Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:55, 8 May 2018

WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES The article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBEE). The current restrictions are: Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users. Edits by IP editors are subject to WP:3RR. If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert. Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Editors who are deemed to be properly aware of discretionary sanctions and who violate these restrictions may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Discretionary sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

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. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Military history: European / German / Polish / 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 not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force Polish 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. 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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland 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: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Current consensus

NOTE: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit, per Remedy instructions and exemptions, above. It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to purge this page.

1. The scope of this article is "collaboration in Poland, irrespective of who was collaborating" (1)

2. Polish railway personnel should not be described as collaborators (2)

Should Grabowski be removed ?

Currently the article focuses on the politicized claims by Grabowski which fall under recentism. There are plenty of researchers focusing on this era,often much more established(for example Madajczyk) and Grabowski is known for his emotionally engaged language combined with political statements. As such I don't believe he is the most relevant authort to this article. He made several claims disputed by historians. I suggest removing him due to recentism. We can can leave a sentence that there were some disputed claims about numbers with wikilink to article about to him. A whole paragraph to Grabowski seems over the top.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's estimate dates back to 2011 or so, and besides being widely covered by major NEWSORGs, was published in an academic setting and is cited by others. His works has been generally well received by historians in English language peer-reviewed journals - while disputed by the likes of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland (which is UNDUE even to mention). IDONTLIKE, but editors, is not grounds for removing an academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I second that. It's been discussed more then once. Grabowski is clearly RS and highly respected in the international scene.

As for the "whole paragraph" - it's the same dynamic we saw in the past with parts of the "Poland" section in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II (which I'm sure you're unaware of, but you will now): a short text (in this case a single sentence that I restored after it was removed by an IP editor) is being inflated by one editor with (supposedly) contradicting claims, then another comes up and (rightfully) says "the whole thing is too long", but instead of removing just the irrelevant parts suggests removing the entire paragraph. Let's just remove the OR instead, okay? François Robere (talk) 14:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if you had highly contentious and provocative statements that are disputed you will need to add sources explanations in order to balance the extreme POV added to the article by inclusion of such fringe statements.The best solution is to remove Grabowski in my view, and replace him with more long standing established neutral researchers that aren't engaged in political debates, like Madajczyk.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski reflects the mainstream view in academia, he is far from fringe.Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we've been through this several times. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Sources", yes; a whole paragraph explaining the thinking of those sources, no. François Robere (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Already extensively under discussion at Talk:Jan_Grabowski_(historian), where it has been established that Grabowski's research is indeed accepted by many and criticized by some. There is, however, no controversy that his 200 000 number includes both direct and indirect kills, since that is clearly what he says himself and what is repeated by multiple sources (and is already the first sentence of the section on him). However, if we look at what is currently in this article, it clearly does not reflect that, being a pure and simple criticism of Grabowski based on a few articles.

Thus, I propose: 1. keeping Grabowski 2. linking to his article (which, although it suffers issues on it's own, does have more in-depth coverage) 3. drastically reducing the text spent discussing Grabowski - 2 or at most 3 sentences would be sufficient. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)}}

Proposal:

Replace current text about Grabowski with the above, which covers the controversy without being excessively detailed. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Added letter of support by international scholars, per below (+added another source about it to include secondary sources - the primary source is interesting since it's the actual text of the letter, and we are not interpreting it anyway). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it takes the fringe views as granted without explaining how they were shown to be incorrect and how Grabowski has confirmed that Germans actually killed a number of these people. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's view has been established as not being fringe (and, no, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not sufficient). Detailed criticism is already in Grabowski's article, and writing too much text on it in this article would be WP:UNDUE. The statement by Grabowski is not taken as granted, it's clearly written that "the book sparked a controversy in Poland and the estimate has been criticized, notably by fellow historians and by the Polish League Against Defamation." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Odd to call the BBC and AP as promoting fringe views. One should note that this has become the official position of The Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw estimates that 180,000 to 200,000 Jews were killed at the hands of Poles or because they were denounced to the Germans by Poles during the war.. In most of the world, this estimate is accepted as the current state of the research.Icewhiz (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Even if the Center makes this estimates. Which actually, I can't find where they supposedly do so.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

How isn't it odd? Have they done so before? Are they not RS in their own right?François Robere (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

IP editor's phrasing is acceptable with minor linguistic changes, and possible inclusion of this. François Robere (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I support the retention of Grabowski with the same rationale that I supported the retention of Chodakiewicz https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Special:MobileDiff/831218731 Chumchum7 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please note Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Holocaust history: Polish ambassador facebook post covered by wpolityce, and op-ed by Piotr Zaremba in which the use of wPolityce reporting on a facebook post on historical research by the Polish ambassador to Switzerland for sourcing in this article.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

https://wpolityce.pl/historia/381722-teraz-juz-200-tysiecy-kto-da-wiecej-pogon-za-jak-najwiekszym-horrorem Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC) "Who offers most" Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Assuming it was a reliable source (and that status is probably contentious, nevermind), what does it say? Just linking a source (in addition, a foreign language one) isn't enough - could you please explain for us non-polish speaker's what it is about? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an another critics of the 200 000 story. Grabowski has misinformed Israeli journalist.Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's another critic of the 200 000 story, then it brings nothing new, is not in a academic peer-reviewed source, and we already discussed this over and over again - the only thing Grabowski said about the number is "200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles" (emphasis mine). This is clear enough for most English speakers. Of course, if you weren't sure, he clarifies "that Poles were responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of 'the majority of these people', even if 'part of them were killed by the Germans'" Old story, already discussed, do you have anything regarding the proposal on how Grabowski should be presented (above, between the collapse tags) in the article or are we going to play the game of criticizing the number, yet again? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No - it yet more coverage by wpolityce (A fringey outlet) of Jakub Kumoch, the Polish ambassador to Switzerland (so - not an expert in the field), making comments on Grabowski's research. See RSN discussion here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And, regarding the part I just reinstated, it is not OR, rather, quoting directly from the CBC source, "In a display of solidarity, however, scores of pre-eminent international Holocaust scholars on Monday penned a letter to the chancellor of the University of Ottawa defending Grabowski as a scholar of 'impeccable personal and professional integrity.'" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The wpolityce article is midly interesting, because it attributes the 200k number to this article in Times of Isreal: , where the author indeed gives it, but sources it not to Grabowski but to Szymon Datner. It then discusses the problem that nobody was able to find this fact in Datner's works, and less reliably, implies that Grabowski misinformed the journalist, misciting Datner. All in all, I'd just say it makes this particular article not reliable to be quoted, since its accuracy is disputed. But since we don't quote it, I don't think this is an issue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

wpolityce is WP:FRINGEy. There is a whole bunch of these types of stories - you have a claim made in English (or Hebrew) - and then more fringey outlets attack the allegedly claim made, often mistranslating/mis-citing along the way (e.g. turning 200,000 directly and indirectly (which appears in this form or similar (e.g. responsible for) in any reasonable coverage) to 200,000 directly murdered by Polses) - and then you have reactions to these reactions in the same type of outlets.Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That 200,000 number

Since it is one of the most controversial issues here, we should cite this properly. Yet, after MONTHS of discussing, not to mention edit warring, this is still not done. The reference given is "Grabowski, Jan (2013). Hunt for the Jews : betrayal and murder in German-occupied Poland. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253010742. OCLC 868951735.", with NO PAGE NUMBER. Page number must be given, as should be a full sentence quotation for this controversial piece of info. My search of the book shows this number of present on page 4. Here's the context from pages 3-4 :

Historians agree today that close to 10 percent of the 2.5 million Polish Jews who survived until the summer of 1942 tried to escape extermination. Given the numbers above, one can assume that the number of victims of the Judenjagd could reach 200,000 - and this in Poland alone.

A few sentences above, Grabowski writes

...another 100,000 Jews fell prey to the Germans or their local helpers, or were murdered in various unexplained circumstances.

Unless I am missing some other numbers, reading this section does not imply, in anyway way, that "Poles were responsible or co-responsible for the deaths of the majority of these people, even if part of them were killed by the Germans". But more to the point, it seems our current sentence "According to historian Jan Grabowski in his 2013 book "Hunt for the Jews", 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles"" is plain incorrect. It seems that later, some media sources misinterpreted his number and started this entire controversy, but there is nothing in Grabowski's books to support such a claim. At this point I am thinking this entire paragraph should be removed - this may belong on the page about the book, but as it is a claim that seems not to be supported by any historian (including Grabowski), just by confused media, it is, well, unreliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well answered, I agree.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:A5EB:57FA:75DC:5968 (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Nihil novi (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The estimate appears in the book, as you say. The quote appears in an interview he gave with Haaretz, and was originally cited here as such. François Robere (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The estimate first appeared in English (I think) in the 2013 book (citing previous work by the Holocaust center - I think this appears in a Polish language book from 2011 (not Judenjagd) that Grabowski edited). Grabowski has since repeated this estimate several times (notably - in that interview to Haaretz) - and has stood behind it as his own. He is also widely cited - both in media accounts (a simple 200,000+Grabowski in gnews shows this) as well as in an academic setting. The estimate should remain - it is one of the most repeated estimates out there, and attribution of it is quite clear (e.g. Haaretz). I suspect the Hebrew version of hunt (released 2016 - which is what Haaretz is covering) has an expanded explanation. Note that the Polish Center for Holocaust Research (with which Grabowski is affilated) has stood behind a similar estimate - which is also widely cited - "The Polish Center for Holocaust Research in Warsaw estimates that 180,000 to 200,000 Jews were killed at the hands of Poles or because they were denounced to the Germans by Poles during the war.".. I think that if you check their Polish language publications (including the new 2018 one, as well as the 2011 ZARYS KRAJOBRAZU: Wieś polska wobec zagłady Żydów 1942-1945) - you'll see this backed up there as well, but my Polish language skills aren't up for the task for me to do this quickly. The estimate itself - whether cited to Grabowski or to PCHR should remain.Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

The fuller quote in the hunt for the Jews book, is from page 172 (which is not part of the google books preview) - but is quoted elsewhere - As we know today, very few managed to survive under the German occupation that lasted until 1945. In the summer of 1942, despite years of hunger, epidemics, and terror, some 2.5 million Polish Jews were still alive. Assuming that around 10 percent of the Jewish population of the liquidated ghettos tried to flee the deportations, one can argue that 250,000 people made an active attempt to save themselves from the policies of extermination. Of that number less than 50,000 survived the war. The question is whether the 200,000 future victims of the Judenjagd lacked a chance from the very beginning’ (Grabowski, 2013, p. 172). Janicka, Elżbieta. "Latający Cyrk im. Kazimierza Wielkiego przedstawia:„Najwęższy dom świata–wydarzenie na skalę globu”. Rekonstrukcja historyczna w 70. rocznicę Akcji Reinhardt." Studia Litteraria et Historica 2 (2013).. So - that is the fuller quote we should use, and not what he wrote on page 3-4 in the introduction.Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That quote still does not support the claim that in this book Grabowski talks about 200k Jews killed by Poles. The fact that this was discussed (minsterpreted) by media, etc. is relevant to either this book's article or Grabowski, but I am not not seeing it as relevant here. For the relevant estimates, we cite reliable, scholarly works. Not media controversy-related ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski never said "Poles killed" (some Polish media outlets may have said that) - he either said "responsible for" (in perhaps more words) or "killed directly and indirectly". The latest source (well, ignoring the 2018 book in Polish I do not have at the moment) - is the Haaretz coverage and interview in 2017 in which he said exactly what he meant by the estimate. As for being relevant - this is the mostly widely quoted estimate for Polish responsibility" - it is obviously relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I don't think the newspaper interview cuts it as a source for this article, not for controversial claims. I am not saying that Haaretz interview is unreliable, I am just saying that any newspaper interview is just not good enough here. (Also, consider there are plenty of news - interviews, opinion pieces, etc. - that have opposing views, and if we allow Grabowski's number to stay based on newspaper, we will open floodgates to a lot of increasingly problematic content). Until someone can find an academic-level source for 200k, I say it should be removed from here. I mean, to report it previously we should rewrite this paragraph to start with "A claim about 200k was incorrectly attributed to Grabowski's book. It has generated significant media controversy. In a interview, Grabowski's has clarified this as .... " But I really don't think this is the best way of going about it, particularly as we don't seem to have very good sources for how this media circus started, and it is IMHO a waste of time to try to analyze it further. Bottom line, we have no academic source for 200k, so it does not belong here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We have an academic level source - Hunt for the Jews : betrayal and murder in German-occupied Poland - which clearly states 200,000 Jews as victims of Judenjagd (in which Poles, collaborating with the Germans, played a large part - per the same source). What we may have to do - is rephrase the content to fit the academic source instead of using how it is widely quoted (in newspapers and in academic work by others) - though I will note that an academic author commenting on his own work (e.g. Grabowski in Haaretz) is not necessarily a bad source - but we can stick to what is in Hunt - or alternatively use academic citations of it - e.g. this one (on page 268) or this one .Icewhiz (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

We have to be very careful not to misinterpret the sources. 200k for Judenjagd is fine, but the degree of Polish complicity in this is pretty much impossible to qualify. The first source gives the estimates as "tens of thousands of ethnic Jews... betrayed or killed by Poles", an estimate that is a factor lower than Grabowski's (who is cited there, too). The second source also does not lend itself to this conclusion, it states that "in Judenjagds, allegedly out of reach of German authority, ethnic Poles had a larger say in the fate of the 200,000 fugitive Jews who did not survive". Trying to use either of those sources to justify a claim "Poles killed 200,000 Jews" is stretching them past the point of being thin. And let's face it, the "directly or indirectly" phrase is murky and I dislike it - not disimilar to the absolute qualifiers issue we discussed elsewhere (and remember the "Railwayman as collaborators RfC"?). I think in the end we may just have a shorter sentence saying that "Just like the definition of collaboration can be stretched to include virtually the entire populace, there are larger estimates for the number of Poles who 'indirectly' were responsible for killing the Jews". (Cite something here, followed by the section that discusses the impassivity / lack of action issue). To be frank, I do agree that the entire Polish society was indirectly responsible for the Jewish deaths, because each survivor is a person who could'have rushed a German and taken a bullet for a Jew. Of course, same responsibility is IMHO shared by the entire world... slippery slope indeed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Howabout something along theses lines (rough phrasing) - During 1942-1945 the German administration organized Judenjagd (Jew hunts) operations to find Jews hiding in the countryside. It is estimated that up to 200,000 Jews were caught and killed in the Judenjagd operations. Polish villagers, Baudienst, and police participated in Judenjagd and denounced hiding Jews to the German authorities.Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tentatively, seems on the right track (two issues: not just villagers, and not just Poles - presumably, German forces also took part in this...). Needs sources, o/c. I suggest this particular wording can be fleshed out on the still way too short Judenjagd page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

German "failure" to establish a puppet state, part II

As some of you are aware, part of the recent "edit war" relates to the question of whether the German occupation forces "failed" in establishing a puppet state in Poland. RS suggest they didn't even try, and so such claims are at best erroneous. Attached is my most recent suggestion for the "Political collaboration" section . To avoid accusations of OR or NPOV, most of the citations also include quotes (some don't display well in a tooltip, but you can still view them in the source). I left individual cases of resistors and collaborators out, but kept them in a comment so as to avoid removing sourced material. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Unlike in most of occupied Europe, Poland did not have a collaborationist government. The Germans made several early attempts at acquiring senior Polish political collaborators, targeting mainly peasantry leaders and nobility, but were turned down. These attempts, fueled in part by the military's approach towards the occupation, as well as by diplomatic and propagandaistic needs, ended by October 1939. Nazi racial policies, along with its intentions for the future of the conquered territories, meant the Germans had no interest in Polish governmental collaboration and they would ignore such advances by Polish pro-German politicians throughout the war. Accordingly, the German army made preparations for a military administration of the occupied territories, while civil authorities were working towards a civilian one, with the prospects of a future annexation to Germany.

73% of town heads an mayors in the General Government were Polish. Among other things, they were responsible for selecting locals who were to be sent to Germany for work. Some exploited their positions to enrich themselves.

References

1. ^ Gross, Jan Thomasz (2015). "Collaboration and Cooperation". World War II: crucible of the contemporary world : commentary and readings. ISBN 978-1-315-48956-8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
2. ^ Kochanski, Halik (2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
3. ^ Kunicki, Mikołaj Stanisław (2012-07-04). Between the Brown and the Red: Nationalism, Catholicism, and Communism in Twentieth-Century Poland—The Politics of Bolesław Piasecki. Ohio University Press. ISBN 9780821444207.
4. Garlinski, Josef (1985-08-12). Poland in the Second World War. Springer. ISBN 978-1-349-09910-8.
5. Kunicki, Mikołaj (2001). "Unwanted Collaborators: Leon Kozłowski, Władysław Studnicki, and the Problem of Collaboration among Polish Conservative Politicians in World War II". European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire. 8 (2): 203–220. doi:10.1080/13507480120074260. ISSN 1469-8293. Retrieved 2018-03-26.
6. Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (Winter 2005). "Collaboration in a 'Land without a Quisling': Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II". Slavic Review. 64 (4): 711–746. doi:10.2307/3649910.
7. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1999). A world at arms: a global history of World War II (1. paperback ed., reprinted ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-55879-2.
8. Winstone, Martin (2014-10-30). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 9781780764771.
9. Browning, Christopher R.; Matthäus, Jürgen (2004). The origins of the Final Solution: the evolution of Nazi Jewish policy, September 1939-March 1942. Comprehensive history of the Holocaust. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-1327-2.
10. Cooper, L. (2000-10-31). In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond. Springer. ISBN 9780333992623.

1977 book by Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish Society under German Occupation", Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation".

Quote from pages 126-130:

AND CONTINUE

That's why the section looks like this, and there is nothing wrong with it. It's, correct, detailed and mentions most of the circumstances. ----->

Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland such efforts failed. The Germans initially had contemplated creating a collaborationist Polish cabinet to administer, as a Polish protectorate, the German-occupied Polish territories that Germany had not annexed outright. At the beginning of war the Germans contacted several important Polish leaders with proposals for collaboration with but were refused. Among those contacted was a prominent peasant leader and former Prime Minister of Poland Wincenty Witos who rejected several German offers to lead a puppet government, as did Janusz Radziwiłł and Stanisław Estreicher. Pro-German right-wing politician Andrzej Świetlicki formed a National Revolutionary Camp and approached the Germans with collaboration offer but was ignored.Władysław Studnicki, an anti-Soviet publicist advocated German-Polish cooperation against the Soviet Union and Leon Kozłowski, a prominent scholar and former Prime Minister also favoured a Polish-German agreement against the Soviet Union but both were rejected by the Germans. Indeed, Nazi racial policies and German plans for the future of the conquered Polish territories, on one hand, and Polish anti-German attitudes on the other, meant that generally neither side was interested in political collaboration.

The failed German efforts to form a Polish collaborative arrangement ended about April 1940, when Hitler banned talks with Poles about any level of autonomy. In German long-term plans, the Polish nation was to disappear, to be replaced by German settlers. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:A9C2:7233:DC6C:D2B4 (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination. The Council. 1940.
2. Kochanski, Halik (2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
3. Piasecki, Waldemar (2017-07-31). Jan Karski. Jedno życie. Tom II. Inferno (in Polish). Insignis. ISBN 9788365743381.
4. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1999). A world at arms: a global history of World War II (1. paperback ed., reprinted ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-55879-2.
5. Narodowej, Instytut Pamięci. "Wincenty Witos 1874–1945". Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (in Polish). Retrieved 2018-03-27.
6. ^ Kochanski, Halik (2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
7. Roszkowski, Wojciech; Kofman, Jan (2016-07-08). Biographical Dictionary of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781317475934.
8. ^ Winstone, Martin (2014-10-30). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 9781780764771.
9. Bramstedt, E. K. (2013-09-27) . Dictatorship and Political Police: The Technique of Control by Fear. Routledge. ISBN 9781136230592.
10. School & Society. Science Press. 1940.
11. The Polish Review. Polish information center. 1943.
12. ^ Mazower, Mark (2013-03-07). Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe. Penguin UK. ISBN 9780141917504.
13. Kunicki, Mikołaj (2001). "Unwanted Collaborators: Leon Kozłowski, Władysław Studnicki, and the Problem of Collaboration among Polish Conservative Politicians in World War II". European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire. 8 (2): 203–220. doi:10.1080/13507480120074260. ISSN 1469-8293. Retrieved 2018-03-26.
14. Kunicki, Mikołaj Stanisław (2012-07-04). Between the Brown and the Red: Nationalism, Catholicism, and Communism in Twentieth-Century Poland—The Politics of Bolesław Piasecki. Ohio University Press. ISBN 9780821444207.
15. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1999). A world at arms: a global history of World War II (1. paperback ed., reprinted ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-55879-2.
16. ^ Halik Kochanski (13 November 2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Harvard University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
17. Cite error: The named reference KPF was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

I'm confused about what you're trying to say in the whole above disquisition. Please clarify.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh god, now she'll sink the discussion by virtue of bad layout (which I tried to sort).

The difference is simple: Bella tries to push the narrative that the Germans did not establish a puppet state (instead of the GG) because they failed - that is, that they approached heroic Polish leaders and they all refused, and the Germans had to resort to managing the area themselves. That's simply not true: the truth is the Germans never intended for the Poles to have any sort of self rule, because their racial agenda placed Poles very near the bottom, "unworthy" of any sort of authority. The only suggestions for self rule came from the military (and one from Moltke, if I recall, but he never acted on it), which didn't care for the racial agenda dictated from above, and considered Poland "just another territory to be governed". Those offers were doomed to fail not because of Polish reluctance (indeed, there were several Polish leaders interested in collaboration), but because the Nazi leadership would've stopped it. So that's the problem here: Bella wants to push some heroic narrative (which is only partly true) - the "Land without a Quisling" - while ignoring the facts that a) there were willing collaborators; and b) whether anyone collaborated or not didn't matter in the grand scheme of things, because Nazism doomed Poland from the get-go. François Robere (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Completely, totally and wholly the opposite, François Robere is trying to push his version by rephrasing everything opposite the historical data. According to him, the Germans have never attempted to establish a Polish puppet state, they were only fooling around for entertainment and fun. Note that the Poles were not regarded subhumans right away and exterminations of the Polish Jews didn't start until late 1942. PS. Get it François Robere? Not?, then read please the above quote from your beloved author Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish Society under German Occupation", Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation" a few times more. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:148B:D27:EC07:81A0 (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And on top of all the above what the hell has this to do with the collaboration and has been smuggled into the article?

73% of town heads an mayors in the General Government were Polish. Among other things, they were responsible for selecting locals who were to be sent to Germany for work. Some exploited their positions to enrich themselves. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:148B:D27:EC07:81A0 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Bella, this is uncivil and disruptive. Keep your tone down, and the text folded.

The reference to mayors is backed by a quote. Read it and you'll see the connection. As for Gross: You've quoted him twice before (that's four times now), and I've already replied once. Gross does not state the Germans failed etc. In fact, I have a quote of his (and two other sources) explicitly saying the Nazis weren't at all interested in a "puppet state"; frankly, given the fact that they said as much in real time, and treated both collaborators and resistors with the same disdain, you'd have to be a particularly tough nut to claim otherwise. As for your claims of "POV pushing" - both the "Reststaat" story and the mention of Polish peasant leaders and aristocracy are already covered - the first in the "background" section, the second in my proposition for the text. As for your claims about Nazi racial theory - they're woefully ignorant for someone writing on these subjects. Anything else? François Robere (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include your twisted version, you were reverted multiple times by numerous editors so don't even think on recording your tale for the 18 times unless others support you (and I'm not talking about your mate Itzewitz) You don't own this article. Now pardon me, you still need to apologize for insulting me in the past, so this is all you will hear from me for now2A01:110F:4505:DC00:E5A8:D7D4:DBA5:83D3 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

And can you now reply on-point? Neither you nor Marek have done so in your reversions. François Robere (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

first, the discussion of German attempts to establish collaborationist puppet states or governing bodies is so obviously relevant to the topic of this article that is simply ridiculous to try and to remove this information. In any other related context, for any other country, whether or not there was a collaborationist government entity is THE major question that is addressed. Having said that, the truth is obviously between the two extremes of "the Germans never tried" (they did) and "the Germans went out of their way to do it but Poles refused". You guys can't seem to compromise. From my perspective this is mostly due to Francois Robere's uncompromising stance and his continual efforts to win the argument by edit warring rather than discussion. However, some comments on this talk page do indicate that they may be willing to compromise. Maybe just bad blood and impulsive resentment over being reverted got in the way here. So how about it Francois? How can we word a section on this phenomenon - which is most certainly notable and important - and satisfy your concerns? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You guys can't seem to compromise. From my perspective this is mostly due to Francois Robere's uncompromising stance and his continual efforts to win the argument by edit warring rather than discussion: This is me agreeing to a compromise , and this is Bella refusing it . This is me asking some questions about Bella's sources . This is me, asking again, and again, and again, and again . Bella never answered (unless you consider any of these a proper answer). In light of this, would you like to amend your statement on who's to fault? François Robere (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

A question, do the sources say "they tried to set up a nominal independent government" or "they tried to recruit poles to run a German controlled government". Note by that I do not mean in the same way as vicey France but the occupied zone? Using people to help run your government is not the same as them having their own one.Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

THe fact about mayors might be true, however it doesn't go in the lead, rather, if it even goes in this article, the appropriate place would be the "Political collaboration" section. Everybody happy? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked a question, did the Germans make the same efforts as elsewhere, or were these informal or unofficial talks between leaders on the ground rather then official overtures? What do the sources say was actually offered and by whom.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's why I said "if it even goes in this article". The percentage of Polish mayors and some exploiting the position has nothing to do with collaboration, since we have no more information about whether the mayors were chosen for ideological reasons or some other unrelated reason (if there even was one), and because mayors (or really, politicians of any kind) exploiting their position to enrich themselves is nothing new and again has no link with collaboration either. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You can check the source yourself - it's quoted in the text, and it clearly gives that as an example of collaboration. Note the statement wasn't in the lead. François Robere (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Do the sources say "they tried to set up a nominal independent government" or "they tried to recruit poles to run a German controlled government": Neither.

Did the Germans make the same efforts as elsewhere, or were these informal or unofficial talks between leaders on the ground rather then official overtures: The latter.

Again, you can see the references in the paragraph (here in source form) - most of them include quotes, so it's pretty easy to get a picture of what the sources say. François Robere (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Yes, the Germans have tryed to establish a puppet state. Read a quote from just one of the sources that François Robere keeps hiding by collapsing it. 1977 book by Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish : Society under German Occupation", Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation".

Quote from pages 126-130:

Other sources are here:

There are plenty more soures that cover that, some were removed during massive replacement of material by FR. Keep in mind that in 1939-1940 the Germans did't have clear plans of what to do with Poland, they did't even have plans to murder Jews. The Final soultion came into light later, thats why they have contemplated to create a puppet state just as they did in all other countries. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4DDB:5808:7286:8AA5 (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

References

1. ^ News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination. The Council. 1940.
2. Kochanski, Halik (2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
3. Piasecki, Waldemar (2017-07-31). Jan Karski. Jedno życie. Tom II. Inferno (in Polish). Insignis. ISBN 9788365743381.
4. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1999). A world at arms: a global history of World War II (1. paperback ed., reprinted ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-55879-2.
5. Narodowej, Instytut Pamięci. "Wincenty Witos 1874–1945". Instytut Pamięci Narodowej (in Polish). Retrieved 2018-03-27.
6. ^ Kochanski, Halik (2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
7. Roszkowski, Wojciech; Kofman, Jan (2016-07-08). Biographical Dictionary of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century. Routledge. ISBN 9781317475934.
8. ^ Winstone, Martin (2014-10-30). The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government. I.B.Tauris. ISBN 9781780764771.
9. Bramstedt, E. K. (2013-09-27) . Dictatorship and Political Police: The Technique of Control by Fear. Routledge. ISBN 9781136230592.
10. School & Society. Science Press. 1940.
11. The Polish Review. Polish information center. 1943.
12. ^ Mazower, Mark (2013-03-07). Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe. Penguin UK. ISBN 9780141917504.
13. Kunicki, Mikołaj (2001). "Unwanted Collaborators: Leon Kozłowski, Władysław Studnicki, and the Problem of Collaboration among Polish Conservative Politicians in World War II". European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire. 8 (2): 203–220. doi:10.1080/13507480120074260. ISSN 1469-8293. Retrieved 2018-03-26.
14. Kunicki, Mikołaj Stanisław (2012-07-04). Between the Brown and the Red: Nationalism, Catholicism, and Communism in Twentieth-Century Poland—The Politics of Bolesław Piasecki. Ohio University Press. ISBN 9780821444207.
15. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1999). A world at arms: a global history of World War II (1. paperback ed., reprinted ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-521-55879-2.
16. ^ Halik Kochanski (13 November 2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Harvard University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
17. Cite error: The named reference KPF was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

The above wall of text is unreadable, would you mind separating it into paragraphs? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I collapsed the text, just so it doesn't obscure the rest of the discussion. François Robere (talk) 02:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the above quotes are all rather vague, this is the problem. There is not description of what was on offer, what position they would holds, what the state would consist of or who these Germans actually were (lets not forget that Hitler subsequently banned such discussion). At best I think we could say "according to".Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I just want to note none of this is actually cited in Bella's revision. If you go through the sources she does cite - most of which I use myself - you'll see they don't actually support her assertions. Even if this source was impeccable, she still would've had to deal with all the rest. François Robere (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nazi Germany had military (interim), civilian and police administration of the General Gouvernment.The two administrations fought for domination. We have to precize who were the Germans who contacted Polish politicians - civilians (Hans Frank) or the SS (Himmler).Xx236 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this is my point. The Germans often kept locals in charge of the day to day operations, but it would be hard to characterize many of these as a Collaborationist state. So we would also need to know what was actually being asked (to head a government or be a senior official in a German one, and the degree to which it was official or informal. As well as the scope of powers, and the degree of autonomy.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven ----> Most sources don't go into specific details how the collaboration would look like. In case of the Wincenty Witos, for example, who was driven the most, this source from Museum of Polish history says as follows (I'll translate for you) The Germans repeatedly tried to persuade Witos to various forms of cooperation. In Rzeszów, in March 1940, he was offered to create a collaborative government. So to find out the details we would have to dig into some archives, but we know that they have tried various forms and that it suppose to be a collaborative Polish government.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:555F:2CA9:1843:D98 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is there are other sources that dispute that the Germans really ever tried. Even some of the sources that say there was ] are hardly emphatic. This is why we need detail, because it is not clear cut.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

You can see more sources in the block quotes below. It's clear that all of these attempts were made by local commanders; that they were unsanctioned by Nazi leadership; that for that reason they would never have reached into fruition; and that at least some of them were done for propagandistic and diplomatic reasons, rather than as honest attempts at advancing self-governance. Given all of this, as well as the Germans' recurring refusals to entertain Polish collaborationists' suggestions (Studnicki, Świetlicki, and Kozłowski) saying they "failed" (or even seriously "attempted") is misleading, not to say dishonest. François Robere (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven This is the quote from the source you are giving above Hitler's Empire by Mark Mazower]: before Hitler had made his final decision about Poland's fate, the Gestapo arrested the veteran Peasant Party chief and three-time prime minister, Wincenty Witos, and offered to release him if he would collaborate. Witos refused, as he did on several other occasions. So you can see that even this source does not contradict the fact that the Germans initially have tried to get Poles into collaboration. The German policy has changed drastically after 1941 that's why the FR is cherry picking the quotes describing German arrangements after 1940. I'm not going to respond to FR because I have done that several times already but I want to make sure that you are aware it.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:555F:2CA9:1843:D98 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is about the creation of a puppet state, not collaboration (the two are not synonymous).Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Also from Mazower, several lines above your quote: "The point was that, as in the French case, it was German policy that defined the options - and in the Polish case there was really no opportunity to collaborate given Hitler's decision to destroy Poland's very identity.". Who's "cherry picking" now? And breaking WP:OR in addition, as you're using the same information available to a source to reach opposite conclusions. François Robere (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

So are everyone in agreement now, or do we have further discussing to do? François Robere (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about what?

Nihil novi (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

About which version is actually true to sources. No one made further comments after my and Slater's. François Robere (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

No, there is no agreement, your version is manipulative and inaccurate.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:90B1:2F6E:3A6B:9F79 (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You're yet to show even a single source that I supposedly misrepresented. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at the history of the discussion about this subject to see the diff. I'm not going to be played and keep repeating my arguments over and over again. You are the one who is continually challenging others opinions and act as if you own this article. You revert changes, even if they are made based on majority preferred version. You are pretending there is a talk page agreement, or you insist that consensus isn't clear yet, and more talking needs to happen. Tendentious, disruptive editing style of yours and reinstation of your favored version of an article is constant. You keep answering with circular argumentation and persistent deformation of points made by those you oppose. You continue bringing up the same things, again and again, and again to try to build the appearance of a new agreement. I'm tired of this behavior of yours.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:90B1:2F6E:3A6B:9F79 (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Very well said. This has been a weeks-long campaign to wear down the opposition.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

That is a blunt lie. The history of the discussion is "me asking the same questions again and again, because Bella is refusing to answer them" (unless you consider any of these a proper answer).

The fact of the matter is Bella's own sources contradict her. She cites "The Eagle Unbowed", which clearly states on pp. 97-98 that:

During the war Poland was very proud of its record in never having had a 'Quisling', but the reason was not because a sufficiently prominent person could not be persuaded to cooperate, but because the Germans had no interest in granting the Poles authority.

She cited Lee (2015), which turned out to be Gross (2015), and after repeatedly ignoring my questions decided to discard it (p. 75):

What made it even less likely that the occupiers would sponsor a collaborationist government was that the model of the occupation, based on the principle of unlimited exploitation, specifically prohibited the Germans to contemplate granting any concessions to the subjugated populace... To the extent that collaboration means that the occupying power seeks to employ in its service those local institutions that wield authority, the institutions must be allowed - on terms specified by the occupier - to exercise that authority. Within the unlimited exploitation model, they could not have this opportunity.

She cites Kunicki (2001), which clearly states on p. 218 that:

Apart from the initial period of German rule in Poland, the evidence presented here demonstrates that the numerous rumours of the German projects to create a Polish puppet state were groundless. But persistent rumours of a Quisling regime were due to several factors. First, there is evidence that the German propaganda deliberately leaked such misleading information, which targeted the unity of the anti-German coalition as well as the position of the Polish Government-in-Exile.

As well as Kunicki (2012) p. 56:

quickly lost out, however, to the advocates of a a more repressive course in occupation policy. Hitler rejected any collaborationist arrangements in Poland, mostly on the basis of his racial and historical contempt for Slavic peoples, his perception of the Poles as an obstacle to establishing Lebensraum, and his wish to completely eradicate Polish nationalism. A brief discussion - partly window dressing, partly a peace feeler - about the creation of a Polish rump state (Reststaat) died in October 1939.

And KPF (2005) p. 715:

Because of a lack of interest on the part of the Nazi leadership, there was no basis for state collaboration. On the contrary, overtures even by Polish fascists and other staunch anti-Semites were rebuffed by the occupiers.

And completely ignores (and on several occasions removed) sources such as Garlinski (1985) p. 32, that clearly contradict her and show nothing in support:

The Germans became interested at first in Władysław Studnicki's suggestions, which reached the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but when it turned out that the Western powers were not going to allows themselves to be misled by Hitler's 'peace' initiative, he ceased to be of interest to them.

None of these has been answered by Bella. None. And you're claiming I'm trying to "wear down the opposition"? She should've answered all of this at the first discussion instead of dragging it on for over a month. François Robere (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Nice to finally be able to read secondary-source quotations, rather than untethered assertions and counter-assertions, denials and counter-denials.

Who is "KPF"?

Does anyone have contrary quotations to present for everyone's inspection?

If not, I'd suggest mentioning some of the allegations of Polish and German collaborationist-government proposals, along with sourced refutations and brief foot-noted quotations from the sources.

Again, if pertinent Polish-language texts should turn up, now or in future, I'm willing to render them into English.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as I already quoted most of these in previous discussions with barely anyone noticing, I believe in the future I'll adopt the citation style of VERY BIG LETTERS.

Also, as I stated earlier, all of these (and a few others) are already quoted in the text as part of the references (using ref templates).

"KPF" is Klaus-Peter Friedrich, already cited in several places in the article. "KPF" was his source alias in Collaboration with the Axis Powers, and I decided to keep it.

I left individual cases of resistors and collaborators out, but kept them in a comment so as to avoid removing sourced material (source with comment). Some of these can be mentioned by name if anyone really cares for it, but they mustn't overshadow the rest of the text.

Your proposal is appreciated. François Robere (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nihil novi there are plenty more, here are just few: (PS. Reststaat in German means a Remainder State)

Lets look at one of these, The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General also says that "it was unclear at what level this was authored", or to put it another way it may not have been official (the author is not sure). It also makes it clear that the conference on the train also discussed another option as well. So again it does not seem that it is that clear this was any thing other then unofficial fishing, rather then a serious and official attempt. So whilst we can say that "according to some historians..." we cannot say in Wikipedias voice that these attempts failed, as they may never have been seriously made.Slatersteven (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then let's look at this: The Contemporary Review, Volumes 160-161 - A. Strahan quote "But all the German attempts to build up a Polish government have failed. In the first months after the conquest, the Nazis approached many people in order to persuade them to form a government on the Hacha model, but nobody accepted. This total refusal of collaboration has led Hitler to a change of policy. As long as he hoped to get some Poles to work with him the non- annexed part of Poland was officially called "Polnischer Reststaat".."2A01:110F:4505:DC00:D10B:17F4:9D35:2ECF (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. It's good to have these quotations too.

Anyone willing to try pulling the source materials together so as to resolve the question in a balanced way?

With Polish-language sources, please provide the original texts to assure optimal English rendering.

Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We're not there yet. First we need full citations; then I'm going to review each of these sources; then we'll continue the discussion. Bella has been very picky in what she quotes (see both below and above), so I'm not going to accept any of these just on her account. François Robere (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but how can we even use this as a source, it does not give the actually volume number, or page. It is impossible to verify this, or understand the context (is seems to be confusingly written in both past and present tense for a start).Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Three of these are already quoted in my proposal, a fourth is quoted from a later work, and the fifth is irrelevant here.

Winstone:

Hitler still faced an uncertain and potentially threatening international situation, meaning that the attitudes of the Western powers and the Soviet Union would figure into his thinking. Furthermore, it was not clear until later September precisely which Polish territory would remain in German hands... The situation was further complicated by the still unexplained failure of Stalin to immediately occupy eastern Poland, leaving open the possibility of greater gains than originally expected... Hitler, not unreasonably in the light of previous experience, still, entertained the hope that Britain and France might be open to a negotiated solution.

Here comes Bella's quote, where he lists the "Reststaat" as one of three possible "solutions". It is followed by this:

It is unclear at what level this approach was authorized but there undoubtedly were members of the Nazi bureaucracy seeking to create a puppet regime. Furthermore, a small minority of Polish politicians were open to such moves.

He then mentions Studnicki, and continues:

As late as 6 October, a day after reviewing the German victory parade in Warsaw, Hitler made a final 'peace offer' to the West which held out the prospect of some truncated form of Polish state under German mastery. However, even before Chamberlain's rejection on 12 October, the prospect of the Reststaat had receded. On 10 October... Goebbels noted: 'Poland is finished. No one talks about a restoration of the old Polish state any more.' Whilst the attitude of the West was clearly of significance, a crucial role was played by Stalin who made it clear that the USSR would not welcome any form of Polish state.

He then elaborates on how as early as 25 September the Nazis were establishing German control in Lodz and Krakow, held in parallel by military and civilian commanders.

Takeaways: Hitler's main considerations were of foreign relations (Britain, France and Russia); whatever possibility of a Reststaat that was raised wasn't concrete, while the Germans did make concrete moves towards German rule; someone did approached Witos, but it's unclear on whose behalf; and if the Germans wanted collaborators, there were willing ones.

Cooper (2000), pp. 138-139:

Cooper uses the term "sounding", which means "information or evidence ascertained as a preliminary step before taking action." Cooper does not use the terms "tried", "failed", "begun" or "retracted", only "sounded". He also makes no specific claims about Witos's future role (ie premier). Regarding nobility (eg. Janusz Radziwiłł) he says The reaction of these men is unknown. Then come the two paragraphs regarding mayors ("73%..." etc). He then states this:

In october 1941 the German embassy in Geneva reported to Berlin that a Polish exile circle in Switzerland, hostile to Sikorski... wanted to reach an understanding with the Germans aimed at creating a new Polish state. However, Joachim von Ribbentrop, the German foreign minister, ordered the contact between the Poles and the Germans to be broken off.

He mentions several other potential collaborators, including a former premier (Kozłowski) and a former finance minister.

Frankel (1998) p. 295:

The story of newspapers and periodicals published in Poland with German approval during the occupation touches necessarily upon the broader issue of Polish cooperation or noncooperation with the occupiers. It has been a point of pride to Poles that Poland produced no quislings, even though at the outset of the war the Germans made several efforts to establish a collaborationist Polish rump state. Dobroszycki examines how these issues were reflected in what came to be known among Poles as the "reptile press" (prasa gadzinowa) - a term whose etymology is discussed in the book's introduction...

This paragraph is about newspapers.

Mazower (2009):

There was actually a very brief indication - how serious it is hard to say - that the Germans were thinking of installing a Polish puppet government

Then follows Bella's quote. He then discusses Polish collaborators and the "pro-German tendency in Polish politics". Later he says this:

Typically, it was only after Stalingrad - and even then only haltingly and without the slightest real conviction - that the idea of promoting a common Polish-German crusade against Bolshevism started attracting the Germans.

He then suggests Hans Frank had sympathies for the Poles, and describes some of his advances.

Other pertinent material from that book:

Hitler still appears to have hoped to persuade the Western powers that German rule would actually bring stability to eastern Europe. On 6 October... he made a lengthy victory speech to the Reichstag. Still talking in terms of the continued existence of a Polish rump-state (Reststaat) - though this was by now window-dressing... Raising the prospect of a peace conference with England, he stressed that Germany and Russia were stabilising 'this zone of unrest'...

etc. etc.

And later:

It was, in other words, the strength of Polish resistance during the invasion which had been decisive in precluding a Czech political solution there (a "puppet state". -F.R.). But it is hard to imagine that the Germans would ever have treated the Poles as they treated the Czechs, given the decades of bad blood between them.

Mazower (2013)

As we know, Germany had not only annexed the western parts of the country, but also envisaged eventually taking over the General Government as well. In such circumstances, there was no way a Polish...

And therein ends my preview of that edition.

As for Gross, his views are summarised in a later article (2015) which I quoted above (the book Bella cites is from 1979) (p. 75):

What made it even less likely that the occupiers would sponsor a collaborationist government was that the model of the occupation, based on the principle of unlimited exploitation, specifically prohibited the Germans to contemplate granting any concessions to the subjugated populace... To the extent that collaboration means that the occupying power seeks to employ in its service those local institutions that wield authority, the institutions must be allowed - on terms specified by the occupier - to exercise that authority. Within the unlimited exploitation model, they could not have this opportunity.

François Robere (talk) 08:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

While I was writing the above, Bella added several more sources. Regarding those I'd like to first stress this: Given the amount of "cherry-picking" we've seen here (and you can see above for examples), I'm not going to accept any source for which I do not have access. Let's start with full citations and see where it goes. François Robere (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I did suggest an idea, we could say "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland this was never achieved. Some historians have said that the Germans attempted to create a rump Polish state and failed due to polish resistance to the idea, others have suggested that these were half hearted approaches that lacked official backing or that Germany never in fact tried (or intended) to create a Polish state".Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Bella already refused Piotr's suggestion from before we had all these sources: Poland did not have a collaborative government, due to the fact that neither the Germans nor the Poles were much interested in this option. Now that we have all these sources, I don't see any reason I should agree to it. The fact of the matter is Poland didn't see anything even remotely close to the setup of a collaborationist government, and not due to lack of collaborators. If they had, I would've expected to see whole books about it, not two and half sentences in a couple of sources from the eighties. François Robere (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven Actually, your version as you presented is ok, sounds good to me if others agree. I'm not talking about François Robert as "others," because looks like he will maintain that the Germans have never tried to create the collaborative government, and only the Poles insisted on collaboration, but the Germans refused, which is entirely twisted and untrue. I'll let you guys sort that out with him. I presented sources, and my job is done. Good luck. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:C0C0:4D38:BF68:7EF3 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources you presented so far with actual citation have been picked bare. Frankel's quote, in particular, was such a terrific deceit that it transcends even your Gross (nee Lee) reference, which you since retracted and re-added, still under the wrong name. Your dozen or so new sources, which you provided with no citation, are worthy less than the bits they consume on Wikimedia's servers. Give the citations first, then we can see where these new sources - or rather old, given most of them are from the 1980's, and one from as early as 1964 (!) - lead. François Robere (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, why wait?

Bella quotes one sentence from Paczkowski (2014) pp. 41-43 (Bella's quote in angle quotes); this is what he actually says:

«It seems that the Third Reich was particularly interested in creating some kind of satellite state structure (Restsaat)», since Hitler still counted on coming to an agreement with France and - first and foremost - Great Britain. Such an eventuality was also taken into account in Moscow, although it is hard to envisage what kind of Soviet-German condominium might have emerged... Only on 25 September did Stalin state clearly, in a conversation with the German ambassador, that "he considered it an error to retain and independent, rump Polish state. The "Agreement on Borders and Friendship," signed during the night of 28-29 September in Moscow, assumed that... the responsibility for "the necessary state system" would be assumed on each side by the government of the Reich and the USSR respectively... Since neither Britain nor France had taken any military action against the Germans, the two totalitarian states considered they were free to deal as they liked with the territory the had divided between themselves.

And later:

Hitler imposed his "state system" on Polish territory somewhat more quickly than Stalin, since he saw no need to mimic democracy in the Soviet fashion (elections, appeals and agreements between small, threatened states and the USSR. -F.R.).

He then mentions the annexations and the GG.

Takeaways: The "attempts" weren't attempts, just table talk for diplomatic reasons. When this was no longer irrelevant, Hitler was quicker than Stalin to impose his vision of Poland on the Poles.

She also cites one sentence from Gutman (1989) p. 19. Here's a longer quote (Bella's quote in angle quotes):

During this initial stage , the occupied area served as a kind of trump card in the negotiations attempted with the Western Powers. «The Nazis were willing to permit the existence of a dwarfed Polish state (Reststaat)» congruent with the borders of the Generalgouvernement in exchange for Western recognition of the occupation of other parts of Poland and renunciation of the state of belligerency. But when it became clear that the Western democracies were unwilling to swallow the bait yet again... other plans were drawn up for the future of the Generalgouvernement as an area to be exploited by the Reich.

He then explains how the Germans started realizing the "Lebensraum".

Notice none of these say the Germans actually tried establishing a puppet government, let alone failed at doing so. Bella seems to be shifting her argument from "they failed" to "they were willing to try". This seems to support other sources, quoted above, that claim the whole thing was made for reasons of diplomacy and propaganda, rather than a genuine will in Polish governmental collaboration.

So again, we're not in a position to state the Germans "failed" because of a lack of Polish collaborators. François Robere (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, it seems Bella is trying to "win" the argument by virtue of quantity, rather than quality. It's again a whole lot of one-liners that simply repeat one another (how many of them mention Witos, without actually adding information to what we already have?), some dated, with partial citations (go figure) and no context . I'm pretty sure some of them repeat each other's sources, which means double citation and WP:DUE violations. Note that as before she's not making any attempt to engage any of the existing RS, including those she tried to WP:CHERRYPICK from (Kochanski, Kunicki, Friedrich, Gross, Winstone, Cooper, Frankel, Mazower, Paczkowski and Gutman - all quoted above) - instead just looking for more and more one-liners. @Chumchum7 @Slatersteven: Are we in "disruptive edits" territory yet? François Robere (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

*Important note - I have added five more sources, including links, of Polish historians as well as interesting reference about Hitler's conversation with Galeazzo Ciano from October 1, 1939, but François Robere collapsed my insertions making them less visible and is now also forbidding me from referencing my argument. Is this ok for him to act like that? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:C0C0:4D38:BF68:7EF3 (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course I collapsed the text. You're trying to kill the discussion by flooding it, just like you did by quoting entire pages from Gross (1977) twice (three times overall) for no apparent reason. It's the same tactic you used in the previous discussion : instead of dealing with the sources we already have, most of which contradict your assertion, you're frantically looking for new sources that could, maybe - if framed in some way and picked just right - support them. Some of these are dated (1964? 1945?), most give no new information (so you have another source that says that Witos refused some offer. So? We already knew that), most are not quoted properly (no full citations to be seen, and only some of the sources include links), and most of those that were already reviewed ended up contradicting you. You're complaining you can't brings ref? Kochanski, Kunicki, Friedrich, Winstone, Frankel, Paczkowski and Gutman are all "your" sources - face up to what they say! François Robere (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, it might help if you provided the paginations of your quotations. Nihil novi (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, most of them are provided in the text already (and this repetition is annoying). If you want those of the new sources, I'll add them immediately. François Robere (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Which "text" are you referring to? The texts of the above citations (which, so far as I can see, do not give the pages)? The texts of the notes to the "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article?

The purpose of my request is to facilitate examination of the source texts by those interested.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course.

I'm referring to my proposal for the passage, which is cited at the beginning of this discussion. It includes full citations + quotes. François Robere (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

What needs to be shown, and what the sources say

There's a real problem here with WP:CHERRYPICKING. To explain the problem, let's first break down the issue.

Breaking down the issue

The phrase "In Poland the Germans failed to establish a puppet state" requires showing either of the following:

1. A source stating that the Germans tried forming a puppet state in Poland and failed.
2. A source or sources stating all of the following (though it will be WP:SYNTH in the case of multiple sources):*
   1. That the Germans wished to form a puppet state
   2. That they tried doing so**
   3. That for whatever reason their attempt/s did not succeed. To imply that that reason they failed was Poles' refusal to collaborate, three more assertions need to proved:
   4. That they contacted Polish leaders with these suggestions
   5. That these leaders refused
   6. That as a result of that refusal the Germans changed their plans

* Note that several of these would be compromised if we'd learn that the Germans ignored or persecuted leaders who were willing to collaborate.

** What constitutes an attempt is arguable, but I'd contend that just making a phone call isn't enough in this context.

What the sources say

I'm attaching several (longer) quotes that give a more comprehensive background on the issue, as well as demonstrate how Bella picks specific passages that seem to serve her purpose when shown out of context. As you'll see, none of the sources make the assertion that the Germans "tried and failed" in forming a puppet state, and several directly contradict it.

The sources show several recurring themes:

• The Germans discussed a Reststaat or a "puppet state" with regards to foreign relations, and specifically as a way to pacify the Western powers and the USSR. When the West was no longer interested, they dropped the discussion.
• They made no concrete moves in that direction, and they did make specific and concrete preparations for administering the area on their own (Browning (2004) has a lot on that from p. 15 onwards).
• Nazi ideology rejected the notion of self-rule for Slavic people, and in the case of Poland was accompanied by a longstanding historical animosity. For the Nazis to allow the Poles self-rule would constitute a significant deviation from the very core of their beliefs.
• Suggestions of collaboration flowed both ways, but in no case did the Nazi authorities sanction an official approach to any Polish politician or political party, and no "unofficial" approach - by local GG or Wehrmacht officials - ever went beyond a "preliminary talk" (or "sounding", to use Cooper's terms). In fact, the Nazis routinely ignored proposals from Polish politicians, and they gave no preferential treatment to those who were willing to collaborate, instead treating all members of Polish intelligentsia with the same brutality, regardless of ideology or political affiliation.

Following are the sources. Bella's quotes in green, highlights mine.

A note on sourcing and correct citations

• The "World War II: Crucible of the Contemporary World" reference should be attributed to Gross (writer), not Lee (editor).
• The Contemporary Review vol. 160 wasn't written by A. Strahan. Mr. Strahan, a publisher, passed away in 1918; the volume was written in 1942.
• Mr. Dodsley of the Annual Register suffered a similar unfortunate fate 150 years earlier, so he's unlikely to have written any work cited here.
• "Insight Guides Poland" is a travel guide. With all due respect to Discovery, these are rarely RS for this sort of article.
• Neither is "The Essential Guide to Being Polish: 50 Facts & Facets of Nationhood", which was previously cited here.
• If you make a claim about an event taking place in 1940 and your only sources are news bits from 1940-1943, then you're in trouble. If in addition you also have a 1945 book, and only that, then you're still in trouble. It's been almost 80 years - find something newer.

François Robere (talk) 07:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

This is getting overly long. So lets just discus now my new suggested edit (and sod all else).

"Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland this was never achieved. Some historians have said that the Germans attempted to create a rump Polish state and failed due to polish resistance to the idea, others have suggested that these were half hearted approaches that lacked official backing or that Germany never in fact tried (or intended) to create a Polish state"

Is this acceptable please just yes or no, not walls of one sentence quotes)? If we cannot come to an agreement the an RFC or even arbcom may be needed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)1

• Yes 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:C0C0:4D38:BF68:7EF3 (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, no. Let's see full citations for everything first, then evaluate what Bella has (other than what I already analyzed above, which in some cases was extremely picky), then discuss how to phrase it. It wouldn't have gotten this long if Bella hasn't dug up sources from as far back as 1964 and 1942 to try to establish her claims, and instead accepted the "millennial" sources instead. But either way - length shouldn't be an excuse to accept a sub-par version that doesn't reflect recent - and in some cases authoritative - sources. François Robere (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

We have plenty of citations we can use, for all of those statements. But fine, each person put the best source you have below this post.Slatersteven (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My problem isn't with what we have, my problem is with the rush of references Bella just added without full citations or context . If she wants any of these to have any merit, she needs to provide the full citations first (although I've already reviewed Paczkowski (2014) and Gutman (1989), and they don't say what she claim they say). I've assembled this list of sources, which shows you the difference between what she cites and what the source actually says. François Robere (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

*Unwillingness to compromise by François Robere - I have presented 22 references that prove the Germans have tried to establish a collaboration Polish State (Reststaat) in the early stage of occupation. If necessary, I can provide more. Undermining given sources by saying they are "too old," or "the historians cite each other" as well as overflowing this talk page by adding cherry-picked passages from just a few selected sources plus own interpretation is not appropriate. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:ECD5:5E3:439D:CBFC (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Bella, that's enough.

Firstly, Your sources don't "prove" anything, and many are indeed way too old to draw conclusions (your earliest, I believe, is a newsflash from 1940-1942), especially where recent RS claim otherwise (WP:AGE MATTERS).

Second, as I clearly demonstrated above https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ACollaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&type=revision&diff=837347506&oldid=837335313], you've been WP:CHERRYPICKING to the extreme. Quoting a scholar's premise and reaching the opposite conclusion is WP:OR.

Third, you haven't yet explained a single recent source that contradicts you, nor agreed that it does. You're trying to find more and more source to say something that you can quote, but none of them negates the current sources. We already have sources that disagree with you. You can't ignore them.

Finally I recall you rejecting a compromise that I accepted several weeks ago . Ironically, it's this rejection that led us towards this level of scrutiny of your sources.

Can you explain any of this? François Robere (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Your proposal suggests a WP:FALSEBALANCE that isn't supported by any of the recent (and even not so recent) sources. I can compromise on phrasing, or on the inclusion of some minor fact or another, or on whether a borderline-relevant source is really relevant, but I won't compromise on accuracy. This "he said, she said" style of text gives undue weight to sources that are either extremely old, and surpassed by newer sources (WP:AGE MATTERS, and 1960's is pretty old in this domain); or to vague mentions of "something that may have been said to someone" (rather than something clear, concrete and well-documented); and furthermore, is clearly contradicted by RS that state that there were willing collaborators as eminent as the former Polish premier. We should summarise "the most reliable sources on the topic" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), not manufacture a controversy.

I stand by my earlier proposal:

Unlike in most of occupied Europe, Poland did not have a collaborationist government. The Germans made several early attempts at acquiring senior Polish political collaborators, targeting mainly peasantry leaders and nobility, but were turned down. These attempts, fueled in part by the military's approach towards the occupation, as well as by diplomatic and propagandaistic needs, ended by October 1939. Nazi racial policies, along with its intentions for the future of the conquered territories, meant the Germans had no interest in Polish governmental collaboration and they would ignore such advances by Polish pro-German politicians throughout the war. Accordingly, the German army made preparations for a military administration of the occupied territories, while civil authorities were working towards a civilian one, with the prospects of a future annexation to Germany.

It's well-phrased, subtle and concise, and most importantly: accurate, and does not mislead the reader any which way. François Robere (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not dismiss sources because they are not modern enough, and ], 2014. ], 2011. Do you need any more? This has now reached the stage of tenditious editing and I am asking for DS sanctions to be used.Slatersteven· (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I said. What I said, and it's per WP:AGE MATTERS, is that recent sources supersede older sources in fields that are subject to frequent changes: older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed... Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. This field has certainly seen "new discoveries" since The Contemporary Review, vol. 160 - one of Bella's sources - was published in 1942.

I've been very clear all along about what's needed here: A source that states that "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." None of your sources make that assertion, or even come close:

• Winstone (2014): This source was already cited, and you can see more quotes above. What I see in the page you cite to has nothing to do with this discussion: For several pages (starting at p. 29, after the "Reststaat" concept is rejected, which I quoted earlier) he describes the "lack of clarity" surrounding the GG - what it should do, how big it should be, how it should be managed etc. At no point does he suggest the Germans tried anything else, and even the implication that Hitler wanted to try something else is given through an account of Frank, whose veracity he questions throughout: Frank was even discussing the possibility that the GG would be 'a subject of negotiation in the coming peace settlement', adding rather implausibly that 'the GG plays a colossal role in the meetings of President Roosevelt. Even less convincing was the assertion that it would serve as a 'proud example of the mild and noble treatment of the Polish people'..." So that's Frank from March and May 1940, the same Frank who in December 2nd 1939 said that the GG was "the first colonial territory of the German nation, and who two months earlier (October 1939) heard Hitler make clear that Polish intelligentsia was to be prevented from becoming a leadership class. Hitler did not elaborate on how this was to be achieved, but the ongoing terror campaign could have left little doubt. This is followed by a rather ugly description of what Hitler intended for Poland, from "corruption and epidemics" to "work slaves". In summary: After the author describes the demise of the "rump state" in pp. 28-29 (mentioning, for example, that the army was already busy establishing its "administrative structures" as early as September 25th), he goes to describe the mess the GG was in, and Frank's frequent and disingenuous portrayals of it as something grand and successful. It's a very interesting read, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
• Baranowski (2011) pp.234-235: From the outset, the German attack was an ideologically motivated total war aimed at the destruction of the Polish nation... Although Hitler briefly considered the establishment of a semi-autonomous Polish rump state, he soon abandoned that idea. His dream of a living space farther to the east and his fury at the Poles for refusing to accept the reintegration of Danzig into the Reich ... determined the outcome. Summoning his generals to...the Berghof, on August 22nd while Joachim Ribbentrop was in Moscow to sign the Nazi-Soviet Pact, Hitler made it clear that he sought the complete elimination of Poland. "Have no pity,", he ordered hsi listeners. The campaign was to be carried out with "the greatest brutality and without mercy." This does not support your claims.
• Kershaw (2001): Hitler was still contemplating hte possibility of some form of Polish poltiical entity at the end of the month . He held out the prospect of recreating a truncated Polish state... for the last time in his Reichstag Speech of 6 October, as part of his 'peace offer' to the West. But by then the provisional arrangements set up to administer occupied Poland had in effect already eliminated what remained of such a prospect... they had created their own dynamic militating towards a rump Polish territory - the 'General Government', as it came to be known - alongside the substantial parts of the former Polish state to be incorporated in the Reich itself. This, again, does not state anything beyond "Hitler contemplated the possibility", and again only in the context of diplomacy. He also reiterates that the military was already effectively controlling Poland by October, which sits well with other sources stating the Germans made preparations to that effect (rather than to Polish autonomy). Finally, he calls the GG the "rump Polish territory" (Winstone does it too, in a different context).
• Dobroszycki (1994) I'm not sure if it's in Polish or English, but it's not available online. I'd look up a physical copy if it'll be relevant, but please provide a full citation and a short quote before I do.
• Kunicki (2012) p. 56: This is already cited and quoted above: Hitler rejected any collaborationist arrangements in Poland, mostly on the basis of his racial and historical contempet for Slavi people, his perception of the Poles as an obstacle to establishing Lebenstraum, and his wish to completely eradicate Polish nationalism. He then describes the discussion of the "Reststaat" as partly window-dressing, partly a peace feeler that died in October 1939.

None of these support the statement that the Germans "tried" and "failed" forming a "puppet state". François Robere (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose current suggestion by Slatersteven. What needs to be emphasized is that the Germans did not try hard to set up a puppet government, and that from 1940 they pursued direct rule and no longer sent out feelers on the national level.Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I was not clear, this just replaces the first line, the rest of the paragraph covers all of that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On a second read, I am not as opposed. "successfully" should be removed (implies an attempt and failure on lack of success). "this was never achieved" should be replaced with "this did not happen" - so as not to suggest in our voice that this was a serious goal or attempt by the Germans.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're essentially supporting my revision: "Unlike in most of occupied Europe, Poland did not have a collaborationist government. The Germans made several early attempts at acquiring senior Polish political collaborators, targeting mainly peasantry leaders and nobility, but were turned down." (first two sentences) François Robere (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not a single RS supports the assertion made in the proposal. See here. François Robere (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

*Important note - My references are hidden now beneath crowds of writing entered by FR, therefore, I'm attaching one more source from Institute of National Remembrance below. To save you the time of endless reading it's going to be the biography summary of Wincenty Witos.

In September 1939, he (Wincenty Witos) was arrested by the Germans. He refused to cooperate in attempts to establish a collaborative government...

For those who are unfamiliar with IPN here is the link. I am assuming even this source to be undermined, twisted and disputed by François Robere. His behavior and total unwillingness to compromise is astonishing and unacceptable. I'll also ask for DS sanctions to be applied I think. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:F54A:A128:B0FA:5C86 (talk) 05:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The 2010 Institute of National Remembrance book that you link to above, published on the 65th anniversary of Wincenty Witos' 1945 death, confirms that the Germans attempted to get his cooperation in setting up a collaborationist Polish government.

I recently read something to the effect that the Germans contacted Witos also before World War II with a similar proposal; that he informed the Polish government of it; and that he returned to Poland before the war despite his earlier, 1932 conviction in the Brześć trials. Have you seen anything to that effect?

Nihil novi (talk) 06:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have. Witos was contacted by the Germans shortly before the fighting started (in Czechoslovakia if I remember correctly) and several times after the September Campaign. He refused every time and ended up in the light prison. Others who refused to collaborate were not so lucky, they ended up dead, except Radziwiłł who personally knew Göring. PS--> I anticipate a massive deluge of text now from François Robere so our exchange will be buried soon. I'm not sure what to do to keep my reasoning afloat and visible. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:5B:4BEE:2C81:ADDF (talk) 07:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's like being under an avalanche.

If all the pertinent information in the 2010 book published by the Institute of National Remembrance can be obtained, that would probably be sufficient to support Wincenty Witos' candidacy. And that should, even by itself, be enough to signal the reality of the question of potential Polish political collaboration with Germany.

I don't think we need second-guess the Germans on their motives. Adolf Hitler's career as chancellor and Fuehrer confirmed the reliability of his strategic plans as presented in Mein Kampf. And he did not always put his directives—for example, on the Final Solution—on Fuehrer-autographed pieces of paper.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You're quite picky in your complaints (eg. Bella quoting complete pages from Gross, or adding 20+ one-liners on one page isn't an "avalanche"), but as long as you're dropping the suggestion the Germans "failed" at this you're basically accepting what I suggested all along. François Robere (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth noting this ], so it seems it was even part of Germans/soviet negotiations fore a while.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reminding us of William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. It might be well to include the Soviets' views, given here, on the idea of setting up a Polish puppet state.

Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the Soviet position also might be worth looking at since the Soviets and the Nazis were allied at that time.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:5B:4BEE:2C81:ADDF (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah... The Soviet position was up there with the rest of the sources for a while. I'm surprised you guys are just now waking up for this. François Robere (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Per Icewizz suggestions

"Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland this did not happen. Some historians have said that the Germans attempted to create a rump Polish state and failed due to polish resistance to the idea, others have suggested that these were half hearted approaches that lacked official backing or that Germany never in fact tried (or intended) to create a Polish state"

Is this OK?Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my comments in the wall of text above.Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I myself prefer your phrasing Slatersteven ---->> Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland this was never achieved... because it shows that the Germans (in the early stage of the occupation) have initiated the efforts to create a doll state, (so-called Polish Reststaat). Also, it is important to mention at least the name of Wincenty Witos in the following paragraph.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:5B:4BEE:2C81:ADDF (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

What about this? Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland, this was never completed.? Does it make sense? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:5B:4BEE:2C81:ADDF (talk) 10:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

"Never completed" in our voice implies an actual serious attempt that was intended to be completed, a point which many historians dispute (saying these were half hearted feelers).Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

That's correct then, illustrates the genuine facts. This is what I'm suggesting as a settlement then --->> this was never completed ( originally failed against FR change did not happen --------> to never completed) 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:5B:4BEE:2C81:ADDF (talk) 11:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem is we also have sources that say it was never tired, or was only an insincere or halfhearted effort. So we cannot say any one of the scenarios is true in Wikipedias voice.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, so you're now dropping the word "failed"? @Nihil novi @Slatersteven: That's exactly what I was suggesting all along - the whole point in these two discussions was that Bella refused to do it (she still does - you can see her comment above), and now you're supporting just that? You can call me the "bad guy" all you want, but the bottom line is you're doing just what I pushed for, if in a weaker and less accurate form. François Robere (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So you agree with my suggested edit.Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course I do. It's inaccurate (the second part about "some historians" will obviously call for a "who?" tag), but it was the whole point of this entire discussion. Mind, we now have to discuss the rest of the paragraph, and I already know what direction that will take... François Robere (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Good. So it looks like we can implement this and put this long discussion to bed. The "some"s should be reffed (I think there are too many to place inline, but if less than 4 this could perhaps be attributed inline and not as a ref).Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

So Bella do you agree to my edit (the new one) if so we can go ahead and then argue about the next part...?Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the second paragraph going to be as you have proposed Slatersteven? PS Also, I would like to hear the evaluation of others earlier involved that relapsed FR and Itzewiz. I'm not the only one who was disagreeing with FR. I don't want to decide for them.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:745F:F7CD:8E9C:6DCB (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have only proposed one paragraph.Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

O.K. Let's see what other previously involved say. I'll go with the majority. Should we cast votes? If yes, could you set it up Slatersteven? Thanks. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:745F:F7CD:8E9C:6DCB (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a specific proposal? There's no freakin' way I'm reading all the rants and walls of text above (and it's only a day or two's worth!) Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Which other German-occupied countries failed to set up collaborative governments?

Nihil novi (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek,Nihil novi, E-960,MyMoloboaccount,Poeticbent,Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Whether the Germans "failed" to establish Polish puppet government as it is now (because of Witos's refusal to collaborate) or "this did not happen" as FR desires. My compromise is "it was never completed" or Slatersteven earlier proposal "it was never achieved". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:52C:705E:CD91:A71 (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I propose "such efforts came to nought."

Nihil novi (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear whether the Germans were serious in any of their efforts, or whether these were half-hearted to begin with.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That may be said of many situations involving people. Nevertheless, Wincenty Witos and some others apparently took the German offers at face value and declined to accept them. That bears noting.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And others - including a former finance minister and a former premier - approached the Germans on their own accord, and the Germans refused. Mind they incarcerated and executed most all of these people, regardless of their willingness to collaborate. François Robere (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We do have several sources suggesting they only ever considered a "Reststaat" as part of the diplomatic contacts with Britain, the USSR & Co. This accounts for why they would contact Witos, but never make any other moves in that direction. François Robere (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it bears noting that there were early German approaches to Witos and some others - this doesn't mean these approaches were approved or endorsed by the German higher-ups (as opposed to a local initiative that would've been presented for approval if there was a plausible figure) or that these were serious attempts (and not part of wider diplomacy with other nations). Slatersteven's suggested edit, in the second sentence,states "Some historians have said that the Germans attempted to create a rump Polish state and failed due to polish resistance to the idea, others have suggested that these were half hearted approaches that lacked official backing or that Germany never in fact tried (or intended) to create a Polish state" - clearly detailing the breadth of opinion here (from failed - to half hearted approaches). We ourselves shouldn't take a position either way in our own voice.Icewhiz (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Important note - @Nihil novi "such efforts came to nought" sound perfect as a compromise. Please note - "this did not happen" is François Robere version that has been reverted multiple times by various editors. He has fought for a month to have it. Look at his recent conversation with Icewhiz ) quote : "I've been pushing this change for a month and a half, and you just slipped it in the backdoor." François Robere didn't back a bit. I'm the one who is willing to compromise despite the fact that in my opinion, it should be "the Germans failed to establish a puppet state." 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:52C:705E:CD91:A71 (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you rejected Piotr's proposal, which both Nihil novi and I agreed to ; you rejected my suggestion, which simply stated that "Poland did not have a collaborationist government" ; and now you're rejecting Slatersteven's compromise, which everyone else are party to. That's three compromises now that you rejected.

Now, if you're going to stalk me, as disrespectful as it is, at least be decent enough to quote the important parts: "How much lower can this discussion get? ...it's not even that complicated - it's only the stubbornness of that one editor... that made it that difficult." François Robere (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Constructively - we should avoid makings statements in Misplaced Pages's voice that are disputed - the correct thing to do is to stick to the facts (what did and did not happen - without editorializing) - and then list the range of opinions on the matter among historians (who do vary in opinion and editorialize). Clearly some hold the view that the Germans attempted and failed. However - others hold a different view.Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is summarizing so hard? Seraphim System 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not hard when users aren't pushing an agenda contrary to very obvious sources. François Robere (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused why the 1960s sources would be considered superseded though. Superseded does not mean more recent opinions outweigh older opinions — there are various reasons for why a source may be out of date like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls or some medieval chronicles that may have fallen out of favor after archaeological excavations, etc ... Seraphim System 09:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't about age per se, it's about the availability of sources (many archived have only been open to the public in last 20 years or so) and the relatively young age of the discipline (~70 years). This means that a source 50 y/o didn't have access to most of the archival material and research available today. It doesn't mean that source is useless by a long shot, but it does mean its age has to be considered along with everything else when compared with an equally respectable, but more recent source. Makes sense? François Robere (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: What now? François Robere (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea, I have tried an none user or other just finds something to object to. The entire section should be removed and until we can come to a consensus not reinserted.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

How are we to discuss the validity of the current "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" "Political collaboration" section when IT HAS BEEN BLANKED? Nihil novi (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's still in the source... But anyway, we need to come to a consensus about the first sentence first. Slatersteven suggested this. Yay or nay, and why? François Robere (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

By moving the text here and trying to work out a solution. There is no consensus for inclusion of this as written so it should be removed, but that means all the contested material, no rewards for entrenching.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Starting from scratch

Let's try to build this section bit by bit, starting with a minimally correct version:

Poland did not have a collaborationist government.
The Germans approached some Polish politicians with suggestions to collaborate, which they refused.
Some Polish politicians approached the Germans with suggestions to collaborate, which they refused.

Do we all agree that the above is an incomplete, but essentially correct passage? If so, we can move ahead and add another statement. François Robere (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

(Pings: Icewhiz, Nihil novi, Seraphim System, Slatersteven, Volunteer Marek, GizzyCatBella, 198.84.253.202)

The Pose is awful for a start. NO I really do not think this will pass muster.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, well. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The character of tendentious editing continues;

Armia Krajowa and it's soldiers are now killers and hunters of Jews in hiding

From this:

• In some areas of eastern Poland, AK units skirmished with the communist People's Army (Armia Ludowa) (AL), which was a Polish partisan militia that included detachments of Jewish partisans

We have now this:

• Jews were not only not accepted in AK ranks but a number of AK detachments were actively engaged in hunting down and murdering Jews.

Which suggests that AK was looking for Jews and killing Jews for simply being Jewish, just like the Germans did. There you go. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:52C:705E:CD91:A71 (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's literally what the source says, Bella. That's the exact quote from Bauer. The only reason it said anything else is because you changed it , just as you did with the "Holy Cross Brigade" . You also added a statement about Jewish partisans killing Poles (which is both unfounded and has nothing to do with "collaboration"), presumably because the discussion on AK didn't tilt in your favor . This is a particularly odd change, as it's both completely out of the context given in the source, and non sequitur from the preceding sentence. Well, this time I re-added the sources along with extensive quotes, so you can't distort any of it. François Robere (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a contested opinion so maybe attribute the claim, rather then put it in Misplaced Pages voice?Slatersteven (talk)

I originally added it as a quote with an attribution to Bauer, but it was deleted. I see no problem with either that or an "according to". François Robere (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and you're talking of "tendentious editing"? François Robere (talk) 13:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

POV - Collaboration and the resistance

François Robere, I'm not sure why do you continue with this POV pushing crusade, in your latest series of edits you removed the brief paragraph, which included reference sources that mentioned that the Home Army skirmished with the communist People's Army (which has Jewish partisans). Then you go in, and write a huge amount of text on how the Home Army was anti-semitic and kidnaped Jewish partisans. Sorry, but that's bias wording... did they kidnap Jewish partisans or were those individuals that were taken prisoner during firefights (very questionable interoperation of events), also you have referenced statement that say the Home Army accepted Jews into the rank. Yet, you try to cover all that up and spam the section with your own POV instead. --E-960 (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems properly sourced. Hardly an exceptional claim or POVish - actually seems quite mainstream. Britannica says as much As many as 400,000 people were active in the Armia Krajowa (AK; “Home Army”), the largest underground resistance group in Poland. In many instances the group saved Jewish lives, but a strong current of anti-Semitism also ran throughout the AK, resulting in violence against Jewish partisans. In certain areas the AK posed a greater threat to Jewish partisans than the Nazis, as the AK’s familiarity with the local terrain and populace put their units in a better position to track down Jews... Jewish units aligning with the Soviets was pretty much a chicken and the egg situation - as for the most part they were not accepted by the AK leaving them with very few options.Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree calling it vandalism is a stretch, this is just a content dispute (and such an accusation must go against the spirit of civility when so unfounded). Maybe include the claim by Cooper as a attributed claim "according to cooper, " ect.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Slatersteven) and Icewhiz... Pls, consider this fact, the fighting between the Home Army and Polish Communist partisans (which included Jews) is not related to collaboration with Nazi Germany, this is a separate political issue, does not matter if there are reference sources or not. Every time user François Robere starts to make edits he blurs the line between topics. Sorry, this is not an collaboration issue. --E-960 (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Did the Home Army plan these skirmishes with the Germans, against the communists People's Army, if your answer is NO, then why is this discussed at length in this section?? This is not collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It is if an RS makes the link ("The collaboration of the NSZ with the Germans is confirmed by documents kept in German archives."). And there is no need to shout, we can all read.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the sources and/or the discussion before reverting? François Robere (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The NSZ was allowed to withdraw to Czechoslovakia and received logistical help form the Germans to avoid capture by the Red Army, not to fight Jewish partisans, two different things. Unless you can provide text that specifically says the Germans asked the NSZ to fight with Jewish partisans. If the NSZ fought with communist partisans on their own because of political differences then it's a separate political fight not collaboration with Nazi Germany and not part of this article. --E-960 (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources are attached as part of the text. François Robere (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok if so, can you include the statement text from the reference source here on the talk page, for folk to see and decide. I think that would be the appropriate approach given the attention this article received in the last couple of weeks, instead of mass changes to a section. --E-960 (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The question of whether killing Jews, who escaped form the Holocuast in an independent manner (so - co-alignment) from the Germans is "collaboration" is an interesting one. However do we want (which is where this line of thinking will lead to) another article in this topic area?Icewhiz (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If these Jews were a para-military organization fighting alongside with communist Polish partisans, than they are combatants, and this fight was over the future political system in Poland after the war and the NSZ did not go after them just because they were Jewish. To remove that aspect and just focus on the Jewishness of the fighters is very, very bias and one sided. --E-960 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If and if and if... Y'all need to have a slower trigger finger. Read before you revert. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

When I say "attached" I don't mean "cited", I mean "quoted". The texts are literally quoted inside reference templates. You can see it in the text itself (though that doesn't always display properly), or in the Wikicode:

The Polish right-wing ] (''Narodowe Siły Zbrojne'', or ''NSZ'') did not accept Jews, and from time to time attacked or kidnapped ].{{r|Cooper 2000|p=149|q=The NSZ did not accept Jews into its ranks, and units of the NSZ were constantly on the lookout for Jews hiding in the forests. The NSZ was also responsible for the killing in Warsaw of two officers of the High Command of the AK – Jerzy Makowiecki and Professor Ludwik Widerszal – both of Jewish origin. On 14 July 1944, two other members of the Bureau of Information and Propaganda of the High Command of the Home Army – Professor Marceli Handelsman and a well-known writer, Halina Krahelska – were abducted from their offices by the NSZ and delivered to the Germans.}}

François Robere (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, your wording is SO SO bias, what's up with this 'kidnapped'... if they fight, and some Jewish partisans got captured, then they are just prisoners not kidnap victims. They are combatants after all, besides fighting between two militias with different political views is not collaboration with the Germans. --E-960 (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The source says "abducted". As you can clearly see just four lines up. François Robere (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

As for Jerzy Makowiecki and Professor Ludwik Widerszal, if you have a source pls share the text here on talk page, that would be that would be legitimate, and I would include that. But to call taking of prisoners after a fight kidnapping is bias. --E-960 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hold on here for a minute, I just looked at the Misplaced Pages articles of these four people and it does not say they were targeted simply because they were Jewish (there were other things at play here), also regarding to Marceli Handelsman and Halina Krahelska it says they were arrested by the Gestapo and not NSZ. So, what are these sources you are trying to reference here? Either way, if you have a source I'll say that this reference is legitimate. --E-960 (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

All of the sources are already quoted in the reverted revision in the manner explained below (section, section source). Is this sufficient?

Regarding Handelsman and Krahelska - one article says he was arrested by the Gestapo, but isn't cited; the other just says "the Germans", which leaves the NSZ option open. François Robere (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, so here is my question regarding your POV, in your third paragraph you write about the Home Army and say that they did not consider Jews and they were anti-semitic, but in the second paragraph you say that the NSZ killed/arrested 4 Jews who were members of the Home Army. And you write all that in the Misplaced Pages narrator voice, as if these sources of your were undisputed. Do you see that this is POV pushing. Especially in regards to the Home Army, because in the first paragraph it says they accepted Jews into the ranks, and your own source say the 4 Jews killed were members of the Home Army. In any case, I find your edits very, very questionable and one-sided. --E-960 (talk) 14:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a necessary contradiction there. What the sources state is that the AK had a "deep anti-semitic current" (I can't recall at the moment exactly which source said that), and that in general it did not accept Jews. However, given that the AK was a collection of groups (including parts of the NSZ), there were obviously exceptions; Cesarani & Kavanaugh state the High Command, where the four worked (acc. to Cooper), was one.

Whatever you may feel, I've given three independent, reliable sources that state the same, so there's no reason not to use the "Misplaced Pages voice". If you think other sources are worth mentioning, add them and change the tone; but the edit in whole is justified, and should be restored. François Robere (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

But that is still not collaboration with Germany—the topic of this article. What you are pushing is off-topic.

Nihil novi (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Also think this is off topic and not related to COLLABORATION with Nazi Germany. --E-960 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The the NSZ giving away Jewish partisans to the Germans isn't "collaboration"? François Robere (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and until we finish this discussion, would you self revert so the section at least reflect RS rather than OR? Surely you agree "off-topic but substantiated" is better than "tendentious and OR". François Robere (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Two historians Żebrowski and Żbikowski believe that somebody from NSZ nationalist circles denounced Handelsman but don't know who the informer was. Historians Chodakiewicz and Bojemski likewise say that the NSZ's accusations of this indictment of Handelsman are wrong and there is no evidence of this, which matches the testimonies of former NSZ soldier Stanisław Żochowski. But you claim in your recent mass changes that NZS obducted and delivered Handelsman to the Gestapo, which is not true. Why do you do things like this François Robere?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4410:C331:45:B937 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

There are serious POV issues with using Chodakiewicz - particularly when not published in a peer reviewed setting, see . This review of one his recent works - - which contains the following In fact, there are conspiracies everywhere in this book, but the author offers no names, no institutions, no objectives, and no strategies....all Chodakiewicz is certain of is that the conspiracy runs deep is quite astounding.Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Are making allegations that sources of Marek Jan Chodakiewicz are unreliable Icewhiz? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:FCC4:B1EF:764C:F85 (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And described as (in a RS) as "the most extreme spectrum in ... contemporary mainstream ethnonationalist school of historical writing". RSness of Chodakiewicz depends on venue (independent publishing - e.g. his website or a speech vs. a peer reviewed journal for instance) and in any case quite clearly WP:BIASED - to be used with great care.Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Any specific citations you'd like to put forth? François Robere (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Extraordinary and questionable modifications regularly and in bulk injected into this article by François Robere should be not only discussed first but also backed by extraordinary sources. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B83E:C628:C9BC:99BD (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

What's extraordinary about it, and which of the four RS (including two world renowned researchers and an encyclopedia) do you suggest isn't enough? François Robere (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well? François Robere (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How does all this square with the information on "National Armed Forces and Jews" in the "National Armed Forces" (NSZ) article? Nihil novi (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Anything specific? I don't usually compare with the specific articles when I have a good source introducing a new claim. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Familiarize yourselves with the {{r}} template

The {{r}} template allows you to quote a named source throughout the text:

{{r|source name|p=page number|q=quote from source}}

For example, the Wikicode:

This interaction had deep historical roots.{{r|Browning 2004|p=1|q=Christians and Jews had lived in an adversarial relationship since the first century of the common era, when the early followers of Jesus failed to persuade significant numbers of their fellow Jews that he was the Messiah.}}

Will be rendered as:

This interaction had deep historical roots.

And the quote will appear when hovering with the mouse cursor over the page number (in this case "1", but this is just a demo). Sometimes the quote doesn't display correctly, but it's still part of the template and still appears in the source.

François Robere (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's awful and makes sources invisible to read. I will certainly not use it, and I hope others won't either as it makes the article unreadable and messy.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Messy? How? It's quicker, nicer and more concise then <ref> tags, and it allows citing multiple pages (or multiple quotes) that all link to the same ref. François Robere (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It is slower, makes the text completely distorted and unreadable, hides sources making them difficult to find and is not precise. I will definitely never use it.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

O-kay... François Robere (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the above that it is a awful template that makes the citations look like crap. It's not even clear what those little numbers next to the citation are. Page numbers? It also makes the style inconsistent for no good reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you think of this change? It looks the same in the text:

Poland's German minority.

And produces a footnote in a familiar format, which should link to the main reference:

1. ^ Kaczmarek (2008), p. 166

François Robere (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Strong opinions and little knowledge=article glaring with painful to read errors

As someone who studied the subject at uni and read the scholarly publications on this, this article is very painful to read due to numerous errors. Anyone who studied history will see them at first glance, and unfortunately they concern basic concepts. I am really far too busy to re-write the whole article,but here are some examples of errors:

• the lack of dividing betweeen General Gouvernment and annexed territories. I mentioned this before, but it seems either people didn't notice, or the point didn't came across as important. Every scholarly publication on this period and events will divide GG and annexed territories, as the situation in both areas was radically different as were methods Germans used and types of collaboration.
• Blue Police only operated in General Gouvernment not in whole occupied Poland, and was a token force compared to main security forces deployed by Nazi Germany, which in GG counted somewhere around 500,000(not including administrative officials sent by Germany, which adds another 400,000 people or so)
• the General Government tried to recruit 12,000 Polish volunteers The General Gouvernment couldn't, it was a special administrative region by Nazi Germany which made the decisions.On its own GG didn't have its own government.
• The second biggest resistance organization, the National Armed Forces. That's wrong. The second biggest resistance group in Poland were Bataliony Chlopskie which counted 160,000 people, NSZ by highest estimates had around 75,000.
• The article really misses a section on how collaboration was hunted down and judicially punished by underground state in Poland, it was a very organized and vigilent process that is always covered in extensive books on the subject.
• Not in the article, but on this discussion page people are claiming AK refused Jewish members. Not only did AK had numerous Jewish members, who were awarded state orders in recognition of their service post war, but it even had Jewish partisan unit.

I have parts of Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce by Madajczyk, and I should be able to check them for more information to add to the article, once I get some free time. At the moment, the article is honestly very badly written, with mish-mash of various facts, often inserted without context and without any structure or background that would explain the issue as researched by scholars. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Re: the NSZ - Just yesterday I read a source saying just that in connection with the partial merger of the NSZ with the AK, which left the "Holy Cross" brigade out. I can't find it at the moment, but it was stated.

Re: AK - if it's per RS, don't list it as an editors oversight. François Robere (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You can find numerous claims that can be sourced but are wrong, for example Yaffa Eliach claimed that Home Army planned "Final Solution of Jews" starting with her family, but it's hardly true or correct, or would be appropriate to add to any article besides one about herself.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• Another one
• The NSZ did not accept Jews into its ranks Several can be named without any problems at all.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Which is why we discuss them. In this case there are several RS, and their opinions can't be easily discounted as irrelevant.

Piotrowski describes them as "rare", and the one he does quote expressed surprise that he's one of them: "I was probably the only Jew in the ranks of the NSZ!" (Piotrowski, Poland's Holocaust, p. 97). Feel free to change the text from to reflect that. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You'll find more Jewish National Armed Forces members listed here.

Nihil novi (talk) 05:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Does that negate the other evidence? François Robere (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What is the connection between Jewish members of NSZ and "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland"?Xx236 (talk) 05:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an obtuse way of showing the NSZ did not collaborate with the Nazies. François Robere (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Hening"

Piotrowski mentions a Gestapo collaborator called Hening. Anyone has a first name? François Robere (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis in section on Jewish collaborators

A particular claim in said section that is supported by two dubious sources, has now been bolstered by an RS. The RS does not mention the case in point ("baiting"), only the dangerous circumstances surrounding helping Jews. It's inclusion there is, therefore, WP:Synthesis. François Robere (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak (historian) - can anyone create his page in English, below is the translation from Polish Misplaced Pages plus link

I'll give it a try. Nihil novi (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Done: "Leszek Pietrzak". Nihil novi (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish to inform any editors who may wish to have access to the "Leszek Pietrzak" article that it may not be available for consultation much longer. It has been nominated for deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leszek_Pietrzak.

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to note (in regards to use of Pietrzak as a source) is that his main corpus of work (since ~2012) is - list with book jacket description here - a series of soft-covered "Zakazana historia" books ("Forbidden History") which are self-described as books covering "taboo" or self-censored (often mentioning Orwell in the process) history topics - which by their description are quite WP:FRINGE. Needless to say - these are not cited by anyone else.Icewhiz (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Leszek Pietrzak (born 1967) - Polish historian, archivist, publicist. He obtained the Ph.D. degree in the humanities in the field of history at the Catholic University of Lublin. He worked ar the Lublin branch of the Institute of National Remembrance. In the years 1991-2000 he was an investigator at the Office for State Protection, in 2006-2008 he was a member of the Verification Commission of the Military Information Services, and in 2008-2010 worked in the National Security Bureau. Currently, he is an academic lecturer. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 13:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Is Leszek Pietrzak's work rejected immediately and if yes why? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I note his Wiki article is largely self referential, with only a couple (maybe, he seems to hold down a lot of random jobs) third party sources (which may not be RS). IN fact (by our standards) that article (and most of the claim about his work and credentials) are unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I understand from what you are saying his work (such as listed below) has no credentials and it can't be used as a source, correct?

• The first year: the creation and operation of the public security apparatus in the Lublin region (July 1944 - June 1945). 2004 (selection and development)
• Anti-communist armed underground in the Puławy Inspectorate from 1944-1956. 2011
• Forbidden history. 2011 (co-author Jan Piński, Rafał Przedmojski)
• Why did Lech Kaczyński have to die? 2012
• Secrets of economics and politics. 2014
• Special services 1. 2015 (co-author Jan Piński, Antoni Wręga)
• Historical propaganda of the Russian Federation towards Poland 2004-2011. 2015
• Seeking the perpetrators of evil. 2016 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No I am saying that I am not sure, anyone can get a book published (if they are willing to pay).Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Also can you provide a few link to actually show any of this exists, I cannot find the first couple over at google books, or indeed via any search I can think of.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Anti-communist armed underground in the Puławy inspectorate (1944-1956) Publisher, Oficyna Wydawnicza Volumen, 2011, ISBN 8372330158, 9788372330154, Length 450 pages 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying (yet) he's not a RS. However - it is rather clear he is not a strong source or a recognized expert. His citation count on scholar is low. Looking at plwiki - it looks like he's done a mix of intelligence / history / journalism throughout his career (and that he is presently a journalist in Radio Maryja). I don't think he would pass WP:NPROF on notability - his grounds for notability would probably be as WP:JOURNALIST (as it does seem he comments on various things (e.g. international affairs) in the Polish media). Would be iffy for an enwiki page - and very iffy as a source for WWII history (depends where the work was published - an academic publisher or self-published. Peer reviewed journal, etc.) - if you throw in that these are WP:NOENG (and there are plenty of English sources of a higher caliber) - I don't think this is a source we should be rushing to include..Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I removed it (and, reluctantly, restored it to avoid breaking 1RR), for one glaringly obvious reason: You're making a WP:FRINGE claim, and you had better back it up by something better than a news article. You've previously accused me of tendentious editing and removed a claim as "exceptional", despite it being well sourced and not at all exceptional (above); I expect that you'll hold yourself to the same level of evidence as you held me, and find no less than four RS to substantiate your claim. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Well at least we know he has had works published.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So can we use him as a source? If not, on what grounds? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You already have the grounds, you have addressed one minor issue. There are other issues. To make it easy.

Is he a notable historian?

Is he an expert in the Holocaust?

Is he an expert on WW2?

Is he an expert on the Nazis?

In fact what is his area of expertise?

Why is he an exceptional source?

These are all areas of concearn.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok... is Mitch Braff , the founder and Executive Director of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation (JPEF) used by François Robere to introduce this claim: In certain areas, the AK posed a greater threat to Jewish partisans than the Nazis, as the AK’s familiarity with the local terrain and populace put their units in a better position to track down Jews. a:

A notable historian?

An expert in the Holocaust?

An expert on WW2?

An expert on the Nazis?

What is his area of expertise?

Why is he an exceptional source?

2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Start up a new thread, this is about your source, not anyone esles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why should I start a new thread if this one is directly associated with the issue of accepting one source but not another? My question is why Mitch Braff is to be recognized as a source, and Leszek Pietrzak is not. Could you address my question? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not an exceptional claim (in fact - one can find several) - and it has the blessing of Britannica's editorial team which we generally consider as a WP:RS (it is a tertiary source, however that might not be a bad thing here for general tone).Icewhiz (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So you are rejecting to use Leszek Pietrzak as a source because his work is not credible, Am I reading you correctly? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If you wish to put nit like that, or we could put it like this. If this is a widely known fact you cold find a much better source for the claim, the fact no major historian seems to have made it makes it too dubious for inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't wish to put it like that. I'm asking and would like to have a clear answer "yes" or "not". Are you rejecting him as a source? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

:2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 - you seem to equate RSness with the identity of the author. Had Pietrzak published his work in a reputable peer reviewed journal (preferably in English), and was cited by others - it would've been entirely different than a magazine article. Conversely - Mitch Braff in a blog or magazine article - would be different than in Britannica - I'm saying it is acceptable mostly since it is on Britannica - ignoring the named author there. Pietrzak in a magazine article - is not a source we should be using.Icewhiz (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

For this claim yes, he is not a good enough source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Mitch Braff - (JPEF)

Is Mitch Braff , the founder and Executive Director of the Jewish Partisan Educational Foundation (JPEF) adequate to be used as a source? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Depends on where he was published, but as has been explained Britanica is.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The RSness of Britanica dominated Braff or JPEF - had this come from JPEF's site (or publishing, or in an interview) - without Britanica editorial oversight it would have a separate matter. We usually do not look at authorship within Britanica (AFAIK) - unless there is some major red flag.Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. So despite the fact that Mitch Braff is not a historian but his article has been published on Britannica website, it makes it acceptable to use as a reference? So I can reference anybody who was allowed to write an article for Britannica? Correct? Please answer yes or not.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:3CE5:9435:EB41:EB09 (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not say that, read what I wrote.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This is what you wrote :"Depends on where he was published, but as has been explained Britanica is" ----> how am I suppose to understand that?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? Britannica is an RS, That is it end of story. So not he is not automatically RS, but what THEY publish (I.E Britannica) is an RS. Is this really that hard to understand?.Slatersteven (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

You are saying that anybody who is published on Britannica website is RS and is acceptable to be used as a reference. Looks that I understood you accurately in the first place. So again, anybody who is published on Britannica website is RS and is acceptable to be used by me as a reference. Yes or not?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the articel is (by virtue of being published by Britannica), the person is not. It is not the person who is RS, it is Britannica.Slatersteven (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So as long as an individual, (not a notable historian, not an expert in the Holocaust, not an expert on WW2, not an expert on the Nazis, etc.) is published on Britannica website, it makes his publication RS, and I can use that publication as a reference. Correct?2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

If published on the Britannica encyclopedia (which may be online - but not every portion of the website) - we would generally view as reliable - there may be exceptions (e.g. if Britannica would (I presume never) publish an article authored by Irving - I don't think it would hold up in RSN. There may be issues with authors with signficant red flags - but generally - 99% of the content on their encyclopedia would be seen as generally reliable). Note that this is a WP:TERTIARY source (which actually is good for assessing DUE weight).Icewhiz (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Who decides who is that unacceptable %1 and what is a "red flag" again? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4460:EE4A:3693:3CDD (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

He is a perfect source. He accuses the Home Army but admits that Bielski brothers fought the HA according to Soviet policy. Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Your Life is Worth Mine: How Polish Nuns Saved Hundreds of Jewish Children in German-occupied Poland, 1939-1945 - E. Kurek

So this has been reverted now with a comment: quote ---> "an amazon book search is not a tuitable soruce"

• Is the following a source?

Three million Christian Poles had also lost their lives. Non-Jewish Poles were warned that any aid or shelter they provided to the Jews would be punished by an automatic sentence of death. Only in Poland did the Germans carry out their threat to kill entire families caught helping the Jews. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

This was your sourced link ], it was not to the site you have now chosen to link to. As I said, an amazon book search is not a valid cite. As to your new link, it does not mention anything about entire families being executed. In fact it seems to be about some catholic missionary order saving a few Jewish girls. This is very problematic, have you in fact actually read this source?Slatersteven (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

Below full quote from the source (click on "more" after "a systematic killing of")

• For the first two years of the German occupation of Poland in World War II, Hitler's policy was to suppress all potential Polish resistance by indiscriminate killing and deportations. Although the Jewish population was forced to wear the Star of David and to move into ghettos, it generally escaped the worst of the terror meted out to the Christian Poles. After the attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, however, a systematic killing of the Polish Jews began; and by the end of the war, three million Polish Jews had perished at the hands of the Germans.
• Three million Christian Poles had also lost their lives. Non-Jewish Poles were warned that any aid or shelter they provided to the Jews would be punished by an automatic sentence of death. Only in Poland did the Germans carry out their threat to kill entire families caught helping the Jews. A partial post-war record lists 704 names of Poles executed for helping Jews. Over 4,500 Polish names appear on the roll at Yad Vashem of Righteous Gentiles who saved Jews - by far the largest national group to be so honored. Defying German orders, and risking their lives, thousands of Poles did save Jewish lives. Among the most effective of these rescuers were the female Catholic religious orders. Polish nuns, in nearly 200 religious institutions, including schools and orphanages, saved over 1200 Jewish children. These children arrived at the convents and orphanages in many different ways; some were brought by desperate relatives, family friends, or members of the underground; others were found wandering the streets; still others were abandoned at doorsteps. When taking in these children, the nuns had to weight the risk to themselves and the other children - to decide that the lives of the children were worth their own.

Is the above a satisfactory source? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of tendentious, extraordinary claims... "Although the Jewish population was forced to wear the Star of David and to move into ghettos, it generally escaped the worst of the terror"? You realize ghettos were tiny, crammed, disease-ridden, food-deprived places, where people died in the thousands, right? The answer to "how low can this discussion get" has been answered: just a step away from "well, the Jews were literally vaporized, but the Poles... think about what they had to go through!" Would you be looking to establish that claim next? François Robere (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you are making allegations that the above source is unreliable FR? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:803B:5DC9:57AF:59F6 (talk) 01:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh.... Where shall we start with this source? Let's begin with the publisher - Hippocrene Books - which specializes in folklore and ethnic cookbooks (such as Best of Polish Cooking) - so, not quite the publisher of academic texts. Moving on, while she does have a PhD from the Catholic University of Lublin, she is not particularly well published nor cited (note - there is a better published microbiologist with the same name - plwiki entry - so if you go scholar - you need to filter out all the life sciences hits) - nor does it seem does she hold a significant academic post (as of 2006 - wyborcza article on her views on "Jews having fun in the ghetto" - she held a lecturing position in "Higher School of Skills in Kielce" (which seems to mainly do weekend studies - per the city website). Moving a bit onwards, it seems she has quite interesting views about Jews - and it seems she has been called out on it by Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint) - not only the Jewish community, but it would seem also Polish government officials (yup - the current government). AP leads off with One, Polish author Ewa Kurek, has claimed that Jews had fun in the ghettos during the German occupation of Poland during World War II when describing her, and notes a response by the Polish government "Andrzej Pawluszek, an adviser to Poland's prime minister, said Wednesday that the award was never a government initiative, but authorities acted to stop an event that would have been divisive.". per Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward - "“Deeper research” reveals that Kurek says Jewish perfidy is intrinsic to Jewish law and communal organization." (not so deep research - you might see this in the video of her speaking above (which I found prior to this article - containing - “Jews behave like a of lions in a threatening situation,” Kurek says in a YouTube video. “Lions are said to throw the weakest ones to death, to save the rest. And this is the norm among Jews. We Christians, since the beginning of … time, we have one principle: In the situation of a threat, the strong protect the vulnerable. If someone tells you about a Judeo-Christian civilization, then there is no such thing because this law excludes our civilization.”. Some have noted some subtle aspects to her discourse “Kurek is more subtle than David Irving,” Holocaust scholar Berel Lang told the Forward. “She doesn’t deny the genocide but argues rather that the Jews were complicit with the Nazis in organizing the wartime ghetto system.”.

To make a long matter short, no, this is not a suitable source. It might be worthwhile to enter the content I quoted above, which as received SIGCOV due to notoriety, in some other Misplaced Pages articles or possibly create a Holocaust negationism in Poland (or revisionism?) article (it seems, per coverage in RS, that there is quite a bit of this - this isn't quite denial, but rather viewing Poles as greater victims than Jews (e.g. - "they had autonomy in the ghetto" argument which is repeated by a few of them), viewing Jews as complicit with the Nazis (against Jews and Poles) and Soviets (against Poles), and viewing the Polish role in a highly favorable light in a manner inconsistent with the literature in the field - I think I've seen a few RSes cover this phenomena in a secondary manner (and not on a per-author basis) - this doesn't quite fit in Holocaust denial - as this doesn't deny the Holocaust (in fact, Poles are presented as saviors of Jews from the Holocaust in these narratives, and in general these narrative tally Nazi crimes against Poles and others).Icewhiz (talk) 05:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So you are declaring Icewhiz that this book "Your life is worth mine" of Ewa Kurek with first few pages of introduction written by Jan Karski is not a suitable source and almost fits criteria of the Holocaust denial? Please confirm if I understood you correctly. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4460:EE4A:3693:3CDD (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly not a suitable source. I did not say this was Holocaust denial (though I did quote Holocaust scholar Berel Lang who saw this as a subtle form as such) - I actually said I think this doesn't fit the definition (as it quite clearly recognizes that the Holocaust happened).Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:4460:EE4A:3693:3CDD (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Summarising - Karski didn't have any idea about the Holocaust.Xx236 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Who was a greater victim? It depends when. Polish leaders (including Jews) and Polish underground members (rather ethnic Poles) were massacred in 1939 and in Spring 1940, when moratality in ghettos was limited. Later the Jews starved and were murdered, so they became greater victims. Don't you know it, Icewhiz?Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The source above seems perfectly reasonable Reliable Source that we can use to back up information. Once I need to remind others here, that Misplaced Pages isn't restricted to peer-reviewed publications. If some editors believe this isn't a reliable source, there is an appropriate page where they can voice their concerns.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't restricted, but when it's a highly controversial subject and there's a choice between academics and non-academics, academics take precedence. Furthermore, the fact this source has been criticized by another, more reliable source, and described as almost fitting the criteria of "Holocaust denial" is pretty convincing that it isn't a mainstream view - per WP:UNDUE, we shouldn't report fringe views which appear only in one publication (and that the publisher specializes in something completely different is telling, too). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, this should go to WP:RSN where more neutral editors will be able to express themselves on the issue. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The Judenrat

Any ghetto had its Judenrat, so maybe Judenrats? Now one may believe in existence of a central Judenrat.Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I previously used Judenräte, but User:E-960 reverted those edits. François Robere (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a rather minor issue... but, thanks for the ping. --E-960 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have inserted a ce template, since this seems pretty much non-contentious, and the correct German plural is Judenräte. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

100 executed

In two first mass executions it was less than 100 Poles for one German.Xx236 (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bochnia 52 (+2) for two Germans.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wawer 107 (7 survived the execution) for two Germans.Xx236 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

1 million estimated collaborators attributed by Friedrich Klaus-Peter to Madajczyk-I found Madajczyk's estimate and it says something completely different

Estimates regarding the number of Polish collaborators vary from several thousand to about a million is sourced Friedrich Klaus Peter, who attributes the claim to Madajczyk. However to the extent of my knowledge Madajczyk never stated this. The figures of collaborators given by Madajczyk are 5% in General Gouvernment and at 25% those who actively resisted occupation in resistance groups(C.Madajczyk, Kann man in Polen 1939-1945 von Kollaborationsprechen , in Okkupation und Kollaboration 1938-1945. Beitrage zu Konzepten und Praxis der Kollaboration in der deutschen Okkupationspolitik) W.Rohr. Berlin, Heidelberg 1994, page 140).

Based on this I suggest removing the dubious claim and Klaus Peter and replacing it with direct information by Madajczyk. Furthermore I will try to obtain the direct text he attributes the numbers to, if it is indeed wrongly attributed, the reliability of Klaus Peter is in serious doubt and possibly his claims will need to be removed.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't what Friedrich cites. Friedrich cites Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitikin Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: Annaherungen-Zblizenia (Dusseldorf, 1996), p. 146 François Robere (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty

@Piotrus: you restored the following bit of text - , which contains - "Poland was the only German-occupied European country where the death penalty was imposed as punishment." (this is poorly crafted in itself as it is probably trying to say the missing "for helping Jews"). I have an allergy for absolute statements (as well as recalling that Nazi cruelty was quite widespread), and even though this seems to be repeated by various (mainly) Polish sources dating a bit back, it is not hard to refute:

1. Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia - The death penalty will be enforced against any persons in Serbia who are found to be hiding Jews or financing or assisting them, it is reported in the Serbian newspaper, Novo Vreme, reaching here today.. Some coverage , , .
2. Germans (not personally sure about this one): .
3. Netherlands - In the Netherlands for instance, although there was no mandatory death penalty for helping Jews, the authorities executed 1,100 helpers of Jews for their activities (Oliner and Oliner, 1988: 37).
4. over here - . Jews found refuge more readily in the more sympathetic countries of Belgium, Denmark, Italy and Albania than in Poland, where the death penalty for helping a Jew was more severely enforced by the Nazis.
5. assuming OK for what they are citing - Although the deathpenalty was also found on the books in other jurisdictions such as Norway and the Czech Protectorate,there too it was rarely used. See Nechama Tec, When Light Pierced the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jewsin Nazi-Occupied Poland(New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) 215–16; Zajączkowski, Martyrs ofCharity,Part One, 111–18, 284–86, 294, 295. Such laxity was virtually unheard of in occupied Poland,where the death penalty was meted out with utmost rigour. Several Norwegian resistance fighters wereexecuted for helping Jews to escape to Sweden, and a number of others imprisoned. See Mordecai Paldiel,The Path of the Righteous: Gentile Rescuers of Jews During the Holocaust(Hoboken, New Jersey: KTAVPublishing House; New York: The Jewish Foundation for Christian Rescuers, 1993), 366. Several dozenindividuals in the Czech Protectorate were charged by Nazi special courts and sentenced to death. See LiviaRothkirchen, The Jews of Bohemia and Moravia: Facing the Holocaust(Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, and Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 2005), 218–27, 303–304. A small number of rescuers were also put todeath in other occupied countries such as Lithuania and the occupied areas of the Soviet Union. SeeAlfonsas Eidintas, Jews, Lithuanians and the Holocaust(Vilnius: Versus Aureus, 2003), 326–27; YitzhakArad, The Holocaust in the Soviet Union(Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press; Jerusalem: YadVashem, 2009), 428, 438.

It seems to me that the correct assessment wouldn't be that Poland was the "only" country in this regard. It is perhaps correct that this was applied more often or more severely in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

A very interesting find, it's always nice to find another myth to be dispelled, and I share your dislike for absolute qualifiers. Through I would think, per some of the sources you found, that this penalty was indeed enforced there more severely. You may be interested in the relatively recent article on German repressions against Poles who helped Jews (this article is nearly an orphan, so it may be good to link it from various relevant topics). Anyway, I would certainly support changing the absolute qualifier to 'most severely enforced' or such, with the last reference you found.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:18, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll need a better ref (or chase down the refs in some of these) - this was more than enough for a refutation (e.g. the Serbia refs above are strong in refuting "only" - but not sufficient for "more severely in Poland") - but not enough to source comparisons (e.g. "most severely enforced") - even though I agree it is most probably (99%) correct.Icewhiz (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust

Current uses of the term "holocaust" stray from its original meaning. The word "holocaust" comes from the Ancient Greek ὁλόκαυστος (holokaustos), from ὅλος (holos, "whole") and καυστός (kaustos, "burnt"). The word "holocaust" originally designated "an offering, the whole of which is burned", or "burnt offering". It subsequently came to mean "complete destruction of people or animals by fire", and "great or widespread destruction".

The Misplaced Pages "holocaust" disambiguation page lists 9 genocides that have been called "holocausts". To these might be added Poland's Holocaust, from the title of Tadeusz Piotrowski's 1997 book describing the World War II murder of 2.77 million ethnic Poles by the Germans and their allies.

I therefore propose to change this article's section heading, "The Holocaust", to "Jewish holocaust".

Nihil novi (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. As clear by The Holocaust, the Holocaust has one clear primary meaning. Some of the comparisons made above are quite offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you find the Ancient Greek meaning of "holocaust" offensive, "holocaust" can be replaced by the more unequivocal term "Shoah" (Hebrew for "Catastrophe"). Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The etymology is not offensive and is based on the cremation of bodies. Some of the comparisons following the etymology are (and misrepresent Piotrowski's book).Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Nonsensical suggestion. The disambiguation page isn't a source, and as far as scholarship is concerned the term is used in this context upwards of 99% of the time. I really do not find your suggestion productive or in any way needed. François Robere (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose No one is going to be confused, and anyway it was not only Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

You've got me confused. What "was not only Jews"? Nihil novi (talk) 08:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

""Jewish holocaust"", I think that is what caused me to think you were only talking about Jewish victims.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment @Slatersteven: My understanding is that in academic sources the Holocaust label is used exclusively for the Jewish victims, and the lede of the main article at The Holocaust seems to follow this definition as well. I think this needs to be explained, like any other term where the definition in academic scholarship is substantially different from how a term is commonly used.Seraphim System 08:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Not exclusively nowadays, as the wiki article makes clear. But no issue with making the change explicit.Slatersteven (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see now in the infobox we do have a mention of "broader definitions", though even the "broadest definition" doesn't include Catholics. Richard Rhodes wrote that Hitler intended "not merely to occupy Poland but also to destroy it" and that "things would happen which would not be to the taste of the generals" meaning the destruction of the intelligentsia ("in particular the priesthood" by the SS).Seraphim System 09:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Porajmos against the Roma has long been considered part of the Holocaust (dating back many years). Poles are not, at least not in mainstream sources.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, there is a difference between how academic sources have dealt with this and what it means in plain speech — normal people don't make distinctions like this — I've read the sources and they rest on intent to destroy arguments. We can't just assume that readers are aware of those kinds of details, so the articles need to make it clear. I find that currently they obscure the issue further. As we discussed at Talk:Eugen Kogon, it would be best to standardize this across articles by consensus because it continues to be an issue on multiple articles - it wouldn't be an article specific RfC though, it would have to be something like WP:WESTBANK — I don't even know where I would propose that.Seraphim System 07:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as plain and simple, WP:OR historical revisionism - the claim about Poles seems to be subtle Holocaust trivialization, especially in this context. What the OP doesn't say is that the disambig pages lists The Holocaust as the main term... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please just bear in mind that the Germans were as intent on genociding the Polish people as they were on genociding the Jews. So, please, no denial of the Polish holocaust! Nihil novi (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

While the Nazis did commit crimes against Poles (and against other nations), the above stmt is patently incorrect - representing a FRINGE view - and is quite offensive.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Which part is "incorrect"? Nihil novi (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The entire first sentence, and terminology in the second sentence.Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it depends on how you define "pole" Out of Poland's 50,000 Gypsies upwards to 35,000 may have been murdered.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

For being Roma. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion to be had. Nazi Germany's intention when initiating the Holocaust are well known, as are its victims. Millions of Poles were murdered, and many were sent to extermination camps as part of the merciless ethnic cleansing conducted in the occupied lands, but there was no policy of systematic extermination directed at ethnic Poles as there was for some other groups - namely Jews, Roma, homosexuals, public intellectuals and artists of all dispositions, and the infirm. It may have come to that at a later time - it would probably have come to that at a later time, if there were any Poles left for them to murder - but at that time the Nazies haven't yet had a Wannsee Conference for the Poles. This suggestion to break down the acts to different ethnicities, each "its own victim", is part of the "memory war" some people are engaged in, and an attempt to draw fire away from the subjects of this article: People who, despite or because of the disaster, collaborated with the Nazi forces and enabled their atrocities. Last week we saw a denialist writer offered as a source by an unscrupulous editor; this is another step down the same descent. François Robere (talk) 12:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop the soapboxing.Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As always, Slatersteven, you fail to notice those who "soapbox" in plain sight (that's the OP who's "soapbox", wrapped in a name change, is still a "soapbox"), and succeed in pinpointing everyone else. Well done! François Robere (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankly - The suggestion to use Ewa Kurek (Poland Stops Ceremony for Author Accused of Anti-Semitism, NY Times (AP reprint), Why Was Historian Who Blames Jews For Complicity with Nazis Considered For Humanitarian Prize?, Forward) as a source, other questionable sources, and now this outright offensive suggestion to qualify The Holocaust (suggesting some sort of equivalence with a supposed "Polish holocaust") - is beyond the pale. There are limits to what should be acceptable on Misplaced Pages.Icewhiz (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but this is not the forum for such debates.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The OP might be wrong, but. nevertheless, stop the soapboxing. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "public intellectuals" — these were Catholic politicians and clergy — they were targeted, even if "ethnic Poles" as were not targeted as a group on the basis of their ethnicity. The distinction to call it AB-Aktion is entrenched in WP:RS but the suggestion that average people or new editors should be expected to be aware of this because it is well-known veers on the absurd — most people have never heard of AB-Aktion and will not know about the important distinction that the murder of Jews is called "Holocaust" but the murder of clergy is called "AB-Aktion". Average readers and most editors who are new to the subject have only heard the term "Holocaust" believing it refers to people who were persecuted by Nazis, including Jews — a guideline here explaining why this is incorrect would be helpful. Seraphim System 20:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you misread what I wrote. It's exactly because they were targeted that it's incorrect to say their persecution wasn't part of what we call "the Holocaust". The "AB-Aktion", "Operation Reinhardt" and countless other events were all part of the same arc. François Robere (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In the context of the article, this section is about the inaction of Poles during the murder of Jews — it's not discussing Polish inaction to Aktion, etc. (I don't think that would make much sense...) — the current content of the section seem to note some differences in historiography and perceptions, but isn't there some way to make the terminology clear for someone who doesn't have any background knowledge about this? (Also, the section already uses the term Jewish Holocaust) Seraphim System 01:01, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The term is used in two senses: First, to refer to the set of circumstances, events and operations that took place as part of the Nazi genocidal agenda; and second, to refer to the results of these events - the near eradication of entire people. In the latter sense, there was a Jewish Holocaust, in the former - the Holocaust. I think most readers intuitively understand this usage. François Robere (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a subject matter expert or anything, but a quick search on Google turned up:

• In an act of cold-blooded genocide, the so-called AB-Aktion. (OUP)
• "So long as Poles saw themselves as Poles there was German intent towards their 'denationalization'. This, as we have noted, from a Lemkinan perspective already implied a form of genocide—with or without actual physical annihilation...almost any act of resistance would be treated as a pretext for mass killing: witness, as we already have, the AB-Aktion (second OUP book)

This section in the article is discussing various scholarly statements about the perceived indifference of Pales to the murder of Jews — discussion of the use of the word Holocaust to describe other genocides and whether that is FRINGE has rather confused the discussion, I'm afraid, and must be distinguished from separate claims made during this discussion that there was no genocide against the Poles as a nation. We haven't excluded ethnic Poles from the Holocaust infobox on the main article (I wasn't involved but consider that some indication of community consensus) — and I'm skeptical about doing it here simply because it would be more convenient to do so. But I'm not really sure how to clarify this further. Maybe a footnote? Seraphim System 23:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Very well, but how does this relate to collaboration (which is the subject of the article - the AB-Aktion (in addition to having its own article) is not an example of collaboration, but of Nazi war crimes)? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The second OUP source is discussing collaboration.Seraphim System 05:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The "The Holocaust" section speaks of ethnic Poles having shown "indifference" to the fate of the Jews or of having "taken a wait-and-see attitude". I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop: What would these authors have liked the ethnic Poles to have done? Rise up against the Germans? The Poles were busy enough trying to survive themselves, amid random street round-ups and organized eradications of Polish intellectuals and leaders. And many Poles did try to help Jews, at risk to their own lives. By the way, what ever happened to the estimate of up to 50,000 Poles having been murdered by the Germans for doing just that? And what happened to the postwar Israeli estimate of 7,000 Polish collaborators? Nihil novi (talk) 02:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The alleged Israeli estimate is of very dubious provenance (and is in any case out of date) and uses an unclear methodology (it also lists fairly low numbers for other countries - e.g. Ukraine).Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

We can have that discussion on my talk page, if you want, lest we enrage the ethics committee for having it here. François Robere (talk) 12:33, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, continued

Marek has done this reversal. He again made no attempt to engage with any of my arguments, instead claiming "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", then reverting the entire changeset with no further explanation - the definition of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". The onus is on you to contradict my claims. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not an argument. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Volunteer Marek, for restoring this article's "Political collaboration" section, which had been blanked out by an editor on the misguided suggestion of one other editor. Nihil novi (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

You're thanking the wrong guy - he merely undid the tagging. Any comment on that? Or the sourcing? Or anything factual? François Robere (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, your little blanking arrows are easily overlooked.

Thank you, both E-960 and Volunteer Marek, for restoring the "Political collaboration" section and for removing the inappropriate in-text editorial comments.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The section is clearly disputed - and VM went beyond removing the tag - he also resorted his preferred version (with the "failed" language) which seems against consensus here. @François Robere: - Opening the RfC was a good idea.Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on whether a source support a categorical statement

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.

• The statement "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland such efforts failed" is immediately followed by a single reference, to News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination (1940).
• The source says the following: "When the Germans invaded Poland, they suggested that Estreicher should form a puppet government. They naturally met with no success in making this proposal...".
• The source makes a claim in the singular ("he refused"), while the article makes a claim in the plural ("such attempts failed").

Is the source enough to establish the claim? (yes / no) 00:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

NOTE TO EDITORS

At this point the wording in the article that was the subject of this RfC was changed and several additional reference sources added to back up the text.--E-960 (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. A generalized claim needs to be supported by a generalizing source. François Robere (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Here you go: : "Practically the only countries under German occupation that did not have a Quisling government were Poland and Holland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• No. It is unclear whether there was a serious German attempt (or if this was a low level local half-hearted try) - so failed would be over stating this. The source itself is POVish (as may be see with the "naturally met with no success" language). Comparative statements regarding the situation in other countries should be done based on sources covering WWII as a whole - from a comparative cross-national stance - and not POVish sources covering this specific subject (which may perhaps be utilized for sourcing what happened in Poland - but not what happened outside of Poland). As might be seen in Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#"only German-occupied European country" with death penalty some of the claims / POVish stmts these sources make regarding exceptionalism in German-occupied Poland (vs. other occupied countries) are outright wrong and have been refuted.Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @Icewhiz: That's a good point, and I think most sources agree on this. In some places, particularly, Poland, Germans did very little effort to create such a state. The emphasis should be on the fact that, as sources agree, Poland was one of the few places there was no 'quisling' government. Why is not relevant for this sentence, through something to be discussed in detail in a dedicated paragraph. It should be made clear that one of the main reasons for lack of such government was the fact that Germans were not interested in it in the first place. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus:It is somewhat correctly addressed already in the 5th sentence (I think you missed that Piotr)
    • Nazi racial policies and German plans for the conquered Polish territories, on the one hand, and Polish anti-German attitudes on the other, militated against any Polish-German political collaboration. Further German efforts in that direction were precluded after April 1940, when Hitler banned negotiations concerning any degree of Polish autonomy It could be added that Hitler lost interests in creating a puppet state after 1940.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Piotrus: To clarify - I agree that indeed Poland was one the few places (and possibly the only major (e.g. German occupation of the Channel Islands#Administration did not have a Quisling) such country (depending on how you define collaborating (Denmark, Holland, the non-Vichy half of france etc.)) without a collaborating ("Quisling") gvmt - and that that should be stated (I object to "failed").Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. This RfC is not properly created and should be cancelled. First off, who initiated it, since there is no signature? Also, there are THREE reference sources attached to this statement, not just the ONE that's listed in the RfC description. Are you challenging all three, or just one of them, so you can justify the removal of the text or the reference itself? What is the end objective of the RfC? because it's not clearly stated. --E-960 (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The other two were only added after the RFC was created . The "end objective" is to clarify the use of this source. François Robere (talk) 10:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC statement might have been more neutrally and adequately worded (i.e. referring to a general "Is it acceptable to say that the 'Germans failed to establish a puppet state'?"), but there is no requirement that the RfC statement be signed. In fact, in cases like this, where the article is clearly subject to lots of conflict, I would personally recommend avoid it so as to keep the statement a bit more neutral. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. On top of that, there are plenty of sources already given in the prior discussions, and I understand François Robere (individual filing this RfC) is well aware of that. "failure"_to_establish_a_puppet_state,_part_II It appears that FR started the same matter all over again (3rd time actually) to have text adjusted exactly the way he desires.GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. As you're well aware, that discussion ended without consensus on this particular phrasing. But this RFC isn't about that - it's about this source. Is it, or is it not out of place? François Robere (talk) 12:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
• No While it is true that no collaboration government was formed, it is unclear (from the sources presented in the previous discussions, I and II) whether this was a result of the Nazis trying and failing or the Nazis not actively pursuing this objective - even more unclear given that not all sources seem to agree and that various editors seem to be able to spin (often, the same) sources to both sides of the argument. Therefore, concluding that the Germans "failed", in wiki-voice, would be either WP:UNDUE and/or WP:SYNTH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2018‎
  • Comment. The problem is that this survey is misleading, because there are other sources citied there not just this one, and it comes across as if the initiator of this RfC wanted to remove the statement just by discrediting only one of the sources provided. --E-960 (talk) 09:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You're reading too much into it. I repeatedly flagged that particular source, but at least two of the other editors (Bella, Marek , and possibly even yourself) removed those flags repeatedly. Seeing that there's no discussing or even tagging that source despite its obvious shortcomings, I decided to bring it to an RfC. François Robere (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

In response to the above: I think the text currently in the article (which does not take position, but merely mentions the facts as they are given in the sources, which goes exactly per what is described in WP:WikiVoice) is perfectly acceptable in its current state. Agree that the survey is misleading and non-neutral, both for the reasons you give and for the reasons I have also given above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Yes (support): this failure is also discussed in "Why the Poles Collaborated so Little: And Why That Is No Reason for Nationalist Hubris" by John Connelly. Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp. 771-781. Available to read with free registration at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3649912. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Connelly discusses the pre-war negotiations, which are covered in the Background section, not the Political collaboration section (here's what other sources say). Regardless, the RfC is about News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination (1940), which doesn't make that statement. François Robere (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Totally wrong, there are much more sources to verify that part, please take a better look.GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

But that's not what the RFC is about. The RFC is about this source. If this source isn't enough to establish the claim, and you need to instruct the reader to "take a better look", then you failed as an editor.

There are loads of citations, just look into the history of the talk page and article itself. Are you starting the whole dispute again "failure"_to_establish_a_puppet_state,_part_II or you are kidding me?GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm asking a simple question: A statement is immediately followed by a source. Does that source establish that statement? François Robere (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Inline citations allow the reader to associate a given bit of material in an article with the specific reliable source(s) that support it" (WP:INCITE). If this "bit of material" isn't supported by the specific source, then either one shouldn't be there. François Robere (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

A question, do the sources say "Unlike the situation in most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments"? Hell what countries outside Europe did the Nazis occupy?Slatersteven (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

What Nazis? Did you mean Nazi Germany?GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course.... Now why not answer the question.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not a controversial claim. Many good references should be easy to find (ex. , or ). Really, what's the purpose of this RfC? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And at least one of those does not say that this was common in other occupied countries. SO can you provide the quote that I am missing?Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

: "Poland remains a country without a Quisling and, in all of Nazi-controlled Europe, the place least likely to assist the German war effort... " Anyway, if someone really has a problem with qualifiers "most German-occupied European countries where the Germans successfully installed collaborationist governments", well, we can just list them; see the second column in German-occupied Europe: Slovak Republic, Vichy France, Quisling regime, Hellenic State (1941–1944) , Government of National Salvation or the list at List_of_World_War_II_puppet_states#Germany. The cases of Belgium, Netherlands and Denmark are interesting, too. Misplaced Pages sources seem confused on whether Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands were occupied and under direct administration, allied with Germany or puppet states, the related articles/sections are a mess, but in the end those are smaller countries. Geographically and demographically, most of Nazi-occupied Europe was ruled by Nazi-friendly collaboratinist puppet states. See the map here: File:World War II in Europe, 1942.svg. Another way of looking at this, is which parts of Europe did not produce collaborative governments (because for various regions they remained under military occupation only?): Poland, USSR, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Outside USSR, the three Nordic countries had some level of government collaboration (Denarmk had its entire government, the two others, at least some semblance of political activity and autonomy). On the other hand, France, Finland, Norway, Slovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria were either German allies or collaborating puppet states. The RfCed sentence seems correct, through I agree it would be nice to find a more clear and direct quote. PS. : "Practically the only countries under German occupation that did not have a Quisling government were Poland and Holland." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

How more direct it can be?

• The Contemporary Review, Volumes 160-161 - A. Strahan

But all the German attempts to build up a Polish government have failed. In the first months after the conquest, the Nazis approached many people in order to persuade them to form a government on the Hacha model, but nobody accepted. This total refusal of collaboration has led Hitler to a change of policy. As long as he hoped to get some Poles to work with him the non- annexed part of Poland was officially called "Polnischer Reststaat"GizzyCatBella (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, care to highlight where it says this worked on most occupied countries? Odd given we have better sourcing for this claim made before this.Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC).

Slatersteven, what is the point of your arguments, in most cases your statements come across as if you really have NO IDEA about the subject matter, and just visit the page to argue and be disruptive by creating confusion during discussions. You don't need a source for every word in the article. It's common knowledge that in most occupied countries there was a collaborationist government like in Vichy France, Quisling regime, Reichskommissariat Niederlande, Denmark, Independent State of Croatia, Slovakia, Hellenic State, Finland and so on. You challenge facts that are really obvious and non-controversial, just to pick a fight on the talk page. --E-960 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Like Czechoslovakia you mean? It is far more complex then that, many countries simply ceased to exist, and were replaced by smaller (and totally new) entities. Others (like Lithuanian) had a government that only lasted a very brief period. Others (like Denmark) were not official occupied but were called allied (a fiction to be sure, but it helps to muddy the waters). Others (like Finland) were never in fact occupied at all and were purely allied nations (who had their own beef with Russia). Still others (like the Reichskommissariat Niederlande) were in fact Germans (or in this case Austrian headed German authorities, not Quisling regimes, like the General government). In fact very few followed the Norway model. Which is why I wanted that claim sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

?? Czechoslovakia... uh, it did not exist during WWII and does not exists now. Thanks for proving my point that your aim is only to create confusion with un-ending red herring arguments. --E-960 (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia existed prior to WWII and if not for "peace in our times" might have been the start of it. Even the Vichy example you give above (which is a favorite of some - possibly since it is the best known - but actually is not such a good example) - was only in half of France (and that - for 2 years until Nov 1942) - the other half was under German military administration in occupied France during World War II - should we say that "Zone occupee" was one of the few countries/areas without a collaborationist government?Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps I can interest you in topics such as British–German cohabitation of Nazi-occupied Channel Islands, British Free Corps and Edward VIII they could use additional scrutiny as well.--E-960 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, seriously, why are you latching on to exceptions, was only part of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Finland, Greece, etc. partly under a collaborationist government. So, this is your tactic you find an exemption and want to throw the baby with the bath water. --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A, yes I only mentioned Czechoslovakia, thus proving your point. B, Yes that is my point (that the issue is not obvious and rather complex, and did exist after WW2 as well as before it). The issue of collaborationist governments is not as black and white as some of you claim. Many would argue that Vicey was not France, and thus France (as a nation) did not have a collaborationist movement, the same has been used by many in other nations. The arguments may often be silly and nationalistic, they are still there. Thus it is best if we source any claim that might be challenged.Slatersteven (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And there are people who claim the earth was flat. So, on that topic as well, you're like... "sound legit". We can't say the earth is round cause there are folk who think it's flat. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not the same, this is not an irrefutable fact backed by science, it is an opinion that many historians have contested, hell even one of your examples is flat out wrong. So you wonder why when such mistakes occur I asked for sourcing, rather then OR.Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Slatersteven, perhaps topic such as British–German cohabitation of Nazi-occupied Channel Islands, British Free Corps and Edward VIII they could use additional scrutiny as well.--E-960 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

This is not about those articles, or whether I edit them. So care to answer how Holland had a collaborationist regime?Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone dispute that "some" or "many" German-occupied countries had collaborationist governments? Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

As I said before E-960's intervention I now accept that the claim has a source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, under the Reichskommissariat Niederlande, a cabinet position under the Reichskommissar, of the Leader of the Dutch People Anton Mussert. Kind of what the Germans wanted to use Wincenty Witos for, but unlike Mussert, Witos did not agree to collaborate. --E-960 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you even bother to read what I have said above? Why are you still arguing this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Any objection, then, to some such text as the following?

"Unlike the situation in many German-occupied European countries which had collaborationist governments, in occupied Poland there was no puppet government."

Nihil novi (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No, we now have sources that say it..Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of tag

User:E-960 again arbitrarily untagged a source . This is the English Misplaced Pages and I need no justification for asking for a tranlsation of a Polish source. Either provide one, restore the tag or remove the source. François Robere (talk) 06:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure at some point included a Hebrew language source back when this debate was on the Collaboration with Axis Powers article.So, it's not such a big deal. Also, now-days since there is Google translate, there are many articles which have foreign references. Btw, this statement is rater uncontroversial and there is a second source attached. --E-960 (talk) 06:18, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• What you are doing here is a classic example of Red herring, questioning very uncontroversial and undisputed statements. Like that there was no collaborationist government in Poland. Perhaps next you will demand quotes and extra sources to back up statements in other articles, like that the US entered WWII after Perl Harbor. Btw, this is not the only source attached. --E-960 (talk) 06:24, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

More drama and disruption by FR as per ? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Your source? François Robere (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I seem to have misplaced that claim. Can you "diff"?

Whatever your objections may be, it's still my right to ask for a translation. Do provide one, or restore the tag. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 06:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, as requested statement in the source regarding the creation of a planned collaborationist governmet: Chapter-Situation in the General Government "The intention of the German collaborationist cabinet was to govern the Polish Protectorate covering the territories of the General Government after recognition of its borders.

Wait, it's about the GG and the German rule? That's not what the article cites it for. François Robere (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This reference is related to this statement "The Germans had initially contemplated the creation of a collaborationist Polish cabinet to administer, as a protectorate, the German-occupied Polish territories that Nazi Germany did not annex outright into the Third Reich" and it fist in correctly. --E-960 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"German collaborationist cabinet" ≠ "Polish cabinet"; and "intention" implies "existance", and none existed. Are these translation flukes? François Robere (talk)

'German collaborationist cabinet' and 'collaborationist Polish cabinet' refers to the same thing a cabinet staffed with Poles who collaborated with Germans — more to do with semantics. --E-960 (talk) 09:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Editorializing

User:E-960 restored the whole "Grabowski is unprofessional" segement (see below). I tagged it, but the tag was removed :

The problem here is the general sense of doubt arising from the text:

• "acknowledged" and "admitted", rather than "clarified" or "explained"
• "not the result of original research, but..." (does it have to be?)
• "based solely on his estimates" (which, as an expert, he's qualified to make)
• "selective treatment of Datner's works" (?)

And that's just the first two sentences. That's not neutral text. If it's based just on the newspaper, then that's an unqualified source to cast doubt on a historian's research methods; and if it doesn't, then it's OR. François Robere (talk) 14:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is presented out of context (that some Polish right-wing publicists said Grabowski said something he hadn't said - Gazeta Wyborcza was asking him to set the record straight) - and is unneeded. The wPolityce piece is even worse - this is a right-wing internet portal (not a newspaper - they do have a weekend paper - but this is the site) - and is not wPolityce saying something (which would be FRINGE and not an academic source in any event) - but rather wPolityce reporting on the Facebook posts of the Polish ambassador to Switzerland - which is certainly not a source for history or BLP content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

These are both reliable sources, Gazeta Wyborcza and wPolityce are like the two biggest papers in Poland one on the right and the other on the left. As for some of the bullet points regarding Grabowski, expert or not, his work CAN be scrutinized by other academics and writers and journalists, and as in the case of Grabowski, there is no original research involved, only the equivalent of academic copy/past... a rather questionable and lazy way of doing anything, just to make a "new" shocking claim in a book to sell more copies. As with any profession, there is such a thing as questionable and poor quality research. --E-960 (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

wPolityce is reporting on a series Facebook posts by a Polish ambassador - that's not an academic source.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And, you have a US President and everyone else using Twitter to announce policy, that's 21st century. Btw, this was a Polish ambassador not Joe-schmo on FB, so the ambassador probably was briefed on the matter, and he raised a legitimate point that Grabowski did not use first hand sources, only an analysis of other historians' works. That's a big thing to point out, and very legitimate in this case. --E-960 (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

All of what you've just written is either WP:FORUM or editorializing in its own right. The fact of the matter is you have a diplomat, a journalist, and a Misplaced Pages editor giving their opinions on something neither is qualified to opine on. This isn't an appropriate counter-balance to the nearly 200 professional historians who wrote in his support. François Robere (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that Grabowski's work is of poor quality, and the academics who support him are not infallible themselves. The basic facts around Grabowski don't add up, all of a sudden 70 years after the war, he "discovers" new facts — not based on going to to first hand sources, but doing arithmetic based on other historians' works. It's like writing a book about Brazil, by either going to Brazil and writing about it, or going on-line geting a bunch of facts, then make your own interpretations and write a book. That kind of "expert academic" research is BS nothing more. Just an excuse to publish a book and sell copies by making new and shocking claims. At this day and age "academia" is nothing more than just another avenue to make money. --E-960 (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that your opinion is WP:OR, contradicted by actual reception of this work in peer reviewed journals. Clearly this work has faced some push back from elements in Polish society, but overall reception has been quite positive - reviews and a major prize in the field.Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, the bottom line is that the two sources are RELIABLE, so instead of trying to remove them, why don't you find text which supports Grabowski instead of trying to 'tag' or 'delete' everything that makes you unhappy. Btw, it not hard to get 'good' reviews when you are preaching to the quire. --E-960 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Gazeta Wyborcza is reliable, but says nothing new - Grabowski merely repeated in 2018 what he wrote and said in multiple interviews. wPolityce is not a RS - but even if it were - it is merely reporting on a Facebook post by the ambassador - so we could say the ambassador posted that on Facebook. The Facebook post itself is not a RS - it is UNDUE to include the opinion of a functuonary - but if included it has to be attributed to him - note this was discussed at RSN.19:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Please, if wPolityce is not a reliable source than what is, is there an international committee that determines what media outlet is "reliable" and which one is "not reliable", basically anything right of centre-left is radical and not reliable in today's liberal standards. Because wPolityce has a national audience, makes money form advertisers and newsstand sales, the writers have worked in the past in other national news outlets (credentials). So, it's not a blog edited in someone's basement, and it has a conservative side, just like CNN is liberal and FOX News conservative. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If your point was that that site is as reliable as Fox News, then it's not a very good point to make - it's highly contested . Also, I think you're missing what Icewhiz says: The first source states nothing already stated before; the second is actually the ambassador, not the paper, and the ambassador is not an RS in his own right. So, again, you're left with very little in terms of the reliability of those claims. François Robere (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

So, you can say wPolityce quoted the ambassador and his analysis of the work, in any case, it's legitimate to include in the article. --E-960 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

And since when is the Polish ambassador an authority (i.e. reliable source) in the field of Holocaust history??? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep the analysis of the source itself to Icewhiz, who's more familiar with it. If it did pass RS, the change of tone would still be required, as well as the length of the text covering it (WP:DUE). Again, none of it is actually criticism by an RS on the subject. François Robere (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't you know that Haaretz, The Forward, The Times of Israel, and The Jerusalem Post, which we cite in some Misplaced Pages articles, are all peer-reviewed, scholarly, unbiased reliable sources, in contrast to these Polish non-peer-reviewed, unscholarly, biased, nationalist, wrong-wing, non-English-language non-reliable-source publications? Nihil novi (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Many internet web portals (and some newspapers) do not pass RSN. See WP:DAILYMAIL.Icewhiz (talk) 03:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On the RS spectrum of WSJ / Fox News / Breitbart / WND - wPolityce would probably fall around Breitbart which we generally reject as a source (beyond the actual issue that what is reported is a copy of Facebook posts by a diplomat).Icewhiz (talk) 04:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

No information source or authority tells the truth all the time, or lies all the time. Part of our job is to critically weigh the evidence. Nihil novi (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:TRUTH is not a goal. WP:BALASP of WP:RS is.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

But this isn't the point. When we cite them in this context, we usually cite either an interview with a scholar, or the scholar itself (eg. Daniel Baltman, who occasionally writes in Haaretz). We don't Cite a journalist who has no particular expertise criticising a scholar who has expertise. François Robere (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh yea? So some journalist Ofer Aderet from Haaretz you cited should be removed as a reference then. GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You didn't read the article, did you? It includes an interview with Grabowski, commentary by Timothy Snyder, quotes from the book and observations of Polish media response. François Robere (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Kołodziejski, Konrad (1 March 2018). "A new number from Jan Grabowski. Who came up with 40,000 Holocaust survivors?" . wPolityce.pl.
2. Kumoch, Jakub; Tomaszewska, Weronika (2 March 2018). "Where did the number of 40,000 Holocaust survivors come from? Poland's ambassador to Switzerland unmasks Jan Grabowski: He cites secondary sources that fit his thesis" . wPolityce.pl. Fratria.
3. http://wyborcza.pl/alehistoria/7,121681,23154070,prof-jan-grabowski-pomagalismy-niemcom-zabijac-zydow.html

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Poland articles
• Low-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• Start-Class European history articles
• Unknown-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Start-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• Start-Class Polish military history articles
• Polish military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• Start-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment