Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

Deprod

Splitting separate articles from long sections is how wikipedia works: WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. This was done in accordance with WP:SPLIT. One can of course take it to AfD, but you'll need a better argument that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (To be honest, I don't like this topic that much, but it doesn't stop me from seeing it is notable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I would seem that modern historiography and hagiography around this matter has made it independently notable, despite "collaboration" (here, and in the original parent article) being a POVish term.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You take off that delete request, and I'll forward you to incident board, this article is clearly contact forking, because all it does is duplicates stuff on WW2 collaboration page, this article is noting more then user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus throwing a crying fit over the last article — instead of waiting a bit on the other article. --E-960 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the policy, this is not an uncontroversial deletion, as multiple edds have said so. AFD it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion- you may only PROD once. this article was already prodded and de-prodded. You can't prod again. If you think this should be deleted - you need to do an AfD. Or a merge discussion (back to the list) - I doubt such a motion will succeed, but that's the way forward after a de-Prod.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiwi (volunteer)

Poles who served in the Wehrmacht (it does not matter if they are ethnic poles) Poles in the Wehrmacht, they were Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not the correct application of Hiwi, it primarily relates to other ethnicities that served in the SS, however I agree that the Poles in the Wehrmacht is ok in this case, as there were many Poles from Sląsk who were drafted in, but they were not willing collaborators. On the other hand Hiwi is a willing collaborator who joined the German uniformed services. --E-960 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Primarily is not solely, if poles served in the capacity of Hiwi it is a valid see also.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought (by the way) no poles served in the SS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No they did not serve in the SS, and there was no such thing as a Polish unit, that's correct. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if they were a unit [[1]] "...members transferred to various units of the SS, Gestapo..." so poles served in the SS, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should let-off the subject, because I'll ask you what do you mean by "Pole" someone of ethnic back ground or former citizenship? Because an ethnic Poles was a non-entity with no legal status, and he would not have been allowed in to the GERMAN Wehrmacht, Gestapo, or German SS units. --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, read the the opening paragraph of Hiwi: "Hitler reluctantly agreed to allow recruitment of Soviet citizens in the Rear Areas during Operation Barbarossa." and "Between September 1941 and July 1944 the SS employed thousands of collaborationist auxiliary police recruited as Hiwis directly from the Soviet POW camps." This term relates to folks in the Soviet Union who collaborated, not Poland. This is what I was afraid of, editors who do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject just adding every questionable item to this article. --E-960 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So are you arguing that Ethnic Germans were not Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Either way, Hiwi relates to SOVIET collaborators, pls read the article. This term is not applicable here. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does (relate TO POLES) [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it does. Second, "see also" links aren't always directly related to the article's subject, so even if it didn't it was still worthy of inclusion. François Robere (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I can see you're back and trying to add everything negative about Poles. This is a false statement that's just ignorantly lumps Poles with the Soviets, and in English speaking media this is not uncommon, just like the Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht... now the Polish Hiwi. --E-960 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It is sourced, your claim is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One dictionary reference, is hardly a reference source backed by full text, I can find you hundreds of short definitions on many things that are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not have to be, it demonstrates what you claim is not accurate. It has been applied to Poles, and that is all a See also needs, a link to the subject (ohh and [[3]]). You have not one source saying it was used only for Russian volunteers.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, same with Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht I'm sure you can find in the English speaking world 100s of references that use those term. Still not correct, though. --E-960 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not judge that a source says, we repeat it. You have provide no valid rational for exclusion of this see also, and this is getting to the stage of tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

E-960 oh, so we are having a debate about Polish Waffen SS now :)? Interesting. Did we have a discussion about Polish Gestapo yet? Sorry for asking but I'm not following this closely anymore? In any case, let Piotr deal with this now E-960. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

He added the material claiming that Poles had joined the SS and the Gestapo, I am happy to remove the whole section.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven No, Poles couldn't join SS or Gestapo. Volksdeutsche did, mostly Wehrmacht. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sop why are they in an article about Poles? If they were not Polish they have no place here, you cannot have it both ways.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal commentary and try to stay on-point. This is per MOS:SEEALSO. Do you have anything else? François Robere (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiwi is a term for Soviet collaborators, and is misleading if someone uses it for Poles, it is wrong just like Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht. --E-960 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, it's related to the issue of collaboration with the Nazis, and so appropriate in the very least in the "see also". François Robere (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This claim has no source baking it, please stop making it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to add Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany or Cham Albanian collaboration with the Axis to this article because it is related to collaboration? Not need here. --E-960 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If RS say they were Polish, yes, do you have any that say this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's major, it can be added. If not, better add the category or "parent" article. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is pending, and you stated your point. --E-960 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note - Poles did serve in the SS, however generally they declared themselves to be German first via Volksliste. After the war some of them reverted to being declared Poles.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me a sample name of a Polish SS-men Icewhiz? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Per this - there were some, though perhaps not many. Conscription to the Wehrmacht was more common, see - 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. for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, as per the only source you could find, "few Polish nationals," which means pre-war citizens, subjects, not ethnic Poles. These SS men were Ukrainians, pre-war Polish Citizens. Ethnic Poles were not allowed into the SS even if they wanted to. Wehrmacht, the same story, you had to be declared a German to be drafted, such in the case of Silesians, the Germans viewed as their own. Ethnic Poles could not join Wehrmacht even if they wanted to. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as the remained declared ethnic Poles - indeed - they could not join. However, the Germans promoted (and actually forced) a large number (in Western Poland) to sign Volkslistes - which made them German in German eyes.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

---

This should be restored as per MOS:SEEALSO. Any objections? François Robere (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Baiting"

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 blood libel material, and is only sourced from Money.pl and Salon24, which seem like popular magazines and not RS for a claim of this gravity. Are there any other sources supporting this? François Robere (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Might want to take it to RSN, not sure these are RS for such a claim but they might be. but i do not think making statements about blood libel help matters.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These are two reliable sources attached to this statement, both are full articles that deal with Jewish collaboration. But, you don't like them cause they are Polish news magazines, however you had no problem using Israeli internet news sources as reference. --E-960 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Do they quote reputable research/ers? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have never heard of then, so have no idea how reliable they are. Hence my suggestion to take it to RSN rather then just go ahead and delete it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered RS, and Salon]24 appears to be a blog. I will tag the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These are not blogs, they are news magazines. --E-960 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd as I can only find reference to one as a blog, hence why I think this needs taking to RSN, so they who have a better knowledge of Polish media can cast an uninvolved eye over it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a statement about the editor, but about the material. Popular media tends to repeat common perceptions, in this case antisemitic. This means we need to be extra careful with our due diligence. François Robere (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It is still not helpfull and prerogative.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted. François Robere (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These two sources are reliable though not academic, and the tags are ok, in time I'm sure academic text on this topic will be found, so just give it time and the references will bulk up the text here. Just so you know, in a TV discussion names of actual people involved in baiting were named, so this is a valid subject that is documented, it's just a matter of finding more sources to back it because in the English speaking media this topic is taboo and ignored. --E-960 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Without multiple academic level sources (and this is a widely studied topic, some Jewish collaboraters were tried after the war, e.g. Rudolf Kastner) - this should not be included. Leave the newspapers for contemporary subjects - not history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations are a reliable source, though not prime, per Wikipedia guidelines. --E-960 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: That's about news reporting, not historical facts. Notice caveats on "scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources" and the need to check on a story-by-story case. Do the two articles cite any RS (eg. studies, books, archives, scholars that we can consult)? François Robere (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Railroads workers

I see we have already Poles working at railroads who would be executed in 2 minutes if they refused to operate the trains, but they are now collaborators. :) Remarkable. Whats next? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I'm expecting a reference that if you were Polish and just went about your daily tasks, you were a 'collaborator' and an 'enabler' because you did not charge the Germans with a pitchfork or garden rakes at the first possible instance. This is history according to Wikipedia, who can get more of their "like minded' to force through their content, does not matter if it's accurate. --E-960 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One could say the same regarding some of the Judenrat. Not everyone who collaborated had an "easy out". Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, but in the case of Judenrat someone conveniently keeps removing this statement form the text. "Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that without the assistance of the Judenrat, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews." --E-960 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be because as far as U+I can say that is not talking about Poland, so it is synthesis to use it to make a claim about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would probably want more than 1 opinion. My own 2 editorial cents would be that Jewish collaboration should be in a separate article for two reasons. First this will reduce POV warring on "degree of collaboration" between groups and allow us to focus on the facts. And finally, Jewish collaboration was more or less the same throughout Eastern Europe (in areas Nazi Germany had direct or almost direct control) - the Polish Judenrats were not different from the Ukranian Judenrats (beyond city/region variations) - the two sets were more or less the same.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz Could you please give me a sample name and location of a Ukranian Judenrat? And by the way, I'm still waiting for at least one name of a Polish SS-man. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

::: :) Firefighters??? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Public sanitation worker, no doubt??? --E-960 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

All gardeners, that's for sure. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsstand vendors, cause the Germans occupiers were able to buy newspapers. --E-960 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The rail was vital for the German war effort - all the supplies east went by rail. Was also very important for the Holocaust. Railcars filled with ammo and cattle cars stuffed with people.Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, but, was that collaboration or a form of forced labor?? When you are forced to show up for work, or you'll be deported to a concentration camp — work under coercion is not collaboration, but slave labor. Surly you can see the difference. --E-960 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no suggestion in the cited sources of coercion. François Robere (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Look François Robere, I will openly say that you fellows have no idea about the German occupation of Poland. Railroads workers had to report to work; everybody was required to have an Ausweis (prove of employment) and Kennkarte. Without these documents, in łapanka or if simply stopped on the street, deportation to the Concentration Camp or German labor camp was your only future. Railay workers were not collaborators; they had to work; I'll remove this later, but for now, I'm just having fun watching you guys. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. It was original research and synthesis. The first source [4] does discuss the employment of Poles in unskilled labor positions by the Ostbahn but does not call it collaboration. The second source [5] is primary and also does not say anything about collaboration afaict.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

1. There's no need for a source to be explicit in using the term "collaboration" as far as it answers the definition of collaboration as given in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. This issue has been discussed there before.
2. The first source describes work for the Ostbahn including in the roles of train engineer, switch tower operator and train technician - skilled labor - including on German military trains.
3. The second provides witness accounts by such workers regarding transport trains. There's nothing in policy against using primary sources.
4. Each source is used to establish the claim it is preceded by, and both satisfy WP:RS. As such, they do not satisfy WP:OR.
5. However, to assuage your fear of WP:SYNTH, here's a source that uses the term "collaboration" explicitly [6]; a secondary source that uses the term "complicity" to describe various aspects of train use, and specifically mentions the Ostbahn participation in death transports [7]]; a secondary source mentioning both [8], and in addition the fact drivers of the like received incentives; and another one with a whole bunch of examples of collaboration, including the Ostbahn [9]

François Robere (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So where is your reference above saying that the Polish railroad workers were collaborating with the Nazis? :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for a source to be explicit in using the term "collaboration" as far as it answers the definition of collaboration - it has to be pretty clear though. And this source isn't. Neither sources supports the claim of collaboration. That's your own invention - i.e. original research and synthesis. This is pretty textbook actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As to your new sources, the first one doesn't say anything about the Ostbahn. It does mention Polish railroad workers but does not say they were collaborating. It uses the word "collaboration" somewhere else in the article. I can't access the second source - you can try and provide a quote - but even then, "complicity" and "collaboration" are two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

First, what the sources describe is simply "work", which is exactly what eg. Polish officials in the GG did. That's in-line with the definition in the other article.

The title of the source is "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust", are you really going to contend the mention of Polish railway workers isn't it?

There was a whole discussion in the other talk page about whether complicity equals collaboration, and the consensus was that it does, as several sources support it. You can see now how there's a section here Poles and the Holocaust.

I've added a couple more sources for you to browse. François Robere (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the title, but in that paragraph the article is just describing the nature of German occupation. It does not say that railroad workers were collaborators. I don't knw what discussion you're referring to so I can't comment on it. What other sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And look, if you're gonna link gbooks and claim "it's in there" then we need to see the quotations if the books themselves are not accessible. After the shenanigans with the other sources and the original research, not gonna take it on faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The paragraph starts with "As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies..." in an article that's about "widespread collaboration". There's no misreading-it. Do you want a third opinion? RFC? Take your pick.

Please avoid making such comments. You do not know me or my approach to editing, and jumping to conclusions isn't becoming anyone. I merely wanted to avoid using a tertiary source, and thought it was obvious from the other texts. As for G-books: I didn't use a proxy server for accessing them, and you shouldn't need to either. If the linking troubles you, I can give you a full citation instead.

• Gigliotti, Simone (2009). The Train Journey: Transit, Captivity, and Witnessing in the Holocaust. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-427-0. - p. 36 mentions the Ostbahn as one of several "national carriers" who supplied death trains.
• Webb, Chris (2014-04-15). The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-3-8382-6546-9. - p. 179: "It is no exaggeration to state that without the close collaboration of the Reichsbahn and the Ostbahn with the SS, the Holocaust would not have been possible."; p. 186 with testimonies by Polish train engineers operating death trains and a mention of receiving vodka from the Germans for morale support.
• Kroener, Bernhard R.; Muller, Rolf-Dieter; Umbreit, Hans (2000-08-03). Germany and the Second World War: Volume 5: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power. Part I: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160683-0. - ch. 4.1 provides numbers on various collaboration agencies, including the Ostbahn.

François Robere (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, "drew upon some Polish agencies" is not "collaboration". What the article is doing is describing the nature of the German occupation. The rest is your own original research. As for your other sources:

The Train Journey: - yeah, but where does it say anything about Polish collaboration? Again, you're drawing inferences and making SYNTHesis.

The Treblinka Death Camp - again, this just says that Ostbahn "collaborated" (which is a bit strange choice of words seeing as how it was a German enterprise). It says NOTHING about "Polish collaboration". This article's title is not "Ostbahn collaboration with Nazi Germany".

Germany and the Second World War - ditto.

So it looks like my concerns were justified - you presented three sources which you claimed that supported the charge of collaboration by Polish railroad workers with Nazi Germany. Yet, when pressed on what's actually in those sources, all you're capable of providing are quotes about how the Ostbahn, not Polish railroad workers, was involved with the Nazis. In other words you were misrepresenting sources.

Look, you need sources which say that Polish railroad workers collaborated or it's a no go. And no amount of personal synthesis and original research can substitute for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for WP:3O. Summary of argument:

• Armstrong, John A. (1968). "Collaborationism in World War II: The Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe". Journal of Modern History. 40 (3): 396–410. – defines collaboration as "co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power". This is the definition used in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II.
• Mierzejewski, Alfred C (2000). The most valuable asset of the Reich: a history of the German National Railway. Vol. 2, Vol. 2,. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-6088-5. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) – pp. 80-82 describes the Ostbahn, the railway operator set up by Germany in Occupied Poland: 60,000 Poles supervised by 5,300 Germans. The Poles were employed in everything from manual labor to high-proficiency jobs like switch tower operators, train engineers and technicians, including on German military trains.
• "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2018-03-18. – lists instances of collaboration and explicitly mentions Polish railroad personnel.
• Webb, Chris (2014-04-15). The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-3-8382-6546-9. – p. 179: "It is no exaggeration to state that without the close collaboration of the Reichsbahn and the Ostbahn with the SS, the Holocaust would not have been possible."; p. 186 has testimonies by Polish train engineers operating deportation trains, and a mention of receiving vodka from the Germans for morale support.
• Gigliotti, Simone (2009). The Train Journey: Transit, Captivity, and Witnessing in the Holocaust. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-427-0. – p. 36 mentions the Ostbahn as one of several "national carriers" who supplied deportation trains.
• Kroener, Bernhard R.; Muller, Rolf-Dieter; Umbreit, Hans (2000-08-03). Germany and the Second World War: Volume 5: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power. Part I: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160683-0. – ch. 4.1 provides numbers on various collaboration agencies, including the Ostbahn.
• "Aktion Reinhard Train Transports – Eyewitness Statements". Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team. Retrieved 2018-03-18. {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 16 (help) – provides witness accounts on Polish personnel operating deportation trains.

François Robere (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And again, none of these sources state that Polish railroad workers were collaborating with the Nazis! You've invented that part yourself and you're pretending not to understand the objection (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Look. If collaboration by Polish railroad workers were an established fact or opinion in the literature you wouldn't be having this much trouble finding sources. But you can't find even one. Instead you giving us sources about how ... the German rail organization Ostbahn was collaborating! And that's on top of blatantly misrepresenting some sources (not to mention the fact that you listed several sources which were not accessible and claimed they supported the text, and only once you were asked to provide exact quotes did it come out that you were just making shit up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that collaboration could be forced (in fact we make that point often about things like the Blue Police).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but it's irrelevant to this question, since there is still no source which says this was collaboration (railroad workers, Blue Police is a different matter).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp Familiarize yourself with this. Blue Police should not really be listed as collaborators. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Which part deal with the definition of collaborators?Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember, it talks about the Police force, I may look for it later but read the whole thing plus amendments, it's actually very informative. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean then parts about how POW's have to obey the law and are subject to the police?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A request for a third opinion was filed. I have declined it, as there are more than two participants engaged in substantive discussion here. I recommend a different form of dispute resolution if discussion here does not resolve the issue. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey /wiae, the discussion in general includes other participants, but the part I asked for a third opinion on - the sources listed above - only involves one other editor, so it should satisfy WP:3O. Your thoughts? François Robere (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there's at least two others who objected to this text. The difference is that I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, whereas they - rightly as it turns out - just rolled their proverbial eyes at you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Marek, you're being hostile for no good reason, and I suggest you drop the attitude. François Robere (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Strike that, I've opened an RFC. François Robere (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, François Robere, but I find it hard to separate the specific points you are making from the larger discussion in this section. Even if a third opinion is procedurally appropriate here, in my view it would be better to choose a more robust form of dispute resolution. This is a fast-moving talk page with many participants, and I'm not sure a casual third opinion would really do much beyond adding an extra informal voice to the discussion. My two cents. /wiae /tlk 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have planned to open an RFC. Sounds good. /wiae /tlk 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-add statement by Hannah Arendt about Judenrat

This statement should be re-added, but it keeps getting deleted by other editors focused and adding as much negative detial on Poles all the while sanatizing material related to collaboration of Polish-Jews:

Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that without the assistance of the Judenrat, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews. --E-960 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Extremely notable source; whether to quote or just cite is, again, a matter of editorial consideration. Note the hypothetical is disputed, but the general sense of importance of Judenräte to the Nazi plans can, and should be conveyed. François Robere (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I've become convinced that we should at most cite this source, not quote it. The book itself is from 1963, and she mentions Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews from 1961 as a source. There's been a lot of research on the subject in the half century that passed, some disputing this hypothetical's factual accuracy. Her opinion can be cited, but quoting it in full gives it undue weight compared to later sources. François Robere (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it is not talking about Poland, so it is synthesis. The passage seems to be talking about Germany, but even if it is talking about the wider issue it is not specifically about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the statement can be shortened, but to say it's irrelevant and removed all together is wrong. --E-960 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly contains synthesis of material (explain here)

Explain the rationale before reinserting, please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I did explain above about the re inclusion of this material, I shall copy and paste it here

Because it is not talking about Poland, so it is synthesis. The passage seems to be talking about Germany, but even if it is talking about the wider issue it is not specifically about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is not talking about Poland?? GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The pages from the book do not mention Poland as far as I can tell. Provide the quote where they do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me check GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It mentions Warsaw further on, the passage quoted refers to the round up of Berlins Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven What are you talking about?? Can you be more specific GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can find no interference to a claim that "without the assistance of the Judenrat, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews" I can find such a quote relating to the removal of Berlins Jews, Not one about Poland. I cannot see how I can be more specific, the source does not say what we claim it does.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven Judenrat's were only in occupied Poland. What removal of Berlin Jews are you talking about? Wait, I'll find you a helpful ref. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

uh, Judenrats existed elsewhere...there was on in Vilnius, for example. You’ll want to consult Trunk’s book on the Judenrats. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC) p.s. also on for the Minsk Ghetto. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

uh? you mean this Wilno Ealdgyth? One of the pre-war biggest Polish cities? GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

But mainly Lithuanian, and not part of German-occupied lands until the invasion of the Soviet Union. And Minsk is certainly not in Poland. There were also Judenrats in three other Lithuanian cities - Kovno Ghetto, Švenčionys Ghetto, Šiauliai Ghetto. Other ghettos outside of Poland with Jewish councils - Daugavpils Ghetto, Riga Ghetto, etc. And ... Arendt's comments also apply to Jewish Councils in Western Europe - which were usually organized on a larger scale than city ghettos - especially the German ones, but others as well. Just quoting Arendt is misleading to the scholarship as it has developed in the years since 1963. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if Judenrats only existed in Poland, what matters is if the source says this about Judenrats in Poland. Does it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, Švenčionys Ghetto that was in the pre-war Polish Republic, and beside you keep linking ghettos, please link to Judenrat's. Even in short-lived Mińsk Ghetto, it's Judenrat head Joffe was a Polish Jew and lasted on his position from February until July 1942.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The other issue is that Arendt's view isn't the only one in scholars of the Holocaust. Other scholars (and more recent scholars) take the view that the Judenrat's activities were not actually that helpful to the Germans, or that even if the Jewish councils had not cooperated, the Holocaust would still have happened. Here is the USHMM's article on the Jewish Councils, which takes a more nuanced view than Arendt's quote would imply. The Jewish Virtual Library's summation also points to the varied views of the Judenrats - not a monolithic Arendt-viewpoint in the scholarship. Dan Michman has a good summary on pages 193-197 of The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (Oxford University Press 2010), which basically says it's impossible to generalize, because Jewish Councils/headships/Judenrats were so widespread across occupied Europe (not just in Poland) that the conditions and people involved make generalizations "problematic, if not impossible". (Dan Michman "Jews" Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies p. 194 Oxford: 2010). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Judenrats' existed everywhere. Frankly - I think "Jewish collaboration" should be a separate article - there was nothing unique to Poland (except for the death camp location - however Sonderkommando there were from "all over") - the Nazis didn't differentiate between Jews in different Eastern European countries all that much - same control structures.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Everywhere? Can you please give me few examples links included? GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See above. They also existed in western Europe, where they are generally called Jewish Councils, not Judenrats. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As for a Ukranian ghetto with a Judenradt - see Boguslav, where a ghetto was set up and a Jewish Council appointed. Ref for that is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945, volume II part B, Ghettos in German Occupied Eastern Europe. Pages 1590-1591 "Soon after the occupation of the town, the German military commandant ordered the newly established Jewish Council (Judenrat) to register all the local Jews.". Same work, pages 1593-1594 Fastov - "Soon after the start of the occupation, the Ortskommandantur ordered the newly created Judenrat to organize the registration and marking of the Jews (they were required to wear armbands), as well as the collection of a monetary “contribution” and the use of the Jews for various types of forced labor." Page 1596 in Kremenchug - there was a Jewish council of elders for the ghetto. Page 1598 Ol'Shana - "The military commandant appointed a Jewish Council (Judenrat) within the ghetto." Page 1611 Zvenigorodka "In the ghetto, there was a Jewish Council (Judenrat), which was established on the orders of the German authorities." This is just from the Kiev area section of the work on Ukranian and other non-Polish ghettos and camps. I could continue... but I think this establishes that non-Polish ghetto Judenrats existed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Western Europe was indeed somewhat different (for a multitude of reasons - both German methods in general, and the characteristics of Jewish and general society). As for some examples - Kherson[10], Riga(Riga Ghetto), Minsk(Minsk Ghetto). I'm not aware of anything that was really Poland specific (certainly there where peculiar situations for each individual ghetto - but I'm not aware of any difference as a class between ghettos in main Poland (1939), eastern Poland (1941), and Ukraine or Belarus (1941). The Jewish communities themselves (with the exception of Mountain Jews and Crimean Karaites#During the Holocaust) were fairly similar (all speaking Yiddish primarily, being part of the Pale of Settlement under the Russian Empire).Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Judenräte's please, not small short-lived GhettosGizzyCatBella (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)+

Like the Minsk one mentioned in the article you Linked to (is Minsk in Poland)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Both Ol'Shana and Zvenigorodka lasted from August 1941 to May 1942. In the terms of the Holocaust, that's not short lived for a ghetto. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

-Arendt wrote that: "To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story. [...] In the matter of cooperation, there was no distinction between the highly assimilated Jewish communities of Central and Western Europe and the Yiddish-speaking masses of the East. In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, in Berlin as in Budapest, Jewish officials could be trusted to compile the lists of persons and of their property, She is talking about Judenräte's, is she not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Arendt is clearly discussing Jewish leadership across the entirety of German-occupied Europe. I don’t think we can generalize it to just Poland here. And she certainly doesn’t use the word Judenrat there...it seems to me to be OR to use the statement by Arendt to source a sentence about Judenrats, especially if, as below, some are arguing that Judenrat should only apply to councils in Polish ghettos. Arendt is quite clear she’s discussing more than just Poland. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Arendt (I am not sure) is making that point anyway. as I said the passage appears to be saying that then Germans were so impressed with the Berlin Jews actions they try (not always successfully) to implement it elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you for guys for real???? Judenrat originated in Reinhard Heydrich's memorandum in September 1939 that said: “In each Jewish community in occupied Poland, a Jewish Ältestenrat should be installed." Only in June 1941, few small, short-lived Judenrats were installed in the occupied Soviet area to be copied as per Polish example. In ALL other taken or allied states, formal Jewish representatives were formed on a countrywide level and stood described individually. Please research before arguing for god's sake. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So is Arendt unreliable for clams about Judenrates?16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, she is reliable, she correlates Poland while citing Judenrat. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not seeing where the google books excerpt that supports "Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that, without the assistance of the Judenräte in the registration of the Jews, in their concentration in ghettos, and later in their deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished, because the Germans would have had considerable difficulty drawing up lists of Jews." actually says anything about Judenrats? It says "Jewish leaders" - the highlighted quote is "To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story." but that isn't a Judenrat necessarily. The excerpt then goes on to discuss Amsterdam, Warsaw, Berlin, and Budapest, but still nothing about Judenrats. In fact here Arendt says that the only Judenrat member to testify at Eichmann's trial was Pinchas Freudiger, who was a member of the Judenrat of Budapest! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth In Hungary, the Jewish representative was named Kozponti Zsido Tanacs. I'm not sure why she calls it Judenrat GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

She correlates Warsaw with Berlin, Budapest, Amsterdam and others.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

you know Slatersteven, I have second thoughts in regards to Arendt quoting. Let me think about it. I may agree with you after all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think now Slatersteven, that you can eliminate her quote actually. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So do we now have consensus that Arendt is not a valid inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven you may desire to wait for an evaluation of other working editors but after a secondary thought, (not entirely agreeing with you) I think that she may be ejected from this particular article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is already done, that's ok. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And back again as an unexplained removal.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

lol, and with an impresive speed! ( fixed it ) GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, this statement should be included (though abridged), because it relates to Poland, and the largest ghettos were located in the country. So, if some editor makes the argument that what Hannah Arendt said is not applicable to Poland is wrong. By the way I noticed that three editors were for the inclusion of the statement, so why was it removed since only User:Slatersteven objected to it, it should be re-added in a shorter version? --E-960 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No it does not, if it does provide the quote where she says Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Either way, you're the only one that's advocating it's full removal, no one else. --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I take it from that that no you do not have such a quote. Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm pretty sure it has... did you actually open the book? On the same page that the reference is on, it also states: "In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, Jewish officials could be trusted to compile lists of persons", and there is more, the book has dozens of references to Poland on this subject. --E-960 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Err this does not say what our article claimed. If you want to add "In Warsaw polish officials were trusted to compile lists of names" go ahead, not sure what it adds to the article but go ahead. What you need is tio source to say "and without Polish Jews fewer jewes would have dies", or something along those lines).Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent reverts

A book published by a scholar is a proper, legitimate source (I don't have it so I can't provide a page number, but that's not a reason to remove it). The statement is clearly attributed in text. Is it opposed because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or because of some other hidden motive which I haven't been made aware of? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you link the WP:DIFF? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Original removal (based on a flagrant misunderstanding of the sentence), and my revert (which adds the source - as I said, I don't have the book so can't check for the page number but the source is clearly identified in the text and it happens to have been in the list of references already, so adding it was simple business which doesn't warrant a removal even on WP:V grounds - and the other editor didn't go that far, staying to their simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

this tells us nothing about collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It does - it tells "how much people were killed because of collaboration" (I assume there are various estimates for that number, and assuming the source is reliable and not too old, it deserves to be included). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And, additionally, there is no number currently in the article which gives any estimate of the death toll, except for "30k Poles killed because of attempting to hide Jews from the authorities". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No it tells us how many Jews were killed due to antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And somehow antisemitism in this form would not count as being part of the Holocaust? I mean, can you name any other period in history in which antisemites, anywhere, killed 200k people? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, of course it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Insofar as we accept participation in crimes against Polish Jewry in light of the Nazi occupation as collaboration with its racial agenda (and we have RS to establish that) it's obviously relevant, and indeed was part of the earlier text that were split into this article. François Robere (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Killing Jews would be collaborating with the Holocaust. Grabowski is widely cited, andnthe claim repeated by multiple RS, e.g. this. Note Poles were rewarded by thhe Nazis, and Haaertz frames this in the context of As Hunt for the Jews is published in Israel, a debate is raging in Poland about the role of the local population in the Holocaust. At its center is the question of whether the Poles were victims of the Nazis or collaborators with them, and where they are to be placed in terms of rescuers, murderers or bystanders in relation to the fate of their Jewish neighbors..Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is complicity in the Holocaust, but that is not the same as collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Complicity: association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act" (source: [11]), "Collaboration: to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force" ([12]). That's the same thing, no (except for the fact that complicity isn't necessarily with one's enemy, but that's irrelevant to this debate)? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah no. Complicity is not standing up and doing your "day job" which the Reich takes advatage of. Killing Jews (with or without German blessing) for antisemitic reasons as in Jedwabne pogrom is taking an active part in the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was part of the holocaust, but the Holocaust was not official or open German policy (nor was it unofficial German policy before 1942). It is an interesting question, does collaboration have to be unwitting aid of the enemy, or does it have to be a conscious choice to knowingly aid them. I really am not sure how telling people how many Jews the Poles murdered helps us to understand collaboration with Germany(as opposed to the Nazis), it does not even tell us a great deal about Polish antisemitism (after all what is a better indicator 1 man killing 20 or 2 men killing 5?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust is generally considered by reputable historians (ignoring David Irving) to be explicit German policy. Atrocities against Jews, but the invading German troops, was well known by the local population. Poles are said to have been "encouraged" to kill Jews in Wąsosz pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, Lviv pogroms, Tykocin pogrom, and many others who do not have a named article (however in Szczuczyn pogrom - a German Wehrmacht unit intervened and stopped the massacre of Jews by Poles). In fact - modern Polish ethnonationalist historians often advance this narrative (that the Polish population only did what the Germans told them to do) - though more mainstream research tends to frame this as general antisemitism couple with incitement by the advancing Germans, who encouraged, but did not direct, the killings. Later killing of Jews by Poles during 1943-44 was in a period of time in which the Holocaust, while not widely known in the west, was known by the Polish government in exile ([13]) and widely known inside Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that is my point, the Poles who killed Jews would have done so anyway, that is why I say Complicity not collaboration. This was not Poles carrying out German policy, it was Poles using the Germans as a cover fort their Policy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely disagree. You have several cases here (popular killing in light of the German policy; killing or denunciation of passing refugees, for or with no material gain; hunting for refugees on German request or no one's), some of which are clearly collaboratory, all clearly complicit, but in all cases occurring with full knowledge of German policy, that wouldn't have occurred there and then otherwise. This means that in all cases the killers collaborated, whether as a primary goal or as a side-effect, with the German "racial" policy. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC one whether Polish railway personnel should be listed as collaborators

Should the article mention Polish railway personnel as collaborators with the Nazi occupation authorities? 20:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as per sources. François Robere (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. USHMM has pointed this out a few times [14][15] As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. There are exhibits (e.g. [16][17]). Primary accounts - e.g. [18] (which contain Polish and non-Polish accounts of rail workers). The Germans may have set up Ostbahn - but for the most part they employed Polish workers (on the pre-existing rail system).Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As pointed out again and again and again and again, that source does not call railway workers "collaborators", neither in the sentence you quote, nor elsewhere in the article. What it's doing in that sentence is just describing German occupation. The jump to calling railway workers "collaborators" is pure WP:SYNTH and it's POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Against Just living the Poland during the occupation and going about your work is not "collaboration", however I'm aware that some view this a 'enabling' and thus collaboration, but that's a clear a double standard. --E-960 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Against. I agree with E-960, through per prior discussion, they can be mentioned in the part which discusses the difference in estimates, noting that the highest estimates likely include people who were working in occupations that were to some extent used by the Nazi Germany (I think I also mentioned this earlier, but for example this makes all farmers in occupied Europe collaborators, since German Army used provisions from outside Germany, too... as did concentration camp personel, etc.). The current version of the article doesn't mention railways, and since the OP didn't link an example, I cannot review specific wording. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Not a single source has been presented to support that railway workers were "collaborators". Yes, sources were presented... but none of them actually support the contention. Rather, in a bit of a bait-and-switch, several editors are pushing sources which say that Ostbahn collaborated and then claiming that this means Polish railway workers collaborated. Which is both dishonest WP:SYNTH and POV. The same editors appear to wish to exclude certain sources based solely on the ethnicity of the authors or sometimes even the presumed audience!Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Polish railway workers were forced to work under the threat of death and were even forced to transport kidnapped Polish children,whom they tried to save from Nazis, as such they can't be seen as collaborators.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You need RS for that. None of the material I reviewed suggest coercion, and even if they did that would still merit inclusion as per Hoffman's distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" collaboration, which merits inclusions such as the "Blue Police" and Judenrat. François Robere (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

[19] Polish railwaymen were forcibly conscripted by German authorities and Polish raliways ceased to exist, being turned to "Ostbahn" and Deutsche Reichsbahnwith German insignia and signs. Thousands of them were mass murdered or sent to concentration camps, and all decision making posts were taken over by German administration counting around 8,3 thousand officials. Transporting of prisoners to concentration camps was carried out by Deutsche Reichsbahn not by Polish railway.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That makes my point. He equates Ostbahn workers with Judenrat and Ghetto Police, which we do mention. You either mention all of them or none. François Robere (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support If workers doing their jobs under (implied or implicit) threat of punishment as collaborators in one country then they arfe collaborators in annotate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support As per the discussion below - academic sources take precedence over newspapers and politically-motivated statements, and as others have pointed out, collaboration can be voluntary or involuntary (unless if it is under extreme coercion, in which case it would not be collaboration, i.e. direct threat of death gun-to-the-head style, which is clearly not the case here) - if there are sources which demonstrate a certain tendency towards one or the other of those forms of collaboration, a note can be added to explain it, as per others. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The proposal is Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS and Wikipedia:POV. Please place responsibility for the Germans' barbaric uses of the German-hijacked Polish railroads at the door of the Germans. The Polish railroadmen had no alternative under German occupation. There was no non-Nazi railroad available to these men who had devoted their careers to helping fellow-citizens move about their own country. Nihil novi (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Nihil novi: Would you then propose to strike out the Judenrat, Jewish Ghetto Police, or Jewish Social Self Help? After all these men were incarcerated inside the Ghettos and tasked by the Germans to do their tasks. Judenrat members, who were often previous speakers for the community prior to the war, were often forcibly appointed by the Germans. Refusal to the task, would often mean their death. For the record - I am not advocating this, but the Judenrat had no choice (ignoring illegal (per the Nazi) escape to the forests which not all people could do) but to be in the Ghetto and their appointment was often by the choice of the Nazis. Regarding the rail - a very large proportion of rail capacity was used for the war effort (and Holocaust) - not much was left for "helping fellow-citizens move about their own country" (and, I believe, there were perhaps travel restrictions as well applied to their fellow Polish citizens).Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the Judenrat nominees might have done what the Germans' nominees to head a Polish puppet government did, and decline the honor. They might also, had they known of it, have asked their British and American cousins to back the proposal by the Polish Government-in-Exile, to bomb the rail lines to the German concentration camps. The Polish railroad workers might have understood, even forgiven. In any case, after the war some egregious Jewish collaborators were pretty much forgiven by their confreres (none received more than 18 months' imprisonment).Nihil novi (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is very odd, but nevertheless let's follow your logic and see where it leads us:

You imply a similar degree of coercion between heads of state who lived a relatively comfortable life, and heads of communities incarcerated in massive, overpopulated and under-serviced prisons. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does suggest that if the latter could refuse, others living in better conditions could as well. This is on par with my suggestion of including, among others, railway workers.

You suggest that leaders who did not send warning letter were complicit in the destruction, implying that knowledge coupled with indifference constitutes collaboration. This is per Connelly and others' definition. Bear in mind that unlike residents of Jewish ghettos, who sent such letters to the outside world through the severely limited postal system that operated in ghettos, many Poles who did know what was going on didn't do even that; how many Poles, do you reckon, were cousins to the 800,000 or so Poles living in the United States at the time (again, as per your suggestion)? A couple of million, perhaps? By your logic, all of them should be labeled "collaborators", and we ought to wonder how none of them got any prison time in post-war Poland. Is that correct? François Robere (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It's not up to you fellows to judge, scholarly sources or drop this rubbish already. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind if we encounter more scholars like Jan Gross and Jan Grabowski, two highly-acclaimed researchers critical of WWII Polish society, who you repeatedly claimed were only doing it for book deals, fame and money... In the meanwhile - we have the sources (see below), so... François Robere (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Volunteer Marek - these sources are not enough to support inclusion. The arguments presented below supporting inclusion are unambiguously WP:SYNTH of multiple sources. The argument that It's pretty clear that unless a person was under immediate threat (a "gun to the head" situation, rather than a general threat), their acts constitute collaboration. is entirely unsourced personal opinion. I am opposing inclusion for these reasons, but am open to changing my mind if more persuasive WP:RS are presented that clearly and directly support inclusion of the proposed content.Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support The Washington Post confirms this fact. Yes, some Poles were Nazi collaborators. The Polish Parliament is trying to legislate that away. ... a growing body of research both within and outside Poland has established that some Poles were indeed complicit in the Nazi crimes. Even if Poles did not create the extermination camps, some of them collaborated. That cannot be legislated away. .. Some argue that the Germans compelled Poles and other non-Jews to commit violence. It’s true that the Germans encouraged non-Jews to do their dirty work; some pogroms took place with the Germans observing. But in many other cases, the violence began before the Germans arrived or after they left.

Consider Szczuczyn, a town of approximately 5,400 inhabitants located near the Lithuanian border that was half Polish and half Jewish. The Germans arrived immediately after the war began and pushed on quickly, leaving behind a small field troop. That same night, groups of local Poles fanned out on the main streets and began murdering the town’s Jews. Not all Poles participated in these crimes, but many did. Similar events happened in dozens of other places, as we found in testimonies in multiple archives, especially those located in the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw.

.... the mainstream scholarly community has increasingly shown to be true: Some Poles were complicit in the Holocaust.[20]

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: And what on Earth does that have to do with railway workers? Nobody here is denying some Poles were collaborators, or even complicit in the Holocaust. But this is not relevant to this RfC. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose.Synthesis of the sources produces an almost convincing argument... but explicit mention of "collaboration" appended directly to "polish railway workers" is still elusive. As per Seraphim, if RS emerge (with enough weight) then I'll change my vote Cesdeva (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Living in an occupied country under a constant threat of death, doing your daily work is not a willful collaboration. - Darwinek (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose A list of professions of whom some or a majority collab'd with is dumb. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I can't tell a slippery slope from a post hoc ergo propter hoc, so I'll restate what I mean: We all know there were plenty of Poles more than happy to help murder the Jews, but unless yo're going to believe Nazi propaganda about Poles being untermenschen and "brutal slavs" it is OR to include the Polish railway, as doing your job with a gun to your back is not collaboration. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

If this was some random profession which had otherwise no link to the actions committed by the Nazis, then yeah sure that would probably be WP:OR. However, given there are sources which talk of collaboration and explicitly mention the railways (thus, sufficient grounds for inclusion), and given the role railways had in the Holocaust (which is also mentioned in sources), it can't be rejected because of what you say. Your argument is both a slippery slope and a straw man. We are not interested in the generic case of professions and listing which had a higher "collaboration rate" (which is, indeed, irrelevant). Rather, we are simply mentioning the specific, well-defined and reliably sourced case of the railways. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, it brings us back to the question of why not exclude the Judenrat, Blue Police, even some collaborationist regimes. François Robere (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Inclusion is supported by the following sources:
  • Armstrong, John A. (1968). "Collaborationism in World War II: The Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe". Journal of Modern History. 40 (3): 396–410. – defines "collaboration" as "co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power". This is the definition used in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II.
  • Mierzejewski, Alfred C (2000). The most valuable asset of the Reich: a history of the German National Railway. Vol. 2, Vol. 2,. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-6088-5. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) – pp. 80-82 describes the Ostbahn, the railway operator set up by Germany in Occupied Poland: it employed 60,000 Poles, who were supervised by 5,300 Germans. The Poles were employed in everything from manual labor to high-proficiency jobs like switch tower operators, train engineers and technicians, including on Wehrmacht - German military - trains.
  • "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2018-03-18. – lists instances of collaboration and explicitly mentions Polish railroad personnel.
  • Webb, Chris (2014-04-15). The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-3-8382-6546-9. – p. 179: "It is no exaggeration to state that without the close collaboration of the Reichsbahn and the Ostbahn with the SS, the Holocaust would not have been possible."; p. 186 has testimonies by Polish train engineers operating deportation trains, and a mention of vodka being provided by the Germans for morale support.
  • "Aktion Reinhard Train Transports – Eyewitness Statements". Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team. Retrieved 2018-03-18. – provides witness accounts of Polish operators of deportation trains.
  • Gigliotti, Simone (2009). The Train Journey: Transit, Captivity, and Witnessing in the Holocaust. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-427-0. – p. 36 mentions the Ostbahn as one of several "national carriers" that supplied deportation trains.
  • Kroener, Bernhard R.; Muller, Rolf-Dieter; Umbreit, Hans (2000-08-03). Germany and the Second World War: Volume 5: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power. Part I: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160683-0. – ch. 4.1 provides numbers on various collaborating agencies, including the Ostbahn.

François Robere (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Later additions (updated 2018-03-24):
  • Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (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. ISSN 0037-6779. Retrieved 2018-03-19. – mentions another scholar (Czeslaw Szczepanczyk, whose book I cannot access in full) in the context of Polish industrial collaboration, who [came] to the conclusion that the cooperatives carried out the policies of the Nazi regime (just like the railway and the post office administration) and have to be considered a part of it.
  • Friedberg, Edna (2018-02-06). "The Truth About Poland's Role in the Holocaust". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Retrieved 2018-02-28. – this is the same historian who wrote the USHMM article, here using a slightly less ambiguous phrasing as far as we're concerned: ...German authorities... drew upon Polish police forces and railroad personnel for logistical support... These collaborators enforced German anti-Jewish policies such as restrictions on the use of public transportation and curfews, as well as the devastating and bloody liquidation of ghettos in occupied Poland from 1942-1943.

François Robere (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources support inclusion. None of these sources say that Polish railroad workers "collaborated" with Nazi Germany. What they say is that Ostbahn, a German organization, "collaborated". This has been pointed out over and over and over and over again, yet you keep on playing your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games. Stop. Making. Stuff. Up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And the employees of the Ostbahn were what, or let me guess: Martians? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What's your point (most of them were Germans and it was run by Germans)? Show me a source which says that the Polish rail men were "collaborators" or it's original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Any of the above sources, maybe: " pp. 80-82 describes the Ostbahn, the railway operator set up by Germany in Occupied Poland: it employed 60,000 Poles, who were supervised by 5,300 Germans." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

False. Again. None "of the above" states that being employed by Ostbahn amounted to "collaboration". YOU (or your buddy Robere) get to decide whether that amounts to collaboration or not. Sources do. And you have not provided any such sources. This is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And stop it with the annoying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You know exactly what the point is so stop pretending you don't get what's being asked of you - present a source that calls this "collaboration".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

From the USHMM website: "As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. Individual Poles often helped in the identification, denunciation, and hunting down of Jews in hiding, often profiting from the associated blackmail, and actively participated in the plunder of Jewish property." Ok, the exact word "collaboration" isn't used, but the page title does include the word and you'd need to be braindead to say that this doesn't fit the definition of collaboration in some way... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, the exact word "collaboration" isn't used <-- yeah, that's sort of the key here. What you got here - as already discussed above - is a source which is describing the nature of German occupation and also used the word "collaboration" when referring to OTHER STUFF. And no, it doesn't "fit the definition of collaboration", at least not according to sources. And if you're going to make personal attacks then at least learn how to spell "braindead". Insults aimed at other people's intelligence sort of fail bigly when the person making them is too dumb to get the basics right themselves.

Anyway, I have a personal policy of not feeding obvious sock puppets so we're done here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

With this tactics, the Schindler's employees are to become collaborators also. :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a straw man and has no relation whatsoever to this situation (completely different context, very different results, ...). The real issue lies here in whether, to fit the description of collaboration, one needs to act willfully or whether as soon as there is coercion it is not collaboration but rather "forced labour". The sources of direct interest to this (above) are the USHMM site, Webb 2014 and Kroener et al. 2000 - these sources explicitly say (if we trust what is written above) that railway operators (and thus, their employees) were collaborators. That pretty much settles the issue - if it's written in sources, then it should be included, and there is currently no "opposing" source which says that the railroads did not collaborate. Attempts to claim that they were not (based on some interpretation of a definition) would tend to be WP:OR and if there's no reliable academic source to support it, there's no point in even debating it.198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a straw man. Clearly, by some arguments, the only way Poland would not have collaborated with Germany would have been if all Poland had committed suicide. Nihil novi (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, the real issue is whether or not sources describe the Polish rail workers as "collaborators". So far no such source has been produced. All you got is a couple of editors who insist that THEIR OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH leads them to believe that they were. But why should we care? Sources or no go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I won't repeat the comments made by others, but we're not here to judge if "the only way Poland would not have collaborated with Germany would have been if all Poland had committed suicide." - that's a straw man because you're purposely attacking a weaker argument nobody here ever made. And sources have been provided. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

If this criteria is applied elsewhere fine, if however it is not (for example French dock workers) then I see no reason to single out Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Why not classify as collaborators Polish firefighters who didn't put down flames throughout the uprising in the Ghetto and Polish postman working for Deutsche Reichspost during the occupation? They delivered mail to the Gestapo. Ridiculous.. why we still have this nonsense discussion? Am I missing something? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's actually an interesting point, Bella, because we know some mailmen actively collaborated with the resistance, filtering incoming mail that could jeopardize it. What does this say about others who did not, or about their capacity to resist? We also know mailmen were generally aware of what was going on in Poland [21], which raises questions about willingness and motivations. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: That was made to address the claim that Ostbahn workers were under duress (which was only supported by this source, which also mention Jewish collaborators in ghettos as under duress); if they were under duress, Jewish collaborators were doubly so, so how do we discern between one and the other, and why include only the one? Personally, I'd include both. François Robere (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you please make these types of comments in the extended discussion sections, this section is for votes - I read through the entire discussion and there are no sources for this, it is WP:OR and personal opinion. There is no need to argue about whether they were under duress or not because the entire proposal is WP:SYNTH from multiple sources - one gives the defnition of collaboration, another discusses the institutional collaboration, another describes institutional structure, etc. - all that is needed is one source that clearly and directly supported the content proposed for inclusion, and after reviewing the full discussion I have not seen such a source. Further discussion about editor's personal opinions is not likely to be productive, and at the very least should be limited to the extended discussion sections that are set aside for these types of deliberations.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(Moved message) I've added a couple more sources. We have a source explicitly mentioning "Polish railroad personnel", another mentioning "railway and post office administration" in the context of popular Polish collaboration, and a third explicitly mentioning the Ostbahn, with none of the sources making a distinction between the company and its workers. My argument here is that we can either mention "Polish railroad personnel", the "railway administration" or just the "Ostbahn" - all three are mentioned as "collaborators", and insofar as the overarching question of "collaboration" is concerned the sources don't seem to make a distinction. Some make notes on individuals' resistance within that organization, some make notes on varied levels of compliance, but it's all under the "umbrella" of collaboration at the organizational level. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

@Darwinek: Living in an occupied country under a constant threat of death, doing your daily work is not a willful collaboration That's true to much of the Vichy administration, to Judenrat, police organizations and political parties across Europe - organization routinely referred to as "collaborators" or "collaborationist". Is this any different? François Robere (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@L3X1: A list of professions of whom some or a majority collab'd with is dumb. This really isn't what we're doing - we're going with what sources suggest was or wasn't "collaboration". Some collaborators were politicians, some policemen, some priests, and there are reasons why sources emphasize some professions more than others. "Railway workers" isn't some random choice - these people moved troops and weapons across Poland, and millions of people who were doomed to die at extermination camps - they were crucial to both operation Barbarossa (the invasion to the Soviet Union) and operation Reinhardt (a central part of the Holocaust). It's relatively few people played a major role in how events unfolded. François Robere (talk) 01:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Addressing concerns

• Volunteer Marek claims the USHMM source doesn't mention this as collaboration. This is an odd claim to make, as the entire article is a list of instances of collaboration literally titled "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust", and the paragraph where this is listed literally starts with "Germans forces... drew upon some Polish agencies". Reading this as just some "background material on the occupation" is a very odd interpretation.
• Volunteer Marek claims that the source must use the term "collaboration" within the cited paragraph or page or it is moot; they further suggest we shouldn't apply the definition given by some RSs to others. This wrong for two reasons: First of all, several sources use the term collaboration liberally, and it's clear the cited paragraph or page falls under that definition even if it doesn't make explicit use of it. Second, the application of a definition given by one RS to a fact given by another that clearly falls under the definition does not constitute WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH is concerned with reaching new conclusions; merely applying a definition where it fits without implying anything new falls under WP:What SYNTH is not, and is done throughout Wikipedia, including in the originating article.
• MyMoloboaccount suggests railway workers were coerced, but they do not provide sources to establish that claim. There is no suggestion of coercion in the texts I reviewed, and even if there were it would not be enough to disqualify inclusion in the article: Armstrong (cited above) makes clear collaboration is an act, the cause being irrelevant. Other sources make further distinctions, but they all use the terms "collaboration" and "collaborationist". It's pretty clear that unless a person was under immediate threat (a "gun to the head" situation, rather than a general threat), their acts constitute collaboration. Any other interpretation would immediately exclude most cases of collaboration, from Vichy to Judenräte.
• E-960 Suggested that "Just living in Poland during the occupation and going about your work is not 'collaboration'": no, it's not, but insofar as driving death trains is your work, then that's collaboration. As an aside, claiming that "going about your work" can't possibly be considered as excludes most collaborationist governments from the definition.

" Volunteer Marek claims the USHMM source doesn't mention this as collaboration." - THAT IS NOT WHAT I CLAIM Stop making shit up. What I said, several times now so I have no idea how you're still not getting it, is that the source - which is about collaboration - DOES NOT say Polish railroad workers "collaborated". Yes it mentions railroad workers, but as part of describing the nature of German occupation. This blatant dishonesty on your part has completely depleted my annual stock of good faith. No. Just stop it with this WP:TENDENTIOUS pov pushing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't "addressing concerns". This is "making stuff up that is blatantly false".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Volunteer Marek claims that the source must use the term "collaboration" within the cited paragraph or page or it is moot" - this is also absolutely false. If you have source which more or less calls it "collaboration" without actually using that word, that'd be fine. But you don't. What you have is a bunch of sources which talk about collaboration BY SOMEONE ELSE. Please stop grossly misrepresenting what other users say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

insofar as driving death trains is your work, then that's collaboration-this was conducted by German railway, Deutsche Reichsbahn--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Four of the sources cited above mention Ostbahn complicity, including accounts by Polish train drivers. François Robere (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ostbahn was a German organization, not Polish one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Which employed 60,000 Poles on both civilian, military and deportation trains as part of operation Reinhardt and operation Barbarossa. François Robere (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Aha - so Poles working in a German organization, such as Ostbahn, could be seen as collaborators by dint of being employed in a German organization? I'll note that there were Polish workers, e.g. The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance, page 186 recounts the experience of one Stephan Kucharek who was a Polish engine driver for Ostbahn who drove transports to Treblinka. The books also recounts Henryk Gawkowski who did the same. Some primary accounts here [22][23].Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope they can't be seen as such. Also they weren't employed but conscripted.By your logic even concentration camp inmates were collaborators since they were used for slave labour for benefit of Nazi Germany.Sorry but your arguments are not only becoming absurd but also seem to intentionally distort the historic realities, these weren't normal workers choosing their career.If we follow your logic everyone who wasn't dead in Nazi occupied Poland was a collaborator.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that unless a person was under immediate threat (a "gun to the head" situation, rather than a general threat), their acts constitute collaboration. Any other interpretation would immediately exclude most cases of collaboration, from Vichy to Judenräte. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Unfound ref

Can anybody trace the "riesenbach" source and determine what it is? it seems to have been added here, but the original edit has no proper reference, only a refname. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove. François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove what?? His link leads to nothing.198.84.253.202 be more specific.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The text and the unclear source. François Robere (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Jan Grabowski's estimate from "Hunt for Jews"

A reference to Jan Grabowski was removed, again. The editor suggested it's controversial and unsupported by other scholars [24], and I would like them to provide support for their claim. In the meanwhile:

• His book received good reviews from John Connelly [25], Timothy Snyder [26], Joshua D. Zimmerman [27] and others, and a book award from Yad Vashem [28].
• Fellow historians in Poland made public statement of support in response to a smear campaign conducted again him [29].
• He was quoted in multiple news outlets (Haaretz, CBC, Guardian), and his estimates were cited by the likes of Yehuda Bauer [30].

François Robere (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Question to anyone who has read Jan Grabowski's work: What sources and methods did he use in arriving at his conclusions? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That second source about "fellow historians" actually exemplifies the fringe nature of the work. It's a cherry picked source - but it does reference a letter by more than 130 historians academics which criticize Grabowski's book and "research".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Nihil novi I believe that the fate of Grabowski is eventually the same as that of Gross. The seeking attention, foolish statements such as: "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" made Gross already almost completely devalued. I'm afraid the same future awaits Grabowski if he continues his fringe activity. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski should not be included in this text, his work is as stated by other editors more of a fringe view. --E-960 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski is a widely respected scholar. He is criticized by Polish ethnonationalists (who reject Polish complicity in the Holocaust - a mainstream view), and them only. The letter by 130 Polish scholars, does not contain Holocaust scholars[31]. While the Polish government and elements in Polish society may WP:IDONTLIKE this research, it has been recognized by his peers, e.g. winning the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's view might be considered fringe by the Polish society, however, WP:FRINGE clearly applies to "mainstream views in its particular field" and states "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight" (emphasis mine). If Poles do not accept his opinion, that is an ad populum, their government prohibiting it is a breach of academic freedom, and quite frankly, irrelevant, since neither the Poles nor the Polish government are Holocaust scholars (i.e. reliable sources in the particular field of study). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a letter signed by more than 130 historians academics saying it's fringe. "Polish society" has nothing to do with it. One more time - please stop judging sources or opinions on the basis of ethnicity. That constitutes prejudice and bigotry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And that letter, signed by "academics" rather than expert historians, is as representative of the consensus in the field as the Oregon Petition is in climate science. If anything, it shows you just how politicized this discussion is in Poland. François Robere (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with Grabowski, but his estimate has total right to be in the article. It should not be given undue weight, but per Evelyn Beatrice Hall I will defend this quote. It is relevant (if IMHO wrong). Of course, if we have sources saying that this estimate has been criticized by others and/or is controversial, this shold also be discussed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Support removal, we should not give credibility to extreme and very controversial views like Grabowski has.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Fact Check, this is what non-Polish sources are writing about Grabowski award winning work: Historians defend professor who wrote of Poles’ complicity in Holocaust, Prof. Studying Poles' Complicity In Holocaust Criticized By Polish Nationalists, Historians defend prof who wrote of Poles’ Holocaust complicity. The fact that 134 Polish scientists (not historians per the sources), who happen to ascribe to nationalists views (per [32]), signed a letter by the Polish League Against Defamation means little. As does recent Polish libel investigations against reputed historians or Polish legislation that would outlaw "defaming Poland" [33]. So yes - some elements in Poland do not like Grabowski's statement. Most of the world outside of Poland, and in particular holocaust historians, do not ascribe to this viewpoint.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Fact Check anyone can cherry pick sources.Extreme and controversial views do have their supporters and it seems your own strong reaction is based on completely different subject regarding law banning holocaust denial that was recentely implemented in Poland.Most mainstream holocaust researchers do not claim Poles and Poland are responsible for Holocaust, but Nazi Germany.Again, strongly controversial and extreme views shouldn't be given undue weight--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski doesn't claim Poles are the main party at fault for the Holocaust. He estimates some 200,000 Jews by Poles - which would leave some 5,800,000 Jews by others (mainly Nazi Germany, some minor parties (e.g. Ustashe, Arrow Cross Party, or Romania of course)). He also says 200,000 Jews is greater than the number of Germans killed by Poles. He does not say Poles are the main party responsible for the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So he doesn't distinguish between ethnic Poles, Polish citizens, and states over the top numbers while claiming Poles as a whole are partly responsible for Holocaust ? Like I said, extreme POV that seems to be intented to inflame debate as much as possible.Btw Germans claim at least over 400,000 Germans were killed by Poles--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So 200 000 victims (out of a total of over 6 millions) killed as a result of (not necessarily directly by) the collaborators is an "unsourced sensationalist claim"? Yet, we already established that the POV is not fringe among scholars, that it has been misinterpreted by some editors so that they can attack a straw man, and that the opinion of non-scholars is irrelevant since they are not the most reliable sources, academics having precedence over the unreliable opinion of the mob and the politically motivated opinions of governments and lobbyist groups. Why is this still a contentious matter? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahm... it's not a fact check if you don't supply facts. You think his view is fringe, contrary to what Icewhiz and myself claim? Show it. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be just sensationalist statement not based on available estimates Prof. Grabowski alleges that Poles may have killed more than 200,000 Jews who escaped from the ghettos and camps. He knows full well that this number is “hot air.” The knowledge we possess allows us to estimate that at least 50,000 Jews escaped in the entire territory of occupied Poland. No other number has yet been proved by research. The estimate that 250,000 Jews escaped from the ghettos was cited more than 30 years ago by the historian Szymon Datner in an interview he gave at the end of his life. But Datner did not conduct studies that relate to the whole of Poland or even to one of its districts. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept his claim as scientific truth.Profesor Grzegorz Berendt chairman of Jewish Historic Institute. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim is not that the local population "directly killed" but "assisted in the act of killing" - this might go from something as simple as denouncing escapees to the occupiers to pure and cold blooded murder. Is Professor Berendt a recognized Holocaust scholar or not? So far I see, this seems to be WP:SYNTH, therefore WP:OR. And per this page, [34], this professor doesn't have the credentials you ascribe to him (i.e. no such thing as a chairman of the JHI). Anyway, even if it were true, one statement by one source isn't sufficient to completely reject one book by a scholar, who is otherwise recognized positively by his peers, as demonstrated above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He is named as member of the board here [35], and yes he is respected scholar whose book was published by JHI. And no, Grabowski I can't support as a reliable source in regards to numbers as quoted above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's work received a major Holocaust scholarship prize,, and was reviewed positively in an academic journal setting. It is also widely used cited in the international media. Barbara Engelking, a Polish historian, has corroborated Grabowski's research. Frankly - it is difficult to find criticism of him originating from outside of Poland (where indeed he has been criticized by many - given the nature of his research attributing responsibility to Poles - his groundbreaking research being described as one of the triggers for the Polish "Holocaust law"), and he's been defended by historians as well as being covered positively in the international media following the letters sent out by the Polish League Against Defamation and the death threats he received.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we ignore all of the other historians who expressed confidence in his work? François Robere (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Frankly - it is difficult to find criticism of him originating from outside of Poland", nothing wrong with this.Just because something is criticized in Poland doesn't discredit the criticism. Minor note: Barbara Engelking is a sociologist and psychologist, not a historian.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As to Grabowski's book, as far as I understand it is a about a small local area, not about whole Poland.According to reviews I have read It contains several flaws and errors, including ignoring Polish witness statements,and ignoring some Jewish survivors in the count of survivors and extrapolating numbers and circumstances from this area to whole Poland(just some of many errors and problems in the books, there are many others). As I understand from reviews the book itself is short often with just Jewish witness statements without larger context.There are better and more comprehensive works.Due to flaws and errors and controversies I believe it would require it's own section to describe it neutraly, and frankly it isn't that important to deserve one in this article.I also don't believe Grabowski is that important or visible scholar--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That may be your opinion of Grabowski's work, it is not the opinion of several notable historians which is sourced above. We certainly should not ignore Polish thoughts on the matter, however if the wider worldwide scholarly community accepts Grabowski, while opposition to his prize winning research is limited to certain circles within Poland (and one should note, some in Poland have seen Grabowski's work as positive) - then we would generally follow the worldwide academic consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Grabowski's 162 page book is notable enough to warrant naming it as discussed by worldwide academic consensus.Not only it is about about small region in Poland, but its subject itself is a niche history really.I would kindly suggest, like others have, that you stop with pointing out ethnic identities of historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort - it is hard to escape use of the word Polish in relation to criticism of Grabowski when he's been directly criticized by the Polish government (via its embassy in Ottawa )[36], by the Polish League Against Defamation[37], or when his research is mentioned as a motivation for Polish legislation[38]. However, reception in reviews (as well as the noteworthy award) is generally positive.Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: You've thus far provided mainly your opinion, and just one quote by a scholar on the matter. This isn't enough for removal. By the way, his research institute published just this February a lengthy study that is claimed to further establish the accuracy of his estimates.[39] We'll know soon in enough when it starts being circulated. François Robere (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

May the Lord save ye and protect ye from all of this. I will pray this afternoon that ye may stop all of this. Put away your truncheons. Learn to love one another. Find a place for Our Lady, the Saints and Angels in your hearts. Open up to one another. Show respect, affection and love. Kiss. Fondle. Stroke.Bishop Morehouse (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bishop Morehouse Amen :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mock not when you hear the word of God being preached!Bishop Morehouse (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we doubt it, at least? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I can find the Datner number that is referenced as source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if that number is found (and then [pseudo-]discredited [with some poor attempt at WP:SYNTH]), only that number (the Datner number) would be discredited (and that seems unlikely given that it is cited by newer research). Anyway, newer sources [Grabowski] (in this context of academic study) are probably better than older ones [Datner]. His view not being liked in Poland can be detailed either here or on his article (IMHO the second option would be the best - this page is too general to go in-depth about the criticism of some scholar's work by the public). Opposing views within scholarship are also things which happen - our duty is to report them with due weight, not judge them or state our opinion on them. If Grabowski is only criticized by the Polish government/population/..., then there's no point mentioning it in this article (the criticism should still be mentioned in Grabowski's article, either case) - since the Polish government (and population and ...) have been established as not being reliable, independent academic sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm against the exclusion of Grabowski but, it has to be revealed that his theory is radical, right in this article, not his bio.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You can be against it all you want, but unless you have RS to support some reasonable claim of why his theory is objectionable, it doesn't matter. François Robere (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

So you are for Grabowski to continue to be excluded? ok, its fine with me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, unless you have RS to support some reasonable claim of why his theory is objectionable, it will be listed as acceptable as it is outside Poland. François Robere (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Most, and possibly all, English language RSes do not treat Grabowski as a "radical". In fact it would seem most treat him as the mainsteam consensus. RSes do note objections from Poland or Polish historiansCBC, along with a "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media. Some of that anti-Semitism ends up in Mr Grabowski's mailbox." per the BBC. There is no indication this criticism has any weight. The work has won a major Holocaust prize in 2014 and reviews in leading peer reviewed journals have been positive e.g. IDONTLIKE is not an editing rationale.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If the topic is controversial, it would be good if it was supported by several independent sources. Grabowski's opinion is not enough. The articles shown here do not refute or support the number 200,000. The only historian (presented in this discourse) who expresses opinions on the number of 200,000 is Grzegorz Berendt, who considers this number unlikely. Mat0018 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not just "unlikely". Impossible and made up ("hot air").Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

IPN statement on 200,000

Polish IPN has issued an official statement on the estimate of 200,000. There was considerable debate on this, and it seems the estimate was taken partially based on Datner's numbers of fugitives but rejecting the number of survivors[40] IPN statement[41] Never, in any of his works, did Simon Datner mention any number of 200,000 murdered Jews, nor did he ever describe such a number of victims as the result of crimes perpetrated by Polish people in the occupied territories. Imputing these statements to Datner amounts to falsifying the scholarly record of this undisputed authority on Holocaust studies. Datner differentiated between the actions of German State officers and armed German services and the attitudes of civilian people in all occupied areas. Some of the participants of the current debate ignore such distinctions, either due to lack of knowledge or intentionally

The IPN is a politically appointed institution, and press announcement it releases do not carry nearly the same weight as a peer reviewed journal. Furthermore, as this statement was made after, Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past, BBC, Polish legislation limiting possible discourse on the Polish role in the holocaust, we should consider whether statements from within Poland may be made freely without fear of criminal proceedings.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It is, but it is also generally considered reliable. And I don't recall the 200,000 claim being in a peer reviewed journal. Isn't it from a book? And those are not always subject to a peer review. (Even if the publisher is considered reliable, the quality control may focus solely on language and manual of style issues, with no review by fellow academics). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is taking place in like five different venues so it's becoming unwieldy. To avoid repeating things said elsewhere, Icewhiz's characterization of the IPN is nonsense. It is staffed by professional historians. And his continued attempts to blanket-exclude sources simply because they happen to be Polish constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. In the past such an attitude has resulted in prompt topic bans from this area and such a ban for Icewhiz in the end may wind up being the only remedy that works here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to partially agree with Icewhiz on this. The IPN has been considered generally reliable, but the amendment introduced last month makes future publications questionable. In addition to the criminality clause, which applies nation-wide and its effects on future Polish scholarship are unclear, there's an amendment to the IPN's mandate making it responsible for "protection of the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation". This is an implicit mandate for selection and publication biases. Another problematic clause addresses "crimes of Ukrainian nationalists and members of Ukrainian formations collaborating with the German Third Reich" - the IPN is now to focus its research on a particular ethnicity rather than the phenomena at large - a clear politicization of its research, casting doubt on its objectivity from now on. François Robere (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not discussing future publications, nor is there any reason to think that the amendment would in any way impact the work of the institute. Not clear on how this is relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The proper venue on the effect of the 2018 law (from 2018 onwards, or possibly 2016 onwards (when this was drafted)) on reliability of sources affected by the law on subjects (mainly complicity and attirbutions to Ukranians if I understand correctly) affected by the law is probably RSN. I will also note that the IPN's reputation has changed over the years - e.g. back in 2001 there were few questions on their reputation - they were well respected among scholars. We question sources from countries with freedom of speech issues (in this case in a narrow subject) routinely - e.g. most Russian news orgs are not considered reliable for reporting on geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"possibly 2016 onwards (when this was drafted)" - hey, why not 2005 onwards? After all there might be a source that you happen to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT from 2007? Or better yet, 1864 onwards? Or 245 BC onwards? Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you contending that the law that defines the IPN's mandate doesn't have an effect on the IPN's work? François Robere (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are being lured into the waste discussion. Both of them can dislike IPN as much as they want, their personal opinion is irrelevant. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about legitimate concerns about the politicization of historiography and media. And it's hardly our "personal opinion" - similar concerns with the fate of Polish research on the subject have been raised worldwide. François Robere (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Until we have scholarly sources discussing consistent, recurring biases in Polish/IPNs works, this is mostly OR. Some Russian sources have been discredited because of criticism in other reliable sources shown such bias. I agree the new Polish law has potential to cause damage to research in Poland, but it will be years until we have academic studies of that. For now, IPN is still considered a reliable research institute, through of course it can and sometimes should be attributed, because reliable doesn't mean unbiased. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree in part. The problem with these biases are that they're invisible, in that what they present to you isn't wrong at face value; it's the big picture that gets distorted. This means it's our responsibility to consider the bias we allow that material to introduce into our articles. So it's something we need to keep an eye for..

As for sources - a very quick search came up with these: Mink, Georges (2017-11-02). "Is there a new institutional response to the crimes of Communism? National memory agencies in post-Communist countries: the Polish case (1998–2014), with references to East Germany". Nationalities Papers. 45 (6): 1013–1027. doi:10.1080/00905992.2017.1360853. ISSN 0090-5992. Retrieved 2018-03-27., Peters, Florian. "Cultures of History Forum : Remaking Polish National History: Reenactment over Reflection". Retrieved 2018-03-27..

PS I've seen this a while ago, but didn't think it was relevant enough to any particular discussion. The guy can't wait to smear Gross, shift blame to the Jews, and claim the book was nothing but a tool for damaging "Polish national identity". The host, on her part, challenges him on nothing, and mentions the completely irrelevant statistic on the number of recognized Righteous in Poland. It's a pile of crap that in any self-respecting research institute would've in the very least stopped someone's promotion. The thought someone like that is employed by an institute of that caliber is disturbing. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Peters publishes political comments about Poland. It's opinion of a German radical liberal. Is radical left O.K. and any other opinion unacceptable?Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I partially agree, through first, until we have reliable sources critical of Piotr Gontarczyk's scholarship, he is reliable, and two, nothing is white and black. Some of the claims made by this historical faction are POVed, but some are drawing attention to stuff that has and is not being properly researched in some places because it is politically incorrect... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"This means it's our responsibility to consider the bias we allow that material to introduce into our articles." - um, no. This is a recipe for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT original research and synthesis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - which is why a WP:PRIMARY press-release (which does not seem to even name an author) by a government agency is not a WP:RS for history. If and when this gets published in reputable peer-reviewed journal or high-quality academic publisher - it might merit inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

By that token, we should remove most links to content from USHMM or Yad Vashem... WP:PRIMARY is a slippery slope, and not particularly well understood or enforced here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I'm just astonished someone can be so anachronistic and still considered "respectable" (as opposed to "reliable"). I'm also uneasy with how an interview like that can pass as journalism in some parts. François Robere (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

YadVashem has recently ignored obvious critics regarding alleged Blue Police in Łódź/Litzmannstadt. There was no Blue Police there, Łódź was annected to Reich. What about YadVashem's reliability? Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please cite sources/links to relevant discussion. Otherwise it not particularly helpful. What did YV ignore? Where is the criticism of it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A short form [42]. Yad Vashem has published the picture with erroneus caption at least 5 years ago and ignored several critics. Recently JTA has answered incorrectly and later changed the text without explanation, which is Orwellian. Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Which just goes to show historians and their publishers/institutions make mistakes (not too mention are biased). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Five years means biased to me. Not to misinform, but to reject anything told by outsiders. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Statement on German failure to establish a puppet state

Of the sources provided:

• 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. – contradicts the claim: 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. This, as far as I know, is the consensus on the matter.
• Piotrowski, Tadeusz (1998). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947. McFarland. ISBN 9780786403714. – makes a very general statement about "offers to restore Polish autonomy under German rule" (p. 82); footnote no. 26 should be checked to see what it says exactly. If there's anything else there, please provide page numbers. Aside, it's interesting to see the parts about AK collaboration, to which several pages are devoted. He gives several examples of collaboration spread over two years, but then concludes they were "purely tactical". I can't help but think that while each may have been "purely tactical", combined they already show a strategy. Cursory reading suggests much apologia in parts of the text, of the kind criticized by later writers.
• Steinhaus, Hugo (2015-12-28). Mathematician for All Seasons: Recollections and Notes Vol. 1 (1887-1945). Birkhäuser. ISBN 9783319219844. – link doesn't support the claim. pp.?
• Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (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. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) – Doesn't' seem to support claim. pp. / quote?
• "The Polish underground press and the issue of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, 1939–1944: European Review of History: Revue européenne d'histoire: Vol 15, No 2". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) – don't have access to it at the moment. pp. / quote?

François Robere (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

François Robere you misinterpreted the sources, I hope you are not doing this intentionally. The fact that you never heard about it does not mean it was not occurring. Examine closely sources again as well as the sources by the names of the potential collaborators. Study about Wincenty Witos a little. I entered additional information backed by ref. to Karski as well. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC) also, deal with one problem at the time. Inserting massive chunk of material is not helpful. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Burden of proof, Bella. One source of yours contradicts the claim; another is unclear; two more don't seem to address it. You're left with just one, which I haven't had a chance to review. You made the claim, so please provide pp. or quotes that support it. François Robere (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A few more sources, in order of appearance in the article:

• News Flashes from Czechoslovakia Under Nazi Domination. The Council. 1940.School & Society. Science Press. 1940. – very early secondary sources (1940).
• Piasecki, Waldemar (2017-07-31). Jan Karski. Jedno życie. Tom II. Inferno (in Polish). Insignis. ISBN 9788365743381. – page missing. Quote?
• Steinhaus, Hugo (2015-12-28). Mathematician for All Seasons: Recollections and Notes Vol. 1 (1887-1945). Birkhäuser. ISBN 9783319219844., Lewis, David Levering (1994-12-15). W. E. B. Du Bois, 1868-1919: Biography of a Race. Henry Holt and Company. ISBN 9781466841512. – mentions "refusal to collaborate" in general, nothing specific to your claims.
• Bramstedt, E. K. (2013-09-27). Dictatorship and Political Police: The Technique of Control by Fear. Routledge. ISBN 9781136230592. – reprint of a 1945 book that supports your claim regarding Estreicher.
• The Polish Review. Polish information center. 1943. – 1943 book and inaccessible.

François Robere (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Polish puppet state

There is a discordance. The Germans attempted to recruit Kazimierz Bartel as a puppet in July 1941 after taking Lwów, so how can we say the German puppetry efforts ended in April 1940? Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added the qualifier mostly. Anyway, the Bartel story is doubious. Ref: [43] "Wersja, w której motywem zamordowania prof. Bartla była odmowa współpracy w tworzeniu kolaboracyjnego rządu, acz powtarzana i potem, nie znajduje potwierdzenia ani w dokumentach, ani w realiach epoki. Niemcy nie przewidywali bowiem możliwości utworzenia polskiego państwa marionetkowego, nie było zatem potrzeby poszukiwania ludzi, którzy stanęliby na jego czele. " To be honest, I'd suggest removing Bartel from this article. Per this source , the other claims are old, bad scholarship. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, there are several sources that confirm that. Check earlier versions of the article because references have been eliminated little by little. Bartel died as a result of collaboration refusal. You shouldn't remove his name from the article. Make an effort and research yourself. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

You have several references Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus against above work that ends with the conclusion "W świetle powyższych uwag jednak bardziej uzasadniony wydaje się pogląd, że zamordowanie prof. Bartla miało motywy polityczne. Czy uda się kiedyś wyświetlić je do końca?" GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say it is a claim, that not every scholar accepts. So it might be best to attribute it. Of course ORing it a bit We do not know what kind of state, just that it was in an area that used to be Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bella, if you have refs you want to present, link them here. I linked my source from IPN. This claim is disproved by modern research, unless you have a newer academic work. As a doubious claim, it can be discussed in Bartel's bio, but it does not belong here. And the sentence you quote talks about 'political motives', but doesn't specify which ones, and the article also discusses other theories, like the one that Bartel was collaborating with the Soviets, and Germans executed them to sever the Soviet link... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That's ok, the inclusion of Bartel is not essential. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed the last source (Tonini, Carla. "The Polish underground press and the issue of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, 1939–1944"), and it seems unconcerned with the subject. I does, however, provide information on anti-semitic views in WWII Poland and the politicization of the subject in recent decades. From what I can see the statements suggesting a serious and failed German effort to establish a puppet state are unfounded. François Robere (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Seriousness is subjective, but overall you are right. In the first few months of the war, local German military commanders kept that option open and talked with few senior politicians, who rejected this. After a while, Nazi top brass/Hitler made it clear that there are no plans for a puppet government, and said attempts stopped. The few minor footnote politicians who were somewhat interested in this were such low key that they were pretty much ignored by the Germans, and ironically, bunch of the NOR anti-semites even got executed later, despite all of their efforts. The article should note those facts. The claim that Poland did not have a colalborative government, unlike France etc., is true, but both sides forget about two aspects: the Polish patriots forget or chose to ignore that Germans didn't much care to establish anyway, while the Polish critics forget that no senior / serious Polish political figure was interested in that anyway. A simple, correct sentence would say that "Poland did not have a collaborative government, due to the fact that neither the Germans nor the Poles were much interested in this option". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, @Piotrus: I've checked some more source (see above) - it's mostly early secondary material. If we have no recent sources that support this, and we do have some that don't, I suggest moving on with it. François Robere (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by 'this' in your sentence. Try to be precise, please. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I apologize. The question is about this whole block of text about Nazi attempts to establish a puppet state in Poland. From what I know, from what the sources suggest and from your comment above, the Germans never intended to do so, and whatever contacts they had with Polish intelligentsia wouldn't have amounted to anything anyway. Hence my suggestion of just removing the whole block and stating something simple like "Unlike in other occupied, countries Poland did not have a national government." François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

YES THEY DID TRY TO ESTABLISH A PUPPET STATE, read page 97 and stop making things up.https://books.google.ca/books?id=EJ5vIyDBpLcC&pg=PA97&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falseGizzyCatBella (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Per our Wikipedia "Stanisław Estreicher" article, "Estreicher was offered by the Germans to form a puppet Nazi government in Poland,[1][2][3] but he refused.[4][5] Consequently he was arrested by the Gestapo on 6 November 1939, along with his brother Tadeusz, and sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Stanisław Estreicher died on 28 December 1939 of uremia caused by the difficult conditions in the camp. His family was not informed until 13 January 1940, and his funeral was not held until 28 July 1940."

Nihil novi (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella's source: Halik Kochanski, The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2012, ISBN 978–0–674–06814–8, p. 97:

"At the start the Germans did indeed search for collaborators. Wincenty Witos, leader of the Peasant Party and a former prime minister, was offered, but declined, his release from Gestapo imprisonment in exchange for becoming prime minister in a collaborationist government. The Germans obtained the release of Prince Janusz Radziwiłł from the Soviet-occupied zone and suggested that he form a Polish government subservient to the Reich, but he declined."

Nihil novi (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I know all that, there is one user, François Robert, who insists that this never happened, making things up such as "the Germans never intended to do so". This information is backed by references and remains in the article, end of discussion. I'm considering this matter explained and resolved. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I'm not "making things up", I've been asking you for better sourcing for weeks, since before this article was split. One of your own sources claims this never could've happened:

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.: "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."

So which is it? Before we continue, sort your sourcing, as you can see in the list above most of it is irrelevant. If you don't, I'll have to remove them myself, and then you'll have to explain how a 1945 pamphlet is better than recent academic work. François Robere (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Lily Xiao Hong Lee is principally a historian of East Asia. Halik Kochanski is a specialist in Polish history. Nihil novi (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You don't need to tell that to me, it's not my source. Bella looked under any rock for sources to support her claims, and came up with some that contradict it. You figure this out, then we can discuss whatever RS that are left. And by the way - if you're going to quote Wikipedia, you might as well pick some of the quotes here that make it very clear the Nazis had no intention of keeping Poland autonomous in any way. François Robere (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why such governments are called "puppet" governments. Thanks for the link. Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure if the word 'national' is correct. I think I prefer my version: "Poland did not have a collaborative government, due to the fact that neither the Germans nor the Poles were much interested in this option". This can be followed by a sentence or two similar to the current one, stating that few politicians were sounded on early on, but they rejected this, and shortly afterwards, per the source you cite, among others, Germans stopped pursuing that. I do think that the fact that mentioned 2-3 notable individuals, otherwise relatively prominent in pre-war Polish politics, declined those early proposals, is relevant. The fact that if the accepted, this entire scheme would likely come to naught soon afterward is not particularly relevant to the topic of this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I've now tried my hand at a revision. Please see what you think. Nihil novi (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think what Piotr is suggesting is a good compromise, and Nihil novi's revision is a step in the right direction, but again: at the moment the paragraph is chock-full of irrelevant sources, some of which I reviewed above (and I didn't cherry-pick, I took them in order of appearance in the section). What I want is for someone else to wade through them - preferably Bella, who added them to begin with - and leave just the most relevant and reliable sources (eg. Kochanski, who despite her flaws is a respected source). Googling stuff and adding it indiscriminately to get the "opposition" stuck reviewing sources is not the way to conduct "business" here, and I don't want to "play" like that. François Robere (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

One more: 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. (Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (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. ISSN 0037-6779. Retrieved 2018-03-19.) François Robere (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

---

So I've made an edit here and removed much of the material, which consisted mainly of references to specific Polish leaders and their fate. Why? First because of RS - I've already shown above that most of those sources simply don't support the claims they're supposed to support. Second, for relevance - the paragraph didn't actually give information on the subject of the article, and looked out of place. So I took Piotr's suggestion and kept just two reliable sources that exemplify it from "both ends" - Halik Kochanski and Klaus-Peter Freidrich (you can see the relevant quotes above). I the current revision is good enough for the time being - we need to get the core facts straight before we continue to develop the article, and we're not there yet.

Some material that we may want to incorporated somewhere else:

 Andrzej Świetlicki of the National Radical Camp Falanga supported the occupation forces, and Władysław  Świetlicki formed a collaborationist organization, the National Revolutionary Camp (NOR), but it did little except perhaps contribute to anti-Jewish riots in Warsaw during Easter 1940.

 Around April 1940 Hitler forbade talks with Poles about any degree of autonomy.

 Germany's primary aim in Poland was, analogously to Germany's plan for Europe's Jews, the total extermination of the Polish nation; the General Gouvernment was, within 20 years, to become exclusively German-settled territory.

François Robere (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The section looks just fine. Stop destroying essential and well-referenced necessary data, claiming that "it's not referenced" or whatever other 100's of other different reasons you keep coming up with. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you've been consistently avoiding my questions on your sourcing. The fact of the matter is you flooded the section with unnecessary details backed by doubtful, and sometimes contradictory sources (have you noticed that the text itself is self-contradictory?). Piotr suggested a reasonable compromise. Before you restore your revision, please answer my questions about your sources as posed at the beginning of this section. François Robere (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what is suppose to be wrong with the sourcing. It's been quoted at length for you above. It's from reliable publishers. Your repeated requests to "sort the sourcing" (whatever that means) smacks of simple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"Quoted at length"? The only quote there other than mine and Piotr's is from Kochanski's, and she's included in my revision.

Now if you've anything else to add on the sourcing, there's a list of 10 sources at the beginning of this section. Do explain how each of them is an RS here, and how they all help establish the argument made in the article rather than contradict it (as with at least two of the sources) or not mention it at all (as with several others). If you can't, or won't, then it's your "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT", not mine. François Robere (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

There are also quotes and sources provided by User:Nihil novi and User:GizzyCatBella which you appear to be purposefully ignoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear, next time you comment in any way on my person, you will get reported.

Nihil Novi's quotes both refer to sources I've already covered, one in my previous comment and one in the list above. One of Bella's quotes have been dealt with by Piotr, and she conceded that it can be removed; the second, again, refers to the Kochanski source. Anything else? François Robere (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Please don't refer to me as "dear" since that is obviously meant to be condescending and insulting in this context. You really shouldn't do this while at the same time making empty threats and false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not a threat, Marek, and not empty - just a warning, given your mannerisms in the past week. If you wish to keep your eyes on the ball, so to speak, you'd save us both the trouble. François Robere (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: @Volunteer Marek: The bottom line is this: Regarding the claim on a failed German attempt to establish a Puppet government: Several very old sources (1940-45) and one recent source support it, in parts; several very old sources (1939 onwards) and three recent ones reject it (including this one); and several sources do not mention it at all. Several sources (including this one) support Piotr's assertion of a "lack of will" on both the German and Polish sides, which seems a reasonable conclusion. So? François Robere (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

[44] [45] [46]... it's not that hard unless you purposefully avoid looking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Or... it's not your (or in this case mine) burden of proof. Bella made the claim, Bella should've established it. Are you suggesting otherwise? I claimed most of the sourced cited are irrelevant, and I established it above. As for your sources: all of them were added today, so claiming ignorance on my part is disingenuous. If anything, it shows others' understanding that their claim is not grounded well enoguh.

• [47] – the source casts doubt that the Germans intended on establishing a puppet state ("how serious it is hard to say"); the source does not claim Witos was to head a puppet government; the source further states that only after Stalingrad did the Germans start thinking about Polish-German collaboration. The two other cases mentioned there - Studnicki and Kozlowksi - are discussed by Kunicki (see above), who dismisses the claim either of them was considered by the Germans to head a Polish government.
• [48] – the source supports the statement regarding Witos, but it casts doubt on the German's intentions on following through (note, for example, the quote from October 10th on the next page). It also supports the notion that some Polish statesmen were willing to collaborate, but Germany refused their offers.
• [49] – this source repeats the case of Studnicki, mentioned before. It again clarifies that there were Polish politicians interested in collaboration, rejected by the Germans. It also suggests the suggestion of an independent Polish state was part of "diplomatic maneuvering" and "misleading" of the West by the Nazies, rather than a real offer.

All in all, the sources support claims regarding Witos's character, but not about Germans efforts: "failed to establish a puppet state" and "that effectively ended German efforts to create a Polish puppet state". Rather, the sources suggest - as Piotr already summarized - that at most this was a local initiative, never seriously considered by the Nazi leadership. The sources further illustrate some Polish leaders' willingness to collaborate, again casting doubt on the implication that "the Germans failed because the Poles rejected them".

Back to my rough count: Out of the 18 sources cited in that section, only two provides clear support for two of the claims; three support some claims and cast doubt on others; and two oppose the whole case (plus one cited above). In addition we have some sources on this page and elsewhere that support Piotr's case, which I still think is a reasonable suggestion. That leaves us with 11 sources and a handful of claims that shouldn't be there. Again, by a rough count. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read hundreds of texts about WWII and I don't know any serious failed attempt. Germans accepted Polish administrations only on local level, not even in Kreis (county) or District. Blue Police was subordinated to German Police and SS commanders. Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The Eagle Unboved isn't academic.Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Borodziej Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You've restored one source and added another [50], but neither source states the Germans failed in establishing a puppet state. Why did you add them? François Robere (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Another source: 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. – pp. 15-24 describe Hitler's intention of decimating Poland from April 1939 onward; jurisdiction conflicts between the Wehrmacht and the SS; the Wehrmacht's preparations for a military administration of Poland, and later a handoff to a (German) civil administration. Makes no mention of a subordinate Polish state. François Robere (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you see anywhere in your quotation: "The Germans never, ever, intended to create a Polish Puppet government" ?????? NO, you don't, and I don't. Other sources appended to the article unquestionably (again unquestionably) affirm that Germans attempted to create a Polish puppet government in 1939-early 1940. I consider this subject closed unless you come up with few legitimate sources that will declare CLEARLY "The Germans never, ever, intended to create a collaborationist Polish Government." GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Bella, I don't think you read any of the sources, including yours. You don't actually have a source that states any of that. Even Kochanski (@Nihil novi, you read that as well) doesn't say that much, and in fact says just the opposite at the end of that paragraph: 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 not interest in granting the Poles authority.

So? François Robere (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Shalk also accused inner drama at the office of a half-dozen or so executive appointees who were revolting against him. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

So you see even Kochanski contradicts your claims. I'm going to make some edits to reflect that. François Robere (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

NO, I don’t see that, stop assuming. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella

You didn't see 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 not interest in granting the Poles authority. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't see that? https://books.google.ca/books?id=RnKlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2852&dq=Wincenty+witos+refusal+germans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirjIC2qr_ZAhUC9GMKHTPaAdcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Wincenty%20witos%20refusal%20germans&f=false GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw that. Can you address the point? We have several sources, including two of your own, that make it very clear that the Germans had no intention whatsoever of establishing a Polish puppet state, and that whatever attempts they supposedly made were either a) limited in scope, and not supported by party leaders; b) mainly as "window dressing" (to quote one source) and for diplomatic reasons. François Robere (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I'll make an attempt to elaborate but first ------ Go the past comments and read it. All of them. And I'm reminding you that you were already blocked as a result of your behavior. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you're again off-topic. I asked you for your reply perhaps a dozen times now, on two article, and you're still avoiding it, and you've had plenty of time to do so. As for that block - the only reason I was blocked rather than you or User:E-960 is because I wasn't interested in approaching ANI. Trust me that if you continue to revert my edits here without proper discussion, it won't be the case this time. François Robere (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you François Robere read the 1977 book by one of your beloved authors Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish Society under German Occupation", particularly Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation".

Quote from pages 126-130 ! :

"Sovereign" Poland.

One possible solution for the Polish problem envisaged in the early days of the occupation by the Germans was the creation of a "token Polish state", a Reststaat. Two groups in Polish society were queried about their willingness to help in such a project.

In March 1939 the Germans tried to get in touch with peasant leader Wincenty Witos, who at the time was in exile in Czechoslovakia after having lost his appeal in the Brzesc trial. Witos immediately informed the Polish authorities about this incident and, partly as a result of German approaches, decided to come back to Poland, although he knew that he could be sent to prison on his return.

When the hostilities ended in October 1939, Witos was arrested shortly after being found by the Germans, along with many other Poles who had played prominent roles in public life before the war. The Gestapo sent him to prison at Rzeszow, where he was approached again with an offer of collaboration, which he refused. He also rejected a proposal that he write an "objective" history of the peasant movement, suspecting that such a work would primarily serve as a directory to ferret out all activists of the movement who had not been arrested thus far. In spite of his refusal to collaborate with the Germans, the conditions of his confinement remained, to say the least, very liberal [after five months in prison in Rzeszow, and a further five weeks in prison in Berlin, he was sent to a sanatorium in Potsdam, and then to a health spa in Zakopane, where he remained under Gestapo supervision]. In March 1941 he was permitted to return to his house at Wierzchoslawice, where he remained until the end of the war, with the authorities periodically checking on him. Although this treatment was highly unusual, we should not attribute too much significance to Witos's fate. His survival was due, in all probability, more to some lucky coincidence than to a carefully designed policy. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that he was spared from death, the usual fate of members of the Polish leadership stratum and, indeed, of several other prominent leaders of the peasant movement itself.

It seems quite apparent - and Witos's fate is also indicated in this respect - that it was among the peasantry that the Germans were initially willing to look for collaborators. The Völkisch ethos naturally designated the peasants as virtually the only class uncontaminated with either bourgeois or revolutionary influences. Also, it was in the countryside that the German armies were received with the least hostility. German officials must have taken this attitude into consideration when they prepared the internal memorandum stating that only with the support of the peasantry would Germany be able to set up a collaborationist regime in Poland.

Another group approached by the Germans with propositions for collaboration were prominent patricians and aristocrats with openly conservative views and a political tradition of loyalty and collaboration with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy before the First World War. Professor Stanislaw Estreicher, the most prominent Stanczyk, was reported to have been contacted by the Germans. The names of Princes Zdzislaw Lubomirski and Janusz Radziwill and that of Count Adam Ronikier were mentioned as other candidates consulted after Estreicher's refusal to collaborate.

Thus the Germans approached a representative of the Polish peasant movement, the least hostile, from their point of view, of the three main political movements alienated from the Second Republic [the other two being the National Democrats and the Socialists]. They also appealed to conservative aristocratic elements, and were justified in doing so on two grounds: first, this class had a tradition of collaboration: second, the traditional ethos of noblesse oblige stresses the responsibility of the aristocracy for "its people" when in need and its obligation to protect them. One must take into account this attitude of the aristocracy in order to understand why Prince Janusz Radziwill, Counts Ronikier, Potocki, Plater-Zyberk, and Puslowski, Countess Tarnowski, and others participated in the formation and works of the Rada GLowna Opiekuncza (Main Welfare Council).

Now, could you please drop it or at least leave me alone (all I'll consider this as a harassment of an elderly person) and talk to all others who also disagree with you? Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an interesting text, but I'm still looking for your comments on all the other sources, at least if you intend on reverting my recent revision. If not, then as far as I'm concerned this discussion is concluded. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

you changed the article text that basically says the same as before. This is beyond me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

You stated that's "my" speculation. It isn't - it's in the sources.

You removed this text, which again is per sources.

This change seems minor, but it is important: The source doesn't preclude collaboration entirely.

You (again) marginalized fascist leaders' role. One of them was Poland's Prime Minister, so "prominent" is very much appropriate there.

Can you explain any of these changes?

François Robere (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course. Can you elaborate in detail your extensive recent changes that say essentially the same as the original writing you changed? Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

They very much don't, otherwise I wouldn't have done them and you wouldn't have reverted them. Now, can you answer my questions about the various sources that contradict your assertions, eg. Lee, Kochanski, Friedrich, Weinberg, Kunicki et al.? François Robere (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your changes confirmed that the Germans tried to establish a collaborative government. So why all this fuss before? Can you please explain in details why you kept arguing otherwise and finally suddenly passed on your claims? The "myth” of the Red Baron? PS. I have made few necessary amendments in my opinion. So far nobody other than you is opposing it, and the page has been edited by another editor already. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah... not really. Now, can you tell me how does Lee, Friedrich or Kochanski support your opinion that the Germans "failed" in forming a government? Or why after this reversal you have six (!) references about Janusz Radziwiłł, despite the fact only one source mentions him? Or why you have no source later than 1945 supporting the inclusion of Estreicher? François Robere (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Another revision

I've went through all of the sources supplied thus far (again), and overhauled that section. I invite anyone interested to read through the sources and raise their objections here (or just amend the text) if they believe any was misrepresented.

I've removed some material:

• The Piotrowski book isn't very clear on this issue, and where it is it contradicts several other sources ("there was never and organized Polish response to the German overtures" - except the fascists?). We have other, clearer sources on this.
• A Polish source that I couldn't translate for (I think) one of the less significant claims.
• The claim re: Estreicher, which is based mostly on pre-1945 sources that look like wartime news/propaganda (of the kind that's meant to both inform people and keep their morale up), and others not actually mentioning a "puppet government". Only one scholarly source published in 1945 (reprinted twice later) clearly says so, but if there's nothing more recent then that claim should be dropped.
• Sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with the section, eg. the one on underground press.
• Claim re: Bartel, as per Piotr's argument (and Bella's agreement) above.
• Suggestions marginalizing the fascist collaborators, which aren't supported by the cited sources.

There's a lot of overlap between different sources, so some sources were used multiple times in different locations to establish different claims. If someone wants to name the references and remove duplicates you're invited to do so, otherwise I'll do it later.

François Robere (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not remove any sources (as you did before) ahead of obtaining a consensus to do so (fair warning) Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Bella, you've done zero effort to engage on the points, so from now on I'll disregard any comment of yours that avoids doing so.

Also, I've added several sources to the text. Can you account for them? François Robere (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging everyone involved in this section. Again, you're welcome to check the sources for yourselves - you'll see my revision (diff) reflects them faithfully. You'll also notice Bella has consistently avoided answering my questions about sources she cites as supporting her claims, while in truth they contradict it (I've quoted Lee, Friedrich and Kochanski above).

(Nihil novi, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Slatersteven, Volunteer Marek, Xx236)

You're welcome to comment. François Robere (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing changes in the last 24h I have the following questions:

• why was this removed: "The Nazis obtained the release of Prince Janusz Radziwiłł from the Soviet-occupied zone of Poland and suggested that he form a puppet Polish government in the Generalgouvernement, but he also declined." (ref: Halik Kochanski (2012). The Eagle Unbowed, pp. 97–103.
• why was this removed: "Around April 1940 Hitler forbade talks with Poles about any semblance of autonomy;" ref 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. [51]
• mention of Easter Pogrom that NOR contributed to. Ref 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. [52]

I think this info is relatively relevant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• The mention of Janusz Radziwiłł wasn't removed, just the details, for the sake of conciseness: "Wincenty Witos... refused several offers to lead a puppet government, as did Janusz Radziwiłł." Add it if you think it's relevant.
• This wasn't removed - it's at the end of the section: "Finally, around April 1940 Hitler forbade talks with Poles about any semblance of autonomy."
• The problem wasn't with mentioning the pogrom, the problem was with minimizing its importance: "Świetlicki formed a collaborationist organization... but it did little except contribute to Warsaw anti-Jewish riots during Easter 1940." (highlight mine) This wasn't in the source, and I assume it's part of Bella's agenda of minimizing the appearance of Polish collaboration. We can add it back without the qualifier if you think it important.

Other than that..? François Robere (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Misrepresentation of sources

Re: [53] - the source does indeed emphasize the low number of Poles serving in the Wehrmacht. Removing that info is a clear cut case of POV.

This edit is just plain false - the source says nothing of the sort. Since this is the same obscure source being used by both accounts, additionally it looks like we have some sock puppetry going on as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Some editors have been adding low quality/offline/hard to verify sources. We should prune all non-verifiable sources from this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I second that. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

---

@GizzyCatBella: What is "The Essential Guide to Being Polish" and where does it mention collaboration? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SECTION III

Can someone provide the passage they claim absolve the Police of an accusation of collaboration. I see no mention of Police.

In fact as far as I can tell it makes no mention of civil authorities continuing to operate, rather that they must take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Sorry that does not mean the Police must cooperate with them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I am a bit confused what you are asking for. This may be relevant: "However, an order under the direction of Frank in October 1939 ordered all former Polish police oflicers to serve in the “Blue Police” under penalty of death for refusal. ". Source: [54]. Collaboration under the thread of death is still collaboration, I guess. Through this reminds me of the recent comments related to comparisons between Jewish and Polish collaborations being unfair as the Jewish collaborators did so only under direct threat of death while the Poles presumably had a choice. Errr. Collaborate or die. The difference eludes me a bit, at least for this moment. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The article, says this "The police force aren't collaborators by definition (Section III of Hague IV, 1907) except if they state political or military backing for the occupant", Where in section 3 does it say this, what part of section 3 is being used to support this claim? I did not ask about claims they would be shot if they did not cooperate.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur with you, nothing in the linked section seems relevant. The section doesn't use term collaboration, nor does it discuss police forces there. I support removal of this weird claim. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II"

Once this article on "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany" is deemed stable, I suggest that the "Poland" section of the article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" be edited, replacing passages, as appropriate, with corresponding passages from "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany", which has been more thoroughly edited for clarity and English usage.

I also support the suggestion on the "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" talk page, that "during World War II" be dropped from that article's title, so that companies' pre-September 1939 collaborations with Germany, where germane, may logically be included.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There's still much more work to be done on this article. We need to shorten the other one to keep the most eminent cases, then with time adjust it according to this. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said several times, we should be cutting and/or moving details from that section here. There is no reason to wait for 'stability' here. We can work on multiple articles. (Also, as was pointed, there is stuff that needs similar treatment in the History of Poland (1939-1945)). On that note, the section on the recent Polish legislation that was deleted from the former article and is now a bit forgotten would be fine to be restored here, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I Actually think a whole section on the discussion of the subject in Poland is merited. François Robere (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Reference to prosecution of collaborators in lead

@Piotrus: You restored this sentence. My problem here is that this followed just one very obvious definition of collaboration, disregarding complicity in the Holocaust and other cases that are still being discussed here, such as employees of the GG. I suggest keeping the lead as short as possible, with only the bare uncontested facts, until the rest of the article is finalized. François Robere (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this sentence can be restored, but I think it is relevant and interesting that some collaborators were persecuted and executed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it is too short, it implies (by omission) that not everyone accused of collaboration was executed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope a mere accusation would not suffice. Nihil novi (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sadly not always (though to be fair this was by the Russians [55], and it is a comments section but none the less does illustrate that maybe it is not so cut and dried). Also, I did not mean then, I meant now. The issue of what did (and did not) constitute collaboration is very complex, and not as black and white as that one sentence implies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Some, yes. "Judicious" implies "many" or "most", and we're not in a position to make that statement. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nit is means showing good sense. And we are not in the position to say that either.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Does someone mean "judicial" when they write "judicious"? NB many Home Army executions involved trials in absentia, followed by assassination. Some sources refer to this as "extra judicial" killing. Chumchum7 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Some killings were allegedly oriented against collaborators, but politically motivated, pl:Aleksander Reszczyński.Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

pl:Aleksander Reszczyński was killed in his home in March 1943 by the communist Gwardia Ludowa, which apparently was unaware that this Blue Police chief was collaborating with Polish Home Army counterintelligence! Nihil novi (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Source? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Just goes to show that Francois is right stating this is a non-binary situation. Here we have a person executed by the resistance as a collaborator - a person who was in fact a resistance spy, infiltrating the German security apparatus... How do we classify such people? An impossible task. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A hero. Nihil novi (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[56] Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

pl:Muszkieterzy (organizacja) is poorly researched.Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A Polish-British intelligence contact of the Musketeers was the SOE agent Krystyna Skarbek. The Musketeers took their name from the codename of a Polish antitank rifle. Nihil novi (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Madajczyk source

User:Volunteer Marek talked high and mighty about "making stuff up" and prejudging sources, and then removed a source because it's... "Stalinist". I want some RS on why that particular source and its particular estimate are indefensible.

As for the claim of a "Red flag" in the subsequent removal, I've explained it before: Claiming ~3% of the Polish population collaborated is not "exceptional" given the collaboration rates across Europe; claiming only 7,000-100,000 did is. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To count collaborators you have to define collaboration first. Sometimes standards were very high, eg. actors weren't practically allowed to perform. Visiting a cinema was illegal. Writing for press was illegal, eg. publishing of cooking recipes or romantic stories.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course, but that's not the reason this source was removed from the lead. François Robere (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

FR, I'm not going to discuss things with you if you continue to use insulting language such as calling me "dear" or referring to my comments as "high and mighty". You want to rephrase your comment? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I recall warning you some nine days ago - on the day we first corresponded ([57]) - to drop the attitude. You didn't. Since then you've repeatedly attacked myself along with two other editors (Icewhiz and an IP editor) as "making stuff up", "making shit up" or "dishonest", and suggested banning one of them. This does not strike me as behavior of the kind that entitles you to claim the high ground on matters of civility. Now, if you have no objections, I'll restore the the Madajczyk reference, 'Stalinist' or not. François Robere (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Any text published in Communist Poland was censored - some were written in New-speak, which may be misunderstood by contemporary readers. The subject of Nazi crimes was relatively acceptable but Jewish subjects were censored 1968-1970.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Since it was me who has added this number with the cite, let me copy my post - nobody really discussed Czesław Madajczyk in the other discussion, despite my request to double check/verify the source: "While reading Klaus-Peter Friedrich's Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II (remember, folks, Library Genesis is your friend - I am a scholar but when I am at home even I can't be arsed to log in to uni network, all those hoops...). It is an interesting article, not particularly friendly to Polish cause, but I think reasonably neutral, more so than some studies done by scholars affiliated with the Polish or Jewish side (IMHO, one's national and family ties are paramount here, Poles will try to minimize the issue, and Jews will exaggerate it - perfectly normal in any similar debate). Interestingly, he states: "Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand197 to about one million.'198". He cites for 197 Lukas, Forgotten Holocaust, 117, a work we already cite, and for 198, Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk,"' 146. That spiked my interest, since Czesław Madajczyk is a respected Polish historian, who did a lot of work on WWII casualty estimates, and furthermore, as an old-date scholar I would not expect him to be in the 'high' estimate camp. Unfortunately, he quotes a German translation or original work of Madajczyck: "Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitik in Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: AnndherungenZbliienia (Diisseldorf, 1996), 24-39, esp. 33" [58]. I don't speak German so hunting for verification for this is beyond me, and as the book is not free online, I cannot access the page 146 to translate and verify. The title suggests it may be a translation or summary of his earlier (1970) Polish work Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, but as an old Polish book, it is not digitized, legally or otherwise, and I am not in Poland to look this up in a library. Frankly, it would best if someone in Germany could help by checking the exact page in German version, but anyway, since we do have a reliable source, I will update the high-end estimate in text to one million." Anyway, on topic: I don't see why Madajczyk would be unreliable. Of course, as pointed out in his bio, his works were subject to communist POV, but let's have some common sense. Communists - Polish in particular - were not interested in exaggerating the number of Polish collaborators, like all Poles, they'd prefer to keep it low. It would be good to see Madajczyk's original research, maybe it was misinterpreted, but he is hardly some 'Stalinist historian' interested in slandering Poles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Belgian collaboration during World War II - there existed rather two separate collaborations Flemish and Walloon.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"The title suggests it may be a translation or summary of his earlier (1970) Polish work Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, but as an old Polish book, it is not digitized, legally or otherwise, and I am not in Poland to look this up in a library."

I have read this book(it is actually divided in two volumes).I don't recall him ever making such claim. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany ?

Or rather collaboration in occupied Poland? Do we discuss only ethnic Poles or citizens of pre-war Poalnd, which includes Volksgermans, Western Ukrainians, Goralenvolk.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Everyone. François Robere (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

So Collaboration in Nazi ocupied Poland, Polish may be understoo as ethnic Polish.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that depends on the reader more than the writer. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you are right Xx236, it should be "Collaboration in occupied Poland" since not only ethnic Poles collaborated (Jews and others also). Redirect the page please to reflect that. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Aren't Polish Jews Polish? François Robere (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

A fundamental question. Some Polish writers timidly inform that at least 25 000 of Polish-Jewish Christians were killed during the Holocaust.

Jews had their political and cultural authonomy in Poland, many of them didn't speak Polish. Christan and Jewish groups were frequently isoloted, only few mixed marriages took place. According to US historians [59] there were less pogroms in integrated communities, where Jews supported Sanacja BBWR.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this term is confusing, but we could hold an RfC - however one that would also relate to other relevant articles in Category:Collaboration during World War II, as they'd all have to be renamed to be fair and to avoid confusion (ex. Category:Belgian collaboration during World War II -> Category:Collaboration during World War II in Belgium). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• It's highly confusing, which was my rationale for heavily editing the lead a few days ago.[60] We need to set aside our own geekiness for a moment and look at this from the perspective of a Googling schoolgirl doing a history essay. For all she knows, from this title, Poland would be categorized alongside Vichy France as a collaborating power in WWII. No historians would support this categorization, afaia.

• It's also paradoxical and nuanced. For example, when e.g. the Jedwabne massacre took place, the Polish Navy and Air Force were fully operational against Germany, Polish troops were on their way to fight Germany in the Siege of Tobruk, where there were Jews in Polish uniform. The Polish government, which included Jews, continued to operate in London and ran Poland's massive anti-German intelligence war (48% of all British Secret Intelligence Service reports on Nazi Germany came from Polish sources, including Polish-Jewish sources such as Skarbek). German slaughters of non-Jewish Poles were well on the way to the final death count of 3 million, and 1.5 million Polish slave labourers were being forced at gunpoint to work in German fields, factories, and 'joy divisions'. We know all this, but the hypothetical schoolgirl doesn't. Meanwhile antisemitic Americans had influenced the US decision not to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate, and the USA had still not entered the war against Nazi Germany, almost two years after it began. The Googling schoolgirl will have seen Saving Private Ryan and her lack of knowledge will be reinforced by this Wikipedia article. It urgently needs clarification.

• As has been stated by other editors above, this is an especially multi-dimensional subject; that needs to be explained either in the opening paragraph or indicated by the title which is currently misleading. Still, any clarification should not diminish the thorough and growing scholarship on collaboration inside Poland (primarily in the form of antisemtism, and almost never in the form of support for the strategic German war effort). There are probably many views on this so an RFC may eventually be a good idea. On the other hand, it will be a magnet for bias from a larger pool of editors, with people commenting according to their sometimes under-informed preconceptions about Poland in WWII. My vote would be to first attempt to fix this lack of consensus here and now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:BOLD, I have responded to GizzyCatBella's request arising from the point raised by Xx236 and changed the title. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You performed the correct move Chumchum7, thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost

The Generalplan Ost didn't accept any puppet state.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What's your point? This plan covers years 1941-1945 Xx236. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

USHMM misinforms

https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/museum-statement-on-holocaust-legislation-in-poland Andrew Hollinger - Director, Communications

they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel

Germany drafted Polish policemen into German police called "Polish police". Do we accept Nazi lies here?

Germany robbed Polish State Railroads (PKP), both hardware and staff. [61] Many railwaymen were murdered or imprisoned in concentration camps.Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You're opening a lot of new sections on stuff that's already in discussion / has been discussed. "Blue Police" are described as collaborators in many sources, as are railway personnel. "Collaboration" isn't binary - there's a "spectrum of collaboration". François Robere (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If German Nazis use bad words describing Jews you don't accept it, do you? But Nazi language describing Poles (Polnische Polizei) seems to be acceptable here. The Polnische Polizei was organized and controlled by German terror machine. There was no Polish police structure in GG, with a Polish commander. There existed local sections commanded by SS and police leaders. Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This source - THE POLISH POLICE: Collaboration in the Holocaust has excellent information (and sourcing within!) on the role of the Polish police (or "Blue Police") and firefighting brigades. USHMM is a pretty respected source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski as a source about Grabowski's reliability. Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski is an esteemed historian on this topic and his work in and of itself carries much weight - however the work above is also useful in that it is in English (as opposed to say Tropiąc Emanuela Ringelbluma. Udział polskiej Kriminalpolizei (Kripo) w „ostatecznym rozwiazaniu kwestii zydowskiej or Ja tego Żyda znam!) and that it clearly cites source material.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

[62] [63] Why does the esteemed historian select nasty details and ignores Yad Vashem Reighteous list? Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Yad Vashem - At least eleven of the Righteous were, or had been, formal members of the Nazi Party a convincing proof that there was no necessary congruence between such membership and hatred of Jews[64]. The righteous (Polish and non-Polish) were a select few, at threat from both the Germans and their fellow countrymen. The existence of an exception does not make a rule (e.g. - there being 11 Righteous Nazi party members does not reflect on the nature of the Nazi party as a whole).Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The text by Grabowski isn't about the Blue Police, it's only about the collaboration of the police. It's what we call here POV, bias. As Grabowski informes - some of the policemen cooperated with the underground. Situation of a Polish underground soldier in the police was complicated, he did some underground work but he had to obey, eg. to imprison or kill members of his organizzation or Jews. Any police forms has methods to control the force.

Please define Hatred of Jews. Please find one academic source describing relationships between people using one measure (here hatred, probably you mean hatred-love). Marxism analyses economy first, there are probably several levels between economy and hatred. Works by Kopstein and Wittenberg are about local politics. A society (here in pre-war Poland) had families (there were not many Christian-Jewish families), political organizations (sometimes the Jews supported Jewish organizations), economy (frequently Jewish business dominated in regions/branches, which generated hatred of other business). Xx236 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Polish collaboration, hence one would expect us to use sources describing such collaboration, making Grabowski's text quite appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment Hatred of Jews. Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ask [65] Yad Vashem - this is a quote - though it does seem self explanatory - I'm not sure what sort of definition or comment you are looking for here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

“National Revolutionary Camp” Narodowy Obóz Rewolucji, or NOR

What is this? - “National Revolutionary Camp” Narodowy Obóz Rewolucji, or NOR That has been produced in the "Political collaborations section" recently by François Robere Anyone knows? Or maybe you François Robere?can explain what organization is this? Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those things you should check before reverting someone's changes. Not only is it in the source (), but it was in your revision as well [66]. François Robere (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. They were so unimportant that nobody even knows about them. Not even a Wiki article about them. You might want to dedicate your enthusiasm to create one perhaps François Robere. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Or... You can just answer my questions about your sources (#Statement on German failure to establish a puppet state), which clearly don't support the narrative you've introduced to this article. François Robere (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

When did Studnicki join that group? page number? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You realize I didn't introduce this source, right? It was in your revision. Now feel free to go back up and answer my questions. François Robere (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No I didn't. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I answered your questions, you keep coming with the new one all the time, every few minutes copy/pasting tons of text/references. I'm getting lost. Is this what you are doing intentionally? Why are you doing that? Can you elaborate on this? Thank you? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. I asked you about the Lee reference as early as March 9th (on the other page), and you just ignored it. I asked you for some page numbers 11 days ago, and I still don't have them. The proper answer to "link doesn't support the claim. pp.?" isn't to tell me to "examine the sources closely", but a page number.

I'm sorry if it's getting you lost, but you added so many references in that little piece of text, and in such a short length of time, that it made going through them that much harder and that much longer, and you know that. Put differently: I didn't just pull that revision out of my ass. It took several hours to go through all the sources, sort all the different claims, make sure each is backed and that all of the sources are in place. You shouldn't have reverted that, but now that you have you risk needing to repeat all that work yourself. François Robere (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You insulted me with your "a..s" remark. You can use such language speaking to whoever you want but not when you are talking to me. Do you understand? This conversation ends right here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your sensitivities don't concern me, Bella, and this conversation will be over when you either a) stop reverting my revision without proper explanation; or b) answer my questions about your sources. It's not that difficult. François Robere (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a minor but interesting organization, pl:Narodowa Organizacja Radykalna (That's the correct pl name) is on my TL list, but sources are sparse. And do read the sources, Studnicki's joining NOR is right here: [67] - that's the source used. I've added it, and it seems reliable (author: Mikołaj Stanisław Kunicki, publisher: Ohio University Press). I hope you can see the Google Book page for verification? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Three more "attempts" to create a pro-German Polish government

I'm copy/pasting this just for the record to close this once and for all. This is from our favorite Jan Tomasz Gross himself. "Three more "attempts" to create a pro-German Polish government should be mentioned here in order to complete the record. The first, initiated by a declared Germanophile, Professor Wladyslaw Studnicki, has been very well described by Weinstein [Zeszyty Historyczne 11:3-91, Paris, 1967]. Documentation presented by him shows that the Germans did not take Studnicki's proposals seriously, knowing well that he could not muster enough significant support from any strata of Polish society to make his projects worth their consideration. The second attempt was an alleged public declaration by a former Polish prime minister, Professor Leon Kozlowski, of readiness to create a pro-German government after he escaped from Russia in 1941. After his release from prison in 1941 he joined Anders's Army, in which he was given the prominent post of quartermaster general (Szef Intendentury). However, for reasons unknown ( he may still have feared the Russians), he fled to the German side of the front. He was taken to Berlin, where several officials talked to him, and he was permitted to grant an interview, entitled "De Samara à Berlin", to the Journal de Genève on December 20, 1941. After this, news traveled far that he had offered to join a pro-German Polish government. The rumor was false, however. The Germans must have used his defection in their anti-Bolshevik propaganda, but the whole affair was interpreted incorrectly in Polish circles as an abortive attempt to create a "Quisling" government. Kozlowski was sentenced to death for desertion by a Polish military court, but the sentence could not be carried out, as he died in Berlin in unknown circumstances, possibly during an Allied bombing. The whole affair still awaits full clarification. The third and last "attempt" that I want to mention here is probably linked to the preparations of the July coup by the German army. It took place in Budapest, where Count Bem, a Hungarian citizen and a major in the Polish army, was approached by an acquaintance of his, "an eminent member of Russian emigration", who told Bem that, on instructions from the German military attache in Budapest, he was seeking contacts with the Polish government in London or with eminent members of the local Polish emigres, preferably with officers. The Germans wanted to know under what preliminary conditions the Poles would agree to begin talks with them. Bem responded that in order to begin negotiations, Poles would demand restitution of Poland in its 1939 frontiers. Two days later the Russian go-between told Bem that the German attaché had called Berlin in his presence and reported Bem's opinion to a certain "N". In response, he received instructions to get in touch, through Bem, with someone who could report to the Polish government the following offer: the German side was prepared to issue immediately a manifesto proclaiming Polish independence within 1939 frontiers; Poland would be linked in an anti-Bolshevik military alliance with Germany; Polish foreign policy would be coordinate with Berlin's, and the staffs of the armies of the two countries would be in permanent contact. "Germans consider the whole matter very urgent and request a response within three days". The incident took place at the beginning of March 1944. Broszat (Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik, 1939-1945, Frankfurt and Hamburg 1965, pp 18-19) also mentions some conversations held with Polish emigrés in Switzerland in October 1939 concerning the Reststaat." GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting reading, and doesn't contradict any of the other sources. Of Studnicki and Kozlowski we already know; of Bem we need more information, but this whole "Russian talking to Hungarian on behalf of the Germans" isn't convincing at face value. Using Kozlowski for propaganda, post-Stalingrad thoughts about Polish independence and the idea of a Reststaat are all discussed in the other sources. François Robere (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the above is the continuation from 1977 book of Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish Society under German Occupation", Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation". Pages 126-130:

"Sovereign" Poland.

One possible solution for the Polish problem envisaged in the early days of the occupation by the Germans was the creation of a "token Polish state", a Reststaat. Two groups in Polish society were queried about their willingness to help in such a project.

In March 1939 the Germans tried to get in touch with peasant leader Wincenty Witos, who at the time was in exile in Czechoslovakia after having lost his appeal in the Brzesc trial. Witos immediately informed the Polish authorities about this incident and, partly as a result of German approaches, decided to come back to Poland, although he knew that he could be sent to prison on his return.

When the hostilities ended in October 1939, Witos was arrested shortly after being found by the Germans, along with many other Poles who had played prominent roles in public life before the war. The Gestapo sent him to prison at Rzeszow, where he was approached again with an offer of collaboration, which he refused. He also rejected a proposal that he write an "objective" history of the peasant movement, suspecting that such a work would primarily serve as a directory to ferret out all activists of the movement who had not been arrested thus far. In spite of his refusal to collaborate with the Germans, the conditions of his confinement remained, to say the least, very liberal [after five months in prison in Rzeszow, and a further five weeks in prison in Berlin, he was sent to a sanatorium in Potsdam, and then to a health spa in Zakopane, where he remained under Gestapo supervision]. In March 1941 he was permitted to return to his house at Wierzchoslawice, where he remained until the end of the war, with the authorities periodically checking on him. Although this treatment was highly unusual, we should not attribute too much significance to Witos's fate. His survival was due, in all probability, more to some lucky coincidence than to a carefully designed policy. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that he was spared from death, the usual fate of members of the Polish leadership stratum and, indeed, of several other prominent leaders of the peasant movement itself.

It seems quite apparent - and Witos's fate is also indicated in this respect - that it was among the peasantry that the Germans were initially willing to look for collaborators. The Völkisch ethos naturally designated the peasants as virtually the only class uncontaminated with either bourgeois or revolutionary influences. Also, it was in the countryside that the German armies were received with the least hostility. German officials must have taken this attitude into consideration when they prepared the internal memorandum stating that only with the support of the peasantry would Germany be able to set up a collaborationist regime in Poland.

Another group approached by the Germans with propositions for collaboration were prominent patricians and aristocrats with openly conservative views and a political tradition of loyalty and collaboration with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy before the First World War. Professor Stanislaw Estreicher, the most prominent Stanczyk, was reported to have been contacted by the Germans. The names of Princes Zdzislaw Lubomirski and Janusz Radziwill and that of Count Adam Ronikier were mentioned as other candidates consulted after Estreicher's refusal to collaborate.

Thus the Germans approached a representative of the Polish peasant movement, the least hostile, from their point of view, of the three main political movements alienated from the Second Republic [the other two being the National Democrats and the Socialists]. They also appealed to conservative aristocratic elements, and were justified in doing so on two grounds: first, this class had a tradition of collaboration: second, the traditional ethos of noblesse oblige stresses the responsibility of the aristocracy for "its people" when in need and its obligation to protect them. One must take into account this attitude of the aristocracy in order to understand why Prince Janusz Radziwill, Counts Ronikier, Potocki, Plater-Zyberk, and Puslowski, Countess Tarnowski, and others participated in the formation and works of the Rada GLowna Opiekuncza (Main Welfare Council). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

You already quoted that in another section. Now can you go back and answer my question about the rest of the sources? François Robere (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Narodowe Siły Zbrojne - claim needs verification

Can somebody verify this claim? Quote - "The brigade (NSZ) numbered 850 fighters but did not accept Jews, and on occasion killed or gave up Jewish partisans to the Germans" end quote. This page 138 source does not back the claimed: Cooper, Leo (2000). In the shadow of the Polish eagle : the Poles, the Holocaust, and beyond. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. p. 138. ISBN 9780333992623. OCLC 313430363 link here https://www.worldcat.org/title/in-the-shadow-of-the-polish-eagle-the-poles-the-holocaust-and-beyond/oclc/313430363/viewport The editor accountable for this addition declared later that the info is accessible on page 149 not page 138 as he originally claimed (page number in the source has still not been adjusted) however the page 149 is not accessible in the incorrect connection given as a source. I asked for the proper source by inserting a customary template, but I was reverted twice by the user in question François Robere with no due reference given. So again can anyone reference the above claim? Thanks, fellows. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The references are there and were there from the beginning. Plural - because there are two. If you paid attention instead of just looking for edits to revert you would've seen that. François Robere (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

http://academicworks.cuny.edu/yc_pubs/133 - Leo Cooper is biased and not an expert.Xx236 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Plese continue this discussion here Talk:National Armed Forces.Xx236 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two estimations of the number of soldiers. Please read the paragraph you edit.Xx236 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

11 million ethnic Poles?

Thought it was higher, no? -188.146.204.85 (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

NB this number is what the sourced reference says, and I am cross-referencing with other sources. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The reference (which btw we cite already, please reuse the correctly formatted cite instead of just linking raw http to a mirror) is wrong. Don't know where he got 11 million from, but Demographic_history_of_Poland gives 20 million for ethnic Poles, and this is roughly correct. That's for 1931, 9 millions did not evaporate in the meantime, and even allowing for few % margin of error etc. this number wouldn't change much. Further, the estimates in the lead are for the total Polish population, higher ones (the 'million') includes ethnic minorities (Germans, etc.). So the number of ethnic Poles is also purely irrelevant. PS. While the specific numbers are subject to dispute, the linked article on demographics is reliably well referenced, and no historian would adjust the number of Poles by more than 4m at most, and that's at the other direction - the disputed range is 20-24m, more or less. 11 million is a clear error. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have seen a figure of 21 million somewhere so maybe it was even a typo in the sourse. I propose to deal with the error we add the figure for the total to the line with an additional reference. Chumchum7 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

And what about this: "According to the Israeli War Crimes Commission, during World War II less than 0.1% of Poles collaborated in any way with Germany." ?

We have seen this before, my problem is I cannot find a reference to an Israeli War Crime Commission, except for references to the above work.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Some AK units "actively engaged in hunting down and murdering Jews"

Any facts? Xx236 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The phrase is in a wrong place, after NSZ description.Xx236 (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Then move it. The reason it's out of place is because I've anticipated another editor will remove it on their whim, as happened several times before [68], so what's the point of going through the work of properly incorporating it into the paragraph? Let them ponder it for a while, then we'll redo the section. François Robere (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

NB we don't need facts, we need verifiability. More sourcing should be easy to find about these Polish units, I've read several which show they were active killing Jews specifically in the ethnic Byelorusian and Lithuanian borderlands of prewar north-eastern Poland. Some made tactical manouvres to the advantage of German units, I have also read. These were wayward Polish units, ignoring the unambiguous orders of AK central command not to cooperate with Germany and not to murder civilians; they may have been NSZ / ND comepetitors ignoring the authority of the AK. A distinction is made in the sources between engaging in combat and the killing of civilians, both of which appear to have happened. A fascinating aspect is that the British SOE airdropped Polish special forces commandos into this area to link up with some of these units, to fight the secret war against Soviet-backed forces, some of which identified themselves as Jewish. I have not yet found a source showing a British-backed Polish unit fighting a Soviet-backed Jewish unit, but it's plausible and an interesting detail... for a geek.-Chumchum7 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Chumchum7 I would be interested in getting my hands on the credible references verifying Home Army mass murder of civilians, principally Jews. Do you believe you can help? Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well I found these [69] (a rather less reliable one) [70] [71] (repeats the last one) [72], is that enough or do we need more? Now to be fair most of them say it was mainly (but not exclusively) the NSZ wing. Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/199/piotrowski.html Piotrowski questions the accuracy of the often repeated allegations that the Polish underground, including the Home Army, were guilty of collaboration with the Nazis and of committing anti-Semitic atrocities. Xx236 (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella you could start with Zimmerman http://jewishweek.timesofisrael.com/killers-of-jews-or-saviors-of-jews/ Chumchum7 (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven yes the key is that like the wartime Polish government, the AK was an umbrella that included nationalists, democratic socialists, and Jews. It's misleading for us to stereotype or generalise about the record of either. The NSZ however was avowedly antisemitic by its own account, so better differentiate it from the AK where appropriate.

Except (as I said) they sources all seem to be pretty clear that even the AK is not immune form this criticism. Maybe something like "elements of the Polish home army (mainly from the NSZ wing) participated in antisemitic activities".Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

And, according to the Piotrowski book, at least one such NSZ leader was condemned to death by the AK and executed for such an action. Nihil novi (talk) 10:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

He also seems to repeat the claim that some members of the AK participated too.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Piotrowski quote please, sounds interesting. NB the NSZ unilaterally negotiated a ceasefire with Germany, which they used to relocate to Bohemia to elude the approaching Soviet front late in the war, an overtly collaborative action that the AK completely forbade. And it's even more complicated than that: there were Jews in the NSZ, and communists in the AK. Yet more reminder to eschew the cartoon/Hollywood/simplistic/binary account of history wherever possible Chumchum7 (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The whole NSZ negotiated and one unit evacuted. Xx236 (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps: "In defiance of orders, some elements of the Polish home army (mainly from the NSZ wing) participated in antisemitic activities". Chumchum7 (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we have the quote that says any such order was given? I have tried to find it and cannot.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed it would be useful to have, and I too will look for it. It's highly likely that AK military orders prohibiting murder encompassed people, not ethnic groups. The AK was a disciplined army that even went to the bother of trying Nazi war criminals in absentia before assassinating them. Murder of Germans was outlawed by high command because murder was outlawed. Same would therefore be true of every other ethnicity. What we have plenty of sourcing for is non-policy AK murders of Jews along the lines of Croke Park and My Lai (though it seems they may have tended to have been smaller scale, more numerous murders rather than a small numer of large scale massacres). Here is Snyder, mentioning some of them [73]

It would be equally useful to have a quote showing AK leadership giving orders to kill Jews, and I shall look for that too unless you have it to hand and can add. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I introduced some info about Jewish partisans killing Polish civilians with links to Wiki article instef and reference.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This source, afaict, does not say "Some AK soldiers murdered Jews". At best it says that Browning makes this claim, although the reviewer goes on to say that this characterization "does not fit the historical Home Army." So... once again, whoever put that in blatantly misrepresented a source.

(incidentally, in 1941 when the killings in Wierzbnik occurred there was no such thing as the "Home Army" - it's sort of stunning that Browning does not even appear to be aware of this).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

And actually, that whole paragraph is chock full of problems, with people pretending sources say something they don't being just one of them. Most significantly, it is off-topic since it's not about collaboration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

That was me who put it in because it was my good faith reading of the source, and I am happy to adjust the sentence to address your concern. In return, please don't jump to conclusions bout intent. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This book - The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, by Joshua D. Zimmerman published by Cambridge University Press and fully available on google-books - could be a great source. Some popular coverage/summaries/opinions - [74][75][76][77][78][79][80]. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing and sanitizing of anything challenging the Polish myth

Some editors are actively engaged in sanitizing claims challenging the myth that Poles did not collaboration with the Germans. This has to stop. Some examples:

• Phrasing about German unwillingness to have a collaborationist government, well-sourced, is removed as "speculation" [81]
• Similar edit [82] (fix)
• Role of pro-German Polish politicians is marginalized [83][84]
• Source mentioning assassination and kidnapping of Jewish partisans is changed because "I'm sure the communists/Jewish partisans fought back" [85]
• Despite careful phrasing and a highly-respected source, this claim is removed as "extraordinary" [86]
• And a similar edit, supposedly per source [87]
• Here the editor adds a source that mentions collaboration between AK and Jewish partisans, but what they don't say is that this example is given as an exception to AK's general hostility towards Jews [88] (fix to both these edits)
• Here's a more sophisticated example: The editor adds a "failed verification" tag (presumably misunderstanding the {{r}} template right next to the claim), then change the phrasing to a more lenient one. Then, having found the source, they conclude it doesn't match the text in the article (of course it doesn't - they changed it five minutes earlier), allowing them to keep the "verification failed" tag. The next obvious step would be to wait a couple of days then remove the supposedly "unverified" claim, and voilà - bias introduced!

Some of this work is of such a poor quality, that it just adds work for the rest of us. Take for example this revision: it removed three claims backed by five sources, but didn't remove the sources, so they all clustered next to their immediate predecessor - a claim supported by one source - giving the appearance of a single claim backed by six (!) sources. So who's to deal with it? I commented on it on the talk page, but the editor who made the revision ignored it, and someone else had to do the "cleanup".

And it goes on and on. Well sourced claims are removed if they challenge the popular Polish myth, but questionable and poorly-sourced claims (like the "Israeli War Crimes Commission", that didn't exist; or the unsourced "Volksdeutsche were treated by Poles with special contempt"; or the claim about Jewish collaborators "baiting" innocent Poles, which cites a couple of popular magazines) can't be removed, and sometimes aren't even allowed to be tagged ([89]).

This has to stop. We're not here to indulge some anachronistic myth. François Robere (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This has to stop - exactly, but the this is the myth. Please define the myth. Is it a myth that Polish troops fought 1939-1945, that Polish citizens and ethnic Poles were murdered by Germans, that there exists common ignorance in the West regarding Polish history, that thousands of ethnic Poles died in Auschwitz but Catholic nuns were expelled from a monastery near the camp? Poland is founded on myths between Germany and Russia, Israel is founded on myths among Arabians. We should revise both myths using similar tools.Xx236 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

German-Nazi occupation of Poland (which wasn't a legal form of occupation but rather colonialism) was based on German terror. Grabowski describes the terror in his Hunt for Jews, but some readers prefer to cherrypick cases of crimes committed by Polish peasants ignoring the first 80 or 100 pages of the book and descriptions of mass killings committed by Germans later. Xx236 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

The role of pro-German politicians was almost none. You misinform the readers - Witos was prominent but wasn't pro-German. Andrzej Świetlicki wasn't prominent. Władysław Studnicki was influential in 1910, later he was a writer. Leon Kozłowski was imprisoned and mistreated by the Soviets, so it was obvious that he dreamed about good Germans. Dreamers aren't prominent politicians.The Eagle Unbowed isn't reliable. Xx236 (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

If you're asking seriously I can send you sources, though given that your first message has nothing to do with any of the cases I mentioned, I assume you're not. As for Grabowski: cite whatever you want of his - he's RS as far as I'm concerned. As for rest: I didn't say Witos was pro-German; and Kozłowski was Poland's PM, so "prominent" is proper. Everything else is up for discussion, and has nothing to do with the others editor's pattern of biased edits, which I've demonstrated above. François Robere (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, pending a revue of your diffs I might support your complaint about disruptive editing, and I could support you raising it at an appropriate noticeboard, or take it up myself. At the same time I will caution that you risk coming in for allegations yourself of cutural superiority or ethnic stereotyping by conflating disruptive editing here with what you say is "the popular Polish myth". Moreover, in terms of practical psychology such comments will only make tendentious editors' behavior worse. Please remember that the Geekdom of Wikipedia is not an indication of the real world, let alone what is popular in any given country. It's actually Polish scholars who have been leading the charge against certain myths in their own country. Use Google Translate to contrast content in Nasz Dziennik and Gazeta Wyborcza and you'll see there is no homogeneity. Jan Gross himself advises Israeli students of the Holocaust to go study in Polish institutions, and I can direct you to a Youtube link where he does so. I've been working long and hard on addressing the sort of issues you flag above at the Jedwabne pogrom article. There are ways for you to do the same here, and if you can take my point I might be able to help you. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Talkig about disruptive editing, tendentious editing and whitewashing crimes, take a look at this Chumchum7:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland&diff=833866526&oldid=833864920&diffmode=source

I introduced this info with references it was removed immediately. The same pattern applies to

François Robere, just examine his diffs or both of them. Very similar.

I might show you plenty of examples plus personal insults using "ass" and shouting (capital letter) word directed at me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing Skidel (a pro-Soviet revolt with militants of many ethnic backgrounds) as Jewish or murder (as it was directed, for the most part, against Polish authorities) is highly problematic and should not be done in Wikipedia's voice. Koniuchy has more merit, but is disputed, lacks context (e.g. of Polish-Lithuanian treatment of the Jews), the villagers were armed and AK affilated - in resistence to the Soviet aligned partisans, and should not be in Wikipedia's voice. Nor should we suggest these are parallels in any way to the documented and widespread AK actions. In both cases the use of piped links was inappropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

(@ Chumchum7)I referenced this occurrence Koniuchy massacre Chumchum7 as an example, but of course, it has been omitted in their comments above and claimed in the that only Skidel was introduced. If we are talking about tendentious editing and misleading commentary, here you have it. I'll take my time to give many similar cases later but simply take a quick pick yourself Chumchum7. It is easy to spot. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC) PS Sorry I just noticed that Icewhiz did mention Koniuchy but of course, this is false accusation according to him, but Ak killings Jews was widespread. See what I'm talking about :). Well, I see that we'll have some fun soon :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not say this was a false accusation.Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So why did you recklessly reverted my entry Icewhiz as the countless times before in various articles? I have been documenting everything and will display it in the proper spot. The time to do so has just begun in my belief. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Selective use of sources (when other sources treat this differently), use of wikivoice for a disputed stmt, and inappropriate use of piped links.Icewhiz (talk) 04:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I said it before, Bella: burden of proof. Either you back your claims, or don't make them. François Robere (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've consulted with another veteran editor [90] - you can see my position there. If you think this is "raisable", I very much support it.

As for what this myth means, I want to clarify one thing: First, this is not about cultural superiority, ethnicity or anything else of that nature; if anything, it's about the trans-national nature of national memory, or how historiography and education in a nation are tied to its social and political circumstances, and it's as well-documented in Poland as in any other country. We might as well be talking about Confederate statues or the legacy of European colonialism - the issues would be similar. It's not about a people or a country, but about ideas, and how proper scholarship principles can and should be applied to dealing with them.

Polish academics abroad have indeed been leading the charge in the past 20 years or so, but that's (AFAIK) against popular beliefs (especially since the 2015 elections). You can see that in politicians' statements, opinion poles, changes to museum exhibitions and commemoration sites, and elsewhere. I'm sure there's no homogeneity, and I'm sure Polish academia is more varied in this sense than non-academics, but both historiographic sources and current events give me a strong impression that the whole discussion is taking place a couple of decades later than it should've.

I've tried discussing these things both in this article and its parent, but some editors have such tenacity that it's hard to curb. If you believe you can assist, I would most appreciate it. François Robere (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Are charges academic?

Current nationalism in Poland has been generated by charges of Polish media, academy, museums and film industry. The WWII Museum was a political project without any common knowledge/support. Common Poles have been robbed (taxed) to support projects they didn't accept. Polish films have been financed by taxpayers and designed for film festivals abroad, not for common viewers. The obvious reaction is a wave of nationalism.

The roots of the conflict are historical - slavery of Chrisitian peasants. Some of current US problems have roots in Afroamerican slavery and many subjects are politicall incorrect. Criticizing of Polish peasants is politically correct. Double standards.

The Polish academics abroad didn't care about many facts, especially JT Gross, but 200 000 by Grabowski is also a good example.

changes to museum exhibitions and commemoration sites - perhaps 1% of such sites and at least some of them are right. As if everything was O.K. till 2015. It wasn't.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but you seem to be agreeing that there's popular bias.

Whatever your opinion is of G & G, they're trusted by scholars worldwide. You can't use your opinion to censure others when RS disagree. François Robere (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing - cont.

Today's crop includes:

1. An editor restored content removed by myself (looks like synthesis, or at least sourced by non-RS on the matter but not presented as such) and another editor (discussed above) without discussion; undid changes to lead, including removal of an estimate of the number of collaborators, called edits "unexplained" [91]
2. An editor removed three RS (one previously removed by another, then restored), instead of just tagging or asking on talk [92][93][94]
3. An editor removed two more RS, claiming "cherry picking" and irrelevance (talk?) [95][96]
4. An editor restored the text now twice-removed about Grabowski, which was then "improved" upon by another [97][98]. Notice the amount of attention given in this paragraph to refute Grabowski's number.
5. An editor again removed a "not in source" tag that's next to a source, claiming "information in following paragraphs". Well it's not in that source, and keeping it next to it means the claim looks sourced when it's not [99]
6. An editor removed a note I made about a claim being supported only by very early (pre-1945), with only one being a scholarly source, claiming "some are new". This is something I asked about several times in the talk page, to no avail [100]
7. An editor removed a well-sourced statement about the German intentions of not setting up a puppet government [101]. They then removed another well-sourced tidbit that challenges the popular perception [102], making way for the restoration of the false claim that the Germans "failed" in doing so [103]
8. An editor made an unsourced edit marginalizing the role of a pro-German politician [104]

François Robere (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the will to review this in detail, but honestly, I want to caution all editors active here to mind their editing and discussing conduct, and to try to reach the middle ground. This has been a problematic topic for months, and there is too much back and forth and not listening to the 'other side here'. I won't be surprised if this ends up in front of an ArbCom, and the usual solution in this case is going to be a bunch of semi-random topic bans and blocks for the less lucky editors. Doubt many people will enjoy the aftermath.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I wish everyone were as eager to cooperate as either of us. I wouldn't have made this list if I was certain that whatever work I make on the article wouldn't just get reverted on someone's whim regardless of RS. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Describing somebody else's editing as "Whitewashing" is a severe breach of rules already. Do you mind reflecting and rewording? 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:B5A4:6D89:3A1F:3AE5 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case then half the editors here should've been thrown out already. Mind this substantial truth: When a significant amount of your edits reflects a particular POV and you disregard RS that contradict it (or editors that cite such RS), then that's no longer proper editorial conduct, call it as you will. François Robere (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't see "the other half" pointing out to the fact that it appears you are deliberately attempting to assign the responsibility for the Holocaust to the Poles and the Polish State. It's evident, and you should be concerned about the effects it might have on your future editing powers in the upcoming administrative scrutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:54E2:E190:37F5:8163 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

One editor accused me of "messing with the article text" and "POV pushing" because I tagged a 2003 source that was claimed to refute a source that was only published a decade later [105], and repeatedly accused me of "manipulative language" and "sanitizing" text (which I never have, and never will do). But they haven't been active here (nor making such comments) for some days, so I wouldn't like to draw them here now.

Another's comments towards me were characterized as "[reeking of] bad faith and shade... essentially polite incivility" [106]. They later made personal comments at another user [107].

A third repeatedly accused me of "making stuff up", "making shit up", "dishonest editing" and whatnot (take your pick here); hinted at another user using "sockpuppets" without proof, and even suggested banning two users [108].

A fourth once accused me of "making things up" [109]; that user doesn't usually does so, but in terms of introducing bias to the text - they're pretty about their belief that "there was no collaboration" [110][111], and have made personal accusations against sources that stated otherwise, (eg. that they only write for money and fame).

All of this took place weeks before I opened this thread. I'm not in the habit of making personal accusations or tracking users, or whatever, and I wouldn't have started this list as a first measure. Some of these issues were discussed exhaustively on talk but they just keep popping up again and again, and there's no way of stopping it without first showing who's doing what. François Robere (talk) 04:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Use of wPolityce.pl coverage of a facebook post as source for history

The following diff, despite multiple references to corroborate some of the claims made in the arguments therein, is sourced entirely to wPolityce.pl coverage of a Facebook post of Jakub Kumoch - Poland's ambassador to Switzerland (who holds a PhD in social sciences, though it seems [112] most of his career was in journalism and foreign relations). The web portal wPolityce has not been discussed on RSN yet for general news (and there are probably some questions regarding its general use), but definitely would not be an acceptable source for history. Nor are Facebook posts an acceptable source for such content.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The information is widely quoted. The Facebook page of Poland's ambassador to Switzerland is not being used. All claims to the contrary are usually laughable anyway. Poeticbent talk 14:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• If widely quoted - surely there is a better source than - Skąd liczba 40 tys. ocalonych z Holokaustu? Ambasador RP w Szwajcarii demaskuje Jana Grabowskiego: Powołuje się na źródła wtórne pasujące do jego tezy from which this argument is sourced (and repeated in Wikipedia's voice).Icewhiz (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The real sources, yet to be acknowledged in here, are: Saul Friedländer who in turn misquoted Antony Polonsky in good faith. Everything else that goes on is icing on the cake. Poeticbent talk 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• But that is OR - the two sources pre-date Grabowski's claim, and claiming that one misquoted the other (and that Grabowski relied on either and not on a collection of sources) is OR. Using wPolityce (or the Facebook post of the ambassador which is covered by wPolityce ) for historical source analysis is a no-go.Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• You are not listening, but I trust in Wikipedia editors' ability to read Grabowski and summarize what they read: https://books.google.com/books?id=oVmSAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA3 . There’s no anchor in support of his arithmetic at the end of the paragraph. The number has never been repeated in his book again! His source, Friedländer (quoted right above, and named on page 248) reveals itself to be a circular reference: https://books.google.com/books?id=oVmSAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA248 . No original research. Just facts. Poeticbent talk 16:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

So you're basically admitting it's WP:OR and you have no scholarly source that you can directly cite that states the same. François Robere (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust in Poland was designed and implemented by Germans (and Austrians) and their allies (Romania, Hungary). The Germans applied in Poland extremal terror. Some nations (USA,UK) haven't been occupied/terrorised since ages so many editors lack basic knowledge about facts and psychology of terror.

Is Wikipedia a court, where some editors have a mission, pretend to be prosecutors who accuse Poland and Polish people? Many nations were invoolved in the Holocaust - murdering, returning Jewish refugees to Germany, delivering arms or raw materials used in the Holocaust. Is there another case in this Wikipedia against another nation? Your language (collaboration) makes your methodology biased.

Please show me a neutral methology comparing level of terror and survival rate.

No Polish (including Gross and Grabowski) Holocaust historian has any idea about mathematics and scientifical methodology. Both Gross and Grabowski misuse numbers.

Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:OR. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

And even a weird opinion to sentence nations or having such allegations like "Some nations (USA,UK) haven't been occupied/terrorised since ages", especially the core of the modern history of these nations are the conquer of other territories and subdue other people, slavery and many wars as well - among many other nations - however I had no intention to say any recension or any generalizing statement neither of these nations, nor "Germans (Austrians), (Romania, Hungary), just a little bit waking up a bit the necessary objectivity.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC))

a weird opinion - "Some nations (USA,UK) haven't been occupied/terrorised since ages" - only Channel Islands were occupied during WWII and the behaviour of local population was standard - they wanted to survive. US civilian population wasn't exterminated and robbed the way Poles were during WWII. Only soldiers fighting abroad were traumatised the way many European civilians were during WWII. Both US and UK refused to accept Jewish refugees until it was too late.

This Wikipedia contains only one long page about collaboration (in German-occupied Poland). The template misinforms similarly. Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Cooper, Leo (2000). In the shadow of the Polish eagle : the Poles, the Holocaust, and beyond.

• I have found only one academic review, very critical.
• 60% of Amazon opinions is critical.
• The author published books about Soviet Union, not about Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• The second review, I don't have access. [113]Xx236 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There are better or worse reviews of his (regardless of Amazon, which isn't an "RS" on this matter). His is far from being a perfect source, but we have few that are. Each claim should be examined separately. François Robere (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

So let's examine.Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Source's ethnicity

@Amsgearing: With regards to this edit, can you explain how a source's ethnicity or nationality is relevant here? François Robere (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Your question doesn't even make sense. I was restoring a large batch of material that an anonymous IP deleted without explanation. If you need clarification, it would be helpful if you were more specific. Amsgearing (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. I assumed you read through the text - the edit was justified. But nevermind. François Robere (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Estimates on the number of Poles who saved Jewish refugees

With regards to this edit - the question of whether to include estimates on the number of heroes among Poles in the GG has been discussed in several places, and the consensus has been against it. One user commented 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"; another that a Wikilink to Rescue of Jews by Poles was enough. I think both suggestions are reasonable, while having two paragraphs devoted to the subject isn't. François Robere (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently not everyone agrees with it [114], so I'm pinging those who took part in the previous three discussions (there were probably others who opined on this in different discussions). The question is as such: Do estimates of the number of Poles who saved Jews belong in an article about collaboration with Nazi Germany, and if so - why, where, or to what extent. You already know my opinion. François Robere (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

(GizzyCatBella ThoughtIdRetired Slatersteven Piotrus E-960)

spurious tagging

Francois Roberte has inserted numerous and mostly spurious tags all through out the article, generally after statements which they personally WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, but which, because they are well sourced, they can't outright remove. This is clearly WP:TEND and WP:POINT behavior and fails to assume good faith. You can always ask for quotations on talk but in the meantime please stop playing these games with the spurious tags.

(and this behavior where as soon as one quotation is provided, FR comes up with three new ones evidences that the purpose here isn't to actually improve the article. It's also reminiscent of other users who've tried these tactics in the past, though that's been long time ago).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If you do not have access to a source it seems reasonable to ask. But only one at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's really very simple: Some editors have been misquoting sources repeatedly (again, take for example the whole "Polish puppet government" thing), so to make sure this wasn't the case with the already-present non-English sources I just searched through the article, checked which sources I don't have access to, and tagged those. If any editor can provide a quote and/or translation that established the cited claims, then do so and I'll be satisfied. If you'd rather I'd add them at a rate of, say, one every three days, so as not to stress yourselves (or whatever) I can do that as well.

@Volunteer Marek: You know full well that I've asked for quotes on the talk page more than once, and more often than not didn't get them. At any rate, when a quote is provided we might as well add it as an endnote in the article, so an edit will be warranted whether I tag it or not, so tagging isn't really adding work for anyone else. François Robere (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

When an English translation of a Polish text is needed, please email me the text (giving me a Wikipedia email alert) and indicate the required passage, and I'll try my hand at a translation and email it back.

Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Social Self-Help collaboration?

The paragraph mentioning the Jewish Social Self-Help cites two sources: The first (Garbarini, 2011) gives general background. The second (Młynarczyk, 2009) claims some members of the JSS took part in the deportations from Warsaw. This isn't enough to cast the entire organization as collaborationist. Any other sources? François Robere (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

'Some members of the JSS took part in the deportations from Warsaw. This isn't enough to cast the entire organization as collaborationist'

Since only 10% of Blue Police collaborated, are you arguing this entity should be removed from this article? Also Mlynarczyk is a respectable well reliable source. Are you disputing Jewish Self Help collaborated with Nazi Germany? Can you present sources saying so?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, you need an RS to make that claim. Second, even 10% of 15,000-20,000 is more than "some". Third, we have sourced calling the Blue Police collaborators. We don't have those for the JSS. François Robere (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Jacek Andrzej Młynarczyk, Pomiędzy współpracą a zdradą. Problem kolaboracji w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie – próba syntezy, Pamięć i Sprawiedliwość: biuletyn Głównej Komisji Badania Zbrodni przeciwko Narodowi Polskiemu Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej-this is a reliable scholary source. Are you claiming it isn't RS? And yes Mlynarczyk names JSS as collaborating with Nazi Germany. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's not a peer reviewed publication or an academic publisher, but a government run organization. A better source, if available, preferably in English, would be an improvement.Icewhiz (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's an academic journal that yes, receives state funding. It's a perfectly reliable source of high scholarly value. If you are claiming it isn't RS, feel free to take it to appropriate board for discussion. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Typically the WP:ONUS is on those who wish to include, and I do not see sources presented or previous discussion on this source. One would assume there are English sources on the Jewish Social Self-Help - Holocaust history is a pretty well trodden path.Icewhiz (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to claim this isn't a reliable source, feel free to do so on appropriate page.So far you haven't produced a single argument. Non-english sources are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: First of all, I'd appreciate complete citations (ISBN/ISSN/DOI would be great), because as it is it makes locating the sources problematic. Second, I haven't seen him name the organization as collaborationist. Quote? François Robere (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote provided.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I've already seen the one in the article (Młynarczyk, 2009), if that's the one you're referring to. See comment above. François Robere (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand to about one million."

This statement has been attributed to a claim by a researcher.Do we have any more information on these numbers? On what basis does he claim one million? Does it include Ukrainian citizens of Poland, German citizens of Poland and Jewish collaborators as well ? I read on this talk page that actually this is based on Madajczyk. Is this correct?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That's Friedrich's ref. I don't know how he reached his conclusion. François Robere (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2018 (UTC):: I

As I am pretty sure we discussed in the past, the million is sourced to Madajczyk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. François Robere-please confirm. Does your source use Madajczyk for these numbers?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It was, and it does. The exact citation is Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitik in Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: Annaherungen-Zblizenia (Dusseldorf, 1996), 146. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And Madajczyk according to this author claims 1 mln Polish collaborators, yes? Is that what your author claims? Please confirm.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is as it appears in the text, with two references - one to Lukas, the other to Madajczyk. François Robere (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait, this is becoming more confusing.First you said it is Madajczyk, now you are saying it is Lukas. Which is it then ? And does it claim Polish collaborators or collaborators in general?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The lower estimate is taken from Lukas, the highers from Madajczyk.

It says "Polish collaborators", doesn't it? François Robere (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You have to be precise, Polish can either mean ethnic Polish or citizens. Without distinction it is meaningless. But you are saying Madajczyk is sourced as source of the 1 million figure? That is highly unlikely because Madajczyk stated that only 5% of population(without dividing into ethnic groups like Jews, Germans, Poles) collaboratored in GG.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is.

Quote? François Robere (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Miscellaneous edits from the weekend

The weekend saw some 80 edits, about 15 of those mine. I'm not clear on some of the others:

• @Volunteer Marek: you marked this as "POV and OR", but it's all in the source. Friedrich makes a point of the peasantry being the class least injured by the occupation, and perhaps the only one whose economic situation actually improved because of it. Compare with the current phrasing, which uses "even" to suggest estimates that include the peasantry are biased. As for the Baudienst, he makes no suggestion that participation in an akzion was compulsory (and reason alone suggests searching Jews' homes has an element of willingness, as you're not obligated to report something you alone found), so the current phrasing is unduly suggestive. As for the last sentence (Connelly) - it repeats content from an earlier paragraph, so is redundant. Neither of this is "POV" or "OR".
• Here you claimed the tagging is "spurious" - is it? Could Witos had been instated as premier in a purely ceremonial fashion, sans cabinet? Yes. Does the source claim otherwise? No. So this should be edited.
• Again similar claims: first of all, that specific source only applies to Estreicher, so any generalization to other cases is contrived. Second, none of the sources actually claim the Germans "failed" in setting up a puppet government, and several sources suggest they never even tried. In both cases that claim is out of place.
• This has several issues: First, it seems to pull quotes from the source without context, resulting in odd suggestions like "the Poles' main motive [in being armed by the Germans?] was to gain intelligence on German morale and preparedness" (in fact, the sources speak of contacts in this context, not collaboration). Another example is "There were no known joint German-AK operations, and the Germans were unsuccessful in getting the Poles to fight exclusively the Soviet partisans" - that's kind of a stupid statement, isn't it? It either part of it was true, then the AK wouldn't have been a "resistance organization", but it is. Well, the first part is miss-quoted (originally: "at the Germans' behest") and out of context (persecution of Jews), and the second makes much more sense when read in context - that of eastern Poland under a murderous Soviet occupation. So all of that has to be rephrased.
• An IP editor hailing from Poland made several edits, some of which I later reverted.
• This has been discussed before. The population total gives the reader the impression the number of szmalcowniki was particularly small (and, by suggestion, that Warsaw Poles had certain attitudes that were unaccommodating to collaboration); however, you can't really know if the number of blackmailers in Warsaw was high or low without comparing it to other cities. You can also think of it this way: if every city in Europe had the same proportion of blackmailers (0.35%) as Warsaw, would it matter for the sake of the article what's Warsaw's total population? So there's an implicit suggestion here that has to be resolved.
• Another IP editor hailing from Poland made several edits [115]. I reverted some of the changes.

François Robere (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Francois, most if not all of these objections boil down to "the text or sources do not accord with my original research". A good example is your last bullet point. Does it give that impression or is that just your inference? And if it happens to give that impression, well, it's from the source, so what's wrong with that impression? And yes, your tags were spurious and not just borderline nitpicky - they're all "well, I think it could've been different so I'm going to tag the source because it doesn't use the precise wording I think it should use". That's not how it works.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that it's all OR. Can you please tell me how the two source in that point connect? From what I see, the first source doesn't mention collaboration, and the second doesn't give population statistics, so they're really just two unrelated sources, and combining them constitutes synthesis. That much isn't OR, right? It's per policy, it doesn't reach new conclusions etc. etc. Just statements of fact. So now the question is "we've synthesized two unrelated sources - why?" (and here we're still talking about editorial considerations - our actions as editors, what they relay to the reader etc. - so that's not OR either) "What does this synthesis suggest to the reader?" What do you think? I think it implies a certain proportion of collaborators, otherwise why do we need the two numbers side by side if not for comparison? And if it implies a proportion, then it's the definition of OR ("...analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources"). Correct?

(And all I've done here is a) make a statement of fact about the sources; and b) discuss editorial considerations, neither of which is OR.)

BTW I'm happy that you said that sources don't have to use an arbitrary "precise wording", because a while ago you complained the statement "As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel", appearing in an article titled "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust", doesn't actually imply "railroad personnel" are collaborators. At any rate, I have a new source that you should review.

Do you wish to continue with the other "OR" points (Estreicher, Friedrich, Radziłowski et al.), or can I restore my changes? François Robere (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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:

Extended content

According to historian Jan Grabowski in his 2013 book "Hunt for the Jews", 200,000 Jews "were killed directly or indirectly by the Poles". The book was awarded the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize. However, the book sparked a controversy in Poland and the estimate has been criticized, notably by fellow historians and by the Polish League Against Defamation. In response, the Polish Center for Holocaust Research and a large group of international Holocaust scholars published statements in defense of Grabowski. References

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/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/831218731 Chumchum7 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Triumphal arches?

Regarding this edit: I only found one source mentioning this, and it's very recent (and I didn't find its references). Anything else? François Robere (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I will add this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, only that one doesn't cite a source and it doesn't seem to be quite RS in its own right, at least not enough to make such a claim. Do you have other sources? François Robere (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski, Snyder and definition of terms

• As I've said above I support the retention of Grabowski with the same rationale that I supported the retention of Ciechanowski. Controversiality is no grounds for exclusion. The solution is balance, and also making the effort to read the source closely to see balance inside the source. If you find Grabowski's criticism of the Polish record unpleasant, look closer and you'll see he is arguably rather measured on the Polish record in the Holocaust: I have seen him saying that 85% of the Jewish population was wiped out with nothing to do with with Poles whatsoever. If you think his figure of 200,000 Jews killed with at least some Polish involvement is as exaggeration, bear in mind that while it's a large number, the size of a small city, it's also ~3% of the total Jewish deaths in the Holocaust. You could ask yourself, given the most Jews lived in Poland, why doesn't he say that percentage was higher? Grabowski's own answer is that Germany, not Poland, was the author of the Holocaust and also that active Polish collaborators were few and far between. Perhaps some of us here need to read more before jumping to conclusions.

• Working towards consensus, Timothy Snyder is useful: "In 1943 the Home Army was even more concerned about communism than it was in 1942. ... Despite its promises to do so, the Home Army never organized a Jewish unit from the veterans of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Over the course of 1943, units of the Home Army sometimes shot armed Jews in the countryside as bandits. In a few cases, Home Army soldiers killed Jews in order to steal their property. On the other hand, the Home Army did execute Poles who turned in Jews or tried to blackmail them." Bloodlands p. 293

• Finally, and this may help bring stability to the article, we urgently need a definition of terms, starting with a mention of what collaboration is in the lede. A good paragraph on it should include the range of definitions, based on various historians' perspective. It is not Wikipedia's place to presume what the definition of collaboration is, we need verifiable sources to do so for us.

• To explain the rationale, and not for this article's content, the term collaboration was first used to describe the specificity of the Vichy French record in WWII, differentiating it from the Axis powers. French collaboration extended to a purportedly neutral French state making a written agreement with Germany, sending Jews to the German authorities, as well as killing American and British soldiers in combat. There has been massive inflation of the concept in amateur parlance since then. Arguably Bulgarian collaboration extended to the purportedly Axis Bulgarian state making a written agreement with Germany, helping German war aims in the Balkans, but not killing Soviet soldiers in combat and actually changing its policy to start saving Jews, in defiance of Germany. Meanwhile Soviet sources say the Americans collaborated with Germany by refusing to conduct D-Day in 1943, and given that more Soviets were killed than Jews in WWII, the general Soviet notion of collaboration has nothing to do with Jewish deaths; meanwhile the Soviets killed hundreds of Jews at Katyn, while in de facto alliance with Germany in 1940. If indifference or non-intervention is the definition of collaboration, then America is guilty of it for the first two years of the war. The first British shots of WWII were fired across Jews in the Tiger Hill, and during the Holocaust the British killed Jews in combat in the Mandate of Palestine: so if our given is that killing Jews is collaboration, then the absurd logic would be that Britain collaborated with Germany in the Holocaust, a formulation that nobody puts forward. This all needs to be clarified, for assumptions to be rooted out, which will help arguments to be cooled down.

• Some say it's a given that Polish killing of Jews is the definition of collaboration, even as collaboration in Poland entailed no state agreement with Germany and no military cooperation. Dozens of Jews were murdered in race crimes in Poland prior to WWII that had nothing to do with Germany, so that definition doesn't work for everyone. Snyder above speaks of the Polish Home Army soldiers' murder of Jews, and he does not name it as collaboration; for us to name it as such is touching on WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we need a good paragraph on a definition of the term showing that some historians don't specify Jew-killing in the absence of Germans is collaboration, other historians do. And that needs to be impeccably sourced.

Chumchum7 (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Excellent points. Would you consider drafting an early section for this article on "Definition of collaboration"?

Nihil novi (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with "collaboration" as a term is that it is POVish by definition - it can be very narrow, or include Collaboration horizontale or even just nourishing the enemy - and as such, there are multiple sources defining "collaboration" in a different manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That very aspect needs to be spelled out—if nothing else. Nihil novi (talk) 06:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, and I made similar points earlier [116][117]. I have a dozen sources I want to put here on just this subject, but I know from experience that the section will get mangled in less than a day, just like it had in the past - we already had (short) explanations on historiography and semantics in a couple of places, but they were removed time and time again by other editors. We have a decent cadre of editors here, and I think the article can be made excellent; but we also have a handful of editors who habitually disagree on simple questions of fact (see "whitewashing" and "miscellaneous edits" above), and are no more friendly to abstract discussions like this. I'd be happy to work with you on this, I just don't think the text will last unless we can prevent disruptions like that. François Robere (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Dozens of Jews were murdered in race crimes in Poland - your source, please. In the infamous Przytyk pogrom two Jews and one Pole were killed.

The situation in Poland was complicated, Poles murdered Poles, Jews muredered, Jews, Jews murdered Poles. Selecting murdering of Jews is cherrypicking.Xx236 (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Xx236 (talk) you have misunderstood. One argument why some Polish killing of Jews might not be defined as 'collaboration' for the purposes of this article (and should therefore be excluded from it) is that the killing of Jews was happening before the German arrival in Poland (on a microscopic scale compared to what Germany undertook, and in incomparable circumstances). Killing Jews is evidently not the universally accepted definition of collaboration. There are many formulations. Therefore we need several sourced definitions of the term in an early paragraph, and a mention of this issue of the scope of the term in the lede. Chumchum7 (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

There were pogroms in Szczuczyn and Kolno in 1941 without German participatiion.Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Section on definition of collaboration should go to the Collaboration with Axis Powers articles. Or, better, to the article on collaboration. In subarticles like this we should at best have a short summary note saying that definitions differ. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there adequate discussion of the meaning of "collaboration" in the article on "collaboration in German-occupied Poland" right now? It is crucial to define the term that the article is about. Nihil novi (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. All that's required is a paragraph, but it is essential.

they were still "Polish" in at least the geographic sense

Please check your maps 1940-1944, I don't see any Poland there. World leaders moved Poland in 1945, so there was obviously no consensus regarding the geographic sense.

Volksgermans declared they were German.Xx236 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Whether there is a Poland on the map or not is irrelevant. Even if there were not, that doesn't mean that everybody that lived in what had become annexed Poland wasn't Polish. Countries (and national identities, which is what is being discussed here) don't cease to exist just like that, especially as a result of an annexation. If we were to follow this logic, one could argue that the German minority which lived in Poland at the time (before the country was annexed) was not in any way German because they were living in Poland, and hence it would be wrong to say there was even a German minority, since they were all Polish...

That argument, obviously, falls flat. As a matter of national or ethnic identity, then yes it's possible to be Polish without the country of Poland existing, in the same way that it's possible to be German without actually living in Germany. As for this particular situation, some of the conscripts were indeed part of the German minority, some were not (some were forced into signing the Volksliste), etc... Thus, we need a term which includes all of these, and the only one is "Polish", in the geographic sense. Q.E.D. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In the same way, there was a "Polish government-in-exile" without there technically being a Poland for it to govern. Should we rename that page to "Government-in-exile of the former Polish citizens"? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

People still spoke the Polish language and practiced the Catholic faith. Those who signed a Deutsche Volksliste, often reverted to their Polish identification post-war - being offered rehabilitation and citizenship if they spoke Polish - avoiding Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II.Icewhiz (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you use Polish nationalistic definition of Polish people, one of many. It's POV.

Please reference the geographic sense. Please don't impose you language and your POV.

People who declared to be German, didn't accept the government-in-exile.

Some people were terrorized and declared German nationality. Such terror was illegal. Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

That is irrelevant and we don't care about it - this page isn't a discussion of Nazi war crimes. The signatories of the Volksliste were Poles (in the sense "People living in Poland") and some were conscripted (by force) by the Germans. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If "where a person lives" defines identity, then the German occupation forces in Poland were also "Polish". Nihil novi (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Straw man. I never referred to the occupation forces, and they are a special case anyway since they are military forces. Tell me, are American soldiers in Afghanistan American or Afghan? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

[Polish]: "of, relating to, or characteristic of Poland, the Poles, or Polish". Please, cite a source which says that there was no "Poland" (in any form) during WWII, since this is what is necessary to establish there were no "Poles" (and for it not to be OR). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

In English - Poles and Polish would typically refer to the ethnic sense (this, I believe, conflicts with the Polish language use) - not to the government. Defining based on the government of exile (which was not recognized by all nations) would lead to Polish communists being defined as non-Polish, for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Usually, yes. It can also, and non-controversially, be defined as being people residing in Poland (example, people residing in Canada are "Canadian" no matter their ethnic background (of course, usually it's clearly mentioned if they have a certain ethnic background), and people residing in Poland would all be Polish in that sense) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The conflict in WW2 Poland had uniquely and intensively ethnic character and describing groups, victims and perpertrators based on citizenship alone wouldn't allow for its precise description.Researchers and historians clearly do divide the groups based on ethnicity in order to describe the events that took place during this period. Hence we have historians writing about "German Selbstschutz", "Jewish partistans" and dividing victims of Holocaust into ethnic categories like Poles and Jews(interestngly Szymon Datner points out that some of those who were classified as Jewish victims, never identified as Jews, and were captured by Nazis on basis on old genealogical records from synagogues, even if their whole life they identified as Poles and had no connection to Jewish society).Describing for example Selbstschutz as "Polish organization" would terribly misleading as it consistent of Ethnic Germans hunting down Poles and Jews as part of Nazi extermination plans, even if they held Polish citizenship. In case of Wehrmacht the situation is more nuanced, as not all those who subscribed to Volksliste were Germans, and some were forced to serve, others signed hoping to avoid repressions.The background and the complex situation of those involved should be described.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Amen. Nihil novi (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

So, because people ethnically identify as "not Polish", then they cannot be identified as "Polish" even if they were citizens of Poland before the war? That is an accepted sense of the word, and in English it is only one of many possible senses, and in the context of the article (precisely, the "Poles in the Wehrmacht" section) it is clear that the sense being referred to is the "citizenship" or "lived there" sense of the word, therefore it is unambiguous and it does not imply that the Polish citizens were ethnic Poles. Also, the article clearly states that many were forced into it, saying that "the scale of this phenomenon was much larger than previously assumed". Given that this was a mixed group - unlike the Selbstschutz (and that it doesn't seem to be an overwhelming majority - i.e., Poles forcibly conscripted in the Wehrmacht do not seem to constitute a negligible minority of all pre-war Polish citizens which were conscripted in the Wehrmacht), we need to apply the name that fits the group the best, and this is, as already argued, "Polish", in the clearly understood (from the context of the article) citizenship or geographic sense. Therefore, according to this, there is no need for a change. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Polish can mean ethnic Poles and this could be confusing. Polish citizens would be better.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Already in the article. "can mean", not "must mean", and it is clear from context and from what is already in the article that we are referring to "Polish citizens", not "ethnic Poles". Therefore, better be concise - section titles should be as short as reasonably possible, further details go in the section itself. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Poles can mean ethnic Poles, which is wrong as none of them were.Polish citizens is more precise. Why are you opposing changing the title to something that avoids confusion.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it doesn't improve the article? Because we should maintain consistency between articles (the current article linked in the section being Poles in the Wehrmacht)? Because "Poles" can mean "Polish citizens" which is obviously the non-confusing meaning being used (it is only ambiguous if it is not further defined in the article, however the first sentence of the section clearly says that it covers "Polish citizens")? If you want to change to section title, then the corresponding article needs to be moved to that title too, for consistency. As such, I strongly suggest that if you wish to go forward, you use the appropriate procedure.

And if you wish to reinstate your edit, you will have to bring new arguments, because you have so far failed to achieve consensus that the title is inappropriate. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

" Following the German invasion of Poland in 1939, many former citizens of the Second Polish Republic from across the Polish territories annexed by Nazi Germany were forcibly conscripted into the Wehrmacht" ------------ The title should read --} "Former Polish citizens in the German Wehrmacht."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:110f:4505:dc00:150a:272e:6d5:793a (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Many of the Poles in the Wehrmacht were Polish in the ethnic sense. They signed a Deutsche Volksliste during the war, but after the war were rehabilitated as Polish citizens due to their ethnicity and Polish language.Icewhiz (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The Poles were illegally drafted, victims of a crime aren't criminals.

Ethnic Germans run away or were expelled after the war.

The Poles who joined Waffen were considered traitors. [118] Xx236 (talk) 06:21, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

"Victims of a crime aren't criminals" - nowhere is it said, anywhere in the article, that the Poles (ethnic or otherwise) who fought in the Wehrmacht were criminals. Your argument lacks pertinence and is a straw man. The other 2 sentences are similarly off topic, the section is not about the Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50), nor is it about Poles in the SS, so again this lacks pertinence.

As a reminder, the issue at hand is the section title (and, inherently, the title of the linked article). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

People who left Poland after the war because of their collaboration weren't exactly Polish.

Wehrmacht service was exteremely unpopular in Poland and some people believe that it was the reason why Donald Tusk lost in 2005.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WTF has Donald Tusk to do with this? (i.e. stay on topic) And, a fact which we already established, most Poles in the Wehrmacht were actually conscripted in it against their will. We don't need to have an opinion on whether the Nazis committed a crime (yes), we just need to state: there were (ethnic and non-ethnic) Poles, usually forced into it (except maybe for the minority ethnic Germans who were Polish citizens at the time), who served in the Wehrmacht. And we are again not talking of the period after the war, I just linked it to show it wasn't related to this.

Get. Back. On. Topic! 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Judenrat - when?

First ghettos were created and only later Judenrats. It should be mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Execution of collaborators: Judicial, extra-judicial, or judicious?

This appears in lead. The latter was the first version used, and I restored it, as one editor suggested the underground's executions were extra-judicial. Anyone? François Robere (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't get into it. Just say "executed by". The question of whether this was judicial depends on the legitimacy of the underground movement in question, and due process in whatever proceeding they used (some sort of in absentia judgement (issuing a death warrant) or quick trial of captured individuals) - whatever term you use will be riddled with POV problems - so it is better not to get into it at all.Icewhiz (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly prefer not to, but others have been restoring that to the lead... François Robere (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly not "judicious". That was a linguistic mistake. "Executed" works, and reflects the Snyder quote above. Chumchum7 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of policemen in pre-war Poland and the implication for the Blue Police section

17,000 policemen in a country of ~30m people is about one policemen per 1,765 people, which is very low [119]. Assuming there were more than 17,000 policemen in pre-war Poland, we need to watch out phrasing to avoid suggesting that the entirety of Polish Police was conscripted to the Blue Police, unless we have sources to the contrary. François Robere (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

17,000 policemen in a country of ~30m people is about one policemen per 1,765 people Sigh...It is unfortunate how often editors most active in articles demonstrate lack of knowledge on the subject. Blue Police only existed on territory of General Gouvernment which had around 13mln people(constantly changing due to population movements during the war).Pre-war Polish Police had 33,000 policemen. Blue Police was really a token force. The main force in charge of keeping order in GG were stationed German soldiers(circa 400,000 on territory of GG), German police and SS(circa 50,000), and German administrative staff(around 400,000 as well).On studies carried out in regards to the occupation and collaboration GG and Polish territories annexed to Germany are usually treated somewhat seperate as both had different legal and administrative aspects.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You misread. The problem I raised was that the old text implied that all Polish policemen were drafted into the Blue Police, when it's clear it wasn't the case. You agree. Good! François Robere (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits

Following several disruptive edits by IP editors I've asked the page to be partially protected. I also asked for a "sockpuppet" investigation. In the meanwhile, can we now declare edits like this [120][121] "disruptive"? I've worked several hours on a series of about 20 edits [122], in addition to a previous revision of the "political collaboration" section and some changes to the "background" section, and Marek here decides he doesn't like it, so instead of reading through the changes he'll just all of them in bulk. Notice that most of the statements I added to the text include not only exact references, but also quotes from those references, so no can say "I didn't see it in the source". Also note how the revision tries to keep to the consensus on anything from Grabowski to the JSS; the only opinions I ignored are those that refused to engage on points, those that merely made general accusations, or those that were not supported by RS, or all three.

I welcome anyone to review and criticize any of my edits (today's starting with this one). Looking at other editors' recent work (Piotrus, Nihil novi, Pauli133 and Icewhiz) it seems we're approaching a stable version, and should stay the course. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the pp-protected template (e.g. [123]) does not seem constructive, nor do large scale reversions to a far back past version without addressing any particular point (beyond "whole bunch of questionable POV edits"), reverting what seems to be a few different editors.Icewhiz (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree with the above, and you are now edit warring as well. Also it does not matter what others do, we judge you in isolation.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz was referring to Marek's edits, Slatersteven, not mine. François Robere (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Your attention to procedure is remarkable, Slatersteven, but it would be nice if you also took notice of content.

Marek's edits from tonight:

1. Undoes my work in bulk [124]. No comments on specific edits, sources or anything. Again note I've included page numbers and quotes for all of the sources that were previously misrepresented.
2. Restores a statistic about rescuers; this and similar statistics have been removed multiple times from both this and the parent article, by multiple editors [125]
3. Restores section on Grabowski that's been removed by multiple editors [126]
4. Restores a sentence that's Bella's distortion of a source I added (originally with quote), that I had to fix multiple times because she kept changing it [127]

All of these are either contrary to the sources or to the consensus, or both, and all of this has been discussed ad nauseum on these pages. What do you think? François Robere (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

1. Rename section "Jewish Holocaust" to "The Holocaust" - an unneeded precision

2. In that same section, "and his estimate was been criticized" to "has been criticized".198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)