Talk:Local Self-Defence in Lithuania during the Nazi occupation (1941–1944)

I do not speak Lithuanian, but I believe this article is a copyright violation of the source provided in the article. Anyone who can convert the original source should determine if this is a violation.--Gay Cdn (talk) (email) (Contr.) 15:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

POV article

This article seems totally POV, right from the title "Self-Defence" for what was collaboration with the occupation to the supposedly "agressive" intentions of the USSR towards Lithuania right through to an alleged Soviet "war against the Lithuanian peasantry". We cannot have an article with is written through this filter of Lithuanian nationalism and anti-Sovietism. Booshank 02:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Self-defence" was an official name for these units, and it indeed was self defence of population against various gangs. I must dismiss these ridiculuous objections from a person who puts Soviet aggression into the quotation marks as it is something that never happened. Sigitas 11:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It was only "aggression" from a Lithuanian nationalist perspective; one person's "aggression" is another's "liberation". Booshank 23:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Lithuania as a nation is one, other nations perspectives mostly do justify the occupations. --Lokyz (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell us Booshank, was the invasion and occupation of Lithuania by the Red Army in 1940 "Liberation" as well? One must be a hard-line Communist to actually claim if not believe that. --41.151.13.97 (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Selbstschutz or not

This is article about villagers selfdefence, not Tautinio Darbo Apsaugos Batalionas or other Police batalions. Historiography on the subject is rather a mess, an internet forums make it even worse.--Lokyz (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion is that officially the police battalions (Selbstschutz) were known as self-defence units. This self-defence has nothing to do with the battalions. Renata (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be clarified in the text, maybe even in the lead? I don't think I'm the first one who misunderstood.radek (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

I agree with the POV statement above, but was sufficiently interested to rewrite in order to make it more objective and to ensure a general improvement in prose. Much of the original article seemed to be a direct translation and was unclear in places. Rather than add information I have merely attempted to improve the clarity of the original, so I cannot vouch for the source cited. Perhaps the historiography could be improved? --Sickfish (talk) 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)