This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lettland related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Is a link to the website of the LNDP, a fringe party with links to Русское национальное единство really what Wikipedia considers a "reliable source"? Also, I would perhaps also question the impartiality of LENTA.RU as a news media source, at least on this issue. Besides, the article cited, by Сергей Карамаев, is a journalistic treatment of an historical subject. A scholarly source (i.e., one with footnotes referring to archival documents, etc.) would be more in the spirit of this encyclopedia. Zalktis19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found better source for Podgaje statements from Polish version of Wikipedia. Link to LNDP website replaced. Zalktis12:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation is not needed when stating what a thing is not. If someone wants to bullshit and pretend the Latvian Legion was involved in a warcrime the burden of proof is on him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.170.36 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting, I disagree with the IP user's reasoning above, but the citation was required in lead, per WP:LEAD the lead should be summary of the article, the sentence in question summarizes views of different parties discussed and properly referenced later on and it would be ore appropriate to ask for citation there, it makes no sense to require citation for statement that there are different views of the situation, which is the cause of major controversy - this is as clear as the fact that grass is green and sky is blue. ~~Xil (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Latvian Legion - Waffen SS
How could the Latvian legion not be a nazi unit if they were part of the Waffen SS? That would mean that Waffen SS had not nazi units...--HCPUNXKID 14:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Waffen-SS members were Nazi party members. Not Waffen-SS members swore any oath to Nazism. The so-called "volunteer" foreign Waffen-SS units were combat units operationally subordinated to the Wehrmacht, separate and distinct from the pre-war elite Waffen-SS "armed wing" of the Nazi party. Hope this helps. VєсrumЬа ►TALK17:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Some members of the Waffen-SS did indeed join the Nazi Party-depending on their German ancestry. Research some books on the subject. That said, I have never read that the Latvians were ever party members. 50.111.50.240 (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why you have never read that Latvians in the Waffen-SS were members of the NSDAP, is because the bulk of Latvians in the Waffen-SS were conscripted, i.e. did not voluntarily join the Waffen-SS. Philaweb (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
