Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Reversal

@E-960: Re: this - you state that "the text you went back to form June 20th in not the original and was also reverted as it contained disputed wording". Two issues here:

1. My edit summary clearly states that I made some changes: "Restoring some content from June 20th version, which underwent a lot of discussion. Other changes: trimmed a couple of statements, and added a source" - but these changes aren't to the original text, but to or with additions. In other words, the text from June 20th was mostly unmodified.
2. What wording is disputed?

François Robere (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

François Robere please note the following concerns. First issue, none of those discussion were on the article talk page, but on private user account pages — per Wiki guidelines that's not the place to discuss major article changes (especially controversial points). Second issue, the over emphasis of Grabowski's numbers — Grabowski's own words on page 2-3 in his book show the 200,000 number is speculative direct quote: "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." Words such as "assume" or "could reach" do not suggest hard facts, but speculation, yet you want to present them as authoritative, and they are not, in fact they really should not be used in the article to begin with, because they are guesstimates (and that's why Grabowski was criticized by several mainstream academics/historians). --E-960 (talk) 09:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

@E-960: What private user account pages are you referring to? François Robere (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Clarification, private Wikipedia user talk pages not article talk pages. --E-960 (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever discussions took place on private talk pages, Grabowski's estimate is the most widely cited estimate in the field (both in an academic context, and by NEWSORGs) should be stated here. Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thing is, it was discussed here more than once: Winstone:[1][2][3]; Grabowski: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10]; Connelly was also discussed several times. François Robere (talk) 10:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The links you provided are for old archived discussions from 2018. Why are you even bringing up old closed discussions? That makes no sense whatsoever. --E-960 (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Because that's how long these statements were in the text. François Robere (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Yup, and the text you "reverted" to was not the long standing version, also this current text has been up for 3 weeks and several other editors made changes to the article, so it's a little tough for you to now argue you are "reverting" something 3 weeks later. --E-960 (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Not at all, I just took some of your changes (eg. "revised the text neutral wording" [11]) at face value and didn't check them. As for the other editors - they revised other sections, and I didn't touch their changes

As for this revision: as stated, I've only added a source and revised your additions, I didn't touch the older parts. I expect that we will revert to the older version of the section soon and continue to discuss the various additions. François Robere (talk) 11:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It should have been discussed here, not on user talk pages (if it was).Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, well they are still in the article, and even though you say the numbers are "most widely cited estimate" they are not universally accepted, and being disputed by several mainstream scholars. These issues were raised already by a couple of editors on the private talk page to begin with, quote: In some ways, Gross (and Grabowski to a lesser extent) are in much the same position as Daniel Goldhagen occupied after he wrote Hitler's Willing Executioners's - while not "fringe" per se, it is still one extreme of the spectrum of interpretations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC). --E-960 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

To date - "disputes" have been in popular media and popular-science publications in Polish. In an academic context, in particular in languages other than Polish, it's hard to find any "dispute". Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it is fair to mention the dispute, but no more then that. However we also do not give equal weight, and disputes do not mean information should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The above is precisely why this should be discussed here, and not as a private chat between a few users.

Grabowski's figure is already in the article. --E-960 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

User:François Robere, pls note that the last stable version was from June 12, the text you reverted to from June 20, edited by user Piotrus did not gain consensus, was not disscussed on the atricle talk page and was quickly reverted on June 21 — the June 12 is the last long standing and stable version. --E-960 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Because that's the last one before your changes. Now, shall we discuss? François Robere (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Lets restore to the last stable version.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I think that we can add the paragraph regarding the Lviv Pogrom to the bottom of the section, since you also agree that it has relevance. --E-960 (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I do indeed. François Robere (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've added the text on the Lviv pogrom as agreed. --E-960 (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Grabowski, I would like to use his book as the reference source, not newspaper articles about it, and use Grabowski's own text from the book: "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000". This is the only instance in main text of the book that the 200,000 figure is mentioned and Grabowski uses it in reference to the Judenjagds (German organized hunts for Jews, where Blue Police were ordered to participate and also some local folk from the country side were brought in. Grabowski also references the "hostage" system employed by the Nazis to show that in most cases participation was not voluntary. Finally, I would like to use historian Grzegorz Berendt who provides an estimate of the number of participants, but also does not agree with the 200,000 figure for being too speculative — per, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "avoid stating seriously contested assertions as fact" and "indicate the relative prominence of opposing views". --E-960 (talk) 06:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

We already cite G., and we can certainly quote him. I don't read this as referring to the phenomena of small scale, organized "hunts" by villagers and others, but to the general persecution of Jews outside ghettos and camps; I suggest we don't focus on the former too much in this paragraph. We already cite Berendt as well. I'm not sure about the "hostage system", as it's only part of the explanation he provides. Can you attach the text with which you'd like to substitute the current one? François Robere (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll draft something short for review and provide page numbers as reference, but here is the key, Grabowski in his statement says "Judenjagd could reach 200,000" Judenjagds were organized by the Germans not Polish villagers, though in most cases they and the Blue Police did participate, however as you know the debate in part relates to the nature of this participation, was it forced or voluntary, in many cases it was not. One of the more practical arguments to this debate is that despite anti-semetic feelings in Poland, most Poles did not care to run around in the middle of the night doing work for the Germans, one of the reasons why Germans instituted the Łapanki. This was the German policy on many things, first they get volunteers, and when that fails make it things mandatory. --E-960 (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

First, that's only part of the book - his statement, as I previously noted, uses this term more broadly, to refer to persecution of Jews in general. Second, many of the descriptions in the book cannot be so easily dismissed: Polish volunteers, "Judenjagds" where the Germans weren't present, people giving away Jews when they clearly had a choice. We can put a counter-claim if you have a source to support it, but otherwise we shouldn't editorialize. François Robere (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a new book Kto dopomoże Żydowi... by Bogdan Musiał. The book contains German laws against Poles who helped Jews. The laws are quoted in German, so it's not only in Polish language. To understand the context one has to know the law. Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, to describe the "hostage" system in Grabowski's book on page 78, it says: "Piotr Czupryna, the village hostage, showed up at my door and told me that the Germans and the village elders ordered me to take part in hunting down the Jews. I said "no", so Czupryna went to other houses, but soon came back and told me I had to go or the Germans would take me away." --E-960 (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• I would adjust the text as follows — using the book itself as reference: "Historian Jan Grabowski stated that as a result of the German-organized hunts for escaped Jews, in which the Blue Police and local peasants were forced to participate in "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." Grzegorz Berendt estimates the number of Polish citizens who participated in anti-Jewish actions as being a "group of several thousand individuals" across occupied Poland, though he criticized Grabowski's figure of "200,000" calling it "hot-air". --E-960 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

But this is only part of the explanation, isn't it?

Peasants, firefighters, elders, and Polish rural youth were forcibly made parts of the German system and were subject to brutal German reprisals and equally brutal discipline. But the deadly efficiency of this system depended on the zeal and the willingness of its participants, which cannot be explained by fear of reprisals alone. In any case, the successes of the Judenjagd were much more impressive than any other “hunting” activity during the war. Here, the historical evidence is convincing and horrifying: some elements of Polish society, various organizations, and social structures were actively and consciously involved in the liquidations of the ghettos and in hunting down desperate Jewish refugees who sought shelter “on the ‘Aryan’ side.” Human fear and greed—can they be considered a sufficient explanation for the deadly efficiency of these manhunts? These two feelings, strong, but rather universal and common—are they a good enough reason to explain why the chances of survival of Jews hiding in rural areas of occupied Poland were so slim? Jewish and Polish postwar testimonies suggest something else. Jewish life, which had steadily lost its value from the beginning of the occupation, became virtually worthless after the liquidations of the ghettos. In the eyes of many Poles, the Jewish refugees wandering from one village to another, hiding in primitive bunkers in the forests, or wasting away in underground shelters under the barns, were simply no longer human. Instead, they became a problem, or a threat that needed to be dealt with. Sometime in 1942, and it is impossible to determine exactly when, it became acceptable, in the eyes of many, that the taking of Jewish life was no longer considered a crime, or a sin. Some took an active part in hunting down Jews and delivering their victims to the Polish “blue” police, or the German gendarmes. Others, forced by the hostages, or by their elder, joined the hunts in the woods, marching behind the gendarmes and the Polish police. Still others watched from the roadside, or from behind window curtains, and saw how peasants herded the tied Jews to the police station for slaughter. But no one, in these circumstances, could remain a neutral, emotionally detached witness, often described by historians as a “bystander to the Holocaust.” The complicated, multilayered system invented for the needs of the Judenjagd ensured that each rural inhabitant—each man, woman, and child—had a role to play in this horrible theater of death.

— Grabowski, Hunt for Jews, pp. 82-83

I suggest you incorporate that in your revision. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski has since withdrawn from these claims, also there was no "Polish police".

Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów" ("What a Story! Prof. Jan Grabowski Says We [Poles] Helped the Germans Kill Jews"), Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018: "A więc... ok. 200 tys. Żydów zostało zamordowanych, gdy się ukrywali po aryjskiej stronie?" – "Tak, i na podstawie szczegółowej analizy tego, w jakich okolicznościach ginęli, sformułowałem hipotezę badawczą, że większość – choć nie jestem na tym etapie badań w stanie powiedzieć, czy było to 60, czy 90 proc. – straciła życie z rąk Polaków albo przy ich współudziale." ("So... 200,000 Jews were murdered while hiding on the Aryan side?" – "Yes, and based on detailed analysis of the circumstances in which they perished, I formulated a research hypothesis that the majority – though at this stage of research I am not able to say whether it was 60 or 90 percent – lost their lives at the hands of Poles or with their complicity.") "Ale Historia: Prof. Jan Grabowski: Pomagaliśmy Niemcom zabijać Żydów" ("What a Story! Prof. Jan Grabowski Says We [Poles] Helped the Germans Kill Jews"), Gazeta Wyborcza, 17 March 2018: "Bo ja te szacunki uważam za wiarygodne, ale jest to wyłącznie moje zdanie. Inni mogą sądzić, że dziesięć przebadanych powiatów to zbyt mało, aby ważyć się na jakiekolwiek uogólnienia.... Gdy skończyłem pracę nad powiatem Dąbrowa Tarnowska, zarzucano mi, że tak wąski teren badań nie daje podstaw do uogólnień... Ale to, że badacze mają różne koncepcje, jest naturalne." ("I believe these estimates to be reliable, but that is solely my opinion. Others might conclude that the ten counties studied [in Dalej jest noc] are too few to venture any generalizations.... When I had finished my work on Dąbrowa Tarnowska County [in Hunt for the Jews], [critics said] such a small [geographical] area... provided no basis for generalizations... But it is only natural for investigators to have differing views."

Claiming that 200,000 Jews were killed by Poles btw would insinuate that not a single Jewish fugitive was killed by Germans, Soviet Partisans,Ukrainian or Jewish collaborators.And we now that this is simply untrue because they were killed by them as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Only if we ignore the other 2,800,000 Polish Jews that were also killed.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski doesn't write about 200,000 killed in all deaths during Holocaust but of those who fled. If out of 250,000 fugitives, 200,000 were killed, it can't mean 200,000 were all killed by ethnic Poles because that it would mean not a single one was killed by pursuing Germans, Ukrainian paramilitaries, Jewish collaborators or Soviet partisants-all of which are known cases as other historians pointed out. It's probably why Berendt named the claim "hot air".--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, I think that this is were the controversy is: "successes of the Judenjagd were much more impressive than any other “hunting” activity during the war" and this is where other historians question the 200,000 number. For example professor Krystyna Samsonowska of the Jagiellonian University criticized Grabowski for not using all available resources, and not trying to contact families of Jewish survivors from Dąbrowa Tarnowska, or the Poles who hid them. Samsonowska using other sources was able identify 90 Jews who had survived the war in hiding in Dąbrowa County, as opposed to the 51 cited by Grabowski. Grabowski used Dąbrowa County as an example, which he then applied across Poland, thus Samsonowska's findings change Grabowski's equation a lot. --E-960 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• As suggested revised text: Historian Jan Grabowski stated that as a result of the German-organized hunts for escaped Jews, in which the Blue Police and many of the local peasants were forced to participate in, subject to brutal German discipline, though some participant were willing collaborators who acted of their own volition "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." Grzegorz Berendt estimates the number of Polish citizens who participated in anti-Jewish actions as being a "group of several thousand individuals" across German-occupied Poland, though he criticized the "200,000" figure as being too high and not reliable. --E-960 (talk) 06:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• This does not reflect Grabowski - or summaries of Grabowski - which merely state that Poles killed 200,000 Jews directly and indirectly. Grabowski doesn't put any particular emphasis on Poles (not only peasants - but also Baudinst from the cities) being forced to participate. Furthermore we have WP:FALSEBALANCE in giving too much weight to an IPN employee, Berendt, whose writings on this question haven't garnered secondary attention (haven't been cited by others). Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• See the quote above. I think the easiest way to resolve this is to either give just the raw facts, or to quote Grabowski in full. As for Samsonowska - her criticism is fairly limited, and we'd be doing SYNTH if we extended it to G's overall numbers. See more here. François Robere (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Her criticism is highly valid and on point as the figures he used were extrapolated to come to the conclusions(from which he later withdrew).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The majority of Baudienst members were peasants.

Grabowski describes the German terror system and later ignores the first part of his book accusing the peasants. It is a hoax, not any research. I'm sorry I'm unable to forget about 30% of the book. Xx236 (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What is "also there was no "Polish police"."? Has Grabowski admitted it? Xx236 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Icewhiz, "one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000" is a quote from the book, why are you trying to use a quote from the newspaper article about it? Pls recall your arguments about using the best source available, so for Grabowski, his book is the most direct source for the 200,000 figure. If you don't like Berendt, we can also use Shimon Redlich who criticized the 200,000 number as a careless "claim of 'hundreds of thousands' of Jews seeking shelter among the Polish populace", which according to Redlich cannot be extrapolated to the whole country based on one single area. BTW, Berendt is professor at the University of Gdansk so he is a mainstream academic, we can also use Krystyna Samsonowska or Bogdan Musial who also criticized the 200,000 number. --E-960 (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Berendt is employed by the IPN - an organization promoting revisionism in this topic (per source). If we are to include criticism - we should include the much more copious and notable praise (including a Yad Vashem prize for best book Holocaust study in 2014). We also have the question on how this is used by others - e.g. Routledge book: " here, in the space of the 'hunt for Jews' (Judenjagd), allegedly out of reach of German authority, ethnic Poles had a larger say in the fate of the 200,000 fugitive who did not survive. The issue of Polish behavious on this measurable "periphery of the Holocaust" thuse represents the load-bearing question of Polish responsibility". I don't see Grabowski, nor others, placing any particular emphasis on Poles being "forced" or on "Poles not being Poles" (e.g. ethnic Belorussian or Ukrainian who were Polish citizens). Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

You are a Holocaust revisionist (you transfer responsiblity for the death of many of the 200,000 Jews from Germans to Poles) but you accuse the IPN. The IPN is a big institution which publishes hundreds of texts of different quality. Similarly the YadVashem has published a number of controversial decisions and texts. http://www.tvp.pl/polandincom/news/life-people/holocaust-survivors-appeal-to-decorate-all-lados-group-members/42916166 Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

What is your source "Berendt is employed by the IPN"? He is a university professor and deputy director of WWII Museum.Xx236 (talk) 09:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Quoting Grabowski - "Once again, the IPN historian obfuscates the historical realities....", or the IPN itself announcing appointments- here, or [12] - Gazeta Wyborcza reporting on Berendt's installment, by the PiS government, to replace the previous management that did not present the "right version" of Polish history (a subject covered in academic sources - e.g. Polish Cultural Diplomacy and Historical Memory: the Case of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk or The national agents of transnational memory and their limits: the case of the Museum of the Second World War in Gdańsk). Icewhiz (talk) 10:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I provided you names of several other historians who also objected. Also, if you want to criticize IPN, than you can also criticize "academia" as a source, because most of the professors including Grabowski make money on the sale of their books, to sell books you have to get attention. If Grabowski just wanted to publish his findings for academia to debate the issue (as some academics do in order to focus on the scholarly discourse not commercial pursuits) he did not have to approach an editor and take the for-profit route. --E-960 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@E-960: We've just had this discussion in length here. The result was that G's estimate is WP:DUE. François Robere (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: Xx236 is here making a personal attack against Icewhiz. This page is under DS. Please act. François Robere (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement requests should be made at WP:AE. Sandstein 13:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Berendt was shortly an acting director of education in Gdańsk, probably during short military service of the director. http://trojmiasto.wyborcza.pl/trojmiasto/7,35612,23911800,szef-biura-edukacji-ipn-w-gdansku-chwyci-za-karabin-w-obronie.html Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Other additions

Grabowski

This was reverted as part of the above; I would like to add it immediately after the Winstone quote:

Jan Grabowski made a similar observation: "The death penalty was a particularly potent deterrent because there was no social permission for harboring the Jews. The death penalty had been introduced, to far lesser effect, for a variety of crimes and breaches of the German order. ... there was no shortage of those who kept unlicensed livestock, owned a radio receiver, told 'political' jokes, or read the underground press – not to mention being involved in resistance. And all of these pursuits carried with them a very real threat of a death sentence. ... The fact that until very recently, many Poles – recipients of the prestigious Righteous Among the Nations honor – pleaded with Yad Vashem to remain anonymous, fearing their neighbors, is telling."

References

This was, by the way, part of a response to Berendt. François Robere (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Gross

I assume we both agree this can be restored instead of the current mention of Jedwabne:

Perhaps the most infamous of these events was the Jedwabne pogrom of 10 July 1941, where a group of 40 villagers trapped at least 340 Jewish refugees inside a barn, then set it on fire.

References

François Robere (talk) 12:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, as I mentioned earlier you are placing too much of an emphasis on Grabowski, he is just one of many historians who wrote on this subject and remains controversial. But, you continue to want to add even more text from Grabowski, one short sentence for each historian is sufficient — not two paragrapsh on Grabowski's claim. I think most agree to that, also pls see earlier comment from user Ealdgyth on this subject. "In some ways, Gross (and Grabowski to a lesser extent) are in much the same position as Daniel Goldhagen occupied after he wrote Hitler's Willing Executioners's - while not "fringe" per se, it is still one extreme of the spectrum of interpretations. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)" We just don't need more text on Grabowski. --E-960 (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As for Gross, can you confirm that they were "refugees" most sources say they were just local Jews living in the village. Also, there are several sources that confirm that the Germans were present, and to at least some extent orchestrated the pogrom — I think that point should be added too. --E-960 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski is only "controversial" in Polish popular media and politics, and among a very narrow circle of Polish (/expat) scholars. In academia at large, Polish included, Grabowski is highly respected and highly cited; and the same goes for Gross. Any concrete reason not to include the quote? It's topical, it's by an RS, it's not a fringe view, and it goes well with the paragraph that precedes it.

As for Gross: we've had this discussion before. Use whatever term you like. François Robere (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so we have Grabowski already in the text, on par with other historians, no need to add even more from him and create undue wight regarding his research, above other historians. --E-960 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing WP:UNBALANCED in using an RS on multiple issues. Except for extreme cases, you only need to balance per issue. Put differently: We're not biasing the article by using G. more than once - he is an RS, and it is expected that he'll have expertise relevant to multiple issues. François Robere (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No consensus to add more stuff on Grabowski — what we have now is sufficient, there is already several editors who spoke out on this issue. --E-960 (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

François Robere, can you just stop loading the article with "one extreme of the spectrum of interpretations" these statements are not general overviews of the situation, but individual experiences/testimony, not necessarily applicable across the entire country. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not loading anything with anything, and what's "extreme" about it? We have three RS making similar statements; the quotes are just illustrations. François Robere (talk) 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Recall WP:CONSENSUS isn't the same as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. You can't just block something - you have to provide a rationale. I don't know which other editors you refer to - this is a new quote, discussed only in this thread with you. François Robere (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Rationales were provided, too much focus on just one historian (Grabowski) and on the more extreme interpretations of the events in question. --E-960 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

And then I replied that there's nothing in WP:BALANCE about using "one historian" (now three) more than once; I also asked you what's so "extreme" about it. You didn't reply to either. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, Grabowski guesstimates the 200,000 figure, and he has a very broad definition of collaboration, as some historians do not consider collaboration in situations when someone is forced to perform certain acts under a threat of punishment. You consistently want to take the broadest/extreme definition and impose it on the article. --E-960 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But we're not talking about either - we're talking about an extension to the the Winstone bit, which has been part of the article for over a year - in fact, it was your addition.[13] If it's DUE in the article, then why not to elaborate on it with other RS like G.? François Robere (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

But, this bit basically says the same thing the first Winstone statement says, that just a minority of Poles actively persecuted Jews, no point duplicating this theme. --E-960 (talk) 09:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

So you're opposing it on grounds of style? François Robere (talk) 09:59, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I added your text on Jedwabne, and a reference to the "hostage" system to the Grabowski passage. This should balance out the text to note that some of the collaboration was voluntary and some of it was not. --E-960 (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Why edit Grabowski? Why not just repeat what he states? We're not supposed to be "cherry picking". François Robere (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned earlier, this is too much Grabowski, he's not the be-all-end-all historian, a few statements form him is in line with statements form other historians, but not a wall of text quoted form his book, that's just undue weight. Really, he's just one scholar, you keep referencing him as if he was the only guy that wrote a book on this subject. A quick note that some collaboration was voluntary and some of it was not is reasonable, as this was the case. --E-960 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to trim, but do not cherry-pick. Grabowski does not justify "Polish apathy" by the "hostage system" - he only mentions it as a partial explanation in a particular context. I've noted that twice before, including the full quote from the book, but you seem to ignore it. If you want to mention the "hostage system", be my guest; but give it in the context in which G. gives it. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree the hostage system only explains part of the situation in which some people were forced against their will to collaborate, and does not explain the apathy. But, here too some people did not help because they were just scared, others because they did not like Jews and withheld assistance. However, it's important not to label everyone as indifferent or unconcerned because that was not the case. You have to remember that Poles were not able to free other Poles from concentration camps, stop Łapanki or the deportation of slave laborers, those trains filled with Polish prisoners came and went, just like those that took Jews to concentration camps. --E-960 (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also, that is why Grabowski is controversial he compares hiding "a radio receiver" or "livestock" to hiding real people — Jews. It's a lot easier to hide a radio (or just throw it out if it get to risky) than a living person, or livestock which just feeds on grass in the filed and if that gets too risky than just get rid of it. Captured Jews usually were interrogated with violence to divulge who provided assistance. The risks are incomparable, and Grabowski makes those bad comparisons, that's why he is controversial. --E-960 (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Excellent points, which apply as well to John Connelly and others, and which should be highlighted in the pertinent articles. Nihil novi (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. We have three scholars stating the same (Winstone, Tec and Grabowski), on top of content you yourself added. You can't pick and choose what you quote and what you don't quote. If you want to mention the "hostage system", do it in the context that Grabowski presents it. François Robere (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, way too much of a focus on Grabowski. I don't think this is a balanced approach, when you just raise one historian's statements over others in controversial and debated issue such as this. --E-960 (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed the addition of the "hostage system" - as Grabowski does not explain his estimate in this manner - this is SYNTH and highlights something that is not in the original estimate. As for the extent of content for Grabowski - as a prize-winning historian who is widely cited in the field (per a cursory examination of the citation count) as well as popular media - Grabowski and Gross should be receiving a much larger chunk of this article than they do currently. Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You should restore the wording before the 200,000 amount is cited, because this number is not a fact, this is the one sentance in the book which has the 200,000 in it: "Given the numbers above one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000." This does not sound very definitive. You are trying to twist the 200,000 into a fact and it is only speculation. --E-960 (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Or we just use the word "estimate" and provide no further interpretation. François Robere (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The quote I added gives context to that number, including the "hostage" system, without making a moral judgment on the overall situation. What's more, I've put it after Berendt's estimate - whose accuracy is unclear, but which you trust - so I can hardly see how I could've been "fairer" towards your position than I already was. François Robere (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Grabowski does not say estimate, but uses the word assume — stick to what Grabowski actually says in his book. --E-960 (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but he doesn't state that as an assumption (as in "axiom"), but as a conclusion ("based on the data, one can assume the result was so and so"). You're picking on a stylistic choice. "Concludes"? François Robere (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

A bit more generally, this article has become a WP:COATRACK for "Polish Anti-semitism during World War 2". Certainly a notable topic but NOT the topic of this article. I'm sure there was significant correlation between people who collaborated and people who were anti-semitic, but then you need a source which links these. Listing various instances of Polish anti-semitism, or even cases of "apathy" (sic), is not by itself "collaboration". Please keep within the scope of the topic rather than using it as a WP:COATRACK for other things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The first paragraph in the "The Holocaust" section, quoting Martin Winstone, does not seem much on-topic either, and in any case is badly written and hard to follow. Nihil novi (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't a "coatrack" for anything. We're talking about a single section - which in the latest revision is actually quite generous to your POV [14] - which covers a legitimate and well-researched subject. As the section isn't about antisemitism alone, the rest of your comment is a straw man. What's more, much of the section grew out of other editors' attempts to vindicate Poles (eg. E-960's misleading addition of Winstone,[15] which took no less than three discussion and an email to the author to fix[16][17][18]), so if anything you should've been alarmed by "coatracking" on your side of the aisle. François Robere (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on editors rather than content. Specifically, you have no idea what "my POV" is, and your attempts to divide editors and place them on sides of some "aisle" indicates a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Don't make comments which appear to be personal attacks. You have been warned, and blocked, for similar comments in the past.

As to the coatrack issue - yes, indeed, that section has become a coatrack. The article is not about anti-semitism in Poland. It's about collaboration. The sources used should specifically reference collaboration. In that respect: Winstone - not about collaboration at all. Connelly - arguably maybe relevant. Grabowski - this part is not about collaboration, and the part that is is already included in the Baudienst section (hence, on top of everything, there's some redundancy). Jedwabne - present text is not about collaboration. At minimum this would require a source which calls it collaboration but since the authors who emphasize this pogrom generally try to place all or most of the blame on the Poles rather than Germans, that kind of eliminates it as an example of collaboration.

Provide sources or remove the WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So, I assume you have something to say to E-960 for his addition of Winstone, or for whoever added the book review of Grabowski?

We've had this discussion over a year ago, in fact. This section is about those who took part in the massacre, including those who denounced Jews to the Nazis. Connelly uses the term "structural collaboration" to describe the overall antisemitism and indifference of Polish society towards millions of its Jews, so this is sourced as well. Everything else is either about denouncement or murder, which is the context of Winstone's quote. François Robere (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please stop using unfair and bias language, such as "vindicate Poles", as the majority of Poles did not collaborate, we are only talking about a portion of the population. Also, user Icewhiz removed a reference to the "hostage" system imposed on the Polish population in order to force those to participate that did not collaborate willingly [19], but you did not object. As noted before, you keep trying to make the most extreme interpretations of the events the centerpiece of this article. --E-960 (talk) 10:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, what was that addition of yours meant to do achieve if not that?

The "hostage" system and your misuse of that information are discussed above - you're welcome to read my opinion there. Your other claim is, as before, false: The quote I added gives context to that number, including the "hostage" system, without making a moral judgment on the overall situation. What's more, I've put it after Berendt's estimate - whose accuracy is unclear, but which you trust - so I can hardly see how I could've been "fairer" towards your position than I already was. François Robere (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Francois Robere, can you point out where in source Connelly writes that "vast majority of ethnic Poles were impervious to the Jewish plight"? Page number would help.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the product of several rounds of revision, by several editors, of the following: "Yet if no individual Pole [discussed in the context of the article] can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a 'structural collaboration' that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful." (Connelly, there, p. 780) François Robere (talk) 09:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

How does Connelly define "indifference" in this context? Nihil novi (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

To save us some time, here's the entire passage:

To say the least, Jews who escaped the ghettos were not shown the solidarity Poles expected from Poles. A particularly wrenching incident is recalled by Adam Neuman-Nowicki, a Polish Jew of impeccable "Aryan" appearance and speech. At one point in his own ordeal as "Polish Christian," Neuman-Nowicki met the fellow Jew Hanka, with "blue eyes, straight blond hair combed into two braids, a small nose, and rosy cheeks." Having escaped deportation, she worked as a maid, but because she grew up speaking Yiddish, her Polish was not as "accent-free and polished" as was his. This small "flaw" proved her undoing: after a failed rendezvous, he discovered that she had been turned over to the German police. Of course, any sudden newcomer to a small town will be a subject of rumors, yet had this woman been a Pole, locals would have colluded in shielding her from danger. But as a Jew, Hanka was viewed as a curiosity, a welcome occasion for gossip. Before long the fatal rumor, spread carelessly, had reached the ears of an informer.
The callous participants in such rumor mills would have been surprised to learn that they had deliberately served the enemy. The theologically minded might accuse them of grave "sins of omission," but even the underground courts would have been hard-pressed to arraign any but the individual who actually tipped off the Germans. Yet if no individual Pole can be held guilty of the crime, as a community Poles certainly can be accused of shared indifference, of what one might call a "structural collaboration" that made the Nazi agenda of killing Polish Jews so infernally successful. Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved.

— Connelly, there, pp. 779-780

François Robere (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

"can be accused" is very different from "vast majority of ethnic Poles were impervious to the Jewish plight". This is another instance of straight up WP:OR, putting aside the fact that the entire article is precisely about how collaboration was marginal (yet somehow someone pulled just this one quote out of it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't write that sentence, why are you complaining to me? And stop distorting Connelly - he's clear about the historiography of the term Poland, and goes along with it; other sources don't. Again, we've already had this discussion. François Robere (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the John Connelly quotation, just above. (By the way, what is the "there" source's actual title?) This more complete text clarifies a fragment previously drawn from it which, in the article's context, had seemed to speak of the entire Polish people's attitudes rather than of a single incident. The fragment had mentioned "the crime", without explaining what exact crime was being referenced.

The incident recounted by Connelly illustrates an observation by another source that many, if not most, Jews in prewar Poland stuck out like a sore thumb. As this incident tragically confirms, that made it hard for a Jew to disappear within an ethnically-Polish community.

The hazards to a hiding Jew and to anyone hiding or otherwise helping him were greatly exacerbated by the Germans' practice of executing the helper and his family.

These considerations are surely relevant to a discussion of ethnic Poles' caution in risking their own lives.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The full citation is: Connelly, John (2005). "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris". Slavic Review. 64 (4): 771–781. doi:10.2307/3649912. ISSN 0037-6779. JSTOR 3649912. Retrieved 2016-08-10.

It actually does speak of Poles in general, using Hanka's story as an example. And no, Jews did not "stick out like a sore thumb" - the Germans did. Some Jews were identifiable, but only by Poles. Connelly: "had this woman been a Pole, locals would have colluded in shielding her from danger. But as a Jew, Hanka was viewed as a curiosity, a welcome occasion for gossip. Before long the fatal rumor, spread carelessly, had reached the ears of an informer." And so the lesson to draw from this is that some Poles happily collaborated - some were even willing to call out a random passer-by as a Jew, at no risk and with no reward to themselves, with full knowledge that they would be killed. "They stuck out" is a sad excuse for how they were treated by the majority of Poles: "Had Poles indeed seen Jews as neighbors, the death rate might have been more like 85 percent rather than the 90 percent that was actually achieved". François Robere (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see "The Holocaust in Poland" article, the "Rescue and aid" section, the opening sentence – "The vast majority of Polish Jews were a 'visible minority' by modern standards, distinguishable by language, behavior, and appearance." – and subsequent sentences.

That seems to confirm my point, above.

Nihil novi (talk) 11:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, though. Do re-read. François Robere (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Possibly you missed my point.

Could you please restate your point, more concisely?

Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

1. Idioms have subtext; a "sore thumb" suggests a negative subject.
2. "They stuck out" is not an excuse for Poles general aversion of Jews back then. Polish partisans "stuck out" too when they came out of the woods, but no Pole would've given them up. Again see Connelly. François Robere (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

1. but no Pole would've given them up. Again see Connelly. Polish partisants were given up by other Polish citizens to Germans so this is a completely incorrect claim. Does Connelly make it?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Alfred Szklarski

The page suggests that Szklarski wrote collaborative text (politics, propaganda). According to my knowledge he wrote erotic and adventure novels, which was wrong but probably acceptable in any European country. Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Concur, hardly merits a paragraph. Maybe a list of notable journalists/writers sentenced after the war could be added, then he could be listed here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Volksdeutsche

"According to Ryszard Kaczmarek, Poland's German minority totaled some 750,000 in 1939 and was the principal group of citizen collaborators."

This was added by Molobo on April 2018,[20] then modified by GCB a month later.[21]

1. The source talks about the GG, not Poland in general, and gives an estimate of 600,000 people, not 741,000.
2. I'm not quite sure I'm reading this correctly, but it seems the source states that the German minority was prominent in pre-war civil life, not wartime collaboration.
3. It does give example of collaborationist politicians, but summarizes that they have either failed or were rebuffed by Germany - not unlike some Polish Polish collaborators that we mention.
4. GCB rounded the number up to 750,000, and added a reference to a source that seems to support this, rather than that claim.

Comments welcome. François Robere (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you link any sources used to speed up verification/analysis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:35, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Here: [22], [23]. François Robere (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

References

• What are Polish Poles?
• The number of 741,000 Germans in Poland can be easily sourced-it is from the last Polish census.

1. The source talks about the GG, not Poland in general, and gives an estimate of 600,000 people, not 741,000.

• General Gouvernment(which IIRC based on the discussions on these pages was unaware to you before pointing it out) was part of Poland under German occupation, although treated differently than other regions.
• There were numerous collaborationist organizations of pre-war German minority in Poland:JDPJungdeutsche_Partei,DVDeutsche Vereinigung,Deutscher Volksverband and DP(Deutsche Partei)-all of them worked closely with German intelligence, military,recruited saboutors and so on.
• The biggest paramilitary group engaging Polish forces in 1939 was Selbstschutz which consisted out of circa 100,000 members recruited from the minority and engaging in atrocities and executions of Polish population as part of genocide against ethnic Poles and Jewish population.

All of this is easily sourced;

• Matelski, D. (2009) Za i przeciw Polsce. Niemcy polscy w Wehrmachcie i Wojsku Polskim w kampanii wrześniowej 1939 r. Кonferencja Udział mniejszości narodowych w różnych formacjach wojskowych w czasie kampanii wrześniowej 1939 r. Wydawnictwo Sejmowe.
• M. Cygański, Mniejszość niemiecka w Polsce centralnej w latach 1918–1939, Łodź 1962;Z dziejow Volksbundu 1921–1932, Opole 1966; Volksbund

w służbie Trzeciej Rzeszy 1933–1938, Opole 1968; Hitlerowskie organizacje dywersyjne w wojewodztwie śląskim 1931–1936, Katowice 1971; Hitlerowska V Kolumna na Śląsku i w Krakowie, Opole 1972

• K. Grunberg,Nazi‑Front Schlesien. Niemieckie organizacje polityczne w województwie śląskim w latach 1933–1939,
• Niemcy i ich organizacje polityczne w Polsce międzywojennej, Warszawa 1970;
• R. Staniewicz, Mniejszość niemiecka w województwie śląskim w latach 1922–1933, Katowice 1965;
• A. Szefer, Mniejszość niemiecka w Polsce i Czechosłowacji

w latach 1933–1938, Katowice–Krakow 1967;

• S. Potocki, Położenie mniejszości niemieckiej w Polsce 1918–1938,

Gdańsk 1969

• Irredenta niemiecka w Europie środkowej i południowo‑wschodniej przed II wojną światową, H. Batowski *Katowice–Krakow 1971;
• Śląsk wobec wojny polsko‑niemieckiej 1939 r., W. Wrzesiński (red.), Wrocław–Warszawa 1990.
• Niemiecka dywersja w Polsce w 1939 r. w świetle dokumentów policyjnych i wojskowych II Rzeczypospolitej oraz służb specjalnych III Rzeszy, część 1 (marzec–sierpień 1939 r.) Tomasz Chinciński pages 159-195 Pamiec i Sprawiedliwosc IPN 2005

1. The source talks about the GG, not Poland in general, and gives an estimate of 600,000 people, not 741,000

The source doesn't talk about General Gouvernment. You are again confusing annexed territories with GG. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Spowodowało to oskarżenia o kolaborację dużej części tzw. ludności rodzimej, bez odrożniania tej grupy od mniejszości niemieckiej, ktora rzeczywiście w tym procesie dość masowo uczestniczyłaThis caused accusations of collaboration against a large part of native population, without separating them from German minority, which indeed took part massively in this process.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've uncollapsed this, I think it's rather rude to collapse another editors comments without asking them first, it is close to deleting them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: Your comment is barely readable. Please redo. François Robere (talk) 19:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the cited sources make it pretty clear that most of the German minority / Volksdeutsche has been called collaborators. From [24]: "Na wschodzie, na polskich terenach wcielonych, przed wybuchem wojny olbrzymią rolę odgrywała mniejszość niemiecka i spośród jej przedstawicieli rekrutowała się głównie grupa aktywnych kolaboracjonistów. Dariusz Matelski szacuje, że Niemcy stanowili około 600 tys. z prawie 10,13 mln ogółu ludności zamieszkującej tereny wcielone". then "Tak więc to akces do NSDAP i afi liowanych przy partii nazistowskiej organizacji stał się na terenach wcielonych do Rzeszy głównym wyznacznikiem kolaboracjonizmu. Był on bowiem zazwyczaj dobrowolnym określeniem swojej postawy wobec okupanta, postawy ideologicznej akceptacji zasad partii narodowosocjalistycznej. Niezwykle trudno jest jednak oszacować tę liczbę nowych nazistów, odseparować członków partii na obszarach wcielonych przed i po 1939 r. – ze względu na ujmowanie ich łącznie w statystykach dla dawnych terenów Rzeszy i w zajętych powiatach polskich. Liczby te prawie zawsze podawane są zbiorczo i można tylko oszacować, jaką grupę wśród nowo przyjętych stanowią volksdeutsche. " Also relevant: "Oprócz nazyfi kacji na wszystkich terenach wcielonych mamy do czynienia z jeszcze dwoma masowymi zjawiskami, które po wojnie uważano za przejaw kolaboracji. Pierwsze to dość masowa przynależność do organizacji afi liowanych przy NSDAP. Trudno nawet o wiarygodne szacunki tego zjawiska. Po zakończeniu wojny wymieniano w tym kontekście najczęściej dwie organizacje młodzieżowe: Hitlerjugend i Bund Deutscher Mädel oraz SA." and "Drugim masowym zjawiskiem utożsamianym z kolaboracją była służba w wojsku niemieckim, szczególnie w formacjach ochotniczych Waffen SS." Then "Po zakończeniu wojny z dość niejasnej defi nicji kolaboracji stworzono normę prawną, która stała się obowiązująca w Polsce, określając to zjawisko na nowo, nie w kontekście politycznym, ale prawno-sądowym. " (Sorry, I am a bit busy right now, so for translation see your friendly Goolge Translate or wait a bit). The interesting part is later when there is a list of what organizations were considered collaborationist (so membership in them equaled collaboration). With regard to Volksdeutsche, Polish law seems to have decided that members of classes I and II are collaborators. Finally, consider the interesting conclusion: "Po zakończeniu wojny zabrakło precyzyjnych kryteriów oddzielenia postaw kolaboracjonistycznych na terenach wcielonych od tych, które nazwano na wstępie dopasowaniem i postawami biernego i czynnego oporu. Spowodowało to oskarżenia o kolaborację dużej części tzw. ludności rodzimej, bez odróżniania tej grupy od mniejszości niemieckiej, która rzeczywiście w tym procesie dość masowo uczestniczyła. Wyznacznikiem kolaboracjonizmu na wschodnich terenach wcielonych stała się przede wszystkim przynależność do organizacji nazistowskich, a nie efektywne zaangażowanie w działalność niemieckiego aparatu władzy, struktur partyjnych i aparatu terroru." Bottom line: this source states that most of German minority collaborated, then offers some interesting commentary about the definition of collaboration and problems with the definition used in post-war Poland. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the careful phrasing, but the question isn't whether they've been "called" collaborators, but whether the source justifies the statement that they were the "principal" group of collaborators. The key sentence here is the one I quoted earlier, so we'll need an accurate translation of it (Nihil novi, if you will?). More generally, this is certainly something we should expand on; though the source repeatedly states that accurate numerical estimates are hard to come by, I tend to believe something like NSDAP membership, and resulting studies, wouldn't be too difficult to find. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Below is my understanding of: "Na wschodzie, na polskich terenach wcielonych, przed wybuchem wojny olbrzymią rolę odgrywała mniejszość niemiecka i spośród jej przedstawicieli rekrutowała się głównie grupa aktywnych kolaboracjonistów." (Kaczmarek, 2008, p. 166)

"In the east, in the annexed Polish territories, before the outbreak of war, an enormous role was played by the German minority, and it was from among its members that active collaborators mainly came."

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No, thank you. François Robere (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

To clarify he means East Europe when stating East, not East Poland. He contrasts Western Europe and Eastern Europe.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the issue isn't that "most of German minority in Poland were collaborators" (I think we have sources for that?) but whether "most of Polish collaborators were members of Polish German minority", right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, although the way this was put in the text suggests both. That, and the inflated numbers. François Robere (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How would you propose to rephrase this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

We can state that "according to... collaborators mainly came from the...", and we can state that as a group they were very active in pre-war civic life or politics (assuming that's what he means in "enormous role"), but I'm not sure it summarizes the entire thesis properly, as he immediately continues to elaborate on failed attempts of collaboration, not dissimilar to those of Studnicki and Co. I'd prefer a more comprehensive review, based as much as possible on English sources, of VD's wartime collaborative role. François Robere (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Where do you see him stating that this has been failed collaboration? He states that they collaborated massively."Spowodowało tooskarżenia o kolaborację dużej części tzw. ludności rodzimej, bez odrożniania tej grupy od mniejszości niemieckiej, ktora rzeczywiście w tym procesie dość masowo uczestniczyła'This caused accusations of collaboration against a large part of native population, without separating them from German minority, which indeed took part massively in this process.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In p. 167 onwards, IIRC, where he discusses stories of VD politicians who wanted to connect with Nazi German establishment and either failed, or were rebuffed. This is also implied in the summary, from which you quote. The summary also states that the granularity of the data does not allow for separating Volksdeutche from settler Reichsdeutche. François Robere (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

If you go to page 168 he clarifies that they collaborated, but were rejected to leading positions in the ReichWe wrześniu wielu z nich triumfalnie witało Niemców i uczestniczyło w tworzeniu administracji niemieckiej, ale odsuwali ich na bok Niemcy z Rzeszy (Reichsdeutsche). . Are you using google translate to read this? This would explain issues you are having. Also he mentions that NSDAP membership was seen as elite reward, rather than something widespread as for example Selbstschutz membership--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was referring to. And no, I'm not using GT for this. Are you? François Robere (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I am Polish, so this wouldn't be necessary. I though you didn't speak Polish language FR...--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The source talks about the GG, not Poland in general, and gives an estimate of 600,000 people, not 741,000. Nope, this refers to annexed territories.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

References

New sources

I see Molobo has added some new sources that are satisfactory for these claims. I hope this standard of sourcing is kept in the future, without us having to resort (again) to the TP to ask for it. As an aside, if I ever again read on this TP collaborationist apologetics in the vein of "they had no choice" (where "they" had legs and freedom of movement through the Polish expanse), I'm going to quote from Browning and other scholars on VD conscription, and I fully expect other editors to agree that outside constraints of this sort do not absolve of responsibility for participating in the Nazi atrocities. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Please address my using my full account name in the future. As to the rest of your statement, I struggle to understand what you mean, however personal views are not basis for Wikipedia articles.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I'll change my username to MyLevivichaccount and then insist that nobody call me Levivich. – Levivich 05:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Who had they had no choice? Anyway, WP:NOTAFORUM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is 'diverse ethnicities' a WP:WEASEL in the lede?

It's an odd use of the word 'diverse' and feels ungrammatical or non-native English to this native speaker. Poland had an ethnically diverse population, it did not have diverse ethnicities, which would mean that each individual ethnicity was itself diverse (which it was in the sense that an ethnic Czech citizen of Poland could also have Armenian heritage, but that's not what's being communicated here). So that should be instead 'all ethnicities', or 'all its major ethnic groups', right? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

In a way, yes. Some editors were concerned that the phrase "some Poles collaborated" suggests "ethnic Poles" rather than Polish citizens. Several alternatives were tried (including the latter), until eventually the title phrase was chosen. I still think the average reader is unlikely to make this mistake, and would've gone for a simpler phrase. François Robere (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

All major ethnic groups is fine.I actually think they should be listed. Poles is too general umbrella term that can imply only ethnic Poles which is obviously incorrect, and the fact that ethnic aspect of collaboration was a decisive issue on how that collaboration was treated and developed we need to mention this(this is always pointed out in scholarly publications on the subject). Furthermore as the controversy for example on the "Polish death camps" shows the average received of the information is often lacking the basic knowledge about the situation in German occupied Poland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

François Robere, thanks for explaining how we got to here. While the average reader is unlikely to make this mistake, it's us who have made a mistake in the English language, which still needs correcting.

MyMoloboaccount, listing all of them equally could present false balance. There may be something to be said for including in the lede German racial policy of classifying Poles as too much of a race enemy to be allowed to collaborate (with exceptions such as perhaps the Easter Pogrom which still needs inclusion in the article afaics), and the prevalence of ethnic German collaboration; but I don't think there is academic consensus on whether there were more collaborators among Poland's ~70% ethnic Polish majority or e.g. it's 14% Ukrainian minority: who knows whether the Szmalcowniks, etc outnumbered the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician), etc. Actually it should been 'all major' because 'all' would include say Warsaw's several black immigrants, etc - and who knows whether there was even one Polish Muslim collaborator. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. François Robere (talk) 13:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

References