://mail.rochester.edu/~hgoemans/CaseDescriptionApril2007.pdf to http://mail.rochester.edu/~hgoemans/CaseDescriptionApril2007.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408033925/http://centropa.org/reports.asp?rep=HR&ID=6877&TypeID=0 to http://www.centropa.org/reports.asp?rep=HR&ID=6877&TypeID=0

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)