Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metgethen massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The article clearly meets WP:N, but there are good arguments on both sides of the issue of whether it meets WP:RS. This should probably go to WP:Dispute Resolution. Argyriou (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metgethen massacre

Metgethen massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The only line that has something to do with the lemma is: "The bodies were then discovered". Furthermore all the sources make reference to the Nemmersdorf massacre and not this event. As it is, this is just a lemma to showcase a gruesome picture, but without encyclopedic value. noclador (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: my deletion-request: The German article about the events in Metgethen has been radically reedited. (see: de:Massaker von Metgethen‎). Concerns I had about this being a pure propaganda article intended to give wikipedia-credibility to something that until now only right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis believed in, have been lifted by de:Benutzer:Otfried Lieberknechts good additions and excellent research. The German article now is anything but right wing Propaganda and will help disperse rather then reinforce right-wing myths and misinformation about the events, that might have happened there. Therefore I remove my deletion request, as over the next days I will translate the German article into English (hopefully other users will assist). Therefore: Keep --noclador (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment. I hate this type of case. The article is sourced, but many of them I either cannot read or cannot obtain. How, then, are we properly to judge? I certainly can find mention of this incident in Google, but when you exclude Wikipedia there are few reliable sources, but rather POV forks on WWII. The nominator is absolutely correct about the current state of the article. I suppose that since the onus is on the article to show proper sourcing of each of its claims (at least the ones that aren't common knowledge) I would strip it of all assertions that lack citations - making it a true stub - and label it for WP:MILHIST. Xymmax (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand German very well and I can say: the websources that are there do not even mention this event - only the events at Nemmersdorf. And very telling: the website that does not work mentions "Junge Freiheit" (a extreme rightwing/nationalist German weekly) and when I google the names of the people there I come to Nazi pages, revisionist pages that dare to list this "event" alongside Auschwitz and Dresden... The only good link I found was to this book review about the book by Bernhard Fisch, that proves that the whole event was staged by the Nazis to scare the people into fighting. --noclador (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Either User:Noclador does not understand German very well, or he is a liar, or both, as evident from above statement. The Bernhard Fisch book on Nemmersdorf (the source wound up here due to me copying parts of that article as a template) examines how Goebbels took advantage of the real event, and how people reacted to it. It is acknowledged that a massacre had happened, e.g. by the German Bundestag website which states "Nicht, dass in Nemmersdorf Grauenvolles geschehen ist, wird von Fisch in Zweifel gezogen", meaning "Fisch does not doubt that in Nemmersdorf horrible things had happened", and so does this review, stating "In seinem Buch zeigt Bernhard Fisch, wie die unleugbaren Morde in Nemmersdorf von Goebbels benutzt wurden" (in his book he shows how the undeniable murders were used by Goebbels). In addition, User:Noclador attacks the Junge Freiheit as "a extreme rightwing/nationalist German weekly". This a newspaper was and is attacked by leftists as it exposes their shenanigans, yet defended by "the German Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the paper which can not be called right-wing-extremist". Frankly, noclador should be banned from English Wikipedia for spreading such lies. -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Matthead, stop the personal attacks and stop quoting only part of paragraphs.
  • Bernhard Fisch book on Nemmersdorf; the full quote is: "Nicht, dass in Nemmersdorf Grauenvolles geschehen ist, wird von Fisch in Zweifel gezogen, sondern ob es tatsächlich hinsichtlich Quantität und Systematik jene Dimensionen aufwies, die ihm seither zugeschrieben wurden." the part you choose to "forget" translates as: "Not, that in Nemmersdorf horrible things happened, is doubted by Fisch, but if it really had the quantitative and systematic dimensions, which have been attributed to it."
  • re. the second review you mention, this quote is is much more telling about Nemmersdorf: "So wurde ohne Maß übertrieben, phantasiert oder gar absichtlich gelogen – mit dem Tod von knapp drei Dutzend Zivilisten wurde Politik gemacht." "Therefore it has been exaggerated, fantasized and even deliberately lied without measure - politics was made with the death of 3 dozen civilians." I do not deny Nemmersdorf, but I point out the massive exaggeration's.
  • The German Constitutional Court did not defend the Junge Freiheit, it ruled that the Junge Freiheit can only be included in the Verfassungsschutzbericht (state security report) as right-extremist paper if the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution can prove that the editing staff has an anti-constitutional agenda. But as usual Matthaed has quoted only half of the relevant sentence: "Finally, in 2005, the German Constitutional Court ruled in favour of the paper which can not be called right-wing-extremist by the State Offices for the Protection of the Constitution without proof."
It is annoying that Matthead goes straight for personal attacks (on the German wiki too), but I continue to assume good faith and suggest that we cease the Nemmersdorf and Junge Freiheit discussion now. --noclador (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It was you who wrote "the book by Bernhard Fisch, that proves that the whole event was staged by the Nazis" which is nothing but a lie, and denies the "death of 3 dozen civilians", especially after asserting your bilingual skills. Also, you enriched this discussing which the following "Schlagwörter": "Junge Freiheit", rightwing/nationalist German, Nazi, revisionist, Auschwitz, Dresden. Also, you did not make clear that Fisch's book deals with Nemmersdorf, thus insinuating that "the whole (Metgethen) event was staged by the Nazis". Sorry, but this does not "continue to assume good faith". -- Matthead  DisOuß   15:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am one of the German subscribers currently discussing the German version of this article (actually the only one arguing for rather not deleting it). I have now cleaned up your article a bit, removing some references which are clearly not specific for Metgethen, adding a few others with precise page references. I cannot say whether the reports by German military pesons (e.g. Karl August Knorr, Hermann Sommer, see the Bundearchiv publication by Spieler) are to be trusted, nor whether the photgraphs listed in the LOC (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/catalog.html, search for reference number "LOT 2280") are authentic. As it seems, this subject was never seriously investigated by historians (nor by German legal prosecutors). Yet the "massacre of Metgethen" -- true or mostly exagerated by German NS propaganda -- is sufficiently present in printed publications and on more or less openly revisionistic (or neo-nazi) websites to desever a WP entry, preferably a better one than we can currently supply. 84.60.219.222 (Otfried Lieberknecht) (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (p.s.: you can contact me here: [1])
  • Comment Delete I put up the German article for deletion. The simple reason being that there is no information at all given about the massacre itself. As the German article seems to be a translation of the English one it would only be consequent to delete it, too. There is no question of relevance as the massacre is mentioned in quite a few books. If anyone should feel obliged to provide more information - preferably from respectable sources - that would be most welcome. Simply adding every title that mentions Metgethen though won't do, I am afraid. --Dodo19 (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure that you really want the details to be displayed in your article. I have improved your bibliographic references, so that you or the reader can check with the contemporary reports, both in the German original or in the English translations provided by Zayas. Some of the latter can also be found in the "Racist National Library" on the web (which is usually not my preferred "library" for picking quotations):
  • Testimony of Karl August Knorr: I was at the time an orderly officer in the 561st Civilian Grenadier Division charged with the task of restoring order in Metgethen after it had been recaptured by our side. In one street I discovered the bodies of two young women, both about 20, who had apparently been tied by the legs, one limb each between two cars, and then torn apart when the vehicles were driven in opposite directions. It was an absolutely disgusting sight. In that same street I came upon a large villa. I can't remember the name of the street. The house contained around 60 women, all of whom we evacuated from the area. Half of them had to be taken immediately to a psychiatric hospital ... on average they had been raped 60 to 70 times a day. ([2])
  • Testimony of Horst A., driver for the Intelligence Reserve Detachment I, Königsberg: When we reached Metgethen, we were confronted with a gruesome sight: We found several hundred dead German soldiers, many of whom had been disfigured beyond recognition. There were murdered civilians in just about every home, likewise disfigured in a most bestial manner. For example, some women had their breasts cut off, and in backyard gardens we found scarcely clad women who had been hanged upside down. In one house we came across a 63-year-old woman still alive. Crying, she told us that she had been raped by 12 to 15 Russians. She lay on the floor covered in blood. This old woman's daughter had escaped into the forest nearby, but her one-year-old child was abducted by the Russians. In the streets of Metgethen, and also at the railroad station, we found approximately 15 baby carriages, some overturned, all empty. We concluded that this meant the Russians had also abducted these babies. (same link as above)
  • Testimony of Captain Hermann Sommer, former member of the staff of the fortress commander of Königsberg, General Lasch: I made my own observations when I was sent to Metgethen on official business on February 27, 1945. Just on the outskirts of town near the first railway crossing, I turned my motorcycle into a gravel driveway so that I could look over a building and see if it was suitable for service use. Behind the building I suddenly came upon the bodies of 12 women and six children. Most of the children had been killed by a blow to the head with a blunt instrument, some had numerous bayonet wounds in their tiny bodies. The women, mostly between 40 and 60 years of age, had been killed with knife or bayonet. All of them bore the unmistakable black-and-blue marks of beatings. ([3])
--195.233.250.7 (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)
The above three "eye witnesses" accounts come from a site that is a pure Nazi Propaganda site. There is even a glorifying article ("Otto Remer, German Patriot") there about the fanatical Nazi Otto Remer. Also the excerpts are from a book by Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, who has been heavily criticized in Germany for taking eyewitness accounts directly from Nazi sources and presentingthem as the truth. In short: these three above statements were published first during 1945 by the Nazis as propaganda and today are used in Germany only by rightwing and neo-nazi groups. We can not base wikipedia articles on the Nazis view of the world. --noclador (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's a pure Nazi Propaganda site quoting Zayas with his translation of contemporary German reports. If you want to base your article on evidence, you will have to use -- with the necessary critical precautions -- evidence supplied by German military persons, given that Soviets did not publish their records, if they kept any records at all of this event. Zayas has been criticized, and with good reasons, to take evidence of this kind at face value, yet nobody has criticized him so far for mistranslating his sources, nor is anybody suggesting that you should share his interpretations and conclusions. The article is anyway sufficiently sourced with a reliable German publication (Spieler 1989, co-published by Bundesamt Koblenz) and with a German webpage (Klonovsky, where you can find quotation from two of the above reports -- Knorr and Sommer -- in German for getting a first rough idea of the quality of Zayas' translations). --195.233.250.7 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)
Sorry if I wasn't clear about this but I am not the author of the article. I am the one who originally called for the deletion of the German article. The original author of both is user:matthead. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is notable, and sourced in reputable recent sources, yet these are not very easily accessible, unlike sources denounced as "pure Nazi Propaganda" by some. This article was translated by me from de:Massaker von Metgethen, which in turn was a split-off from de:Massaker von Nemmersdorf, created by me based on Nemmersdorf massacre, and German talk on the article of the now Russian town which used to be called Nemmersdorf. Thus, sources got mixed up. Instead of improving, some Germans were busy attacking these articles - and still are. -- Matthead  DisOuß   13:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Please note, that this is not a question of relevance or sources. The problem is, still, that there is no information about anything that happpened, might have happened, is said to have happened or is supposed to have happened during the Metgegthen massacre in the article. As long as there is no information, it is impossible to make any qualified comments on the respectability of its sources. The whole point of the exercise being to establish these facts or to discard the article. --Dodo19 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
So you suggest "start with a perfect article, not a stub"? The point of the two deletion requests by you on de-wiki as anon, and by Noclador here, is to force me, and others, to "establish these facts or to discard the article"? -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
A stub is fine with me, as long as it states some sort of facts. As the article does not mention any facts regarding the lemma, it is superfluous at best. --Dodo19 (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete-Wikipedia isn't for spreading Neo-Nazi propaganda. Reduce content to short info, without Neo-Nazi details, add to Neo-Nazism article, can be be brought to more lenght in Neonazi propaganda article that can be created.--Molobo (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
With all due precautions it's not exactly a neutral position to qualify the whole event simply as "Neo-Nazi propaganda". The German NS-sources are certainly biased, and Neo-Nazis are trying to use them for their purposes, also user:Matthead has done little to avoid the impression that claims made by German NS-sources are to be taken as facts. Yet I have now changed the text in order to point out more clearly what the sources are, and I have added a quotation of Hermann Sommer's report (published not by Neo-nazis, but by the German Bundesarchiv) with my own translation. I would prefer to remove also the picture, because the authenticity of this picture (taken in Metgethen or somewhere else, displaying children killed by Soviet forces or under different circumstances?) seems uncertain, also this picture is adding more to the shocking effect than to the facts. Yet I will rather leave this to you to decide. Exactly because Neo-Nazis and revisionists are using this "massacre" for their purposes, I think that Wikipedia should try to give a neutral and sourced account of the facts. --195.233.250.7 (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)
  • "Exactly because Neo-Nazis and revisionists are using this "massacre" for their purposes, I think that Wikipedia should try to give a neutral and sourced account of the facts"

Sure, I agree, but in Neonazi propaganda article. We shouldn't give credibility to this propaganda by making seperate articles for all claims it makes.--Molobo (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Even as propaganda, it's not simply "Neonazi"-propaganda. Revisionists too are using it. NS-propaganda (which was not yet "neo") was using it to deter the German population from surrendering to Soviet troups. It has been published in autobiographic accounts by former fugitives reporting it as hearsay and not even using it for propagandistic purposes at all. And, like it or not, there is not much to prove that the propaganda and rumours were not actually based on (at least some) facts. It's not our task to research the true facts, but WP should give an idea of the claims and of the sources so that readers checking what they have heard or read elsewhere can get a better understanding of this issue. --195.233.250.7 (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (Otfried Lieberknecht)
  • Delete, although I wouldn't call it Neo-Nazi propaganda...its value to the project is very questionable. Bogdan що? 07:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment I got hold of the report from the German Federal Archives (Spiegel (ed), 1989). The full statement of Capt. H. Sommer is published there on pages 146-148. While there are some minor errors in the English translation published by de Zayas, he omits a whole paragraph. More serious is the fact that it is in this paragraph where Sommer describes some of the circumstances of the alleged massacre on German civilians. The omitted paragraph reads:


„Da die Auffindung von Leichen bei der Königsberger Zivilbevölkerung sich rasch herumsprach und ungeheure Empörung auslöste, strömten unzählige Menschen zu meiner Dienststelle, um zu erfahren, ob sich Angehörige darunter befanden. Nach meiner Kenntnis dieser Vorgänge handelte es sich hier um die Machenschaften eines russischen Regiments, das im Abschnitt Metgethen-Wargen eingesetzt war. Ferner steht fest, daß ein großer Teil der Leichen nicht deutscher, sondern russischer Nationalität war. Im Raume der Feuerwehrschule Metgethen hatte der Kommandeur der Ukrainischen Feuerlöschpolizei, Fiedler, mehrere Tausend Ukrainer mit ihren Familien evakuiert. Die Zahl der im Metgether Wald hausierenden ukrainischen Treck-Angehörigen wurde auf 25 000 Menschen beziffert. Als die Russen dieses Waldgebiet und den Ort Metgethen überraschend besetzten, wurde der größte Teil der Männer sofort in russische Strafabteilungen eingegliedert und der Rest erschossen. Diese Tatsache gaben mehrere Hundert Kriegsgefangene unseren Vernehmungsoffizieren zu Protokoll.“

(News of the discovery of dead bodies spread rapidly among the civilian population of Koenigsberg and caused enormous outrage. Innumerable masses of people came to my office to inquire after their relatives. According to my knowledge of these events it were the machinations of a Russian regiment that was operating in the sector Metgethen-Wargen. Furthermore it is certain that a larger number of the bodies were not of German, but of Russian nationality. The commander of the Ukrainian fire brigade, Fiedler, had evacuated several thousands of Ukrainians with their families to the fire brigade's training centre in Metgethen. The number of Ukrainian refugees in the forest of Metgethen was given as 25.000. When the Russians suddenly occupied the forest area and the village of Metgethen, most of the men were immediately drafted into Russian penal battalions and the rest shot dead. These facts have been stated by several hundreds of prisoners of war to our interrogators.)My translation.

In the light of this information I see no alternative but to delete the article. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The shooting of Russians/Ukrainians by the Red Army does not qualify as massacre, thus the article needs to be deleted? I think this, and the high number quoted, shows that more light needs to be shed on the issue. If that many refugees from abroad were there, locals were surely outnumbered. Does Zayas remain silent about non-German victims? -- Matthead  DisOuß   20:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Rumours of shooting any number of any group of people under any circumstances do not qualify as anything here unless there is at least one reliable source to it. If you would have done a little research of your own you might have figured out that there is hardly any information about the alleged massacre, so chances of shedding more light on anything are rather slim. And frankly, I do not care what de Zayas says about non-German victims anymore, because after omitting that paragraph I do not consider him a reliable source anymore. --Dodo19 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.