Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

One fact at a time

How about we challenge on source and statement at a time, rather them mass edits. So

"Unlike in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany—where the Germans sought such collaborators among the locals—in occupied Poland there was no official collaboration either at the political or at the economic level. Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans."

What do users say is wrong about this, and why are the sources suspect?Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The first statement is generally correct. The second statement is irrelevant to this article. François Robere (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And this is why such a huge revert was problematic, it is hard to find what you left in and took out. So care to raise a specific objection to another part you did remove?Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is a long standing text that was on this page for years and no one objected, it states what is generally regarded as true, on how little collaboration took place, nothing wrong with it, should stay as is. --E-960 (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which is irrelevant, text can always be challenged. It is down to you to make an argument based upon more then seniority. Why is this relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, what exact part is irrelevant, user François Robere writes the entire paragraph down, than says only a part of it is irrelevant. Can you be more specific? --E-960 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Err, no I wrote it down. I am thinking you both have issues that may need dealing with.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This is getting to confusing, sorry, and this is the problem when you try to challenge and re-write everything in an article. Note to everyone, if these are long standing statements they have been viewed for months if not year by other editors, who did not have a problem with it, so there is a level of validation through it, unless there is clear and compelling evidence it is wrong. --E-960 (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Nope WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But, are we going to go statement by statement and discuss everything? What happened in the last few days is an example of how basically one editor challenged huge sections of the article and wants to change them. You have to understand that Wikipeida is a long term process with a collective wealth of input, so when someone just want to challenge large portions of the text it raises questions marks. --E-960 (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Then how about disusing why the material about Poland not surrendering is relevant to an article about collaboration, and not a user or their actions. Do you have a valid justification for including that statement?Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing initially that statement about not surrendering was added long ago to highlight the difference between Poland and France which surrendered and then gave support to Nazi Germany. --E-960 (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So it is (in essence) OR via synthesis. "The poles did not surrender so they did not collaborate as much". This is not demonstrated as collaboration is often an individual (rather then collective) act. This sentence should be struck.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, remove this statement and that of Bauer, we can all agree they miss the mark in this article? --E-960 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not some tit for tat bargaining, this is blatant or.Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Where is the logic, so you have an issue with the statement that Poland never surrendered, because it does not talk about collaboration, but in this case you want to keep a statement form a how many Poles saved Jews, even though this is not a topic of collaboration? --E-960 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No I have said that if we include statements about the holocaust his opinion is of note. I think I also said I do not see the relevance of the number of Jews saved.Slatersteven (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think all random statements on the Holocaust should be removed if they do not specifically adresss the issue of collaboration, this would include Bauer's statement and estimates that follow it. --E-960 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And about a quarter or a third of the content I already removed. Another third is non-random statements that do the same. François Robere (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

One statement discussed at a time François Robere. None of that lets remove a quarter here or a third there. So, do we agree on removing Bauer's statement and the estimates after it? --E-960 (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Good day all here is my general opinion. The article is way too long, François Robere made a solid effort into improvement of the article. There is too much weight on Jewish collaboration and too much weight on eccentric conclusions such as one of Grabowski. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree that the article is too long, and as you mentioned there is too much emphasis placed on some statements such as Grabowski and Bauer. Also, what is the point of the three pictures of individual, none of who are actually mentioned in the text. --E-960 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

All this is not necessary in my opinion:

Poland also never officially surrendered to the Germans. Under German occupation, the Polish army continued to fight underground, as Armia Krajowa and forest partisans – Leśni. The Polish resistance movement in World War II in German-occupied Poland was the largest resistance movement in all of occupied Europe. As a result, Polish citizens were unlikely to be given positions of any significant authority

If there are no objections, I’ll remove it and proceed to the next item. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My only objection to the current effort is that it's essentially repeating what I've already done (remember that it's not only removing sentences, it's copyediting all around it to make sure you're not left with something that just looks like this. An easier thing is to decide all of this categorically (with discussion of exceptions where appropriate), for example: "we don't need 'number of saved Jews' estimates" - several statements in the section fall into that category, and we can just remove all of them (again, discussing exceptions or examples where appropriate).

As for pictures: the poster ("report to your Vogt!") is not mentioned in the article, but I think it's worth keeping if we add context (it looks like an interesting, potentially significant story), so I tagged it. The other ones - we can have some images of significant collaborators, but they're not a necessity - it really depends on how we structure the article later.

Stuff we do not need in any case:

• Estimates like the above, whether Paulsson's, Piotrowski's or Bauer's
• Emphasis on people who didn't collaborate. Note: I say "emphasis", because in some cases it's worth noting, but not in a way that shifts the focus from the main issue. The whole subject is extremely nuances: If you were an officer of the Blue Police, for example, you may have been forced into service, but whether you were "reluctant" depends on the case; and even if you were, perhaps you were satisfied with the antisemitic aspects of it, or with harassing civilians? And you could still spy for AK. So which is "collaboration" and which is not? My way of resolving this here is to simply avoid qualifiers and tell the story as plainly as possible: "There were so and so Blue Police, this is what they did, you be the judge."
• Qualifiers that "soften the blow" or harden it: "reluctantly", "special contempt", "tactically" etc., for the same reason as above.
• Violence porn - excessive descriptions of violence (for example Rumkowski's). A good enough impression can be had without resorting to vulgarity.

Stuff we do not inherently need if the article is properly written:

• Most of the historiographic background, ie how and why the different estimates differ (but not all).
• Mentioning of the new IPN law.

These are things that can be cut categorically as far as I'm concerned, and probably not an exhaustive list. François Robere (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Good points, François. Now, please make one or two alterations, commencing below my entries. Not all at once, just one or two entries for everyone to absorb, very important. This way slowly but surely we'll get there. PS My appeal to all Polish editors, PLEASE do not revert François edits no matter how controversial they may look to you, we need to discussed everything first. Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GizzyCatBella for organizing the editing approach. Also, I would question the need for Connelly's entire quote related to "...accused of shared indifference". This is in line with Grabowski's "there were no bystanders", both very circumstantial and problematic claims. --E-960 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, one of the first things I did when I made my changes was reorganize the paragraphs so the subjects are clearly separated (eg. a different section for the German minority, which is now mentioned in several places). This makes later work much easier. See the recent revision for a rough reordering of exactly the same content as the previous revision. The next step would be to simplify the text (mainly editing out irrelevant content) and restructure the paragraphs themselves. François Robere (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Very nice François Robere in my view. Now, lets this sink in a little and we’ll proceed. Any comments on François change so far?GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the first point: Estimates like the above, whether Paulsson's, Piotrowski's or Bauer's — agree we can take out Paulsson's, Piotrowski's and Bauer's statements. Now, regarding Connelly's statement in that one paragraph, I agree that many Poles were somewhat indifferent to what was happening, but at the same time there were many Poles who were helpless and lacked any means or a plan to assist (example: Germans in the countryside confiscated millstones to grind grain on individual farms, so if someone wanted to stash extra grain and grind it to feed additional people they would not have been able to do so, you had to turn in all your grain to a central collection point and got a small ration of ground flour for own use). So, perhaps instead of quoting Connelly word for word maybe we can just summarize this though and cite the reference. --E-960 (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The only problem I've had with citing Connelly rather than quoting him, is that he's very, very concise. You can summarize or rephrase many sources and end up with something better; with him you can barely add or remove a single word without ending up with something worse. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I’ve made an amendment to the first two lines in the following section. Please correct or comment, if there are no objections we'll move forward. There is no rush, please take your time, one of you guys should make subsequent entry following my change. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

One more crucial point, we are kind of turning this article on Collaboration into specifically Polish Collaboration, quoting authors is fine if the entire article is related to a specific subject, but in this case there is stuff about each country and this is just too much detail about Poland. I honestly would just get rid of this entire paragraph with stuff form Paulsson, Connelly, Bauer, Lukas and Piotrowski and that note on Yad Vashem (the entire Heroism and betrayal section). Also, issues raised by Connelly, such as "shared indifference" can be applied to every country in this article (including the US for not bombing the railroads, etc.). So, just like in the other country sections in this article focus should stay with active and conscious collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I essentially agree, thought both Paulsson and Lukas have relevant numbers on collaboration (though Lukas's is an old and clearly limited estimate from what we know of his methodology). Connelly is a different matter, because he gives both a context to and a summary of this whole thing; and regarding other countries - other countries aren't still claiming no collaboration took place. Put differently: What Connelly says is that Poland wasn't any different from the rest because it didn't have a government, so it can't be used as an excuse for anything. François Robere (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I see this sentence has been rewritten into a paragraph in Poland#Background, which reads fine. I've added a sentence that explained what happened to Polish territories in lieu of having a Polish collaborative government, I hope it is fine. Note that in GG the administration was run by Germans, through low to mid levels were staffed by Poles. Those mid to low level clerks are, for example, among the 'collaborators' counted by the wider estimates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Heroism and betrayal section

Good day, so if you are ready to move forward, I'm suggesting to eliminate the entire segment of "Heroism and betrayal" because the whole chapter discusses how Poles saved Jews versus charming opinion of Bauer. That has nothing to do with collaboration with the Axis Powers but belongs to Righteous article and related. If anyone thinks otherwise, please comment. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - but the real problem is of balance. At this stage, something like 17% of the content of this article is about Poland. It is surely obvious that a new article should be written about collaboration in occupied Poland and the content in this article to be a simple precis of that longer article.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. And the text should be copyedited further for clarity and English usage. Furthermore, the present article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" is entirely missing a section—on Jewish collaboration with the Axis in World War II. Nihil novi (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note that almost all collaborating Jews of the time, as well as their victims, were Polish citizens. Most Jewish collaborators were well integrated into the Polish society. The State of Israel didn't exist at the time. Very crucial points to recognize and remember in light of the latest Polish-Israeli dispute. These Jews, their dirty laundry, their Jewish or Polish victims and everything else associated with these people, and I mean everything, belongs to Poland. Therefore Jewish collaboration should remain within Poland's section. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Is it true that almost all collaborating Jews were Poles, in Poland maybe, but throughout the occupied territories?Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a striking Jewish collaboration with the Axis Powers outside the pre-war Polish territory?

Well ignoring the idea that attacking the enemies of the Nazis might be seen as collaboration (or fighting alongside them), we have this claim [1] (In am trying to find information about the Russian Jewish police units. Ahh found something about one of them [2]> This was not unique to Poland, and some of the "Russian" units saw deployment outside their "parent" ghetto if I recall correctly. So what we need is an RS saying that most Jewish collaborators were Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by Nihil novi's and Slatersteven's comments and completely back GizzyCatBella's reply. Are we do discern now by nationality and religion, rather than state? Let's lump Europe under "Catholic" and "Protestant" instead of "Netherlands" and "Bulgaria".

As for copyediting, I refer again to my revision of the article, now reverted. François Robere (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I do not object to removal of material about the Holocaust, just the idea that Jewish collaboration was a mainly Polish thing.Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I essentially agree, though both Paulsson and Lukas have relevant numbers on collaboration (though Lukas's is an old and clearly limited estimate from what we know of his methodology). Connelly is a different matter, because he gives both a context to and a summary of this whole thing. François Robere (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

So if there are no objections, I'm eliminating that entire segment. Let this sink in a little and then move forward. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

See the above. We may need the Paulsson and Connelly refs ("3,000–4,000 szmalcownik" and "structural collaboration", respectively) later in a different section. Otherwise fine. François Robere (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed, we'll include that somewhere later. Please remember.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It is true that section was somewhat non-neutral, a WP:COATRACK. I've however added the see also link for Rescue of Jews by Poles. I think it is sufficient reference to this topic, a link will suffice instead of a section. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources to re/incorporate

We can discuss each in turn, in the meanwhile just adding a few:

• Paulsson, Gunnar S. (2003-01-14). Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-20477-3., review available in Marci Shore. "Gunnar S. Paulsson Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940–1945". The American Association for Polish-Jewish Studies. Retrieved 17 February 2014. - on the number of blackmailers ("szmalcownik") in Warsaw
• John Connelly, currently cited as <ref name="JC" /> - on the lack of solidarity between Poles and Jewish escapees, and what he calls "structural collaboration"
• Friedberg, Edna (2018-02-06). "The Truth About Poland's Role in the Holocaust". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Retrieved 2018-02-28. - interesting reading, could be useful in several places
• Connelly, John (2012-11-14). "The Noble and the Base: Poland and the Holocaust". The Nation. ISSN 0027-8378. Retrieved 2018-02-28. - same
• Wittenberg, Jason; Kopstein, Jeffrey (2018-02-02). "Yes, some Poles were Nazi collaborators. The Polish Parliament is trying to legislate that away". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2018-03-10. - has some important numbers; the book written by the authors would provide for a better citation
• Moynihan, Michael (2012-05-31). "Nazi Collaborators or Victims?". Tablet Magazine. Retrieved 2018-03-10. - makes some important notes on antisemitism in WWII-era Poland

Unreliable source removed

I've removed [3], it's unreliable - non-peer review publication, and the author (not Andrzej Sławiński, economist) is a chemist and hobbyist historian ([4]). In either case, I don't think this piece is reliable and it doesn't add anything to the article. We should remove low quality sources like that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant subsection removed

I've removed a section ([5]) that claimed that most Polish collaborators were German minority. Couldn't verify it in the three sources linked (one is a book with no page number). It is a controversial claim and needs a solid source to be in the article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning of the new IPN law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

German propaganda recruitment poster (Poland section)

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

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

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

There were two others

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

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

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

Collaboration

"Collaboration is "a co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power"", so POW's of a still resisting nation cannot be collaborators according to the definition in our lead (even if they join the other sides army). So the BFC has no place here as Britain was not defeated.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I question the suitability of the definition used. The OED has "collaborate" simply as "To co-operate traitorously with the enemy". I would have thought the fellow prisoners of war of those who joined the BFC would have described them as collaborators - I think there needs to be a trawl through relevant sources for their usage on the subject.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

But that is not the definition we use, so we either need to rewrite our articles lead, or leave out material not about occupied areas or nations.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is: "is this a good definition; is it used in reliable sources?" There is only one ref supporting it (as is normal in Wikipedia) - what do others say? (And I think the OED stacks up alongside other potential reliable sources.) I don't think anything in an article can be considered immutable - especially if it is wrong.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I second that, and I doubt RS will disagree. Frankly, it's a "common sense" question, not an RS one. The primary questions here are the same as in criminal law: was there intent, was there a result, etc. If either holds, then the term "collaboration" is appropriate for the case. François Robere (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I tentatively agree, also a section about 4-5 people is WP:UNDUE. British Free Corps does not use the word collaboration. I'd remove this section. A few individuals joining an foreign army is not collaboration. At worst, I'd suggest moving this into a section titled 'others' where we would list very small scale instances of such collaboration from other countries. Australia having its own sections is, again, UNDUE.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The significance of the British Free Corps is that it was, at one stage, widely offered to British POWs. Those POWs who understood what was going on had a substantial level of contempt for those who took up this offer - I guess it is all down to the sort of sources you read but a number of books on and by POWs mention it. This overall situation is available for comparison with others who found themselves under Nazi control and accepted a job as a collaborator.

Also, there were 54 members of the BFC, not 4 to 5. (Not sure how many were in Quisling's government, but probably fewer than this.)
The article British Free Corps compares it to "...a French collaborationist force...". In the context, it would be easy to believe that the editor who wrote that felt that the British equivalent was also made up of collaborators. Even if that editor did not think so, that is only one opinion among those to be considered. The correct guidance is from a number of reliable sources, not one Wikipedia article.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There were never more then 27 at any one time, and some of those (2 or 3) joined with the express purpose of sabotaging it (a d a few others seem to have no understood what they were doing). Strictly speaking they were (those that joined for the "right" reason) traitors rather then collaborators (and I think it is that they were tried for).Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Also a number where not from the UK.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

If there are "ultranational" organization that cooperated or collaborated, we can have an "other" section. François Robere (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

And what if all of its members did not collaborate?Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven:, I just noticed now there is a discussion about this. You should not remove the picture without any new consensus, as per status qou ante principle. Regardless of the definition you cited from the lead also to the edit log, it is true that practically Britain was not defeated, but the term "collaboration" is totally viable and true for every non-German collaborators. As well the British Free Corps are notable, having as well an own page, and not all the collaborators were from "defeated countries" or could be treated as "representatives of the victorious powers". Could seem like some don't like the fact some British were also collaborating. However, I agree, there are different levels of collaboration that could be separated as mentioned others above. However, whatever section it would be , the British Free Corps should be mentioned along with the photo. Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC))

Odd then that I left stuff in about Britains who did actually collaborate due to occupation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not enough, at least in the volunteers section the British Free Corps has to be mentioned, along the with the image. Now it is only referred in the Australia section, that is odd. Otherwise no consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

The significance of the BFC is surely that, out of the many thousands who were invited to join, only a few did. The disparity between the pool of potential members and those who did actually get involved is surely the notable fact that makes this worthy of inclusion in the article. It also gives some further understanding of, for instance, Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism (and its successor units), where several thousand were recruited.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Not really as Britain was not conquered, and so there was always the possibility of a trail, as such it is not comparable to France or Poland. Remember that Britain interned many of it's fascists, and kept close eyes on the rest.Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven perhaps I misunderstand your point, but I think you are using something of a circular argument. I have suggested that the definition in the article may be inadequate, but you keep on using it as justification for excluding material that seems, to many, to be appropriate. Let's start with the definition: have you had sight of the source for this? If so, are you able to give any information on the context of that definition. (In other articles in Wikipedia, it has turned out that a definition used in a general sense was actually applied to a special set of circumstances in the original source. It would be unfortunate if that were the case here.) I note that the source was published in 1968 in a journal (published in Chicago) that is difficult to get hold of. Do you have any other sources that use similar definitions? I note that elsewhere in Wikipedia we have items such as the Category:British collaborators with Nazi Germany - which suggests to me that the Wikipedia consensus may well be that there were British collaborators in WW2.

To counter your preferred definition, I have already put forward the OED definition. As a further reference to support the fact that there could be and were British collaborators, the story of POW Ted Taylor describes the interviews given to liberated POWs. This included a British Army questionnaire which asked for information about POWs who collaborated with the Germans. To me this is a clear message that those who were active in hunting down such collaborators had a different definition that the currently cited source. There are other POW books that present the same terminology of collaborator applied to British POWs - even if their collaboration was much less severe than others (but then so was their punishment - being thrown in the open latrine at Stalag XXA, whilst extremely unpleasant, is better than being shot or hung. Given time I can probably find which reference has this story in it.)
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

United States Collaboration

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

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

Might Ezra Pound and Tokyo Rose qualify?

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

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

Help appreciated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@GizzyCatBella: You only need three relevant sources on each matter, not 6-7.

• Lee, Lily Xiao Hong (2016-09-16). World War Two: Crucible of the Contemporary World - Commentary and Readings: Crucible of the Contemporary World - Commentary and Readings. Routledge. ISBN 9781315489551. - very interesting reading, and completely contradictory to your claims: "What made it even less likely that the occupiers would sponsor a collaborationist government was the model of occupation, based on the principle of unlimited exploitation, specifically prohibited the Germans to contemplate granting any concessions to the subjugated populace.
• Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1998). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947. McFarland. ISBN 9780786403714. - which page supports your argument?
• Same with Klaus-Peter Friedrich. Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II. Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4, (Winter, 2005), pp. 711-746. JSTOR; and Carla Tonini, The Polish underground press and the issue of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, 1939–1944, European Review of History: Revue Europeenne d'Histoire, Volume 15, Issue 2 April 2008, pages 193 - 205 François Robere (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Poland section

Poland segment is too long and includes irrelevant to "Collaboration with Axis Powers" substance. Information such as denunciation/murder of Jews by Poles for personal gains or Jewish collaboration with the Soviets shouldn't be here at all. Please produce separate article concerning these matters. Also, Jewish collaboration sector has too much weight. Please cover genuine collaboration with Axis (Nazi Germany). The collaborators were Blue Police, Ghetto Police, Żagiew, Group 13 and to some extents Judenrat's. Nobody else collaborated with Axis in Poland, this section shouldn't be so long. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, we need to split some stuff to a dedicated subarticle, it's pretty simple. We should not remove stuff because a section is too long, we should move it. I proposed a title for a subarticle few comments above (Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany ). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So with the exception of the Polish Blue Police, only Jews collaborated with the Nazis who were intent on murdering Jews? An interesting viewpoint, and one not borne out by most sources.Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

If the Polish section is unwieldy, why not indeed briefly summarize it and present more detailed information under "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany"? Nihil novi (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz This article is here to cover collaboration with Axis Powers, not about the murder of Jews or cooperation in the Holocaust. Most of the stuff we see in Poland's segment belong to different articles GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Polish people who handed over Jews to the Nazi authorities, or participated in mass murder (pogroms) against their Jewish neighbors (following German encouragement or orders) would seem to satisfy the definition of collaboration. As would enlisting in the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS (after signing a Volksliste). Kowalska, Magdalena. "A Polish heart in a feldgrau uniform–complicated journeys from the Wehrmacht to the Polish Army in Exile." Edukacja Humanistyczna 2 (2015): 97-105.Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much, if we accept the narrow definition used inn the article "a co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power" it is hard to see how the reason for that cooperation renders it not collaboration. Only is situations where the "cooperation" served the purpose of undermining NAZI efforts (such as helping Jews escape or survive under the guise of cooperation with the authorities) could this be excepted.Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the group of collaborators was wider (which the current article seems to reasonably fairly describe); Bella, you forget szmalcowniks and such. Then there is the issue of those who signed Volkliste, and stuff like Goralenvolk. Btw, I found we already have a relevant category (Category:Polish collaborators with Nazi Germany). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Icewhiz, there were Duch, French, Slovak, Lithuanian, Ukrainian and other people who handed over Jews to the Nazis on the individual level, or participated in pogroms against Jewish and none of it is mentioned here. The truth of the matter is that Poland for various reasons never produced collaborationist government, Polish Waffen SS, or any other form of shaped collaborationist entity unlike EVERY other country occupied by the Germans. Instead of summarizing this we see large segments debating around how "every single Pole" (Grabowski) killed hundreds of thousands of Jews or how Jews in Judenrat's did nothing else but gladly assisted in killing themselves. All of the above irrationality is being overblown by editors who are backing either Jewish POV versus Polish POV. As a result of different Polish - Jewish versions of this particular topic, we ended up with the problem of extended length of the Polish segment talking about separate issues. I'm being honest here so don't get offended folks. Polish sector needs to be trimmed down, and irrelevant material moved to the appropriate articles. If we don't do this, edit wars around unrelated issues will continue here, and I'm confident of that. As for Volkliste, yes that can be mentioned but not Goralenvolk since that was unsuccessful anyways Szmalcowkinks also don't belong here but could be mentioned by few words, that't it. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

1. The definition of "collaboration" was discussed weeks ago. Some of the participants arrived here through that discussion.
2. And the same regarding the misquotation of Grabowski. It's a straw man.
3. The question of "other countries" was discussed in the preceding section.
4. The claims of "Jewish POV vs Polish POV" are, quite simply, racist, and have been put down and thrown out several times before, including in the preceding and following sections. The OP seems to prefer an ethnocentric view of the discussion rather than simply a discussion of sources and facts.
5. The length of the Polish segment wasn't and isn't due to stress on on "non-collaboration" collaboration, but due to apologetics on behalf of the Polish narrative, which keeps coming back. Compare the current revision with the one from two months ago, and with any of mine [6] [7].

François Robere (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

How to best title the section related to Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators?

This article is primarily structured by country. Which means it doesn't discuss the topic of Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators. This is a difficult topic, of course, but notable nonetheless, and clearly relevant here. Some sources: [8], [9]. Looking at the article as it is, I guess the best title for a new section would be 'Jewish collaborators'? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Discus briefly in each nation then have a see also at the bottom.Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Jewish collaborators belong to the Polish section. These people were Polish citizens, lived in Poland for hundreds of years. I believe there is no need to create a separate section. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

What if they were not Polish, such as the Lithuanian ones mentioned above?Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Really, Jewish collaboration in other countries was on individual level and insignificant. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Err no it was not, how are Police units (for example) an act of individual collaboration (not that it should matter).Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Brief mention in relevant sections, and should be raised in the context of the BFC discussion as well. Two important issues: In the case of the BFC and most all non-Judenrat Jewish collaborators (and presumably others in different theaters) we're dealing with exceedingly rare examples of collaboration, or intent to collaborate, which while interesting, had a negligible effect on the overall course of events, and we need to be careful not to give them undue weight. Second, some of these are trans-national: For example the BFC was a single, pan-national organization by design, while the Judenrat was not a single organization at all, but a form of collaborationist local government that recurred throughout Europe; this means we should consider a "trans-national" section in the same article. François Robere (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

As We have an RFC for the BFC I fail to see it's relevance in a section discussing Jewish collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume the BFC wasn't the only case of a collaborationist organization not "pinned down" to one country or territory. Half the question in the RFC was "whether to list it", and the other half is "where"; I expect other organizations will raise the same questions, so we might as well decide on the core questions now instead of just on the BFC. Does this clarify the issue? François Robere (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No as the UK (SA, OZ, NZ) was never occupied it is not analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What is going on with the Poland section?

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

A massive "earthquake" provoked by you :) slow down with your adjustments a little François Robere. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Żagiew and Group 13 were allowed and empowered organizations sanctioned and founded by the Germans. Not criminal groups. You are undermining the credibility of all your edits François Robere by things like that. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I have no concern whatsoever regarding their title. If I recall correctly, it was either one of the other editors' or one of the sources' suggestions, not mine. At any rate, what concerns me is that Jewish collaborators of the time - pariahs widely despised for decades after the war - are considered "proper" collaborators; while Poles in similar, and often easier positions are "reluctant" and "tacit". Deal with that discrepancy, and you can name them however you want. François Robere (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Not me, but revisions made post-consensus restoring all sorts of removed material, and adding all kinds of apologetics yet again. François Robere (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

This qualifies as vandalism, you just changed the entire section, and this is stuff that was added by other editors, not me or something. You can't just say screw it and alter the whole thing, that's not how Wikipedia works, people will enter the process, and I or you can't just say no cause the discussion stopped, I agree that again, this article is getting too long, but instead of taking those parts out, you actually started to change some of the old statements that were agreed on. --E-960 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• If anything, I recommend we return to the version from 3 March, 18 when we took out reference to the 2018 law and merged back the sub-sections as the final part in the original discussion — what do other editors involved think? --E-960 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. We already agreed that counts of Righteous have nothing to do with this; that "out of a population of so and so" has nothing to do with it; that persecuting Jews on behalf of the Germans is very much relevant; that apologetics on behalf of Poles and undue implication of Polish Jews and Germans aren't; and somehow, by sheer magic, most of it came back.

Now if I restored a week's worth of changes, how would you react? François Robere (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I just restored the text to 3 March, 18 when the last two discussion items '2018 law' and sub-sections' were done, this excludes the non-related stuff like Righteous, etc. --E-960 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll tell you how I see all of this, and I’ll be straightforward. The truth of the matter is that Poland has never produced any organized collaborating element, unlike the other occupied nations. None. Poland was unique; the collaboration breathed solely on an individual level. This reality is inconvenient for some groups, so personal collaboration is being overblown to the absurd levels by people like Grabowski; his ridiculous claims that"the whole society collaborated" is complete nonsense. I’ll abstain from explaining why we see this happening in the last 15-20 years. Anyways, Polish section should hold few paragraphs at the most. Most of the stuff within the article does not belong to Axis collaboration. As an example - szmalcowniks. How the hell these people are being listed as Axis collaborators? They were criminals, punished by both, the Polish underground and even sometimes by the Germans themselves. (Yes, that's right François Robere in cases of bribery implicating German police, etc. Szmalcowniks were punished) Instances like this are plenty in the article, but for now, I'll pause here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Grabowski, it's fair to say that this is just one academic opinion there are several others that do not agree, and this is something that can be discussed now to see if we should include other estimates or assessments on this specific issue, I'm all for adding a bit more info just to show the reader that there are other estimates out there, and the topic is hotly debated in academic circles. --E-960 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You are right about Grabowski. Also, take a look at any other section of this article, Lithuania, Estonia, France etc. None is talking about individual collaboration, none. Only in the Polish chapter, this is being pushed in due to the absence of real collaboration. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

We've hashed this several times, and I'm not getting dragged to this discussion with you again. As for other countries: First, it's simply not true: we mention shipyard workers in France, "communal police" in the Netherlands, and Wehrmacht volunteers in both. If you feel it's inadequate, feel free to elaborate further. Second, whether it's the state apparatus that collaborated or the citizens on their own initiative, the bottom line is the same and that's what this article is about. François Robere (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

PS I wouldn't mind at all having another comprehensive article titled "Complicity..." with a list very similar to this one, but I doubt you'd like how the Polish section would look there. François Robere (talk) 03:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll assume François Robere that you don't understand what individual collaboration means. In Poland no team of shipyard workers was collaborating as in France, in Poland there was no "communal police" as in the Netherlands, in Poland, there were no Polish (pure Polish) Wehrmacht volunteers as in France and Holland. You see François Robere you are trying to find something, but you miss again and again. All you have left in your arsenal is "Complicity...," and you will provide Grabowski, Gross, testimonies of survivors and few other Jewish sources dismissing anyone else, correct?  :) Create " Polish Complicity..." article but leave this out of Axis article because it doesn't belong here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Collaborators in Poland at the most could hold: Volksdeutsche, The Blue Police, Jewish Ghetto Police, Judenrats to some extents, Żagiew and Group 13. That's all thank you very much. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, as a compromise solution, and to highlight the fact there there is a vigorous academic debate on the issue with no uniformed answers, I've re-added Connelly's, Gondek's, etc. statement that collaboration was marginal and estimates greatly vary, but also kept user François Robere's original statement from Connelly regarding complicity in the Holocaust of Jews. I hope this solution will take into consideration every editors views and show both sided of the issue. --E-960 (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

There weren't to begin with. We very concisely said that the numbers were "between several thousands and a million, depending on the definition" etc. The reader can decide whether it's "marginal" or not. There's not much more to it. As for Connelly - he doesn't provide an opinion, he provides an analysis that includes within it treatment of other historians' positions - a meta-analysis, if you will - making it much more meaningful to this article than just another superlative. François Robere (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You're exposing your own biases by, again, putting so much stress on anyone who isn't an ethnic Pole, including some who were treated much harsher than Poles and only tried to survive; but you choose to ignore Poles who, to enrich and rid themselves of the "Jewish presence", collaborated with the Nazi racial agenda of mass murder. I'm quite disappointed with you - I thought we were past that. François Robere (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

François Robere you're precisely exposing your own bias in your comment, :) just take a minute reexamine your remark. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear, putting smileys in comments does not an argument make. François Robere (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's not such a bad idea: A separate article on Polish complicity, linked to from this article. There's more than enough material for one. It would of course require background on antisemitism and subsequent efforts of suppression. François Robere (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, what is up with this " Polish complicity" argument — is this argument going to accuse every Pole who kept his head down and just tried to survive the war as an "enabler" because he did not charge the Germans with a pitchfork in a suicide run? If you go that route, than you might as well accuse the US and British governments of complicity because they did not bomb railroad networks to the camps, and before the war for refusing to take in Jews who were trying to escape (and there have been some really dark theories about the reason for that). Also, what about American Jewery, there have been questions raised as to why they did not press the US government to do more, or why they did not initiate some kind of a physical effort to get Jews out of Europe on a larger scale, when it was clear the US and Britain will not do anything. --E-960 (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a very, very stupid straw man to make at this stage of the discussion. Go read. [10][11] François Robere (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Go read this, [12] from your own people, I don't even have to reach to the evaluations of Polish scholars to prove how questionable is this topic. Drop that prejudiced view François Robere this is unconstructive. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"My own people"? What is that supposed to mean? You've been tracking people's nationalities from the get go, marking scholars as "American", "Jewish" or "Israeli" in the text, and you have the nerve to call me prejudiced? I think you should take a break before you say something regrettable. François Robere (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the article François Robere, any commentaries on the actual material? GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, you need to understand that this issue is vigorously debated not just on Wikipedia, but in academic circles, this is not settled history, and that's why we should quote several historians. There are different views on this topic. So trying to use Jan Grabowski and use his statement as a 'be-all-end-all' reference it just plain WRONG because his work did receive criticism and other research yielded different conclusions. So, really, please stop trying to build the entire paragraph around Grabowski by excluding other historians. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

You've said it before, and I'll say this again: This issue is indeed being vigorously debated, but only in Poland. The discussion taking place elsewhere is very, very different, and the work of historians like Gross & Gross, Grabowski, Connelly, Wittenberg & Kopstein, and many others reflects this. François Robere (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

We should prefer non-Polish sources (or expat Polish) for sourcing Polish collaboration - for the most part the literature inside Poland rejects or ignores Polish collaboration.[13][14][15][16].Icewhiz (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I very much dislike this sort of "tagging", but I will say this: There is a real historiographic problem in Poland as far as collaboration, and more specifically complicity is concerned. I've explained it again and again across several talk pages, but the problem is there's no one to talk to - User:GizzyCatBella and User:E-960 seem to abide by these biases, which have ruled Polish thinking on the subject for decades. To an inside observer it may look like a "battle for the truth"; to an outside observer it looks like just another country going through the stages dealing with some primal sin or another (cf. the US and genocide/slavery, Europe with colonialism, Japan with violent imperialism etc.). Polish sources per se are not the problem; sources from mainstream academia that abide by fictitious popular perceptions are. You can see Connelly's article "The Noble and the Base", cited somewhere else on this page, for a good explanation of how it's done, but he's not the only one by far (if you just google for reviews/critiques on any of several sources cited by others here you'll see more than a few). It's this willingness to engage that's needed here. François Robere (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll greet the brand-new article concerning "Polish complicity .." in whatever, but please drop this subject outside the "collaboration with the Axis powers" because it wrecks the goal of this article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the section is fine in its current state (I reviewed E-960's edits and the only thing I restored is the total number of Polish pre-war population, so that readers can see the numerical estimates in the context of percentages too). I am not sure which parts, exactly, Francois disputes, and I'd appreciate if he could discuss specific sentences he thinks are problematic. Looking at his version, I notice:

• it removed quotations about Polish collaborations being 'marginal', etc. I think such quotations are very much on topic and relevant.
• it linked to Wąsosz pogrom and Szczuczyn pogrom. Those are valid links and I'd support their restoration. However, the sentence in which they were mentioned was not directly referenced, and the next sentence was a book reference without page number. We need higher quality of referencing here. On a related note, one could also link Tykocin pogrom, through even better would be to create a parent article, something like Jewish pogroms in occupied Poland, 1941.
• it cited Conelly on 'structural collaboration'. I think the quote was incorporated a bit unwieldy, but the concept seems relevant. Overall, the issue of 'shared indifference', or general criticism that many Poles just 'did nothing', seems to appear in several sources, and could be discussed in a dedicated paragraph.
• it stated that AK "it occasionally took part in persecuting fellow Jewish partisans". Unfortunately, this is also poorly referenced (same problem as above - book link with no page number). We need page numbers for verification of this claim, I'd call it controversial.

--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw what you added, and just so you know - everything was already discussed, sometimes more than once.

1. Those numbers don't actually give context, because you don't know how they compare with others countries. At the same time, you risk introducing bias as "3% seems really low" when it isn't necessarily.
2. You can see below and above on why "marginal" is both incorrect (historiography etc.) and irrelevant (compared with Connelly's review).
3. Everything here is done as synthesis of existing and new text (article text, not WP:OR), which sometimes results in disconnections. See my "reference" revision for comparison.
4. Same as above.
5. No problem with sourcing. If you want page numbers you'll get them.

François Robere (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, can you just relax and stop going crazy all over the article, at this point there SEVERAL editors who don't agree with your editing approach, more and more this behavior looks like petty vandalism. --E-960 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not the only editor who reverted your deletions François Robere, so stop with this vandalism, ok? Those statements have RELIABLE SOURCES attached to them, so stop calling them liable. --E-960 (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

"Going crazy all over the article"? I made changes to one paragraph, post discussion, which were reverted. Then I took out the most obvious cases of nonsense that was already discussed. Now that was reverted. Apparently none of you want to remove any material, yet you keep complaining that "the article is too long" (except for the Jewish part. That's just right.). François Robere (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Sentence by sentence

1. Unlike in most European countries occupied by Nazi Germany where the Germans successfully installed collaborating authorities, in occupied Poland such attempts failed... and soon the concept of creating a Polish puppet state has been abandoned.[78][79][80][81][82]: I've noted above (19:11, 9 March 2018) that the sources provided either do not support this position, contradict it, or aren't clear on the matter. I've received no explanation, and my subsequent edit was blocked because "there's a discussion taking place".
2. Polish statesmen who refused to collaborate, such as Kazimierz Bartel,[72][73] Stanisław Estreicher,[74][75] and Wincenty Witos,[76][77] were either executed or imprisoned by the Germans - I've noted this isn't a biography piece, so there's no need for specifics. The editor who added that bit, as well as others who support its inclusion, complained several times about the length of the article, yet oppose the removal of eg. that.
3. Poland as a polity never surrendered to the Germans,[83] instead evacuating its government and surviving armed forces, to France and ultimately to England. - this has already been discussion previously - has nothing to do with collaboration. Same case here Re: article length and content removal.
4. Historians John Connelly and Leszek Gondek described Polish collaboration as having been “marginal",[85] and Connelly wrote that "only a relatively small percentage of the Polish population engaged in activities that may be described as collaboration, when seen against the backdrop of European and world history - this has been discussed several times before. Gondek's definition of "collaboration" is disputed in the very article quoted, where he explains "structural collaboration" - something which was discussed and included in previous revisions, and objected by the same editors supporting the quote on "marginal". As an aside: Where did that quote go? When I try to remove a single sentence a hoard gathers, but "my" material disappears and no one makes a sound.
5. What's "The Essential Guide to Being Polish: 50 Facts & Facets of Nationhood", and how can that be a source here? Again, something I asked before and didn't get a reply.
6. The pre-war Second Polish Republic had a population of about 35 million, including over 3 million Polish Jews.), (a city of 1.3m...) - this has been discussed before (and not only on 19:36, 11 March 2018). It's misleading more than relevant.
7. After the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the hunt for collaborators, combined with the notion of Żydokomuna, Polish version of the Judeo-Communism stereotype, encouraged by the German Nazi administration supportive of extreme expressions of antisemitic attitudes - again, discussed before. This is a cheap attempt at excusing antisemitism, and Connelly and others note that is hardly an adequate explanation of why people massacre entire families and communities (including after the war, when there were hardly any Jews left in Poland - and there are still some Polish historians who raise it as a reason for those). What is? Anti-semitism. Call it what it is.
8. In October 1939, the Nazi authorities ordered the mobilization of the pre-war Polish police to the service of the German occupation, thus forming the "Blue Police". The policemen were to report for duty by 10 November 1939 - this article isn't a timeline, but again - the same editors who complain it's too long oppose to the removal of these details
9. Many members of the Blue Police followed German orders reluctantly - how much is "many"? What is "reluctantly?" All orders, some orders, orders only again Poles, or Jews? I've suggested before that we remove all suprelatives and just state what we know to have happened.
10. some were eventually honored with Israeli Righteous among the Nations awards for saving Jews - completely meaningless statement. First, "some" could be as low as 2/16,000; second, as was previously discussed, we shouldn't care. This article isn't about the Righetous, but about all the rest.
11. the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade, numbering between 800 and 1,500 soldiers, decided to tacitly cooperate with the Germans - again superlatives, again discussed, again too many details, again by the same editors who claim the article is too long so we should cut any references to complicity out.
12. Such arrangements were purely tactical and did not evince the kind of ideological collaboration shown by France's Vichy regime or Norway's Quisling regime.[101] The Poles' main motive was to gain intelligence on German morale and preparedness and to acquire much-needed equipment - about half of the paragraph about AK is about their justified heroism, which is a blunt attempt to sanitize an article about collaboration.
13. One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Polish families for help; if a family agreed to help, it was reported to the Germans, who—as a matter of announced policy—executed the entire family - this looks like a blood libel, and is poorly sourced. I've asked about it several times before, but have been prevented from removing it.
14. Overall, about a quarter of the text is about Jewish collaborationist organizations (where Jews only constituted about 10% of the population), and about half of the remaining material is about Polish heroism. This has been discussed several times. Other than blunt bias on behalf of some editors, can anyone explain this?
15. If you review the talk page starting on February 16th, you'll see all of this has been discussed already, and multiple times, yet after so much editing work we're nearly where we started. Anyone? François Robere (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)