Talk:Hiwi (volunteer)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): German military history task force Russian and Soviet military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

It's something wrong with this article, it doesn't explain, rather misinforms. No Discussion. Xx236 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Mikkalai 2 The German article 3 In Poland, "Hiwis" were given the task of sorting Jews 4 Anti-partisan duties not mentioned 5 Pic "Ukrainian Hiwis fighting Sovjet partisans (1943)"

[edit] Mikkalai

No offence intended, but I reverted your deletions from the article. Both of the paragraphs are sourced from Antony Beevor's book "Stalingrad", Chapter 11 (near the end of the chapter). I doubt Beevor would have indulged in "erratic speculation". Folks at 137 19:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• They are taken out of context, hence they are erratic speculation, not to say that Beevor, with all due respect, writes nonsense.
  • they were not referred to as "former Russians"
  • The phrase "most likely death or the gulag" is good for a sensationalist book rather than for encyclopedia, despite it being basically correct.
  • The phrase "how could they be of value to the Aryan Wehrmacht?" (and the surrounds) is simply ridiculous.
  • "the crack was papered over by their reclassification as Cossacks." this is an outright speculation, Beevor or not. Cossacks were Cossacks were Cossacks.
  • Last but not least, hiwi was not only Soviet, and these sections are only confusion.
  • And the final stroke, those who were mentioned in "strengthen our fighting troops with Russian prisoners of war, who are already being turned into gunners." were not called "hiwi".

Concluding, the person(s) who inserted these pieces had no idea neither about the current topic, nor about what was written in Beevor's book. So I am deleting this poor piece again. `'mikka (t) 22:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Must take issue. Mikkalai's disagreement is with Beevor. The text is a paraphrase, so, since Beevor quotes references, what is the basis for Mikkalai's counter-opininion? Point by point:

• • Have you read the Beevor book? In what way has it been taken out of context? Even if it has, "erratic speculation" seems a misuse of English so I'm confused - it's not a useful criticism.
  • The phrase "former Russians" is used in a letter from the NKVD to Alexandr Shcherbakov (chief of Red Army political department). Beevor states that the expression "former Russians" was widely used ("hundreds of thousands") and "served as a death sentence".
  • If the phrase is "basically correct", why not reword it? As a native English speaker, to me the phrase doesn't read as sensationalist, not at all.
  • Why "ridiculous"? The Nazis were highly racist in their thinking. Slavs were described as "untermensch" and destined for death, expulsion or slave labour, yet here they were - in tens of thousands - forming a valuable and essential proportion of frontline divisions. The Nazi ideologues did have problems with this. The text is a rhetorical question - a legitimate device.
  • Beevor: "...Cossack units ... contained a high proportion of Ukrainians and Russians ... Untermensch Slavs in German uniform ... had to be redefined as Cossacks, who were racially acceptable." There is more. To merely dismiss a respected and careful historian's work, without a source of your own, suggests a subjective agenda. What is your basis?
  • Hiwis may have been more than just Soviet, that's not the point. There were Soviet hiwis - tens of thousands of them. If the text is confusing, then reword it.
  • I have Beevor's book in front of me. The direct quote "strengthen our fighting troops with Russian prisoners of war, who are already being turned into gunners." does refer to hiwis. Have you read it?

Concluding, thanks for the gratuitously dismissive insult - not sure how it helps objectivity. If anything, it reduces the respect for your arguments - which is a shame. No, I am not an expert. But I do refer to those who are experts - to dismiss Beevor (and his sources) requires more than mere assertion and insult. The assertion that "the person(s) who inserted these pieces had no idea ... about what was written in Beevor's book" is plainly incorrect - I have the book in my hand, it reads clearly and it's not ambiguous. Soviet hiwis were widely used: the practice caused ideological difficulties for the Nazis (including Hitler) which were avoided by administrative means: the Soviet authorities were unforgiving toward hiwis they captured and, by removing their nationality, reduced the apparant degree of disaffection in Soviet forces. Please read the book - I've given the references. Folks at 137 06:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

After 11 months, no response to the above. So, I've reinstated, with in-line references, and a little re-phrasing. I've been advised that this is the best way forward. Folks at 137 12:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The German article

I believe that a translation of the German article would be much better than the current article. Xx236 06:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Poland, "Hiwis" were given the task of sorting Jews

Eventually "In occupied Poland", but why "Poland" is mentioned here? Wasn't it the truth in other countries? Xx236 06:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair point if correct. Also, personnel from occupied territories manned the Atlantic Wall, I believe. This might be worth a mention, also. I have assumed that "Hiwis" refers to those people, of states with which Germany was at war, who volunteered or were induced to serve with German forces, either as combatants or rear echelon. Typically they served on the Eastern Front and they were from eastern Europe. Correct? Folks at 137 09:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-partisan duties not mentioned

Needs to be fixied. --HanzoHattori 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pic "Ukrainian Hiwis fighting Sovjet partisans (1943)"

Revert of User:Mikkalai removing the pic spuriously and without evidence:

The pics shows indeed Ukrainian „Hiwis“. The genuine foto series is originally labelled: „Partisanenjäger“, „Beli-Belka (Ukraine)“, „Hiwis!“, „Unsere Kameraden“.

The German forces used armed Sowjet volunteers for police duties and to fight partisans (see: Firedemann Bedürftig: Lexikon Drittes Reich. München (Piper) 1997, S.160 about „Hiwis“: „Als zivile Helfer warben Wehrmacht, Polizei und SS sog. Hilfswillige an, meist (z.T. kriegsgefangene) Russen, Ukrainer, Polen und Balten. Sie [...] nahmen an polizeilichen Maßnahmen wie ,Umsiedlung' und ,Bandenbekämpfung' teil. Da ihnen bei Gefangennahme durch die Rote Armee sofortige Erschießung drohte, schlossen sich die meisten 1944/45 dem deutschen Rückzug an und bildeten einen Teil der Displaced Persons.“--Tvwatch (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. The image was deleted because its usage did not match the description at the image page. Please expand the wikipedia article with text which explains that some hiwi were bearing arms. Please also explain, if you can, how 'hiwi' were distinguished from 'Polizei' made of locals. Please do this citing references to published work. `'Míkka>t 02:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mikka. i will translate the ref. parts of the German artikel de:Hilfswilliger and add references to published works. --Tvwatch (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)