Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:11, 9 March 2018

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: History / Military Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Military history: Asian / South Pacific / Balkan / Baltic states / British / Dutch / European / French / German / Italian / Japanese / Nordic / North America / Polish / Russian & Soviet / South Asia / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) Baltic states military history task force British military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Japanese military history task force Nordic military history task force North American military history task force Polish military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force South Asian military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Jewish history This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Judaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 3 months

United States Collaboration

Is well known that many bussiness men and bankers help the Reich financing the rise and take of power of Hitler and the construction of its industrial and militar empire. This aid was not something atypical, it was one of the fundamental reasons Hitler could get his country out from a Crisis and a post-war era without problems. Harriman, Bush, Sullivan & Cromwell, Kuhn and Loeb families and banks and the General Motors of JP Morgan, IBM, Rockefeller's Standard Oil, and Ford Motors companies help the economical grow of the Reich substantialy Someone who speaks better English than me could talk about it? See: Anthony Sutton

This article is about, post Sept. 1939; do you have referenced materials to add from that period of time? C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Might Ezra Pound and Tokyo Rose qualify?

Nihil novi (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as individuals but not as representatives for an entire country, nor for business conducted before Sept. 1939. The term collaborator is so charged, that it should not be thrown around with levity. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Switzerland

This country is not mentioned yet but is very important to know the total collaboration of Swiss banks in the removal of holocaust victims bank accounts and other indirect collaboration with the nazi regime. That's because Hitler didnt invade Switzerland. The neutral nation was not so neutral. Nestle also collaborates from Switzerland with the nazis.

Many used neutral countries as a way of doing business with the 'enemy'; Sweden is another example, but it was the business community doing it, not the governments. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration in Poland

It's truly interesting to see the country that produced collaborators only on the individual level has the most prominent notice in this article. This is truly astonishing. I was striving to find well-known names of Polish collaborators but was capable to find only 3 deserving any attention. I've included these individuals along with the related pictures. CheersGizzyCatBella (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ve closely reviewed some references provided in the Caveats part of Poland section and regrettably, have to say that some don't match writing that was inserted. I’ve fixed some of it but now I’m contemplating if we really need Caveats segment at all? This division has been created very recently and doesn't deliver any worthy data to the article. Any thoughts?GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to incorporate it into the main section body. François Robere (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is wrong. The whole paragraph is how Poland was innocent and provided resistance, when the title of the article clearly says Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and that is what the whole section should be focused on. With all due respect, it should be completely rewritten.Ernio48 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Inaccurate addition

In the Poland section of the article the sentence recently introduced reads: ”The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself” It is backed by citing 2 media articles. One from the American LA Times: http://articles.latimes.com/2001/jun/13/local/me-9923 and one from the Israeli Ynet news: https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4745850,00.html How do these 2 foreign media publicists prove Polish "complicity" in the Holocaust being controversial in Poland itself? There is not a word about it and I have read the articles entirely. On top of that, it is linked to the expression “controversial” to "Polish death camp" controversy article. This doesn’t make any sense and needs to be corrected.

Related discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:François_Robere#Let’s_rest_a_little_Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The wording has been changed from what it originally was, by yourself, and François Robere (talk · contribs). I find it perplexing that one would take this to talk in that regard since you made some of the changes, but that's just me, I guess. The wording was originally attempting to be supported by the source, and the changes moved it away from that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825865100

First version:

Indeed, there is widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825917115

Second version, (which confused The LA Times with Bloomberg):

Some media outlets such as Bloomberg and BBC suggested a widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=next&oldid=825865100

Third version:

It is believed by many that the Poles are complicit in the Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&type=revision&diff=826057499&oldid=826052393

Fourth version which added the Ynet link:

The question of Polish complicity in the Holocaust has proved controversial in Poland itself,

This answers why it doesn't connect to the current wording.

R9tgokunks :✡ 08:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that’s is apparent to me also why the fourth version developed to something bizarre as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Collaboration_with_the_Axis_Powers_during_World_War_II&diff=826056976&oldid=826052393

Every time I fix it, soon it is being turned into something different, without citing proper references.

So this time again, I’ve modified it to reflect the sources supplied:

The issue of Polish collaboration with the Nazis and complicity in the murder of Jews during and after the Holocaust has been addressed by the global media and historians alike, including Poland itself...

I also correlated the Kielce Pogrom as well as Jedwabne Pogrom into the entry. And here is my plea to you people, if you choose to modify it again please, please support it by proper references. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks: I'm certain in my original wording, I've only softened it up to try and get everyone in consensus. We have sources suggesting denial on all levels, from the commoner on the street to government officials and researchers in key positions. If this isn't "denial" I don't know what is, but User:GizzyCatBella seems to prefer we didn't mention any of it as such. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Look R9tgokunks, I’ll allow myself to be straightforward here.

No, you haven’t softened anything, neither you achieved everybody

consensus, nor introduced any proof that Polish “complicity" in the

Holocaust is being controversial in Poland itself.

All you have performed is a bold reversal to the bizarre phrasing. Consider reviewing the references given again and I'll get back here at the later time.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

1. Please indent your text properly on talk pages.

2. You're not following who writes what.

3. You say there's no controversy. What is the common perception as you understand it, then? François Robere (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m thoroughly explaining that the fact that there is a level of controversy surrounding alleged Polish complicity in the Holocaust throughout the World, especially within Israel and Jewish American groups, but in Poland itself this is not an issue AT ALL. Poland at at-large denies any involvement in the Holocaust other than sporadic acts of violence on the individual level. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's exactly the point about Poland, and hugely ironic at that. Nevertheless, you bring us back to my original phrasing: "Indeed, there is widespread denial of any complicity of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust". Are we now in agreement? François Robere (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No François, you see by wording it this way the entry implies that Poland denies without any evidence an indisputable fact of Poland’s collaboration in the Holocaust. But in reality, these allegations are being challenged by Polish historians who support that view by their own historical study. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

First - no, it's not. I've used the phrase "any complicity" rather than "the complicity", which is neutral. Second, I provided multiple recent sources disputing your scant early sources that claim the opposite, plus sources that explain how denial and revisionism are manifested in Poland and why research is so lacking. You've provided nothing to counter any of it. If I were less of a gentleman I would call you out on your own denial - "it didn't happen, but don't say I said so. And by the way - it's Only Israelis, Americans and Jews who claim otherwise, but here's a Jewish-American source that agrees with me, so I'll take it." François Robere (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You provided two 2003 with limited scopes (one about Warsaw, one about post-war events) to contradict a 2013 sources with a broader scope (multiple areas, across several years). This suggests both WP:RS AGE may be an issues, as well as WP:RSCONTEXT. That's why I asked for specific quotes or page numbers that show contradictions. It shouldn't be so difficult, as we're dealing with numbers orders of magnitude apart. François Robere (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate you being a gentleman François :) but I insist that

the original wording was misleading, I believe unintentionally

but it was. Anyways, I think we should take a break from updating

this article because I'm sensing some anger developing between

you and some other editors. You guys have very strong opinions

on this sensitive issue, so I somehow understand that. That's, why I think the pause is needed to cool things down.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a strong subject backed by strong evidence, from historical studies to very current affair, and they all scream "denial" for anyone who's not deeply in it already (a law? seriously? what normative government with nothing to hide does that?). There's also that magic word we haven't mentioned - "antisemitism" - which is prevalent in Poland since days immemorial, and underlies all of the issues this article is about, but less directly relevant to some of the arguments made here. At any rate, I'll leave that sentence for the night; in the meanwhile tell me how do you prefer to address denial in a non-judgemental way. "Addressed by global media" and the like is non-informative. By the way - my intent is and was to incorporate the "caveats" section in the rest of the section, which seemed apologetic to begin with, but some consensus has to be reached first about this content. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

About "prominent": I usually agree (in fact, in a previous revision I've removed some titles you gave to some people), but in this case there's a reason for that: You're quoting the Schudrich in his capacity as Chief Rabbi, which I contend isn't in a position to convincingly refute specific claims made by Grabowski et al. We don't need the "prominent", but we don't need the Rabbi either. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Tag

@E-960: It's a 2003 book about Warsaw that supposedly refutes a 2013 one about Poland - it's legitimate to ask for a clarification. Also, your reversal undid more content than just the tag. François Robere (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That's why right in the article text you have this statement "...disputed by prominent researcher Efraim Zuroff." So, the sources are valid, and the differences in estimates are highlighted. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Learn to read, man. Zuroff disputes the Rabbi's statement, not the 2003 book. And you removed the Zuroff reference when you undid the revision. François Robere (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Pls read the criteria for a Dubious tag, because you are misusing it. --E-960 (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella it is clear that François Robere is messing with the article text, by shorting some section and placing dubious tags on legitimate sources he does not like, at this point the behavior is becoming disruptive and appears borders on POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Shorting some sections"? I didn't remove any unnecessary information, and the tag in question is there so we can keep the other editor's sources. If I had removed material without any consideration you would've had a case, but thus far I kept everything both GizzyCatBella and yourself added. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I even sent you a "thank you" after you reviewed a change and added a translation. I'm surprised you're finding this an issue and not the two vandalism attempts from earlier this evening. Rude! François Robere (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I am. I believe the other editor may have misrepresented the source with no ill intent, which corresponds to "an editor's interpretation of that source" in Template:Dubious. If you prefer any other template take your pick, just keep the reason parameter. François Robere (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, @E-960: I searched for the two 2003 books in two university libraries here and abroad, as well as online, and they're not kept anywhere (the Grabowski book is available in both libraries). I did find reviews of both books, and they're not stellar (Chodakiewicz's in particular looks shoddy). Put simply, they don't seem notable, so I repeat my request for specific quotes or the removal of both citations. François Robere (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Section

@E-960: Why did you undo this] change? The two paragraphs are about the same body and some of text is redundant, plus two separate citations of the same book. François Robere (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, The Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police are two separate entities, why else are there two separate Misplaced Pages article about them? --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't a source for Misplaced Pages... If you want, we can merge the two articles tomorrow, I have some spare time on 17:00.

Both articles make clear the connection between the two, together administering the daily affairs of their community: "The Judenräte also directed the Jewish police" and "auxiliary police units organized... by local Judenrat councils". This results in redundant material between the two paragraphs, not to mention generally bad style. What's your particular issue with the revision I made? François Robere (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, just stop with the manipulative language, I'm not using Misplaced Pages as a source, and there is no need to merge the two paragraphs because each discusses a separate topic, one Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What manipulative language?

The articles themselves maintain that one was an extension of the other, and both are discussed here in the same contexts and in similar capacities, which again results in redundancy and bad style. Do you want specific examples? François Robere (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: I will be restoring the change later today if you've no further objections. François Robere (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I do object, because your behavior shows that you are POV pushing and already two other editors objected to your editing, which included adding 'Dubious' tags to other statements in the section, and trying to minimize the details included. --E-960 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I asked you for your exact objections two comments above, and you didn't give any. If you're unwilling to substantiate your claims, don't make them. As for the books, I've explains my objections in the other section, and again you made no attempt whatsoever to counter them. The other editor indeed objected, but as you can see has already given ground on several issues. If this goes to arbitration, you will lose. Do you want to substantiate your objections, or shall we continue? François Robere (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My objection is simple and is based on the fact that there are two separate articles in Misplaced Pages one for Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police... those are two separate entities, and have two separate paragraphs in this article — nothing wrong with that — so your edits are nothing more then a 'preference' to shorted the text and I object to it because it is not a substantive change.--E-960 (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

But again, Misplaced Pages isn't a source for itself, so who cares? And I've shown you these weren't separate entities any more than a nation's police and its government, and if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant. In addition, and that is substantive, it gives the wrong quantitative impression. In fact, I suspect whoever added the paragraph about the Ordnungsdienst did indeed intend on referring to the Judenrat there as well. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• François Robere, btw, pls stop making empty threats that "I will lose", because all along it's clear you are POV pushing and other editors are also questioning your edits. Also, even if you do merger those two paragraphs anyone can come in and just add more detail and references to them, so that will be like a pyrrhic victory. --E-960 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not making threats, I'm telling you you haven't fulfilled your burden of proof. You called my behavior "disruptive" - suggesting ANI and the like - but you've done nothing at all to carry your claims. You can't go about accusing people without proof. François Robere (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, two separate Wiki articles — Judenrat and the other Jewish Ghetto Police — thus two separate paragraphs to show the distinction. After all, you are advocating only a cosmetic change, so this is not such a big issue. --E-960 (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So are we in agreement now? I'll go ahead and do it, then. François Robere (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No we are not in agreement, my gosh!! Where do you see that I inserted a Misplaced Pages page as reference (please point it out in the article). What I'm saying is that these are two separate entities, the simple fact that there are two names - Judenrat and Jüdische Ghetto-Polizei — shows these were seperate things, they served different functions, just like in a country there is the "parliament" and "police", it's not just the "governemnt" one single entity as what you propose. --E-960 (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• François Robere, BTW, the Jewish Ghetto Police also took orders from the SS and Ordnungspolizei, and the Judenrat was not involved, this shows the separateness of the two entites. --E-960 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Where do you see that I inserted a Misplaced Pages page as reference - I didn't, I said you're using Misplaced Pages as a source to justify what you think we should do: The Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police are two separate entities, why else are there two separate Misplaced Pages article about them, My objection is simple and is based on the fact that there are two separate articles in Misplaced Pages, Again, two separate Wiki articles.

just like in a country there is the "parliament" and "police" - but we're not talking about a parliament and a police, we're talking about a government and a police.

it's not just the "governemnt" one single entity as what you propose - if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant François Robere (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

...and what about Jewish Ghetto Police working directly with SS and Ordnungspolizei???? --E-960 (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Add that reference and see how it combines with the rest. François Robere (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

PLEA TO ALL LATELY INVOLVED EDITORS

I would like to appeal for some cooldown period and brief departure of your valuable experience and enthusiasm towards editing other articles. Sadly, I'm sensing some hostility developing among you that may lead to undesirable conflict and inevitable administrative intervention. Thank you guys for your time and see you here in the future. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Do you know how to slow down a tsunami (?), because I don't. Fortunately, we do have a WP:BRD rule here in Misplaced Pages meant to alert other Wikipedians to extreme partisan editing going on. I used the WP:BRD principle to direct your attention to WP:REDFLAG material inserted into this article lately, which I described in my summaries as follows: "all of that "orgy" is utter nonsense → there was no "study", just brief mentions lumping Auxiliary Police Battalions with the locals of all possible ethnic makeup, WP:RECENTISM, hostile commentaries from dailies without research... wrong article" and later: → "another hostile case ready for WP:ANI and spilling out from the "Polish death camp" controversy battleground". — Did any of you actually researched further the following statement in this article? "A 2014 study by historian Jan Grabowski found that in regards to Polish cooperation, "there were no bystanders." His study purports that around 200,000 Jews were kiled directly, or indirectly by Poles during the Holocaust." — Do you know what 200,000 means? There were 110,000 Polish Jews the Lwów Ghetto, in Tarnopol: 20,000 in Stanislawów: 30,000. The author is probably quoting numbers established by the Holocaust historians for the grand total of Jewish victims of shooting operations carried out by indigenous Auxiliary Police Battalions, estimated by Alexander Statiev at 150,000 Jews in Volhynia. Sloppy workmanship in the brief introduction there, with preposterous results in here. — Further information: Statiev Alexander (2010), The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands Cambridge University Press. page 69. Poeticbent talk 21:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

— Actually, if you read very closely that little paragraph in his book to see how he arrived at that number, you will invariably realize that that number is a fabrication with no source of any kind beyond his personal interpretation of someone else's comment. ‘Poeticbent' talk 21:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment. I'll take a closer look at Grabowski's study soon because I'm not familiar with his book. I can only tell you right now that I'm amazed that he came up with such a large figure. Garbowski’s claim is as unique as Gross’s claim that the “Poles killed more Jews than Germans". Although Gross is known for making absurd statements as he also did in his work on Jedwabne, I know very little of Grabowski. Nevertheless, heavy highlighting the extreme claims of carefully selected scholars is disturbing indeed. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• (!) I just looked at Grabowski’s "discoveries": quote - in regards to Polish cooperation there were no bystanders - end quote. What does that suppose to mean? All adult Poles played some role in the killings? Elderly and woman also? Children as well? At what age, 12 and up? another quote - Poland is probably the only country in the world where practically the whole society betrayed and handed over to the Germans every hidden Jew - end quote. You know what?... this is as far as I’m willing to go, after reading this nonsense I don't think I'll be continuing sorry... I’m withdrawing my earlier pledge I’ve done and I strongly believe that Grabowski and his ridiculous and totally untrue claims shouldn’t be included in this article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, his work has been cited by numerous outlets recently. Haaretz, the Canadian Broadcasting Company, and the United States Holocaust Museum use his data.(EDIT: Yad Vashem, the world Holocaust Memorial in Israel, cites his numbers as well,) and in fact he was awarded by them in 2014. Just because you've done WP:OR and personally decided that you don't agree with it, doesn't mean it should be banned from Misplaced Pages, on the contrary, all sides should be included, especially if it was a rigorous study.I think we should all be a little more self-aware about our edits appearing as not meeting WP:NPOV. R9tgokunks ✡ 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent:, for what it is worth the Haaretz piece on the book states this: "Grabowski cites a huge figure: more than 200,000. Precise numbers are very hard to come by, he observes, but immediately goes on to explain his calculations. One can start by saying that about 35,000 Polish Jews survived the war in Poland (excluding those who fled into the Soviet Union and returned after the war). We also know that close to 10 percent of Jews fled the liquidated ghettos in 1942 and 1943 – which would give you a number of about 250,000 Jews who tried to survive in hiding. Subtract the first number from the second and you will see the scale of the dark territory, in which the Poles, for the most part, decided who lived and who died." R9tgokunks ✡ 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. No other historian has ever said anything remotely similar to the above wayward claims. Read also WP:REDFLAG, please. Misplaced Pages is nobody's garbage dumpster. Poeticbent talk 00:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The extraordinary claim here isn't Grabowski's, but "Poland didn't have any collaboration", which is what the article stated before I made my original changes (in fact, you can see it was heavily biased: "Poles did not collaborate, those who did did so reluctantly, and the rest were heroes. Oh, but Jews collaborated."). That's an exceptional claim to make considering rates of collaboration across Europe during the same period of time; and when you dig deeper you realize it was only made possible because: a) the definition of "collaboration" was narrowed down so much you it excluded every possible case of collaboration; b) research was scant and politically biased for decades, both during and after the communist era; and that is hardly enough to prove and exceptional claim like "Poland was the only nation that didn't collaborate at all." François Robere (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks If you are willing to have this nonsense engraved in your head that the entire society could have been participating in the killings, then you have a problem. Let me tell you this. I'm old enough to remember these times, especially the times shortly after the war and I can tell you that neither myself nor anyone I know in Poland didn't kill a single Jew. And I know quite a few people over there. So that must make me and the people I know very special indeed.. I not even willing to continue this ridiculous discussion with you. Sorry. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella:, I've warned you once about assuming good faith in others, now you insult me? Please go to where this will be dealt with. R9tgokunks ✡ 01:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

R9tgokunks, I don't think that being on a short fuse and setting up an Admin Incident report is the best approach here, because it just turns up the mayhem. Discussions can get heated, and incident reports are for more serious personal attacks, not simply because someone just used an edgy reference, though an additional warning from your side is perfectly acceptable. --E-960 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary. This user has been here for over 3 years and should know how to conduct themselves by not making personal attacks. R9tgokunks ✡ 20:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, I can understand you warn the user, but based on this one crude comment, to go to Admins right way is a bit much. --E-960 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes

As one editor suggested we all do, I took a day's break from this article. Unfortunately, others have continued editing it, some adding dubious or irrelevant material. I've decided to take a "snapshot" of the article with my suggested revisions as well as some of the others, before more changes pile up. I'll explain my changes below momentarily, please be patient. François Robere (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Material with a reference source is not dubious, your only motivation is to create confusion with these misleadings statements. If you do not stop with this POV pushing, I will open and Admin Incident report against you. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Included a second source in the article, which confirms the material is not dubious, it states: pl: "Żydowscy agenci gestapo z Żagiwi udawali poza gettem żydowskich uciekinierów, by wydawać Niemcom Polaków pomagających Żydom, partyzantów i autentycznych uciekinierów żydowskich." en: "Jewish Gestapo agents from Żagiew pretended to be escaped Jewish refugees from the ghetto, in order to denounce to the Germans, Poles who helped Jews, partisans and authentic Jewish refugees." --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

E-960 Please stop being a douche. I asked for your patience and stated I'll explain everything soon. Would it kill you to hold down for an hour? I've waited a day while you were doing your changes. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

First, as I previously noted (both here, on my talk page, and in the ANI), the article in its original form seemed to reflect the contemporary Polish position, and read more like an apologetic press release than a critical historical review; that is, except when it came to Jewish collaborators, which are rightly but singularly castigated. Others noticed that as well ().

Summary of the edits:

• No need for the Boguslaw Pilnik mention. This isn't a timeline.
• "however whether are indeed reflective of the actual number of collaborators is still debated" is extremely relevant and properly sourced
• Mentioning the national Righteous Among the Nations statistic in the Blue Police paragraph is out of place, and I think in general is out of place in this article. It implies Poles were particularly righteous, when there are adequate alternative explanations to the number - such as Poland having the largest pre-war Jewish population, and the fact most of the atrocities took place on its soil. So without supporting sources implying the above is misleading, and we shouldn't mislead the reader.
• Several sources were supplied both here and on other pages to support numerical estimates that are frankly just ridiculous:
  • Tadeusz Piotrowski's book is 20 years old. We have more recent sources that dispute his numbers.
  • Hans Furth's article is from 1999. Same comment.
  • Richard Lukas's books are from 1989 and 2001.
  • Paulsson's book is from 2001 and of limited scope (see discussion above). I asked for direct quotes or even page numbers and didn't get a reply.
  • Chodakiewicz's book is from 2003, of limited scope and reviews suggest is pretty bad (see discussion above). I asked for page numbers or quotes here as well.

If 2003 is the most recent estimate you can find to support your thesis in a field that's constantly advancing, then you have a problem with your thesis.

• Another quoted source is Poland's Chief Rabbi (see discussion above). I don't think he's relevant here, for two reasons: First, he's not actually a researcher AFAIK, so there's no paper we can look for to find how he arrived at his conclusion. Second - and you can view it as OR, but it's relevant nonetheless - he sits in Poland trying to lead a tiny, historically-persecuted minority in an age of rising antisemitism, including from members of government (I've given sources elsewhere); he has all the motivation needed to try and avoid friction with the Polish majority, regardless of whether he believes that estimate or not.
• Having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and Jewish ghetto police causes unnecessary redundancy (see discussion above), as they both had some shared functions and one was accountable to the other. In addition it creates a wrong quantitative impression, that is that there were more Jewish collaborators than there actually were. If this was an apologia like some other editors are trying to make it for Poles, then we would mention how many of them viewed their role as the "lesser evil" and hoped that they could save some of their fellow Jews by answering to the Germans despite all ill fate, but it isn't. We're not here to protect anyone's emotions, we're here to create a comprehensive, accurate and readable account of events.
• Some editor removed the section I added on caveats regarding the Polish narrative. This is unacceptable. The current Polish narrative is so full of holes it's impossible to find an article from world media or a foreign researcher that doesn't address at least some of them. As I commented earlier, my intent is to incorporate that content in the article body, but consensus on existing content has to be reached first.
• The opening sentence in the "denial" paragraph is meaningless (see discussion above). What does "addressed by global media" even mean? The fact of the matter is some of editors here want to avoid us even mentioning the possibility of Polish complicity, so we can't use "denial" (because only the guilty deny), and even "controversy" is too much (because, as one editor suggested, in Poland it's not controversial at all that it didn't happen). This is ridiculous, and has no place on Misplaced Pages.
• An IP editor changed the reference to the IPN law twice. "Contrary to the facts" doesn't soften the blow - the contrasts "the Polish nation" with "the actual perpetrators" (ie. the Germans) later in the paragraph - and the "artistic or scientific activity" exception is plain nonsense, given how censorship laws like this are usually applied. The law also extends IPN's mandate to "protection of reputation of the Republic" and "crimes of Ukrainian nationalists", in a clear attempt to shift the blame further. It's a bad law, and everyone knows it, and no reason to dance around that fact here.

François Robere (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed on Boguslaw Pilnik (I’ll remove it since it’s my entry). FrançoisI'll go through the rest of your list tomorrow.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, I don't agree with most many of your proposals because they are designed to push a particular POV. For example your critique of Tadeusz Piotrowski, Cheif Rabbi, etc. and their estimates. It does not matter what you what to think, Piotrowski's book fits the criteria of a reliable source and this is just one example where scholars have conflicting estimates regarding an event, just look at the estimates proposed regarding troop strengths in the Battle of Grunwald. They are all included, not hidden because an pushy editor does not agree with some of them — btw, I was able to find a second reference source which quotes similar numbers and added it to the article. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Seperate Judenrat and Jewish Ghetto Police paragraphs do not causes unnecessary redundancy. This is nothing more then your personal preference to merge and thus shorted the text. In fact the two paragraphs show the reader that there was a distinction between the two. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Polish narrative paragraph, I'm a bit lost on this one, but this article is about collaboration not Polish attitudes. Just seems redundant if you ask me if it's out it should stay out. --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't remove the Piotrowski reference, unlike others that should be removed (like Paulsson's, Chodakiewicz's and one of Lukas's - a book thirty years old, from before many archives even opened up to the public). My reservations about the Rabbi's estimate pertain both to WP:RSOPINION (he didn't publish anything, so go figure how he reached that number) and WP:BIASED (not implying ill intent, but he is in a vulnerable position ). Conflicting numbers aren't the problem, the sources they're claimed to derive from are.

I've shown you these weren't separate entities any more than a nation's police and its government, and if the government orders some action which is up to the police to undertake, mentioning it twice in exactly the same way in two adjoining paragraphs is redundant

You're apparently lost on most of it. The fact of the matter is that many, many Poles collaborated on many levels with the occupiers, yet it's denied wholesale using word games and fallacies like no true Scotsman. That's how this section could state that "there was very little collaboration", or no "true" collaboration, that it was "marginal" and so on and so forth. I've given plenty of sources showing the depth and even timeline of the politization of history in Poland as it pertains to antisemitism, WWII and the Holocaust, necessarily leading to a skewed historiography - hence the relevance here. François Robere (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you don't understand... it's not for you to decide which source to keep, if a reference is a reliable source and these are reliable sources. It's becoming clear you are pushing a POV, by insisting that this material should be removed. Again look at other articles that include many estimates. --E-960 (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, your argument provided no concrete merits, just a bunch of chatter saying that you want to remove various text and reference sources. Also, I'm going to give you a fair warning, to watch how you talk to other editor, you calling me this "E-960 Please stop being a douche." or making repeatedly rude statements such as this "You're apparently lost on most of it." is adding up. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Polish National Institute of Remembrance PDF: also states the number is around 120,000 in 2008 is that too old as well? --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, you've accused me of POV and destructive editing several times here and here, without doing even a minimal effort to prove it, right up to the point I mention Moderation and other "procedures"; then when I asked for a bit of patience (top of this thread) you went ahead and reverted my changed without even waiting for me to explain. So you're a douche.

Second, it is up to us to decide which is a relevant source, and if you can't demonstrate that an estimate from 30 years ago is still relevant, or that the Rabbi's number is anything but a personal opinion, or that the 2001 and 2003 books actually say what you claim they say, then they're not relevant. And you haven't. Curiously, I do not remember you defending relevant and up-to-date sources that contradict your position, like Gross and Grabowski, sometimes (as with Zuroff) removing them yourself. BTW, what's with the Polish financial magazine that you added? Or "Salon24"? What the hell are these?

Third, I explained the historiography issue several times already (on several talk pages) as I have several other issues like "using Misplaced Pages as a source for itself" and "merging paragraphs with redundant text". One can only be patient for so long.

Fourth, I don't know what you're referring to in "concrete merits", because your one-liner isn't clear on which of the other seven points it's meant to address. As I said, you seem uninterested in discussing any material point that doesn't support your story.

Actually the IPN booklet says 30,000-120,000, without citing sources (one of which may very well be Piotrowski), and you added it as if it unequivocally supports the higher estimate. Are you trying to cheat? François Robere (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your arguments are so glib... For some reason you keep using this term "relevant sources" to describe reference material (and you want to decide on what's "relevant"), while in fact, per Misplaced Pages guidelines its RELIABLE SOURCES not relevant sources, i.e. material which has been published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses. Both Lukas' and Piotrowski's works were published by reputable publishers University Press of Kentucky and McFarland & Company. Also, per Misplaced Pages guidelines, age by itself is not a disqualifying factor of reference sources, in fact Misplaced Pages guidelines say that both new and old sources may have drawback and benefits to them, and one does not automatically take precedence over the other. --E-960 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you expected them to be? Depressing? This topic is depressing enough as it is.

As for "relevant sources": We rarely quote all sources or all claims on a matter, especially when they're dated. We could quote Gray's Anatomy from 1858 - I mean, it's from a reputable publisher, isn't it? Only knowledge has progressed since. Some of the newer sources give wildly differing opinions than the ones quoted above, some of which make "exceptional claims" (Three million Polish savers? Who are you trying to kid?). All of this is to say, in short, that we have some degree of editorial discretion in picking sources. Thus far my concerns about some of the sources haven't been answered (as have several of my concerns in general), and I'm far from convinced they're either relevant or actually supportive of the claims they're supposed to back up. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Gray's Anatomy from 1858"? Really, great example... can you find a more unreasonable and childish comparison? So, based on your criteria books by Steven Hawkins form the 1990s are unusable as Misplaced Pages references, also based on this dumb criteria of yours, apparently we can't use anything of Einstein because his junk is over 30 years old and completely useless. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer Gray's from 1984? There were over 40 editions to pick from, and most wouldn't be quoted here as current.

this dumb criteria of yours - you mean WP:RS AGE? François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Restructuring and cleanup

As I mentioned earlier, this section was heavily biased, and read like an apologia to the bravery of the Polish nation rather than an account of collaboration. The exception, of course, was Jews - that tiny minority of Jews who collaborated was not shown the same lenience some other editors gave the Poles. One cannot but ask the question what this article is about: Is it about the relationships of occupied nations with the Nazis - the collaboration, the resistance and the passivity - or just about collaboration? The article's lead makes it clear that it's the latter case, and indeed there's not a single section in this article that reads quite like the one about Poland. As mentioned earlier, other editor took notice of this; this clearly has to be fixed. The stories of bravery and resistance will have their place elsewhere.

Major changes:

• This continues from where I left last time (above see change list above). However, I've incorporated some of the later changes made by others.
• I've restructured the section. It was disorganized, and now it's (hopefully) clear and readable.
• I've removed some of the photos. We had 5 photos of collaborators, 3 of which of Jewish collaborators. Jews did not constitute 60% of collaborators, so that is misleading.
• We need more information on collaboration in the "Blue Police". Between the mounds of text meant to extoll them there's surprisingly little about what they actually did.
• The same goes for the collaboration within the resistance. The one unit that did collaborate (according to the cited sources) is qualified as doing so "tacitly", and there's no mention anywhere of the interactions between the resistance and Jewish fugitives, which was at times... problematic. We need more information about it.
• The sections on the German minority are problematic: The statement implicating them in collaboration is unsubstantiated by the cited source, the statement on Volksdeutsche listing considered a "high crime" contradicts is not in line with the following paragraph, that casually mentions that "some estimates are higher... including the 'Volksdeutsche'". If there are three million such people and they're all collaborators, then the other estimates are significantly higher than Lukas's "several thousands", and something is seriously amiss. When you remove those bits along with the irrelavant apologetic ones ("were treated with particular contempt") you're left with very little. We can add back some of material if we have some supporting sources and can incorporate it with the rest of the text properly.
• I've rephrased the paragraph on the "Żagiew" and Group 13 to reflect the fact they were criminal groups rather than "mainstream" organizations.
• Details that do not bear on collaboration were removed. For example, the "Righteous Among the Nations" count has no little relevance in demonstrating collaboration, and in addition it's misleading (providing just the count without context gives the impression of particular "righteousness" on behalf of the Poles despite there being alternative and equally valid explanations for the that), so it was removed
• Most references remain, though I've reformatted some using citation templates.

François Robere (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverted your massive and disruptive edits; blatant POV pushing, removing reliable sources and long standing material, all the while adding one-sided statements, which create issues of un-due weight within the Poland section. Also filed an ADMIN'S NOTICEBOARD/INCIDENT report, to prevent further disruption of such massive proportions to the article . --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

So now that your ANI ended with the determination that it's a content dispute; I've done nothing wrong; "books a third of a century ago probably won't say what they do today"; and comments by others that " might actually have a... basis for changes" and that the arguments I've made "seem reasonable", as well as a reprimand of User:Poeticbent for his uncivil comments - can we go on with the process? François Robere (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Go on with what? It's still just you pushing your POV, as a matter of fact a new comment by Slatersteven below stated that if RS are reliable removing them and the statements supported by them can be considered as vandalism. --E-960 (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If it carried on and is done against consensus yes it might well end up being viewed as disruptive. Also (François) The ANI did not say you were right, it said that this is a content dispute (it made no judgement as to which of you ism in the right). Please be aware of WP:TE, this is heading that way.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which, at the moment, is User talk:E-960's problem, not mine. If a vote was taken now, I suspect, there will be 4-5 editors for my changes, and only two against.

As for Policy: I knew what I was doing when I made those changes, and I knew the other user will have no reasonable claim against me. While it is about content as far as I'm concerned, the fact the other editor has reversed my changes time and time again with no substantial discussion has certainly moved it to WP:TE territory. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And as I replied to Slatersteven: Unfortunately for User:E-960, his ANI complaint against me resulted in nothing, so you can take that off the table.. Stop making accusations and start making arguments for your claims. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Do or do not the sources support what is in the article, and do you have any sources that contest the claimS, did you or did you nor remove sourced material?Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Some sources do, some sources are questionable - I've asked for clarifications about those, but didn't get them - and some do, but the content itself isn't relevant for the article (that is, not about the subject of the article).

I sourced everything. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very hard to discus an edit when it removes so much. As you admit here some of it was sourced, yet you still removed it. Can you please make a separate section for each sources or fact you think should not be here, and we can discus each one without trying to guess what material you think is irrelevant (as opposed to poorly sourced (for example)).Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I know. I didn't even intend on making this edit until after we agreed on some of the major parts (and I told as much to one of the editors when they messaged me), but it was impossible to achieve one, and not for lack of trying on my part. What I eventually decided to do is to make the edit and thoroughly explain it, then let discussion proceed from there whether it's reversed or not. Unfortunately, as you can see throughout this page, User:E-960 hasn't made an effort to engage on most of the points.

As for your suggestion: I'm sorry, but I won't. I know it'll save you work, but I've already listed all of it on this page, and more than once (see the bullet points above for a start), and a summary of my position was given on the ANI. I'll happily go along with what you're doing below, but I've more than fulfilled my burden of proof already, and it's becoming bothersome to repeat it again and again. François Robere (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing and deleting statements with reliable reference sources

Stop deleting text from the Poland section that you don't like — it is sourced material. At the same time you added details that you see as important, but do not allow other to included material with reference sources. Over the last few day, you are POV pushing and you need to stop. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for your patience while I was writing all of the above, but obviously you can hold it. Read first, react from your gut later. François Robere (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

E-960 You're making it impossible for others to work on this article. By the time I explained my changes above, in goodwill and with the intent of promoting discussion, you made three changes in six revisions, and like your previous edits they're solely focused on Jewish collaborators, while rolling back any change implying (non-Jewish) complicity. I don't think you're actually interested in achieving consensus, and it smells badly. François Robere (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Please... what about all your questionable edits and the arguments with GizzyCatBella and Poeticbent. All the dubious tags and text on Polish collaboration. Seriously, your content was allowed to stay, do the same for others. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Every single one of my edits is explained on this page, and everyone can see exactly when I added or removed material and why. It's also clear when you you decided to engage (when Arbitration was mentioned), and questions I asked that didn't get answered (like the tag - singular - you keep complaining about without explaining). Are you going to start discussing changes, or not? François Robere (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You are arbitrarily removing RELIABLE SOURCES of mainstream academics—whose work was published by reputable academic presses/publishing houses—which don't fit your narrative. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

IF rs say it so can we, removal of sourced material can be seen as vandalism.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately for User:E-960, his ANI complaint against me resulted in nothing, so you can take that off the table. François Robere (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, despite your delusional thinking, the conclusion of the ANI did not say it's ok to remove reliable sources (Misplaced Pages rules are still in place), but to return to the article talk page. Also, you still need to gain consensus. So, if you think that the Admins gave you a carte blanche, keep dreaming. --E-960 (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You recall the administrators' warning that "Everyone mind their words, though. Behavior's still on the table."? Watch it. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so that should give you a moment of pause, since twice during the course of these ongoing discussions you called ma a derogatory word:

• Please stop being a douche. François Robere (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• So you're a douche. François Robere (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

--E-960 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Would you like to: a) count how many times you made baseless accusations against me of "POV pushing" before I made those remarks? b) quote my entire message, to clarify what you did that entitles you to that particular brand? François Robere (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Can the pair of you stop talking about each other, this is about discussing the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Beauty and personal hygiene have nothing to do with it, and I'm not one to gossip anyway. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha... so funny — not --E-960 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer's opinion

The statement in the Poland section which reads: "Yehuda Bauer calls the claim that 60,000 Poles saved Jews 'a blunt lie': There is no doubt that a very brave minority amongst Poles aided Jews. But if it was 60,000, the history of the Holocaust in Poland would've looked completely different." should be removed, as it is cited from the Hareetz newspaper article clearly marked as OPINION, offering no evidence or explanation as to why other research conducted on the subject is wrong (just using weasel-words and rhetoric calling everything a "blunt lie"), yet this statement is presented in the Poland section as if it was a reference to an academic work. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it is an opinion and it is cited as such already. Second, you defended keeping the Chief Rabbi's opinion - an opinion not backed by sources, by someone who isn't a scholar, who both himself and his community are under threat of physical violence (encouraging bias); then referenced a Polish financial newspaper and a magazine called "Salon24" as proof of what looks awfully like a blood libel, with no additional sources; now you have a problem with an Israeli paper of record quoting one of the world's leading Holocaust researchers? François Robere (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohh okay, so you do agree that this reference is just an OPINION piece form a online news website, and I'm just going to make a wild guess here that this one lowly statement is what you are basing your opposition on to actual academic works by Paulsson, Lukas and Piotrowski. --E-960 (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the problem with a well-respected scholar expressing an opinion in his field of expertise?

I'll assume you're hard of reading if you still think I made no case for my objections:

@GizzyCatBella: You provided two 2003 with limited scopes (one about Warsaw, one about post-war events) to contradict a 2013 sources with a broader scope (multiple areas, across several years). This suggests both WP:RS AGE may be an issues, as well as WP:RSCONTEXT.

@E-960: It's a 2003 book about Warsaw that supposedly refutes a 2013 one about Poland - it's legitimate to ask for a clarification.

I believe the other editor may have misrepresented the source with no ill intent, which corresponds to "an editor's interpretation of that source"

I searched for the two 2003 books in two university libraries here and abroad, as well as online, and they're not kept anywhere (the Grabowski book is available in both libraries). I did find reviews of both books, and they're not stellar (Chodakiewicz's in particular looks shoddy). Put simply, they don't seem notable, so I repeat my request for specific quotes or the removal of both citations

If 2003 is the most recent estimate you can find to support your thesis in a field that's constantly advancing, then you have a problem with your thesis.

a book thirty years old, from before many archives even opened up to the public

if you can't demonstrate that an estimate from 30 years ago is still relevant... or that the 2001 and 2003 books actually say what you claim they say, then they're not relevant

You, on the other hand, haven't:

In addition, and that is substantive, gives the wrong quantitative impression

Having separate paragraphs for the Judenrat and Jewish ghetto police causes unnecessary redundancy... creates a wrong quantitative impression

what's with the Polish financial magazine that you added? Or "Salon24"? What the hell are these?

Actually the IPN booklet says 30,000-120,000, without citing sources (one of which may very well be Piotrowski), and you added it as if it unequivocally supports the higher estimate

you defended keeping an opinion not backed by sources, by someone who isn't a scholar then referenced a Polish financial newspaper and a magazine called "Salon24" as proof of what looks awfully like a blood libel, with no additional sources; now you have a problem with an Israeli paper of record quoting one of the world's leading Holocaust researchers

And you have the nerves to accuse me of "POV pushing"...

François Robere (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

All this chatter don't change the fact that you are pushing un-due weight onto the article by placing over-emphasis on this one OPINION piece from an online news website, not even using it as a simple reference, but quoting it word for word at length in the article, as if it was an academic work. --E-960 (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You're really quite impervious to discussion, are you? One who can't change their mind through discussion is redundant in it. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Cause your rants consistently miss the point:

• This OPINION statement should be removed all together because it does not talk about instances of Polish collaboration, but it talks about how many Jews were saved by Poles, this is not the subject matter covered in this article, So, why did you add it in the first place? --E-960 (talk) 15:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree, after all many Germans saved Jewish lives, I doubt anyone would use that as evidence that Germans did not also help the Nazis.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point regarding Lukas, Piotrowski, Paulsson and all of the other sources E-960 argued for keeping. If we agree on this, we can just as well restore the changes I made and be done. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What they have argued that because some Germans helped Jews the Germans did not help the Nazis', can you provide the quote for this please?, and if you cannot then how is my point exactly the seam as yours?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No. These sources (apart from Lukas, actually) provide estimates of the number of Poles who helped Jews, which in the context of this article is both apologetic and irrelevant. That's one reason I suggested removing them. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

See, this is how you blur things and sow confusion, the statement by Paulsson is long standing—it was on this page way before you started objecting to it—and it provides a comparison of numbers between who collaborated vs. who assisted. --E-960 (talk) 17:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

If the sources do not say that we cannot imply it (that is OR), so do the sources make that link?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the source states exactly that, these same figures by Paulsson were actually used by the Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki during a recent discussion with foreign Journalist on the issue. The whole meeting can even be viewed on online.--E-960 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, Italian historian of Jeiwsh background David Cesarani in an old interview stated the "the level help given to Jews in Poland was large" --E-960 (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And that does not say anything about comparing this to Polish collaboration, so if you think nit does I think we need the quotes form the sources saying something like "thus it is clear that polish help for the Jews implies a low level of collaboration". If the sources do not explicitly say something of the kind polish help for Jewish refuges is irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing blurry about it. First, to quote from the ANI discussion: User:E-960 appears to be making an argument that because it has existed unaltered, that it's right. Although that supports an argument to seek consensus before changing it - it doesn't support the argument that it is right.

Second, as I've said over and over again, that comparison is irrelevant both here, and in general. It's posed here along with many other statements as sort of a "counter" to the issue of collaboration ("some collaborated, but look! so many people were just!") which is so irrelevant that it isn't done anywhere else in this article; and as it's provided without any context it also biases the text towards your narrative. And then you go and accuse me of "sanitizing" the facts? Shame on you. François Robere (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This last note is not intended as reference in the article, just a note to user François Robere, that Yehuda Bauer's opinion is not an authoritative statement, that's all. --E-960 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Bauer's opinion isn't the issue. Get over it.

OK, so we all agree that we can take out that statement. --E-960 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No one has said that. I see no reason why a leading Jewish opinion is irrelevant to the issue of the Holocaust. I do have issues with including statements about the number of Jews saved without an indication that this is a counter point to collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Now wait a minute, so you have an issue with the statement that Poland never surrendered, because it does not talk about collaboration, but in this case you want to keep a statement form a how many Poles saved Jews, even though this is not a topic of collaboration? --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• After all this is your first comment: "Tend to agree, after all many Germans saved Jewish lives, I doubt anyone would use that as evidence that Germans did not also help the Nazis. Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)." Seriously, this is causing serious confusion. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said lets try to keep arguments in one thread at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So, as a start, can we all agree on removing Bauer's statement and estimates that follow it? --E-960 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it has been removed - which I support. This statement might be relevant to Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust, but not here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Help appreciated

What was the name of that Polish statesman who in 1930/40 was offered by Hitler to establish the collaborative government in GG? He declined and then was shot by the Germans a few months later? I totally forgot the name of that politician, such an embarrassment ..(my old head refused to cooperate :) ) There were two of them, both refused and got killed. I can't remember names of either of them. I need this information to amend the article. Appreciate it.GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Got it, Kazimierz Bartel GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: The background section needs to be narrowed down - it has some details that aren't relevant for the overall picture (eg. names of statesmen - there were many statesmen who refused to collaborate across Europe, so the specifics are not very informative). Also, it somewhat contradict the common explanation that the Germans saw Poles as "inferior" to them, and "unworthy" of self-governance. This results in little clarity about what happened, and again gives an impression that I'm not sure reflects events (eg. did the Germans make a "serious" attempt at installing a government, or just preliminary contacts that quickly devolved due to their "racial" perceptions?). The "surrendering" part is also irrelevant, for several reasons. I suggest this instead:

Unlike most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany, in Poland the Germans did not install a collaborating government. Occupied Polish territory was either directly annexed to Germany or placed under a German-run administration called the General Government (Generalgouvernement).

Note that Estreicher's and Witos's articles are somewhat slim, and could benefit from some of the material you cited here. François Robere (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

All the specified events occurred at the commencement of the war, in 1939 and early 1940. That happened 2-3 years before the Germans began the volume murder of Jews and before implementation of oppressive policies against the Poles. The Germans didn't yet use the term "Polish subhumans" in 1939. In fact, Hitler himself attended the funeral of Pilsudski and looked forward to Poland to become his ally. The fact that the Germans attempted to find collaborators in Poland is unknown to the general public hence needs to be incorporated here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nazi "race theory" was well developed by 1939, and Poles, Slavs, Jews and Roma were at the bottom of it. The whole point of invading Poland was ethnic cleansing (Generalplan Ost), not establishing a puppet state. I'd really like some sources on that. Regardless, I don't think we should name specific non-collaborators here. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the above on objectives of invading Poland. The invasion of Poland was all about Lebensraum, a concept that got going before WW1. Given the bizarre competitive management style that Hitler operated, one can only really take into consideration plans that are actually put into operation. Whilst Lebensraum, of necessity, involved the subjugation of Poland, the precise detail of what to do with the existing population was down to the competing ideas of Hitler's subordinates. Note that the Gauleiters of the different parts of Poland operated different and, to some extent, competing, policies on things like Germanisation of Poles and how the Jews were dealt with. Since nothing was ever found in writing on the plans for Generalplan Ost, I think to presume that everything was mapped out from the beginning is a step too far. An awful lot of what the Germans did in the early part of WW2 involved discovering themselves in a position and then working out how to deal with it (for instance winning the Battle of France so easily and quickly). The fact that they were winning at this stage concealed a huge gap in planning and readiness.

I also note that you have stated a position on the subject, and then asked others to come up with references to support your viewpoint.

I take the view that some mention of those who refused to be involved in collaboration is important, as it highlights the options that were available to those that did collaborate. Whilst the article needs to avoid making moral judgments on the various collaboration instances, the reader would need to see something of the "refusers" in order to adequately develop the inevitable opinions that they will hold of those who participated. To illustrate this, in the French naval situation, you have Admiral Darlan implicitly authorising the wholesale repair and maintenance support of the Kreigsmarine by the defeated French navy, Lt Cmdr Jean Philippon who appeared to be a collaborator in the senior management of the Naval Arsenal at Brest, but was providing important intelligence to the Allies, Ingénieur Général Roquebert who refused to renovate a salvaged French destroyer for the Germans, was arrested but then released into the Vichy zone - all this in the context of thousands of French shipyard workers who provided about 30% of the maintenance capability for U-boats in the Battle of the Atlantic (that 30% could represent 20,000 Allied deaths).
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Look User:François Robere, I'm not sure what's behind your calls for the changes, but I'm sure you need to read more on the subject. In the late 30's Hitler attempted to draw Poland into the Axis. Many Nazi leaders were arriving in Poland with official and non-official visits, like Goering's visits for hunting with Moscicki, struggling to persuade Poland to become an ally. The Germans promised the whole territory of Ukraine as a prize after a united triumph over the USSR. Hitler even promised Odessa in exchange for Danzig. Those efforts to get Poland on the German side were carried out until April 1939 when eventually Poland signed the defense agreement with the UK. That deal made Hitler furious and caused his well-known blast: "Poles will pay him for their treachery." So no, in 1939 the Poles were not "subhumans" to Hitler yet, and the "background" section does not need any modifications. All that I wrote above is available in any elementary history book, so I'll not provide any links. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

One more thing that I just remembered. Following Hitler's attack on Poland, he would say - quote "things wouldn’t turn out like that if the old Pilsudski were still alive" So no, no Polish subhumans in 1939. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: The "precise" details aren't the issue here, but rather whether the Germans made a substantial attempt at installing a puppet government in Poland, in which they failed. I haven't seen evidence to substantiate that statement beyond those three contacts. As for their original intention there's the introduction here, the quote from 1928 here, another one from 1939 here, etc.

I also note that you have stated a position on the subject, and then asked others to come up with references to support your viewpoint No, I didn't. GizzyCatBella suggested a detail which, by their own admission, isn't "common knowledge". I'm merely asking for sources that support it.

I take the view that some mention of those who refused to be involved in collaboration is important, as it highlights the options that were available to those that did collaborate I'm not saying we shouldn't mention any of it, but we need to be wary of the details and stresses we give here: The former as a matter of style (the section has to be concisely on-topic etc.); the second as a matter of avoiding what became of this article until two months ago, where every example of collaboration was flanked by two examples of resistance, in an obvious attempt to give a biased impression of the subject. This cannot recur.

@GizzyCatBella: I actually just read some more in one of the article linked above. There's still a difference between "sort-of an ally" and "puppet state" (or "client state", as one of the articles put it) - actually, the two are distinct: one suggests independence, the other subservience. So again we're at a point where the statement "the Germans failed at installing a puppet government" is unsourced, especially considering the 1939 quote. As for why I care - see above.

Just to clarify: I'm simply looking for a source that states this: "After invading Poland the Germans tried to instill a local puppet government, but none of the statesman/woman they approached agreed to do so, and eventually they decided to rule it directly." François Robere (talk) 18:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: OK - we agree that some good sources are needed for all this stuff. (And I might have misunderstood the point you were making on this.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: (I might've miss-stated it.) François Robere (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You only need three relevant sources on each matter, 6-7.

• Lee, Lily Xiao Hong (2016-09-16). World War Two: Crucible of the Contemporary World - Commentary and Readings: Crucible of the Contemporary World - Commentary and Readings. Routledge. ISBN 9781315489551. - very interesting reading, and completely contradictory to your claims: "What made it even less likely that the occupiers would sponsor a collaborationist government was the model of occupation, based on the principle of unlimited exploitation, specifically prohibited the Germans to contemplate granting any concessions to the subjugated populace.
• Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1998). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947. McFarland. ISBN 9780786403714. - which page statement supports your argument?
• Steinhaus, Hugo (2015-12-28). Mathematician for All Seasons: Recollections and Notes Vol. 1 (1887-1945). Birkhäuser. ISBN 9783319219844.</ref> Poland as a polity never surrendered to the Germans, instead evacuating its pre-war government and surviving armed forces, to France and ultimately to England. Occupied Polish territory was either directly annexed to Germany or placed under a German-run administration called the General Government.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). To me this is a clear message that those who were active in hunting down such collaborators had a different definition that the currently cited source. There are other POW books that present the same terminology of collaborator applied to British POWs - even if their collaboration was much less severe than others (but then so was their punishment - being thrown in the open latrine at Stalag XXA, whilst extremely unpleasant, is better than being shot or hung. Given time I can probably find which reference has this story in it.)
  ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In those cases they worked for the Germans against the British (POWs) in POW camps. The BFC (explicitly) were not going to be used against the British (and as I have already said many of it's members were not collaborators (and a few even thought they had British permission)). Most were not even tried. The simple fact is it was too small and had to diverse a membership to be seen as an example of collaboration (and implying all of its members were by saying it was collaborationist is also a BLP violation, as many were not collaborators). It is in fact far to complex an issue for a one or two line summery, and far too unimportant for more then that. At best this really should only be a see also at the bottom of the page. Certainly we can list the more notable examples of it's membership (Cooper springs to mind). But we then go back to Undue, and giving far to much attention to really insignificant events (after all we do not list the POW collaborators, who did far more harm and whose collaboration was far more explicit).Slatersteven (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The whole point about the BFC was that is was a failure. This provides an important comparison with the French equivalent. Note that many Frenchmen were trying to balance the risk of being conscripted into the German labour force with joining a military unit. The British POWs were already carrying out forced labour. And I disagree about the "understanding and intent" issue that stops them being collaborators. As well as "ignorance of the law is no excuse", we only have the word of those involved about what they understood or intended. Their fellow POWs were much less sympathetic than this.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Adam Galamaga (21 May 2011). Great Britain and the Holocaust: Poland's Role in Revealing the News. GRIN Verlag. p. 15. ISBN 978-3-640-92005-1. Retrieved 30 May 2012.

Well we have RS saying that, and courts that found that in many cases there was not enough evidence for conviction (being a member of the BFC apparently not being enough, that alone implies that the British accepted that not all of them were collaborators in the accepted sense).

I agree with much of what ThoughtIdRetired said. To be put only in the "see also" section is completely ridiculous, as you edited/added own pharaphgraphs of collaboration for i.e. Indochinea or Japan. It seems you simply struggle to make totally disappear/wash out the British Free Corps, like it would not have any connection to British or Britain and to invent any argument to "exile" it from the article, that even it would appear to have only connection with Australians. Nonsense...(KIENGIR (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC))

odYou are aware that Indochina was occupied by the Japaneses, and had a collaborationist government? And again (I did not remove the section about the channel islands (a comparable situation to Indochina). AGF.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC) I also note that the material I removed made no mention of any of the above concepts, it never said it was a failure, no comparison was made with France, inn fact is was a one line, with a picture whilst the paragraphs about the Channel Islands had no illustration. a violation of undue if ever there was one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Hell we have complaints that the material about Australia is too much, and it is about the seam subject (the BFC, including Ozies, New Zealanders, Canadians, A Belgian (Yep very British), South Africa, Ireland So even including it under UK is wrong, it was not solely "British").Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I practise "AGF", accordingly you should be able for a good consensus. What you described of your other addition does not change the situation we are talking about. I did not say it would be good to leave the picture where it was - although without a new consensus it could put back there - but you should be open for a short mentioning in an other place, along with the picture. I have also no problem if you mention those further who was not "solely British".(KIENGIR (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC))

odOr we could leave it out, it is not down to me to write a passage that I fond acceptable for inclusion, I can just leave it out as largely an irrelevance. It is down to you to suggest an edit (suggest, not make) and convince me it really adds something substantive to our understanding of collaboration with the Axis powers. But I wholley object to the pictures as it (even at the time illustrated one sentence, and thus was massively undue, there are far more relevant and notable examples of collaboration (as I said such as the channel islands) that should be illustrated. Pictures are supposed to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, it is hard to see how this image helps any users understand better collaboration (or why they need it to better understand one sentence that is quite clear.

And I did not raise my other edits, I just pointed out how they are not analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, then I'll take the initiative for that short and one sentence, in it's perfect place, in my opinion, as well reffering it is not solely people from UK, as well a reference to the list of the members. The picture of course should be in an appropriate place, next to it, that is really demonstrative. Since the article highlights every corner of the world, even referring to less known or relevant cases, I think you should accept this solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC))

Then I have to oppose inclusion, it was not solely recruited form the UK, so implies something about British collaboration which is not true, says nothing about it's lack of impact and the picture does not illustrate anything that needs illustration (that is not explained in the text).

The justification for this it that it enables us to compare British with (say French) collaboration. As it makes no such comparison (nor discuses it low membership or make any mention of what it says about other collaborationist units within the British empire (such as the Indian Free legion (which had many many more members)) it is clearly undue. Moreover it does not explain its membership numbers or lack of support (vital to understand anything about how it reflects on "British" collaboration, as compered to other nations. In fact this actually removed some of that (such as the numbers who served).Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC) So if we are going to have a section titled "British empire" it must include all those units (and with the depth the numbers involved deserve, hard to see how more 59 men deserves even one line).Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC) I think an RFC is in order now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, instead of reverting you could have add/modify things to your taste (as well I disaggre with the claim in the edit log, since I did what I promised). I deliberately used "British Empire", so it cannot be put like only it is connected to British in the UK, etc. (that is still your main argument, despite it was clearly written in the added text!). The picture also would not suggest this and I don't understand "what should be explained about it in the text", since it is already explained that they are not from solely Britain and to put a picture is as much ordinary as thousand of other pages or topics in WP. For the "lack of support" you could have added info. Still I don't get why you introduce a possible comparison with the French, since it is in the volunteers section, along with Japan and the other Waffen SS groups, so it is clear not be treated as a main collaboration. You grab any argument - regardless how valid they would be - to oppose and remove everything. Better try to refill/affix what we already have and try to be more pragmatic and constructive, and not immediately quitting for an RFC.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC))

We have an RFC now, so I will not comment (I am letting you know why I am not going to reply as a courtesy).Slatersteven (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning of the new IPN law

Another point on the list: Mentioning of the new IPN law in the 'Recent legislation' section is just too much, I would get rid of the entire sections, simply no need for such detail in an article like this. --E-960 (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I need to give it a little thought. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Let's wait for judgments of others and if there are no objections please discharge it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing the section, adding a see also to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The reason that entire section exists is to explain the discrepancy between different estimates as a politicization of Polish historiography (which it is, as previously explained). When the article reflects all relevant sources it can be removed; the article isn't there yet. François Robere (talk) 14:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I maintain my judgment that this is out of place being here, "see also" is more than sufficient. GizzyCatBella (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Do other countries in this article have sections comparable to Poland's "2018 legislation" section?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

a politicization of Polish historiography is certainly relevant, as is politicization of other countries historiographers (sadly, we rarely discuss it, also because of inadequate sourcing). Whether we have room to discuss it here I am not sure, and frankly, I'd suggest creating a separate article Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany (per the few articles in Category:Collaboration during World War II). The section here should be a summary of main points, and details, including longer quotes, etc. can go into a dedicated article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, if this was an article all about Collaboration in Poland I would keep this section, but because it is not we should focus on the core issues and not current events sourouning it, as the Poland section is still really long in comparison to other country sections, so perhaps we should remove this portion of the text. --E-960 (talk) 08:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Unreliable source removed

I've removed , it's unreliable - non-peer review publication, and the author (not Andrzej Sławiński, economist) is a chemist and hobbyist historian (). In either case, I don't think this piece is reliable and it doesn't add anything to the article. We should remove low quality sources like that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant subsection removed

I've removed a section () that claimed that most Polish collaborators were German minority. Couldn't verify it in the three sources linked (one is a book with no page number). It is a controversial claim and needs a solid source to be in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There were two others

We give to much attention to Germany, and non e to the other Axis nations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Italy never mattered much, and English Misplaced Pages is written more by Westerners, interested in their local history, than Asians. So our coverage is biased towards Germany, and there is not enough about Asian collaboration with Japanese, I am sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it needs to be on our collective "to do" list for this article. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

German propaganda recruitment poster (Poland section)

Is that image relevant? GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Kind of though the poster was an opening if someone had information on this topic. However, I do suggest we should remove the three images of Krzeptowski, Kalkstein and Gancajch. They are not named directly in the text and again this is a high level article. --E-960 (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I think the poster could be interesting here if the phenomenon was substantial, but we need more information first. At the moment there's nothing tying it to the text. François Robere (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC BFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should this article make mention of the British Free Corps?.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No or at most an Extremely brief mention. There are two issues here - one whether BFC personnel were actually collaborating as opposed to volunteering to serve in a foreign force, as Nazi forces did not (with the exception of the Channel Islands) occupy British territory making collaboration with an occupier difficult. The second issue, if the first is resolved as a yes, is that the BFC's size was minute - some 54 individuals in all - and insignificant in relation to other SS volunteer groups by nation (the SS had many such units, a partial list is Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts).Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• A Concise mention is important. The BFC is notable as membership was offered to 142,319 UK servicemen held as POWs in Europe during WW2, but accepted by less than 54 (some of whom were not from the UK). Small numbers do not equal lack of notability. Also, the article's definition of collaboration is inadequate - see OED ("To co-operate traitorously with the enemy"), British Army terminology in questioning liberated POWs about collaboration by other POWs and Imperial War Museum usage for other definitions.
  ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• A Concise mention with the picture in an own pharapraph or next to to other Waffen-SS Groups is important. How it would be like, can be seen in my last edit (reverted). Since even those volunteers/collaborators have an own section or mentioned who are much more less known or even less notable, many oppositions seems like a defence for British pride or whatsoever. For more deatails of arguments and standpoints are in the "Collaboration" section in this talk page. I as well agree that the definiton of "collaboration" is fallacious/ambigous/misleading - as it was said before me - so it should be as well modified.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC))
• A concise mention, exact form TBD. François Robere (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• No Given it's small numbers and lack of importance (as well as issues such as BLP (many of its members were not convicted (based upon claims they in fact were trying to sabotage it), thus calling them collaborators would be a BLP violation) a brief mention would not provide enough coverage, and more then a brief mention would give it too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes , but it should be clearly stated that members of the Legion of St. George, as it was first called, had no combat value. It should also be said that these few who joined were rather traitors, not actual collaborators and that they were used by the Germans for propaganda goals. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• No (I was invited here by the bot through a strange twist of fate as I've recently been creating a ton of articles on collaborationist subjects.) The article, as it's currently written, opens by defining collaboration as "a co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power". This definition is mirrored in other sources like France and the Second World War by Peter Davies which says "collaboration can be defined as a working relationship at governmental level between victor and vanquished" while in an article in European Review of History , Fabian Lemmes acknowledges there is no clear-cut definition of wartime collaboration before declaring that government-to-government cooperation by a defeated state to its conqueror is probably the most apt. Since the UK was (a) not a "defeated state" and since, (b) the BFC personnel were not official representatives of the British government, the BCF could not have been, by the definition set-out in this article or one of several alternate definitions published by RS, have been collaborators. The BFC would, however, be appropriate to include in the article Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, or in a "see also" section of this article. (To clarify, however, this "no" !vote is not a simultaneous !vote to prevent discussion of collaboration occurring within the context of the Channel Islands or HK as the definitions advanced do not preclude cooperation by sub-national polities.) Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Makepeace, Clare (2017). Captives of War: British Prisoners of War in Europe in the Second World War (Studies in the Social and Cultural History of Modern Warfare (Kindle ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3, 61–63. ISBN 978 1 107 14587 0.
2. McEntee-Taylor, Carole (2014). Surviving the Nazi Onslaught: The defence of Calais to the Death March for freedom (Kindle ed.). Barnsley: Pen and Sword Books Limited. ISBN 978 1 78383 106 7.
3. "Collaborators at Breteuil". IWM. Retrieved 6 March 2018.

Threaded discussion

• Please assume good faith and stop claiming this is about things like British pride (after all plenty of material about Britain is not being removed, and the BFC were not solely British), make arguments based upon valid reasons for inclusion, not strawman questioning of other edoitors motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I would hope that any points I have raised are not seen as involving national pride. The interesting thesis of Clare Makepeace is that British POWs almost universally had optimistic expectations about how long they would be prisoners (i.e. the length of the war) and that Britain would be on the winning side. (Strangely, it is only when the allies were clearly winning that a few hints of pessimism arose.) Compare this with the nationals of occupied countries where defeat was a fact. Then there are the numbers involved. The pool of, say, French citizens from which collaborators could be recruited was substantially larger - there were 2,000,000 French POWs, as well as the whole civilian population. (UK Nationals who were POWs in Europe: 142,319 and only a few civilians in German controlled territory). The aspirations of the article should be to lay out the facts and let the reader make any judgement they wish based on full information.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Especially, I totally assume good faith. "many seems like" != "claiming" and was not an universal statement/judgement of the counter-arguments. The versatile composition of the BFC does not change the issue or the reasons pro or contra, as well there were dominions, interests outside especially Britain, and they were as well "British" in a way of meaning. My valid reasons may be read and seen in the relevant sections, I think if I describe some thoughts and opinions freely as everyone may do it is as normal as any other editor may express their opinions/thoughts.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

ON the issue of propaganda usage, one of the bizarre things is the Germans did not in fact try and use it in this way, if anything they kept the whole affair secret (it was in fact through the officers of members of the BFC that the British were informed of both it's existence and training (And membership)).Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven If the decision will be not to include B.Corps then Australia should be also removed from the article, just look at the Ausse section. GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

What the hell is going on with the Poland section?

It's been less than a week since my last edit here and the section looks like it's back to where we started - sprawling, and full of "but the Poles were actually okay and the Jews collaborated". This is not what we agreed on. This is not "per talk". If the editors involved (and they know who they are) intended to appease the rest of us for the day only to restore the content when nobody's looking, this will reach arbitration (at best) very quickly. François Robere (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Germany articles
• Mid-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• C-Class Russia articles
• Mid-importance Russia articles
• Mid-importance C-Class Russia articles
• C-Class Russia (history) articles
• History of Russia task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
• Start-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• Start-Class Baltic states military history articles
• Baltic states military history task force articles
• Start-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• Start-Class Dutch military history articles
• Dutch military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• Start-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• Start-Class Italian military history articles
• Italian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles
• Start-Class Nordic military history articles
• Nordic military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• Start-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Start-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Start-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Unassessed Judaism articles
• Unknown-importance Judaism articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment