Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Working Group (resistance organization)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bratislava Working Group/archive1)
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2018 [1].

Working Group (resistance organization)

edit
Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Bratislava Working Group was the only Jewish organization in an Axis-aligned country to attempt to save Jews in other countries from the Holocaust. I created the article in June based on content in the article in one of its key figures. The article was promoted to GA in August; since then, it has received a peer review and a GOCE copy edit. I believe it is finally ready for FAC—my first nomination. Courtesy ping to @Vami IV, Kaiser matias, and Dudley Miles: who kindly offered feedback on earlier versions of the article. I have pdf copies of most of the works cited in the article and would be happy to provide them to anyone doing a source review. Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images:
  • It's covered under FoP Slovakia: According to section 37 and 41 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author. and now has been tagged accordingly.
  • You can verify the license here:[2] In fact, it is PD-US-Army because it was taken by an American military aircraft; Fortepan obtained it from the (United States) National Archives. I marked it accordingly.
  • Unfortunately, I do not have any additional information on this photograph than stated on Commons.
OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Indy beetle

edit
@Indy beetle: The name is actually a bit difficult. The common name, used by most English-language sources, is "Working Group", but since that article is a disambig page, I chose Bratislava Working Group as the title since that name is also attested in RS. I have not seen "Bratislava" attached to any of the foreign-language versions. Pracovná skupina is by far the most common, and I want to avoid the impression that the second-most-common name, German Nebenregierung, means "Working Group". The relevant MOS section seems to recommend not giving an exhaustive list anyway, so I've added only Pracovná skupina. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've BOLDLY moved the article to Working Group (resistance organization). Catrìona (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That works. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bloger

edit

Opinions of some important historians on the subject are completely ignored in the article. In particular the opinion of David Kranzler and Abraham Fuchs on the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus in 1942.

Kranzler’s and Fuchs opinion are much more in line with the opinion of the members of the group. This info should be added to the article in order for it to be more encyclopedic and not one sided. Bloger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Bloger (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bloger: There are several reasons why we should be cautious about giving undue weight to this opinion. First of all, both books to which I think you may be referring—Thy Brother's Blood by Kranzler and The Unheeded Cry by Fuchs—are somewhat out of date, having been written in the 1980s before Bauer's or Fatran's studies of the Working Group. In this 2001 Yad Vashem publication, Fuchs' book The Unheeded Cry is described as part of a "Haredi counter-history" which seeks to distort the facts about the Holocaust in order to indict secular Jewish leaders for being indifferent to the death of their co-religionists. Kranzler is respected for his scholarship in this area, but it would be important to make sure he did not change his opinion later on after better research became available. Did he repeat these claims in his 2000 book, The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz? (Quotes and page numbers would be helpful; since these books were not published by academic publishers, I cannot access them). In addition, that section is already crowded with the informed opinions of historians with a good reputation for solid scholarship. We would need a good reason to include other authors. Catrìona (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding.
Firstly, even if you are concerned with “undue weight”, it clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a “smaller way then the majority opinion - except “flat earth” style minority opinion. So in the same vein, even the opinion of Kranzler should at least be mentioned. This won’t violate the “undue weight” rule at all.
Secondly, there are a series of You Tube videos where Kranzler tells the story of the working group from late in his life, and he reiterates all his points from the book. I can provide you with the links. In addition, I will try to look up in The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz if he specifically writes about the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus. It may be he doesn’t since this is not the focus of that book. But Kranzler wrote several books on the Holocaust and rescue, for example, “To Save a World”- "Profiles in Holocaust Rescue" where info like this is more likely to be mentioned.
The opinion on Fuchs’s book in the link you sited is just that, an “opinion” of one person, it’s not put out by Yad Vashem as the “Yad Vashem opinion” – unlike BTW the links I provided in the Working Group ”Talk page” – so its “he said he said” as far as I’m concerned.
The last point about the section being crowded, I can understand that, but then maybe other opinions should be omitted since all the opinions mentioned are on the same “side” in agreement that the Working Group were wrong about the bribes even in Slovakia. I think that since we have a respected historian that holds that the ransoms did work, it has to be clearly written out. Bloger (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloger: Per WP:HISTRS, we should prefer sources that have been a) written by recognized historians, b) published by academic presses or otherwise peer-reviewed, and c) positively recognized by scholars. Sources that are signed by recognized authors are to be preferred over institutional sources, such as Yad Vashem's "online exhibition" on the Jewish community of Bratislava. As far as I can tell, Kranzler meets a but not b, and Fuchs meets neither; they both published with Mesorah/ArtScroll, which is mostly known for its Jewish religious texts. You are of course welcome to provide favorable scholarly reviews; I was not able to find any such reviews of Thy Brother's Blood. It is cited in scholarly sources for facts, but not interpretation as far as I can tell. In The Man who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz, Kranzler does discuss the Europa Plan (pp. 52-53) but does not give a reason for its lack of success. Catrìona (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona:I fully understand your reasoning for relying more on Bauer then on Kranzler and Fuchs – although as I stated. It is my opinion that Bauer is highly biased, still – given Bauer standing in the field I can see why you would take his word over others. In other words, I’m in no way suggesting you omit Bauer’s opinion, not at all.
All I’m saying is that the opposing view shouldn’t be completely ignored. It should be mentioned even only in a smaller way than the opinion of Bauer but not totally omitted.
And I say so for several reasons.
1) Kranzler may not be an as recognized as Bauer is, but he’s a recognized historian nevertheless, and straight out shouldn’t just be ignored. 2) Kranzler’s expertise and writing are more focused on this particular part of Holocaust history, where Bauer is a more of a general historian on everything holocaust related. So a good argument can be made that Kranzler as a “specialist” and given the extensive research he did in this area, he should be given much more weight. Maybe not more weight than to Bauer – although I wouldn’t dismiss even such an argument right away – but at least more weight than he would be given in a different scenario.
3) Since we’re evaluating the work of this group, their own opinion and “feeling” at the time shouldn’t be dismissed. "After all is said and done" “on the ground” reporting has to carry some value. Now, if no historian would’ve agreed with their opinion than I could see how one can be of the opinion that their own opinion can be totally dismissed. But, since we do have at least one school of thought substantiating what they felt to be taking place “on the ground” “at the time” to be the truth, it definitely deserves to at least be mentioned in the article. Bloger (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you had not noticed, but the article does in fact mention this point of view: Weissmandl and Fleischmann believed that the Europa Plan failed because too little money was provided too late, due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations. Perhaps influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories exaggerating the wealth and power of "world Jewry", Fleischmann and Weissmandl believed that the international Jewish community had millions of dollars readily available.

This is in the section for notable but minor viewpoints on the topic, rather than the views of most mainstream scholars. I find it difficult to see how you could make the case that Kranzler is more of a subject matter expert on this than Bauer; the latter published an entire book on Nazi-Jewish negotiations (1994), which focuses on the Working Group. Perhaps it would be appropriate to state briefly that Kranzler has endorsed this notion. However, so far you have not provided any evidence that Kranzler has actually supported this point of view. I checked out one of his more recent books, the 2004 study of Rabbi Schoenfeld, which discusses Weissmandl but doesn't mention why the Europa Plan failed. Ditto for the The Man who Stopped the Trains, although that book could hardly be classified as favorable to Saly Mayer or Nathan Schwalb and their colleagues. On Google Books, I am only able to see a limited snippet view of Kranzler's earlier books, (which are not carried by local libraries). In To Save A World p54, Kranzler mentions that Weissmandl maintained until his death that the plan might have succeeded; the preview was cut off before I could tell if he endorsed the view. In Thy Brother's Blood I could not find anything useful. In short, that opinion is not "totally omitted", and so far I am not able to find evidence that Kranzler supported it. As I said, quotes and page numbers would be helpful. Catrìona (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see the mention, but to be honest, I think the way it’s mentioned is probably worse than completely ignoring it…
To mention this in the penultimate paragraph of a long article, when this really is the main crux of the debate on the group is almost an insult to their memory and sacrifice. And to group it and place it right next to the “opinion” that they were “collaborators” when you very well know that this really is a fringe – earth-is-flat – style opinion, may even be a bit of a disgrace. Not that I blame you in any way, or suggest you did so on purpose.
In my opinion, this perspective should be put in the article right at the beginning of the conversation about the effectiveness of the group’s efforts. Since this is what they thought they were doing successfully, and there are at least some respecter recognized historians who agree. Then you can add about the dissenting opinion, and even state that this is the mainstream opinion if you will.
Although it’s not really a “mainstream opinion” per se only the opinion of Bauer and others who took his opinion on face value. Other opinions - besides Kranzler, some included on the page – very and don’t agree with Bauer completely either. This is how any article on the subject would put it in my opinion even just for aesthetic purposes, to give the proper perspective to the chronology and evolution of the opinions on the group’s efforts. See for example here a book by historian Mordecai Paldiel from 2017.
And I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that “to state briefly that Kranzler has endorsed this notion” will suffice. I understand the respect you have to Bauer and his opinion, and that you take it as the ultimate truth, still it’s my opinion that you don’t give Kranzler his due.
It’s true that Bauer is a major name, but let’s not forget that Kranzler dedicated his life to this very subject. It’s no comparison between someone who wrote a book about a subject – even if he is a respected scholar - and someone who dedicated his life to this very subject.
Moreover, if you took Bauer at his word completely, you would’ve been under the impression that Weissmandl simply lied when he claimed that he came up with the plan to bomb Auschwitz and the rails leading to it! Of course, now that proof of it has been found Bauer took back his words – very derogatory and racist words in my opinion – and was forced to concede the fact that he significantly underestimated Weissmandl.
Also, in previous books, Bauer’s perspective was that the group’s efforts were completely not effective and made no difference whatsoever, whereas now he does agree that at least some efforts – like bribing the Slovak officials – were helpful.
So you see, one cannot take the opinion of a certain perspective to be the 100 percent positive true even if the person is a respected historian. And much less so if a different opinion is out there by other respected scholars. Bloger (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bloger, I'm concerned about the potentially libelous statements that you're making against Bauer, which are unsupported as far as I know. In fact, Bauer emphasized how honest Weissmandl was, while disagreeing with his interpretation of events. Whether you agree or disagree with a certain perspective is irrelevant, what matters is what the sources say. Wikipedia does not endorse one view over another, but in this article I do think that it makes sense to separate the mainstream academic views with other views that are outside the mainstream. Personally, I think that your description of Conway's papers as "flat earth style" is instructive; although his conclusions were debunked, they were originally published by a reputable historian in a peer reviewed journal. In the sections for mainstream scholarly research, I've included several notable historians who have all done independent research and arrived at similar conclusions. As I've said several times before, it would be helpful to have quotes and page numbers for what Kranzler actually wrote. Then one could figure out how to represent him in the article according to Wikipedia content policies. Catrìona (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to emphasize that its important that we discuss the content in a detached manner, and not speak of our edits as slighting the subjects of a Wikipedia article and thus committing "an insult to their memory and sacrifice." Framing our arguments in such emotional/sentimental terms will not contribute towards the building of consensus. I have no familiarity with this historiographic debate and therefore no opinion on the substance, but I encourage everybody to be considerate in their choice of language. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle:I appreciate your comment as it gives me the opportunity to explain myself on something that I now realize sounds wrong.
I don’t think you are implying that one should not partake in editing an article if one is passionate and\or emotionally attached to the subject matter. Of course, it’s only expected that if someone should volunteer his time and effort to write about something or edit a page, it probably is something he cares about, and sometimes strongly.
That said, I absolutely unequivocally am not implying that one let his feelings interfere with the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Thus, a fact is a fact, no matter how one feels about said fact.
But, certain parts of Wikipedia are inevitably shaped by the discretion of the editors. This is true in many instances, for example where there are no “clear rules or instructions” or in instances where there are “truly two equal choices” Etc.
In such in instances, one’s personal feeling will inevitably play a role even if it is – at least initially – unintentional. I personally would say that if it’s truly an instance like the ones I describe, it shouldn’t even be a problem if it is done so intentionally, of course as long as it really doesn’t interfere with the facts.
We now come to this matter.
The way I see it is as follows. We have three schools of thought. 1) One that Catrìona refers to as “mainstream” – I disagree with this characterization, but will address that separately – 2) we also have the fringe opinion – the one I called "flat earth style" a characterization Catrìona took issue with, I will hopefully address this in a separate post –, 3) and then we have the “in between” opinion. That is the opinion from at least some historians and numerous other sources, is is also the opinion of the individuals of the subject matter.
We could, of course, do three separate sections for each school of thought. But if we don’t and decide to only do two sections, we have to combine two of the three in one section.
This is an instance that I see as being up to the discretion of the editor. One can put the “middle ground” opinion together with the mainstream and then differentiate between them so it’s clear what the more mainstream opinion is and what the less popular opinion is. Or the editor can combine the “middle ground” opinion together with the “fringe” opinion.
In instances like this, I think that the subject matter should play a role. And if the subject matter are – as is in this instance - historical figures that risked their life’s to help others, and it happens to be that their own perspective is more in line with the “middle ground” opinion, we should go out of the way – as long as the facts are clearly stated and not in any way skewed - to be as respectful to them as possible.
To clump together the opinion held by them - when we have respected and recognized historians and scholars agreeing with their view -, and in addition to mention this opinion at the very end of a lengthy article where most readers don’t reach, and even if they do are already influenced by all that precedes, is in my opinion wrong. Bloger (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the characterization of the three opinions is my own, and I appreciate that others might disagree, still, the point is a valid one generally even if one chooses to characterize them differently.
I will still address the previous comments by Catrìona concerning Bauer, and will at that opportunity farther explain my characterization of the opinions. Bloger (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bloger: would you mind laying out what your concerns are exactly, and which views you're referring to as "flat earth" views? I also have concerns about the article's neutrality, but it would take me some time to write mine up, and I'm not keen on doing that if the article needs to be withdrawn and reworked. @Catrìona: I see there has been recent reverting, and there's ongoing discussion on Talk:Working Group (resistance organization), so I wonder whether this is ready for FAC. This is an enormously complex topic, and one that's hard to write up for a readership not familiar with it. The article would benefit from a detailed peer review, where all these issues could be discussed without time pressure. SarahSV (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: I am interested to hear any feedback you have. I did put it up for peer review, but got very little response. I put it up for FAC after receiving encouragement from multiple editors to do so, and only then did Bloger start to make comments on the talk page (which have resulted so far in only very minor changes being made). I don't object to withdrawing and reworking the article, if that's what needs to be done, but it's not clear to me what (if anything) needs to be reworked. Catrìona (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are major changes that need to be made IMHO, I will post what I think needs to be changed after the weekend, it can then be reviewed by others to reach consensus.
So far SlimVirgin, Emesz and myself have expressed concerns about the article's neutrality. I think that anyone else familiar with the subject will come to the same conclusion after thoroughly reviewing the page. Bloger (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bloger, thanks. I was hoping you'd clarify which views you're calling "flat-earth style". As I understood your initial comment, you were talking in general about how fringe views should be handled. (You wrote that WP:UNDUE "clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a smaller way then the majority opinion - except 'flat earth' style minority opinion".) Catrìona interpreted your "flat earth" description to refer to the views of the historian John S. Conway; she wrote "Personally, I think that your description of Conway's papers as "flat earth style" is instructive". Then you wrote: "We have three schools of thought. 1) One that Catrìona refers to as 'mainstream' ... 2) we also have the fringe opinion – the one I called 'flat earth style' a characterization Catrìona took issue with ... 3) and then we have the 'in between' opinion."
Can you say, just very briefly, which view you're identifying as the fringe view? Also pinging Emesz.
Catrìona, it's hard to find editors who can comment on this. If it does go back to peer review, I suggest pinging anyone who has worked in this area, and posting a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin:As per your request, I posted my concerns with the page on the Talk page here.
To your other question, when I first mentioned the point on "flat-earth style" opinions it was as a response to Catrìona. She cited the page on fringe views, so I pointed out that according to that page the opinion of Kranzler shouldn’t be ignored.
Catrìona responded that the opinion of Kranzler is not completely ignored, and is indeed cited at the end of the page. To which I responded that although it’s technically not completely ignored, grouping it together with the fringe views of Conway – which I referred to as a "flat-earth style" opinion – was worse than ignoring it altogether. (In retrospect calling it “flat-earth style” is perhaps exaggerating, but I did so because it was a continuation of the previous conversation where the distinction between the minority and fringe opinion was discussed and the flat-earth expression was used.)
@Catrìona: Please see my response on the “Talk page” concerning the “potentially libelous statements that you're making against Bauer” issue. Bloger (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloger: thank you for explaining, above and on talk. As I understand it, there are three main positions:
  1. As imperfect as the Bratislava Working Group and Aid and Rescue Committee were, they did their best to save lives by entering into mostly hopeless but good-faith (from their perspective) negotiations with the Nazis to exchange Jews for money and goods. The "sale" of Jews would not have worked for several reasons; there was never any real possibility of large numbers being saved by this route. This is the view of Yehuda Bauer and related historians.
  2. The aim of the negotiations, for the Nazis, was to make Jewish community leaders believe there was a chance of saving certain groups. In fact the Nazis cared only about minimizing panic in case the deportees refused to board the trains or rebelled when they arrived at Auschwitz for "resettlement". In the hope of getting family, friends and other prioritized people to safety in Palestine, the mostly Zionist rescue groups actively collaborated with the Nazis by failing to warn the broader community that they were going to be killed, not resettled. This is the view of John Conway, Rudolf Vrba, and other critics of Rezső Kasztner. (I don't recall whether Conway uses the term "collaborators" for the Working Group.)
  3. The Nazi negotiations were real, and if the money had been raised, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. But governments and Jewish groups worldwide, especially in the US, let down the European Jews by failing to provide the money and by focusing instead on the aims of the Zionists. This is the view of David Kranzler and Michael Dov Weissmandl.

The above is a broad outline; the positions are more complex and overlap somewhat. Bloger and Catrìona, does the above reflect your understanding? SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: What you are addressing is really only one part of the debate. “The feasibility of the Europa Plan”. There are several more debate points, I will come to them in a moment.
But even “The feasibility of the Europa Plan” question it’s really much more complex.
If you examine the writings of Weissmandl, you very clearly see that he has a great mistrust in the Nazi negotiating partners. In particular he uses the classic Hebrew expression “כבדהו וחשדהו” - literally: “to respect someone while suspecting him” - which he uses in letters when describing his dealings with them during the war, so he definitely did not blindly “trust” or even “believe” the Nazis as Bauer wants to put it.
This is BTW another giant red flag when it comes to Bauer and his assessment of the WG and Weissmandl in particular. How could he have missed such an obvious open fact to anyone who looks into Weissmandl’s writings?
Also, another misconstruction – deliberate or otherwise – by Bauer of what Weissmandl asked in exchange for payment.
In order to make Weissmandl sound foolish and naïve, he paints a false picture of Weissmandl, as if Weissmandl was asking the Nazis “to free all the Jews” in exchange for payment. This leaves one with the perception that Weissmandl was naively under the impression that the Nazis - in exchange of a few million dollars – were going to give up on their broad plan of the “final solution”….
But the truth is if you examine Weissmandl’s writings - in the war and afterward - you immediately realize that this is not the case at all. All Weissmandl was asking was a “Halt of the deportations”. This is what he asked for in Slovakia in ‘42, and this is what he was proposing for the “Europa Plan”. Why he thought this would be helpful is up to interpretation (my own interpretation in the next paragraph) but we see clearly that this was his goal, as evident by the fact that after the halt of deportations in Slovakia he never asked for “the Jews to be let go” or something of this nature.
(Perhaps – this is my understanding – Weissmandl very well know that the Nazis were not really ready to surrender the grand “final solution” for a few dollars, and all he was looking for was “to win time” with the hope that the war would in the meantime come to a conclusion, or that the world would wake up to what’s happening and put a stop to it. But I digress)
My main point is, that the characterization of Weissmandl’s “train of thought” as portrayed by Bauer is wrong and false. So the statement “if the money had been raised, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved” is true – according to the “Kranzler/Weissmandl” POV - but the statement “The Nazi negotiations were real” is maybe too simplistic.
You did characterize Bauer’s POV correctly – according to my understanding of it -.
The “collaborators” POV is something that I completely don’t understand. As it was rightfully refuted by historians, and I personally have spoken to numerous people that were in Slovakia and Hungary at the time – including close relatives – who unequivocally told me that Weissmandl and his people did warn the victims to resist deportations and to hide. And told everyone - who only wanted to listen - what was happening with the Jews that are deported.
But back to my first point, the debate is much wider than only “the feasibility of the Europa Plan”. For example, the extent of the effect the bribes - to Wisliceny the Slovak officials and clergy – had on the deportation hiatus in Slovakia. this is also highly debated. Bloger (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Overall, I think one has to be careful about avoiding generalizations between
  1. bribe of Wisliceny to halt deportations from Slovakia
  2. the Europa Plan
  3. the negotiations in Hungary in 1944, which the Working Group was only tangentially involved in. The Aid and Rescue Committee isn't the subject of this article.
  4. the September 1944 negotiations in Slovakia
Situation #1 has been discussed by historians who are not really associated with Bauer, such as Ivan Kamenec and Peter Longerich. I would also say that Livia Rothkirchen clearly has an independent position on the negotiations from Bauer, but also falls generally into position #1. I think your characterization of position #1 is fair, at least for situations 1 and 2. I'm not so sure about position #2, at least insofar as it applies to situations #1 and #2. In the 1984 paper from Conway in the bibliography, he does not examine the purpose of the negotiations (situations 1 and 2) for the Germans. Nor does he claim that the Working Group members were trying to save their families. Conway writes:

Aus Sicherheitsgründen wagten sie weder das Ausmass der jüdischen Beteiligung an der Abwicklung der Deportationen noch die Art ihrer zwielichtigen und geheimen Absprachen mit den Nationalsozialisten zu enthillen. Aus den gleichen Gründen bewahrten sie striktes Stillschweigen ober die Massenmorde. Die verbliebene jüdische Bevalkerung sollte nicht alarmiert und zum Widerstand aufgereizt werden. Solange sie hofften, von der SS durch Erpressung Konzessionen zu erhalten, waren sie bereit, ihre Kenntnis von den polnischen Greueln for sich zu behalten. Die Frage, ob Wisliceny dies zur Bedingung machte oder ob das Schweigen selbstauferlegt war, ist nicht eindeutig zu beantworten.

— Conway 1984 p. 194
My German is not great, but the first bolded passage seems to discuss what in English would be termed "collusion" or "collaboration". The second passage claims that the Working Group concealed information on the fate of deportees, and that it isn't clear whether Wisliceny made this demand of the Working Group, or whether they decided unilaterally to do it.
Position #3 more commonly exists in a more moderate form, that it's impossible to know if the negotiations would have succeeded if the Working Group had sufficient funds at its disposal to pay the Nazi bribes. With regard to the Europa Plan, this was endorsed by Mordecai Paldiel, and some of Weissmandl's statements during the war (see Paldiel 2017, pp. 114-115). The idea that the payment to Wisliceny may have been a factor stopping deportations from Slovakia in 1942 has the most support (Longerich says this has not been proven either way).
As for situation #4, I haven't seen much controversy about it: most authors (Bauer included) have concluded that the negotiations with Brunner were a bad idea and the Working Group should have known better. Catrìona (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Catrìona: re: whether Conway used the term collaborators, he did in this article, referring to the 1942 deportations: "Vrba and Wetzler knew that they required the help of the Jewish Council to alert the Jews in Hungary and elsewhere to their imminent peril. On the other hand, they also knew that these men, collaborating with Slovakian government and Nazi deportation experts, had been coresponsible in 1942 for the preparation of lists of Jews 'available' to be deported to 'work camps' at unknown destinations." Parts of that article were taken from his 1979 German paper. SarahSV (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Kaiser matias

edit

As someone who peer reviewed the article earlier, I am inclined to support, however I am going to wait to see the how the discussion above with Bloger goes. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the work both Bloger and Sarah have put in to improving the article here, and not wanting to rush their improvements (unless they think the issues have been addressed, of course), I reluctantly think it may be best to close this nomination and bring it back once everything is taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias:@SlimVirgin:@Catrìona: If the article is properly balanced - I.E. 1) the historical perspective of the likes of David Krenzler get their proper due in the right place – not as an afterthought or worse - and 2) The successes of the Group – for example: “Hiatus in the Slovakia deportations”, “Auschwitz Protocols dissemination”, “Rescue as a byproduct of the Europa Plan negotiations” ETC. - are included as a summary in the lead of the article – I will support. Bloger (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As previously stated, the book by David Kranzler that Bloger is seeking to include was described by Efraim Zuroff in an academic journal as "an extremely one-sided polemic" and "a popular invective of limited scholarly value" with significant factual errors. The lede has been edited to reflect the Working Group's role in the other events that Bloger describes above. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SarahSV

edit

I haven't read the article carefully yet. A few thoughts after a glance through it:

  • It would be better, per 1d (neutrality), to weave competing views to some extent throughout the text, with more detail if needed in a dedicated section, rather than forcing them into "other perspectives" at the end.
When I wrote this article, I was working off of WP:HISTRW, which lists several resources used for determining historical consensus. Although the topic hasn't attracted historiographical essays, I did look through book reviews and relevant scholarly essays. The reviews of Jews for Sale were uniformly positive and several reviewers praised Bauer for what the reviewers viewed as his evenhandedness in addressing a controversial topic. Christopher Browning, for instance, wrote that Bauer attempts to assess and for the most part refute the numerous emotionally and often politically charged denunciations of the Jewish 'negotiators' made in the post-war period and largely succeeds at this through rich detail and careful research (in The International History Review, 1996, pp. 197–199). There are several scholarly encyclopedia entries on related topics, such as the Europa Plan, Slovakia overall, or the Working Group specifically (in the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos). None of these even mentions the Conway/Vrba thesis about the Slovakia negotiations, while some of them do mention the views of Weissmandl or Orthodox historiography (although only to refute them—see in particular Aronson 2001 p. 167).
HISTRW notes that, Views lying outside of these discussions should be considered as non-scholarly opinions and weighted as such; they should generally be relegated to sections titled "Popular reactions to..." or the like. That's what I've tried to do here.
HISTRW is an essay, and parts of it seem contentious. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is frequently referenced, and there is a proposal to make it a guideline. If you disagree with this part of it, perhaps suggest an improvement on the talk page? Anyway, HISTRS is just an elaboration of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which say that we should not give undue prominence to any view which is extremely marginal in the overall historiography. From my understaing of the latter guideline, both the claim that the Working Group was collaborationist and the claim that hundreds of thousands of Jews could be saved by negotiation and bribery would be considered fringe theories and should be treated accordingly. Catrìona (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says (citing Bauer 2002, p. 184), and you repeat part of it at the top of your nomination, "According to Bauer, the Working Group was the only underground organization in occupied Europe to unite the ideological spectrum (excluding communists) and the only Jewish organization to try to save Jews in other countries." The first part of that sentence may be true, but it wasn't "the only Jewish organization to try to save Jews in other countries".
The exact passage is the only Jewish underground—the only underground anywhere in Europe—that united all the political factions of a country (with the exception of the communists) and was the only group anywhere in Europe that tried to rescue not just itself but Jews of other countries. I've tweaked the wording to be more clear that this isn't referring to Jewish organizations operating from outside Nazi occupation.
You don't count the Aid and Rescue Committee? SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not counting anything, I am just reporting what the sources say. Anyway, I've changed the wording to "one of the only".
  • The article (including the lead) refers to the Auschwitz Protocols, which consists of three reports, rather than the Vrba–Wetzler report. That confusion leads to inaccuracy. The dissemination dispute is about the Vrba–Wetzler report.
Fair enough, although the Working Group also distributed the other parts of the Auschwitz Protocols.
  • The most effective thing the Working Group did, in terms of lives saved, was help to write down and distribute the Vrba–Wetzler report, but there isn't much about that process in the article. More needs to be added, particularly about the distribution and Vrba's views about it.
  • "The 40-page report was considered more credible than previous Auschwitz reports ..." What does Fleming 2014, pp. 258–260, say to support that? It's also in the lead: "the Western Allies considered it the first reliable report on the camp". My recollection of Fleming's book is that he says the opposite. In the introduction to his 2014 paper, "Allied Knowledge of Auschwitz: A (Further) Challenge to the 'Elusiveness' Narrative", he wrote: "Many argue that the Vrba/Wetzler report was the first information about the camp to reach the West and be accepted as credible. The author of this article offers evidence that this contention cannot be sustained."
Removed. This is stated in many sources, but as Fleming points out, it is an oversimplification.
  • "Diplomatic pressure and the interception of a telegram about the Working Group's suggestion to bomb Auschwitz caused Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy to halt the deportation ..." Did it? Horthy stopped the transports because of diplomatic pressure; fearing he'd be held responsible after the war; and because the Allies bombed Budapest. This makes it sound as though Weissmandl was responsible for the transports ending.
Bauer emphasizes the role of this intercepted message, but I'm not sure if other sources do. Anyway, I changed it to fear of retaliatory Allied bombing.
The 26 June cable from Richard Lichtheim asked the Allies for several things: wide publicity about the mass murder; tell Hungarian leaders that they'll be held personally responsible; take action against Germans living in Allied countries; bomb the railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz and Auschwitz itself; bomb Budapest. It was sent in such a way that the Hungarian govt could intercept it. On 2 July Allies forces bombed Budapest and dropped leaflets warning that the govt would be held responsible for the deportations. Horthy ordered a stop to them on 7 July. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of Kasztner in the "Auschwitz Protocols" section (which should be renamed "Vrba–Wetzler report"), and no mention there or elsewhere of his failure to distribute the report.
That's a very controversial and disputed thesis; to rehash it here is beyond the scope of the article. The report was out of the Working Group's hands at that point and what was not done with the report seems like it would be more relevant in a different article. This article is already 67k readable prose characters, over the recommended threshold for splitting.
That he didn't distribute it isn't disputed. It would be odd not to mention it, because it's directly connected to the criticism of the Working Group, namely that both groups decided for themselves who should know about the report, while trying to get smaller numbers out. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complicated than that, and I don't really understand the relevance to this article, which focuses on the Working Group's involvement in the V-W report rather than a summarization of that topic. The criticism of the Working Group for supposed failure to disseminate these reports is equally FRINGE and UNDUE as the points of view discussed above.
  • There's no mention of Eichmann in the "'Blood for goods' negotiations" section.
Added.
  • "The Nazis did not negotiate in good faith and the Europa Plan, as it was known, fell through in the fall of 1943." This implies, in Wikipedia's voice, that the plan would have worked had the Nazis negotiated in good faith.
My intention was to suggest that there is no evidence for a Nazi intention to go through with the plan. That section has now been revised.
  • The lead is problematic, particularly "Mainstream historiography on the group has been attacked from both sides" and "mainstream historians maintain that the Nazis would not have allowed the rescue of a significant number of Jews", implying that everyone who disagrees is not mainstream.
  • Did Conway use the term "collaborationist"?
  • "Conway's arguments have been dismissed as not based in fact." Say who has dismissed his arguments as not based in fact.
Done, although I'm beginning to question if this POV is significant enough to merit mentioning in the lede.
Do they say his arguments are not based on fact, or do they simply disagree with his conclusions about the facts? SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Developments in Bratislava" section is unclear.
  • Bauer acknowledges that the Working Group failed to warn people, in 1944 after they knew about the gas chambers, not to report for deportation. The article doesn't explain that clearly (in "Developments in Bratislava").
Fatran is the only source to cover this period in any detail, so this section follows her account. I've also tried to keep the facts separate from the value judgements, which are covered under Assessment. Further complicating matters, the interpretation you mentioned is only one possibility. Other sources (see Paldiel 2017 p. 126) present Working Group members, especially Fleischmann, as heroes for sticking to their posts instead of fleeing.
  • Who were "the Jewish professionals" from Bratislava? This is a phrase from Fatran 1994, describing the visit to the camp, but it appears in the article without explanation.
Fixed (hopefully)
  • The article doesn't appear to mention the stolen index card with the names of the remaining Jews. I see that it does. The last two sentences of the previous section, beginning "Fleischmann's office was raided on 26 September ...", need to be moved to "September roundup". Does anyone explain why they appear not to have been bothered by the theft and thought it appropriate to complain to Brunner?
Moved. Unfortunately, Fatran only says that Surprisingly, the theft of the card index did not cause alarm among the Bratislava activists.
  • Consider mentioning Weissmandl's meeting with Vrba and Mordowicz in June 1944. Vrba was struck by the incongruity of Weissmandl in his Yeshiva, given the situation.
What is your reference for this incident? It isn't mentioned on any of the secondary sources focusing on the Working Group that I've seen, leading me to suspect that this is not sufficiently relevant.
  • Ottó Komoly was chair of the Aid and Rescue Committee, not Kasztner.
Changed to Kastner was a member of the Aid and Rescue Committee.
  • I would remove the repetition of the lead image in the "Assessment" section (different file names; almost identical images).
Removed.

SarahSV (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This book was published in 1984 and it's hard to believe that it hasn't been superseded by later research.
A new edition was published in 2007, but I see only with a new preface. I was wondering whether a revised edition appeared after 1984.
I've started reading the article more carefully. I'll need time to go through it, so it may be a few days before I post here again. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say that I've printed off a copy and I'm making my way through it. SarahSV (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: While you are at it, do you agree that the following is factual?

“Most historians agree, that the actions of the Working group had at least some effect in halting the deportations in Slovakia in 1942. As to how much of an effect they had, and which of their actions specifically should be credited is debated”.

Do you agree that this is a fair and factual statement? And do you think that something to this effect should be in the leading section of the page, and also in the section of the page dealing with the deportation hiatus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloger (talk • contribs)

I must apologize for being so slow about this, but I've been caught up in other issues, and have had difficulty thinking myself back into this. It's 17 pages of reading, one and a bit pages of notes, and six pages of citations/bibliography. Not all the sources are easy to get hold of. In other words, reviewing it is a lot of work. I'm not sure how it can be managed at FAC. Ideally, it would happen via peer review with several editors involved over a longer period.
Bloger, to answer your question, I'll have to wait until I've read the article carefully. Then I'll be better able to judge whether the content fairly reflects the sources and the lead summarizes the content. SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Thank you for your work on this article. If it would help, as I stated above I have legally obtained pdf copies of most of the works listed in the bibliography and if it would make it easier to review, I would be happy to share them with you.
@Bloger: I think that would be a fair overview of that section in the article; we have Bauer, Fatran, Braham, Bartrop, Longerich, Rothkirchen, Aronson, and Friling who ascribe at least some effect to the Working Group's activities, versus Kamenec who doesn't. (He does not give much support to this idea in On the Trail of Tragedy either (pp. 230–233)). Notably, all of the tertiary sources favor this interpretation. Catrìona (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the offer of sources; that would be very helpful. SarahSV (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Catrìona, thanks for your note. I'm not quite sure what I need at this point. So far, I've managed to find everything, though it has taken time. I'll email you when I next have difficulty. Thanks again for being willing to send them. SarahSV (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Break
edit
  • Conway: I think Conway should be handled a little differently. You've isolated him as a fringe thinker, but he was a mainstream historian who, so far as I can tell, was respected by Bauer. I've just noticed that he was a contributor, with Bauer, Rothkirchen and others, to the book (in Hebrew) Leadership in Time of Crisis: The Working Group in Slovakia, 1942–1944 (2001), the one with the introduction that insults Vrba and the people helping him, which is odd. That would be an ideal source, but I don't know whether it has been translated. I can't find it in WorldCat.
When Fatran wrote in Holocaust and Genocide Studies in 1998 that Conway's claims were "contrary to the historical truth", Conway wrote a letter to the editor complaining about it (which you cite). The editors published a note apologizing: "Most unfortunately, we allowed the article cited by Professor John S. Conway to appear with wording that might have been construed as approaching a personal attack on him. We apologize for the oversight; as Professor Conway is a member of our Advisory Board, he should in any case have received the article before publication so as to enable him to respond." That's not how fringe thinkers/positions are handled, and the lead of our article repeats the "not based in fact" point. You could remove those words after "multiple historians[c] have dismissed Conway's arguments" and just leave it there. (That sentence needs an additional "that": that it failed.)
According to the fringe theories guideline, "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science and have little or no scientific support." In this case, I am unable to find any other historian who positively references Conway's theories regarding the Working Group, so it's fair to say they have little support from historians in general. Furthermore, Conway's main field of research (per Worldcat search) appears to be the churches in 20th-century Germany; he himself cannot read the language that most of the archives are in (Hebrew and Slovak). Both Fatran and Kamenec credit translation issues with what they describe as Conway's misunderstandings.
It appears that an apology was made because the claim was "construed as approaching a personal attack" on Conway, not because the claim was found to be wrong. In this article, the claim (that the theory is "not based in fact") is clearly sourced to Conway's detractors (and milder that Fatran's original formulation, "blatantly contrary to the historical truth"); it's noteworthy that Conway's critics have challenged the facts that his theory is based upon. There are a lot of things that are difficult to understand about this "controversy", but Bauer has made it repeatedly and explicitly clear what he thinks of Conway's theories about the Working Group, which he has expressed most recently in the 2006 paper and in Rethinking the Holocaust (2002) in which he states, "That Vrba should repeat this preposterous accusation against one of the real Jewish heroes of the Holocaust [that Weissmandl was a collaborator] is understandable in a bitter Auschwitz survivor. That it should have been accepted by others is less understandable." In a different section, he says of the claims made about the Working Group in the two papers written by Conway, "Nothing could be further from the truth" (p. 180). So I don't think it's fair to say that Bauer thinks of Conway's ideas as a valid alternative interpretation. It's called the fringe theories guideline not the fringe theorists guideline, and I would consider Conway reliable in the areas where his scholarship is respected.
You refer to Conway's 1979 and 1984 papers, but cite Bauer and Fatran. Conway should be cited directly. "The first article was based on the false premise": according to whom? This needs attribution. "Conway said that the Working Group collaborated": had collaborated. That sentence needs some punctuation; perhaps commas around "and failing to distribute the Vrba-Wetzler report to Jews in Slovakia". I don't understand what this means: "to cover up the complicity of group members who had allegedly drawn up lists of Jews to be deported". What is the relationship of that to distributing (or not) the report?
The problem with Conway's 1979 and 1984 papers, other than that their factual accuracy has been challenged, is that they never mention the Working Group and attribute all of its activities to the Jewish Center (the only source connecting the two is Fatran 1994). Fatran writes that more information surfaced regarding Lenard's escape "coupled with a more cautious reading of Lenard's testimony by Conway himself... prompted Conway to revise his original article" [in 1984]. If this was an inaccurate characterization, Conway did not mention that in his reply, which does explicitly mention the Working Group. "to cover up the complicity of group members who had allegedly drawn up lists of Jews to be deported" was supposedly the Working Group's motive for covering up the information; I've edited to be more clear.
  • I would rewrite the final paragraph of the lead. "Mainstream historiography on the group has been attacked from both sides. Its leaders ... believed that the failure of the Europa Plan was due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations. Although this argument has influenced public opinion and historiography, most historians maintain that the Nazis would not have allowed ..." I'm not sure I understand the sentence about "mainstream historiography on the group" being attacked from both sides, or who the two sides are. I'm also not sure what "Although this argument has influenced public opinion and historiography" means. Do any mainstream historians (perhaps apart from David Kranzler) believe that the Europa Plan failed solely because of the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations?
Rewritten and clarified "...influenced public opinion and Orthodox historiography".
  • "Europa Plan": That should be linked in the section devoted to it; "however, the Working Group could not raise", I would say "but" there, preceded by a comma; "despite his reluctance" needs a comma before it. This sentence isn't clear: "Leaders of the JDC, the WJC, and other organizations believed that the Nazi promises were empty,[170] blocking the distribution of funds to Mayer and the Yishuv, and the Swiss government obstructed currency transfers on the required scale." "[S]ome of this money was earmarked": in what sense?
"Earmarked": both intended and needed for the other activities mentioned. I've changed the sentence to "Some of this money was needed for..."
  • "A copy of the report was sent to the Judenrat of Ungvar in Carpathian Ruthenia, which unsuccessfully tried to suppress its contents." Cited to Bauer 2002, p. 237. On that page, he discusses Weissmandl's letter to the head of the Judenrat, warning people not to board the trains, but the head of the Judenrat tried to keep the letter secret. He doesn't say that the report accompanied the letter or that the entire Judenrat tried to keep it secret. Re: "Although the information was transmitted to two other Carpathian Ruthenian transit ghettos, the Jews were unable to act on the report": Bauer says they "refused to heed the warning", not that they were unable to act.
Revised: A copy of the report was sent to the head of the Judenrat of Ungvar in Carpathian Ruthenia, who unsuccessfully tried to suppress its contents. Although the information was transmitted to two other Carpathian Ruthenian transit ghettos, the Jews did not act on the report.
  • "The general information in the protocols was sent by post". That's unlikely. Cited to Bauer 2002, pp.  232–233, but I can't see where he says that. Better to say "report" instead of "protocols".
Fixed
  • Oskar Krasniarsky should be Oscar/Oskar Krasniansky.
Fixed
  • Do you know what Bauer means when he writes "falsely accused not only by Vrba but also by authors such as Tom Segev" (p. 239)? My memory of Segev is that he is supportive of the Working Group and Kastner.
In The Seventh Million, Segev portrays the Working Group positively. I added a mention of this to the article.
  • Kastner: I take the point you made earlier that this article isn't about Kastner, but it does seem odd to mention the collaborationist allegation without mentioning that Kastner was tried and assassinated in relation to the same allegation in Hungary.
  • "'Blood for goods' negotiations": The paragraph beginning "Kastner visited Bratislava in the summer" is sourced to Fatran 1994, pp. 194–195, but those pages contain footnotes only and nothing that supports the paragraph that I can see.
Corrected the page numbers to 188–189
  • "Developments in Bratislava": Re: "As a result, the Working Group recommended that the Jews in Bratislava go into hiding", what does Fatran mean by that? (Fatran 1994, p. 191) Bauer doesn't mention it that I can see. Can you say more about what Bauer means by a "dark shadow"? What could they have done that they didn't do? How did they, or how were they expected to, tell people to go into hiding?
This isn't at all clear in the sources, but I've tried to clarify in text as much as I can.
  • Re: "The Working Group was one of the only underground organization[sic] in occupied Europe to unite the ideological spectrum": I think it was the only group uniting the spectrum. But it wasn't the only group rescuing Jews from other countries. That was the point I was making above.
Yes, that's why I changed it to "one of the only". There were not many groups that tried to do this; the only one that I know of is the Aid and Rescue Committee.
  • Prose: The article is a little list-like in places. For example, in "Role in deportation hiatus": "Fatran emphasizes ... Braham credits ... Paul R. Bartrop writes that ... According to Rothkirchen ... Longerich credits ... Israeli historian Shlomo Aronson says ... According to Ivan Kamenec ..." The previous and following paragraphs do likewise. Go through the article and try to smooth out any examples of this.
I've tried to do this a bit, but I'm not sure how much the listlike quality can be altered, because it is basically a list of what each of the relevant scholars thinks (and there isn't space for more than a sentence each). Is there another article that I could use as an example for improvement?
  • The hyphens should be removed from "roughly-equal factors", "economically-useful positions", "reasonably-accurate information", and "physically- or mentally-disabled".
Done

SarahSV (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Czechoslovak government-in-exile publicized the information in the hope of preventing the murder of Czech Jews imprisoned at the Theresienstadt family camp." Sourced to Fleming 2014, pp. 231–232. Fleming discusses how Kopecky contacted the British legation in Berne and others, not that he publicized it. He asked that it be publicized.
Fixed
  • "At its request, the BBC European Service used information about the family camp in warnings to the German leadership (broadcast on 15 and 16 June in all languages) that it would be tried for its crimes." Sourced to Fleming 2014, p. 215; Karny 2002, p. 228; and Rothkirchen 2006, p. 261. Fleming talks about a BBC German service's women's programme broadcasting this at noon on 16 June 1944, and he cites a BBC primary source. He writes that the news scripts for the Polish, Czechoslovak and German services for that month have been destroyed or lost. Karny 1993, p. 209, writes that it was also broadcast on 15 June on the BBC Czechoslovak service (this is according to Fleming; I haven't checked Karny). Which source says that it was broadcast on 15 and 16 June in all languages? SarahSV (talk) 04:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rothkirchen 2006, citing this paper (which I haven't looked at).
Rothkirchen says it was broadcast on all the BBC European Services at noon on 16 June 1944. She doesn't mention 15 June. I would use Fleming 2014. This is what his book is about, and he has traced these broadcasts very carefully. SarahSV (talk) 05:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fleming does not mention a broadcast on 15 June so I cut that. He also says that records were destroyed so it's not clear whether the broadcast was made in other languages; revised as follows: On 16 June, the BBC broadcast warnings to the German leadership that it would be tried for its crimes.
  • Lead again (just a suggestion): Would mentioning Auschwitz and the group's leaders in the first paragraph make the rest of the lead clearer for readers? Something like:

The Working Group ... was an underground Jewish organization, based in the Axis puppet state of Slovakia during World War II and the Holocaust, that tried to rescue Jews from deportation to Auschwitz and other Nazi concentration camps in German-occupied Poland. Led by Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl, the group gathered and disseminated information on the fate of deported Jews, smuggled valuables to them, and bribed German and Slovak officials in an effort to halt the deportations.

I don't think so, because until early 1944 it did not focus on Auschwitz, having much more information on the Operation Reinhard death camps.
  • "to set up a Jewish Council": link to Judenrat.
done
  • "into halting the deportation of European Jews: add "all" before European Jews.
Actually, this didn't refer to all European Jews; it only referred to Jews in Western and southern Europe and would have done nothing to help those already in Poland (or other eastern areas).
  • "A $2 million bribe was demanded". Change to: Wisliceny demanded a $2 million bribe. The lead says $2 million, but the body of the article says $3 million: "Wisliceny told the Working Group that Reich Main Security Office head Heinrich Himmler had agreed to halt deportations to the General Government in exchange for $3 million."
Done
  • Third paragraph: say who Vrba and Wetzler were (two escapees or similar). The paragraph doesn't connect these two events: (1) "In April and May 1944, the Working Group collected and disseminated the Vrba–Wetzler report ... (2) Diplomatic pressure and fear of retaliatory Allied bombing caused Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews ..."
  • Should the lead mention Weissmandl's efforts to have Auschwitz bombed?
It previously did; you requested this part to be removed.
I asked that you fix this sentence—"Diplomatic pressure and the interception of a telegram about the Working Group's suggestion to bomb Auschwitz caused Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in July"—because it wasn't accurate as written. The question is whether there should be any reference in the lead to Weissmandl's efforts to have Auschwitz bombed. SarahSV (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: "Its leaders, Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandl, believed that the failure of the Europa Plan was due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations." What is the source for Fleischmann believing that?
  • Final lead paragraph: I think that could use a rewrite, and I'm beginning to wonder, as you mentioned above, whether Conway needs to be included by name.
Somewhat rewritten based on Bloger's suggestion above

By the way, I should add that I'm very close to supporting, and the issues I'm pointing out are mostly just loose ends. I think you've produced a tremendous piece of research. It's particularly striking when the article is printed out how much attention to detail there is, and how well the article flows. It's a real achievement to have produced that, especially in a relatively short space of time, so congratulations. SarahSV (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

edit
  • "The report caused diplomatic pressure against the Hungarian government, which was a major factor in regent Miklós Horthy's decision to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in July." This is clumsily worded. Maybe "The report put diplomatic pressure on the Hungarian government and it was a major factor in regent Miklós Horthy's decision to halt the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz in July."
Reworded, let me know what you think
  • What is "Orthodox historiography" with a capital "O"? Is there a historiography of Orthodox Jews? The argument can hardly be orthodox in the standard meaning of the word if most historians disagree with it.
This is discussed further in the "Other perspectives" section. There is a historiography written by/for Orthodox/Haredi Jews which differs from the mainstream academic perspective, but I'm not sure how to rephrase this to be clearer.
For the lead I think you just need to say "[[Orthodox Judaism|Orthodox Jewish]] historiography". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" The museum is the publisher, not the author.
Changed this to "According to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos". The publication is notable and under strong editorial control. However, this entry was written by three authors, none of whom have enwiki articles.
  • "Another theory posits that the Working Group's negotiations were collaborationist and that it failed to warn Jews about the threat awaiting them; multiple historians have dismissed this narrative as not based in fact." This is clumsy and wordy. How about "It has also been argued that the Working Group's negotiations were collaborationist and that it failed to warn Jews about the dangers awaiting them, but most historians reject this view."
Done.
  • "The potential of Nazi–Jewish negotiations and to what extent their bribery was successful are subjects of ongoing historical debate." Presumably "their" refers to the Working Group rather than the Nazi–Jewish negotiations, but this should be clarified.
Shortened this sentence to To what extent the Working Group's bribery was successful is a subject of ongoing historical debate.
  • "the Slovak State proclaimed its independence under German protection" I would specify independence from Czechoslovakia.
Done
  • "a staunch anti-Zionist" "staunch" implies approval and is POV. I suggest "strong".
Removed this, and mentioned his "strongly anti-Zionist" views in the next paragraph.
  • " the Bratislava Working Group". This is presumably left over from the group's name in the previous version of the article.
Removed
  • "The first deportee reports trickled in during May" Presumably May 1943, but it would be helpful to say so.
Actually May 1942, clarified
  • "Widespread resistance drove the Hlinka Guard to forcibly round up Jews to fill transports and to deport Jews in labor camps, who had been promised immunity" I do not understand this.
Clarified: Because Jews were not reporting for their transports, the Hlinka Guard had to forcibly round up Jews and deport some prisoners in the labor camps in Slovakia, who had been promised that they would not be deported
I would not say "had to" as this appears to excuse their action. "the Hlinka Guard forcibly rounded up Jews and deported some prisoners" Dudley Miles (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • "Fleischmann justified the collaboration" What collaboration?
Removed this as it is not really important.
He is already mentioned in the "Evasion and escape" section under a different spelling; fixed.
  • "The Slovak representatives could not have been allowed to go to Lublin" I would prefer "were not allowed"
Done
  • "halting all transports to the General Government" Sending transports to a government does not make sense.
(talk page watcher) @Dudley Miles: My impression, in this context, is that "GG" refers to the region rather than the governance of the area? ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number is right. The General Government was a German occupation zone and significant to mention because, for example, the Europa Plan specifically hinged on the halting of deportations to this particular zone, where most of the death camps were.
General Government is sometimes used in the sense of a government body and sometimes in the sense of an area. I think you need to add "occupation zone" where it is first used in this sense and "zone" in subsequent cases. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've done this, another option would be to call it the General Governorate. Catrìona (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he demanded that the ÚŽ arrange for the orderly collection of Bratislava's Jews at Sereď" You say above that the UZ had been disbanded .
Fatran is a bit confusing on this point. It appears that even though Neumann disbanded the UZ, some of the leaders were still operating. However, to avoid confusion I've changed this to "Jewish leaders".
  • "After the war, Weissmandl accused the Jewish Agency, the JDC, and other secular Jewish organizations of deliberately abandoning Jews to the gas chambers to prevent them from settling in Palestine.[296][174][u] His assertion became a cornerstone of Haredi historiography on the Holocaust, and his collaboration with Fleischmann—a woman and a Zionist—was minimized or omitted.[298][299] Many Haredi writers take Weissmandl's allegations at face value, claiming that mainstream scholars are influenced by unconscious pro-Zionist bias[300] as part of a religious explanation of the Holocaust as caused by the abandonment of Jewish observance." I do not understand this paragraph. Weissmandl's (unbalanced) accusation sounds pro-Zionist, so why was it taken up by anti-Zionist Haredis? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's no contradiction here, because the point of Weissmandl's accusations was to criticize Zionist and secular Jewish leaders, not to encourage anyone to go to Palestine (now that the danger was over). However, I can see how it would be confusing, so I've removed the clause about going to Palestine. Catrìona (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: The problem is that not all Haredim are anti-Zionist and branding their historiography as "misogynist" is not in any of the sources and has POV overtones. I've tried to clarify a bit: Weissmandl's accusations, which fell in line with the Haredi tendency to blame Zionists for the Holocaust, became a cornerstone of the Haredi "counter-history". For ideological reasons, his collaboration with Fleischmann—a woman and a Zionist—was minimized or omitted. I also added a link to Haredim and Zionism for further explanation. Catrìona (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Weissmandl accused the Jewish Agency, the JDC, and other secular Jewish organizations of deliberately abandoning Jews to the gas chambers.[296][174] Weissmandl's accusations, which fell in line with the Haredi tendency to blame Zionists for the Holocaust, became a cornerstone of the Haredi "counter-history". For ideological reasons, his collaboration with Fleischmann—a woman and a Zionist—was minimized or omitted." This revised version still has problems. 1. "Secular" in the first sentence is equated with "Zionist" in the second. Would it be correct to change "other secular Jewish" to "other Zionist Jewish"? 2. "fell in line" does not sound right. Perhaps "supported Haredi claims blaming Zionists for the Holocaust". 3. It is not clear why Fleischmann being a woman should have been an issue if the Haredis were not misogynist. Maybe omit "a woman and". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it to be more clear that Haredim blame both Zionists and secular Jews for the Holocaust. Both sources mention Fleischmann's gender as a reason that she was written out of the Haredi "counter-history", but neither of them actually describe this literature as "misogynistic". Many people believe that excluding women from leadership roles is misogynistic, but others distinguish between misogyny and complementarianism. Catrìona (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami

edit

As the Good Article reviewer of this article, I offer my tentative support. Full disclosure: I am on good terms with Catrìona and have reviewed and passed a number of her article at GAN. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

This has been open for almost two months without attracting clear support for promotion. I came close to archiving it a few weeks ago, when it appeared to have become bogged down over historians' interpretations, but then it seemed to progress for a while. As it stands I'm again inclined to archive and ask that the work continue outside FAC before another try here in a couple of weeks; I'm not sure much would be gained from another PR before a re-nom here, but as an option I would've thought the article came broadly under the MilHist banner and could be worth nominating for A-Class Review there (non-MilHist members would be welcome to participate, it's not an exclusive process). That said, I realise things can be quiet at this time of year so won't close just yet in case Sarah, Kaiser matias and Dudley are in fact teetering on support -- but I don't want to pressure them either. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I had been under the impression that the article wasn't really under MILHIST since the group was non-military; otherwise, I would have gone through ACR. However, since you are one of the coordinators and think it would be OK, that's very good to know. I would do that if this nomination fails, although I'm still hoping that it will go through. Catrìona (talk) 03:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, I wanted to see how it moved along, which it certainly did. I'll go through the discussion and article, and give a more solid stance tomorrow. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I think it might be best to archive this for now and take it through MILHIST A-class review before resubmitting. Thanks to everyone who commented. Catrìona (talk) 05:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Catriona. Yes, things don't seem to have changed too much since my earlier comment. Re. ACR, MilHist has always been pretty liberal in its interpretation of what comes under its banner... As we speak Apollo 15 is in the list, a mission by a civilian agency, not the military. Of course it was crewed by serving or former military officers, and could well be seen as an element of the Cold War, but then the Working Group has a clear association with the Second World War, even if it wasn't a military organisation. Yes, if anyone challenges you about I'll be happy to come and defend my recommendation...! As suggested earlier, feel free to ping the above reviewers to stop by the ACR, and then ping the ACR reviewers to look at a future FAC nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Working_Group_(resistance_organization)/archive1&oldid=875929506"