Talk:258th Lithuanian Police Battalion

Lithuanian Polisce Battalions allegiance to Nazi Germany

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

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

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

It was not part of the Wehrmacht, so adding Ordnungspolizei is more accurate.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Wehrmacht, but about adding parameter "allegiance = Nazi Germany" Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion removal

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

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

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

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

Marcelus I think I just stepped on you again; my mistake if so, and no obection to you restoring it. What exactly WAS it that you thought you were going to accomplish with that report then? It clearly is a bad idea for me to continue trying to multitask here, so computer OFF. Bear in mind in your response that there is still time for someone to get impatient and get out the ban hammer just to get the fighting to stop Elinruby (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby I think you're confusing topics - this unit here is a different matter from the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force (LTDF) where most of the discussions were happening. Tbh, Marcelus has introduced unnecessary drama into very obscure Lithuanian units during WWII.

Considering that Marcelus has had problems with the article on LTDF since 11 September 2023 (Talk:Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force#Number of prisoners) and has been going at this for more than a whole month (notwithstanding the brief block he got for breaking his 0RR by reverting me on the article on LTDF's commander Povilas Plechavičius; note, the block was undone on the conditions that Marcelus would avoid controversy), I think it's safe to say that the discussion has been going on too long and that a break from the drama is needed from it by all editors involved, especially Marcelus.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: you again state that my block was undone on the conditions that Marcelus would avoid controversy, which is untrue. It was recommendation @Z1720, not a condition for the removal of the block (link to my AE) . Which I hope he is able to confirm. I would ask you to stop spreading this false information about me. Marcelus (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You ignored what Piotrus wrote on September 21: And my early mentor advice to Marcelus would be: 1) don't revert anything without asking me first and 2) try to stay away from any controversies in the Polish-Lithuanian topics, or any controversies in general, as it is too easy to make a bad edit in such articles. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322#Statement by Piotrus. Just before, on September 20, Tamzin wrote in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322#Result concerning Marcelus: I am not necessarily opposed to reducing to 1 month in exchange for agreement to mentorship by Piotrus (the "hard" kind of mentorship, where if Piotrus says not to do something, you listen). Most of your actions since your unblocking go against the spirit in which you were unblocked, i.e. you would not start controversies.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Again: this was not a condition of my unblocking, so don't spread untruths. Marcelus (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby; asking for the last time: restore all discussion removed and especially my comments. Also your comments about me come thvery close to bullying, please stop that. Marcelus (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I just got here. earlier than I said I would be, Marcelus, so stop with rhe for the last time stuff. I am sorry if you feel bullied but you're the one opening AE cases, come on. But I will be happy to stop trying to reason with you if it makes you feel bullied. Re your other request, I said I would like to talk to Piotrus about that, and I would. I'll do something about that soon though, if he doesn't turn up sson. Either way, let's make something clear: I am here because someone asked me to look at it and I did. The level of passion expended here over a military organization article seems um, undue, and if you want to add an adjective into the lede you should be able to source it, especially if as you say you also want it to go into the infobox. Elinruby (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

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? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus I'm just passing through anyway, but that's a good idea if you ask me. Meanwhile I sent you an email with, I guess I'd call it a procedural question. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

• Marcelus wishes it to be noted here, and I do so here without comment, that at 13:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC) he said :::So if infobox is irrelevant why not simply just add proper allegiance there and move on? Marcelus (talk) Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe I am done with this and am bowing out, with the remark that the proposed statement about allegiance is not in the source provided, at least not in the quote. Elinruby (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby please restore entire discussion, there was no reason to remove it Marcelus (talk) 05:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed my own unanswered comment. There is no point in restoring now, since you ignored the appeal to reason at the time and my suggestions are moot. This is a really pointless conversation.

Your quote from your source does not support your change. You need a mention of this specific unit doing those things. That is all.Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Source is about the entire formation, which 258th Battalion was a part of, requesting this specific and all other units of this formation to be mentioned by name is unreasonable. Marcelus (talk) 07:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

1. I ask you once again: please restore removed discussion ([2]).

2. When talking about me, try to avoid expressions such as: "It looks like you lucked out at AE", and don't accuse me of calling anyone "a Nazi sympathizer", without giving any proof that I indeed called anyone that way. Marcelus (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

it still isn't sourced

Maybe the change you demanded is even true. But what I am not seeing is a source that says so. And sources are required. Seriously? come up with a source that says that the 248th guarded ghettos then, it's still just a matter of producing a source, so why not just do that if it's so obviously true?. The sources that just generally say that these units collaborated might be ok for the general scope article, if you think they mean that the preponderance of the men in the unit, but if the level is specific enough to record the departures and transfers of individuals then it should talk about the specific topic of the article not make some general statement. Also, you're the one that keeps using a French word that doesn't apply, unless you have scholarly sources that use the word collaborationist about any country. I looked earlier this year and didn't find any. If you do, there you go, problem solved.

As for you worrying about my impartiality, whatever.

@Elinruby: I think you keep confusing the articles. In this article, I do not propose adding information about collaboration, but adding the "allegiance = Nazi Germany" parameter in the infobox. This allegiance results directly from the content of the article, as well as from the sources I cited: we are dealing with a German police unit recruited from ethnic Lithuanians.Marcelus (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm the one who is confused here. I am listening, but allegiance seems like it is being debated, to me. Some of the police units carried out atrocities, the 12th and 13th according to the wikipedia article on LAD, which makes it plausible, ok, that this is also true of the 258th, but nowhere really does it actually say that they did do so, either. I am not going to monitor this if I can help it, and like most other people, I think, I fervently want this topic to get solved and go away. There are two articles about two different units and in both cases you want to set the allegiance to Nazi Germany, correct? That isn't demonstrated by sources in either case as far as I can honestly tell. Maybe it is a ridiculous thing to demand proof for, but the proof keeps not happening and it is after all really required in the first place. In addition you were upset because the subcategories were rearranged a bit. They needed work. What specifically is wrong with the changes to the category tree?

Allegiance to Nazi Germany doesn't mean that these units committed atrocities, it means they were part of the German police system. They could just sit in the barracks the whole war, it doesn't really matter. All sources confirm that, it's literally the most basic fact about Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft that it was a German creation from the start. I'm baffled because I honestly don't know what source do you need more, please elaborate.

As for the category tree, I explained it on AE, we can talk about it in detail, but let's move to the proper t/p, for example [[:Category talk:Generalbezirk Litauen]Marcelus (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that it did. I said that for most people, committing an atrocity would be sufficient proof of allegiance to Nazi Germany. And no you did not explain it. You laid out a series of diffs that you seem to think proves something or other. I have much more interesting things to discuss however, and I think you should listen to Piotrus anyway. Don't want to be the reason that doesn't happen. Elinruby (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

committing an atrocity would be sufficient proof of allegiance to Nazi Germany, how so? Allegiance doesn't imply attrocities.

Thinking it through we should change the infobox to Template:Infobox law enforcement unit, since we are dealing here with police unit (militarised one, but still a police unit). Then we should put Nazi Germany in the country parameter, what do you think? Marcelus (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The articles Schutzmannschaft, all Auxiliary Police articles (except for the Lithuanian one due to Marcelus since today [3]) use the Template:Infobox military unit. The same goes for SS Police Regiments (Template:SS Police Regts), Police Battalions (Police Battalion 307, Police Battalion 320, etc.) and many more. I am against using the law enforcement template, because battalions are military units, not regular police ones.

It is wrong to put Nazi Germany in the country parameter, because the unit got disbanded the very moment it stepped into actual Nazi Germany. It is also inaccurate, because when readers see "Nazi Germany", they don't think of its occupied territories to the east of Germany, but of actual Germany itself (and the territories directly annexed to it, which did not include most of Lithuania). Furthermore, the Reichskommissariats were not legally part of Nazi Germany, but were instead separate units.

Btw, you have a distorted and OR view of what it means that something is a "German unit". A unit that consists almost entirely of non-Germans is not a German unit. For example, there are enough reliable sources talking about French, Dutch, Flemish and etc. Waffen-SS units. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ordnungspolizei is using "Infobox law enforcement agency" for example. Police in Nazi Germany was militarised, nonetheless it was used for law enforcement purposes, which in Nazi dictionary meant also fighting off partisan groups and pacification of villages, nontheless they weren't created in order to fight on the frontline.

What is more important: the battalions of the Schutzmannschaft were only a part of this formation, the majority of Schutzmannschaft members served in the regular police, keeping order. So in my opinion the article Lithuanian Auxiliary Police (and other analogous ones) should use the "infobox law enforcement unit" templace, but articles about individual battalions (ie 258th Lithuanian Police Battalion) can use the "infobox military unit" template. What do you think about this?

Parameter country doesn't indicate the country of operation, but the name of a state of which law enforcement agency the unit was part of. It doesn't suggest unit was serving on the given territory, I think people are well aware of that Nazi Germany occupied large part of Europe. Also there is a parameter: "Operations jurisdiction" which pretty leaves no doubt. Marcelus (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds ok to me atm if the larger auxiliary police articles analogous to Ordnungspolizei use the Template:Infobox law enforcement agency and the battalions use the Template:Infobox military unit, but the country mentioned in the infoboxes should be "German-occupied [insert country here]" or the relevant General District of [insert country here] (e.g. Generalbezirk Weissruthenien for the Belarusian Auxiliary Police), because that's the most important location for their existence. In general, there should really be a move away from German-language terms like Generalbezirk and Schutzmannschaft because this is an English-language wikipedia (just saying this as a sidenote).

Your suggestion feels macabre, because you're proposing that units involved in the Holocaust (which definitely did not include all auxiliary police battalions, like this one) would be branded under law enforcement agency... Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Parameter country refers neither to the area of operation of the unit, nor to the name of the administrative unit, but to the name of the state to which they belonged. So the only thing that can be entered here is "Nazi Germany", because that is the name of the state to which they were subordinated. The Reichskommissariats were not sovereign states or even quasi states, but occupation administrations. They did not have a separate police system, and this is the most important thing for us.

As for the English names, we must use the names used by the English RS. E.g. Schutzmannschaft is not translated because it is virtually untranslatable. Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

possibly you guys are looking for the term puppet state. Also it seems like you agree that these were law enforcement agencies. I see "country is still a problem Elinruby (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There was no puppet state in Lithuania at that time, so that's not a term we are looking for Marcelus (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The allegiance was clearly Nazi Germany, as stated by Marcelus. Generally, the Police Bns were military units consisting of German police officers OR young men who were fit for military service and who had not been drafted yet, but who volunteered for a career in the German police force. Potential police recruits or reserve police officers could avoid to be drafted (to serve in a regular Wehrmacht unit) by signing up for joining the police force. These Bns were formed to fulfil occupational duties in other countries/territories outside Germany, exclusively. In 1941, they were often attached to the so-called "Sicherungs-Divisionen" (safeguard divisions), which moved into cities and villages behind the front line (units), during the invasion of the USSR.

Technically, the Police Bns formed in the Baltics (and other territories) were regional Ordnungspolizei units led by German officers (with many - if not all of them - being SS officers) and German NCOs (in many cases) and integrated into the command structure of the Hauptamt Ordnungspolizei, a department led by the commander of the Ordnungspolizei Daluege and directly subordinated to Himmler. While the Lithuanian Schutzmannschaften were formed by the Wehrmacht initially, the Schutzmannschaften and - later on - the Lithuanian "counterparts" of the German Police Bns were taken over or formed by the Ordnungspolizei. Generally, SS officers organized and ran the rudimental military training and thorough ideological indoctrination, they built/ordered the erection of training camps in the Baltics. In the Baltics, the Wehrmacht established and commanded additional Police Bns which were either subordinated to the territorial Wehrmacht administrations or attached to particular Wehrmacht formations. In these cases, these particular units were not part of the Ordnungspolizei and its command structure, obviously. If a particular Lithuanian police unit was established by the Wehrmacht, then this doesn't mean that it didn't/couldn't have participate/d in atrocities, as a number of Wehrmacht units also participated in war crimes/carrying out the Holocaust.

So the allegiance for all those Lithuanian police battalions would be "Nazi Germany", of course, there is no source needed for that assessment, as both the Lithuanian auxiliary security units and the Lithuanian police battalions were formed, supplied, commanded and employed by the Germans, quite simply. Now, classifying such Police Bn unit (ie. law enforcement or military unit) is a bit tricky, as German military history scholars classify its German role model as military unit of the Ordnungspolizei which fulfilled a range of duties, ranging from occupational (police) and guard duties, to front line service and even participation in the Holocaust. Adding to the confusion, some of the Baltic police bns served Wehrmacht branches while others were integrated in the Ordnungspolizei, as explained above. GeeGee (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this comment, that's exactly what I'm arguing for; I also agree with you that Schuma battalions can be classified as military units, hence they were used that way. Marcelus (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should use "country = Nazi Germany" or rather "allegiance = Nazi Germany"? Marcelus (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

The newly formed ministry "Reichsministerium für die besetzten Ostgebiete" (RMfdbO = Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories) formed the Reichskommissariat Ostland (which was tasked with taking over the administration of some of the occupied countries/territories in the East, namely Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the formerly polish part of Belarus from the military administration) which then administered 4 Generalbezirke (general disctricts). Unlike the Soviets in 1940, the Germans did not annex Lithuania (nor any of the other 3 disctricts). Even with the Soviet annexation, Lithuania was still an independent country, under international law, but from 1940 to 1941 the allegiance (forced by the Soviets) was clearly "USSR" and shifted to "Nazi Germany" when the Germans seized Lithuania. That said, "allegiance = Nazi Germany" should be picked, as it doesn't matter whether this allegiance was dictated/forced by the occupants, or not. Btw, the "Reichsführer SS" and "Chief of the German Police" was not affected by the powers of the RMfdbO (Führer's decree of July 17, 1941), so the regional auxiliary security forces and Police battalions remained to be controlled by Himmler/the Commander of the Ordungspolizei, exclusively.

On 17 June 1936, Himmler (who was appointed "Reichsführer SS" in 1929) also became head of the German police by decree of Hitler, which had meanwhile been transformed from a state institution into a Reich institution, formally documenting the organizational merger of SS and police. As Chief of the German Police, Himmler had authority over the regular uniformed police, the fire police and the security police, but was (formally) subordinate to the Reich Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, until 1943. With Himmler's new title of "Reichsführer SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Ministry of the Interior" (1936), the expressly intended appropriation of the (state) police by the (party-owned) SS and thus those two offices in his person came to fruition. GeeGee (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the knowledgeable response Marcelus (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)