Talk:Oskar Dirlewanger/Archive 1

Dirlewanger's death
It states in the article: ''Oskar Dirlewanger (September 26, 1895-June 7, 1945) was a World War II officer with the Schutzstaffel (SS). He commanded the SS-Sturmbrigade Dirlewanger unit. Dirlewanger was sentenced for war crimes and was beaten to death by inmates at Altshausen, a French prison camp.'' But according to author French McClean, he was beaten to death by Polish guards at Altshausen, probibly as revenge for his actions in Warsaw. Though it might be worth mentioning. Piercetp 02:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Polish guards were former inmates during the war period, the article you quote would prove right and your "correction" would be judged useless and a tentative way to blame Polish of an coward reprise against a unarmed prisioner, even if he was Dirlewanger. 201.19.202.29 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy
Whilst there can be no doubt about the nature of the Dirlewanger unit, and its documented involvement to numerous atrocities and massacres, inclusion of specific accusations should be treated with caution. Accusations of catching babies on bayonets (the same accusation as made against German troops in WWI), cutting the arms off prisoners and setting them alight, etc. should not be included unless sources can be cited. There is a danger in subjects such as this to revel in lurid stories that are more titillation than historical reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.11 (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are sources. Two in fact, and many more can easily be found. Dirlewanger's Brigade was easily the most notorious penal battalion in Nazi Germany; for all of the SS's numerous atrocities, no SS officer would have anything to do with Dirlewanger or his men. Hardened SS war criminals looked upon them with disgust and fear. They were literally the worst of the worst, unrepentant violent criminals, the dregs of the Nazi penal system. Literally anyone who could hold a rifle and obey orders at gunpoint (including a number of violent psychotics residing in locked institutions for the criminally insane) was eligible for the Dirlewanger Brigade. Dirlewanger himself was a psychopath and multiple child rapist who perfectly encapsulated the ethos of the organization; if you are willing to kill who we tell you, we're willing to ignore how much it arouses you. So much for the master race. Bullzeye contribs 00:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS- You gotta cite your claims about Dirlewanger. The double convictions for rape of a minor are on record, the part you inserted isn't. Bullzeye contribs 00:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Source now added - Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.11 (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why has the correction about the rape conviction being reversed on appeal been removed, even though the source (The Cruel Hunters by MacLean) and page has been supplied?
 * Feel free to put it back up if no reason is given. Tchernobog (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed 'controversial' to 'notorious'
Hi

I've changed the intro description from 'controversial' to 'notorious'. It seems like the wrong adjective here, the Dirlewanger Brigade was infamous. Not aware that there are any historical debates arising from its existence or that its' actions prompted two sides, ie one that was in favour, one that wasn't. 'Controversial' is used in a few other articles and I think it's been used incorrectly as a synonym for infamous or notorious.

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamjamesbromley (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

marek wants me to talk....
Apparently Marek feels as he is the supreme ruler of information on Dirlewanger. Aparently he never read the new book out in November........ I have put much information up based on books I purchased at Borders (before they closedi n my area.....) and from amazon.com. I referenced these books. I suggest "marek" stop reverting my edits or I will ask wikipedia to protect the page. Not much left to "talk" about... Leave your personal agendas out of it marek!

i provided more dates and places and info on his freikorps activity than you can shake a stick at.

Books used to get the information in my EDITS:

The SS Dirlewanger Brigade: The History of the Black Hunters by Christian Ingrao and Phoebe Green (Nov 1, 2011)

The Cruel Hunters: SS-Sonderkommando Dirlewanger Hitler's Most Notorious Anti-Partisan Unit (Schiffer Military History) by French L. MacLean (Jan 1, 1998)

Hitler's Bandit Hunters: The SS and the Nazi Occupation of Europe by Philip W. Blood (Jan 31, 2008)

Die SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger" by Rolf Michaelis (Sep 1, 2011)

Das grosse Dilemma: Leipziger Antifaschisten in der SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger" by Jutta Seidel (1999)

No. 225 - Dirlewanger by Rolf Michaelis (2005)

Erinnerungen an das SS-Sonderkommando "Dirlewanger" by Rolf Michaelis (Sep 1, 2011)

the above is VERY relevent information. Marek, Please prove me wrong. Please prove me wrong on his family info also..... Prove me wrong on any of my points of him..... Your witholding information.... The case is for me. You have no valid arguments on any of the information I posted. It's all in the books....

Usurpsynapse (talk) 02:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oskar Dirlewanger's unit never even reached brigade strength, let alone it's official divisional strength. Nevertheless, it was charged with hunting for partisans in the forests near Minsk, a hideous job, and later took part in the 1944 destruction of Warsaw.


 * This is not even what the dispute is about. And you're
 * 1. Mis-representing sources outright. For example this piece of work "However, When SS-Oberst Schmidt's Sichurungs Regiment 608 was badly shot up on Wolska St, SS-Sturmbrigade "Dirlewanger" advanced 2500m through heavy partisan barricades and sniper fire. They have distinguished themselves with various rear guard actions in battles and retreats." - the only thing that is based on the source (Forczyk) is that his unit advanced 2500m at some point during the Warsaw uprising. In the source, there's no "However" or no "badly shot up" or "heavy partisan barricades and sniper fire" or no "distinguished themselves" and ... "rear guard actions" - are you fucking serious? As in "rear guard actions" which involved the massacre of hospital patients and rape of wounded nurses? Are these the "rear guard actions" that Dirlewanger's unit distinguished itself in?
 * 2. Using unreliable sources like Rolf Michaelis who's work has been completely reject by any serious historians.
 * 3. Deleting a whole bunch of well sourced text and replacing it by white-washing. Even if somehow these laudations of Dirlewanger that you're trying to put into this article were somehow justified by sources (and they're not), the removal of other material is not justified.
 * Look, I've looked at your contributions history. And honestly, I'm not about to waste my time trying to engage some blatant neo-Nazi nonsense in a "meaningful discussion". Particularly when it concerns one of the worst and most despicable war criminals, even as far as Nazi war criminals go.


 * Any thing you want to the article you need to propose on the talk page first. Your edits have been extremely POV and your aim appears to be to white-wash this guy. Proposed edits need to be verified. I am going to revert your edits until you can provide RELIABLE sources, and suggest text which doesn't abuse these.  Volunteer Marek   05:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Reference #4 about the styrchnine isn't very reliable either as it mentions turning people into SOAP which everyone knows is FALSE. Looks like you missed that one marek.... Im editing my post, And talking to some people on axisforums.... Were collaboratively updating Allied and Axis. Your right, Although upgraded to divisional status, it never reached above brigade strength. I must have worded it wrong....... Have you read teh full book? Im not going to plagurize and copy word for word. I had to put 'however'.... And yes, Soldier's can be good at their job reguardless of what force they are fighting for..... The navy seal's in vietnam might have done alot of brave things for example, But politically and socially were they right?? Are they good soldiers? ONE OF THE BEST.... Dirlewanger brigade did move 2500m up Wolska St when no other's could. Usurpsynapse (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Reference #4 about the styrchnine isn't very reliable either as it mentions turning people into SOAP which everyone knows is FALSE." - what are you talking about? Actually that refers to the rest of your comment as well.  Volunteer Marek   13:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

marek is english your first language or do you speak polish mainly? Baricades you said were false? They are real on Wolska St.

Im looking through the books for direct mention of snipers and baricades.

Anyways, I dont speak polish and I dont think you are competent enough to understand the english language since you have no idea what i said in the previous statement.

Usurpsynapse (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

marek if your english is good can you translate what they say here http://www.irekw.internetdsl.pl/Dirlewanger.html about "1921 & sangerhausen"? Im interested in seeing what it says! Usurpsynapse (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My English is just fine though I do have some concerns about yours. For example, I did not say "barricades" were false. I said that you embellished the account given in the source. The sources says "However, Dirlewanger's troops were able to advance 2500m up Wolska Street before they encountered the first barricade, which was defended by a poorly armed PPS platoon". There's nothing in there about "heavy partisan barricades and sniper fire" nor is there anything about the unit "distinguishing" itself in various rear guard actions. You made that stuff up yourself. The source is mostly about the unit's murder of unarmed and wounded civilians (which was about all that this unit was capable of). The Polonia source likewise focuses on the Wola massacre.
 * The irekw source you link to says he was PART OF (not commanded) the unit of an armored train in Sangerhausen, Anhalt. Like I said, this Rolf Michaelis book does not look like a reliable source.  Volunteer Marek   23:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The MacLean source appears to be the same publish-on-demand vanity press as Michaelis.  Volunteer Marek   13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)