Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

This is how Poland section, with minor modifications, should look like.

" Unlike in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland such attempts failed. Polish statesmen who refused to collaborate, such as Kazimierz Bartel,[72][73] Stanisław Estreicher,[74][75] and Wincenty Witos,[76][77] were either executed or imprisoned by the Germans, and soon the concept of creating a Polish puppet state has been abandoned. Occupied Polish territory was either directly annexed to Germany or placed under a German-run administration called the General Government. In October 1939, the German authorities ordered the mobilization of the pre-war Polish police to the service of the German occupation, thus forming the "Blue Police." The policemen were to report for duty or face the death penalty. Their primary task was to act as a regular police force and deal with criminal activities, but they were also used by the Germans in combating smuggling, resistance and participated in roundups of random civilians (łapanka) as well as in patrolling for Jewish escapees from ghettos. The Judenrat (Jewish council) was a Jewish-run governing body set up by the Germans in every ghetto and Jewish community across occupied Poland. The Judenrat functioned as a self-enforcing intermediary that was used by the Germans to control a ghetto's or Jewish community's inhabitants and to manage the ghetto's administration. A Judenrat supervised the Jewish Ghetto Police (Jüdischer Ordnungsdienst) in helping the Germans collect Jews and load them onto transport trains bound for concentration camps. Other minor Polish Jews collaborationist formations that existed such as Żagiew and Group 13, inflicted considerable damage on both the Jewish and Polish underground movements." GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't even need the names of "Kazimierz Bartel,[72][73] Stanisław Estreicher,[74][75] and Wincenty Witos,[76][77]" references will do. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I firmly recommend restricting Polish section to concrete structured collaboration with Axis such as in other countries covered here. I encourage moving this Polish-Jewish historical conflict to proper articles including the creation of additional one if necessary. Otherwise, this particular article never becomes stable. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Polish-Jewish historical conflict?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes Slatersteven[1] GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

User:GizzyCatBella is under the impression there was some "conflict" based on "faith disputes and economic issues" rather than persecution of an ethnic minority by a xenophobic, often violent majority. François Robere (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahh you mean the historical background to the dispute over Poland's complicity with the Holocaust, not some old and ancient wear between Poland and the Jews. You are correct, the dispute between Poland and those who accuse it of a form of Holocaust denial (over it's complicity) may well warrant it's own article. But we should still mention the accusation here that Pole colluded wit the Holocaust (the worst kind of collaboration to my mind).Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No.

First of all, if you think Poland, of all places, is going the get the shortest section, then you're wrong. Second, if you think half of the section should be about Jewish collaboration (Jews being just 10% of the population, and the 10% most persecuted by those the collaboration was with), then you need to get your priorities and WP:DUEs in order. Third, if you think you can continue to justify despicable behavior by the likes of the Blue Police by "they had to do it", while completely ignoring collaboration with the Nazi racial agenda by thousands of others, then you're wrong. Fourth, I you've used questionable sources to justify your claims on several occasions ([2][3]), while denying perfectly acceptable sources (to the extent of posting slander right here on the talk page). I appreciated your willingness to compromise earlier on, but at the moment it seems to me that it was pretense rather than genuine willingness to work on an encyclopedic text. François Robere (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This is exacly what I'm talking about, exchanges continues. Move unrelated issues somewhere else or this article will remain long, off topic and unstable for sure. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you create an article François Robere "Poland mass genocide of Jews" and address this issues there instead of on insisting on having constant disputes here on matters that don't belong to collaboration with Axis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GizzyCatBella (talk • contribs)

So you're essentially saying it's okay if we use all of the material on Polish complicity, which you rejected as irrelevant, or biased, or whatever, as long as we don't call it "collaboration"? François Robere (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyways, this my solution on how to make Polish segment shorter by focusing it on the actual topic instead of on Polish Jewish relations during the war that don't belong here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Lets narrow this down, someone suggest one paragraph to remove and lets see where that goes?Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

This game again? We'll remove a paragraph, then in two weeks it'll pop up again because someone decided it's relevant, or just thought no one was looking. This isn't working. François Robere (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

We either create entirely new article dealing with the irrelevant dispute or this article will stay as it is, only to be extended further. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

It will be extended anyway, for two reasons: First, research into the subject is still relatively young, and one can expect future cases that will have to be listed here (in fact, I've already seen suggestions regarding train operators, factory workers and "social elites" that will have to be checked). Second, there's no reason to extend to Poland any more generosity than is extended to any other country on this list, and there's plenty to include within that space on as it is; so if you're hoping that not mentioning complicity will allow for a "slimmed-down" or "watered-down" text, rest assured - it won't. François Robere (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not start with the basic paragraph suggested at the top of this section by GizzyCatBella and, if appropriate, add to it as developing consensus may warrant? Nihil novi (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

See! :) so soon we'll discuss Polish railroad workers, factory labor and "social elite" as Nazi collaborators (look at the comment above yours Nihil novi):):) .. Anyways, this needs to stop, Poland section must cover real collaborators as I mentioned at the beginning of this discussion. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that in World War II, as usual in war, examples can be found, of groups large and small, engaging in the general free-for-all. Even the Jews had their collaborators; and according to Hannah Arendt, without their help the Germans might have found their Final Solution insoluble. Nihil novi (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There was a quote from Hannah Arendt in the Poland section regarding this issue, but it got removed. --E-960 (talk) 19:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a section "Jewish collaboration" now. It should be restored there. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Focus on so called Jewish collaboration, much of it under extreme duress (and some parts being essentially blood libel by non-RS Polish based sources) is UNDUE. While the Poles may have not structurally collaborated (blue police, labpr welfare, and other exceptions noted of course)- on an individual level there were many individual collaboraters - including many who converted to a German ethnic indentity via volksliste.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz It was created just recently, I was opposed to it but, I’m assuming, the idea now is to move Jewish contents from Polish segment there, that is growing too large. We wouldn't have this happening if not for one editor who couriers an idea that every single Pole co-operated in killing Jews that results in continuous enhancements to the Polish section. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Jewish collaboration should probably be separate from Poland. Nazi control structures, such as the Judenrat, were employed in most if not all of the ghettos - and were not unique to Poland - it would be duplicative to have this per country. The Nazis treated Jews as Jews, regardless of the country (when they had direct control as opposed to a puppet government).Icewhiz (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Areed, whatever the majority decides. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggested something similar above. François Robere (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This article needs to be given some rest

GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

This article has gone through over 400 revisions in the past month, mostly by two users,[4] while discussion was ongoing. This was exacerbated by uninvolved editors restoring material that had already been discussed and deemed irrelevant. Most of the involved editors don't seem to keep up with either the discussion or the changes. For my part I tried to focus on the discussion, and concentrate my changes to a couple of days a week to let everyone enough time to review them. Unfortunately this doesn't work, as they're either immediately reverted or passed to ANI as "vandalism" or "edit warring". I've done my best to discuss all of the issues, as well as cooperate with GizzyCatBella's attempt at structured discussion earlier, but this flopped as well. Discussing line-by-line or sentence-by-sentence is futile if people don't slow down. My suggestion is twofold: First, assuming by this time tomorrow NeilN in his eminent wisdom hasn't blocked me, we resume discussion of the core issues in a single section, with subsections branching for each meaningful problem:

== Discussion ==
=== Issue 1 ===
==== Sub-issue 1 ====
=== Issue 2 ===
==== Sub-issue 1 ====
==== Sub-issue 2 ====

I think the main problems are already known, so if you trust me to do so I'll arrange a section like the above where more orderly discussion can take place. This discussion (and presumably a lot of voting) will serve as a guide for overhauling the text later. Second, once the core issues have been discussed, the article is to be locked to participating editors only, allowing for work to continue based on the agreements that have been reached, and only them, with little interference from outside. After a satisfactory version of the text has been rendered (assuming no huge developments in the field in the near future), the page will be unlocked and the usual Wiki processes will recommence. This, of course, will require commitment by all the editors involved to either abide by the process or not take part in it at all; the alternatives, as far as I can see, are WP:Mediation, and possibly the involvement of WP:ANI where editors have hindered the process, and/or made unwieldy comments... The former is a possibility, the latter I'm not a fan of but could very well result if we take that path.

Here's a ping to everyone who's been involved here recently other than myself, apologies if I missed someone: C. W. Gilmore, Chetsford, E-960, Ernio48, GizzyCatBella, Icewhiz, KIENGIR, Nihil novi, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Poeticbent, R9tgokunks, Slatersteven, ThoughtIdRetired.

François Robere (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Clarification: Seeing KIENGIR's and Slatersteven's comment below, I wanted to make this clear: I'm not suggesting discussing everything in parallel, just structuring the discussion beforehand, then discussing each point in turn. Thus far we've had two several problems, two of which I'm trying to solve: First, the discussion wasn't structured at all, owing in part to the continuous change of material (10-15 revision a day, with two editors making more than half of those), and in part to people's availability through the length of a discussion. This resulted, indeed, in fragmented discussions which often repeated themselves with different groups of editors. The second problem is commitment - the fragmented nature of the discussions, along with a lack of commitment to abide by consensus, lead to an inability to maintain a consensus - one group of editors discussed and agreed on some issue, then a week later some editor or another raised the same issue with a different group, trying to reach more favorable conclusion than before. Structuring the discussion beforehand (not necessarily rigidly) assured that we will discuss all of the major points in order, while commitment on the part of editors guarantees that consensus can not only be achieved, but maintained long enough to actually make a difference in the article. Bottom line: There are only so many decisions that we need to make here, but in order to make them we need some framework to work within - in the very least we need to agree on a list of questions that need answering and a rough timetable (eg. within the month) - otherwise we'll continue "drifting" from one discussion to another without making any concrete decisions. François Robere (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, I think you need to give this article a little more than a short break. I can't speak for others, but I'm already tired of the topic and these constant arguments. I was trying to work with you, but sadly you are not showing any flexibility in your stance, battling almost everybody else. It must be either your way or no way at all, that is my impression. I said that before, it seems that you have a solid and final opinion on this particular topic, but your judgment may not be an accurate one. You need to realize that and eventually show some flexibility if you ever want to reach any consensus. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, GizzyCatBella? I was the only one to take you on your offer to "hold on on editing", I cooperated with your "#One fact at a time" discussion, and I wasn't the one to back down on things that were already agreed. I tentatively supported removing the IPN section and Bauer's quote, and I agreed to Slatersteven's suggestion to include "contrapositive" examples, and I kept several of your sources and claims throughout my revisions; how can you honestly claim I don't budge? And all the while you kept pushing your POV, with as much or as little patience as your fastidiousness allowed (remember most of those 400 edits are yours and E-960's, not anyone else's). And now you complain about others? François Robere (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You still kept pushing the same data over and over, just reworded or hidden in the context. Seriously François Robere, let's pause for a while, I'm exhausted from this already. There are so many separate articles on the Holocaust you can dedicate your particular knowledge and passion. Let this one cool off. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still seeing "The Essential Guide to Being Polish: 50 Facts and Facets on Nationhood" cited as one of your sources, and it doesn't exactly sound like a serious study. I certainly didn't push that one in. As for cooling-off: There's some lovely weather outside and sun will do us all well, but something will have to change later otherwise this article will move nowhere. François Robere (talk) 10:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I was pinged, although I was not involved in anything regarding the "Poland-saga", but the other BFC issue. However, since I am interested in history, as well WWII and Polish affairs, I may express my opinion or vote or taking part in possible consensuses. However, the edits and discussion are so long and versatile, as uninvolved from the beginning I think in the future, slowly, point by point should be the disputed matters to be decided, taking the issues one by one and settle them consequently, otherwise it will became so fragmented that it may be hardly enclosed wisely.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC))

Agree with the above (and said it myself before) trying to discus (or conflate) multiple issues at once leads to confusion and misunderstanding. Nor is this just about Poland (or the Jews, or Jewish Poles), we have one RFC (and I am wondering if we may need more), lets keep discussion of that topic there. Lets do the same for the rest, one section on one issue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Unblock / editprotected requesting

I suggest:

• (A) per WP:Summary style, write an extremely short, non-controverisal summary for Polish section. DO it right here, in talk page, since the article is blocked
• (C) Once the summary becomes reasonably acceptable (without nitpicking fanaticism), request the "unblock" or "editprotected".
• (B) Continue discussion of full text in Talk:Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany.

We should not allow a single section to block the whole huge artuicle. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany

Anyone interested can vote on this DUPLICATE article. It is no secret that the timing of this new Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany article is really unfortunate and questionable, you don't just create a new page from disputed text from the Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II article, right in the middle of a prolonged content dispute, just when the original article was LOCKED by Admins, in order to calm things down and prevent further disruptions. --E-960 (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Note of criticism to editors from E-960. I'd like to voice my concerns as to what's going on with this topic, though some might strongly disagree with the comment I'm about to make. But, I keep thinking about Criticism of Wikipedia in this case, and how this issue translates to the topic of Polish collaboration.

At this point we have three LONG texts on Wikipedia regarding this subject matter:

• Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany - 1,600 words
• Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II#Poland - 1,200 words
• History of Poland (1939–1945)#Collaboration with the occupiers - 1,000 words

Yet, with the exception of one or two editors, everyone is like — YEAH!! we need more stuff on Polish Collaboration cause two texts weren't enough for Poland — and Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view including UNDUE WIEGHT, BALANCING ASPECTS, EQUAL VALIDITY are ignored and dismissed as irrelevant, all that's said though is a numbing mob call that this is a VALID TOPIC. --E-960 (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This talk page is about improving this article, not about wider issues or other articles. Take this to a noticeboard.Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is valid point because it deals with the duplication of the same text across three pages, so stop hiding this problem by saying this should go somewhere else. --E-960 (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Ni=o it is not this is not a forum for you to vent your rage about people treating Poland unfairly on Wikipedia, that is the Neutral point of view notice board. It would even be valid to raise this point at the AFD, but this is not the right place (and could be seen as a form of canvasing). Also no one has said we need ore stiff, almost everyone (everyone?) now agrees we can trim this articles material as it is covered in the other one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

After article block is lifted restore the original Poland content from March 3rd

Link to old version

What that heck happened to the Poland section, and what the heck was the point of creating a separate Jewish collaboration article? This article section should be restored to the March 3rd version, when the last steps from the ORIGINAL discussion were done (merged back the sub-sections and removed reference to 2018 law) [5]. user:GizzyCatBella, pls stop trying to add more stuff about Poles saving Jews this is not the article for it, and user:François Robere pls stop trying to sanitize everything that's related about Jewish collaboration by calling it a "blood libel" — Btw, where did reference to Żagiew disappear to? --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Original content" from March 3rd? You must be joking, because it's not in any way the original content of the Polish section of the article, but a much changed, and some might even say whitewashed, version of the section. If we want the original, long-standing and far more neutral version of the section back, we need to go much further back in time. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

If you're to accuse me of something, E-960, make the extra effort and show some proof. The one thing you're referring to here is the claim Jews were "haunting" innocent Polish families, which is based on articles in money.pl and Salon24. I've pointed to you the problem with that sourcing at least three weeks ago, and you made no effort to change it since. François Robere (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thomas.W, whitewashed you say? Which side, explain to me for example where is the reference to Żagiew?? This version basically added all the bad stuff about Poles, and took out most of the damming things about Jewish collaboration, like statements Hannah Arendt, etc. --E-960 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• François Robere, what was wrong with those sources, they are reliable online news magazines, you basically said they were Polish, so they must promote a blood libel. --E-960 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the point! You're making assertions that really do sound like a blood libel based on popular magazines! I want to see some better sourcing for something as grave as that! François Robere (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, so every ugly detail about Polish collaboration must be true, but anything ugly related to Jewish collaboration is an outright lie and blood libel according to your logic. Can you say POV pushing?? --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you say straw man? François Robere (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think then pare of you need to step away from the article before you end up at ANI and get an IBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Restoring article to the even earlier version than March 3rd is not an option, in my opinion, it was way too long and full of unrelated material. Why don't just we back off for a month? Let's come back later with fresh minds once all this sinks in a little? GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this article should have been protected in the first place, but I agree with several editors who think it is difficult - and annoying - having to deal with generalities, plus people making general edits without explaining properly what they do in edit summaries or here. A few days ago, when Francois version was reverted, I reviewed it and said what I think should be incorporated back in, and what reply do I get? Nobody is addressing the particulars, people went back to generalities (my POV, your POV) and continue this bickering here. It is not productive. I, for one, feel like reverting to the last version *I* edited, and then inviting Francois to incorporate back the items I pointed above. Yes, my version, because nobody is explaining why anything else is removed or added. Anyway, I think a big part of the problem is that people are trying to keep this section consise, but hate seeing their favorite part removed. Sigh. I said several times the solution for this is to create a separate article, where we can go into this at length, and where we will have room for all issues that someone else may consider too minute for this. So, here you go, Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany is now a live article. Go at it, and try to fight here a bit less. After the protection is lifted, we should thin this section more, leaving only the bare essentials, to keep things in proportion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Piotrus, that has to be the WORST idea possible, seriously... to create a new article on Polish collaboration. We have edit warring going on with this page, and now the battles can straddle two seperate articles simultaneously. Btw, I'm assigning you're gonna create a similar article on French collaboration, etc.? --E-960 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Vichy FranceSlatersteven (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, Slatersteven — the Vichy France article is about a country just like Nazi Germany or Slovak Republic (1939–1945) articles, not exclusively about COLLABORATION. Now, it's painfully obvious how some editors miss the subtle details. --E-960 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

True, but it has a very large section on it, and Poland did not have such a collaborationist government. So a Polish collaboration article would look much like (and be of similar size and content) of the Collaboration section of the Vicey article. That is why we do not have an article dedicated to French collaboration, it is covered in detail in another article.Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding France, and frankly most European countries that got occupied by NG, I think there should be a stand alone article "Fooian collaboration with Nazi Germany". Currently, we just have articles on Russia, Belarus, Luxembourg and now, Poland. It is clear most people would rather forget that their nations collaborated, but those are encyclopedic topics. (Then there is collaboration with Japan in Asia, somebody probably collaborated with Italians somewhere too :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is called Content forking, a second attempt at a bad idea, after the same editor created a separate section on this page titled Jewish collaboration duplicating stuff from the Poland section that contained stuff on collaboration of Polish Jews. --E-960 (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So, what we are possessing now is an article about the collaboration of the country that didn't collaborate. Fascinating :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Not funny. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No. This is called WP:Summary style. When a section gets long, a separate article is split. An additional benefit, the controversy is moved into a dedicated place, not interfering with regular editing the rest of this rather long article. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a notable topic and needs a stand alone article. And Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany also deserves its own article, since it is notable topic too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Will you strive to create one later Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Since a Jewish state did not yet exist at the time of the Holocaust and therefore does not appear in "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II", an article on "Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany" or "with the Axis Powers" would seem appropriate. Nihil novi (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Piotrus, so when are you going to create an article about Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, sure as heck you created one on Polish collaboration with lightning speed. And, created a mess, you'll have running edit wars on two separate pages now. This had to be the stupidest and most impulsive act you could have done, instead of waiting a bit so emotions cooled on this page — now it's controversy x2, brilliant!--E-960 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

And we comment on content not users, so whilst his edit may be stupid his act is not.Slatersteven (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a comment about CONTENT, regarding the new article that was created and how really, really bad this idea was. Probably the worst time to split-off a controversial topic is during a prolonged and heated content dispute in which some editors were temporarily blocked, and this is what User:Piotrus did with out even waiting a bit for everyone to cool off and suggest the idea on this page. --E-960 (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Some personal attacks aside (through an apology would be nice), when I will create an article on Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany depends on my time and motivation. If anyone feels a particular pressing need for this topic to created, well, you know, it's a wiki world, you can start a relevant article at any time. Through it would be nice if the creator has skills that would allow them to write something that is DYKAble... For now, some interested editors may enjoy the new entry on Eliezer Gruenbaum. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to revert 4 months

I've undid the edit by User:Dlohcierekim, who reverted to the revision of December 10th. While there are issues to improve, I think the entire article, including the Polish section, has been improved since. No need to blow up the work of various editors, many of whom made good faithed edits to other sections. (To be honest, I don't see why this was protected in the first place). Anyway, any editors who find the Polish section problematic, I recommend focus on cutting controversial stuff down, so this article can become stable. We can discuss Polish-related topics in the new dedicated article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborative acts of omission?

The western Allies of World War II might have done something, before and during World War II, to reduce, if not prevent, the German mass murder of Jews, Poles, Russian prisoners of war, Roma, etc.

In May–June 1939, the U.S. and Canada refused to admit to their shores over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Europe aboard the German passenger ship MS St. Louis. Several western European countries, including Britain, admitted them, but during the war 250 of them were killed by the Germans.

In July 1943 the Pole, Jan Karski, acting on behalf of the Polish Government-in-Exile in London, met personally with President Franklin Roosevelt and told him about the ongoing Holocaust in Europe; Roosevelt asked about the condition of horses in Poland but did not ask a single question about the Jews. Karski also met with many other American government and civic leaders, including Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Office of Strategic Services chief William J. Donovan, and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Karski also informed U.S. media, bishops of various denominations, and members of the Hollywood film industry and artists. In 1944 he published his best-selling book, Courier from Poland: The Story of a Secret State. But the western Allies did nothing to stop the Germans' programs of slaughter of Jews, Poles, Russians, and other Untermenschen.

When, in 1944, the Polish Government-in-Exile in London pleaded with the U.S. and Britain to bomb the rail lines to the German concentration camps in Poland and elsewhere, the Allies once again did nothing.

The Poles tried to help but could not alter events massively single-handed. Those who could have done so, did not try.

Nihil novi (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Numerous involved here know that very well. Do you approve the above Icewhiz? Out of curiosity, I'm asking. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't called "Holocaust" yet, at the time of Karski, but mass extermination. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The expression holocaust comes from the ancient Greek holokaustos, "whole burning"—originally, a burnt offering.

Since Europe's Jews lost 6 million people—two-thirds of their population—in the Shoah ("the catastrophe"), it has come to be called a "holocaust". It was all too close to a "complete burning".

But the term "holocaust" has also been applied more broadly: to the Germans' systematic mass murder of 11 million people: the 6 million European Jews, plus 5 million other people, including Roma ("Gypsies"), homosexuals, persons with physical or mental disabilities, Poles (half of the 5 million), Soviet prisoners-of-war, and others whom the Germans did not wish to share the world with.

We must not forget the Jews' losses. But if we fail to remember the Germans' other victims, we will be perpetuating the Germans' deprecation of peoples other than themselves.

Nihil novi (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella:, responding as I was pinged. My understanding os that the government in exile (a highly educated and capable group ) was generallly sympathetic and quite supportive towards the Jews. However, I would not ascribe the government of exile's actions to all Poles. Poles quite possibly killed more Jews than Germans (Gross - and the total number is hundreds of thousands), and the Home Army (AK) had elements within deeply imbued with antisemitism - and actively killed Jewish partisans and escapees at various phases. Other Poles, on the ground, saved Jews. Poland was a very complex society prior to WWII (as was Jewish society within Poland - Warsaw Jews were quite different from backwater shtetls in the east) - stereotyping or attributing actions (favorable or negative) from some to all is problematic. Jason Wittenberg & Jeffrey S. Kopstein's research into why there was interethnic strife in some locations, and not in others, is quite interesting. My problem with the passage above is the use of "The Poles" as opposed to "Polish Government in Exile".Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

As they were not enemies at the time no.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The general (historical) question is interesting and may merit its own article, but this one clearly isn't it. "Collaboration" requires, by all definitions, active participation; what you're suggesting is a failure to act. François Robere (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, anyway somewhere such acts should be mentioned how i.e. the U.S. "indirectly"? supported Germany regarding manufacture, Hollerith-machines, manufacturing German military vehicles (Ford), etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC))

Indeed. Another - so far - blind spot in this article relates to topic such as IBM and the Holocaust and in general, the involvement of neutral or even in theory, hostile businesses, in the German war industry (see relevant Category:Companies involved in the Holocaust). This is not a particularly reliable ref, but it could give someone a decent starting point. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Aren't some of the most prominent arguments, particularly related to high estimates of Polish collaborators, related to that very 'failure to act' argument? As in 'Poles did nothing while the Jewish perished'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Not as far as I know no.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

In light of the above discussions of Allied collaboratory acts of commission and omission, and of Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, during World War II, perhaps this article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" might be augmented with sections covering Jews and covering the United States? Nihil novi (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree. All kind of collaborators should be listed, in a way, with more or less details according to the measure & relevance.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC))

Thanks to KIENGIR and Piotrus for bringing this up. I suggested earlier a "trans-national" section for the likes of BFC, that weren't centered on any particular location (I'm pretty sure there were other organization, eg. political parties, that would fit there as well). "Businesses" may merit another section. François Robere (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a section titled "non-governmental entities"? PS. Another reliable source: [6]. PPS. I created a new section, for now called 'collaboration of companies'. Check it out. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

FYI the Jewish section was added, but then was TNTed when the article was reverted to the version from 4th month ago. Sigh. I've restored the most recent revision. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Poland section draft

Main article: Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany

Unlike in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland, such attempts never materialized, and the concept of creating a Polish collaborationist puppet state has been abandoned. Occupied Polish territory was either directly annexed to Germany or placed under a German-run administration proclaimed the General Government.

---

Certainly not. Lack of a puppet state can be one sentence, followed by blue police, welfare service, railways, poles in the Whermacht, AK and other Polish armed groups cooperating with Germany against Soviet forces, and the Jewish Judenrat.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Railways? GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Welfare service also? Red Cross you mean? GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget child care. Seriously, the examples above are pretty ridiculous :) Are we going to count all Polish farmers as collaborators because their food was requisitioned by the German army too? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Per ushmm - As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. Individual Poles often helped in the identification, denunciation, and hunting down of Jews. So yes - the railway workers (who also assisted in transport eastwards - to the front - conveying supplies and soldiers).

• Too short -- I think a section of about 4 paras would allow to better summarise the content that's been moved to the new article. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Apart from that, "has been abandoned" needs to be changed to "were abandoned" (after several failed German attempts). Nihil novi (talk) 02:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Nihil novi, Icewhiz & K.e.coffman modify above text pl. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• While I think the current section can be cut in half or so, given the existence of the subarticle, the above is too short. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the need for protection. We can try to edit this in the mainspace, now with the stress on cutting stuff that's non-essential, since all details and semi-related topics can be discussed in the subarticle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks for setting up "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany".

Nihil novi (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nihil novi It is possibly a dangerous and unpredictable development, hope you realize this. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there a source for the claim they tried and gave up?Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this article should stay LOCKED, and for good reason. We just opened up another thread about re-wording the Poland section and we are again in a deadlock in terms of opinion, along with a new and completely separate article to add to the confusion, gridlock and edit warring. --E-960 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• More confusion and gridlock just as before. --E-960 (talk) 17:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You know what the issues are with this suggestion, because we already discussed all of them (including your own source that suggests there was no serious attempt to install a collaborative government). So no. François Robere (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that everyone agrees this page should only have a short statement and link to the full article. I agree, with the newly proposed text for this article, if any think we can add a bit more, piece by piece, but it cuts through the initial gridlock. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I would rather then did actually said something about Polish collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, can you say again? --E-960 (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I used the intro paragraph proposed here, and created an abridged version of the Poland section, taking out much of the text, as it was a word-for-word duplication of the text found on the Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany page — no need to have two identical texts in both articles, just a overview of the subject and a link to the full article. --E-960 (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski

I pushed myself into reading Grabowski, and I have to tell you that I’m more and more wondering about his work. I speculate that he is doing it for publicity and money. Anyway, that’s just my personal opinion, irrelevant after all. "200,000 Jews were killed directly, or indirectly by Poles during the Holocaust". What does he mean by “indirectly killed”?? People denounced by Szmalcowniks? GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Another question, if there was a Polish fellow who murdered a Jew to rob him, meaning he killed a man for personal gains. Is that Pole a collaborator and if yes, why? Now, what if there was a Jewish person who killed a Pole to take away his...food for instance. Was that Jewish person a collaborator since Poles were also oppressed by the Nazis..?? Now, what about a Pole who killed another Pole for personal gains, was the killer a collaborator? What about a Jew who murdered a fellow Jew? Sorry, I’m still trying to wrap my mind around all of this. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume he does, and his estimate doesn't at all looks exaggerated to me. Bear in mind when dealing with Gross and Grabowski that they've both been targets of smear campaigns in Poland, up to and including death threats, all the while being well respected abroad [7][8]. Put differently: I wouldn't trust Polish dailies for a fair critique of either.

It's a perfectly acceptable question, the answer to which lies in a different question: "would the crime have been committed regardless of the Nazi presence?" If it would, then it's "regular crime" (eg. robbery of an anonymous person) and doesn't belong here; if it wouldn't (eg. blackmailing a Jewish family), then it does. One can also form more precise questions instead ("...regardless of the Nazi racial agenda", "did the crime align with Nazi racial policy" etc.), but you get what I mean either way. I tried to circumvent the whole issue of motive - which as you note is highly nuanced - in my (now reverted) revision by using the phrase "crimes against the Jewish minority carried in the context of the Nazi occupation" instead of just "collaboration". François Robere (talk) 04:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Gross lost his credibility following his actually not bad book about Jedwabne that has been confirmed to be overblown. And his latest statements such as "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" don't help. But Grabowski and his findings is a mystery to me. I need to see a scholarly response to his work first to properly assess him. But for now, I'm just using my knowledge and simple logic such as this: The mass killing of Jews started about 1942, that's roughly 900 days until the time of Red Army arrival. Which indicates that Poles themselves had to kill more than 220 Jews a day. Such mass slayings would have to be noticed and reported or documented somewhere. There is NO WAY that the Germans or Polish Home Army wouldn't identify that happening. So now, why there are no German reports on it, photographs, a film? Why there are no Polish underground reports on it? Why Żegota didn't know and didn't stretch its help to protect Jewish citizens from the Poles? Why there is no 70 years old written official records of any kind? None. And now, 70 years later we have Grabowski and his 200.000 ... Anyways, let brush this aside, historians should sort that out not us. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read his book, but the claim 200,000 needs to be sourced. Our article notes that few thousand is the number of people sentenced for said crimes. There are, of course, some, who escaped. Our article does explain that higher estimates are "counting in all members of the German minority in Poland and any former Polish citizens declaring their German ethnicity (Volksdeutsche), regardless of their support for the Nazi cause, as well as conscripted members of the Blue Police, low-ranking Polish bureaucrats employed in German occupational administration, and even workers in forced labor camps (ex. Zivilarbeiter and Baudienst)." Maybe this is how Grabowski arrives at 200,000. Does he ever explain that his book? Btw, here's another newsy shocking statistic from recent days: [9]: "According to one scholar at Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial, of the 160,000-250,000 Jews who escaped and sought help from fellow Poles, about 10 percent to 20 percent survived. The rest were rejected, informed upon or killed by rural Poles, according to the Tel Aviv University scholar, Havi Dreifuss." Wonder what their sources are? (also, ping User:Poeticbent, User:Nihil novi)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What the article states is not a proof of fact, as was previously noted (see WP:CCC). Grabowski simply used a different method than Lukas, which is related to the particular statistic you quote. There's an explanation somewhere above. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I know IPN and many Polish historians disagree with Gross, but as I said - abroad he very much maintains his credibility (including that statement of his, which two historians interviewed in the context of his persecution said "may end up being true"). Everything else is WP:OR, so not for us to promote. Again I reiterate: put aside much of what you've heard in everything relating to Grabowski and Gross. Countries like their national myths, and react strongly when they're challenged. I can show you recent examples of this from Polish media, but I'd rather not do it on this talk page as it's WP:FORUM. François Robere (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I also heard that other scholars questioned Grabowski's estimates and particularly the method of how he arrived at that number. So, I would not consider his research as settled history and more like an ongoing academic controversy. So, in this instance omitting his quotes in the article would be a preferred. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's not. I'd venture a guess that he's just the first to provide an estimate this order of magnitude, given the historic and historiographic reasons we already discussed. What specifically would you omit? François Robere (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, just like with the Heroism and betrayal section, I would get rid of the entire paragraph with stuff form Grabowski, Paulsson, Chodakiewicz, Schudrich and Zuroff. Because the number of Jews killed by Poles is not necessarily related to collaboration. But, perhaps more to do with local anti-semitism, banditry and lawlessness (unless like in Jedwabne, Poles were encouraged by the Germans). Also the graphic details is something that can be done away with just like in the Judenrat section. We really need to think how to trim the Poland section and keep material that is related to collaboration, and what is settled history, instead of listing point vs. counter point, because Poland is not the only country in this article. --E-960 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That's, again, the usual Polish heap of justifications (along with "they thought they were communists" and a few others). You can spin in a thousand ways 'till Sunday and you won't escape one simple fact: Polish Poles gladly turned against Polish Jews, and they only needed an opportunity to do it, not a justification. The Polish war and post-war myth is full of these, and we're way past it. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I would call it an adjustment to the Polish WW2 story. Nevertheless, since there are no volunteers, I'll eliminate the line concerning the Blue Police and Dąbrowa since this is covered in the section dedicated to the Blue Police below. I think this is self-explanatory anyway. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a fact, it is your opinion, controversial and debated among historians, and very much WP:FORUM. Anyway, even if we accept the highest, i.e. 200,000 collaborators claims, you get something like 1% of Polish population of that time. Hardly sufficient to justify any claims that 'Poles were collaborators'. Some, of course, were, and we should certainly provide number and analysis here. But we should be careful of NPOV. Anyway, I think it is fair to cite Grabowski, but we should not give him WP:UNDUE weight, his estimate is just one of several, and absent other sources, it is no worse or better than those of his peers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski states that the entire Polish society collaborated Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and there were no bystanders, Grabowski's 200 thousand figure is the number of Jews killed by the Poles, not the number of Polish collaborators.(225 people a day I calculated). GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Would you happen to have a full quote, preferably online (GBooks?) so I can look at it? It is clearly an exaggeration, because saying that entire society collaborated denies the indisputable existence of Polish Righteous Among the Nations. Not to mention that Polish Jews were part of the Polish society and such a generalization accuses them of collaboration against themselves... I'd hope historian like Grabowski would not make an identical mistake as the one that got the recent Polish PM in hot water, sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Quote "Poland is probably the only country in the world where practically the whole society betrayed and handed over to the Germans each hidden Jew..." end quote. Quote "The entire Polish society is to be blamed" end quote. Word "probably" applies to "the only country in the world," everything else, according to him is a fact. There is much more if you want? The retardation of this two claims alone intimidates me into silence, no more comments. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@@GizzyCatBella: Thank you (page number / GBook direct page link would be nice for the future). And yes, this is pretty bad, showing that instead of being a neutral historian, he clearly has (an anti-Polish) axe to grind. Setting aside Germany itself, there is Lithuania (from The Holocaust in Lithuania: "More than 95% of Lithuania's Jewish population was massacred over the three-year German occupation — a more complete destruction than befell any other country affected by the Holocaust. Historians attribute this to the massive collaboration in the genocide by the non-Jewish local paramilitaries...". (through destruction of the Polish Jewery at over 90% is not that far off). In Estonia (from The Holocaust in Estonia), "virtually all of those who remained (between 950 and 1,000 people) were killed by Einsatzgruppe A and local collaborators before the end of 1941". (Yes, those were small countries...). The Holocaust in Luxembourg suggests that that entire city Jewish population was cleansed too... I don't have time to look at others but clerly, Grabowski is generalizing because he wants "sound bites". And I already addressed blaming 'the entire society' (which, nomen omen, includes Grabowski's Jewish family too...). I wonder if he has some personal reasons, or if such authors just hope that controversy = high book sales.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus High book sales, grants for new "research" from organizations that need such work to achieve their particular plans (I'm sure you understand what I'm referring 2), paid speeches and everything else that comes with being famous in certain circles. Just another book on Holocaust wouldn't make him any significant amount of money. I'm nearly sure that I'm right on this one. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

While reading Klaus-Peter Friedrich. Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II (remember, folks, Library Genesis is your friend - I am a scholar but when I am at home even I can't be arsed to log in to uni network, all those hoops...). It is an interesting article, not particularly friendly to Polish cause, but I think reasonably neutral, more so than some studies done by scholars affiliated with the Polish or Jewish side (IMHO, one's national and family ties are paramount here, Poles will try to minimize the issue, and Jews will exaggerate it - perfectly normal in any similar debate). Interestingly, he states: "Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand197 to about one million.'198". He cites for 197 Lukas, Forgotten Holocaust, 117, a work we already cite, and for 198, Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk,"' 146. That spiked my interest, since Czesław Madajczyk is a respected Polish historian, who did a lot of work on WWII casualty estimates, and furthermore, as an old-date scholar I would not expect him to be in the 'high' estimate camp. Unfortunately, he quotes a German translation or original work of Madajczyck: "Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitik

in Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: AnndherungenZbliienia (Diisseldorf, 1996), 24-39, esp. 33" [10]. I don't speak German so hunting for verification for this is beyond me, and as the book is not free online, I cannot access the page 146 to translate and verify. The title suggests it may be a translation or summary of his earlier (1970) Polish work Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, but as an old Polish book, it is not digitized, legally or otherwise, and I am not in Poland to look this up in a library. Frankly, it would best if someone in Germany could help by checking the exact page in German version, but anyway, since we do have a reliable source, I will update the high-end estimate in text to one million. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• As the revised statement reads at the moment, I'm not sure we should just keep Grabowski's estimates as a stand alone statement, because there are several historians who do not agree with Grabowski. As the text reads now, it comes across like the figure of 200,000 is widely accepted by other historians (settled history), while in fact it is not, rather falling into the category of academic controversies. The text should reflect other estimates. --E-960 (talk) 08:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Piotrus, also one very important fact to consider, Grabowski's controversial estimates do not strictly relate to 'collaboration' but include numbers based on actions carried out by Poles alone think like locl anti-semitis, banditry and lawlessness (not part of organized collaboration), similarly as with Wołyń Massacre by UPA who carried it out based on it's own agenda, not to help kill Poles for the Germans, same issue applies to Grabowski's estimates. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you E-960, but the moment you remove Grabowski's nonsense the mudslide will start again. Some editors expressed full confidence in his work. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, that's fine he can stay in, but in the older version there was a note that other scholars did not agree with such numbers, can we find their estimates to show the full range of numbers? --E-960 (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• In any case that's fine I guess we don't need to keep reopening the same topic. --E-960 (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

To be honest E-960, the whole section (Poles and the Holocaust) should be removed. You know why? Because it's quietly insinuating that the Poles had something to do with the Holocaust. I meant to tell you that earlier... As of 2018, we are only at the stage of the entire society killing 200 thousand, shyly whispering your subconscious to incorporate this message into the Holocaust. Bigger fireworks are yet ahead unless demands are fulfilled. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a problem, because of the statement's ambiguity. Perhaps, this topic will need to be revisited. --E-960 (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

First, as far as I'm concerned the subheadings are only an editorial aid, and should be removed at some point in the near future when the text is finalized. In the meanwhile you can rename anything however you want as long as we can refer to it here.

As for estimates: I understand how you view Grabowski, but keep in mind that outside of Poland, and to others in the field, his estimates are not at all controversial AFAIK. Just to give a different perspective which is purely in the realm of WP:FORUM and WP:RS, think of it this way: A figure of 200,000 murdered suggests anywhere from 200,000 to one million collaborators; in a country of some thirty million, the high end of the range suggests some 3% of the population collaborated in this sense of the term; does it seem exaggerated or unusual compared to the rest of Europe? Compare that with an estimate based only on executions by AK, which results in just a few thousands - a fraction of percent - that's an exceptional claim. Given what we know about rampant antisemitism in pre-war Poland, and from survivors' testaments, and even Poles' testimonies from during and after the war, neither Grabowski's estimate or its implications seem at all unreasonable.

As for the "whole society" quotes - the way I read those is as referring to collective indifference, not to active participation (something which is again backed by all sorts of WP:RS). I don't think we need to include Grabowski's "there were no bystanders" quote, which is both potentially incendiary and not very clear on its own, but we do need to to mention antisemitism in Polish society, which I think Connelly's definition of "structural collaboration" captures well. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

A figure of 200,000 murdered suggests anywhere from 200,000 to one million collaborators - this remainds me the Lightbulb joke - how many Poles do you need to kill a Jew. There existed criminal gangs who murdered people routinely, not only Jews. Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To use antisemitism you have to define it and measure. Some leaders of help for Jews were antisemitic, eg. Zofia Kossak. Hugo Steinhaus was helped by an antisemite, who lectured against Jews but offered his life to save this Jew.

Deadly communities [11] links pogroms with strong political division. There were less pogroms where Jews supported BBWR.

There existed almost none family connections between Christians and Jews in Poland.

Many Jews spoke poor Polish. You can't pretend to be Polish if you don't speak fluent Polish.

Orthodox Jews looked totally differently and psychology says, that people help people similar to themselves.Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Robbery of Jews was generally illegal in occupied Poland, because Jewish goods belonged to the Reich. It happened that Polish people were killed to prevent robbery. Only sometimes collaborators were allowed to take away cheap goods. Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Occupation of Poland started in 1939 and finished in 1944 or 1945, which makes 5 or 6 years. No other nation was occupied so long and cruelty of terror ws comparable only to occupied Soviet lands.Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is the Blue Police a nasty collaborator but the Channel Islands police isn't one?

The Channel Islands police delivered Jews according to German orders, they were polite. Politeness doesn't however save human lives.Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any page describing Vichy police.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC) fr:Collaboration policière sous le régime de Vichy Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You probably could add the Channel Islands police (e.g. per [12])).Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Origional intent

Given the title and the lead it is quite obvious this article is supposed to be about collaboration by the citizens of defeated powers during WW2, shall we revert back to the original intent?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? François Robere (talk) 20:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that was obvious, the page is about "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" by "some citizens" of "nations occupied by the Axis Powers" so many material not pertaining to the actions of the citizens of occupied nations during WW2 is not what this article is about and should be removed.Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

No, your consideration is not totally obvious, on the contrary, we discussed several times what means "collaboration". It has no restriction in my interpretation only to the citizens of the defeated powers, etc., collaboration is collaboration, I don't support removing any material according to your interpretation.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC))

But that is not what the lead says, thus we either remove the material or rewrite the lead, how hard is that?Slatersteven (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So change the lead... François Robere (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

My argument is we remove the offending material, it is down to those who wish to rewrite the article to make suggestion, mine has been made. If no one can come up with a better alternative there can be no valid reason for retention of material that conflicts with the lead.Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I support the rephrase/rewriting of the lead to avoid any misunderstanding, in the support of that idea I mentioned several times (= every collaborator principle).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC))

Then I suggest someone rewrites it, I still favour removing the material.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Poland

such attempts failed - any proves? Hitler despised Poles and didn't accept any form of collaboration. Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on that here, which is now continuing in a related article. You're welcome to express your opinion. François Robere (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 At first, in 1939/40 the Germans have attempted to establish some collaborations Polish government. Familiarize yourself with the bios of Wincenty Witos or Kazimierz Bartel and few others the Germans approached (all in sources). Entire Polish political elite refused to collaborate. After failed efforts, on Hitler's orders, the Germans changed the approach concerning Poland's landscape, creating General Government under the direct German rule. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The Witos page is unfinished. How do they know what Bartel told before his execution? I bet there are no documents. We know only what Lanckorońska was told by a Nazi.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you're again engaging in this argument with anyone but me. I challenged your sources - are you going to reply, or just repeat yourself? François Robere (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversial structure

By country section informs about details, only later comes Collaboration of governments. Xx236 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. The later sections need some rearranging - some of them are relatively new. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

WW2

Did not start until 1939, so any act before that is not collaboration with the axis powers during WW2, either such material needs to be removed or we need to name the page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a specific example? I don't think it's a significant problem. "Leading up to" can be reasonably bundled with "during"; of course, that can only go that far back. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well most of the corporate examples in the article are all before the USA entered the war (for starters). And no "during" does not mean "just before" it means "during". This [[13]], was before WW2, does this make Poland a collaborator? How about when they sides with Germany during the Munich crisis. If we are going top start to include pre-war deals and alliances then that is a can of worms a lot of people will object to (I am doing so now).Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll give you an example of what I mean: Say it's 1939 and Germany is gearing up for war. If some arbitrary country or signs an agreement saying "we'll equip you, but we won't fight for you" that won't necessarily imply they're part of the Axis, and "collaborator" or "collaborationist" or pick-your-definition could be due even if the action establishing them as such happened just before the war started. But of course - WP:RS. François Robere (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So a company modifying films so they can get past a censor is collaborating but a nation supplying them with arms is not? As to RS, which RS say that Hollywood collaborated during WW2?Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is either about actions during WW2 or not, at this moment in time the title says it is about actions during WW2.Slatersteven (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating anything about any particular source, I'm just saying things like that can be considered in some cases. François Robere (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Well that is what we are talking about, does collaboration during WW2 count if it was before then outbreak of war. Why not just support changing the name to "Collaboration with the Axis Powers " and this is resolved.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually that's not a bad idea at all. I assume "during WWII" was added just to discern this from... any other historical Axes' powers? François Robere (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There have been no other Axis Powers, so this seems an eminently sensible idea. Nihil novi (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a valid point, but at the same time numerous sources, including academic, are using this term in such a context. While they may be abusing the word collaboration, we are not there to correct such mistakes (if they are mistakes). We are here to report on what reliable sources say. I think we could add a note to relevant section (such as the new one on businesses) saying that the use of word collaborate can be controversial/problematic for the reasons explained here. But I'd strongly object to removal or such a section. Numerous sources discuss 'collaboration' of US companies with the Nazis BEFORE the US entered the war, and so should we. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The issue is not the use of the word collaboration, it is the fact this article is about collaborative during WW2, and not at any other time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, regardless if the collaboration started before WW2, those to be listed are valid who continued the collaboration also after 1 September 1939.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC))

Possibly, but a rename solves the issue, is there any actual objection to a rename?Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to it, but I'd like to stress one important point: the bottom line on Wikipedia is accessibility. That is: a lay reader should be able to find the information they seek where they expect to find it. In this case, a lay reader (or "the average reader", if you prefer) who's looking for information on collaborators with the Axis powers would expect to find it here, regardless of the qualifier "during" in the article's name. This means that the content should fit the reader's expectation and be inclusive of relevant pre-WWII content (given it satisfies RS), rather then be exclusive just because of a naming lapse.

As for renaming, I suggest that along with "Collaboration with the Axis Powers" we also consider "Collaboration with the Axis Powers in World War II". "In" isn't as strict a qualifier as "during", and insofar as the creator of the article intended the name to reflect a particular Axis (or give context, or whatever), it serves the same purpose. François Robere (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

And it was not "in " WW2 either. I suspect the author also had in mind an article about collaboration by citizens of defeated nations in WW2 (the clue is both in the title and the lead). "in" (in this context) does mean the dame as "during".Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

More options: "Collaboration with World War II Axis Powers" and "Collaboration with the Axis Powers of World War II". Take your pick. François Robere (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

So what other group of Axis powers do we need to differentiate form?Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't look at me, I didn't name this... (but mind - we may see more "axes" popping up with time, like Bush's completely different "axis of evil", so why not mention WWII already?) François Robere (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

So then there us no reason to make any distinction. So I ask again does any one actually have a valid reason to object to the name change beyond "but it might refer to some other Axis Powers I have never heard off"?Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

You should clearly tell again what is that version that you wish to change, and after everyone can decide if it is supported or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC))

Change "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" to "Collaboration with the Axis Powers", I am really now sure why this is so problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem, if with this new title all the pre-war collaborators remain and as well those who continued/joined after 1 September 1939, until the end of WWII.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC))

So lets try again, does anyone actually object my suggested rename, not do they have an alternative, does anyone object?Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's do it! "Collaboration with the Axis Powers" Nihil novi (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Bussiness as usual

Sweden exported iron-ore to Germany Swedish iron-ore mining during World War II. Sweden didn't allow Jewish immigrants before the Holocaust started. The subject isn't covered here.

Switzerland didn't allow Jewish immigrants and did bussiness. Switzerland during the World Wars

Aren't such cases more important than opportunism of common people terrorized by Gestapo?Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral countries are not collaborators. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I presume you mean that remained neutral for the whole war.Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Was returning Jews to Nazi Germany neutral ? Jan Grabowski calls similar situation in Poland "indirect killing". Xx236 (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

What is the Israeli War Crimes Commission?

Some sources cite the Israeli War Crimes Commission for some estimates for estimates for Polish [14] (and Ukrainian, ex. [15]) collaborators. All good, but I couldn't find a single fact about this Commission: who where its members, when was it established, what did it publish, etc. I don't want to call it a hoax, but at the very least, the name is likely wrong. Maybe it refers to some other body, but I couldn't figure out what could it be. The term seems to be traced to Richard C. Lukas's 1986 book The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation, 1939-1944, University of Kentucky Press, so a reasonably reliable source. Sadly, that book doesn't have a Google Book preview and is not in the Library Genesis, so my search stopped here - maybe someone could check this book to see if Lukas cites any sources. (So how do I know this claim appeared there? Well, there's a positive review of his book by George Sanford here, with the sentence "But there was a total German failure to win over Polish collaborators. Even the odd individual cases of Poles who blackmailed or betrayed Jews were as rare as a few thousand out of 20 million ethnic Poles, as was conceded by a postwar Israeli war crimes commission" (note this term doesn't use capital letters - maybe the original name is in Hebrew or such and this is just a bad translation of its name?). But before we add this (or not) to the Polish section or article, it would be nice to figure out a bit more about the actual source for this data. Ps. If this commission produced numbers on Polish and Ukrainian collaborators, maybe it also produced other relevant numbers that would be of interest to this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been wondering about that as well. One reason I removed the whole sentence a couple of times before. François Robere (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit stumped. Might be the Claims Conference. Or the Jewish Agency for Israel. Or American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.Jewish Historical Documentation Centre, or Yad Vashem precursor maybe. It seems like a mangling of a mangling of a term through translations.Icewhiz (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The earlier quotes of this seem to refer to Szmalcowniks or blackmailers and not collaboraters at large. It seems to have morphed at some point to all collaboraters and not just blackmailers in some later sources. Still unsure of source.Icewhiz (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the original of Leo Heiman - [16] (page 58) - "According to official records of Israel's War Crimes Investigations Office, over 95,000 Nazis and Nazi collaborators throughout occupied Europe were directly connected with anti-Jewish measures, massacres and deportations. Of this number 45,000 were Germans, 8,500 Austrians, 11,000 Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians, 7,500 Poles, 3,000 West Europeans, 9,000 Russians and Byelorussians, and 11,000 Ukrainians.". So the mess of "Israel's War Crimes Investigations Office" is in the original, written in 1966. Still stumped. Maybe the Adolf Eichmann trial in 1961 given the date of the publication.Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And per [17] Professor Stefan Possony of Stanford University, in his study "The Ukrainian-Jewish Problem" (Plural Societies, Winter 1974) says: "The records of Israel’s War Crimes Investigations Office indicate that throughout occupied Europe some 95,000 nazis and nazi collaborators were directly connected with anti-Jewish measures, massacres, and deportations, including 45,000 Germans, 8,500 Austrians, 11,000 Balts, 7,500 Poles, 3,000 West Europeans, 9,000 Russians and Byelorussians and 11,000 Ukrainians." - Prof. Possony compiled a table of "Rate of Antisemitic War Criminality 1939-1945 (per 10k), which sorted this by rate - "Balts 20, Austrians 10, Russians & Byelorussians 8, Germans 6, Poles 4, Ukrainians 3, Western European 0.5"... which seems to not advance any of the claims of the per-nationality use of this statistic (as per the measure quoted by this yet unclear commission, the "Rate of Antisemitic War Criminality 1939-1945" was not so high even for Germans. Lies, damned lies, and statistics).Icewhiz (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The language used in the original seems related to "חוק לעשיית דין בנאצים ובעוזריהם" hewiki - loosely translate to "law for justice against Nazis and their helpers" (or collaborators) - possibly the prosecutor's office or the Knesset discussions (I did look there, but did not find this).Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Commendable follow-up. Possony's study was published in a journal that's been out of print since 1992, so I doubt you'll find it anywhere but major university libraries. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, great job tracking sources. How did we arrive at Heiman btw? Is he cited by someone else we discussed earlier? As for the Hebrew term, maybe asking for help at WT:ISRAEL or such could give us a help of someone who can read and research in that language (unless one of you can?). Anyway, the above data seems very relevant and I think we should include it in the article. PS. Also the above article, which has a German version - de:Gesetz zur Bestrafung von Nazis und Nazihelfern - would likely be a useful on to at least stub in English wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

He is (miss)-cited (in my opnion) by other authors (mainly on his per-nationality statistics - "there were only X of Y collaborators out of Y's population of Z, and X/Z is very low" - for Ukraine and Poland (and possibly others)). I think this should be omitted all together. I tried searching for this in Hebrew and aware of the terminology. My guess is that this came from a prosecutor's office in the 60s as a guesstimate, and that there isn't any solid research behind this - it has since been sparsely re-quoted by others.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, until we can prove it is not a reliable estimate, as it is cited by reliable scholars, it is reliable (and relevant). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, we need to quote it properly. Clearly the recent quotes are off. Then we can consider validity etc. François Robere (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Some reliable sources quote it - in an attributed fashion, less reliable sources use this out of context to advance odd claims. This does not make this reliable. Furthermore - it seems to be used quite sparsely and the original attribution is quite dubious (it is probably an estimate by some organization in the 60s - we know nothing of the quality of the work beyond it being "Israeli" (and certainly there are high quality sources from Israel - as well as very low quality ones!). Using this - would be WP:UNDUE and in any event does not reflect modern scholarship - which is what we should be using rather than an "Israel war commission" estimate in (probably) the 60s.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration is Collaborationism, problem of terror

Collaboration is described separately.

Here the word collaboration means collaborationism. Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

collaborationism can be subdivided into "servile" and "ideological" - what about terror? Does a threat of killing or sending to a concentration camp make one servile? Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/12118754 Xx236 (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/lup/publication/d3389120-eac9-4935-83e2-588ac3ec7876 Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse After the Holocaust, p. 27 Xx236 (talk) 09:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

http://glaukopis.pl/images/artykuly-obcojezyczne/Collaboration1.pdf Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20110322_Accommodation.pdf Xx236 (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"The main collaborators were members of Poland's German minority"

This phrasing is accurate from July 1941. Poland's Ukrainian minority was many times larger than its German minority, and its collaboration is arguably even more notable. The sentence needs adjustment. Chumchum7 (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Lets have a source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)