Talk:Pērkonkrusts
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.
This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject. |
This article requires considerable revision; even the date of Ulmanis' coup is incorrect (it took place on the night of May 15-16, 1934, not 1933). The question of Pērkonkrusts' collaboration with the Nazis is complex and is discussed in detail by Andrew Ezergailis, the author of The Holocaust in Latvia, here. The leaders of Sonderkommando Arajs were not members of Pērkonkrusts, and only about a dozen of the men under Arājs were. The relationship between the 1990s extremist group that took the name and the original group was virtually non-existent. Pērkonkrusts did not "suggest a Latvian religion" so much as look to Dievturība, a pagan revival. There is nothing "ironic" about Pērkonkrusts being anti-German; it was a virulently ethnocentric, Latvian group whilst the Nazis were devoted to German hegemony. Etc., etc. --Pēteris Cedriņš 02:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you're an expert in the subject please do make whatever changes would improve it; what other sources can you recommend? --Stlemur 02:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm not an expert by any means, but I read what I can find on the subject -- most of what's available is in Latvian, and that would include the highly recommended Ebreji un diktatūras Baltijā 1926-1940 (Jews and the Dictatorships in the Baltics 1926-1940) by Aivars Stranga, published in an expanded edition by the University of Latvia's Center for Judaic Studies in 2002. Parts of that work may have been translated, I believe; it focuses especially on the group's anti-Semitism but also gives background, and Stranga is a fine historian. The article by Ezergailis I linked to above (also in Latvian) details the group's attempts to collaborate with the Nazis, and the Latvian language Vikipēdija article is fair. On the 1990s copycat group, there is accurate information in English in the article "Extremism in Latvia" by Nils Muižnieks. If nobody else gets to it, I'll edit it, but I do have a slew of other articles I'm working on... --Pēteris Cedriņš 03:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to note that this article drawed my attention some time ago, all I could find on this organization was at Historia.lv and had english translation - latvian version of that in-depth report is pasted in latvian wikipedia (altoght maybe that article is different now) - I also noticed that somewhere in latvian wikipedia someone said that this author from Historia.lv has permited to use his writings on wikipedia (could not find that note anymore), I wasn't sure if that includes english wikipedia so I didn't do anything in the end -- Xil/talk 13:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not an expert by any means, but I read what I can find on the subject -- most of what's available is in Latvian, and that would include the highly recommended Ebreji un diktatūras Baltijā 1926-1940 (Jews and the Dictatorships in the Baltics 1926-1940) by Aivars Stranga, published in an expanded edition by the University of Latvia's Center for Judaic Studies in 2002. Parts of that work may have been translated, I believe; it focuses especially on the group's anti-Semitism but also gives background, and Stranga is a fine historian. The article by Ezergailis I linked to above (also in Latvian) details the group's attempts to collaborate with the Nazis, and the Latvian language Vikipēdija article is fair. On the 1990s copycat group, there is accurate information in English in the article "Extremism in Latvia" by Nils Muižnieks. If nobody else gets to it, I'll edit it, but I do have a slew of other articles I'm working on... --Pēteris Cedriņš 03:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Answered at User talk:Xil re historia.lv and permissions. --Pēteris Cedriņš 14:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The text on collaboration I linked to above, by Andrew (Andrievs) Ezergailis, is available in English as a .pdf file -- "Collaboration in German Occupied Latvia: Offered and Rejected". --Pēteris Cedriņš 11:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Sources
About the Russian Mission's “Involvement of the Lettish SS Legion in War Crimes in 1941-1945 and the Attempts to Revise the Verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal in Latvia”--The Russian government continues to "convict" the Latvian SS at Nuremberg; when in fact the Waffen-SS in Eastern Europe were largely illegally conscripted and were not the same as Hitler's convicted Waffen-SS: the SS convicted in Nuremberg had nothing to do with the "SS" in Eastern Europe, including the Latvian SS. The notion that Latvia is trying to rehabilitate those convicted in Nuremberg is simply false. I suggest removing it as a reference and any information that it contained. --Pēters 07:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- What's your counter-source? --Stlemur 14:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- As I recall, the Nurnberg findings as well as a U.S. Congress resolution made the distinction. (So, if you were an Eastern European conscripted into the Waffen SS you could still immigrate into the U.S. and not be a "war criminal.") I will try and track down. Pēters J. Vecrumba 05:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The Nuremberg Trials, in declaring the Waffen SS a criminal organisation, explicitly excluded conscripts in the following terms:
- Tribunal declares to be criminal within the meaning of the Charter the group composed of those persons who had been officially accepted as members of the SS as enumerated in the preceding paragraph who became or remained members of the organisation with knowledge that it was being used for the commission of acts declared criminal by Article 6 of the Charter or who were personally implicated as members of the organisation in the commission of such crimes, excluding, however, those who were drafted into membership by the State in such a way as to give them no choice in the matter, and who had committed no such crimes.
- The Nuremberg Trials, in declaring the Waffen SS a criminal organisation, explicitly excluded conscripts in the following terms:
-
-
-
- In April 13, 1950, a message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by John McCloy to the Secretary of State, clarified the US position on the "Baltic Legions": they were not to be seen as "movements", "volunteer", or "SS". In short, they were not given the training, indoctrination, and induction normally given to SS members. Subsequently the US Displaced Persons Commission in September 1950 declared that:
- The Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States.
- --58.169.78.46 09:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- In April 13, 1950, a message from the U.S. High Commission in Germany (HICOG), signed by John McCloy to the Secretary of State, clarified the US position on the "Baltic Legions": they were not to be seen as "movements", "volunteer", or "SS". In short, they were not given the training, indoctrination, and induction normally given to SS members. Subsequently the US Displaced Persons Commission in September 1950 declared that:
-
