Talk:Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany

Requested Move

should we rename this "Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany"? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Leaving the door open to a wider scope would not lead to anything good. Sennalen (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, I don't think we need a formal RM, be bold. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't plan to edit this article but since I am checking the talk page, I thought I would say that I think this is your best move at the moment. As you find sources it may be appropriate to expand the scope. But fyi a comment by Zero000 at the Collaboration with the Axis powers talk page (Input requested section?) seems to say that they don't think Irgun were collaborators. And the rest of their comments indicate that maybe they would know. Give that whatever weight you think is appropriate. I am out unless somebody asks me something. Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

layout

Also some GENERAL VAGUE/DRAFT section proposals/layout:

LEAD

Section 1 - History subsection 1 - collaborator orgs within Nazi Germany

subsection 2 - discussion of Judenrat system in ghettos

subsection 3 - discussion of Kapos within concentration camps

Section 2 - Consequences for collaborators (aka punishment for collaboration after the fact)

Section 3 - Victims v. perpetrators debate (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2019-08-24/ty-article-magazine/.premium/the-crime-collaborating-with-nazis-the-punishment-excommunication-from-judaism/0000017f-e3b7-d7b2-a77f-e3b78f310000). LegalSmeagolian (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly using this talk page section to hash out ideas and given the general sensitivity on Wikipedia surrounding this topic area, which you should be acutely aware of, I don't think it is too much to ask to bring such things up with a larger community before actually incorp-ing them into an article. Commenting "WP:BEBOLD" on 2 of 3 topics on a talk page doesn't necessarily seem constructive, even if I do agree with the sentiment. Remember WP:BOLDNOTOBLIGATORY. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Gruenbaum

Maybe I'm missing some context that an expert would be aware of, but the ref that is tagged as failing verification includes a URL to a page that says Gruenbaum was "not the only collaborator". I would consider that verified. Sennalen (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe it was tagged as such by @Elinruby, perhaps they'd like to comment on this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Sennalen needs to read past the first sentence of the page. The same source disputes the allegations against him, which appear to have been made in a film which was fictionalized if not fiction ("character based on") and says that the author of the source found no evidence that the filmmakers attempted to verify the allegations. I call that inadequate for calling an individual a Nazi collaborator in Wikivoice. Possibly there is a better page or a better source; this tag related to *sourcing*. Only.
2. I also invite you both to examine the Times of Israel source, in which two other people are called collaborators based on an article that says that the Polish government is wrong to say so. Again, I don't defend these people; but that too is inadequate for such an accusation in wikivoice.
3. The same source also follows the statement that a minority of Jews collaborated with Nazis, which seems a bit incoherent given the text Sennalen just quoted, which seems, in full, to say that there were many.
4. Also, Marcelus removed mention of Żagiew and Group 13 from the Poland section of Collaboration with the Axis powers saying that both were the same one guy. Clicking those links indicates to me that while there do seem to be corrupt underworld dealings, Marcelus is apparently right about that. Elinruby (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

PS, the Piotrowski source is verified. That is the first one in this text that is. I am unable to verify the Polish source. Perhaps Piotrus can help out with that. Please do LMK.Elinruby (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Which Polish source? The article uses more than one, and none is tagged? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't tag it because the fact that I can't verify it doesn't mean it failed verification or that it isn't RS. Right? But look, it's in the same paragraph as Gruenbaum, and I think it's the only one in Polish in that paragraph. I'd like the spend the twenty minutes it would take me to look the title up in sourcing what I've written about Vichy. If that's not enough information, LMK and I will be happy to do that for you anyway. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby Right, but if you'd like others to verify, {{verification needed}} or {{quotation needed}} can be used to indicate which reference you have trouble accessing. If we are talking about the reference by Stanisław Dąbrowa-Kostka about Józef Diamand, they say Do najbardziej niebezpiecznych spośród grasujących w Krakowie agentów Gestapo należał niewątpliwie Józef Diamand. Zadziwiające, że w czasach martyrologii Żydów, gdy ludzie jego krwi potrzebowali silnych i i odważnych, on wlaśnie stanął naprzeciw nim i oddał się hitlerowcom bez reszty. Był najwidoczniej w Gestapo wysoko notowany. Posiadał broń, także poniektórzy z jego siatki byli uzbrojeni. Przydzielono mu tresowanego psa. Działał w klimacie absolutnej bezkarności... which translates to One of the most dangerous Gestapo agents prowling in Kraków was undoubtedly Józef Diamand. It is amazing that in times of martyrdom of the Jews, when people of his blood needed strong and courageous people, he just stood up against them and gave himself to the Nazis completely. He was apparently highly ranked in the Gestapo. He had guns, and some of his network were also armed. He was assigned a trained dog. He operated in a climate of absolute impunity. The source mentions him later too but I have to work with a snippet view, so it's hard to piece several pages together (Index shows he is mentioned on pages 105-109, 111, 115-116, 185 and 187 of that source.) :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with this footnote is that the author here is quoting from another book, these are not her own words. I briefly looked through the book and she does not directly call Gruenbaum a collaborator at any point. I'm not saying that we should remove his name from the article, but it needs to be elaborated on a bit, in general, all camp kapos were prisoners, they were appointed to this position, and just being a kapo does not mean collaboration. Only those particularly cruel who used their position to harm others were considered collaborators by their fellow prisoners. Gruenbaum, as I understand it, was just such a person. But this must be taken into account. Marcelus (talk) 07:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

dangerous and Gestapo works for me; I ask merely because Sennalen has reverted the text we're discussing here back into the article I am working on and seems disinclined to take it back out. Which is going to make me litigate this mess. I consider this a waste of time, but here we are. So Piotrowski is now the second verified reference in the paragraph. Thank you for your help. I am returning myself to the collapse of the French Third Republic. Unless you happen to have a reference handy for antisemitism under the government of Léon Blum. It's definitely true but I am looking for a nice succinct quote. Anyway, peace out. What you say is true, but the paragraph has quite a few tags already. Elinruby (talk) 05:41, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

BLAR

I've WP:BLAR'd this recent spinout pending discussion at the parent article Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers#BRD fail: moving text here in the absence of discussion about the corresponding section also being blanked as problematic. Let's have one discussion about this content, at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers#BRD fail: moving text here in the absence of discussion. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Amsterdam

If we are to define this topic in this way, it seems to me, then we really need to include ALL Jewish collaboration, especially since there is a well-defined parallel problem in the history of the ghetto there in Amsterdam, but the rabbi there refused to cooperate and joined the resistance. The parallel is not exact, in that the records belonged to the synagogue not the government, so destroying records was not in the powers of the Judenrat. It's nonetheless a significant episode that should be discussed, if we are discussing jewish councils.

Alternately this could be titled Jewish Collaboration in Poland with Nazi Germany. I have no opinion on the matter.

But for the record if the idea of these councils was to stall for time and pretend to cooperate while waiting for rescue, this wouldn't make the Judenrat or the Amsterdam Jewish Council all that different from Vichy, where it was foreign Jews vs French prisoners of war, then French Jews, then conscription of other French citizens. The government was collaborative in getting nothing done but finally step by step reached a point it was essentially rubber-stamping press gangs for German war machine forced labor. Belgium and Holland and Denmark are all considered to have collaborated and all of them were still being run by the same civil servants as they had been, which relieved the Nazis of the governance costs they would otherwise have incurred in absorbing so much territory so quickly.

Sorry for the soliloquy. The diehard ideologues and power-hungry are one kind of collatorator and then there are the negotiators and appeasers and then beyond that you come to the people operating in the interest of family or tribe or village or self. So, we have a lot of articles in the category which should ideally come under an article that doesn't exist yet. Then a discussion of appeasement, negotiating, enabling and so on.

It's a thought, anyway. Elinruby (talk) 20:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"Jewish Nazis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Jewish Nazis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 9 § Jewish Nazis until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 10:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

what does this bit have to do with this page? it's complete nonsense.

"It also relates to collaboration with the current pro-palestine movement, which has show similar points of few and anti jewish sentiment" 2A02:A464:ADFE:1:C5D7:FE8E:9919:FA06 (talk) 12:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Should we remove the original research tag?

This article could definitely use more work in general, but I don't think it has any original research in it. Unless there are objections I'll remove the tag. --Shimbo (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)