Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy

Is it collaboration if:

• You keep the trains running?
• You allow Nazis to use your ports or airspace?
• You export food to Nazi Germany?
  • What if it's tobacco?
• You deport Jews or other people knowing they will be killed?
• You maintain a list of Jews?
• You publicly espouse anti-Semitism?
• You accept funding from the Nazi government?
• You allow them to use you in their propaganda, ie portray you as Nordic übermenschen?
• You turn back refugees from your borders?
• What if you refuse them transit visas?
• You sabotage your own country, which is not occupied by Nazis?
  • What if it isn't occupied by Nazis but is fighting them elsewhere?
• You voluntarily enlist in a Fascist army?
• You enlist in a Fascist army to get out of a POW camp?

I could go on. All of these are real; there are no trick questions. I am looking for a way to break up a big topic. Comments welcome. Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If RS say it was, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe definitive definitions are possible as to what comprises "collaboration" and what comprises "resistance." In both cases the gray areas are wide. To my mind, the great majority of the people in the occupied countries of Western Europe were passive collaborators to some extent and only a small minority (1-3 percent) were part of the organized resistance to German occupation. Most people tolerated the Germans to survive, or prosper, or with the opinion that they could serve their country best by cooperation with the Germans where cooperation was possible. I wouldn't be too hard on the passive collaborators -- nor buy into exaggerations of the participation in and accomplishments of the resistance. After a war everybody likes to claim they were on the winning side. Smallchief (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s collaboration if the reliable sources say it is. Editors deciding what is and isn’t collaboration is original research. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, many sections of this article have no source -- reliable or not. I agree that only reliable sources should be used on wikipedia -- but an editor has to use discretion, honesty, and impartiality in evaluating the information in so-called "reliable sources." In controversial topics such as this, nationalistic fervor often trumps a search for reality. I'm not a robot. Smallchief (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No they do not as that violates wp:or. But in one repct you are rioght, and that is why wp:rs is clear, sources have to be third party. So one can argue that if a source is published by a party with a wp:coi it is not an rs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Give an editor some credit as he sorts though contradictory "reliable sources" and selects a tone that is fair to all of them. Using reliable sources, a biased editor could portray resistance movements as brave, noble, and successful or as back-biting, fragmented, partisan failures. Both interpretations have some truth to them. Smallchief (talk)

They asked for comments, they have received them. No one has so far done any more than say "we go with what RS say". Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

And I am interested in them. We're going to have to split the article pretty soon and doing so by continent is awkward because of the colonial empires. I think everybody agrees that Vichy was a collaborationist régime, but we have all of the above in different countries. One thought I recently had is that a Belgian (for example) voluntarily joining the SS is definitely collaborating, and such instances are scattered through the country sections. If we consolidate those and spin it off that would reduce the article size and allow somebody to get into gray areas like POWs who joined because they didn't think they would survive the camps.

All suggestions and comments welcome. I am trying to remediate the referencing as dispassionately as possible. 02:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: another idea. We could do both? @Mathglot: you might be interested if you aren't too busy, or want a break from what you're busy with Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as Europe is concerned, it is hard to go past Raphael Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. There are more specific texts on collaboration in different countries, but I have found with Yugoslavia that it is important to examine the possible national biases and the eminence of academics when deciding whose views determine the academic consensus. For example, it is not difficult to find Serb or Croat academics published mainly or only in Serbia or Croatia who seek to justify or downplay collaboration by Serbs and Croats. In such cases, you only have to look to subject matter specialists who, while they sometimes have family ties to the former Yugoslavia or were even born there, are published outside the former Yugoslavia by high quality university presses (Tomasevich, Hoare, Pavlowitch etc). I am sure the same would apply elsewhere in the world. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful. FYI, Belarus is completely unsourced and while Kosovo has references that superficially look reliable not one of the dozen or so I just checked can be verified through Google Books; they either have no page number in the reference or no preview. Which doesn't mean they aren't just fine, but it's a problem in this context Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Scope should correspond with the lede. From current lede: "In nations occupied by the Axis powers in World War II, some citizens and organizations collaborated..." and "Collaboration has been defined as cooperation between elements of the population of a defeated state and representatives of the victorious power." (emphasis mine) Romania and Bulgaria were Axis members, not occupied, and therefore should be removed from here. Along the similar lines, Hungary was only occupied after 1944 coup, so everything previous should be trimmed. There are Axis Powers, Responsibility for the Holocaust, and dedicated country specific articles for that stuff. Only a small part of Egypt west of El-Alamein was occupied, and current content is completely irrelevant to that. Whole "business collaboration" section has literally nothing to do with collaborating with an occupying power.--Staberinde (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Staberinde agree. This article was recently laboriously edited by a single editor. This is the most correct version editors might consider regressing to eliminate mistakes addressed above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Staberinde Or begin removing mistakes such as removing Axis power countries such as Romania etc. but that would take time. I would revert to the correct version and then maybe examine what could be saved later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to rewrite the lede. And I'm lumbered with a long section of misrepresentation that was reverted back in. The Middle East needs to be revisited, that's true, but if as proposed we spinoff all the regimental history, some of it may be important. we aren't sure what to do about individuals who broadcast propaganda. Pending a split, we are trimming out mentions like "and there was this one guy, he was definitely a notorious anti-communist." Most of the material GCB so dismissively proposed to revert is referencing, so *that* is a bad idea. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

PS - The Business collaboration section Was written by Piotrus, I believe he said; he definitely suggested expanding it. I actually agree with him -- these manufacturers were deeply involved in the forced labor programs, so they definitely bear responsibility for many hundreds of deaths. Yet that is lost in the current list-like section. I'd actually like to spin it off and expand it. Let's see what @Piotrus: thinks Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding spinning of a list, we already have the List of companies involved in the Holocaust... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So... Is everything in the section covered somewhere else? Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, "collaborationist" is almost exclusively used with respect to Vichy. Maybe we should move that to France. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and has a specific, different meaning than "collaborator", although non-specialists often conflate them. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish collaborator section

It's only about Poland. Elinruby (talk) 06:24, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:JUSTDOIT Marcelus (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I hear you. I did post at NPOV, but I am already going to go to wikihell for something I do here so...may as well . I hate deleting stuff but this is a case for it Elinruby (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this removal. If it's about Poland, then maybe it should be merged (but it was split from Polish section following the discussion seen in Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Archive 7); see also Talk:Collaboration_with_the_Axis_powers/Archive_6#How_to_best_title_the_section_related_to_Category:Jewish_Nazi_collaborators?? Or split into its own article. We have Category:Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany with no main article, to which this section was arguably its equivalent in prose, and redirects like Jewish collaboration which you've just made to point to thin air. It is a very controversial subject, but IMHO we should improve this content, not erase it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the controversy and no objection to the material going elsewhere. My objection to it is solely based on weight, in that it is solely about individuals in a single country, whereas there are entire massacres in other countries that aren't yet mentioned, and the article is oversize. I do suggest that you review my failed verification tag and consider deleting that one guy, as all the source provided claims is that he was known to call fellow prisoners "dirty Jew". Or sourcing his mention better. However, I did review several of the other names mentioned and agree that those were collaborators. Elinruby (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Since you already removed the content, and given your arguments, I'd suggest that you copy the removed content (minus stuff that failed verification) to the redirect I linked above. Interested editors can work to expand / improve the content there, or, if necessary, AfD the resulting article if they feel it is unsalvageable. Then you can add a see also entry to this article (or consider summarizing this in a much shorter form and retaining a much shorter section). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I considered copying it to the talk page; I agree that the redirect would be better. Probably tomorrow. A summary would require reading all of it, and possibly research to avoid generalizing too much, and my interest is minimal; more interested in the guy who became president of the European Parliament. It seems to me there is an issue of power that needs to be weighed. Definitely a time sink, but I'll commit to copying it to the redirect. Elinruby (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Please either re-add the removed content or add it to the redirect when you can, I am happy to edit and summarize it today and tomorrow. Shouldn't be WP:BLANK such info, even if it could have been better incorporated into the article. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

If you are going to remove large blocks of cited text just for being undue, discuss first and allow time for a consensus to form on which page it is due. WP:PRESERVE WP:NORUSH. Sennalen (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This is an overview article about collaboration with the Axis everywhere in the world. Which needs to be cut. I just removed some other text which had been tagged as unsourced since 2011. Nobody else is addressing any of this, except in Poland. I posted to draw attention to the question of whether a woman who informed on other Jews to save her parents is more important than a massacre in Malaysia, which is what we had. I am inclined to say no and am feeling a bit impatient with the concept. Was her choice deplorable mmmmyes but I am glad I didn't have to make it. Is it notable enough for an article about Jewish collaboration in the Warsaw ghetto? Most likely but I would have to do a lot of reading to make that call. I am not questioning whether such collaboration existed, as it did in other places I am more familiar with. As an aside I think the article should be completely rewritten and probably also split so if we wind up with a collaboration in Eastern Europe it may become DUE there. As it is as a prelude to a rewriting, I have my hands full fixing copyvio and NPOV and sketchy referencing with respect to large groups of people, not just individuals.

I am about to be unavailable for several hours. If anyone wants to get started on working on the material, feel free to copy it over yourself. I have no objection, although I suggest you read it over with a critical eye as one of the names failed verification and the sourcing for several others is a Times of Israel article saying that the Polish government is wrong. It does mention these names though, down near the bottom. As RS though, there must be something better.

Meanwhile if it is somehow important that I be the one to do it, I've said I will, but I will miss lunch if I don't go now and while I am there I have offline tasks to do Elinruby (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not one source is bad and whether the section needs re-writing, this is not a case of WP:BLOWITUP. Most of the content in that section was well sourced, and since the topic was already lacking a new article, some of the information became at risk of being lost if other editors did not notice this. There are many documented instances of such collaboration, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany so I just don't understand why you would delete such information? I am not going to be the one to make a new article on such a controversial subject, but nearly all the text you removed was indeed sourced, so I am just confused why you did not rephrase it to state how small a minority actively collaborated. If you could just revert your previous edit for now I don't think that would cut into your lunch break. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

please take yes for an answer and go read up on due weight. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby the above user (LegalSmeagolian) can’t edit that topic area (30/500). You should discuss massive removal of source content first, don’t just delete it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The section is on the small side for an article. It might fit at Nazi crimes against the Polish nation. Sennalen (talk) 00:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s not an appropriate article, these collaborators weren't Nazis. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

what's wrong with Collaboration in German-occupied Poland? I don't see these people mentioned in the section about Jewish collaboration or the one about individual collaboration. Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I seriously suggest better sourcing though. Elinruby (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

That seems ideal. Sennalen (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

A summary there would be good, yes - just like here. But we need a main article for the phenomena of Category:Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, per WP:CATMAIN, and the content here is relevant, no? There is stuff in that category that is not Poland related and can be used to globalize this topic beyond Poland (ex. Lehi_(militant_group)#Activities_and_operations_during_World_War_II). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh you're here now, Piotrus. I guess I don't have to fix my mention of you. I hear you on catmain. But I leave that in your capable hands. I have copied the material to the redirect as you requested. For now I'm removing individuals from this article, unless they had choices, like Pétain and Bousquet. Did you ever comment on the split proposal? Because that would relieve the size pressure and might be one way to solve this. Elinruby (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I did minor c/e to at Jewish collaboration, activating CATMAIN and such. Hopefully editors will improve this article in the future. PS. I don't think I was ever called a "template" before... :P _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: but I'm supposed be polite when he lectures me on Wikipedia policy? I don't see why material about Poland should be treated differently than other material. I'm back and will now carry out the edit request cough demand as I told Piotrus I would. Elinruby (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Not trying to lecture you, just refresh you. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

It's pretty insulting no matter what you call it. But fine. I still think you should read up on due weight. Have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

• I think this section should be completely removed from this page (no specific opinion about such sections in other pages). This is because page "Collaboration with the Axis powers" is about (and should be about) collaboration by states or mostly by states. Singling out a specific ethnic group, same as was singled out by Nazi, does look antisemitic to me. Normally, I would just remove such section myself right now, so I did, no matter that we have the standing arbitration . My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Most of the collaborations described in the article did not take place at the state level, moreover, some cases such as Romania and Hungary should be removed or truncated because these countries were allies of Germany, not its collaborators. Collaborations between Estonians, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Poles, Azerbaijanis, etc. also took place on a personal level, sometimes organizations, but not states. There is a conversation to move away from a state-based description at all, and focus on a more problematic description of the phenomenon. Marcelus (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

But this page is organized "by states" right now. I do not like the suggestion to organize collaborators by ethnic groups because that would imply a collective responsibility of ethnic groups, where the alleged responsibility of Jews for their own persecution would be just the most outrageous example. The collective responsibility of ethnic groups was an idea by Nazi ideologists. Not only Nazi of course. For example, a propaganda narrative that "Ukrainians are neo-Nazi" is claiming the same. Unfortunately, using such ethnicity-based categories is unavoidable in cases of inter-ethnic conflicts, such as Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. However, the Holocaust and other crimes by Nazi was not such historical inter-ethnic conflict between Jews or any other peoples (like Polish people, etc.), even though Nazi did exploit the anti-Jewish sentiment in all countries they occupied. My very best wishes (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I said that the coverage of the subject should be problematic rather than ethnic/state; I.e., to describe collaboration as a phenomenon, and not to be a mere enumeration of collaborating formations, individuals, and organizations. And it is not true that currently the article is organized "by states", there is a section with a geographical breakdown, there is a section on volunteers, a section on economic collaboration, and so on. Even in its current form, the article is clearly heading in this direction.

The section on Jewish collaboration absolutely did not suggest responsibility of Jews for their own persecution, this is a baseless allegation. Please restore the section you removed. Marcelus (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I justified the removal in my comments just above, and stand by it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And I refuted your arguments, if you still refuse the revert you are simply WP:STONEWALLING; also WP:NOTCENSORED applies here.

I would revert your changes, but I'm on 0RR, and I think you are aware of that. Marcelus (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, this is basically a content fork of such section on page Collaboration in German-occupied Poland; it belongs there if anywhere. My very best wishes (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Not true, Jewish collaboration did not take place only on the territory of Poland, but also in other countries: the Baltics, Belarus, the Netherlands, Palestine etc. Marcelus (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, self-revert. Marcelus (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, that was not only about Poland. Which makes such section even worse per my comments above. If anyone wants to revert my edit, I will not revert back again per WP:BRD. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert. However, the topic seems notable and coverage by RSs is good. If the topic of this article is defined in the way MVBW thinks it should be - "collaboration only by states" - then I wonder if anyone would object to Marcelus creating an article on Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany. Since the topic is well suitable for antisemitic propaganda, fringe theories, shocking trivialisations and all kinds of bullshit, I think it would be desirable to have a well-sourced and balanced Wikipedia article on it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Ops! An article on the topic already exists - sorry, my mistake. Well, perhaps Marcelus's text can be added/merged to that one, I don't know. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that the topic will sooner or later come back to this article, because it's within the WP:SCOPE of it; but probably after the article will be remodelled. Marcelus (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I actually think so that is entirely possible as well, but there is also the matter of appearing to single Jews out, when there are other transnational groups as well, but we don't have sections on them. Cossacks come to mind and so do Roma and various Yugoslavian groups like the Cham. (I think most of them were nationalists though, and that's a difference.)

Also, does anyone object to me starting a draft for Yugoslavia? Elinruby (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

BRD fail: moving text here in the absence of discussion

Enough is enough: the following text was reverted back into the article then abandoned. if someone can fashion a well-sourced summary out of this we can discuss including that. i personally don't think Jewish collaborators should get extra focus Elinruby (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

<! -- == Jewish collaboration == --> See also: Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany Though Germany was trying to kill all Jews in the Holocaust, there were a few Jews who, under the threat of death, collaborated with the Germans. The collaborators included individuals such as Gestapo collaborators Abraham Gancwajch and Stella Kubler, concentration-camp kapos like Eliezer Gruenbaum, Judenrat (Jewish council) members and bosses such as Chaim Rumkowski, and organizations such as Żagiew or Group 13 in the Warsaw Ghetto. Individual and group collaborators with the Gestapo operated in other cities and towns across German-occupied Poland—Alfred Nossig in Warsaw, Józef Diamand in Kraków, Szama Grajer in Lublin. Around the early 1940s, the Gestapo has been estimated to have had around 15,000 Jewish agents in occupied Poland. Jewish agents helped the Germans in return for limited freedom and other compensations (food, money) for the collaborators and their relatives, or simply under the threat of "collaborate or die". One of their assignments was to hunt down Jews who were in hiding; one of the most infamous cases involved about 2,500 Jews being lured out of hiding and subsequently captured by the Germans in the aftermath of the Hotel Polski affair in which Żagiew agents were involved. Jewish collaborators also informed Germany's Gestapo of Polish resistance, including on its efforts to hide Jews. and engaged in racketeering, blackmail, and extortion in the Warsaw Ghetto. During the war, some Jewish collaborators were executed by the Polish underground and the Jewish resistance. After World War II, a number of others were tried in Jewish transition camps and in Israel, though none of them received sentences of more than 18 months' imprisonment. References

• Agree with the removal: the contents is not suitable in the present state. Moreover, most of it is about Poland, so if anything should be covered in the already existing section, when better sources are presented. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• As per my comments here and here. François Robere (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
• I also agree with the removal. However, the corresponding article, Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany, needs to be attended and should not be left in its current state. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, but I have my hands full here. I still have the problem of "volunteers" who may or may not have been conscripts or POWs. And the Soviet Union and the Balkans. And maybe Finland and the rest of this talk page. If you care to tackle the spinoff page, Gitz, I'm certainly not going to argue with you. I don't think anyone is working on it. The last time I checked it, it looked very much like the above, minus the reference tagging. Elinruby (talk) 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with the removal and the new article (which has the same content) should be BLAR'd back to here. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Elinruby, you say that this text was reverted back in but having checked the article history meticulously, I don't see where this text was even removed in the first place, much less "reverted back in". Maybe I missed it. Can you provide the diffs where someone is removing it and then where someone is restoring it? The closest I can find is the text just being moved from the Poland section to its own section. Volunteer Marek 16:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

special:Diff/1141031634 Levivich (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, so a completely uninvolved editor restored it, which is why I missed it because I was looking for the "usuals". Perhaps someone should ping them? Volunteer Marek 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

By all means: @User:Sennalen Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I said it shouldn't be removed until it existed on another page like Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany. After that page was made, I said it was fine to remove it here. There is no more disagreement about the content. Elinruby continues being mad about it for unclear reasons. Sennalen (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There never was any disagreement. I posted to the Noticeboard because there was nobody here to discuss it with but my Vichy France buddy, who knows a trainwreck when he sees one and was busy with collaboration with the Japanese. Piotrus, seeing the post, asked me to put it on the redirect and I agreed, then you came along with your magic revert pen, into a situation where there previously had been collegial disagreement and an agreed-upon course of action, and created a freaking problem that made me spend hours documenting what I had already seen. That's what I am mad about. But fine, you refused to discuss and made me bring all these people in here to do it for you. Brah voe Elinruby (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is a consensus to put it back here or TNT it there or whatever, I am not an impediment to any of that. My only red line was deleting it while there was an unresolved Talk page discussion on what to do with it. Sennalen (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

multiple requests to undo on their talk page Elinruby (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

You two need to move that discussion over here. Volunteer Marek 18:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

All discussions about this content should be in one place, here. I've BLAR'd the recent spinout back here and left a message on that talk page pointing to this discussion. This content needed WP:TNT and basically somebody, whoever wants to, should propose some content, or at least some sources for some content, and see if there's consensus to include it in this article. We only need a spinout if and when the content gets too long for this article. Levivich (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The phenomenon was not limited to Poland. Judenrats (or analogous institutions) and ghetto police were everywhere there were ghettos, so for example in the Soviet Union or Lithuania. We also have the special case of Georg Kareski in Germany. So it seems to me that the phenomenon as such is worth describing. Albeit taking into account the peculiarities and describing the special situation in which Jewish communities were in during the Holocaust. It seems to me that this should be the main topic of the article. Certainly, one should be wary of narratives along the lines of "Jewish co-responsibility for the Holocaust," etc. And the different attitudes taken by figures such as Czerniaków, Rumkowski and Gancwajch cannot be put on an equal footing. This is my opinion when it comes to the Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany article.

While as for a separate section in this article. It is a matter of consideration whether it is needed at all, or whether perhaps it is better to describe the displays of Jewish collaboration in the sections of individual countries (Poland, Lithuania, etc.). I do not have a definite opinion on this subject.Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Good sources:

Good sources: Blum, Alain; Chopard, Thomas; Koustova, Emilia (2020). "Survivors, Collaborators and Partisans?". Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. 68 (2): 222–255. Finder, Gabriel N.; Prusin, Alexander V. (2008). "Jewish Collaborators on Trial in Poland 1944–1956". Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry. 20: 122–148. Finkel, Evgeny (2017). Ordinary Jews. Choice and Survival during the Holocaust. Levine, Herbert S. (1975). "A Jewish Collaborator in Nazi Germany: The Strange Career of Georg Kareski, 1933-37". Central European History. 8 (3): 251–281. Mędykowski, Witold (2006). "Przeciw swoim: Wzorce kolaboracji żydowskiej w Krakowie i okolicy" [Against Their Own: Patterns of Jewish Collaboration in and around Kraków]. Zagłada Żydów. Studia i Materiały. 2: 202–220. Person, Katarzyna (2022). "Rehabilitation of Individuals Suspected of Collaboration: The Jewish Civic Court under the Central Committee of Jews in Poland, 1946–1950". In Le Bourhis, Eric; Tcherneva, Irina; Voisin, Vanessa (eds.). Seeking Accountability for Nazi and War Crimes in East and Central Europe: A People’s Justice?. pp. 261–282. Marcelus (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

My objection to this section is that it puts a woman who informed in an effort to save her parents on a par with the French government rounding up French Jews for transport. I am not excusing the woman, but I am grateful nobody ever forced that choice on me and I question how much agency she had.

And by the way, @Sennalen:, you completely misread the situation. Piotrus asked me to move it to the redirect rather than delete, and I agreed, (possibly on my user page?) because I am trying to clean up *this* page and I'm an inclusionist, and have no objection to material getting cleaned up. But there was no discussion, there hadn't *been* any discussion in the weeks I'd been working on it, except for an editor I'd been working on France with and a few somewhat helpful drivebys. As it was, OK, I was bold, you reverted and then you refused to discuss.

And left the text abandoned here. It sucks. I haven't investigated who wrote it but look, just look, at that referencing. I want nothing to do with it. If somebody can write a verifiable summary then maaaayyybe, but I personally don't think we should have a badly-referenced special section for Jews in Poland, masquerading as a worldwide phenomenon. Elinruby (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

There was discussion. I said I have no more objections to you proceeding with your plan. I don't know what you want to keep discussing. Sennalen (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen: I am putting you down for "I have no intention of discussing my actions", is that correct?

It all happened before you got there. And yeah, I did some discussing on your talk page, which you stonewalled, but my experience is that the revert-happy are also quick to claim edit-warring. This is a fraught topic and frankly I didn't trust you. You were sufficiently mistaken in your preconceptions to yell OWN, and claim I was responsible for the appalling condition of this article. That's not discussion. Read a little further before you ride in like the Lone Ranger next time. Bah. Timr for a cup of tea. Better yet, stay out of problems that you aren't there to solve. Elinruby (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sennalen: I am putting you down for "I have no intention of discussing my actions", is that correct?

This also seems to me to be the main probleme. The "Jewish" section was the only one that described in detail individual collaboration, it is a matter of finding the right WP:BALANCE. If a separate section were to exist it would have to describe the phenomenon of Jewish collaboration skillfully and in an appropriate tone. Marcelus (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I would like to look at that, but propose something quick in case they topic ban you for trying to fix that other article. If it is along the lines of my rewritten lede tho, it might be a possible plus. I tried to explain motivations in the lede without either blanket-blaming or excusing. Escapees from the ghetto are conceivably a reason to separately discuss Jews come to think of it, but you'll have to be really open to input if it is going to do you or the article any good. But I am willing to work in good faith with you if you do the same. (And I also welcome input on the lede, and the ongoing question of what is a collaborator) Elinruby (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Re The "Jewish" section was the only one that described in detail individual collaboration is a relevant consideration and is also the reason why I think that the section shouldn't deal with Georg Kareski [1] and with most of the "Good sources" listed in the collapsable box. A section (or self-standing article) on "Jewish collaboration with the Axis powers" shouldn't be a list of Jews who collaborated with Nazism. We'd better distinguish between "Jewish collaboration" and "collaboration by Jews" (or "Jewish collaborators"): while "Jewish collaboration" may be a relevant subject (though basically identical/overlappig with Judenrat), "Jews collaborators" has much less historical significance. Do we have articles on "Frenchmen who collaborated with the Nazis", "British citizens who betrayed their country", etc.? Since the other sections in the article don't usually deal with individuals unless they are in positions of authority, the subject of a Jewish section should also be insititutionalised cooperation by representatives of the Jewish communities, or at least Jewish organisations and groups of people. To quote from the removed text, no Gestapo collaborators Abraham Gancwajch and Stella Kubler, concentration-camp kapos like Eliezer Gruenbaum, Judenrat (Jewish council) members and bosses such as Chaim Rumkowski, please. (By the way, a section on Italian collaboration is still missing: Italian Social Republic) Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, you speak Italian... But please both of you, let's voluntarily restrict ourselves for purposes of this page to what can be verified online, since there are so many areas of dispute. And you mean collaboration *with* Italian fascists, right? Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No, collaboration by Italian fascists with Nazi occupiers (following the Armistice of Cassibile, Italy was no longer an "Axis power"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected. We've been having a messy discussion about what exactly is a collaborator. I think that the scope you have just defined would be ok even with the people complaining about including countries that at some point were Axis powers (Hungary,Soviet Union). Go ahead and start working on that period then. There is also a huge unreferenced mess in areas occupied at some point by Italy. (Yugoslavia!) I really really want some page numbers though, mkay? Just saying. Peace love and understanding Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The split-out content has been redirected back here: [2]. So now it is efffectively deleted; and I don't think we have consensus for that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:41, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levevich: phone for you. Meanwhile, Piotrus please take a look at the reference tagging on the section I removed from the article. Elinruby (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

So meanwhile -- Piotrus, there actually was a consensus. You haven't been working on this article. I realize you have your hands full but the article has been sitting around tagged like this for days and days and days now. If you want to work on other article instead, I'm fine with that, but you should examine the tagging above, and you aren't an editor that is currently working on *this* article. Your contributions have amounted to reasoning with GCB, and while this has actually been invaluable, when I have to post to noticeboards to get some tags responded to, you aren't exactly active on the page are you. Sorry to say. Elinruby (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Apart from any Redirects, {{@Piotrus}}, Elinruby pasted the full text of this article's former "Jewish collaboration" section at the top of this discussion topic. Just open up the light green bar entitled "Extended content" —— Shakescene (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and as the version in "Extended content" above shows, that text is worse than the tags on the spin-out indicate. Much of it was sourced to an unreliable source (see RSN discussion). Much of it was tagged failed verification. It's all highly controversial content (see WP:EXCEPTIONAL). Despite having been removed and restored like 10 days ago, apparently none of the problems have been fixed. Elin was right to remove it from the page -- it clearly doesn't have either local consensus here or meet the global consensus of our policies, and in BRD, doing the "R" without the "D" is also known as "stonewalling". Per WP:ONUS, the disputed content should stay out until there is consensus for inclusion. And if it doesn't have consensus here, it doesn't have consensus on a stand-alone page, either, nor does the spin-out have consensus, either. Most importantly, we should avoid splitting the discussion: this is the place to discuss what content to include and where. Levivich (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can do better then a newspaper (I thought that was removed a while ago). Marcelus listed some good sources above. This section / topic likely needs a major rewrite with scholarly, not newspaper, sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

re tagging: in fairness to Piotrus the tags came after the spinoff. I am fairly certain that I told him there were reference problems (discussion would be in Archive 9 above) but I started tagging after the text was reverted back in, systematically checking through the references and tagging as I went because hey, I am capable of error and if we were going to do BRD I wanted to be able to talk specifics. Piotrus those failed verification tags don't include any of the sources that don't have a preview, and is in addition to those. I don't know if Levivich is right about spinoffs but Sennalen was over her head and should not have reverted the text's removal. *I* don't want to rewrite the text and am ill-equipped to do so especially since I don't think this article should have that section. Marcellus was making a proposal earlier though and I said I was willing to discuss it if he produced a draft. Maybe you could work with him on that? Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Piotrus that the section/topic needs a major rewrite with scholarly, not newspaper, sources. I don't have any interest or intention of writing it, but anyone who wants to can propose some draft language or make a bold edit. In case it matters, an edit would not be "reverting" me if it was an expansion with new language (as opposed to replacing the old language). Levivich (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

• All* of the sources in the lede discuss France specifically Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also a copyvio in the second paragraph Elinruby (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I have fixed that copyvio (3rd one I have found in this article) so I removed the tag for that. I have also re-written the lede to be less simplistically accusatory, but it is still very focused on France. Possibly unduly, possibly not; France is a very well-known example, and one of the less controversial. nonetheless until we split this article, its scope is still world-wide, and there are other countries in the world besides France. Working on referencing. Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving out Asian sections barely trims this article

I finally did the deed and moved collaboration with Japan to Collaboration with Imperial Japan. However, this barely scratches the surface, since it moved only about 16,000 bytes out of 222 k (~7%), leaving a bloated 206 kilobytes here, which is just over what's considered a reasonable limit on Wikipedia. And, though it might just scrape the ceiling, few people are going to read all of that at one sitting (after 15 years working, on and off, on War of 1812, I still haven't read the whole article through). I see two major needs:

1. The non-Asian portion that remains still needs drastic pruning. But almost all of the recent edits I've seen (justified though individual ones might be) have added to this article's length, not trimmed it. Not every nominal volunteer Waffen-SS unit (e.g. the British Free Corps) need be mentioned here, rather than at its own country's collaboration (or resistance or WW2) page. Ditto for isolated idiosyncratic individual collaborationists or microscopic paper pro-Axis parties. But there are also major excisions and abridgements that still would need to be made to maintain balance and return this page as a useful, coherent, readable summary and comparative narrative for a topic that would interest the general reader.
2. The new article I created, Collaboration with Imperial Japan, now something of a skeleton, needs major work to make it more useful, informative and coherent. I've done enough work as I reasonably can for the moment, and with any luck, some experts on Asian history, Asian nationalism, and the Asian theatre of World War II will join in contribute, fill out and correct what is there currently.

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

We do need experts for collaboration with Japan. I've made an effort but I am positive that we are missing a lot.

Since we're getting nothing but crickets on our various proposals, I think bolder moves are in order. I'll see what I can do with the volunteer units, but much of it is completely unsourced. And somebody seems to have conflated units that were ideologically driven with recruiting PoWs and forced labor. I totally agree about the British Free Corps, btw. Some countries may not longer have an entry after the volunteer units spin off, but maybe that's a feature not a bug. Anyway, here goes. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Re your edit summary for adding Japanese to the lead, one of the sources is for Burma. Maybe I need to be explicit about this.Elinruby (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

For as long as this page is named "Collaboration with the Axis powers", the collaboration with Imperial Japan should be included, possibly just as a single brief subsection with a link to Collaboration with Imperial Japan. Note that atrocities by Imperial Japan were no better than atrocities by Nazi. I am also surprised that collaboration is limited only by WWII. This should not be because such collaboration has started long before WW II and was critically important to enable Nazi Germany to conduct the war. And just for a reference, please see Category:Collaborators with Nazi Germany by nationality. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

yes, everyone agrees that the article needs to move. I think where we were at was spin-offs by individual countries. And I saw a draft for France. I think what you say makes sense, because as far as I can tell we have agreement but arguably not consensus about the move proposal. I have said a couple of times that I am in favor of any rational proposal that does not assign Central Asia to Europe. If we can't agree on a move or a specific split proposal, I think it does need a little more than a hatnote. But you can't put it under Japan, though, shouldn't it be under Burma and Thailand and so on? The individual countries we have an entry for? Feel free to assess consensus for yourself if you like. I'm preoccupied with something else right now and so are several of the other interested parties. TL;DR count me as a vote for any proposal that gets Central Asia out of Russia. Or maybe we could just rename that section to the names of the republics? Feel free to work on whatever you want to. Ukraine needs help badly also. Finland... Manchuria... Greece... Levant, Mahgreb

Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Who agrees? No, I do not. Move where? To Collaboration with Fascism in Europe? This is an entirely different and poorly defined subject, unlike the collaboration with axis countries. Please make an RfC if you wish to move. I am sorry, but it seems you have a poor understanding of this subject. My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources in #Jewish collaboration

Several sources in the section are tagged as "unreliable". Some of them can be removed per WP:APLRS, along with the statements to which they're attached. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Channel Islands

i really feel like the length is undue, but I can't come up with a way to condense the multiple sentences about the collaboration accusations being unfounded. Moving past it to other problems but I do see it. There are also still discussions of volunteer units that should be summarized and moved to the draft, but I am getting tired and just want to smooth out any problems created by the major snippage I just did. Elinruby (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

France: do we need this milhist here for context?

it could probably help another article if not: Vichy was also reluctant to either disarm or surrender its naval fleet in North Africa to the British, who worried that it might fall into German hands. Eventually the British Royal Navy sank or disabled most of the French Navy, killing over a thousand French sailors in a July 1940 attack on the Algerian naval port at Mers-el-Kébir.

References

Egypt

I hear the people saying it's UNDUE. I think it may tie into Abyssinia, but would be ok with the text getting copied to the talk page, here for example, while we figure that one out. Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

British collaborators

seem to be missing at present. See British Free Corps as well as John Amery, [[ George Johnson Armstrong]], Norman Baillie-Stewart, Leonard Banning, Victor Carey, Dolly Eckersley, Gertrude Hiscox, Jessie Jordan, William Joyce, John Lingshaw, Arthur Owens, Jack Trevor etc. Possible sources:

• Pryce-Jones, David (31 October 2020). "Britain's Nazi collaborators". The Critic Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
• Philpot, Robert (17 September 2018). "The men and women who plotted to stab Britain in the back during WWII". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 3 March 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, as this is a general article, and we should not have lists of every collaborator. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• However,I did just discover that Wikipedia has a List of Allied traitors during World War II with an ample UK section. But I may add a brief line here about Lord Haw Haw and his colleagues. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think Haw Haw is notable enough on his own to be mentioned here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

We've been taking out individuals for space reasons, unless they were political decision-makers. I'd rather not make exceptions to that since I think we should delete the appallingly-sourced section on Jewish collaborators that was POINTily reverted back in.

However I was thinking that there is probably enough material for an article about propaganda broad broadcasters. Another such was Louis-Ferdinand Céline, and it seems to me that I noticed a couple of Japanese-Americans when I was clicking around in the category, which is, on the other hand, totally about individual people. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Review for national pride

The comments in the British section have reminded me that a lot of the country sections seem to seek to minimize the extent of collaboration in particular countries. I propose that we scrutinize them all, as there actually seem to have been a lot of British collaborators, as long as we aren't defining collaboration to require occupation. Also see Belarus and Denmark. Just a something to mull over; I know we all have multiple other irons in the fire. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ I don't think that (relatively speaking) there was that much opportunity for British collaboration. Most of what we might consider collaboration (restricted as we try to be to collaboration with an occupier, as opposed to treason, sabotage or defeatism in a threatened but unoccupied country) was just assistance to the Axis from outside. The exceptions here are those Britons who either absconded to Germany (like Lord Haw-Haw [William Joyce]) or found themselves under Axis occupation, e.g. the Channel Islanders and P.G. Wodehouse living in France when the Germans came.

National pride and Yugoslavia

To raise up a hornet's nest from a question (like Poland's) of mortal interest to Serbs, Croats, Communists and anti-Communists, do we need to balance the discussion of the Chetniks' sometime collaboration with Germany and Italy with the ever-problematic German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations? Although they might have led to a more lasting arrangement, the resulting understandings lasted only a few weeks or months until Adolf Hitler ordered an end. Whether included or excluded, they pose gnarly questions of neutrality, balance and WP:Undue weight and could, if incorrectly or improperly handled, invite very heated debates, reversions, counter-reversions, and special pleading (q.v. the long contention over Jewish collaboration balanced against Polish collaboration). —— Shakescene (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at that but there is a steep learning curve. My best suggestion at the moment is a lot of talk page discussion. It seems a lot of what went on was in the category of welcoming what was perceived as outside help with ethnic nationalist disputes.Elinruby (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

France

For a long time France maintained that Vichy was not a legitimate government, presumably to downplay French responsibility. 00:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Morocco

The Morocco subsection refers to Vichy — both administrative arrangements and anti-Semitic campaigns, but unless we can show that the Vichy anti-Semitism in these cases was directly done to please, placate or obey German (or even less likely, Italian) occupiers, the whole subsection is irrelevant to this article's topic and should therefore be excised or moved somewhere else. French anti-Semitism (like French philo-Semitism) has it own deep, rich roots long preceding any Axis occupation — no one attributes the anti-Dreyfus campaign to collaboration with foreign powers.

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

a good point. Give me a little time to mull it over though; I need a break from this article. Or if you copy it here to be worked on or moved. I am probably ok with whatever but would prefer not to need to track the material down in the history Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

With this talk page again approaching 100k, what could be archived?

This talk page is now around 86,000 bytes (of which nearly 10,000 is just importing the Jewish collaboration section from the Article page).

At some point, we'll need to move some of this page as it now exists either into #/Archive 9 or into a fresh Archive 10.

I'd like to know which current Talk Page sections other editors here think could be archived and which they'd like to keep here, either because the topic hasn't been fully resolved, or because they'd like to keep it handy for reference purposes (e.g. #Is it collaboration if: or various sets of sources and citations).

On the other hand, some simple queries or discussions of topics now settled (e.g. should we split between Asia and Europe/Africa?) can probably be safely moved to Archives with no significant loss to useful current discussion. Any candidates for archiving or keeping here? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

first top six sections can go unless you need something there. I was looking up how to archive and I'll get Madagascar and Brittany, which should help quite a bit, but I want to find a home for the text. The French Navy too. The very long BRD fail section has an active discussion. I'm not sure we're done with British collabotators. HtH Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

And yeah, splitting off Asia is settled Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

All right (if jumping the gun), I went ahead and moved about three dozen sections from this page to #/Archive 9, whose contents page now reads as follows:

== Contents ==

• 1 * "Self-defense"
• 2 * Is a separate Political collaboration section still needed?
• 3 * Marseilles roundup conflated w/ Battle of Marseilles
• 4 * Axis
• 5 * Poland : failed verification
  • 5.1 * References
• 6 * Polish puppet government considered but rejected by Germans
• 7 * Jewish collaborator section
• 8 * Going to need a split
• 9 * Request for Input
• 10 * France
• 11 * Iraq
• 12 * Lebanon and possibly South Africa
• 13 * Reichskommissariat Ostland
• 14 * Needs work: no discussion of collaboration
• 15 * South Africa
  • 15.1 * South Africa
• 16 * High-priority: Estonia
• 17 * Note on references
• 18 * Adrian Weale
• 19 * Volunteers -split proposal
• 20 * Kosovo
• 21 * Greece
• 22 * Hong Kong
• 23 * Sweden

Of course, anyone who wants to move any of these back here for further discussion should feel free to do so.

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Added * 24Madagascar: this is milhist, needs a home to contents of #/Archive 9 —— Shakescene (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the Jewish collaborator section of Archive 9 into a new /Jewish collaboration archive page, together with the BRD fail section formerly here (on the current Talk page). This new archive already has 40,000 bytes, and moving those sections here significantly cuts both this page and /Archive 9, while giving us more breathing room here to consider all the other questions and queries. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about this. I had missed this comment and I spent 5 minutes looking around for our recent discussions on "Jewish collaboration". Having them here doesn't look halpful to me. I suggest we move them back either to this talk page or to Archive 9 or to a newly created Archive 10. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

It has been reverted back; the subpage link above links back to this page now. Also: 100k is not a problem for server load, this isn't 1998. If the size of the page is a problem for your scrolling finger, collapsing a few sections (but leaving them here) will solve that. If you're not sure how to collapse, reply below with a suggestion of what to collapse, and if there doesn't seem to be any objection, I can collapse it for you. I've also added a "Skip" nav box at the top, to get you instantly to the bottom of the page, no scrolling needed. Mathglot (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"volunteers"

For clarity:

I'm working on the "volunteers" off in my sandbox. The section is pretty much uncited, except for the references I had added to the French section. The articles the wikilinked in the list are almost all completely uncited also. I am expecting this to become a separate article, or perhaps a different section here if if this text turns out to also be impossible to substantiate and a lot of of it has to be cut.

One of the reasons for consolidating discussions of volunteer units is that scattered all through this articles are Lots of sentences like: Unit A was recruited from place x and sent to place y where they committed a massacre in village x₁. The unit was renamed to B, and merged into Army M.

I considered a draft but for whatever reason I'm not longer autopatrolled and I'd get a barrage of reference tags., which would annoy me and maybe make me uncivil.

I'll share it here when I have something coherent. Meanwhile most of the material was copied, not removed, from the article, but for decision-making purposes, if other editors are working on articles, it would help this initiative if you could make notes below here. For some countries, if we remove volunteer military units almost no information will be left. We do have a rough consensus, I think, that voluntarily enlisting in an Axis Army would make you an Axis collaborators. What I am trying to figure out is which of these volunteer units was truly voluntary.

Reading through the article I have seen mentions of

• Ideological true believers (Norway? Or was that appeasement? Belgium? France)
• Lied to (Denmark?)
• Conscripts
• Hungry (POWs?)

So anyway, please let me know here if you find applicable stuff in the sections you are working Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Task distribution

Here is my understanding of the situation:

Shakescene -- in charge of sanity, format, pointy questions about balance, Did or is doing work on puppet states and collaboration with Japan

Marcelus - discussing Jewish collaboration, has done some work on Estonia that improved that section. Maybe a bit too milhist but I'm thinking it's a first draft and it's still better than the rewritten copyvio that we had there.

Gitz6666 - seemed to be suggesting he cover Italy after the Germans invaded it. Has not actually confirmed that.

Me: deep dives, getting yelled at.Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Archiving the Jewish collaboration sections (copied from a User talk page)

Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers

Hi, I'm not sure I understand the move of the discussion to a sub-page: [3]. It would be difficult to find the discussion (Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Jewish collaboration) unless you spot the diff in the article history. The discussion also appears to be still active. Could you clarify? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) Thanks for a very useful comment (about the visibility and retrievability of this archive page). While I was able to do something similar a few years ago at Talk:War of 1812 [4], I couldn't format the added index item very elegantly (I think because the articles used different archive bots), but you can see that I did insert a pointer. If you have greater skill and knowledge with this kind of formatting, please go ahead.

(2) The main reasons I sent two "Jewish collaboration" topics to an archive were (a) because of the physical size of the then-existing Talk Page (pressing beyond the recommended limit of 100,000 bytes), (b) because the enormous length of this topic's extended disputes hampered my reading of other Talk Page items, and (c) to keep several current and future Talk Page discussions of Jewish collaboration together and thus more coherent (not duplicating points in ignorance of earlier discussion). See, for example, my rationales at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers#With this talk page again approaching 100k, what could be archived?.

@Elinruby and K.e.coffman: —— Shakescene (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping the discussion together and have mostly left matters of layout to Shakescene. I largely caused the space crunch by copying the text to talk, as I don't want to delete work that isn't duplicated elsewhere, and the current state of the section tagging is indicative of my reason for preferring to put my time elsewhere. It is notable that the size of the thread tripled overnight.

However, while I rather like the idea of a subpage, I see the point about difficulty finding that subpage. I was envisioning something like a pinned post at the top of the page. Is something like that possible, @Mathglot:? I was looking under the impression that the thread was close to done, but maybe I just wanted to to be.

I take it that you are participating, K.e.coffman? If so I appreciate that. Incidentally, I noticed earlier today that much of the material is duplicated at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Ping me if there are any questions about this response. Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not conventional to move a discussion to a subpage (other than an Archive), although I've seen various highly specialized supporting information (like references for the Buddha, or definitions of gender-related terms) placed in a subpage, which is then referred to from the Talk pages; but the content of the subpages themselves did not contain any discussion at all, just information. Imho, the information moved from Talk to the subpage should be reinstated, and the subpage should be deleted. Just because the discussion is long is no reason to move it to a subpage. As far as pinning it, it's technically feasiable but that's usually reserved for some topic of lasting importance that should always be visible to all editors and never be archived; does this page meet that standard? Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really.

Speaking for myself, I deleted the section weeks ago, thinking well, it will still be in the history. Somebody parachuted in and reverted that and proceeded to do nothing with it. Nor did anyone else. I've essentially tag-bombed it, but I stand by those tags, and nobody did anything about them or the problems they represent, including the heavily used source that got scoffed at at RSN. Levivich has posted that he is not going to rewrite the section. Marcelus seemed somewhat interested but now seems more interested in the Baltics, where we do need him. So. The question is, is this text still needed, for rewrites or for the Arbcom case? I think the arbitrators can navigate article histories, and anyone who might want to do a rewrite is a long-standing editor. Maybe we should stick to the letter of policy with this article, hmm? Whatever that is; don't think I have ever looked up archiving policy. I don't want to ping all those people here to Shakescene's talk page. What I *could* do if it seems like a good idea is do the pinging in a post on the talk page asking if anyone is going to rewrite the section and saying that on second thought the thread is simply moving to the archives. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ Although I rather dread the possible results, I'm copying this section of my Talk page to a new section of Collabo Talk. I just hope that this discussion won't convert into yet another interminable, dense contention that clogs up everything else.

And, of course, thanks to everyone for his or her comments. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

[User:Shakescene|—— Shakescene]] (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Yes, I wanted to check on the discussion but could not find it, until I looked through the article history.

@Shakescene: Hi, I don't think this addresses the issue still: [5], since these threads are not searchable via the archive box. And as I mentioned, I wanted to comment further, so it did not look to me that the discussion has concluded. I suggest the thread(s) be restored to this page, and be allowed to be archived by the bot in the regular way. Meanwhile, I changed the archiving period from 90 to 10 days, for while the Talk page is very active. Hopefully, this will help alleviate the clutter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) I'm too sleepy now to consider and explore this right now, but by copying from an earlier version of Talk:War of 1812, I was able (purely for illustration) to post at the top of this page a sample of the expanded archive box (including /Jewish collaboration) that I was trying to make.

There are technical problems with this that I don't know enough to adjust (e.g. specifying Miszabot as the archive), but simply by appearance, it should clarify what I was hoping to achieve. As with the War of 1812 example, there is also space to insert the dates covered by each archive page. On the other hand, this sample box can be modified or removed for technical reasons, once its illustrative purpose has been served.

(2) "Who won?" was a perennial topic at Talk:War of 1812, so, without a dedicated archive, one would have to search through all those twenty-odd archives to find, learn from, and avoid duplicating earlier discussions covering the same ground. And the other active and archive pages became bloated with this one particular question, making it hard to find and comment on other topics. Something similar can be said about the nomenclature disputes at Talk:The Bronx. But I did go through the titles at Archives 1 to 7 of this Talk page and did not find a similar backlog of disconnected discussions of Jewish collaboration — which makes consolidation less of a consideration, although the two closely-related discussions of Jewish collaboration did come from separate archives. The current consoldated archive would also make a relevant, connected space for any future dicussions of Jewish collaboration

(3) I still believe that restoring the latest discussions here would increase both the physical bloat and the impediment to navigating all the other topics worth discussing.

Enough for now. Best wishes —— Shakescene (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

it was an endless topic because an editor kept asserting with a straight face that Canadian history was a fringe theory, mumble. But that is another matter. I see merit in both positions here, but since I a still annoyed about the war of 1812 and am weary of Poland in the Holocaust. I am going to stay out of this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I shouldn't. I don't see anything in help: archiving about doing this. I certainly didn't agree with it at War of 1812, but as I recall I was preoccupied with getting dragged to some drama board for daring to suggest that the American version of events might be incorrect, even though I wasn't in fact advocating a change. I mention this not to relitigate the way Deathlibrarian kept getting shouted down, but to say that much as I disagree with the existence of the section, especially in its current state, I don't think that Wikipedia should segregate attempts to discuss that way. We only have a couple of sections on this topic. If the threads proliferate (and I am about to start another) it might in fact be a good idea to maintain a duplicate dedicated archive. But maybe we should stick to policy and refrain from novel formatting. Elinruby (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps solution is to pin, as I have done, #Jewish collaboration with Axis nations to the top (no.1) of this current Talk Page, where it reads

For a consolidated discussion of this topic, please go to /Jewish collaboration.

I think that this pointer and item no. 2, the invaluable and handy set of questions posed by Elinruby, #Is it collaboration if:, should stay at the top of this Talk Page and not archive over time. Those interested in discussing the topic would see it on the Table of Contents (or at first scroll) and be directed to a page with all the previous discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Basically, as long as people can find the Jewish collaboratiin thread I personally am ok with whatever. But it is very important that people be able to find the thread. And btw Marcelus is indeed drafting a rewrite. I also think that those questions are important, but then I would. More importantly they are currently mostly unanswered,Elinruby (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene:, while there is precedent for creation of Talk subpages in certain situations (like grouping lists of definitions, or lists of references), they are not used as an alternative to discussion on the main Talk page. Your creation of the /Jewish collaboration subpage is problematic for a couple of reasons: it's confusing to people, as it isn't clear whether it is an archive (therefore, no further discussion should take place there), or if it's open to further discussion, and it's fragmenting the discussions, because it isn't clear where to look or comment. If it is an archive page, then it should follow the standard naming sequence, which at this Talk page is numeric; if it's a discussion page still open to further comment, then the content belongs here on this page, per WP:TALK. (Claims of this page getting too big to contain it are a red herring; this page is very far from being large enough to cause problems.)

So, I think you have two choices:

• If the page is not open to further comment, then please rename it in standard archiving name sequence. (Don't worry about incoming links to the current name; a redirect-from-move will take care of that.)
• If it is still open to further comment, then copy the content here to the Talk page. (Combined size would be 90kb, which is nowhere close to too large.) If you are worried about your scrolling finger getting tired because of that added section, that is not a problem: we can collapse it.

Please pick one, as the current situation is causing confusion, and is contrary to Talk guidelines. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the content of the subpage back into this page, which can be found here. Feel free to collapse it, if you wish. In either case, it will get picked up by the bot, and archived at the appropriate time, if there are no further replies that section. The old subpage has been moved to Draft. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish collaboration with Axis nations

For a consolidated discussion of this topic, please go to /Jewish collaboration.

—— Shakescene (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

All Jewish collaborators were Polish?

I encountered this assertion in a troll through the archives last night. This seems to explain why the removed section only dealt with Polish Jews. I am NOT suggesting its return, and definitely not in its currently form, but surely kapos existed elsewhere, and surely, at least in the form of trying to survive, this is not just a Polish phenomenon? Or Jewish for that matter?

I feel the need of a reality check, this assertion having been made with such utter assurance. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on Jewish collaboration section in my sandbox (you can see here: User:Marcelus/sandbox10), I was planning to post here for discussion, because it's almost finished.

And to answer your question: no they weren't all Polish Jews. Yehuda Bauer for example as two the most "collaborationist" Judenrat leaders lists David Cohen and Abraham Asscher from Amsterdam ghetto. Judenrats (or similiar bodies) existed everywhere where German set up ghettos, so Poland, Soviet Union, Baltic countries, but also in Bohemia, Netherlands etc. Marcelus (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you, I sort of needed to hear that from someone. I think, if you would, hold off on starting another thread until we get some sort of decision on archive format; I will go read your sandbox later today. And maybe reply here? We should have a decision soon on archiving, and right now I need a break; the archives were pretty discouraging. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: based on a fast skim I think I like where you're going with it, and you do provide a rationale for a separate section about Jews. You need more references though. Pinging @Zero0000: who was telling me something about Lehi a while back. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this collaboration?

   Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force

Main article: Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force

The Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, composed of volunteers, was formed in 1944. Its leadership was Lithuanian, and its weapons came from the Germans. The purpose of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force was to defend Lithuania against the approaching Soviet Army and to defend the civilian population in the Lithuanian territory from actions by Soviet and Polish partisans. The LTDF disbanded itself after it was ordered put itself under direct German command, and refused to swear the Hitler Oath. Shortly before it was disbanded, the LTDF suffered a major defeat by Polish partisans in the battle of Murowana Oszmianka. Elinruby (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If sources describes it as such it definitely is. IMO it is it main purpose was to fight against Germany's enemies using Germany's equipment Marcelus (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby

Viewing the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force as collaborationist is wrong considering these facts:

• Refusal to obey German orders and only listening to the orders of Lithuanians themselves
• Lithuanians purposefully delaying and not swearing the Hitler Oath
• Its personnel was severely punished for disobedience to the Germans: ~80 soldiers were killed in Paneriai, while ~52 officers, including the commander, were deported to the Salaspils concentration camp.

Sources for this (in Lithuanian, not much exists in English): [6], [7].

In this English-language book, it says: In 1944, the Germans granted permission for General Povilas Plechavičius to form a Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force consisting of about 20,000 soldiers. The Germans aimed to utilize this force countering Soviets, but when the Germans attempted to assign SS-related tasks to the newly formed unit, General Povilas Plechavičius refused to comply. Therefore, soon after creation of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force the Germans realized that the unit was pro-Lithuanian and posed a threat to the Nazi regime. As a result, the Germans arrested the newly created unit's staff members and disbanded the unit. However, a substantial part of unit's soldiers joined the underground and contributed towards Lithuanian armed resistance efforts against the Soviets after World War II.

@Marcelus, the Polish Armija Krajowa in the Vilnius Region was armed and uniformed by Germans and fought against Germany's enemies - the Soviet partisans. So, if you say that the LTDF was collaborationist because it had German weapons and uniforms, then you should view the AK as a German collaborator as well, for consistency's sake. Cukrakalnis (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, we need to rely on sources and describe the whole complexity of the situation, what I mean is that the mention of the LVR should be in the article with an explanation that it was a failed attempt and the Lithuanians and Germans envisioned it differently. Mention of the short-lived German-Polish arrangement in Belarus should also be included. Marcelus (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There are actually several instances of stuff like this in other countries. Just to take the discussion out of the Baltics. There's one unit (Ukrainian? Albanian? I can find it) where two brigades defected to the Free French the minute they got to the Western Front. (Apparently the Germans didn't trust them closer to home). Either the Danish or the Dutch unit was assured that they would be used for home defense but instead were sent to the Eastern Front, where they were decimated.

Getting back to this instance: How about, in the big re-write that's coming, we say that they were recruited and armed, then refused to serve? And then in the likely spinoff we go into further detail? Please note that is about more than Lithuania as there are several units with similar circumstances. Also note, the above discussion is based on wp-en articles about individual units that are very badly referenced, and referencing help would be appreciated Elinruby (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Bottom line, describing the whole complexity of the situation sounds good to me. My answer to my own question is more questions. What were these people told, and beyond accepting weapons, did they take any overt action on behalf of the Germans, even one that they perceived to also be in their own interests? Belarus section needs help. I have already noticed that the Charlemagne SS were there and they definitely *were* ideological collaborators, but I haven't done anything about it yet because I have a poor grasp of the overall context. Elinruby (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I offer my help in re-writing certain sections of the article, e.g. Lithuania and the Soviet Union (including Belarus), as I have read a lot of material about them and consider myself to have a sufficiently solid grasp of their context. I agree that the complex situations should be described wherever they arise. Although there is the problem of having arguably doubtful cases in an article titled Collaboration with the Axis powers, because the reader very easily could consider all people and units named here as collaborators, which is unfair IMO.

Before any major re-writing, these are the questions I think should be answered:

• What is the WP:SCOPE here? You already asked that above (the section Is it collaboration if:) almost a month ago, but it doesn't seem like anything clear came out of that and the current WP:LEDE does not have a sharp definition. Perhaps the material now in the lede should be moved to a new section definition or something similar. My approach would be that the intention is what matters most and that these cases should be highlighted.
• What about Japan? The Empire of Japan was certainly an Axis power, but collaboration with it is barely mentioned in this article. That said, it is linked to at the very top of the article.
• This article lacks conciseness and clarity. Certain sections have a disprotionate amount of material compared to others: e.g. ~23kB for the Baltic states and ~15kB for the whole of the Soviet Union. The section on Transcaucasia is basically only about Armenia. I find it amusing that the subsection of Central Asia is included under Collaboration by country in Europe, because it was part of the USSR. Considering how bloated this article is, I would think that there should be a rule capping the maximum of paragraphs per section (maybe 3), otherwise it is too much.

Essentially, much of the material in this article should be moved to dedicated and specific articles, which would be linked to in this article, just to keep the article within manageable limits. The article's scope should be tightened and the sections cut down to no more than just a few paragraphs. Entire books and monographs can be written about each country, so we should be careful to not get lost in rabbit-holes. It really is very easy to get bogged down in literature and lose track of the basics and the most important things. (Just a general caution, not directed personally to anyone.) Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

P.S. the lack of consistent citing in this article is a total nightmare Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Union has already been highlighted as a problem and one that I for one am very ill-equipped to tackle. Feel free. Re spinoffs, yes I agree, the scope is much too huge. Japan was spun off a couple weeks ago but also needs a huge amount of help. The volunteer units have been proposed by me as another spinoff as there were many shades of collaboration there that deserve more detail. The obstacle to further breaking it up is a lack of outside comment on proposals. Currently it's organized by continent but IMHO it may make more sense to split by empire. IE British, French, German, Italian. Soviet.Union, although that was not de jure an empire of course. Totally agree on rabbit holes; have been down several in this effort. I think the answer to the balance problem is to spinoff and expand though; I've trimmed the longer sections quite a bit already and there isn't much fat there. And the military history context has been a problem Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Since you asked me to comment here, and since I used to edit this topic area long ago, I'll offer a few thoughts. It's a difficult question, and basically, we should stick to what the sources say. If we have sources that clearly call LTDF collaborators, then quote them. Otherwise, this is complicated and maybe we should split such content into a dedicated article? There may be some OR/SYNTH issues, if we use some definition of collaboration and then argue that LTDF meets it even if no RS actually says so. The case of Battle of Murowana Oszmianka is very interesting, in general, as I think it was LTDF's largest battle. So from that angle, the only fight this formation got into was against the Polish partisans, right? So on the surface, they did act, if briefly, as German's auxiliaries, from what I recall. But, again, we should focus on what do the reliable sources say? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

As for WP:Scope, I think we can easily limit ourselves to collaboration with Nazi Germany. We will then avoid the situation where Romania, which was part of the Axis, is listed as a "collaborator." And a collaboration with Japan or even Italy is a separate topic.

As for the length of sections, I think we can't think that big country = big section, small country = small section. It all depends on the complexity of a country's situation. For example when it comes to the Baltic countries, their peculiarity lies in the existence of many relatively small different collaborative formations (vide Estonia). Each of them must be mentioned along with their specifics ( for example, how they were recruited, to whom they were subordinate, etc.). This lengthens the article. In other countries, the collaborations may have been numerically larger, but less complicated, making them take less space to describe.

Another issue is the current division, which should be rethought. Because, for example, we have the subsection "Ukraine", as part of the "Soviet Union". In view of this, where should the collaboration of Ukrainians from eastern Poland be described? At the moment it is not mentioned at all (Roland Battalion, OUN, etc.). Similarly, Belarusians or Volksdeutsche? Perhaps instead of "Ukraine" it should be "Ukrainians"? Marcelus (talk) 11:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus @Elinruby The article's title is "Collaboration with the Axis powers". Perhaps the Collaboration with the Axis powers should be renamed to Collaboration with Nazi Germany (now a redirect to this), while a new article called Collaboration with Fascist Italy be created to take in the sections almost partly/exclusively about that (British Somaliland, Albania, Montenegro, Kosovo, Slovene Lands)?

In case the article is made to be specifically about collaboration with Germany, I would be very much in favour entirely removing the sections - Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary - which now mostly focus on those unoccupied states and their treatment of Jews, so there's actually not that much about collaboration itself in the Romania and Hungary sections.

Removing the material that is Italy-related to a specialized article and removing unoccupied countries from an article about collaboration (which implies occupation) would remove 20-25 kB from this gigantic article of <200kB.

I understand the issue with Ukraine, so I think the wisest division would be a sections about Ukrainians (Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany already exists). Overall, considering how collaboration in Nazi Germany worked due to their views about race, etc., would it not be better to have sections based on nationality or even ethnicity? This would have the benefit of not singling out Jews in their own section at the very end. This would also split up the Czechoslovakia section into Czechs and Slovaks, which definitely had different experiences during this time. Just putting things out there, so to speak.

I will try and clean up the Category:Collaboration with the Axis Powers, because it is an unbelievable mess which suffers from overcategorization. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

My rationale for Hungary was that it was *not* an Axis power when its top general cut a personal side deal with the Nazis that tipped the country into the fascism column, and the prime minister committed suicide. Romania is there from an early exploration of the collaboration in the Balkans topic area, in which I claim zero expertise so this is of course discussable. I did not find anything of the kind for Romania but it was very much a shallow dive. Good idea on the category.

(A bit later) I know I keep asking this but: Is it collaboration if you singlehandedly send an entire country into fascism? Because of some dream of empire? I am not convinced that occupation of one's country of citizenship in a sine qua non for collaboration. We have a category for US collaborators for example. Not... declaiming, just... Innocently asking questions. 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I keep hearing "whatever the sources say". It's true, but simplistic. Which sources? About collaboration? I am using the one at Collaboration in warfare. I keep meaning to being those sources over here. About who collaborated? The sourcing in this article when I got here was poor to be polite. National narratives diverge. Individual sources may or may not be controversial. None of this, AFAICT has been particularly your fault; I am just venting. But that is something of an answer, and I do not know the answer to my own question, so I am going to shut up now for the moment at least. Elinruby (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

(on re-reading myself} Sorry to confusingly rant, guys, I think I was talking about Wartime collaboration above, but I should have added the definition I was talking about while I had it open, because I didn't find it when I looked for it earlier. I think it must have been in one of the sources for that article; it had to do with agency, or whether collaboration was a freely made choice. I'll nail that down, but meanwhile Piotrus' definition of intention amounts to the same thing, I think. If you signed but to protect your neighbors from going to a gulag then maybe the people who signed up to bring an Aryan nation into being are Nazi-er Nazis. Meanwhile I added a different reference to the lede; the ones I replaced were for Burma, which is no longer in this article, because we spun off Collaboration with Japan, and the Middle East, which is poorly developed and maybe should be left for future work, as they say. The rewritten lede is mine and although I wrote it carefully I am open to changes, of course, except that what was there was mostly about a definition created to discuss Vichy France so let's not just revert it, hmmm? Elinruby (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

also against a hard and fast rule about length, at least until we address the issue of the Channel Islands having its own section. This is because strictly speaking it isn't part of Britain, but although somebody seems to think there was collaboration there, given the difference in scale it doesn't seem due for its section to be the same length as the USSR. Good point about Central Asia. We also need to address that the Ukraine section seems very fixated on "Ukrainians" and pogroms. Ukrainian... Police? UNA? There are divergent narratives here I believe but we need to do better than "Ukrainians". Also pls note that Algeria was part of France at the time. Elinruby (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

(I see I messed up the indent again. Very sleepy, sorry. Talk amongst yourselves, getting coffee.)Elinruby (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for the "Jewish collaboration" section

Link, feel free to comment, I'm waiting for opinions and I'm open to changes Marcelus (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby nobody made any comments, I think we can move the section from my sandbox to the article and work on it there, what do you think? Marcelus (talk) 10:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I read the draft and I think it's good. It adequately addresses the concern I had raised above (the subject of a Jewish section should also be insititutionalised cooperation by representatives of the Jewish communities, or at least Jewish organisations and groups of people) and is supported by good sources. Two minor remarks

• After the sentence (from the draft) "In some of the larger ghettos, the Judenrats were forced to prepare lists and hand over people to the Germans for deportation", we could following Bauer 2001 more closely and specify that Only in some of the larger ghettos were the Jundenräte forced to provide the Germans with lists and cooperate in the handing over of victims. In most places this never happened (verbatim quotation from p. 143).
• Re Jewish police, we could mention the case of Calel Perechodnik, since we have a dedicated article. E.g., immediately before the sentence "In 14 ghettos, Jewish police cooperated with the resistance movement" (from the draft) we could have "In his memoir, the Jewish policeman Calel Perechodnik tells of handing over his own wife and daughter to the killers and of his subsequent remorse".

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I am reading too many things at once. My brain just exploded. More comments later, but yeah, although I still think that it should be its own article, for now I agree that it doesn't need to be in a sandbox. It's a vast improvement in referencing over what was there. I still think that if it is worth covering as a global phenomenon then it's worth its own article, but that growth will be easier here where people can find it. Is Amsterdam in the article? If we're taking it out of the Poland section, which I am not necessarily against, we need to discuss more than just the Warsaw ghetto, on the other hand. Mmmyeah go ahead and move it in, I think. I am planning to move more stuff about volunteers into my sandbox, and try for some organization there. Anyone have any objection to any of that, feel free to comment. I would like to do a copy edit to that draft, but preoccupied right now. Still needing volunteers for Italy, Balkans, Greece, Japanese occupation, Finland etc. Unsure if anyone is doing Soviet Union. And as noted above the references need work. Please discuss which one we should standardize on if anyone chooses that task. Sorry for the brain dump.

Would dearly love to discuss architectural changes also. Probably gone for the next twelve hours at least if somebody wants to avoid edit conflicts. Elinruby (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Are we still trying to avoid a focus on individuals? Methinks it depends on whether we are spinning the section off as an article and how soon. On the Judenrāte, the going along to protect the group isn't all that different that what Vichy did. we should discuss this but my primary concern is that we avoid oversimplification. Personally. Elinruby (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby I wrote this section with the idea that it is a summary of an article that is not yet written. For this reason, I purposely did not focus on specific individuals. Except for Gancwajach and Stern, whom Bauer clearly identifies as leaders of the collaborationist organizations. Therefore, I would not add Perechodnik at this point. I believe that the article should include many more cases and a comparison between them (for example, the leaders of the Judenrats and the different stances they took).

I'll add a section with an addition proposed by @Gitz6666 Marcelus (talk) 11:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

summary of an article not yet written sounds like we are on the same page. Elinruby (talk) 11:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Syria and the Lebanon

The first paragraph of Collaboration with the Axis powers#Syria and the Lebanon (League of Nations mandates) has an exhaustive list of the Vichy French forces without indicating if and how they collaborated with Germany and Italy.

The Vichy government's Armée du Levant (Army of the Levant) under General Henri Dentz had regular metropolitan colonial troops and troupes spéciales (special troops, indigenous Syrian and Lebanese soldiers). He had seven infantry battalions of regular French troops at his disposal, and eleven infantry battalions of "special troops", including at least 5,000 cavalry in horsed and motorized units, two artillery groups and supporting units. The French had 90 tanks (according to British estimates), the Armée de l'air had 90 aircraft (increasing to 289 aircraft after reinforcement) and the Marine nationale (French Navy) had two destroyers,a sloop and three submarines}.

Some context for the subsequent attack on Palmyra is probably necessary, but (as Elinruby often says) this is not an article about military history. (If it were, then enumerating the ground, air and naval forces available for combat or defence would likely become rather more relevant.)

Can this paragraph be shortened, summarised or even deleted without making the following paragraphs less understandable? Or could it be recast with an eye to showing the collaborationist (or for that matter anti-collaboration) implications? —— Shakescene (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's see. It's Vichy. Vichy is collaborationist. But a lot of my recent mumbling is to the effect that we should be focusing more on the Darlans of the world than the schmucks who joined a unit, unless maybe they did it on purpose. My answer, with respect to this content, which I put there because this is the Vichy Army, is hmmm. I think there may an untold story here. On the other hand I don't think we are going to tell it anytime soon. So I think we should treat it like Brittany, which would be higher priority anyway, because the militia we aren't talking about there was at least a volunteer ideological Nazi unit.

TL;DR: imo copy all that milhist to the talk page and let it archive. I would like to make sure it's covered *somewhere* and various JStor rabbit holes make me think there's a history there, but since we're discussing a split, I think North Africa and/or the French Protectorates might be a separate topic that is currently beyond my ken and yours, like the Mufti. Elinruby (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene @Elinruby I think we should remove the milhist to an article where it's more relevant. IMO the milhist of certain states, even if collaborationist, is not what this article about collaboration was aiming for, because I don't see any milhist of the Italian Social Republic, Government of National Unity (Hungary), etc. Actually, neither of these two puppet states is mentioned on this article, although the Independent State of Croatia is...

I fully agree that we should be focusing more on the Darlans of the world than the schmucks who joined a unit, unless maybe they did it on purpose, with the purpose obviously being unambiguously Nazi, fascist, etc. Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Right. Go for it Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ Although I haven't absorbed them fully, these Wikipedia articles might provide more context about whether the Syrian and Lebanese mandates were under collaborationist (rather than, say, neutral) control: First Syrian Republic#World War II and independence and Greater Lebanon#World War II and Later history —— Shakescene (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Scope, splitting etc.

Looking from sidelines at repeat inconclusive discussions about what is collaboration and how article could be split, I feel like it may be worth considering having a RfC or two, to figure out major questions about what the article should contain and how whole thing should be structured. Collaboration can be defined in varied ways, with most limited definition including only voluntary cooperation with foreign invader by occupied population, while widest definition would include any cooperation by any party. Not to mention corner cases, like minor but still independent Axis members (Romania, Bulgaria etc.), and Vichy colonies attacked by Allies. I have also seen some comments along the lines "whatever sources say", but this is also extremely vague. Is single use of word "collaboration" in any RS sufficient for including something? Or should only RS of certain quality be used? Maybe term "collaboration" should appear in significant portion of sources describing something to qualify? Or even only include stuff described as "collaboration" by major best quality sources dealing with WW II history and collaboration in general scale? Lots of options.

Similarly about splitting, should the topic be split geographically (Asia, Africa, maybe even individual country articles), or maybe by ways of collaboration (puppet civilian administrations, military volunteers, trade and business relations)? What should happen with this article? I see the Pacific area was completely removed from here, but is this the way? Will Collaboration with the Axis powers end up as a disambiguation page after several splits? Or should it aim to be a general summary of all collaboration with Axis everywhere, with splitting only meaning shortening and summarizing, while excess detail moves to subarticles? I feel that without overall vision how the topic should be structured, any improvements to the article will remain very uneven, and overall it will remain a mess illustrated by curious sights of Ustaše Croatia and Channel Islands sections being almost equal in size and whatnot.--Staberinde (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:RFC's are useful for situations where there are long discussions that are deadlocked, and have failed to show progress over a long period, due to editors who are unable to resolve content disagreements. Nothing similar to that is happening here, discussions on multiple topics are making good progress, and I see no call for an Rfc, here. What you might be hinting at, is that you'd like to see additional feedback from more editors, and that's fine, but there are other methods for that. The fact that discussions so far haven't answered every questions that has been raised, is not a reason to have an Rfc about it, and in fact, would fail WP:RFCBEFORE. If you can point to an irresolvably deadlocked point of disagreement which has made no progress toward resolution after long attempts to do so, then perhaps it could be addressed in an Rfc; but I see nothing like that here, just multiple editors discussing, making progress, and updating the article accordingly. In other words, exactly the way it's supposed to work at Wikipedia.

Also, the three questions you pose at the end of the first paragraph, are not really up for discussion here, as they are already decided by policy on WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:Reliable sources, and others. Nothing "decided" here about sourcing can overturn existing policy and guidelines about it. In theory, you could try to alter them at the talk page of the policy in question, but here, we just apply those policies as written. Mathglot (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I got a bit more pessimistic impression but maybe I was mistaken. If "good progress" is being made when feel free to ignore my comment. Also, I would note that while policies indeed need to be followed, what is the most correct way to apply policy in specific situation may not be always universally obvious.--Staberinde (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I have seen an RFC enshrine horrors on another page and I would dearly love to avoid one here. I would also dearly love somebody working on Croatia so if you know the topic, please feel free to dig in. I tried a little in the section and as I recall managed to do some referencing, but I don't know enough to expand it and Shakescene has specifically said (somewhere} that he doesn't either.

I agree about the Channel Islands (and have already considerably trimmed the section, believe it or not) but I am not sure how to fix it the balance issue it represents beyond asking questions and making suggestions. One of the problems with that section is that it isn't clear *who* informed, but somebody was edit-warring over that section so methinks there may be something notable there.

Zooming out, the following are relevant to your larger concern

1. Everyone agrees that the article is AWFUL, especially as to weight. (Central Asia is currently also in Europe because Russia, as someone else pointed out. This is why geography is the wrong approach)
2. The set of people currently working on the article does not overlap with the set of people who originally posted this stuff. At all, except for Piotrus and Poland. And it looks like his input was only in specific sections
3. The overall problem with the article in fact is that everyone who contributed prior to February only contributed to one or at most two sections (I should note that I have not read the history prior to January 2018)
4. Discussion since February has so far has been remarkably fact-based.
5. The average RFC participant doesn't want to read and the genre is ill-suited to broad questions of balance imo, and that is what we have here.

That said, more input would be a very nice thing and I repeat my invitation to help. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Staberinde: who is mostly to whom this is addressed. Elinruby (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Possibly a theory of everything?

it looks like an important member of my extended family is dying and while her kids are adults, my help may be useful with all of the everything. I've been quiet for a couple of days because I put in some long hours on this and was starting to make silly typos from fatigue. I answered a couple of threads here this morning then got the family news. So as I wait to hear about that, let me try to tie up some loose ends and focus several discussions

1. Collaboration with the Axis powers was always too broad a topic.
2. Wartime collaboration exists and should probably be beefed up. It's not a bad article but it could use some more references
3. One rationale for spinning off Collaboration with Imperial Japan was, as I understand it, that the time scope is somewhat different and so are the issues, although the theme of using nationalist movements is still common.
4. We really have to lose the geography-based approach in my opinion, for many reasons but the fact that national boundaries were different then is enough.
5. We really lack coverage of Italy. I am not going to argue with what I saw in the article history; I think there's a significant bit of political history that applies to the period between Italy's surrender and Germany's.
6. once we eliminate pure geography as the basis for a split, which I think we have, other suggestions that have surfaced.
7. Discussions by Nazi administrative district might be somewhat useful in pointing out commonalities. A compare and contrast of Belgium vs France or vs the Netherlands would be illuminating, I think. But this is not intuitive for English speakers and I personally would have to look up what those units were to even begin.
8. I think a good suggestion was made above and it would result in:
   • Collaboration with Nazi Germany (needs work)
   • Collaboration with Fascist Italy (to be written)
   • Collaboration with Imperial Japan (needs work)

Possibly

• Collaboration with the Soviet Union (to be written?)

Possibly

• A very high-level discussion of why fascism happened then (to be written?)

Would this approach clear up some of the problems about collaborating with whom, and why, that we are having? The other suggestion I had about dividing by colonial empire would require a lot of repetition, I think Elinruby (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby You're very active here and you're not under any obligation to put in numerous hours daily into this, and I think that other Wikipedians will be understanding if you can't contribute for some time for any reason. I highly appreciate your efforts here!

As for geographical division by continents - I was the one who introduced it for the reason so its more sub-divided and thus easier to navigate. Before, it was just all countries in a row and it felt totally disorganized. Any categorization that does the job better is obviously preferable. I think there's really only one other option if we drop geographical divisions, which is ethnicities. Personally, I'm not sure that dropping geography entirely is the best option, because it makes more sense to compare within a regional context (I would suggest using EuroVoc's classification for how to define Western, Southern, Central and Eastern Europe). I think it's more logical to compare the Flemish with the Dutch than with the Latvians, just as an example. The proposal to divide by colonial empires only makes sense in areas that are outside Europe.

I agree on there being three articles for each major Axis power. I'm also in favour of the article Collaboration with the Soviet Union being created, but it should only be created after we fix this article, because I don't want the same mistakes that were made in this article to be repeated there. Regarding a very high-level discussion of why fascism happened then, I would avoid taking a new bite after not having finished the previous one (metaphorically-speaking). Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

point taken and yep I am just saying don't wait on me. It's a proposal. Talk about it, refine it, whatever. We do have at least identified two absurdities in the current system. I've been as active as I am because I TNTed the thing and feel a.certain responsibility. But at least for the next couple of days, I am going to be very preoccupied. I am not familiar with that classification system but if it's something like Balkans vs Iberia vs Baltic vs Scandinavia I'm probably on board for that.

But this question is as I see it the bottleneck and therefore must be resolved. That, and what is collaboration, as I keep asking, but that is probably for the high-level article, and +1 on there being plenty else to do first. But we have to get the goal straight to avoid working at cross-purposes.

Peace out. I do feel fairly confident that there are people who know stuff working on stuff that I can't do, so yay us. Fuzzy kittens all around. Elinruby (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Dialectic and Semiotics Reappear: Can we usefully treat Collaboration separately from Resistance, Invasion, Occupation, German policies, and Liberation?

(or Everything, Everywhere, All at Once)

I haven't fully absorbed all the points above, but I realised that much of our difficulty arises from treating Collaboration as a distinct topic (and article) separate from its opposite, Resistance, or from the Occupation powers' demands, (although less dramatic, Attentisme was, by the necessities of carrying on daily life, the attitude of most of the occupied most of the time, but that's hard to define, let alone quantify, and is so far an empty article on Wikipedia).

Collaboration means nothing without a counterpart (Axis occupiers) or an opposite (the Resistance, or co-operation with anti-Axis "liberators").

I know that this implies a truly massive task of merging with and reorganising many, many other articles — something I wouldn't attempt even to begin approaching alone — but (since there's a dialectic), this also applies to, say, Resistance (against what?) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any advantage to what you propose, as it would imply that the topic of "Collaboration with the Axis powers" was either not notable, or else had borderline notability but insufficient secondary sourcing about it to justify a stand-alone page about it. However, neither is the case, as there are dozens of books that discuss the subject and many in which it is the central topic, making it a highly notable topic. So rather than merge it, it should probably be greatly expanded, and then split into a series of articles, perhaps along the lines discussed above of which this one would remain the parent article in WP:Summary style.

The idea that you can't discuss "Collaboration as a distinct topic (and article) separate from its opposite" seems odd to me, the kind of thing that might come up in philosophy class, but isn't practical here as far as how to improve this article. Unless I've totally missed your point.

As to any inclusion of material about the French Resistance, or about resistance to other Axis powers (neither of which is the topic of the article), I think it would be fine, as long as it is in due proportion to the amount of material in secondary sources about resistance to the Axis, in articles whose topic is collaboration with the Axis. It's not for us, as editors, to decide we have to consider collaboration and resistance equally in the article, or in some proportion that we consider philosophically or logically justified, because that would be original research. If the sources about collaboration talk about resistance, then so should we; if the sources about collaboration don't talk very much about resistance, then we shouldn't, either. Pretty much simple as that. P.S. I've taken the liberty of removing the pilcrow from the section title. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Shakescene: scope continues to be a boggle. I think that we need some context, and this article should be about more than "he's a collaborator! And he's a collaborator! All these people are collaborators!" (Oprah reference intentional)

Attentisme should not be a blank article.

My thread above about a grand theory of everything may be relevant, if it didn't make your radar. With respect, it isn't really helpful to say that we go with what the sources say. Of course. We have all been around long enough, and spent enough time at WP:RSN, to know that this is the correct answer. Which sources though? Eichmann in Israel would seem like an excellent source, for example, except that apparently she is now considered mistaken as to the Judenräte. And there is still that lingering problem about page numbers in the online edition.

I added some discussion of antisemitism in the Third Republic as an attempt to explain why France was such fertile ground for fascism, and this got removed as not collaboration and not Vichy. Which is true, in the narrow sense. It is also true that historically I always include too much background, and have to be trimmed. At least you both do so thoughtfully. Elinruby (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, this page should really be just a disambig page pointing to the relevant sections on collaboration in articles like Netherlands_in_World_War_II#Collaboration, German_occupation_of_Norway#Acceptance_and_collaboration and Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland, etc. As Mathglot points out, there are many sources available, but most of them are country specific, so it is a bit WP:SYNTHy, or at least a bit WP:CONTENTFORKish, to combine it all into one article here when we already have multiple articles that cover it in adequate detail. This article should be structured more like France_during_World_War_II in my opinion. --Nug (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That seems valid. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, best to make "Collaboration with the Axis powers" into a disambiguation page for further disambiguation pages of "Collaboration with (insert major Axis power - Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan)" and then those in turn just point to country-specific pages. Seems like the most logical and clear cut solution. It would definitely save from duplication of material and introduce way more clarity. Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm on board for that. It's always been a question of the scope of the spin-off articles. If there's now a consensus for country-by-country discussions, I can see that it would avoid some of the current absurdities. There's still an issue with what is collaboration, but that approach makes a lot of sense, and the people with expertise in given countries can talk on the respective pages rather than trying to enunciate a rule for what is collaboration that works for Burma, Denmark and Italy. Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should completely reconceptualize the article. Move away from describing "one case after another" and instead try to describe the phenomenon of collaboration with the Germans more problematically. Pointing out the difference between the various countries and regions, the different forms of collaboration, the thin line between cooperation and collaboration, and treason, etc. What we have now is valuable and should be transferred to individual articles, most of which are not yet exist, e.g. Estonian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Marcelus (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Estonian collaboration is sufficiently fleshed out to be its own article, don't you Scope creep? As far as I am concerned it could be a spinoff with a list entry like My very best wishes is talking about. Do it. Elinruby (talk)

Elinruby (talk) 00:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Morning @Elinruby: Folks, I think there is probably enough for an article. It is quite a sizable block and there is enough there for a starter article if somebody can write a lede and fix the context. When you compare it with something Collaboration in German-occupied Poland it has some way to go before it's fully fleshed out. Looking at the conversation, does the historical analysis of collaboration fit the country by country model that is being discussed? You will need to check. I do know that in well established countries like Belgium, Denmark, Holland, for example it may be quite easy to classify that way as they have well established country and legal boundaries, but in certain other areas like around the Balkans where the resistance ranged far and wide, it may be slightly different. I think collaboration and resistance are two sides of the same coin but don't know for sure. I'd like to see more research. I think collaboration is a probably a distinct subject, as perhaps driven by ideology as much as say fiduary concerns. They did pay their cronies quite handsomely. It might be a case that German fastidiousness regarding their bureaucracy is tied to a country level, although you get for example Reichprotectorate of Bohemia and Monrovia which is seems to be an entirely artificial region. There is much more to do, for example: [8]. I think what you need in that a definition of what colloboration is and that is academically sourced. If its different in one country then it is multiple definitions. There is all sorts of factors that define what made folk colloborate. For some it was religion, others ideology, others money, group dynamics, being ransomed, family held hostage and being fooled and so on. Multiple reasons that needs looked at. There is probably a standard text on it, or several. Often they are quite obscure and then often revised by 2nd and 3rd generation historians after the war that are more visible with the internet. When I looked at the Vichy police collaboration article on fr wikipedia it was a list of operations. No real analysis of what it meant to colloborate, what it means, who kicked off and why. This article is that state. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 10:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you need to end up with a historical analysis of collaboration with academic sources in its own article (due to size) + this article as a list of operations (summary article) + list of individual countries, regions, special instances for example Vichy Police collaboration, specific instances set of articles. There is a Collaboration article but I don't know how you would work that in. It seems to be peace-time collaboration and is a bit of a mess. scope_creep^Talk 11:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

+1 to all of that really Scope creep, especially Greece, which I find completely mysterious. I'm of the personal opinion that most people had to go to work in the morning and we should, at least at the overview level, try to avoid either blaming or excusing. Even though I did get pretty indignant about that Hungarian general.

What I am wondering though is this. If he leaves the Estonia section in place for now as a summary of the article he is writing, then starts a main article based on this text, what would help it get through NPP, whether with some suggestions or not? I think he wants to spin it off to expand it, right Marcelus? And btw, I know "summary of an article not yet written" was what we said about the Jewish collaboration section, but I assume you wrote this the same way. Elinruby (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

As for reconceptualizing the article, I am not sure if we are talking about the kind of high-level overview I proposed in, I think, "Possible theory of everything", but I am in favor of such an article if we are able to write it. I know I would like to read it. I think another editor agreed with me about that, but thought we had enough to work on already at the moment. Which is also true. But, for example, I suspect that there were many economic drivers to the rise of fascism in the 30s. No, I don't have a source handy for that; it's just an impression I formed from past reading and academic work (which does not rise to the level of making me any kind of expert). Maybe resource curse applies, although I have previously only ever seen the term applied to the DRC. I believe I saw that rubber had a great deal to do with occupations in southeast Asia. (Burma maybe?) A theme I noticed while going through the existing text was collaboration by nationalists and resistance fighters supporting invaders as an alternative to another occupier. Burma, Ukraine and possibly Yugoslavia come to mind, although I am admittedly lost when it comes to Yugoslavia. Alsace also comes to mind -- it was French, it was German, it was French, a dizzying number of times. People had crops to tend and jobs to go to. I am sure there are several other regions like that. Elinruby (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Jewish Virtual Library

Its non-rs and need to updated to with better reference. scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah Piotrus noticed that, I saw in the history. Do you remember where else you saw it? Alternately, feel free to delete and add a cn if that seems applicable. Actually I can just look at the references come to thing of it Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep: I found the one that was in North Africa and removed it. Let me know if I missed one, k? And thanks Elinruby (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The conceptual problem of defining collaboration and resistance

Here's a quote from The New York Times about France in WW II which I believe is appropriate to keep in mind when writing about either collaboration or resistance. These are murky topics. "If one were to tabulate the memoirs of those years, one might conclude that nearly everyone in Paris resisted the Germans during the occupation. But it is also possible to make the case that 'everybody collaborated.'"

Is this not being discussed above? Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

“Pithy sentences are like sharp nails which force truth upon our memory.” Denis Diderot. Smallchief (talk)

I don't think it hurts to restate the question. There aren't *that* many people working on this. @Smallchief: are you the OP here? Looks like someone split your post. Feel free to refactor if so. Elinruby (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there is too many discussions on this t/p on virtually the same topic Marcelus (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

and by and large nobody is answering them so I question whether it is helpful to shut down input from anyone, even if it is perceived by someone else to not belong in its own section. There is an extremely wide range of cultural backgrounds here. I don't know Smallchief from Adam, apart from some earlier comments on this talk page, so I emphatically don't speak for him, but consider the possibility that this was intended as a philosophical suggestion vs taking issue or agreeing with a specific suggestion above. We need help, so let's not go all MoS police on the people who are talking an interest. Not on the talk page anyway. Elinruby (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Move proposal

i realize that we keep discussing moves and merges and scope, but afaict, correct me if I am wrong, we don't have a really strong consensus on how to do it exactly, except that everyone seems to agree that something should be done.

Question: pending resolution of that discussion, should this article be moved to "Collaboration with Fascism in Europe"?

Or should we just proceed to country by country spinoffs? This would result in some very short articles (Greece and Norway for example) but I am not necessarily against it either.

The current title however is simply wrong IMHO Elinruby (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you want the article to be about any period in time, or limited to WW2 ? Because the choice of title may affect the scope; there are people who collaborate with Fascists in Europe now, so does that mean an article with the new title should potentially include them, if they meet WP:V and WP:DUE issues? The title "the Axis powers" restricts the scope to the time period of World War II without actually containing any title words that name the war period, but if you change it to the proposed title, it will potentially remove that constraint. Mathglot (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ I was thinking the same thing as Elinruby: that some title needs to distinguish this page from the spun-off Collaboration with Imperial Japan. But while I was thinking that, I considered the geographical scope, and at a minimum it would include the Near and Middle East.

India presents a particular quandary: while Azad Hind and the Indian National Army were Japanese allies, Subhas Chandra Bose broadcast from Berlin, and the Indian Legion (as I understand it) was part of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS, serving largely in European theatres. And Transcaucasia really fits easily nowhere: not really European (although Georgians and Armenians might insist otherwise), nor Middle Eastern nor South Asian.

Perhaps some clunky title such as Collaboration with the European Fascist powers or Collaboration with European Fascism might fit better. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot and Shakescene: so did I hear

1. Need date range and

2. Agree to a split and asking about categories?

Maybe some mumbling about Transcaucasia? I agree with all of the above, if we're voting here. This proposal is for until we have some consensus on a split. Some people suggested splitting by country. I am ok with that or with almost any of the proposed splits by region. Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Note to self and others: the current version of Axis collaboration article has an example from Burma that should be moved to the collaboration with Imperial Japan. The lede could then probably use an in-scope different example of nationalists collaborating for the weapons and training. I am sure there was some stuff like that in Yugoslavia or Greece or probably several Elinruby (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a Burmese example here (nor does FIND find anything for Burma or Burm—). I did move Burma over to Collab with Imp. Japan. However there is one book in Further Reading here about India's war for independence that likely should be moved or copied to Imperial Japan, a title I deliberately picked to avoid imposing a starting date (1895? 1910? 1931?) Roughly the same could be said about this article for events before 1 September 1939. The takeover of Czechoslovakia (permitted by Munich) and the Sudeten Germans aren't usually classed as part of World War II; nor is the Anschluss with Austria — N.B. would it make any useful sense to discuss Austrian collaborators (including one A. Hitler) with the Reich, since pan-Germanism has always been part of Austrian politics? Let alone Danzig. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Well Danzig seems to be notable in at least a peripheral role in French history in World War 2. Probably a lot more. As for Austria and Czechoslovakia, I see your point with the move request. Basically I am OK with pretty much any categorization that gets Central Asia out of Europe. (Because Russia, see?) And do we need to decide which borders we're using? 1939? Elinruby (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I already took care of it. Thank you for checking. Elinruby (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

there's a recent suggestion that we split by countries,did you see that?Elinruby (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

On the move, how about European collaboration with the Axis powers? Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

or Collaboration with the Axis powers in Europe? I think that's clunkier though. Elinruby (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer Collaboration with Nazi Germany. Spin off collaboration with Italy, other Fascist countries in Europe into separate articles as has rightly been done with Japan. Smallchief (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been thinking generally about this approach. We'd definitely need Collaboration with Nazi Germany (beginning in 1938 or early 1939, or heaven knows when with Konrad Henlein, the Sudeten Germans, the SdP and the DNSAP in Czecho-Slovakia. Also a (much shorter one) about Collaboration with Fascist Italy which would have to start in 1938 with Albanian collaborators. However, there would be some German-Italian crossover in the Balkans.

I don't know if a separate article or articles would be necessary for collaboration with the other Axis members and co-belligerents: Finland (too confusing considering the Soviet invasions), Hungary (quite probably), Romania and Bulgaria. In theory, also, collaboration with Slovakia and the Independent State of Croatia.

I have to leave now; more later —— Shakescene (talk) 18:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Re Burma I might have deleted it. I am spending a lot of time in the history right now and will find it again. It was not extensive material but I had trouble finding it, essentially saying and referencing that Japan trained a small number of nationalists who later became leaders of the country. One of the examples of Axis countries weaponizing internal dissension Elinruby (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: to see if they have an opinion on the Balkans. Please consider me a vote in favor of any proposal that would take Central Asia out of Europe. I need to do some other stuff meanwhile.

It looks to me like Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, as well as Belgium and France, are well-developed and could well spin off into separate or regional articles. I would say Ukraine needs serious help and so does the Soviet Union, but if a topic matter expert is available that would be best. I have gone through the existing sections for those sections and left some tags I think but do not currently have enough topic knowledge to be sure I would catch omissions or errors of fact. Still working on Volunteers; it's slow going. If someone wants to work on that let me know. Elinruby (talk) 06:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

No, it should be about what it is. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

please explanation your objection Elinruby (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The simplest solution in my view is to just make this article into a huge disambiguation list with country-specific articles, e.g. Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, etc. Doing anything more sophisticated than that runs the risk of becoming WP:SYNTH, especially if we start comparing countries and how it happened in one country compared to another. Such comparisons should only be drawn from WP:RS where the comparisons are explicitly stated, in order to not have any WP:OR. I also think that some cases are too short to deserve their own article (unless someone comes along in the future to expand them, which might never happen). So, in the case of British Somaliland, I would be in favour of a redirect page called Collaboration in Italian-occupied British Somaliland or something similar pointing to a section of the article Italian invasion of British Somaliland, because that seems the most logical.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I am against renaming the article to Collaboration with Fascism in Europe, because that is far too vague and strays far too much from just about what happened in World War II, which is the scope of this article. Plus, we already have one word that we are having difficulty finding a neat definition for (Collaboration), but adding another one about which academics and WP:RS have much debate about (Fascism) will only make it far harder for us. There's also the matter of who is considered part of Europe as well as what to do with collaboration in European colonial empires that were in continents besides Europe. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• No such move please. "Axis powers" refer to specific states. "Fascism" is something more poorly defined. There is nothing wrong with having such list-like page for as long as it is organized by countries. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ok so "Collaboration with Italy in World War II' and "Collaboration with Germany in World War II"? Elinruby (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

  That isn't going to get us too much further, but we could spin off co

  ountrifrom there Elinruby (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)es

Given that Germany and Italy were very close allies during the war, separating their supporters to different pages does not make much sense. My very best wishes (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

True and so was Japan, which is already spun off. I repeat, tho, I am fine with with any classification that allows me to remove central asia from europe. but if we can't quite find consensus for either European collaboration with the Nazis or Collaboration with Germany and Collaboration with Italy, all I am proposing is that we move to some other name than this one, since it misrepresents the article. Alternately we could agree on a split proposal. There's definitely consensus for a reorganization of some type though, I'm pretty sure. Count me as a yes for anything that takes Central Asia out of Europe. [Elinruby] 03:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

References needed addressed

Hi @Elinruby: Last Jewsish virtual library reference needing removed. Ref 180. Once that is gone and a suitable replacement found I fix the rest of the refs. scope_creep^Talk 13:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

reference 180 is France24. Something has changed since you looked. i need to do a quick errand but i can track that reference down starting in about half an hour probably. It must be close. And when you say fix, you mean standardize the format? That would be awesome. Do you have the capacity to run the bot someone is talking about above? Alternately if you prefer feel free to just replace it with a cn and proceed. In adding future references I'll follow whichever format you elect, because there still are quite a few cn tags. Elinruby (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I fixed it and forgot to update. scope_creep^Talk 22:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok. Thanks. I was coming in here to say I still couldn't find it but 183 looked questionable. I think it might be something like CENSOR but am not actually sure. Anyway, if anyone challenges any references it would probably be that one. Maybe we should run it past RSN. Feel free to improve reference formatting as you see fit, at least as far as I am concerned. Did you comment on the move proposal? Elinruby (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hidden categories

Who do we need to ping to get those looked at? This article for example no longer belongs in "Category:Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles", and never more than very slightly overlapped with "British military history" articles. This is categorized as a "high-importance" article about Italy but we barely mention it. We should either remove the article from the category or write about that topic. Just saying. If this is something I can edit myself but have forgotten how, someone please educate me. Otherwise could someone please take a look? Elinruby (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

This is also no longer an Asian military history article. I will go see if these categories made it to the Collaboration with Imperial Japan article and add them there if not Elinruby (talk) 07:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I think you can remove them by removing the task-forces at the very top of the talk page. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

thanks Elinruby (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed everything to do with Asia since that should presumably now be on the Collaboration with Imperial Japan page (although as I type this I am having second thoughts about India). I also removed ANZ and Britain because they have been removed from the article, and the US because I haven't seen any mention of it in the current article. This does not reflect a judgement that there was no collaboration in those countries, only that the current version of this article does Not mention them. I think that collaboration in the UK probably *should* have an article, the ANZ POWs should probably be included in the Volunteers article, and I've noted that many individuals are listed in the Collaboration in United States category. I have not gone into these in any depth at all since the scope of this article is such that we've been excluding all but the most influential of individual collaborators Elinruby (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Existing articles about military collaboration

One of the possible approaches discussed above was to collect all the paragraphs within individual country sections about foreign volunteers for the Axis (e.g. the Charlemagne Division and the Vlasov army) and then put the result into either a separate subsection of this article or into a separate article of its own.

Just for other editors' information, I discovered (through a circuitous CfD route) that there already several overlapping articles and categories about this matter:

• Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Waffen-SS
• Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Wehrmacht
• List of Waffen-SS units
• Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts
• Waffen-SS in popular culture
• Non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II

Should there be another consensus (executed this time, as it wasn't before) to regather all the relevant country military collaboration paragraphs into a new section or a new article, it may worth consulting these existing articles, some of which are basically just lists. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a pretty good look at that and will be coming back to it after the evidence phase at ARC closes. This doesn't mean I don't need help. So far I've established to my own satisfaction that the Charlemagne unit was indeed composed of ideological volunteers. I question this for some of the other units, especially the ones where half the unit defected and joined the Free French or whatever. The list in this article is almost entirely unsourced and the only source I found for one of the units says that there is no evidence it ever existed. I found at least one instance where two entries were different names for the same unit. (I don't remember if I fixed that). Unless we have an unsuspected regimental history expert amongst our current contributors my thinking is that ideally we should ask someone with a background in the area to comment on the categorization. Complicating this is the fact that there are two other overlapping lists which someone had proposed a merger for, but this proposal seems to have been abandoned because some of the "volunteer" units on that list might not actually have been volunteers, and the further complicating observation that even if some joined to get out of a prisoner of war camp, the prisoners who did not join probably regarded those who did as collaborators. So yeah. I'd been working on this until recently, mainly because it needed doing, and I currently plan to come back to it, but if someone else is interested in untangling it I'd be very happy to hand it off and go back to my two other large messy projects that are currently languishing. Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

(on re-reading) yeah, the two articles they were thinking of merging were non-Germans in the German armed fores and Wehrmacht foreign volunteers and conscripts Elinruby (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Fwiw I asked Kansas Bear if they know if such a.topic expert Elinruby (talk) 07:49, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

YAP (Yet another proposal) -- pls vote

Trying to get consensus to cohere. Please reply y/n and if necessarily briefly address the following numbered items:

1. Article should be split up
2. Article should become an index to individual articles about countries, topics, or regions
3. Article should (insert proposal) because (summary of ten words or less) Elinruby (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

PoD

K then.

How about the same proposal with a 25-word summary? As a writing prompt how about User:Slatersteven User:Bobfrombrockey and/or User:Scope creep, indicate whether they are variously or not interested in myself somewhat am but have some catching up to do. There was a unit with British POWs, I remember that, and the Channel Islands and Lord Hee Haw would be in scope...youknowyouwantto. Also, somebody s]hould really do something with guingette, just to make the world a better place. I suggest cross-refere. ncing Renoir and turn of the century Paris Maybe somebody that needs a break from the slaughter?

Also, we really could use some help with WW2 regimental history; if that's you send up a flare or something,, ok? Elinruby (talk) 04:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

A piecemeal suggestion

I'm beginning to think that there will be no split of this article as easy as my spinning off Collaboration with Imperial Japan — an enormous subject over a helf-century from 1895 to 1945, which sadly seems to have attracted no subsequent edits, clarifications or filling in of big gaps.

But progress may be piecemeal in what remains. Ideally this should in, of and by itself, provide some kind of coherent overview of reputable students' evaluations of collaboration as a whole with Hitler and Mussolini, followed by succinct but adequate summaries for each country and/or theme (economic, military, persecuting, etc.)

This all a very long build-up to my specific idea to start off with. As now, so far as I can see, there are no stand-alone articles about collaboration in the Baltic states. @Marcelus: has done an enormous amount of research and writing for the Baltic section of this article, which should not go to waste but is out of proportion to the rest of this article. My suggestion or thought is that perhaps our Baltic sections could be spun off into an article of its own (an article on World War II Collaboration in the Baltic states would have the added advantage of being open to adding material about collaboration with Stalin, a topic that's closely intertwined in the Baltic states with collaboration with the Nazis, i.e. collaborate with Devil A to fight oppression and exploitation by Devil B, who then might turn out to be even worse).

And then this present article could have a summary that's succinct but more informative than what had been here six months ago.

On the other hand, I may be gaily and presumptuously proposing even more work for anther editor or editors who've already contributed a huge amount of time, worry and effort into what's here now — and may not be able to devote any more.

Sorry this rambles; I'm kind of sleepy. :-) —— Shakescene (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian Liberation Army

An editor thinks the members of this unit were Nazi by definition. Their article says Vlasov, a Soviet general, agreed to collaborate with Nazi Germany after having been captured on the Eastern Front. The soldiers under his command were mostly former Soviet prisoners of war but also included White Russian émigrés, some of whom were veterans of the anti-communist White Army from the Russian Civil War (1917–23). Asking for an opinion from topic experts.

Also, can we please not revert one another? I'm bragging about how well y'all are getting along.

Thanks.Elinruby (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I started a new Talk section about this before seeing this section. I'm posting here what I had written, in case any of it's of any use in this discussion.

Were Vlasov's soldiers Nazi by definition?

Nazi Russians with POA (Russian Liberation Army) shoulder patches, 1944

I changed this caption to

"Soldiers wearing the shoulder patches of Gen. Andrey Vlasov's anti-Soviet Russian Liberation Army ("POA"), 1944"

from the previous caption:

"Nazi Russians with POA (Russian Liberation Army) shoulder patches, 1944"

saying that not every member of Vlasov's army was a Nazi, but was reverted by another editor who said they were "by definition".

This seems to be a matter of definitions. Technically Nazis were members or supporters of the NSDAP, the Austrian DNSAP, the Danish DNSAP, the Dutch NSB and allied parties (not to mention post-war groups like the American Nazi Party and various National Socialist Movements).

As I understand it (without scholarly sources ready to hand) every member of the regular or "civilian" SS (Allgemeine SS) had to be a member of the NSDAP and thus entitled to wear the red Nazi armband with white disc & black swastika).

But I thought this was not true of those recruited for the military or Waffen-SS, especially outside Germany and especially from nationalities that were not strictly Nordic.

The broader question, which pervades this whole Collaboration article, is whether collaborating with the Nazis (or even fighting for the Axis) made you into a Nazi.

From what I know of Vlasov's army, they thought they were fighting against Stalinist Communism, rather than for Nazism (whose long-term policies for the East, involved halving the Slavic population to free land for German pioneer settler-soldiers).

Perhaps my revised caption is tilted too far the other way (I struggled to find neutral wording); what do other editors think? —— Shakescene (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that is a good question, to the extent I understand it. It is also why there are so many overlapping lists of German military units. K.e.coffman was in a merge discussion about two of those lists and might have an opinion about them. As I recall this was exactly the sticking point -- who was a volunteer. I am pretty sure the men in that one unit that deserted en masse and joined the FFI weren't in that unit out of ideological fervor, though. There were *a lot* of countries where a nationalist group(s) accepted weapons from the Germans. Daunting as resolving this question seems, this question underlies a lot of differences about the histories.

(Also, some of the units appear more than once under different names.)

I have in the past proposed a standard of taking at least one overt action on behalf of the Germans. I don't think anyone either agreed or disagreed with that at the time, but it's the best I was able to do. Since then, I seem to recall seeing that there was a unit that fought one battle, against the Polish AK, so the exact definition sort of really does matter. We don't have to solve thid exact question right now, though. There is, in general, a question about which units were conscripts and which were ideological zealots, with respect to who was a Nazi and who was a collaborationist, total

alitarian, monarcsympathized or appreaser. Or puppet state for that matter. Slatersteven would you be interested in starting a review of the sources to find out? I think we pretty much all agree that there will be a divergence of opinion, but maybe if we start writing some names and quotes down we could maybe start a discussion? I think I saw this caption dispute but I don't remember the details -- is thus the one where someone said that if they were in that unit they were Nazis? Elinruby (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Just checking in on this. I think that this is matter of ONUS, or that the person who wishes to make a statement needs to support it if challenged. The "Nazi" statement has been challenged and has not been supported. That's the way it looks to me. Several of these "volunteer" units seem to have relied heavily on conscripts, so at the moment we can't say for a fact that the men meet the voluntary criterion we've been using Elinruby (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

That was my inclination, too: to wait for a couple of more days, ping @Lute88:, and then revert back to my original caption if there's no further discussion or suggested alternate language. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind that there were 2 Russian nazi armies, ROA (Vlasov) and RONA (Kaminsky). While the 1st contained opportunistic contingent, the 2nd (the one in question) was pretty rabidly Nazi, and as such was used in the suppression of the Warsaw uprising. So much so that it had to be disbanded.--Aristophile (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If I may add a couple of dissenting comments to this statement: 1) I'm not sold on the idea of Kaminski's RONA being "rabidly Nazi" as opposed to opportunistic. As with Vlasov's army, it emerged during the war as the Germans advanced victoriously. Plenty (most?) of the troops were former PoWs, and the fact that the unit conducted itself like a bunch of savages in suppressing the Warsaw uprising hardly means they were ideologically motivated (plus IIRC Kaminski was an ethnic Pole himself - if his motivation for the killing of Poles were a feeling of racial superiority he might as well have shot himself to start with). I'd put that down to indiscipline and opportunism (the 'joys' of looting, raping, etc.) instead. If anything, the fact that some NTS cadres worked with Vlasov in trying to elaborate a political programme points to his formation having a more ideological background, although I would not simply equate the NTS's solidarism with Nazism by any stretch of the imagination, either. 2) There was a third Russian collaborationist formation, the Russian Protective Corps that operated in the Balkans, comparable in size to Kaminski's force, and made up of former White troops. The Corps was ideologically motivated inasmuch as they saw their collaboration as a way to continue their fight against Bolshevism, but they didn't necessarily buy into Nazism wholesale either (plus they were led by Boris Shteifon, who was Orthodox by religion but of Jewish ancestry through his father - not easily reconcilable with the racist Weltanschauung of the Nazis, but more easily overlooked by pre-revolutionary Russian anti-Judaism, more narrowly focused on religion). This being said, and just as a general comment addressing the original question, saying any of these formations were Nazis may be inaccurate (I would reserve the label of "Nazi Russians" to the grouplets active in interwar Europe who actively embraced Nazism as an ideology), but since as all three formations collaborated with the Nazis they can rightly be called Nazi collaborators.Ostalgia (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

If we have to go to a survey of sources over whether a particular unit was or was not "Nazi" I think the people who want that should be contributing to the discussion about whether the units we are listing as Nazi collaborators are in fact Nazi collaborators. And do you really want all this drama over a caption? We need content. Write some then if you want this article to call this unit Nazi, but it will need to be really well sourced. Meanwhile ONUS has not been met. Elinruby (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

So, did the men in the picture wearing RLA/POA patches belong to Vlasov's Russian Liberation Army or Kaminksky's RONA ? —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

And looking at these pictures from Wikipedia's article on the Kaminski Brigade, it appears that these soldiers are wearing a different RONA armpatch from the ROA one in this Collaboration article:

The RONA insignia

—— Shakescene (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok well. I don't think we can even say they are RONA then. Comparing armpatches is also a bit OR. If we had a solid source for it, perhaps we could say that. And if we're not sure whether we have a picture of RONA or RLA what do we have a picture of then? Elinruby (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

De-Cossackization says "soldiers of the ROA, who had been recruited from POW camps and Red Army defections, most soldiers of the German Cossack units had never been citizens of the Soviet Union."

Y'all tell me, but that looks like cause for doubt to me Elinruby (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

___

References

Elinruby (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

UK sources

Appeasement, fascists? Channel islands? Elinruby (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Historians believe the Duke of Windsor actively collaborated with the Nazis during the Second World War CBC Docs · Posted: Nov 10, 2022

WaPo fact check

How British High Society Fell in Love With the Nazis, Tom Sykes, Daily Beast, How British High Society Fell in Love With the Nazis

Germans and Nazis: The Controversy over 'Vansittartism' in Britain during the Second World War, Aaron Goldman, Journal of Contemporary History volume 14 1979 p 155

Italian resistance

Clandestine resistance front of the Carabinieri Italian guerrilla war in Ethiopia Elinruby (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

also for the slo-mo improvement effort in the volunteers Section: Georgian Legion (1941–1945). Btw the redlink above is because I forgot I was looking at a translation of the it.wiki article. One of these days I will dig up the Italian article title. Elinruby (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

What is collaboration: sources

[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20619792 Elinruby (talk) 03:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Netherlands

https://www.timesofisrael.com/dutch-archives-on-accused-nazi-collaborators-to-open-to-the-public-in-2025/amp/ Elinruby (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you think it might be helpful to create a Collaboration, etc. , Wikiproject ?

Collapsed per WP:OWNTALK. Either all of it or none of it. Original discussion is here.

[copied from a User's Talk Page] Hi, Elin, I was just thinking that with all the overlap and cross-referencing, it might be helpful to create a Wikiproject or Wikigroup for something like "Invasion, Collaboration, Occupation and Resistance during World War II" (a more logical order would be IOCR, but this arrangement could be more euphonisouly acronymised to ICOR) to gather together all those articles like German occupation of Byelorussia during World War II, Collaboration with Imperial Japan, Collaboration with the Axis powers, Vichy France, Chetniks, Partisans, List of World War II puppet states, Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, Azad Hind, Slovak Republic (1939-1945). White Rose, Manchukuo, Vidkun Quisling, Vel' d'Hiv Roundup, Einsatzgruppen. Otto Abetz. etc. (There may already be a Wiki Project on the various resistance movements.) On the one hand, this might help with overlap and cross-checking; on the other, it might either pretend to become some Universal Law-Giver or else sit around empty, unvisited and unused. There's also a more-distant danger of just coalescing onto one project page all those angry ArbCom-worthy debates on topics such as Jewish collaboration or Comfort women. @Mathglot, @User:Piotrus @User:Marcelus, @User:Scope creep. @User:Volunteer Marek —— Shakescene (talk) 02:19, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Morning @Shakescene: That is a interesting idea. It would certainly something that could focus the group efforts and we could have a participants lists. Morning @Elinruby: I've been doing research on collaboration and found a book on collaboration, the meaning of Nazi collaboration and the many forms its took depending on the particular country or region, the demographics, the people that were there, economy and so it. It seems to be the defintive book, but is probably one amongst many, but it excellent at describing the various aspects of it and why each country/group decided to go with, particularly the early ones, their motivations and so on. I found a review and it pointed me to a Italian academic who held the last conference on nazi collaboration for researchers on the subject. I'm going to contact him and see what he says in terms of the lastest sources and see if we can get any pointers. I'm still on the Lister article at the moment, so this is on the back, but I have some direction for the collaboration article. scope_creepTalk 07:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Another promising source might be Hitler's War Aims, volume 2 ISBN 039333290X —— Shakescene (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC) I'll probably be low-activity for the next month or so, but I'll watch with interest, and contribute when I can. Mathglot (talk) 09:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I think it's a good idea. I had been wondering if everyone got run off by the current Arb case, and was.thinking of making a post about that. Certainly it would improve the visibility of the effort. As for.attracting the angry, that may be inevitable, whether we start a formal project or not. If it gets too bad we can maybe ask for discretionary sanctions, which this article currently only falls under with respect to Poland. I think that holding fast to verifiability will help a lot with creating something useful that neither blames nor praises. Elinruby (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC) As I suspected there is already some Resistance stuff falling within the WW2 MilHistory projects. There's also this collapsible category guide (or whatever you call it) [[Category:World War II resistance movements]]. P.S. I looked at the Collaboration with Imperial Japan article that I created by splitting off 16 k from Collaboration with the Axis Powers earlier this year, and it's now nearly doubled to 28 k, which is exactly what I was seeking. Most of us know something about Vichy France or Eastern Europe, but nearly nothing (except what we've found in Wikipedia) about modern Asian history — far better to attract those who have a greater interest in and knowledge of modern Asia than to stumble our own way through darkly (and perhaps wrongly). —— Shakescene (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC) New projects, even ones you'd think have broad interest, frequently go dark. A subtask of WP:MILHIST may be a good route to consider. MILHIST is a huge project with many task forces for subtopics, and is not going to become inactive. If a new "collaboration" subtask is created and has little input for some time, it won't disappear as long as MILHIST exists. Plus, it may attract crossover interest from members of other MILHIST task forces that wouldn't have noticed it as a standalone project. So that's one thing to consider. Mathglot (talk) 18:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Except we've been removing military history. Just saying Elinruby (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) Fair enough; maybe another project then; WP:POLITICS? Mathglot (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Either here or there, but not both. See Template:Discussion moved to. Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It makes more sense to keep it here than on one user's variegated and over-filled Talk Page. We often pick each other's minds and knowledge on User Talk Pages before deciding to move the discussion onto a subject article's Talk Page, where more contributors would think to look.

At least, that's been my experience. See, for example, User_talk:Shakescene#List_of_NYC_mayors continued at Talk:List_of_mayors_of_New_York_City#Mayors_who_died_in_office

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to the discussion being moved, but have never looked up the policy on doing so. Not an issue to me at least fwiw Elinruby (talk) 03:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe a taskforce of something? I doubt a WikiProject for such a niche topic would live long. Best to use talk pages like we do here, IMHO, and ping folks if some discussions happen at less often frequented ones. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

seriously now: page split

Several of the people who have contributed various parts to the page have separately agreed that splitting it is a good idea. However it would be really nice to be sure there is a consensus for this, so would all you fine people please be so kind as to express your opinion of the following proposal:

1. move long-enough sections to their own articles. Belarus, Estonia, France, and Lithuania come to mind. Probably also Poland. Belgium and Netherlands probably also are.well-dwvelopped enough for a start.
2. make sure each section has its own Main link

Elinruby (talk) 04:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The article should be splited and remodelled Marcelus (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. And we can work out what "remodelled" means later. I would prefer that we get away from a country by country approach -- most likely by spinning off the articles where that is appropriate, like Denmark or France -- and talk about some wider trends and transnational groups like the Cossacks. However going with summary format in the meantime is probably the next good step. pinging some people who have previously opined on this article. Feel free to add any others I miss. I am contemplating just doing a bold move if we're back to people being afraid to touch the article. The Arb case is over, people, and there was no complaint about what we're doing here. @Shakescene, Peacemaker67, Zero0000, Mathglot, My very best wishes, Piotrus, and Scope creep: Elinruby (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@Cukrakalnis: Had to look up the spelling of your name. Are you still interested? Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I've just decided that I need to step back from this overwhelming subject-cluster (inccluding other huge, vast subjects like Axis occupation and the Resistance) for a while until my heart and brain clear up.

On the one hand, there's this huge (and partly realized) danger that (unlike the fairly limited and discrete Collaboration with Imperial Japan) this becomes an impossibly long (almost but not quite limitless) Christmas Tree like Puppet state and List of World War II puppet states, carrying an ever-increasing load of separately-hung ornaments, some of them drawing emotional and drawn-out wrangles.

But, on the other hand, a purely abstract, formal, theoretical discussion would draw little outside, non-expert interest without illustrative examples. The theory might not even make much sense without examples. How do you discuss the issues about Vichy France in the abstract without discussing Vichy's history?

If I continue further, I'll probably just sleepily babble.

@Elinruby, @Peacemaker67, @Zero0000, @Mathglot, @My very best wishes, @Scope creep, @Piotrus

Regards to all —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

there's a lot of work, yeah. If you need a break from it, welp, happens to us all. I am thinking it will be less overwheming if addressed in a manner that doesnt require balancing the channel islands with the Soviet Union. Can I take this to mean you have no objection to spinning off the section on France? Now I think of it @Slatersteven and Bobfrombrockley: Elinruby (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

French collaboration with Nazi Germany redirects to Vichy France Elinruby (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. We do have Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. If the section here is growing too long, merger there is reasonable, although I think something should be left here. Looking at Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country, I see that Byelorussian collaboration with Nazi Germany exists. French, Estonian and Lithuanian ones do not (as you note correctly, French link is just a general redirect to Vichy, a broader concept) and I think it's reasonale to create them based on what we have here, then shorten those sections if the lenght of the main article here is an issue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we've bought a little time on the size issue by splitting off Collaboration with Imperial Japan. It isn't so much (imho) overall length at this point as balance. France is longer than everything else. Soviet Union is too short and MVBW says that not discussing the the prior pact is an egregious omission. I think we still have Central Asia under Europe because of Russia. I think Lithuania and Estonia are both well-developed enough to spin off, and Belgium isn't too bad...getting back to Poland, if we are adopting summary style, we should probably check to make sure the balance is right there between the article and the summary here, if you have time to check that. I need to think about Vichy. I also think we should start a draft with the writers. A lot of the current entries in Category:Collaboration with the Axis powers are people like Lord Haw Haw and Tokyo Rose, I noticed, and this article currently doesn't mention them. Meanwhile, what do you think about spinning off and expanding that business collaboration section? Elinruby (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Still interested, thanks for the tag. I was offline for quite a bit because it just so happened that my laptop had been (and still is) causing me problems for half a month by now, but now I am back and running on another laptop. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

i have been reading up on Yugoslavia because nobody else seems to want to tackle it. Ditto the volunteer regiments. If anyone wants to do that instead please speak up and I will go back to North Africa, which I semi-understand. Elinruby (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

was planning to spin some articles off this weekend. This may get postponed (for... reasons) but if anyone has some input now is a good time to speak up Elinruby (talk) 03:35, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

My first inclination might be to do another geographical split: between Western and Eastern Europe (including Finland). German objectives (where they desired local collaboration) were quite different looking East & Southeast from looking West and North, for two principal reasons:

1. Germany's adversary in the East was Soviet Russia (who had her own westward-looking, irredentist ambitions), while on the West, Germany was facing (or had faced, or could potentially face) Britain & the British Empire, France & her empire, and the United States.
2. The Nazis' long-term racialist ambitions also differed. In the Northern and Western lands that they occupied, the Nazis could see fellow Teutons or racial allies, while their Eastern plans (going back to Mein Kampf) envisioned clearing out. halving or enslaving the existing Slavic, Jewish and Gypsy inhabitants to create Lebensraum for an imagined Teutonic warrior-farmer élite.

This division (as seen, for example, in the relative treatment of imported foreign labour and prisoners of war) seems clear, but is very far from absolute. The Reich absorbed and Germanised lands and peoples on all sides: Luxembourg and Alsace-Lorraine; Austria and the Sudetenland; Danzig, West Prussia and the Warthegau.

But collaboration in the West often occurred within existing state frameworks in France, the Low Countries and Scandinavia; while Eastern European collaborators were often collaborating against some long-standing enemy in the reorganised wreckage of the Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian and Tsarist Empires (Slovaks vs Czechs, Croats vs Serbs, Albanians vs Greeks, Magyars vs Roumanians, etc.) The four Einsatzgruppen, small units of around 300 each, could only commit such vast and systematic genocide with the help (or at least acquiescence) of local collaborators, but only in the East — there were (so far as I know) no Western or Scandinavian Einsatzgruppen.

¶ On the other hand, I suppose you could say that these comparisons are an argument for collecting the Western examples in one part of the existing article, and the Eastern ones in another, but on the same page (or in the same article) so that the hypothetical reader can more easily see the differences in kinds of collaboration.

I'm too sleepy to continue lucidly, so I'll stop here. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a good observation and afaik quite true. Maybe it should be an organizing principle for this article. I was thinking of doing the spinoffs by country, perhaps to be merged later if that seems appropriate. Here's my rationale: This is the first time a rough consensus has formed in a single place for any kind of split, although several people have separately said that they think this should happen. I'd like to pull out of the stall we are currently in and move forward on productive work. 06:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal by Paul Siebert

Paul Sievert has reverted this edit for the second time. The edit primarily introduces sources in place of {cn} tags, corrects spelling and formatting mistakes, adds some images to corresponding sections, and streamlines {see also} policies by linking only overall articles covering collaborationism in specific countries instead of all possible organizations involved in it (they are featured in these articles). I do not understand why the editor is opposed to that revision, and will restore it if the editor does not provide valid reasons for keeping the current version (the one filled with {cn}s and mistakes). Pizzigs (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, I support your good faith addition of sources instead of tags and, if you will not add them, I am going to do it is a close future (right now I am somewhat busy). However, I find the wording added by you somewhat problematic. I'll provide my criticism a little bit latter.

In addition, your initial edit had no edit summary. That is not a good style. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)