Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by 10:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC).

23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian)

 * Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because because it has recently undergone a successful MILHIST A Class review and has had some incremental improvements through that process and since. It was the sister division of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (an article which is now FA). In the confusion and desperation that ruled the Balkans in late 1944 and 1945, this division never reached more than brigade size, but elements of it fought the Red Army in southern Hungary in late 1944. It was disbanded when its Bosnian Muslim members mutinied, realising that their German sponsors would leave them to the tender mercies of the Yugoslav Partisans and Russians. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and I also did the GAN review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Flag_of_Albania_1946.svg: source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * it isn't used in this article? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:59, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the navbox at the bottom. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Crap. Do I have to check the templates that are added as well? I'll get on to it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I wish ppl would just stay at their url... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments 
 * It's not a deal breaker, but generally statements made in the lede don't need to be cited unless they're not backed up in the main body.
 * This reads as if Himmler was going to put two corps of two divisions in Bosnia and another two corps in Albania: His plan was to form two corps of two divisions each in both the Bosnian region of the Independent State of Croatia and in Albania.
 * No duplicate links.
 * No DABs.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sturm, have removed the citations from the lead and checked that all points were included in the main body and cited. Also clarified the plan only involved two corps. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment Cautious Support
 * "Formed on 19 June 1944, the division did not reach full divisional strength and never saw action as a formation, but elements of the division fought briefly in southern Hungary in early October 1944.[4][5] The division was formally dissolved on 31 October 1944" It seems there are too many successive use of the word "division" in this segment. Can this be tweaked?
 * Done.


 * "...expulsions and forced religious conversions against the Serb population living within the borders of the new state." Serb is an ethnicity; so is it a specific religious sub-group of Serbs that were forced to religious conversion? Conversion from what to what religion? (I have no background knowledge).
 * Clarified. It is complex, but I think the wordings makes the essential aspects clearer now.


 * "Despite Pavelić's assurances of equality with the Croats, many Muslims quickly became dissatisfied with Croatian rule". Again, Croat is an ethnicity, while Muslim is a religion. So, no Croats were Muslim? And does, in this context, Muslims necessarily mean non-Croat Muslims?
 * Again, complex, but I have tweaked the wording to improve clarity.


 * "... fierce fighting had broken out between the Ustaše, Chetniks and Partisans in NDH territory". Partisans has a capital P. Is it name of a party?
 * Partisans is overwhelmingly initially capitalised in scholarly sources on the subject.


 * "... the autonomists were desperate to protect the Muslim". Who were the autonomists?
 * clarified.

--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All of the above addressed, I believe. Let me know if you think anything else needs further tweaking. Thanks for reviewing! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of the issues are addressed. Regarding Partisan, I do not have any problem, but did not strike out that in case some other reviewers notice that and provide some opinion. I feel I don't have the qualification to judge this article against featured article criteria. still I'd try! To a novice of the topic like me, the article looks comprehensive, well-written, well-researched, neutral, and stable; lead is good, structure is ok. I did not do any spot check of the sources (most are probably not available online). Media and length are fine.
 * So, cautious support from me (cautious because of my own shortcomings: lack of any knowledge of the topic, and lack of use of professional level of English). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose (temporarily) Neutral (as of now)
 * Introduction
 * Typos, you mix the use of Waffen-SS and Waffen SS throughout the article.
 * Fixed.
 * The introcution is way too short for spending a whole sentence on that the number was given to another division afterwards.
 * I have put a hatnote on the article and removed the sentence from the lead.


 * Background
 * You write the NDH authorities were led by the Ustaše militias but weren't the Ustaše militas an instrument led by the Ustaše authorities of the NDH?
 * Overall the militia were ostensibly under the control of Pavelic and the regime, but in this respect, the militia led the campaign.
 * Pavelics assurances of equalities should be mentioned before the Ustaše milita campaigns. Otherwise you dont have to mention that non-catholic inhabitants of the NDH were dissatisfied with it as it is clear.
 * The militia campaigns started almost immediately the NDH was established, so that would not be chronologically correct.
 * The Chetniks were at least during the time of their resistance against the occupation some kind of Partisans so you should specify the kind of the other Patisans. (i.e. mainly communist counterpart of the Chetniks)
 * they were two distinct forces, after early 1942 they did not overlap at all.
 * Were there any connections between the letter of the bosnian muslims to Hitler and the raising of the Handschar-Division? I cant see any in the article. If there were any they have to be mentioned, if not it has to be mentioned why the division was raised instead.
 * I have addressed this now, let me know whether you think it is clearer?


 * History
 * SS Brigadeführer und Generalmajor der Waffen SS wasnt equivalent to a Brigadier. It was the same as a Wehrmacht Major General and nowadays NATO Brigadier General.
 * Not according to my sources. Appendix I to Stein (p.295), clearly states the WWII equivalents as Brigadeführer equals Generalmajor equals US "Brigadier General" (which itself was equivalent to Brigadier). The article is about WWII so there is no need to clarify that the equivalent is from WWII.
 * SS Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen SS same procedure, Lieutenant General of the Wehrmacht and nowadays NATO Major General. If you write Major General inside the braces you have to explain that this is compared to todays NATO ranks.
 * same as the above point.
 * You write about muslim conscripts born in 1926 and 1927. Was there a conscription for german service in the NDH? And dont forget, the Waffen-SS was volunteer-based and didnt started before 1943 to press german soldiers into their lines but I never read anywhere that this also happened with foreign soldiers.
 * I've clarified this in the text, they were drafted by the NDH then handed over to the Germans.
 * SS-Obergruppenführer is, different from the other two, mentioned with its Wehrmacht-equivalent (Genral) instead of its NATO-rank of Lieutenant General. However you handle this, you need continuity.
 * Thanks for picking this up, Stein says Obergruppenführer equals Lieutenant General. Fixed.
 * Why is Đuro Grujić not linked? This points to, that there is not a single redlink within an article and is highly unlikely that this has articles for all important persons etc. Were redlinks avoided? If so, this is my main reason for my opposition.
 * As I do with all articles at this level, I do a quick test of any person or event that is mentioned against WP:GNG. I was pretty sure I had done that with Grujić, and the Google Books results speak for themselves IMO. Of the 23 hits, very few are in English (I don't read Croatian) and from what I can see the key issue with him appears to be sources independent of the subject. Nearly everyone that even mentions him is a former Partisan with an agenda (like Basta), a Chetnik or Ustasha, or the source comes from the Ustasha diaspora. So I made a call and ignored him. Helmuth Raithel, Ustase militia and Hadžiefendić Legion were of course all redlinks before I created those articles.
 * redlinked.
 * When did Sauberzweig propose his plan to disarm the Bosnians?
 * Lepre doesn't say, except that he left to see Himmler on 18 September and orders were issued by Himmler on 24 September. I added this.
 * Is the IX SS Mountain Corps the same as the IX Waffen Mountain Corps of the SS (Croatian)? Same with all other times you mention a 13th SS Division etc. As the SS and the Waffen-SS were not exactly the same you have to be exact with the names.
 * I am being exact, and I know the difference between the SS and the Waffen-SS. The IX Waffen Mountain Corps of the SS (Croatian) was raised with that name, but when the "corps" quickly became a mute proposition after the disbanding of the 23rd SS Division Kama, the corps was re-formed around four Germanic (non-Croatian) divisions (one panzer, one panzergrenadier and two SS cavalry), so the name was changed to IX SS Mountain Corps. However, I have ensured consistency of naming in this article to avoid confusion. As far as the 13th SS Division is concerned, what is anyone going to mix it up with? I am not aware of any SS (not-Waffen-SS) divisions being formed. It was suggested in the FAC for the 13th SS Division that I use that pattern as a shortened version of the divisional name, and this treatment is merely a continuation of that pattern. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the way the foreign (ie non-Germanic) "volunteer" division names are structured (like this one), and the Germanic ones structured like 1st SS Panzer Division. The "Waffen... of the SS" was reserved for the foreign "volunteers".
 * Did the IX SS Mountain Corps'' leave its headquarters in Hungary on the same day it arrived in Andrijaševci?
 * Lepre does not say. But given it was only 136km by road, it would certainly have been possible.
 * Was the 31st SS Volunteer Grenadier Division the Division that was to be formed with the cadre of the Kama-Division? Were the muslim units really part of this division or did they only operated under Lombards command?
 * The plan to form the 31st SS Division only included the German cadre, not the Bosnians. The Bosnians were to go south per the re-formation of the corps. Lombard grabbed elements of the division to use briefly, so they were under his command, but not part of his division.
 * Why were the Bosnians withdrawn from Hungary?
 * Per the earlier mention, the division was always supposed to operate in the NDH, but was raised in Hungary to avoid Ustashe interference. Its corps HQ had relocated to the NDH and they were supposed to follow when Lombard grabbed them. I thought that was pretty clear in the text already.
 * Was the mutiny the official reason to dissolve the Kama-Division?
 * Yes, I have further clarified it.
 * Its inaccurate to say the 6th SS Mountain Division Nord-Regiment under Raithel fought the United States Army in the last months of the war because of the allied warfare. If they fired a single shot at a plane from Australia or the United Kingdom its not only inaccurate but wrong. You better say where they fought.
 * actually they fought US formations in southern Germany. I have clarified in the text.


 * See also
 * You have linked a variety of Waffen-SS ranks within the article, why do you extra-link Table of ranks and insignia of the Waffen-SS in this section? I cant see the special relation between this and the theme of the article.
 * It doesn't need a "special link". Per WP:ALSO - the links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics - whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. None of the links are in the body of the article. Anyone reading the article may quite reasonably wonder what the other ranks in the Waffen-SS were. I don't think it is out of place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All in all there are (for my opinion) way to many inaccuacies and missing things to support the candidacy of an article about such a sensitive topic for Featured status. --Bomzibar (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid, Bomzibar, you are quite inaccurate in quite a few of the comments you have made, and some of your pronouncements are not as black and white as you seem to believe they are. I will deal with them point by point shortly. Your English is also not the best and some of what you are saying doesn't make any sense to me and I am going to have to ask you for clarification on those points. I also assume your less than excellent grasp of English is causing you to misunderstand or fail to comprehend some passages in the article. Your redlink issue is completely wrong-headed, and I have no idea where you get the idea I have avoided redlinks or why anyone would do so. I am also very concerned from your comments and apparent assumptions on both this article and the Helmuth Raithel article that you appear to have some personal issue with Waffen-SS articles being a particularly "sensitive" topic. Insofar as any article about German forces in WWII is sensitive, this article (and the Raithel one for that matter) requires a neutral point of view and reliable published sources. I will respond in detail shortly, however, I believe your opposition to the article is based on incorrect assumptions and misunderstanding, and that what remains after I have addressed your comments will not stand up to scrutiny as a basis on which to oppose the candidature of this article. Peacemaker67  (send... over) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As Im not a native speaker its more than possible that I make mistakes from time to time. If anything is unclear ask and I will do my best to clarify what I meant. Its not that I have any personal issue with the Waffen-SS but I only read this article as critical as if it would be a candidate for the de:Wiki equivalent of a featured article. As for the reliable published sources, Schiffer Publishing is not a publisher which puts high academical standards at their authors and their referencing. --Bomzibar (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as Schiffer is concerned, they are patchy. As far as the Lepre book is concerned, this was discussed at some length during the FAC of the 13th SS Division article, so I will paraphrase what I said to a similar question then:
 * "They are obviously not a university press, and publish a wide range of books on a broad spread of topics, some scholarly, some not. Many of the military history books they publish are on obscure topics. The book itself has all the hallmarks of a scholarly text (heavily footnoted, good use of quality primary and secondary sources, detailed bibliography with all the texts you would expect, seven appendices with detailed lists from the divisional order of battle, award recipients, rank conversion chart, glossary, even an index of names of unit members mentioned in the text). It mentions it received the Rutgers University Sydney Zebel History Prize, but I think that is an undergrad rather than post-grad award... The book is cited by various historians working in the field, including in several articles in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies by historians like Mario Jareb of the Croatian Institute of History. Jareb also cited it in "The Independent State of Croatia, 1941-45" (2007) edited by Sabrina Ramet a copy of which I have. I really don't see any serious questions about its reliability unless you can point to actual concerns about lack of accuracy in this book in particular." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have quite a few Schiffer books, some are very good and others less so. They're just like any other publisher trying to make money. In fact they're much like Motorbuch Verlag in that they focus on a few topics including the military. So you cannot impeach every book of theirs; you'll need to provide reasons why specific books should not be considered reliable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright seems like the book used is not of the kind I read with the author writing about the japanese military without being able to read or understand japanese and using, if, only internet sources like General.dk or even en:Wiki. I changed my oppose to temporarily to show that it is not fixed. --Bomzibar (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

According to your changes and explanations I changed my vote from Oppose to Neutral. Its possible that I change it one more time so Support. You pointed out why you dont linked Đuro Grujić (great work on the other former redlink themes though) but as you wrote in the article, he was a general and as such clearly notable. If there are no proper sources that can be used here he has to stay red for now. For the naming of units etc: I know the difference and that there were no SS divisions raised after the establishment of the Waffen-SS but the genral readers of the article will possibly not have any clue about this. --Bomzibar (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Sources review: small fixes only.
 * Ref 3 needs pp. not p.
 * Ref 5 ditto
 * Be consistent in presentation of state names, e.g. "MD" when others are given in full.

That's all. Sources seem to be of high quality, reliable and except for the above, properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * All done, thanks Brian. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.