Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

File:BergmanArmenian.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:BergmanArmenian.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 19 July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:French SS recruitment poster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:French SS recruitment poster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarian volunteers and government?

Why there is not any information about Bulgarian alliance with nazi Germany and Fascist Italy?--88.242.192.10 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Because Bulgaria was an ally of Germany - it was a member of the Axis Powers. This article is about collaboration with the Axis Powers, not about the various countries that comprised the Axis Powers. Maybe you should be asking why Italy, a very active participant and core member of the Axis Powers, is in this article. Meowy 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Italy and Hungary sections of this article. Italy and Hungary were both Axis Powers, a country cannot collaborate with itself. Meowy 16:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not B-class

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental misrepresentation of collaboration

Regarding:

...or simply to avoid death, knowingly engaged in collaboration... Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation without conflict, ...

"Collaboration" is treasonous cooperation with the enemy against one's own nation. Continuing to do one's administrative job prior to occupation under occupation, deciding to live to fight another day in the face of certain extermination in the face of overwhelming force—that is, doing something while compelled by means of a gun pointed to your head—is not "collaboration." As it stands, this is a definition with an agenda that lumps those simply doing their best to live to see another day with the worst Holocaust collaborators. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 22:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

An article like this really needs to nail down what is meant by collaboration. I don't think anyone would disagree that the people with a gun pointed at their head were not collaborating. But what about the Indian soldiers who volunteered just to get out of a Japanese prisoner of war camp? What is meant by "against one's own nation"? In what sense were the Belgian SS volunteers who fought against the Soviet Union cooperating against their nation? And for that matter, what was your nation? Were the Latvians who were conscripted into the SS by the puppet government of Latvia collaborators? Italy has been omitted, as it was an Axis power until 1943, but after 1943 there was an Allied puppet state in the south and an Axis one in the north; were the Italians who fought in the north collaborators? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, the laundry list nature of the article just invites POV and flimsy additions to the article. A repository for editors wishing to insert some derogative aspirations, whether justified or not. No context is required, let alone ensuring that it meets a specific definition. --Merbabu (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I came across a useful reference which confirmed that all the terms we use today for those cooperating with the enemy against their own--collaborator, quisling, fifth columnist--were all popularized in the lexicon specifically in talking about those who treasonously cooperated with the invading Axis powers. I've updated the lede accordingly. As it was, it pretty much stated that if you even suggested waiting for a better day to kill the invader, you were a collaborator in the meantime. Still not perfect, but at least it's not a "collaborator" fits all laundry list. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 18:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I feel it is best to revert your edit in this specific instance. The source you are pointing to is an American law review article. Such publications are always edited by students. The articles are written by various people in the legal field, including both academics and students, so the reliability is known to vary a great deal. Richard Z. Steinhaus was born in 1928 or 1929 (according to an obituary in the NYT [1]) and would have been a Brooklyn Law student at the time, to judge by the age. As far as the change itself, there seems to be a mistake: the term "fifth column" originated during the Spanish Civil War. The already world-famous Ernest Hemingway's book The Fifth Column and the First Forty-Nine Stories was published in 1938. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

I support this revert. Let me add to that the following. If we connect collaboration with treason, then many instances of collaboration will be excluded from this article. Thus, one may argue that by obeying Vichy government French civilians had not been engaged in collaboration, because this government was the only internationally recognised government of France in 1940-42. History knows other examples when civilians of Nazi occupied states joined German army obeying the call of their leaders, and fought against the Allied forces. There was no treason here, however, the fact of collaboration was indubitable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

@Zloyvolsheb, I'm fine with most of what you state, however, the source indicates popularization of the use of terms as opposed to origination, so I think you missed the intended connection.

@Paul Siebert, the restored wording is so flimsy that someone in civil authority telling people to remain safe in their homes (rather go out and risk being shot) or even an office worker who continued to work under the occupying Axis power can be labelled a "collaborator." Basically, anyone who didn't put up armed resistance who wound up with some sort of doings with the occupying Axis power and regardless of whether or not they had a gun pointed at their head can be branded a collaborator. This is utter nonsense.

@Both, either we have something sourced for who is a collaborator or we delete that section of the lede entirely until something adequate, and cited, is proposed--and which passes the litmus test of acting against one's nation's sovereignty and citizens. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, as I recall, the Vichy government accounted for a minority of France's territory, the majority being occupied (until itself being fully occupied). Regardless, "obeying" is not "collaboration" if that obeying does not pass the aforementioned litmus test. The notion that anyone who simply obeys an occupying authority or its agents is a collaborator (in the absence of any other criterion) is exactly the sort of nonsense I describe.

Given the charge of "collaborator" IS taken as working with the enemy against one's own (and typically killing people), I'm genuinely shocked that editors would be as complacent as they appear to be about a description of collaborators which is as expansive and unsubstantiated/unreferenced as that which has been created here--which, frankly, trivializes the term. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Re minority of territory, according to international law, territorial changes to not affect that. Even if a successor state lost considerable part of its former territory it remains a successor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't the case that "anyone who simply obeys an occupying authority or its agents is a collaborator" - as you put it. I don't see where the article suggests that, and I don't think that any reader with a triple-digit IQ would accept that, even if it were stupidly insinuated. But somebody who takes personal initiative to assist an occupying wartime enemy is a collaborator. Why even try to solve a "problem" that is not germane? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Philippines? Other U.S. Pacific dependencies?

The government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines found itself facing the usual dilemmas when occupied by the Japanese and evacuated by the U.S. Does this merit a section (which I can't write myself because I know so little hard information)? There were a few other U.S. possessions in the Pacific which also came under Japanese occupation, but about which I know even less. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Problems with a certain edit

A recent edit by Nug inserts the following text into the lede:

The term "collaboration" assumed a pejorative connotation as it came to mean "co-operation with the enemy". In Western Europe the enemy was clearly the German occupation forces. However in Eastern Europe many viewed the Soviet Union as an extension of Russian imperialism and thus viewed the Soviet forces as the enemy and therefore anyone co-operating with Soviet authority were seen as collaborators. There is a distinction between ideological and non-ideological collaboration, which Bertram Gordon terms "collaborationist" and "collaborator" respectively.

While many West Europeans identified with the Nazi cause and established local fascist collaborationist organisations to promote collaboration with Germany, East Europeans tended to collaborate in order to promote their own national self-interest rather serve German interests. For example Ukrainians did not establish fascist organisations that promoted the German cause but collaborated with Germans with the aim of establishing an independent Ukrainian state despite Germany's own plans for Ukraine.

The source for this is given as Michael R. Marrus, ed. (1989). Public Opinion and Relations to the Jews in Nazi Europe. The Nazi Holocaust. 1. Walter de Gruyter. p. 402. ISBN 9783110970449. I see the following problems with the new text:

- The source isn't Marrus. He's just an editor. The author is Taras Hunczak.

Yes, the cite is attributed as "Michael R. Marrus, ed.", so?

It is simply more helpful to directly cite the author of a work, rather than an editor of a collection it appears it.

- The term "collaboration" assumed a pejorative connotation as it came to mean "co-operation with the enemy" seems unnecessary as the preceding paragraph already explains that collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II involved people whose countries were occupied by the Axis Powers in World War II.

That line is needed to add context to the remainder of the paragraph. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Is it not clear to a person of normal intelligence without this kind of extra emphasis, since collaboration with an occupying enemy power in any context is not something that is usually viewed positively? What about the preceding sentence, stating that "some of these collaborationists committed the worst crimes and atrocities of the Holocaust"?

- In Western Europe the enemy was clearly the German occupation forces. However in Eastern Europe many viewed the Soviet Union as an extension of Russian imperialism and thus viewed the Soviet forces as the enemy and therefore anyone co-operating with Soviet authority were seen as collaborators. Hunczak doesn't say this on p. 402. He claims, on p. 401, that "In Eastern Europe and in the territories under Soviet control (apart from the Russian Republic), large segments of the population viewed Soviet authority as an extension of the Russian imperial state and the Soviet Union was therefore a supranational union that masked an occupying power." But that's it. He doesn't say that "therefore anyone co-operating with Soviet authority were seen as collaborators." Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Yes you are mistaken. The very next paragraph Hunczak states ""Within this context, a collaborator would be anyone who co-operated with the Soviet authorities."" --Nug (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. My reading of that section is that Hunczak is giving a critique of the term "collaborationist" in application to Eastern Europe; his argument on p. 401 is apparently that supporters of the USSR in Eastern Europe would also be termed collaborators if the same standard as that applied to Western Europeans were applied to them - hence, "During World War II colaboration acquired a pejorative connotation reflected even in its lexical meaning - "co-operation with the enemy." For this definiton to apply, however, the enemy must be clear. Western states such as France, Holland, and Belgium lost their national sovereignty as a result nof German conquest and occupation; in their case the enemy was readily identifiable. . . ." So, Hunczak goes on in the next paragraph, "Within this context, a collaborator would be anyone who co-operated with the Soviet authorities." If my reading of that is incorrect, it still stands that the article is titled Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, rather than Collaboration with the Soviet Union... I invite you to start the latter article if you feel that there is sufficient authority to justify its existence on Wikipedia.

- While many West Europeans identified with the Nazi cause and established local fascist collaborationist organisations to promote collaboration with Germany, East Europeans tended to collaborate in order to promote their own national self-interest rather serve German interests. I don't see where Hunczak claims this on p. 402 or 401.

You are kidding, right? Re-read pages 401 to 402, that sentence is a brief summary. Cut and pasting text form sources is frowned upon violate copyright. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. Hunczak hardly ever talks about the motives behind collaborationism in Eastern Europe - a very large and diverse area - as a whole; his focus is on the Ukrainians. In fact, he merely says (on p. 402), as I already pointed out, that "Unlike the French, Belgians, Dutch, and Russians, Ukrainians did not establish fascist organizations and youth movements that promoted collaboration with Germany." I take that Russia is very much a part of Eastern Europe in this context. In fact, Russian collaborationism with the occupying Nazis, comprising an corps-sized army stands out very much in the Eastern European collaborationism narrative.

- For example Ukrainians did not establish fascist organisations that promoted the German cause but collaborated with Germans with the aim of establishing an independent Ukrainian state despite Germany's own plans for Ukraine. This is a very strong claim made by one writer, obviously of Ukrainian heritage. While he meets the criteria of a WP:RS, how common is this view? I see no evidence it is mainstream enough to put into the lede. Since Hunczak's essay was written 1989, there should be some indication of whatever resonance of that view among other scholars - if any - there has been since. Incidentally, it would be helpful to know whether Hunczak's view is a view that is held only by a subset of Ukrainian writers, or whether at least some reputable non-Ukrainian writers who address the issue concur with it. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you attempting to play the ethnic card Zloyvolsheb? What's Hunczak's ethnicity got to do with anything? He has been lecturing at Rutgers University since 1960 and certainly is qualified to comment on East European and particularly Ukrainian history. In any case given that his work was selected for inclusion in a volume on the Holocaust would indicate his views have a degree of acceptance. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope - not playing the ethnic card. Hunczak is a WP:RS and his views on this topic therefore are notable, but we are just as much obligated to maintain due weight. Controversial claims certainly do not belong in the lede unless the focus of the article is on such claims, in which case both those claims and the opposing claims must be represented. The nature of the Ukrainian Nationalist Organization is a very a sharp dispute in modern Ukraine: of course, there were smaller groups that were consistently more pro-German than the OUN - whose members included those involved in an earlier group called the Union of Ukrainian Fascists (Союз українських фашистів), but which only cooperated with the Third Reich intermittently. For example, one scholar writes that

President Yushchenko, nationalist parties, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement, which fought both against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and to present OUN and UPA leaders as national heroes. They either denied or justified by its pro-independence struggle, the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in terrorism, the Nazi genocide, and the ethnic cleansing.

However, historical studies and archival documents show that the OUN relied on terrorism and collaborated with Nazi Germany in the beginning of World War II. The OUN-B (Stepan Bandera faction) by means of its control over the UPA masterminded a campaign of ethnic cleansing of Poles in Volhynia during the war and mounted an anti-Soviet terror campaign in Western Ukraine after the war. These nationalist organizations, based mostly in Western Ukraine, primarily, in Galicia, were also involved in mass murder of Jews during World War II. (Ivan Katchanovski (2010), "Terrorists or National Heroes? The Politics of the OUN and the UPA In Ukraine" [2])

In any case, you are misusing your own source. On p. 401 he notes that collaboration encompassed a broad spectrum of motives, including such motives as "to gain power, financial advantage, special privileges, or to lighten the burden of occupation," in addition to what he describes as the Western European motive of "Nazi ideology" (next sentence) and "German victory [as] a cornerstone of their political programs" (same paragraph, next page). In the next paraph, Hunczak claims, there were no ideological collaborationists in the Ukrainian context - "In Ukraine there were no collaborationists seduced by Nazi ideology or by the seemingly irresistible Griff nach der Weltmacht (grasp for world power)." However, you reduce this to "While many West Europeans such as Belgians, Dutch and French identified with the Nazi cause and established local fascist collaborationist organisations to promote collaboration with Germany, East Europeans such as Ukrainians tended to work with the Axis powers in order to promote their own national self-interest rather serve German interests." This clearly ignores the many possible factors besides "Nazi ideology" and the "Griff nach der Weltmacht". It also oversimplifies the situation in relation to Western Europe. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:38, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, both French, Dutch, etc collaborators, who were inspired with the idea of National Socialism, and, e.g., Ukrainian collaborators, who were driven with the idea of anti-Communism or nationalism, were equally ideological. Anyway, the reason of collaboration hardly matters here: everyone who voluntarily fought on the Nazi side pursued his own goals (and many of them believed the goals were noble). Nevertheless, independently on their real intentions, the major result they achieved was to postpone the end of Nazi Germany, so I doubt we need devote any space in the lede to any apologetic.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

@Zloyvolsheb, perhaps you should read the source more carefully in the future, I've added comments to each of your points. Given I have addressed all your issues the source text has been re-inserted with some correction. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at it multiple times and stand by what I wrote above. Please be so kind as to properly cite and indicate the correct page number in the future - it tends to be very helpful. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nug, I noticed you quote Hunczak's opinion from the text available from google books. In connection to that, I am wondering if the part of the text available from Australian google books is large enough? Were you able to read through the whole chapter, and the preceding one to make sure you haven't (accidentally) taken this piece of text out of context, and that the chapter expresses majority views? --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see Nug decided to ignore my question. Meanwhile, I decided to follow his advice and to read the source he used. I took 5th volume of Marrus, read the Hunczak's chapter (as well as the preceding one), and came to a conclusion that Zloyvolsheb was right, and that Martin used the source selectively to advance his position. Hunczak focuses not on collaboration in general, but on some specific case, namely, on Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi during the Holocaust. His statements are rather weird: thus, he contends that there was no collaborationists in Ukraine, although there was colaboration in, e.g. Russia. Obviously, stands on some nationalistic positions, and his chapter contradicts to what another author, Friedman (see the previous chapter) says: he clearly speaks about "Ukrainian collaborationists", so Hunczak's opinion cannot be presented as a fact.

Moreover, since Hunczak's chapter is devoted to Ukraine only, and mostly the the Holocaust, it can hardly be used as a ground for making some general statements, especially, the statements that are presented as mainstream ones. I revert Martin's writings, and I strongly discourage him from attempts to introduce this text again. Remember, I own the hard copy of this volume, and it would be not hard for me to convince the arbitrators (the EE related part of this article is under DIGWIREN) that selective usage of sources occurred.

BTW, thank you Nug for pointing at the good source. Another volume of Marrus contains rather interesting information about participation of EE local population in mass killing of Jews. I'll add this info in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I object to the tone of your response and your personal attack that I "used the source selectively to advance my position". I find it somewhat hypocritical given that you selectively retained Hunczak's definition of "ideological" and "non-ideological" collaboration in the lede. My intent was to expand the currently unsourced definition in the lede to something encyclopaedic. --Nug (talk) 19:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was I who originally chose to keep the definition in a revert on October 10. The distinction seems to have been made by Bertram Gordon while Hunczak concurs with it. I thought you would be pleased with the distinction. It is unhelpful for Paul to accuse you of using the source selectively and just as much unfair for you to accuse Paul of being hypocritical; let's all try to discuss the edit, not the editor. If you are unsatisfied with what we currently have in the lede, why not try to work out a consensus version here that we could agree on? The best place to start would be to point out what you are unhappy with right now: e.g., the lack of a sourced definition for collaboration, insufficient detail in the lede, etc.? For instance, I am not sure that there is an exact definition for collaborationism that is both widely accepted and inclusive of all the nuances. In this context, the concept may be applied by different writers in different ways. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 10:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well it is commendable that you now say "let's all try to discuss the edit, not the editor", but to bad you didn't think of that when you titled the section "Problems with Nug's edit", resulting in Paul Siebert repeatedly making personal attacks against me. --20:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, my accusations do have a serious ground. I obtained a hard copy of Marrus' fifth volume and looked through it briefly. I found that another chapter, authored by Friedman, exists in this volume, which is devoted to the same subject. Interestingly, whereas Friedman's chapter has a title "Jewish-Ukrainian relations during the Nazi occupation", Hunczak's chapter is "Jewish-Ukrainian relations during the Soviet and Nazi occupation". Since the idea that Ukraine was under Soviet occupation is fringe, I concluded that Hunczak hardly represents a majority views. In addition, the scope of Hunczak's chapter seems to be broader (judging by the title). That is why I politely asked Nug to check the source again to make sure he hadn't taken this piece of text out of context. Since he ignored my request, I decided to read the sources by myself, and I found the following.

Firstly, everything that Zloyvolsheb wrote appeared to be true. Nug's edit says: While many West Europeans such as Belgians, Dutch and French identified with the Nazi cause and established local fascist collaborationist organisations to promote collaboration with Germany, East Europeans such as Ukrainians tended to work with the Axis powers in order to promote their own national self-interest, whereas the source does not make such generalisations, and speaks about Ukraine only ("Unlike French, Belgian, Dutch, and Russians, Ukrainians did not establish fascist organizations..."). Such a degree of generalisation is a pure Nug's invention. Moreover, the text proposed by Nug clearly implies that Gordon's division between "collaborators" and "collaborationists" more or less coincided with division between Western and Eastern Europe. However, Gordon wrote about France, and Gordon's book does not support the Nug's implicit statement that, whereas Western collaborationism was predominantly ideological and voluntary, Eastern collaboration was mostly non-ideological and compulsory.

Secondly, and more importantly, despite my request, Nug totally ignored the preceding chapter authored by Friedman. Upon reading this chapter, I realised that Friedman directly contradicts to Hunczak, so the latter by no means expresses mainstream views. Thus, Hunczak writes:

"Although Ukrainians were not collaborationists, there were many collaborators among them, who volens-nolens co-operated with the Germans".(p. 402)

In contrast, Friedman writes (in the sub-chapter "The attitude of the collaborationist elements to the Jews"):

"In the early days of the German occupation the pro-Naziand collaborationist elements came to the fore in the Ukrainian community" (p. 371)

Hunczak writes:

"There is also information that hundreds, perhaps thousand, of Jews entered the ranks of UPA as physicians, dentists ..." "What is certain is that some Jews served the UPA in various technical capacities..."

He cites Friedman and say that "the number of Jews in the UPA was large enough to establish special camps where they could work at their trade." "At the end of the war seventeen Jews from Kudrinsky camp survived; the rest apparently perished." (p. 399)

However, I was shocked to learn about Friedman's explanation of the details of the fate of those Jews.

"And again the question arises: what happened to these hundreds or thousands of Jewish professionals and skilled workers? B. Esenstein that beginning with the spring of 1943 the Bandera group began to imitate the German tactics of "selection". Only the skilled workers were left alive, and they were concentrated in special camps. (...) Eseinstein reports that at the approach of the Soviet Army the Bandera groups liquidated the Jews of the camps."

In other words, by selective usage of Friedman's data, Hunczak draws a totally idyllic picture of good Ukrainian nationalists who saved few Jews, and he prefers to comfortably forget that the same Bandera successors killed all other Jews that were in their hands. In connection to that, I have no explanation of Nug's choice between Hunczak and Friedman other than the former, despite his blatant nationalistic apologetic stance, fits better into the Nug's own concept than Friedman does. Note, I didn't throw this accusations immediately, I gave a chance to Nug to fix his mistake. He ignored my advice, however.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I already told you above that I found your tone offensive, and you expand your personal attack to imply that I share some kind of "blatant nationalistic apologetic" concept in addition to your accusation that I "used the source selectively to advance my position" (the fact that you claim Hunczak holds blatant nationalistic apologetic stance apparently based upon nothing more than his ethnicity is troubling enough). I edited this article in good faith but I do not have full access to the source and was unable to read Friedman's section. Your claim that I didn't answer you is some kind of evidence to justify your attack is just pathetic. Unless you withdraw these uncivil accusations, I shall have to seek advice on whether your comments are in breach of WP:ARBEE. --Nug (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, if I understand you correctly, you did't have a full access to the source you used. Had you you explained that when I asked you, this incident could be easily avoided. Note, however, that I didn't blame you in sharing Hunczak's nationalistic views, I just wrote that you preferred to use Hunczak (despite his advocacy of OUN deeds) because it helped you to advance your own position (that Eastern collaboration was totally different from Western collaborationism; sorry if I misinterpreted your thesis, but that is how I understood it). I didn't know that you had no access to Friedman, however, since you abstained from answering, I assumed you had. I believe, in that situation, this my mistake is quite understandable.

I am astonished, however, to read the following your accusation:

"...you claim Hunczak holds blatant nationalistic apologetic stance apparently based upon nothing more than his ethnicity is troubling enough".

What is really troubling is the fact that I neither mentioned his ethnicity nor inferred anything from that fact. In contrast, I explained in details that, whereas Friedman writes that Ukrainian insurgents run de facto the camps where they used Jewish slave labour, killed those who were not useful, and eventually killed almost all of them, Hunczak describes just the beginning of the story, thereby drawing an idyllic picture of collaboration between Jews and Ukrainians, who provided the formers with protection and shelter. In connection to that, I am wondering why did you prefer to ignore this my explanations and focus of Hunczak's own ethnicity instead? If you do not share his "blatant nationalistic apologetic" concept (and, since I have no solid proof of the opposite, I cannot blame you in that), what is the reason to continue to defend Hunczak after those details have been explained to you?

I believe, now, when the problems with Hunczak's writing have been explained to you, you will not insist on usage of this source anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Again you accuse me of using a source selectively to advance my position: "I just wrote that you preferred to use Hunczak (despite his advocacy of OUN deeds) because it helped you to advance your own position", when I asked you to withdraw that personal attack. What has Hunczak's alleged advocacy of OUN deeds or their anti-semitism got to do with the view that there was variation in the motives between Eastern and Western collaboration? See John A. Armstrong Collaborationism in World War II: The Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Sep., 1968), pp. 396-410. There he writes that Western collaborationism was primarily ideological where these collaborators identified with Nazism while Eastern Collaborationism was primarily ethnic where it was just an extension of generational struggle against the dominant ethnic groups where "the Nazis were unsatisfactory but indispensable allies in this struggle". --Nug (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Since Armstrong's name have never been mentioned during the discussion regarding selective usage of sources by you, I am not sure I understand your point. Yes, I accused you in selective usage of sources, because I assumed you had a full access to the source you used, and you haven't explained the situation timely. However, since you apparently had no possibility to read Friedman's opinion, it would be incorrect to accuse you in selective usage of Marrus, and, I believe, I explained that quite unequivocally. Is my English so poor that that explanation was not clear enough?

Regarding Armstrong, yes, I read this article. However, upon reading that, in contrast to Western states, Eastern European nations never in history existed as independent states, I decided that the author definitely has problems with education, because, for example, Estonia existed as an independent state for 20 years before having been occupied. In any event, I doubt if all of that belongs to the lede. The lede already explains the difference between collaboration and collaborationism, between ideological and servile collaborationism, what else do we need?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hoffmann footnote

Hello. In his edits, Paul Siebert made use of a footnote named "Hoffmann", but that footnote was not defined. (Look at footnote 3 in the article for the error message). Also, it might help the reader if Hoffmann were identified in the text: first name, for instance, Wikilink if there's an article, "historian" or "political scientist" if not, etc. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at that. Fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. In actuality, the full reference was present in the initial version, however, during subsequent editing it has been accidentally deleted. Thank you for adding the wikilink.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Latvian Collaboration

Dear Mr. JoeSperrazza please do not delete additions to an entry without sufficient cause.... The additions I made to the section in question were factual, relevent and with sources... I have reposted my additions and if you feel that they should be removed again then please provide a reason! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.173.162.144 (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is far from neutral, and factually incorrect. Thus, you say "Having occupied Latvia in summer 1941 and liberating it from Soviet occupation". However, we cannot tell about any "liberation", it was just a replacement of one regime with another. I could continue, however, see no reason, because I agree with JoeSperrazza's rationale.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)