Talk:Ratlines (history)

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: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Contents 1 Vatican 2 NPOV 3 Gladio 4 More categories 5 original research 6 pavelicpapers.com 7 Not a POV? 8 US Military slang 2008 9 Origin of term 10 POV tag 11 Minor Change in intro

[edit] Vatican

So after reading up on this a bit it seems that the theoris about this accuse some set of priests physically operating out of Vatican City, rather than an orginized conspiricy of the Holy See so I have disambiguated the link in this article thus. Dalf | Talk 08:46, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

"That is, these were suspected war criminals and quislings from areas occupied by the Red Army" I don't think the use of the word "quisling" is very NPOV... --John Lunney 01:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladio

I have removed the link to "Gladio" from the internal links since this organisation has been created within the NATO and has IMO nothing to do with escape lines for nazis or fascists. --Lebob-BE 18:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More categories

I think this article should be in more categories than just "Yugoslavia during World War II" but I'm not sure what would be best. Any suggestions? heqs 04:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original research

The stuff on these U.S. sponsored stay behind networks seems to be original research here. Where is the assertion that BDJ-TD was a ratline? Or Kibitz-15? Intangible2.0 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pavelicpapers.com

This website seems to be down, but is supporting a large number of claims in this article. Alas.

[edit] Not a POV?

Clearly Wikipedia isn’t the home of points of view. However in a similar spirit how far can quotes from other sources be used to make an argument when they seem to lack the substance for the argument?

In this article there is a quote under the heading “The Case Against the Vatican” where a rat line investigator usurped his authority by searching Church buildings and got reported to his superiors by the Vatican Secretariat of State. He responds with an unsubstantiated allegation that “The aim of the complaint was to interfere with the investigation.” On balance this would suggest sour grapes but in this article it substantiates a heading “The Case Against the Vatican”.

Likewise, a mass media article about a freedom of information application seeking to substantiate various things including a claim by some unnamed “Holocaust researchers” hiding behind anonymity that Ustashe leader Ante Pavelic “made his way to Latin America using papers allegedly provided by the Vatican, and disguised as a priest”. Therefore a quote cited in a mass media publication (which often equates to ‘out of context’ or in some other way ‘misconstrued’) of some unknown people relating to some evidence speculated to be available sounds damaging for the Vatican. However this tenuous evidence is in the article in the section List of Nazis who escaped using ratlines as:

“Famous Nazis war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann, Franz Stangl, Josef Mengele, Erich Priebke, Aribert Heim, Andrija Artuković and Ante Pavelic, the latter "using papers allegedly provided by the Vatican, and disguised as a priest"[19], found refuge in Latin America and the Middle East.”

In other words the damaging quote has been pulled out and is presented as a fact albeit with allegedly in as part of the original quote. The Wikipedia article the “allegedly” would be reasonably interpreted as a witness alleging that something happened not some speculation. The practical effect is a mass media style pulling a quote out of context.

My understanding is that the prohibition on POV is no more than a prohibition on Wikipedia editors stating an unsubstantiated point of view. However, in an encylopedia article, when there is no actual technical breach how far can you take something that is in substance as problematic and as academically unsound?

User:jb3 12:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Respected this note to the point of removing 'alleged(ly)' as apparent distortion of the referenced text--71.252.101.51 (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] US Military slang 2008

"Our main concern is to find the rat lines," says General David Petraeus, poring over maps at a US military base on the banks of the Euphrates River, "and having found them, to close them."[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of term

How did the term arise? At least a passing mention would be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.4.117 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

I removed the following line from the section on Argentina: "On the other side of the Atlantic, the ratline escapees found their warmest welcome in Peron's Argentina." It is an interpretation to say they found "their warmest welcome...." The phrase itself sounds like it just came out of Lady's Home Journal. Not encyclopedic.

As some Argentines on Wikipedia have noted, the Nazi presence in Argentina pre-dates and post-dates the terms of Juan Peron. The German Argentine community in Argentina is the third largest ethnic group in the country, after the Italians and the Spanish. So, if the Nazis found a "warm welcome" in Argetina, that may be in part due to the fact that they had a large community awaiting them in Argentina -- a community in place long before Juan Peron came to power (or had even been born). This is undeniably the reason the Nazis chose Argentina specifically as a nation to relocate to.

So it would be best so as to avoid writing the section to portray that Juan Peron himself was a nazi. He wasn't. If we are going to suggest that he was a Nazi, then we'd better suggest that the Vatican, the United States, and everyone else who helped Nazis hide, were also Nazis. I am also going to remove the statement about Braden because it doesn't really pertain to the subject matter. That is a political accusation that Braden made against Juan Peron himself, not a comment Braden had made with regard to Juan Peron allowing Nazis into the country. Any historian knows that Braden actually, unwittingly, helped Juan Peron win the election to president because many Argentines were offended that an American was campaigning in Argentina. Argentine lad (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Change in intro

Removed the bit about the scope of ODESSA. It was accurate, but felt forced in, almost as an attempt at refutation of a point no one made. I considered rewriting instead of removal, but was unable to find a reason it belonged in the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.148.26 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)