Talk:Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201

Would be nice to explain

[1] - this nice blanking - I would like to point out again [2] story about Per Anders text. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You accuse others of blanking yet in your edit you blanked a referenced statement because it doesn't fit the POV you are pushing. You removed: "However, John Paul Himka, a specialist in Ukrainian history during World War II, notes that although units such as the 201 Battalion were routinely used to fight partisans and kill Jews, no one has studied the specific activities of the 201st battalion from this perspective and this ought to be a subject for further study" which was referenced to Himka: True and False Episodes from the Nachtigall Episode Op-Ed by John Paul Himka]. As for Rudling's article, it states here not to use it without permission: [3]. Can we have proof of permission, please? Moreover, you misused it as you do other sources. You refered to Rudling in writing that "modern researchers challange such claims" after a referenced passage based on Patrilyak that was written in 2004 (not modern?). Rudling does not mention Patrilyak and is not critical specifically of the source Patrilyak used. Your original research at best, but most likely falsification as usual. Good catch by Galassi.Faustian (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Does user:Galassi which made such blanking is another your account? If not - I hope you'll find time to explanation of own blanking [4] Thank you I already explain story about [5] - Argument by Innuendo is not a best way to deal with scholar text. Since word "falsification" was appeared at your text too often - I've to place a notice at WP:WQA Thank youJo0doe (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you really accusing Faustian/Galassi of sockpuppetry? Oh god here we go...--Львівське (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2000 killed-what were the losses?

More than 2000 Soviet partisans were killed by battalion personnel during its stay in Belarus Polish Wiki gives 49 losses for the Battalion while killing 2000 Soviets named as "partisants". Anybody able to confirm?-- MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Text Misinterpretation

David Marples, Heroes and villains: creating national history in contemporary Ukraine pp.207-208: "To the Soviet perspective can be added the writings of Wiktor Poliszczuk, whose work is an indictment of the UPA and OUN, and who stresses that, in the spring of 1943, Mykola Lebed, the head of the OUN-B Provid and Roman Shukhevych, carried out the proclamation of the First COngress of the OUN by massacring the Polish civilian population of Volhynia...he notes that in this period, the OUN-B demanded of the Ukrainian police still in the service of the Germans that they flee to the forests taking their weapons with them. Former members of the Schutzmannshaften Battalion 201 arrived in Volhynia from Belarus, having completed the brutal pacification of Belarusian villages on behalf of the Germans. These men, he adds, in a vein similar to Snyder's account, had experience with the elimination of the Jewish population and were now to make up the foundation of the military forces of the OUN-B, along with the security force of Lebed....Poliszczuk makes little attempt to explain the reasons behind the atrocities and the monograph, though detailed, takes the form of a polemic. Thus his book can be added to the Soviet perspective from which it differs little in terms of the one-sidedness of the outline." Googlebooks here: [6].

This passage is transformed by MyMoloboaccount (talk) into "Distinguished University Professor from Department of History & Classics of University of Alberta David R. Marples notes that 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion in Belarus completed brutal pacification of Belarusian villages, and the men had experience with elimination of the Jewish population basing his opinion on the works of Wiktor Poliszczuk." The diff is here: [7]. This is a clear example of misrepresentation of the Marples source.

I own this book. The book basically describes how different people - communists, nationalists etc. try to create a Ukrainian historical narrative. Much of the book deals with describing what these groups say. The book is not about the events but about how various groups interpret events. The passage above is simply a description of how one writer from the Soviet perspective describes the events. Molobo twists it to try to say that Marples himself, the distinguished professor of History and Classics, endorses this view when it is quite clear from the book that he only presents it.Faustian (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm to me it was clear that he shows this as fact, but if you insist I will change it. Although honestly I don't seem much misinterpration here.However Poliszczuk is added "to" another Soviet perspective, he is not part of it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)