Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. 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/20070311013108/http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1%2C34234%2C2262779.html to http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/swiat/1%2C34234%2C2262779.html

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) 06:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of prisoners
Altogether, 52 LTDF officers ended up in Salaspils, 106 cadets in Stutthof, and 983 soldiers in Oldenburg concentration camps, this numbers are referenced to Bubnys, Arūnas (1998) Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva (1941-1944); I don't have an access to this particular book, but the numbers aren't supported by other sources, also Oldenburg camps was open in 1944, and wasn't able to accomodate such a big number of prisoners.

I check other, newer books by this author.


 * In Lietuva Antrajame pasauliniame kare from 2007 he says:
 * 1944 m. gegužės 15 d. esesininkai suėmė VR štabo karininkus ir išvežė į Salaspilio kondagerį prie Rygos. Tą pačią dieną prasidėjo visuotinis VR batalionų likvidavimas. Rytų Lietuvoje dislokuoti VR batalionai buvo nuginkluoti gegužės 15-16 d. 84 VR karius gegužės 17 ir 21 d. vokiečiai sušaudė Paneriuose.
 * "On 15 May 1944, SS arrested the VR staff officers and took them to Salaspils Kondager near Riga. On the same day, the general liquidation of the VR battalions began. The VR battalions deployed in Eastern Lithuania were disarmed in May 84 VR soldiers were shot by the Germans in Paneriai on 17 and 21 May."


 * In Pasipriešinimo judėjimai Lietuvoje Antrojo pasaulinio karo metais: lenkų pogrindis 1939-1945 m. from 2015 he says:
 * 1944 m. gegužės 15 d. vokiečiai suėmė LVR štabo karininkus ir gen. P. Plechavičių. Suimtuosius išvežė į Salaspilio koncentracijos stovyklą prie Rygos. Tą pat dieną prasidėjo visuotinis LVR batalionų nuginklavimas ir areštai. Rytų Lietuvoje dislokuoti Vietinės rinktinės batalionai buvo nuginkluoti gegužės 15-16 d. Kebas dešimtis Plechavičiaus armijos kareivių vokiečiai sušaudė Paneriuose (yra žinių, kad ten buvo sušaudyti 84 plechavičiukai). - no mention of other concentration camp prisoners.
 * "On 15 May 1944, the Germans arrested LVR staff officers and Gen. P. Plechavičius. They were taken to the Salaspils concentration camp near Riga. On the same day, a general disarmament and arrests of LVR battalions began. The battalions of the Local Line deployed in Eastern Lithuania were disarmed on 15-16 May. In Kebas, dozens of soldiers of Plechavičius' army were shot by the Germans in Paneriai (it is known that 84 Plechavičius soldiers were shot there)." - no mention of other concentration camp prisoners.

I'm not sure what to do with that. I would love to see the qoute from the oldest book, but it seems that author changed his mind, so should we. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * On page 421 of Vokiečių okupuota Lietuva (1941-1944) (in Lithuanian) by Arūnas Bubnys (1998). Vilnius: Lietuvos gyventojų genocido ir rezistencijos tyrimo centras. ISBN 9986-757-12-6 (you can find pdf in the bibliography of the article):
 * 106 Vietinės rinktinės kariūnai buvo išvežti į Štuthofo koncentracijos stovyklą, 983 jos kareiviai - į Oldenburgo koncentracijos stovyklą.7
 * "106 LTDF cadets were deported to the Stutthof concentration camp, while 983 soldiers - to the Oldenburg concentration camp."
 * The 7 references archival material: LCVA, f. R-1399, ap. 1, b. 26, l. 59-61; ibid., b. 106, l-1-2, 9-11.
 * If there is no direct repudiation by the author himself, then I would not remove it. Considering that the number of 3,500 is given for the unlucky soldiers forced into German service at gunpoint, the 983 soldiers were certainly a part of that number. A possible explanation would be that they were sent to the Oldenburg concentration camp for a period of time that neither of us both know as of now and then either used as forced labor or in some military capacity like Luftwaffe anti-aircraft gunners.
 * If possible, the creation of an article about the Oldenburg camp would be useful. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a fact which the author mentioned in one of his older works and then completely abandoned, and which is not found in the works of other authors, is WP:FRINGE and should not be mentioned. Marcelus (talk) 17:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an article by the same person from 2019 that mentions the 983: . The LGGRTC mentions the 983 in this piece from 2014 . I think you are prematurely declaring this fringe when it simply isn't. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Arūnas Bubnys mentions the 983 once more on page 25 in his article Lietuvos Vietinės Rinktinės likvidavimas ir jos štabo įkalinimas Salaspilio koncentracijos stovykloje [The liquidation of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force and its headquarters' imprisonmentin the Salaspils concentration camp] from 2019 in . Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So all the articles that mentions this numbers are from Arūnas Bubnys or based on his work? It really doesn't show this view as less fringe. Arūnas Bubnys is working for LGGRTC. Also the fact that he published in ultra-nationalist Voruta undermines his credibility as reliable source, and makes me doubt if we should use him as a source at all. Marcelus (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So, the most expert historian on this topic, Arūnas Bubnys, is fringe, according to you.
 * It seems that to you, all the most important Lithuanian experts are fringe when you disagree with them. First your dehumanization of the foremost Lithuanian linguist Zigmas Zinkevičius, and now you claim that Arūnas Bubnys is "fringe".
 * Just because there is a history journal or person or military unit that you don't like does not mean that it's "ultra-nationalist", "fringe", "collaborator" or whatever smearing word that you feel like using today. Your strong WP:POVs are getting ahead of you and harming productive community work on Wikipedia. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like you to remain on topic if you are able to do so. If you are unable to present other historians that also use these numbers, I'm afraid they need to be considered as fringe. Marcelus (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that the number of 983 Lithuanian soldiers sent to the Oldenburg concentration camp and 106 cadets to Stutthof was directly based on archival material? You can go check them there. Maybe even ask the archivists to send a digital picture of it to you? I don't know if that is possible because I have not asked for anything from the archives yet.
 * WP:FRINGE applies to opinions/ideas that depart from the mainstream view. It is a fact and mainstream academic view that the LTDF was harshly punished - giving numbers for it is by no means fringe. But what is fringe is to erase them, like you seem to be trying to do here because that would be an attempt at erasing proof of the persecution that is agreed to have happened in mainstream academic discourse.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't agreed in mainstream academic discourse, that's the point. Only Bubnys mention these numbers, all other researchers do not. And even Bubnys is doing that only in some of his works. Marcelus (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It was agreed in mainstream academic discourse that members of the LTDF were persecuted. The numbers of the persecuted are there, in the archive. Does citing archival material when no one else cites the same thing again constitute being 'academically fringe'? Of course not. It seems that you have an incorrect understanding of what fringe means.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, @Cukrakalnis why did you remove Bubnys name from the claim about the number of soldiers send to concentration camps? The previous wording: "According to Arūnas Bubnys Germans send 106 cadets to Stutthof, and 983 soldiers to Oldenburg concentration camps", was much better, showing that only Bubnys supports these numbers. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only Bubnys writes about the 106 cadets sent to Stutthof - Stasys Knezys also mentions them. That's the reason why I changed it. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide citation? Marcelus (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The citation was already in the Marijampolė military school section, but I added it again to another place in this edit. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean can you cite the source here? Marcelus (talk) 11:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Birželio 16-osios ryte visi mokykloje likę buvo vokiečių suimti, karininkai atskirti nuo kariūnų ir kareivių. Po keleto dienų vokiečiai 106 kariūnus sunkvežimiais išvežė į Štuthofo konclagerį.[17] pages 304-305, with the second sentence being on page 305.
 * The source given at [17] is:
 * A. Martinionis. Vietinė rinktinė, Vilnius, „Kardas“, 1998, p. 357-358. Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Cukrakalnis, but this is isn't Knezys 2001, right? Can you also please provide full qoute of Knezys 2001?
 * So it seems that the information about 106 cadets send to Stutthof is confirmed by Bubnys and Knezys, but the information about 983 soldiers send to Oldenburg is given solely by Bubnys. That's why I think we should attribute this information only to him, because it's a fringe information. Marcelus (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Re-read WP:FRINGE more carefully. For the information to be fringe, it must be an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. The mainstream view is that the unit suffered harsh repressions. Giving numbers for it is not at all fringe. Especially considering that the person giving them is clearly a reliable source (Arūnas Bubnys), it is a false to accuse him of being in any way fringe. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cukrakalnis it's pretty simple, in order to show that "983 soldiers send to Oldenburg" isn't only present in Bubnys writing you need to show it that other scholars also use this number. So far you failed to do so. Ergo in order for it to stay in the article it has to be attributed to the Bubnys name. Marcelus (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 September 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lightoil (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force → Local Force – Name used by the majority of English sources mentioned in the article:
 * Ivinskis 1965: Territorial Defense Force
 * Mackevičius 1986: no specific name [forming a local Lithuanian detachment (Lietuvos Vietinė Rinktinė)]
 * Sužiedėlis 1990: Local Force
 * Petersen 2001: Territorial Defense Force
 * Tauber 2021: units the Germans termed Lithuanian Special Organizations (Litauische Sonderverbände), whereas the Lithuanian term evokes quite different connotations – Vietinė rinktinė could be best translated as local selection
 * Smalkyté 2022: Local Force

Other:


 * Saulius Sužiedėlis, Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions, 2006: Local Force. This author is using this name also in his Historical Dictionary of Lithuania.
 * The Waffen-SS. A European history, 2017: Povilas Plechavičius, was selected as the leader of the ten ‘special units’ (Lietuvos vietinė rinktinė).

Noteworthy, none of the sources use the name "Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force". 'Territorial Defence Force' alone appears in older literature, while more recent literature prefers 'Local Force'. Moreover, it seems that 'local' is a better translation than 'territorial', as it appears in texts written by Lithuanian authors. Marcelus (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move - this move is based on faulty 'research'. Local Force is far too generic of a name and if the move was done, it would result in having to have this article moved again. For example, there already exists a Local Defence Force. The Lithuanian Territorial Defence Force is a perfectly suitable name for this article as it is used in numerous reliable academic sources. I have found that the term Lithuanian Territorial Defence Force was used in publications such as:
 * "Lithuania in 1940-1991" (2015, ed. Arvydas Anušauskas),
 * "Wars of Lithuania" (2014, ed. Gediminas Vitkus),
 * Chapter "A History of the Lithuanian Partisan Underground State (1944–1953)" in "Violent Resistance: From the Baltics to Central, Eastern and South Eastern Europe, 1944–1956" (2020, Vykintas Vaitkevičius),
 * "The Unknown War: Anti-Soviet Armed Resistance in Lithuania and Its Legacies" (2022, Arūnas Streikus) ,
 * "The Forest Brotherhood: Baltic Resistance Against the Nazis and Soviets" (2023, Dan Kuszeta) ,
 * There is no reason to move this article.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Strong oppose "Local force" is way too vague, period. When I google it the first results are about science. I don't see anything about Lithuania in the first couple of results. #prodraxis connect 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by vague? Home Army, Home Guard, Civil Guard are also very vague. The name is used by majority of sources. Vagueness isn't a reason to reject the name if this is an actual name of the subject. Marcelus (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Home Guard and Civil Guard are broad scope articles that cover multiple subjects so it makes sense for the titles. As for Home Army, it looks like its title has been the subject of debate in the past, but then again the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that title is the Polish resistance movement. Obviously when I google "Home Army" the Polish resistance is the main thing that comes up. Meanwhile like I said above for "Local force" there are tons of things named local forces in the world, and the Lithuanian defense force is not the first thing that pops up when you google it unlike Home Army where the Polish resistance movement is the first thing that pops up when googled, and there's no clear primary topic for the Local Force title either. So thus Home Army's title is completely OK, IMHO, while Local Force is not a very good title for this article. #prodraxis connect 17:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Local Force is a red link, so it seems it isn't really that popular; that's how this formation is called by majority of sources, we cannot go and arbitrary name it Lithuanian Local Force because we should follow WP:COMMONNAME. We can try Local Force (Lithuania), but I don't think it's needed since the name isn't used elsewhere. Marcelus (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration and allegiance
The way the article is currently written suggests that the LVR was a Lithuanian unit that accidentally came into contact with Nazi Germany. What is missing from the lede is a clear explanation that we are dealing with a collaborationist unit, formed by Germany from Lithuanian volunteers, following orders and being subordinate to Germany. The "Assessment" section shows that the opinion that there was no collaboration is isolated in the historical literature, and most scholars agree that this was a collaborating unit.

In the infobox, "Nazi Germany" must be included in the "allegiance" parameter. In turn, in the lead, there must be an unambiguous statement that it was a collaborationist unit. Marcelus (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You are very obviously pushing a POV that is not supported by all sources. It is absolutely false and misleading to claim that most scholars agree on your subjective and distorted opinion. You don't really care about this unit either way, you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist' when it wasn't and you know that it was not, which is why you attempted to erase the mention of how many of its members suffered due to their disobedience to German orders. Your shameful attempts to do so can be seen just above on this very talk page with your incessant questioning of the numbers provided by one of the foremost Lithuanian experts on the matter, Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe' in this edit, which is absolutely shameful behaviour on your part.
 * The LVR WAS a Lithuanian unit - all sources describe it as such. Find me at least one source calling it a German unit. Oh wait, you can't, but you don't care, because what matters to you is your OR. You are very obviously highly intent on calling this unit something that it obviously was not. This unit, that was sabotaged by German suspicions and sabotage, whose entire leadership was arrested and sent by the Germans to a concentration camp, almost a thousand of whose members were sent by the Germans to Nazi concentration camps, that was supported by the very same Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance that sabotaged German efforts of creating a SS unit, that was created with the intention of arming Lithuanians for their own intentions instead of serving somebody else, absolutely proved that its allegiance was not to Nazi Germany, but to Lithuania. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist', Your shameful attempts, shameful behaviour on your part - let me remind you of WP:PERSONAL.
 * Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe', "fringe" isn't an accusation, but a description, of the view that is shared by a minority of scholars (please read WP:FRINGE). As you can see above I checked several other sources, and only Bubnys was giving such numbers, that's why I propsed direct attribution of this information to his name. It's pretty standard procedure.
 * Most sources describe the LVR as a collaborationist unit, formed and subordinated to Nazi Germany. Such allegiance cannot be omitted. It would be unfair to the reader.
 * @Cukrakalnis, it seems to me that you have a very personal attitude towards this unit, which does not allow you to clearly evaluate the sources and its history, and provokes emotional reactions. Perhaps it would be better if you put off working on this article? Marcelus (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your statements are false - the LVR is not called a collaborationist unit by most sources, especially not by the ones that are the most focused on it.
 * You are once again calling the views of the foremost Lithuanian expert on this topic "fringe", which is absolutely wrong.
 * The unit's allegiance was not to Nazi Germany - they never swore an oath to it and the unit was disbanded for disobeying German orders. The unit was a Lithuanian unit that had purely Lithuanian intentions, as evidenced by the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance's involvement in supporting the creation of this Lithuanian unit, which had rejected the collaborationist Waffen-SS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the sources are, with few exceptions, consistent. I see the conversation right now is becoming pointless. You are trying to convince me that an openly existing, German-created unit in occupied Lithuania, when there were no independent Lithuanian openly operating institutions, had no connection with the Germans.
 * Let's have a day of reflection. Please approach this with a cool head. Let me remind you that you also apply a similar argumentation to Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft units that were completely loyal to Germany. Marcelus (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You are mischaracterizing what the sources are saying, because certainly the vast majority of the mentions of the LVR do not call it collaborationist. Neither the article, nor did I ever say that there was no connection to the Germans - there is a whole section called Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. My argumentation for the Lithuanian Auxiliary Police is clearly different from my argumentation for the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, because the latter was formed in clearly different circumstances, had a different existence, and had a very different end compared to the former. You are trying to put an equal sign between several units that were obviously very different. Cukrakalnis (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To say that an organization or military formation was collaborationist does not mean to put an equal sign between them, only that they belong to a broad set called "collaboration," which took different forms and levels of involvement.
 * I have yet to come across a work on collaboration in Lithuania that does not include the LVR. Marcelus (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * They collaborated - get over it! 2A0A:EF40:1242:3701:1425:215:1A2B:E6A7 (talk) 16:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What Marcelus says in his op statement makes sense to me. But perhaps an outside (non-Polish, non-Lithuanian opinion is needed). Ping Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby ping since I messed up the code above. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We already looked at this in Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 10. Considering that this unit:
 * was disbanded by Germans for disobedience,
 * its headquarters and many of its members were punished - with more than 80 killed, and more than a thousand sent to concentration camps (106 cadets to Stutthof and 983 to Oldenburg concentration camps),
 * never swore an oath to Hitler,
 * was encouraged to be created by the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance which had just succesfully opposed the creation of an obviously collaborationist Waffen SS legion,
 * It clearly says in the article The motivation to create the LTDF was not aiding the German occupational authorities that were predicted to be soon replaced by Soviet occupiers, but preparing an anti-Soviet resistance through the creation of a nucleus for the future Lithuanian army,
 * it would be folly to consider this unit collaborationist. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * But it was started a collaborationist unit, Germans would not arm an independent unit on their territory. I think the article should state this. The fact that it eventually turned on them is commendable, but we should not obscure its origins. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Germans armed the Polish Home Army in the Vilnius Region too. Does that necessarily make them German collaborators? If you say the LTDF was collaborationist because it was given weapons by the Germans, then by the same standard, the Polish Home Army in the Vilnius Region was also collaborationist.
 * "At the beginning of 1944, the Vilnius AK proposed negotiations for cooperation with the Germans. The “hatred of Bolshevism” is equally “great” among Poles and Germans. The AK, noted SS Oberführer Wilhelm Fuchs, was 'the only force capable of holding down the Bolshevik-Jewish gangs.' On February 7, 1944, AK Colonel Aleksander Krzyzanowski agreed on a “truce” for the Vilnius region. The Germans offered weapons, medicine and care for the wounded. The Poles wanted to support Hitler against the Soviets in the long term with 18 infantry battalions. In return, they demanded an end to German terror and the recognition of Poland's 1939 borders. As a “test of German-Polish cooperation,” the AK placed the 3rd Polish Partisan Brigade under German leadership. She received maps, German espionage information and attacked Soviet partisans on German orders."
 * , Der Spiegel, based on what the historian Bernhard Chiari wrote.
 * Lithuanian sources also mention the fact of Germans arming the Polish AK:
 * Vokiečiai apginklavo ir plechavičiukus, ir duodavo ginklų AK., translation: the Germans armed both the LTDF, and gave weapons to the AK.
 * Kitaip negu Lenkijoje, Vilniaus apygardos Armijos Krajovos pareigūnai kurį laiką bendradarbiavo su nacių okupacine administracija., translation: Unlike in Poland, the officials of the Vilnius County Home Army worked together with the Nazi occupation administration for some time.''
 * In my current view, neither the LTDF nor the Polish Home Army were collaborationist, because it is their intentions that mattered, and neither primarily intended to help the Germans, but instead primarily pursued their own goals. This can be understood by looking at their whole history. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please focus on Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force Marcelus (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a controversial topic, but I think yes. At minimum, shome have called them that and this can be attributed where relevant with DUE weight (considering that 99% of AK units did not collaborate with the Germans in any shape or form). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you @Piotrus for joining the discussion, I think we could use a fresh perspective, both yours and @Elinruby's. Marcelus (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just got home. I remember the discussion at Collaboration but I would want to re-read it before commenting. I have mediated other disputes (most recently about a battle of Amritsar where the Sikhs and the Indians have different accounts of events. I am willing to try, since I have worked with and respect all three of you.
 * A question: did I ask at the time whether this unit had ever performed any action on behalf of the Germans, and did it turn out that they were on the Nazi side in one but only one battle? If not, could someone answer that question please?
 * Also please be aware that I may well ask questions that seem stunningly stupid. Such questions are useful at times but I am also admittedly ignorant when it comes to this history. I did not learn this history in a school or university, and have no particular opinion at the moment on whether this unit collaborated. An example where I have questioned this was the one that was manned with Ukrainian prisoners of war and sent to the Western Front, where most of the unit deserted and joined the Free French. Or Joseph Joanovici.
 * The actual point of contention is a number?
 * "recruited at gunpoint" would seem to argue against collaboration. Does everyone agree with this?
 * swore an oath, wore the uniform: does everyone agree on this?
 * And since this is Wikipedia, could we have some sources that say the unit did or did not collaborate? Without regard to reliability at the moment. I would like to discuss that but not just yet. HtH Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * (After some surface reading) so it looks like the dispute is about the number but is really a symptom of Poland and Lithuania national narratives contradicting one another? The real problem is a big one if so, but let's start small and from Wikipedia policy. Is there a reason why Bubys would be considered not reliable? I take it there is no other source for these numbers? Do the exact numbers even matter? Elinruby (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby Bubnys and number of prisoners is discussed above (Talk:Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force). Let's maintain order of the discussion.
 * Polish and Lithuanian national narratives are irrelevant here, they don't contradict eachother, there is no "Polish narrative" about LVR. Please read Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force, there are sources about LVR collaboration. Marcelus (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I did read that section. And you asked me to look at something here; I am trying to figure out what. So second time of trying to summarize what I am hearing the issue is whether or not this unit should be called collaborationist then? As for narratives, I dunno. If you say so. Offhand I think that probably the unit was analogous to the malgre-nous but whether or not such fighters were collaborators is a fraught question. It depends what definition is used I think. If military collaboration includes individuals who at some point wore a Nazi uniform I guess it was. But I think that that definition is simplistic. Elinruby (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In the section I've referred you to, we have a compilation of sources that take up the topic of LVR collaboration. Only one of them opposes calling the LVR a collaborationist unit (Suziedelis), all others agree: it was a collaboration unit (Smalkyté, Rokicki, Tauber). We have no choice but to be consistent with the mainstrim view in the sources: LVR was a collaboraitonist unit. Marcelus ([[User talk:Marcelus|talk]ormally have some more question]) 20:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point I would normally have more questions after looking at that again, but is still in the conversation? It not there is nothing here to mediate. On re-rereading the thread I see that it was actually  that pinged me. Depending on what you mean by broad designation and spectrum we might not disagree bur when it comes to Poland and Lithuania I am mostly operating by analogy. There are several units like this, what the French called malgre-nous, in different armies.  just AfD'd an article about a French Nazi conscript who deserted to join the Home Army for example. (not individually notable). I'd be interested in know what other sources are out there that maybe didn't get compiled in that section. That is, if you actually want my opinion. If not, as you were, I guess. There's a change in the hstoriography but I do not know if it extends to this theatre or whether is is appropriate to limit the RS considered to Polish and Lithuanian sources. Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I invite you to participate in the discussion, we could use more opinions. But I don't feel that there is a need for mediation between me and @Cukrakalnis, but rather a new perspective on the matter, an evaluation of sources.
 * Malgre-nous is a bad analogy, since the LVR was a volunteer unit, established by and subordinate to the Germans, recruited from ethnic Lithuanians.
 * I'd be interested in know what other sources are out there that maybe didn't get compiled in that section: I was trying to check every avaiable source to me; from the books I don't have access to but can be useful to check worth noting is David Gaunt, Paul A. Levine and Paula Pa losuo (eds.), Collaboration and Resistance During the Holocaust. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. However, it seems to me that the current selection of sources is representative.
 * To make things easier: right now we need to answer two questions.
 * 1. whether the LVR was a collaborationist unit
 * 2. whether we should mark in the infobox and lead its allegiance to Nazi Germany.
 * The answer to the first question seems obvious to me, the unit was part of the German police force. Note that @Cukrakalnis changed the phrase "LTDF was subordinate to the authorities of Nazi Germany" in one of his earlier editions to "LTDF was disbanded for being insubordinate to the authorities of Nazi Germany" ; he later added "Lithuania" in the Allegiance parameter in the infobox, although the unit had nothing to do with the Lithuanian state.
 * As for the first question, I think it is answered by the sources. It was a colaborationist unit, which later defied German orders and was disbanded for that. Marcelus (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I am going to get really pedantic here for a minute, please bear with me for that. Bertram came up with the word "collaborationist" to describe Vichy Frenchmen who weren't merely passively failing to resist but ardently and full-throatedly embracing Aryanization and the Final Solution. We've had discussions over at the French end of this pond about whether the word "collaborationist" can properly describe anything other than a Frenchman who ardently supported the Holocaust. The conclusion was no, but I am not here to insist on that conclusion, merely to point out that as far as we could tell, no academic sources use the word any other way. It is however a convenient appellation in that the English language doesn't really have an adjective for "collaborating' or "that collaborated". So my pedantic French answer is no. It was not collaborationist because it wasn't French and because it didn't ardently support Aryanization, it sounds like, if they were "disobedient". Taking the statement as I think it was intended, was this a unit that collaborated with the Nazis? It sounds like a) they wore the uniform and b) they fought on the German side in one battle. Some editors would say that this was enough.

I probably need to know more before actually expressing anything that would be taken as a third opinion, but I might disagree. I think it is easy, all these years later to point the finger. With respect to the black market in Nazi France, which was a Nazi enrichment program at one point during the war, pretty much the entire population participated, or else they starved. But we're dealing here with military collaboration not economic. Excuse me for bring up the Chetniks, because they apparently did some really horrendous things of their own volition, which may not have been the case here. But they signed up with the Germans and called it "using the enemy" to get stores and weapons. There was in fact a pattern of Nazis co-opting nationalist and separatist groups who wanted weapons. Burma and Brittany also come to mind. Yet I would still say that individuals in such units were responsible for what they did. On the other hand, the members of at least one of the units that definitely did commit horrors were found to not be individually guilty for the crimes of the unit unless there was proof that they as individuals had personally participated. All of this is a very long way of saying that maybe it all depends.

It is true that the malgre-nous were conscripts, good point. Other possible analogies exist though. One of the Scandinavian countries (Denmark?) had volunteer units for which a respected general was recruiting; supposedly these were going to defend the homeland but they wound up on the eastern front. There was a unit of Russian and Ukrainian prisoners of war who were volunteers in the sense that they didn't declare that they would rather die than put on a Nazi uniform, but they also defected to the Free French en masse once they were at the front.

The change in French historiography that I mentioned: initially the Gaullist position was that Vichy was an illegitimate government and wasn't truly "France" and therefore France was not responsible for the deportations that took place then. This was refuted some twenty years ago, although I am blanking on the author and title that is usually seen as seminal in this regard. I will find it for you if you want it, or for that matter the specifics on anything else I am saying here that interests you. Anyway, The focus turned to the Frenchmen who guarded the camp at Drancy or loaded the trains in the Marseille round-up, or most famously at Vel d'Hiv. The president of France made a formal apology for French participation in mass murders. More recently there seem to be a number of French historians interested it the moral ambiguities of the time, and the fact that by certain definitions every single French survivor of that time either joined the maquis or collaborated to at least the extent of obtaining food through the black market. Just something to think about. That's a general answer that doesn't take much account of the specifics here. I will take another look at this and try to ask a more intelligent question when I come back.

As for the infobox, its against my religion for me to touch one.Elinruby (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I realize that the issue of collaboration is not so simple. Moreover, although the concept of collaboration has its roots in France, it has taken on a broader meaning in literature to describe various attitudes of cooperation with the Germans all over Europe.
 * Bottom-line for us is WP:OR. If most sources say (and in this case they do) that this unit collaborated then we must accept that. Marcelus (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Most sources do not say that this unit collaborated. E.g. Sužiedėlis, Bubnys and Blaževičius are clearly saying that the unit did not collaborate. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I have just read what @Elinruby and @Marcelus wrote. I was just away from the computer and only saw this now. I'm still in the discussion, but I'll probably be unable to check this frequently.
 * 1. Elinruby is correct in saying that this discussion is because 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 narratives clash. In 🇵🇱 narrative, the LTDF is collaborationist because it received weapons from the 🇩🇪. However, 🇵🇱 narrative does not see the AK as collaborators despite being armed by 🇩🇪 and also engaging in combat on 🇩🇪 orders (the 3rd AK Brigade was placed under 🇩🇪 command, received maps, 🇩🇪 espionage information and attacked Soviet partisans on 🇩🇪 orders) ).
 * Like it says in this article:
 * "The Germans provided weapons both to the Polish Home Army and the LTDF, with the goal of organizing more non-German troops to fight against the Soviet partisans and the invading Red Army. Unlike in Poland, there was a period of time when officials of the Home Army Vilnius district cooperated with the Nazi German occupational administration. Meanwhile, the Polish Home Army considered the soldiers of the LTDF to be German collaborators."
 * Marcelus is trying to make the article reflect his 🇵🇱 POV instead of being satisfied with the nuanced Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, which provides the differing opinions about this topic, where sources disagree about how to view the unit. This is my solution - just have a section for it and avoid big words that carry lots of connotations in the lede, especially when all the sources are not unanimously for it.
 * 2. It is false that most sources call the LTDF collaborationist, although Marcelus is misportraying them in such a way. Historians Saulius Sužiedėlis (see his quote in Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force) and Arūnas Bubnys (who wrote that The further development of events showed that Lithuanians understood their interests, did not identify them with Nazi plans and refused to be blindly utilized by the German occupiers. [source is in the article]. The 🇩🇪 kept pushing 🇱🇹 to provide more for the 🇩🇪 war effort and 🇱🇹 obviously attempted to avoid it as much as possible. That is certainly not collaborationist activity.
 * Another of Bubnys' quotes is relevant:
 * "General P. Plechavičius did not obey German pressure, did not sacrifice the Lithuanian youth who joined the LTDF under his leadership to their [German] interests, did not turn it into a tool of the Germans. Due to the constant Nazi attempts to carry out mass mobilization of Lithuanian youth under the guise of the LTDF and to send as many Lithuanians as possible to the Eastern Front, the creation and activity of the LTDF became a dramatic competition between Lithuanian and Nazi interests. This fight had no winners. The LTDF failed to become the beginning of the Lithuanian army, but the Nazis also failed to carry out mass mobilization and turn Lithuanians into cannon fodder on the Eastern Front."
 * Furthermore, this unit never swore an oath to Hitler and that was a result of a conscious effort. The unit had tense relations with 🇩🇪, with a whole section of the article dedicated just to Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force. The unit was also endorsed by the 🇱🇹 anti-Nazi resistance and was sabotaged by the Nazi German occupiers themselves (!). For the provided reasons, calling this unit collaborationist makes no sense. Why would 🇩🇪 sabotage their own "collaborationists"?
 * Actions speak louder than words, and 🇩🇪 treatment of this unit tells us a lot - it was not trusted, it was sabotaged by 🇩🇪 through arbitrary reorganizations and whatnot when it was being created, 🇩🇪 engaged in harsh repressions against the unit, which included more than 80 killed by 🇩🇪, while the HQ staff, over a 100 cadets and under a 1,000 soldiers were sent to the Nazi concentration camps (Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force). In light of all these facts, it is historically incorrect to call the unit collaborationist. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Elinruby is correct in saying that this discussion is because 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 narratives clash., since when Joachim Tauber or Justina Smalkyté are Polish scholars? I understand that it is convenient to present this as a clash between Polish and Lithuanian historiography, but this is a false juxtaposition. There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography on this issue. If there is any dispute on the subject, it is internally Lithuanian (Smalkyté vs. Sužiedėlis).
 * The quotes you cited from Bubnys prove nothing. He does not speak on the subject of collaboration, he does not address this topic at all. No one denies that ties with German antagonists deteriorated, along with their demands for greater submission, which consequently led to the dissolution of the unit. However, this does not change the fact that the unit was created as a result of Lithuanian circles collaborating with the German occupiers. Marcelus (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a very clear dispute between 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 historiography in this topic: that is almost inevitable considering that there was a 🇵🇱 unit and a 🇱🇹 unit involved, combined with the fact that there are many moments and topics in WWII where there are opposite views between 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 historiography . E.g. Lithuanian historian Vitalija Stravinskienė writes:
 * "...it is necessary to continue discussing even the most complex and painful topics, despite the fact that Lithuanian and Polish historians interpret certain events differently (for example, the attitude towards the Polish Home Army in the Vilnius region, the dependence of Vilnius and its region in 1939-1940, etc.)."
 * Considering the RS I just used, you saying There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography on this issue shows that either:
 * 1) you have no clue what you are writing about or
 * 2) you are obscuring the truth.
 * In either case, the result is that what you are saying is wrong and thus should not be listened to. It is false to claim this is a false juxtaposition between 🇱🇹 and 🇵🇱 historiography, because there very clearly is a clash.
 * The quote I cited from Bubnys proves a lot. Most importantly, that the unit was not collaborationist, because it refused to be a tool for the Germans. To say what you are saying is a logical non-sequitur. If a source says that the grass is green, but does not directly mention and deny that grass is purple, then it seems that your opinion would be that "the source does not address grass not being purple directly, so my opinion that grass is purple is still true despite the source calling the grass green". Obviously, the source is actually denying such a possibility that the grass is of a colour that it is not. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no dispute between Polish and Lithuanian historiography over the issue if LVR was or wasn't collaborationist. The quote you provide confirms that. Marcelus (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * OK so. Yes we go by sources. But that is kind of facile, because the question then becomes which sources. And also what is collaboration, which is a question I came here with. The massacres mentioned in this articles seem to have nothing to do with orders from the Germans. The first massacre was in retaliation for a some soldiers who got shot? Am I reading that correctly? Also the fighting with the AK at the end seems to have been over Vilnius? There seem to be territories that changed hands many times like Alsace. Sorry if the catch-up is annoying.


 * It sounds like for the fact that they wore the uniform is enough, whereas  says well maybe but they weren't really collaborating, they were defending their homeland, then they were using the enemy. So question: is "using the enemy" collaboration? It might not matter, though, because I looked up the Danish unit that signed up to keep their homeland safe from the Soviets. Our article on them calls them a collaborationist unit. So. That is wrong in my opinion, if only because a Danish collaborationist is not a thing in my world since they were not French. But that is the way the precedent looks on Wikipedia.


 * The historiography is another approach though. A lot of times though when people say RS they mean what they learned in grade school or from Hollywood movies. Going by that, everyone in France was a resistance fighter who wore a beret and twirled his mustaches. So the next step for anyone that wants to pursue this would be to review the literature and see if that is in fact what the sources say. Thanks for mentioning the sources above. I do have to agree that Bubnys is quoted a LOT.


 * I haven't gone into sources very deep yet however. There does not seem to be a good taxonomy on this though, and right now we call everything collaboration from pushing people inti gas chambers on down through not disappearing into the forest, buying food on the black market, selling engines and raw materials to the Germans or seeming too friendly with the soldiers fora girl. Maybe there is a taxonomy that we just don't know about yet. Possibly seeing who cites the Bertram article would be a place to start on that, since he was at least trying to distinguish the ideological allies and the greedy or power-hungry from the waiters waiting on the tables where the Nazis ate dinner. Anyway, I will circle  back to this, but if you two will forgive me for saying so, you both seem rather invested in the description of a unit that only lasted a few months. In hopes that someoftheabove is useful.Elinruby (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * See also for the above comments: Robert Paxton, Collaborationism in France during the Second World War and Fabrice Grenard Elinruby (talk) 03:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby, thank you for reading the article. Answering your questions:
 * we should go by what most, reliable sources say. At this point, most state that it was a collaboration unit, of course this does not exclude nuance. My suggestion: was a volunteer collaborationist military unit in the service of Nazi Germany, recruited from ethnic Lithuanians, which was disbanded soon after the creation for insubordination.
 * if you are talking about the Glinciszki massacre then the perpetrator there was not the LTDF, but the 258th Lithuanian Police Battalion. These are two different formations
 * the LTDF went to the Vilnius region on orders from the Germans, their aim was to fight Polish partisans
 * Poles and Lithuanians had a dispute over Vilnius, but the fighting between the LTDF and the Home Army was not over the city
 * Marcelus (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I came in here to see whether this article was using Czesław Madajczyk and it seems not, so the next question is whether there is a reason for that. IPN maybe? I found him mentioned in the definition section here, which is a Sorbonne University site that should meet anybody's definition of reliable academic source.
 * By the way, correcting myself, it was Stanley Hoffman who coined the term "collaborationist", Bertram Gordon just amplified him some years later. You're also still using the word wrong, btw.
 * Even if you want it to, "collaborationist" does not simply mean "who collaborated". I do realize that some en-Wikipedia editor somewhere really seems to want it to mean that, but it doesn't. And using it as a sort of metaphor, *that* is OR. And see, even if you put aside the fact that it was meant to describe Vichy, and apply it to parallel behaviour in other countries, this unit is still not displaying the sort of ideological fervor that the word describes. I am probably going to have to install Wikiblame to find out who is spreading that misinterpretation. Given the scale of its spread, I suspect someone is using AWB to edit it in. But now that I have that off my chest, and have brought you the question that I had:
 * we should go by what most, reliable sources say. At this point, most state that it was a collaboration unit
 * yes yes of course we go by sources. The question is always which sources, since almost any topic, especially WW2, will have many many more sources than can or even should be used. So while I am not making statements about this yet, I am looking at the sample you are using for "most".
 * Your suggestion was a volunteer collaborationist military unit in the service of Nazi Germany, recruited from ethnic Lithuanians, which was disbanded soon after the creation for insubordination.
 * is not horrible apart from the fact that it misuses the name of the category you are assigning them to. Maybe this is a translation problem. What is the word I should search for in your sources to find out you are right according to you? I do like the fact that you describe their behaviour there at the end, rather than guess their beliefs.
 * Glinciszki massacre ...not the LTDF, but the 258th Lithuanian Police Battalion.
 * yes I was talking about that and ok, noted
 * the LTDF went to the Vilnius region on orders from the Germans
 * You may have something there. I am looking for actions taken on behalf of the reich
 * their aim was to fight Polish partisans
 * I assume you can source that and if so was it their aim or the Germans' aim? The Polish were there to fight Germans? Also, this thing about the border moving -- this is because of the way the Germans set up their districts?
 * Poles and Lithuanians had a dispute over Vilnius
 * How old was this dispute, on a scale from months to years to millennia?
 * the fighting between the LTDF and the Home Army was not over the city
 * ok. What was it about, briefly? territory?
 * I will look into sources some more. A couple of thoughts.
 * We should try to get this disagreement worked out here if possible, because if it goes to the dramah boards we are all going to be "the same editors being TL;DR all over again" as somebody said at some noticeboard once, and that is not a good label to have.
 * It seems as though you are both citing historians of a given nationality. Maybe a political scientist somewhere has an existing taxonomy we could look at. That Sorbonne site has a fairly extensive collection of work and might have something. I really recommend reading that one article I'm posting though, because it's pretty short, but right on topic. And that site is where I am getting *my* analysis. And yeah, it may not apply here, I just don't know yet.
 * Plan B Or we could describe their behaviour without trying to intuit their motivations.
 * Plan C Or we can do what RSN would probably tell you to do: Explain the background, and on points where the two accounts diverge say something along the lines of the made-up example that follows:
 * Note that this not what I think happened... I realize that I don't know what happened. I will do my honest best to determine tht, if only to follow the discussion. Read the above as an example, however, of trying to tell a story from differing sides without trying to determine who is "right".Elinruby (talk) 05:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When it comes to LTDF the number of English sources is quite limited, bascially: Sužiedėlis, Smalkyté and Tauber (notice that none of them is Polish, two are Lithuanian, so we can really reject the thesis of a Polish-Lithuanian dispute). Sužiedėlis describes their attitude toward the Germans as "conditional cooperation," while Smalkyté and Tauber describe it as collaboration. From this, my conclusion is that it is legitimate to call this unit a collaborator. Marcelus (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby, I appreciate the time you put into this, this most certainly took you more than an hour of your day.
 * I am absolutely for Elinruby's view on how the word collaborationist should be used, especially because that word is surrounded by so much misinterpretation and drama. We should avoid such contentious labels that are not unaminously approved amongst historians. The German historian Christoph Dieckmann, who has written a book about Lithuania in WW2 during German occupation even said that he does not use the word "collaboration" because It is a "burned-out" term and not very useful for our historical analysis., p.8.
 * I am for Plan C. Instead of labelling, which causes too much drama (that is absolutely unnecessary), we should explain the unit (background, existence, end and thereafter). And Marcelus' claim that the majority of sources call this unit collaborationist is absolutely false, because most sources that mention the LTDF do not call it so. It makes absolutely no sense to call it collaborationist when even the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance supported its creation. Sorry for not addressing everything right now in this response, because I'm in a rush now. Cukrakalnis (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources that describe the LTFD's attitude towards Germany use the word cooperation (Sužiedėlis) or collaboration (Smalkyté, Rokicki, and Tauber). Collaboration is a neutral term commonly used in 2WW historiography to describe cooperation with Nazi Germany undertaken by non-German states or groups in territories controlled by Germany. What remains unquestionable is that the lead and infobox must unequivocally indicate that the LTDF was established as an entity under German curatorship, hiding this fact is unfair to the reader. Marcelus (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Many sources make it clear that the LTDF was not collaborationist (Sužiedėlis, Bubnys, Blaževičius, etc.). Also, it is intellectually dishonest that you use a source (Sužiedėlis) that clearly states that the LTDF was not a case of collaboration in favour of ultimately calling it collaboration.
 * Collaboration is not a neutral term and is very subjective. E.g. a collaborator in the POV of the USSR was not a collaborator in the POV of formerly Soviet-occupied countries like all of Europe east of the Elbe, which includes Poland. Frequent use of a word does not mean that it is being used accurately. As already said by Elinruby, you are wrongly using the word collaborationist. Also, according to your definition of collaboration, the Polish Home Army in modern-day Lithuania and Belarus were collaborators of Nazi Germany.
 * It already says "German-occupied Lithuania" in the infobox and the first line of the article mentions the German occupation of Lithuania during World War II, so Germans are already mentioned. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * So far you have not been able to prove that Bubnys or Blaževičius do not consider that the LTDF did not collaborate with the Germans. Three researchers explicitly state that there was collaboration, one Lithuanian argues that we should be talking about cooperation. The others do not take a position on this.
 * The only solution I can see is to cite these two opinions in the lede: was a volunteer military unit in the service of Nazi Germany, recruited from ethnic Lithuanians, which was disbanded soon after the creation for insubordination. The relationship of this unit to the Nazi occupation authorities is described as collaboration or cooperation. Marcelus (talk) 16:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point, I doubt there's even a point in continuing this talk because you are denying self-evident things (those sources saying the unit did not collaborate), misrepresenting what others say and ignoring what they're really saying. I have yet to see you properly respond to Elinruby's comments about collaborationism and her proposals for a solution. Bubnys' quote clearly means that the unit was not collaborationist and certainly not in service of Nazi Germany. I am citing it once again for your benefit:
 * "General P. Plechavičius did not obey German pressure, did not sacrifice the Lithuanian youth who joined the LTDF under his leadership to their [German] interests, did not turn it into a tool of the Germans. Due to the constant Nazi attempts to carry out mass mobilization of Lithuanian youth under the guise of the LTDF and to send as many Lithuanians as possible to the Eastern Front, the creation and activity of the LTDF became a dramatic competition between Lithuanian and Nazi interests. This fight had no winners. The LTDF failed to become the beginning of the Lithuanian army, but the Nazis also failed to carry out mass mobilization and turn Lithuanians into cannon fodder on the Eastern Front."
 * I really do not understand what's so hard for you to understand in this paragraph. Do you not understand that saying "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans" means that the unit did not collaborate?
 * Blaževičius says:
 * "The short and dramatic history of the force's soldiers - LTDF lasted for almost three months - proves that neither gen. P. Plechavičius, nor his officers were German collaborators."
 * If this does not mean in your view that the sources are saying that the unit did not collaborate, then we might as well just end this right here, because you are clearly not understanding what I am saying despite my best efforts of more than just the past week.
 * At this point you are distorting what the historians you don't agree with are saying and overly emphasizing the few historians that say as you want. You're very obviously pushing a POV based on your OR, and I am under no illusion that I can somehow convince you otherwise with any number of sources, because you're not here to listen to what the sources or other users say, you're obviously just first writing and only then finding sources that say what you want. Why do you keep ignoring whenever I mention that by your standards, the Polish Home Army are collaborators as well? Why the selectivity of calling one side collaborator instead of the other? Hmmm, I wonder, does it have anything to do with your userpage starting with the words "Pole I am"?
 * Also, why do you ignore the role of the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance? Or did such a thing not exist according to you? Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you not understand that saying "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans" means that the unit did not collaborate?; You are using incorrect reasoning, collaboration does not assume that one becomes a "tool" in the hands of another. Bubnys is absolutely right, the LTDF's cooperation with the Germans was conditional, it ended when the Germans wanted to significantly reduce the unit's autonomy. But this does not mean that we are not dealing with collaboration. After all, the creation of the LTDF was exactly the result of collaboration between Lithuanian organizations and the German authorities. The sentence you quote does not use the term collaboration at all. Many other collaborating units/organizations also "did not turn it into a tool of the Germans", which does not mean that they did not collaborate.
 * Blaževičius says...; Could you quote this fragment in Lithuanian? Because I can't find it there using machine translation. Could you quote this fragment in Lithuanian? Because I can't find it there using machine translation. Moreover, Kazys Blaževičius is not a historian, but an engineer, an employee of a polytechnic. I don't think his article constitutes RS.
 * Why do you keep ignoring whenever I mention that by your standards, the Polish Home Army are collaborators as well?; because we are discussing Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force now, and I would like to focus on it, you can start discussion about Home Army relations with Germans on proper t/p
 * Also, why do you ignore the role of the Lithuanian anti-Nazi resistance?; same reason as above.
 * Hmmm, I wonder, does it have anything to do with your userpage starting with the words "Pole I am"?; what do you mean exactly? Marcelus (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cukrakalnis, please provide Lithuanian original qoute of Blaževičius. Thanks Marcelus (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Bubnys' statement clearly means that the unit did not collaborate and he says nothing about conditional cooperation. Collaboration clearly assumes becoming a tool in the hands of the other, otherwise even resistance could be collaboration according to your reasoning. Bubnys did not call it "conditional cooperation", Sužiedėlis did it, and in doing so, denied that the unit was collaborating. It is you with your OR that mixes everything up.
 * Kazys Blaževičius was a former member of the unit and can be used as a source on this article, just like memoirs are used in many other articles, e.g. SS Police Regiment Bozen.
 * Blaževičius original quote:
 * Trumpa ir dramatiška rinktinės karių istorija - VR gyvavo beveik tris mėnesius - įrodo, kad nei gen. P.Plechavičius, nei jo karininkai nebuvo vokiečių kolaborantai.
 * The Home Army is very relevant here, and you avoiding that question because it's uncomfortable for you to answer it in a yes or no manner seems to show that you're not here for an honest interchange, but instead to push a Polish POV. It's a possibility considering your self-declared strongly Polish national feelings, which are clearly indicated in that quote. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, you provided a link originally to the wrong article, which is why I could not find the quote. The correct link is: https://www.xxiamzius.lt/numeriai/2004/11/17/istving_01.html.
 * The memoirs of a former member cannot be used as a primary source for an article, especially a controversial one, read WP:PRIMARY. The fact that a former LTDF member claims not to have served in a collaborationist unit is of little value to us. We should use WP:SECONDARY to resolve these issues.
 * Furthermore, a sentence such as: Esą VR kariai skriaudę Vilnijos krašto lenkus. Šie istorikai, patikėję diversantų Armijos krajovos žygių apologetų pateiktais falsifikuotais įrodymais, išdrįso suabejoti Gen. P.Plechavičiaus kilniais tikslais, disqualify this source as reliable, Blaževičius denies the fact that the LTDF attacked Polish villages in the Vilnius region, which is an undeniable fact. This source should be removed and not used.
 * Collaboration clearly assumes becoming a tool in the hands of the other, otherwise even resistance could be collaboration according to your reasoning, once again deceptive hyperbole. There are many stances between resistance and being a tool in enemy's hands, collaboration is in between, resistance is certainly not a form of collaboration. Bubnys does not state that the LTDF did not collaborate, he only says that it did not become a tool in the hands of the Germans. These are two different things.
 * It's a possibility considering your self-declared strongly Polish national feelings, which are clearly indicated in that quote. First of all that is Casting aspersions and WP:PERSONAL. Secondly, if you imply to me that I deny the fact that individual members, organisations or armed units of the Polish underground cooperated or collaborated with the Germans then you are very much mistaken. I never deny something that is a proven truth. Many members of the Polish underground were sentenced or executed for collaboration. I myself wrote a long article about Cezary Ketling-Szemley, who is believed to have committed treason and was sentenced to death for it by an AK court. In the article on Bolesław Piasecki that I am writing, I mentioned Józef Świda, who had a truce with the Germans and benefited from their help in the fight against the Soviets. He was also convicted for this. Piasecki himself was also an uninteresting character: anti-Semite, fascist, extreme nationalist, and after the war he joined the Communists. Although he fought against the Germans. Then there is the infamous 'Sword and Plough' (Miecz i Pług), a major underground organisation that turned out to be largely controlled by German, and large part of its leadership was collaborating with Germans. It's a pity there's no article on the English Wikipedia actually, maybe I'll write one up one day. There is also National Radical Organization, which was collaborationist since the beginning. Or the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade, but you can read the article, it's pretty good. Before that, there was Tom's organisation, which actually made an alliance with the Germans and was involved in killing communists real or invented, also in the Polish underground.
 * Does that satisfy you? I really have no problem writing negative things about Poland, Poles, Polish history, etc. So can we drop the subject already and talk about this article? It would be nice if you would also stop constantly accusing me of "Polish nationalism" etc., but I don't think I can count on that. That poem you remembered like that is directed against the kind of thinking you presented, but maybe that is lost in translation. Marcelus (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis your recent edits to this article are worrying. Twice you have removed information about an unit's allegiance to Nazi Germany. In your last edit you removed the German name of the unit, while in the lede you highlighted information about the repression of the unit after it was disbanded by the Germans, obscuring the circumstances of its creation. Furthermore, you removed information about the unit's battles with Polish and Soviet partisans. You have changed the very opening sentence in such a way that one can understand that the establishment of the LTDF was an act of anti-Nazi resistance. I appeal for these edits to be reversed.Marcelus (talk) 12:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @+JMJ+, you not only ignored my invite to discussion, but you also removed for the second time information about unit's allegiance to Nazi Germany . I hope you are able to explain your actions. Marcelus (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not ignore your invitation to discussion because I took your comments into consideration and I did not see a question to respond to. It seems you took this the wrong way. I did not remove the German name of the unit, unless you think that something being included as a note suddenly means removal, which would be a very narrow view and factually inaccurate. According to such a rigid view towards notes, then footnotes and etc. are useless, but they are not. There is no specific information about the unit's battles with Soviet partisans and thus there is reason to doubt that it ever happened unless firm proof to the contrary is presented. Otherwise, your claims on the contrary could be guessed to just be speculations. Furthermore, the sentence "The LTDF aimed to fight the quickly approaching Red Army, the Soviet and Polish insurgents" was never removed by me, so your accusation that I removed any information of substantial importance about the unit's battles is not at all accurate. I disapprove of your edits that erase the very mention of the backing of the anti-Nazi Lithuanian resistance for this unit or the repressions against this unit by the Germans from this article. It is historically inaccurate to write that the unit's allegiance was to a country to which they never swore an oath and which they went against. These Lithuanian soldiers could not disobey a country (Nazi Germany) they never saw themselves as beholden to, because they were there for Lithuania, and Lithuania alone. The whole unit was created by Lithuanians, for Lithuanians, officered by Lithuanians. The flag on the shoulders of the soldiers were Lithuanian, not German. The further German actions of repression and the succesful escape of many soldiers only further prove that this unit's allegiance was to Lithuania, not Germany. &#43;JMJ+ (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At this point, I cannot interpret your motives other than wanting to hide the fact that the unit was created by Nazi Germany and was a Lithuanian collaborationist military unit. Hiding the German name, hiding the fact that the unit was created by Nazi Germany and that it was under their orders, is another in a series of of your edits aimed at hiding the extent of Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany.
 * Also you are showing signs of bad faith by claiming that I disapprove of your edits that erase the very mention of the backing of the anti-Nazi Lithuanian resistance for this unit or the repressions against this unit by the Germans from this article - this was never my intention, and I never make any such attempt.
 * I'm still hoping you will revert your edits. Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Poland
@Cukrakalnis please restore Wikiproject:Poland here. This article is within the scope of interest of the wikiproject. Marcelus (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No it is not within its scope - just as it is not part of WP:GERMANY or WP:USSR. You do have to realize that Lithuanian history is not a subset of Polish history and that Lithuanians are not Poles. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This unit carried out crimes against Poles, so it is in the scope of interest of the wikiproject for this reason at least. It was also formed by Germany, so WP:GERMANY should also be added here, but I'm not a member, so I don't demand it.
 * Wikiprojects are not "subordinate" to one another, nor are they mutually exclusive. Marcelus (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to simply admit that Lithuanian history is not a subset of Polish history and that Lithuanians are not Poles is causing unnecessary problems for yourself and others. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Cukrakalnis I see no reason to admit something that is obvious. Please, restore Wikiproject:Poland here. Marcelus (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about whether it's obvious to you because you keep adding claims to notable Lithuanians about how they allegedly had a Polish background and Polish names, etc. Cukrakalnis (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:PERSONAL Marcelus (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As someone who used to very involved in running WPPOLAND, my 2 grosze. First, WikiProject tags are not categories and are "not big deal", their inclusion is primarily used for tools like Article Alerts or Most Popular Articles by WikiProject. Second, I don't think we need to tag this with WPPOLAND. LTDF was not a Polish unit and it just clashed with Poles. But it wasn't intended only as an anti-Polish force, nor did it fought against Poles only. IF we tag it with Polish WP, we should also tag this article with Soviet WP b/c LTDF engaged Soviet partisans too. And arguably, German WP is relevant too. But keeping this just under Lithuanian WP and Milhist WP is fine. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * When tagging articles, I am usually guided by the question: would members of this Wikiproject be interested in changes to this article? I have come to the conclusion that an article about a unit that committed crimes against Polish civilians is in the scope. But since you both think otherwise, I am able to not insist on that.
 * Another question is whether we should add WP:Germany? It seems to me that we should, since we are talking about a German police unit. Marcelus (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Find me at least one source calling this a German police unit. Oh wait, there is none. The statement you keep repeating about this unit being German is WP:OR and not supported by any WP:RS. I have no clue where you keep the getting the idea that this unit that is unanimously called Lithuanian in all reliable sources is somehow German. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * LTDF was a Litauische Sonderverbände directly subordinated to the SS und Polizeiführer which makes it part of the German police force. Marcelus (talk) 11:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No sources call the unit German, so you are wrong in calling it a German unit.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe ask at WT:GERMANY? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Blaževičius - unreliable for the topic?
I am looking for the opinions of those interested in the topic (ping @Elinruby, @Piotrus, @Cukrakalnis) as to whether Kazys Blaževičius is a reliable source on topics concerning the LTDF, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, etc.

In my opinion he is not, for the following reasons:

1. He is not a professional historian, but an engineer, dealing with history on a non-professional basis.

2. He is not impartial. He was himself a member of the LTDF, so he is directly involved in the subject he writes about. His writing on the subject therefore has WP:PRIMARY characteristics.

3. His writings include controversial and objectively untrue statements such as: ''Esą VR kariai skriaudę Vilnijos krašto lenkus. Šie istorikai, patikėję diversantų Armijos krajovos žygių apologetų pateiktais falsifikuotais įrodymais, išdrįso suabejoti Gen. P.Plechavičiaus kilniais tikslais'', which translates as: "The LTDF soldiers allegedly committed abuses against Poles in the Vilnius region. These historians, believing the falsified evidence presented by the apologists of the subversive Home Army, dared to question Gen. P.Plechavičius' noble aims". This short extract also shows the emotional nature of his writing.

In my opinion, these facts lean towards the necessity of removing Blaževičius as a source in this article and generally approaching his texts with great distance. Marcelus (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Citing the opinions of the people involved in the article's topic is perfectly fine for Wikipedia, and thus the inclusion of the opinion of Kazys Blaževičius, as a former cadet of the LTDF, is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules of MOS:QUOTE. The article itself clearly states Former cadet Kazys Blaževičius wrote, which clearly attributes it to who said it and by itself provides justification for the quote's inclusion.
 * Btw, what he said about the Polish Home Army is a valid view, in the sense that the views and accusations of the Polish Home Army should be presented as its view, not as the "sole truth about this topic", which is what you are now trying to do. As Arūnas Bubnys writes, the exact details of how the civilians died are unclear and they were, unfortunately, probably collateral damage in skirmishes between the Polish Home Army and Lithuanian TDF, considering that they fought in inhabited locations. Furthermore, as written in the article LTDF already:
 * Even before the combat against Polish partisans, Plechavičius issued an order condemning unkind or even brutal treatment of any inhabitants of Lithuania, no matter what language they spoke, meaning that he forbade anti-Polish actions.
 * You probably have already heard that "The first casualty of War is Truth" and accusing your enemies of atrocities (regardless of whether it's true or not) is probably one of the simplest forms of propaganda out there that is still being used and no one is immune to propaganda.
 * Considering what Plechavičius' aims were, which are clear from his conditions in this section (Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force), these were obviously noble from a Lithuanian view, e.g. stopping the deportation of Lithuanians for forced labour in Nazi Germany while creating a Lithuanian army to fight against the oppressive Soviet Union that was going to invade their country soon. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would sincerely appreciate if we did not touch this topic for a month as advised to all of us by Piotrus on October 15 : I'd suggest everyone involved takes a month break from those topics. I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, but tempers seem to be frying, folks. Let's avoid anything bad, ok?
 * I have something extremely important to focus on in my life for the next two weeks and would really like to limit my Wikipedia editing to a minimum for the time being. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You wear your sympathies on your sleeve. 2A0A:EF40:1242:3701:1425:215:1A2B:E6A7 (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I recall a while ago we decided that opinions of political scientist or graduate students in relevant fields were not good enough for some book reviews in WWII (Holocaust) topics. That said, I disagreed and thought they were fine, but is a precent worth recalling. IIRC this concerned book reviews at Talk:The Forgotten Holocaust and Talk:Poland's Holocaust.
 * Overall, I suggest you ask at WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN to get 3O as it may be difficult to reach consensus with just the two of you (plus me, and I am ambivalent - who else is intersted in this topic?).
 * That said, at minimum, attribute Blaževičius. Does he have a wiki article? Is describing him as "Lithuanian engineer" correct? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

. Gah. Piotrus is right to be ambivalent. I actually came here to tell a certain editor that asking me to stop helping him is incompatible with pinging me, but

...hey! Civil discussion. In hopes of helping that happen some more, here are some comments in no particular order that are trying very hard to be civil, because yeah, semi-informed as I am about this, I am probably the closest thing available tonight to someone who truly does not give the teeniest tiniest deux fesses de rat ni trois crottes d'orteille about ANY of this, but still has some sort of an inkling what this is even about. And so here we are.


 * RSN is a fantastic idea but as a long time lurker there I am pretty sure they will tell you that BIAS goes to WEIGHT not reliability. As for NPOVN, clearly he does seem biased but doesn't that standard apply to the article as a whole? Not individual authors?


 * You should go there anyway, though, and twice on Sundays. Hell, take ALL the sources there in that article to RSN. Ask them about Stanley Hoffman and Robert O. Paxton, even. And while you are at it, the dudes over at Milhist clearly don't have enough to do if they felt the need to annex Black market in wartime France. Put them through their paces some! More eyes=good! some of them might even come edit here if nobody bites them.


 * If we really must do this can we please at least discuss a different set of horrors for a while? The protagonists in some other massacre?


 * I agree we all need a break from this article. I know I do. It's been an argument as long as all my time in Holocaust in Poland, which is twice or maybe three times as long as this unit existed.


 * Surely surely surely some other article needs improving. I hereby formally request that we put this thing in a time capsule for at LEAST three months.


 * That said, Tintin narrowly won out over nuking my entire account today. Hair on the leg of a mosquito. Still seriously considering a move to Haida Gwaii or the Atacama, there to start afresh as a beekeeper or something. Please do not ping me into the path of any more buzzsaws, especially without a heads up, ok, and above all please don't ask me for my opinion unless you really want to know.


 * and from Russian invasion of Ukraine might have a thing or two to say, or know who someone else who does.


 * And yeah, absolutely, anybody that writes like that author does should definitely be attributed. Bonus points if you ask about that at RSN, and whether Fabrice Grenard and whether he knows him some collaboration.

So long and thanks for all the fish, you guys. Email is enabled on my account. Peace out. Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Interesting discussion. I'll have a closer look and probably more to say in the morning. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Not something I can comment on sorry. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:54, 25 October 2023 (UTC)