Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
It has been suggested that Villefranche-de-Rouergue uprising be merged into this page or section. (Discuss)
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] contradiction

This right here seems like a contridiction -

"he Germans blamed it on three suspected Communists who had infiltrated the division, and downplayed the whole affair, stating that only some 14 soldiers participated in it. The captured mutineers were subsequently executed by the Germans.

Nevertheless, the 13th was the only SS division that ever had a mutiny, and this was the first armed revolt against the Germans within the main Nazi system. A few of the mutineers escaped and helped form the French resistance in the area."

So which was it? Executed or defected? Someone else know?

TheKarasu

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.161.37.195 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 14 November 2005.

Hello. I've been trying to find out, but no luck yet. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39

[edit] Revert war

Hi, User:Asim Led and User:Nikola Smolenski seem to be engaging in a revert war as to whether to label the soldiers Muslim or Bosniak, and their language Bosnian or Croatian. Please try and discuss this matter on the talk page in order to achieve a consensus. A suggestion might be to take this case to the mediation cabal before it becomes necessary to protect the page. - FrancisTyers 15:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Though absolutely all attempts to reason with user Nikola Smolenski have proven utterly futile to almost every non-Serb user who has encountered him, I do appreciate you coming here. I'll try to explain things the best I can, so I'm sorry if my language is at all confusing. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
The central issue here is that during World War II, Bosniaks (aka Bosnian Muslims) had not yet completely gone through the process of nationalization that other European peoples (such as the Serbs and Croats) had underwent in the 19th century. They were still very much a unique ethnic group, essentially identical to the modern Bosniaks, defined by their islamic faith and connection to the Bosnian historical region, but they were not officially recognised as a seperate nationality by the state.
Furthermore (and here's the key) the term "Bosniaks" (Bosnjaci) was not officially recognised as a seperate nationality and (because they hadn't fully gone through the process of nationalization yet) the Bosnian Muslims themselves didn't have one single designated name for themselves. They called themselves "Muslimani" in an ethno-religious sense, and "Bosnjaci/Bosanci" in an ethno-geographic sense. Whatever the precise name used in that period of history, the Bosnian Muslims made it clear that they were not Serbs, Croats, or anything else than something seperate and unique. Following the dissolution of communism and rise of nationalism, in the early 1990s, the Bosnian Muslims decided that the correct name to describe them as the unique nationality they were was "Bosniaks".
User Nikola, based on his Serb nationalist POV and objections to the national awakening of Bosniaks is trying to erase any mention of "Bosniaks" prior to the early 1990s because "they didn't exist yet" which is just trying to cloud the issue. For instance, technically, "African Americans" didn't exist under that name in the 19th century either - but that doesn't stop us from labeling black civil war regiments as being made up of "African American voulenteers". Its the exact same situation here.
The men in this division were primarily Bosniaks. They were also "Muslims" as Smolenski is trying to write, but more specifically they were a certain type of Muslims: Bosniaks. This is not historical revisionism, this is simple fact. The soldiers from this division are still alive to this day - in fact, I've met them and know numerous others who have as well. I can quite safely say that they consider themselves Bosniaks, and that if user Smolenski tried to explain to them that they were something else 60 years ago they'd be pretty damn offended. Labeling them as Bosniaks is not only the logical thing to do, it would be in line with their own wishes - and I believe they know far better what they are and were than Mr. Smolenski.
As for the Bosnian or Croatian language of Handzar, Handzar is an orientalism for scimitar. The Croatian language is highly based on linguistic purity and has thrown out pretty much all baggage orientalism, whereas the Bosnian language is rich in them due to the general positive attitude among Bosniaks to the bulk of the Ottoman period. In fact, if you search the biggest Croatian dictionary for "Handzar" today, you find no entry. Asim Led 15:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution

Thanks for the attempted explanation. I have a possible suggestion...

  • Croat/Bosnian Muslim soldiers
  • Bosniak/Croat soldiers

These seem to be the areas in dispute (from the edit war). If we constructively add them together, we can get something like this:

  1. "It was composed of recruits from the Independent State of Croatia, primarily Muslims, who are now known as Bosniaks"
  2. "non-German recruits). Named Handschar (Bosnian: Handžar, Croatian: Handžar)"
  3. "Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) and Croat soldiers"

What are your thoughts? Feel free to play around, its just an idea. - FrancisTyers 17:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

    1. "Bosniak and Croat soldiers" --HarisM 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
What Asim wrote is mostly wrong, but I agree with your suggestions. Nikola 10:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

There are contradictory statements in the Service section: it seems that an anonymous user tried to downplay the significance of the alleged atrocities committed by this division. I see that there were other disputes about this issue and others and I'm not really informed of the situation so I don't think that just reverting the edits would be the best solution, I hope that someone more informed can review that section and the rest of the page. By the way, these considerations are valid for almost all of the "Divisions of the Waffen-SS" pages, it is a sensitive argument and a general clean-up is auspicable. GhePeU 10:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

I've re-jigged the article (no actual deletions made). The article still doesn't read as well as I'd like, and citations have still not been found for most claims, although I've tried to back any claims up that I could, even if I didn't make them. At any rate, I hope that this is the beginning of a better article.

I feel that some parts still need expanding out with more background/references, so I haven't touched the articles' expansion or NPOV flags.

Please feel free to discuss attempts and mistakes, since I'm a bit new to editing. User:invisibleplanet, Thu 13th July 2006, 16:39 & 18:39

I've finished for now, replaced/rewrote the intro, which I had accidently removed! (I watch myself too - but please say if you notice such a ridiculous mistake in the future!). The links in the intro do need improving, I think, but that's enough for now. Sorry about the sandbox effect (is that right?) I re-discovered the preview button. Apologies. User:invisibleplanet Thu 21:16

Battalions: where did that information come from, since there does't appear to be a reference cited. Invisibleplanet 23:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Believe comes from Lepre's book.

Should a new section 'Role in Serbian persecution' be added? Invisibleplanet 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC) I've added a new section 'Atrocities against civilians' with sub-sections 'Role in persecution of Jews' and 'Role in persecution of Muslim and Serbian partisans'. Invisibleplanet 00:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've finished tinkering about with the contents section for now, and hope that you'll all forgive my ineptness, and any POV bias that's been left in, or which I've added, even though I've tried to be neutral. Invisibleplanet 00:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

More re-reading and re-ordering. Some rephrasing. Invisibleplanet 13:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed expansion tag. Invisibleplanet 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations required

There are still a large number of uncited claims made about the Handschar division.Invisibleplanet 14:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phelps or Phleps

I do believe that the proper name is SS-Obergruppenführer Artur Phleps --Jinxs 19:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../1/3/t/Talk%7E13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_%281st_Croatian%29_ce1b.html"