Jump to content

Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

This is about Polish collaberation, not R$ussian or Ukrnaian.

Please learn the subject "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". Ethnic Poles were murdered by foreign collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have, this article is about alleged Polish collaboration, not collaboration by anyone in Poland. Of course if we which to re theme the article this can be disused.Slatersteven (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Your source, please.Xx236 (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
As far you remove without discussion. Xx236 (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean my source? How about the lead, which make it clear this is about Polish collaboration, or the fact this articlel was created specifically to be a content split about Polish collaboration [[1]]. Also it is down to you to make the case for inclusion, that is how it works.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Does a history define any page in this Wikipedia? Please show my such rule.
You are right - the lead is biased and should be corrected.
I'm not the author of the subsection, please check the history.

Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean WP:ARTICLEmakes it clear that every article has a scope, but no where is this defined. But you do need to get consensus for major changes (and changing an article scope would be just such a change). As to who is the author, that does not matter, it was a major change to the articles scope that was made without achieving consensus.Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note - the Polish Second Republic was a multicultural country with a significant share of Ukrainian, German, Jewish, and Belarussian minorities. Some of these minorities, German and Ukrainian especially, enjoyed special treatment from the Nazi occupiers and were encouraged to collaborate. These people even served in the SS formations. I have no opinion on the inclusion of the material recently added, but please keep this note in mind. 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:6D04:9B25:ADDA:A9E2 (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
So are you saying they were Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
No, I'm saying they were citizens of the Second Polish Republic who identified themselves as Germans, Jews, Ukrainians et cetera and were recognized as such by the Nazi occupiers.12:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)2A01:110F:4505:DC00:6D04:9B25:ADDA:A9E2 (talk)
If you want to have your page Collaboration of ethnoic Poles, please create it. This page is about Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. German used many collaborators to terrorize and murder Poles and Jews and used ethnic POles against minorities. Eg. in Ponary Lithuanians murdered Jews and Poles. I have demanded to define limits of pages describing mulitinational regions and I was answered it's O.K. to describe the same crimes in several pages. Xx236 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Then lets have that discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Should we expand this article to be about all collaboration in Poland, including by non poles?

This discussion supports the imperative for a definition of terms, per the discussion I raised higher up. I understand Slatersteven's revert, but respectfully I do think it is mistaken in this case. The title of the article has changed now and until we lock down scope as I outlined earlier, there will be misunderstandings and instability. Time for work on the definition of terms paragraph. Chumchum7 (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I would point out that name change was done without (as far as I c an tell) discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The ambiguity would have been the same. Previous title was "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany". What did "Polish" mean in that context?
Nihil novi (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The same as Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany or Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany, it's not as if we do not have other templates to judge from. But we now have a discussion on what the scope should be, so lets make a decision there.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Funny, you haven't read Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany and you use it in this discussion. Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Where would you then place persons of mixed ethnicity such as Professor Grabowski?
Nihil novi (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What? Are we now going to use arguments like "but he is not pure Polish? Fine.Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Any one with at least one ethnically Polish grandparent would be put in "Ethnically polish" any one else would (of course) be excluded, does that meet a good criteria?Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: I have a strong sensation of déjà vu. Dividing by ethnicity also poses a problem (in addition to clearly conflicting with WP:NPOV and the current article title) - academic sources do cover collaboration by non-ethnic Poles as part of "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Slatersteven, for the record it was me who made the change to the title. I take full responsibility for that. The move was in good faith and in keeping with WP:BOLD; but as a matter of fact it was in response to two other editors in discussion appearing to want the change, and nobody else raising an issue with it at the time. I will support you to the hilt in your right to take issue with it now, if you wish to do so. But in the meantime, my last edit is consistent with the current title and I invite you to self-revert. Please also chime in about the Snyder quote I have transcribed above, as I would like to include it in the article to support the content that some AK soldiers killed Jews. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Such a major change should have been discussed as a separate issue, it is easy to miss something like this in a wider discussion. As I have said, we now have a discussion about what the scope should be, let that run it's course.Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We have a discussion below, I am not going to respond any more here until that is over.Slatersteven (talk) 13:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nihil novi thank you for your input here. If I had been bolder in creating the 'definition of terms' paragraph right away, perhaps that would have brought stability to the article quicker. Let's deal with that now, below. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Scope of the article

Post facto close: The only proposal which gained any kind of substantial support was the first, that is "collaboration in Poland", irrespective of who was collaborating" 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE ABOUT:

Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

collaboration in Poland, irrespective of who was collaborating

According to the name. A division between Ethnic Polish collaboration in Germany-occupied Poland and Non-Polish collaboration in Germany-occupied Poland doesn't help to understand history. What you do here is Man bites dog (journalism).Xx236 (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I believe that if the scope will be ethnic Polish collaboration - it will be throughout Central-Eastern Europe (so also in Lithuanian, Belarussia, Ukraine, etc. - not just was or is properly Poland) - and the same for other ethnic groups (e.g. Jews - Jews throughout eastern Europe - not country specific). An ethnic division in each country (per modern borders? 1939? other?) wouldn't make sense.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I would have to agree, this would not be about Geographic collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Which would include collaboration by non-Poles, no?
Yes, that is the whole point of this, the addition of material about Hungarians, Russians and whatever.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose As far as I know no other collaboration is treated in this broad a way. In other similar articles if is always about the inhabitants of the country, not about the country.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The article has the "German occupied" part in it which very much suggests a geographic definition. There's no reason to limit it to just one ethnic group - why would we want to do that, and anyway that can be seen as violating NPOV and WEIGHT. It seems like some opposition to this definition of scope (and I don't mean you Slatersteven, just in general) and may come from the fact that "I want to shit on this ethnic group but I don't want others shitting on this other ethnic group" kind of mentality (which is really a sophisticated form of ethnic trolling). If it happened in German occupied Poland, it can be included.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
This suggestion is about anyone, even if they were never Polish (Such as Russians).Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
So you agree (then) that (for example) the Death Camps should be included as they were in Poland and not all the Staff were German? As this is what is being said, if it happened in Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. The recently added subsections discussing Ukrainian, Belarusian, and Azeri combatants in German-occupied Poland (didn't Latvians also fight on the German side during the Warsaw Uprising?) enhance appreciation of what a confused mess the General Gouvernement was. Nihil novi (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the most reasonable method used by most researchers on this subject like Luczak,Madajczak,Marian Wojciechowski,Eberhardt. You can't really seperate this into dozens of stand alone articles, and researchers study the aspect of collaboration in view of specific conditions in certain regions like General Gouvernment or annexed territories.In some cases it is virtually impossible to define the ethnicity of people involved.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This. I understand where Icewhiz and Slatersteven are coming from, but I disagree. The domain we're dealing with is murky in several ways: "collaboration" isn't well defined; borders shift; ethnicities merge and diverge. However, insofar as scholarship is concerned, and the period regimes (Nazi Germany, Vichy, the GG), and the period military apparatus, one of the most common subject boundaries is that of national borders. We can't ignore it, we can't disregard it, and it makes sense to a contemporary reader much more than the ethnic one, which would require much deeper geographic and sociological understanding. Ethnic articles are not completely improper; stateless people, such as Jews and Romani, might require it (and some subjects, such as the Judenrat, might have no other proper place), and so are widely-spread nations like the Ukrainians. But these are the exceptions; the major divide should be geographic, or rather - that of national borders. Which borders? Those that existed at the eve of the war, and all residents within at that time ("residents", not "citizens"). This would exclude, for example, Germans who settled in Poland throughout the war. Mind there is one more category of people that we ought to mention, and that's Polish citizens abroad, especially if they were otherwise affiliated with what was Poland at the eve of the war. This would include, for example, Poles who settled in Germany. To sum it up, the one simple test we ought to perform is this: If at some point in time some arbitrary international paper of record could've pointed to a person with the headline: "Polish collaborator so-and-so", then that person can be mentioned in this article. François Robere (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So far FR's reasoning is the most persuasive and I am inclined to agree. However even with this choice, note that we are choosing to cut out collaboration in Soviet occupied Poland 1939-1941, which is a fascinating subject that Gross wrote a book about. So I wonder whether "Collaboration in WWII occupied Poland" might be a further improvement still? -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. Obviously, the information about Nazi collaborators must be included, regardless to who these collaborators were. Removing well sourced info about Nazi collaborators (as in this edit) is very strange, and especially if that was done through protection. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
    @My very best wishes: Besides being possibly off topic (this discussion) - that info was appalingly sourced - relying on a Tripod blog (which appears rather polemical to say the least). If thisnparagraph goes in, it should rely on solid sources, not a blog.Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did not check these sources (this should be sourced better!), but the facts about Nazi collaborators in Poland are generally well known, and at least some of them were not former citizens of Poland (I think you are not going to dispute it?). Some historians say the entire initial occupation and partition of Poland was a collaboration of another country with Nazi. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I would've preferred to organize this along ethnic lines (so that Ukrainian, Lithuanian, etc. - each one gets one Wiki page and not spread all over the place (in each other relevant country)) - but if geographical (which seems where this is headed) - then no, certainly I do not dispute involvement of quite a few non-Polish collaborators (not sure about the Azeri claim in that paragraph - maybe - didn't check) on Polish soil. I do think that sources on the subject should be mainline academic texts (books or journal articles) .Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

collaboration by people who at one time or another would have been Polish citizens

collaboration by people who were Polish citizens in 1939

"why the article was created" is not really a good reason, and I'm not sure we can actually figure that out. The scope of the article should be determined by consensus and coverage in sources, like anything else on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Well we can, because we know about the AFD, and the discussions about this on the collaboration with the Axis powers talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Even if that's so, it's still not a good reason.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It is also not the only one I gave.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, what are these "other similar articles"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany, note it is about Russians, not Russia.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Per "Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany", "Unprecedented numbers of Soviet citizens collaborated with the Axis powers during World War II. They were both ethnically Russian and non-Russian."
Nihil novi (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
What is this suggestion called?Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Not a "similar article" as evidence by the title. "Russian collaboration" vs "Collaboration in German occupied Russia". Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Saying "They were both ethnically Russian and non-Russian" is exactly what we should avoid on such pages, unless we are talking about victims of Nazi racial policies. However saying something like Russian Liberation Army or Azeri SS Volunteer Formations is fine because these are common names of the detachments. My very best wishes (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia policy ask us to construct article conformity? I am yet to be persuaded that "conforms with other similar articles" is appropriate rationale here. Poland has one of the most complicated histories of WWII, it was nothing like Russia or France. It's reductive to force this particular subject into a neat set to package it alongside others. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No it does not, but we are required to make sure articles are not seen to be pushing a particular POV (such as the uniqueness of something, unless RS make it clear it was so, and then it must be a mainstream opinion that it is unique). You say it was nothing like Russia, in what way? What rational would you have for a special case that could not be applied elsewhere?Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, the majority view is that the Holocaust was unique. A large part of it happened in Poland, and that is not pushing POV. Secondly, in what way is WWII Poland not like Russia? I started writing you a list of reasons and then saw that it is endless: (i) Poland had extermination camps on its territory, unlike Russia (ii) Poland was entirely occupied by enemy power throughout the war, whereas the Russian SSR had hardly any of its territory occupied (iii) unlike Russia, Poland had a resistance unit dedicated to saving Jews, and its leader was an anti-Semite (iv) unlike Russia, Poland was not in a political union which had de facto, collaborative alliance with Germany until June 1941 (v) unlike Russia, Poland was not in a political union that invaded Poland in 1939 (vi) unlike Russia, Polish collaborators tended not to be former POWs with an axe to grind against their own government and so were turned by the Germans; Polish collaborators tended to be inside occupied Poland and Russian collaborators tended to be outside Russia (vii) a noteable part of the Polish collaboration was a rash of pogroms which took place in former Soviet-occupied Poland in summer 1941 unlike in Russia, etc, etc, etc. The list of answers is long, way too long to provide you with a comprehensive answer here. Perhaps you could ask a more specific question? -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, wouldn't "collaboration by people who were Polish citizens in 1939" be a unique title itself? "Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany" has a different meaning. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What about Polish collaboration made it so special that we need an article about collaboration in (rather then by) poles. Much of what you say about Russia can (as long as you do not play the ethnicity card) be said about Polish collaboration (such as Poles Serving as solders outside Poland or There were Pograms inside Germans Occupied Russia (and whilst there may not have been as many death camps, in Russia, they still had the mass murder and they did have a few extermination camps, well it depends on how you define Poland which takes us back to "it'sm Polish unless it is not"). As to the unique title, that is because no other pages is having this problem of "but they were not poles at that time". It is just a way to try and define what we mean by Polish .Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Consensus appears not to concur with you.
  • Some editors might be motivated by an ideological agenda.
  • You appear to have characterized the reasoning for the current title as only about ideological agenda. As I have asked another editor here recently, please don't jump to conclusions about intent. We all, myself included, become better editors by searching for the prejudice inside ourselves - and especially when we perceive it in others.
  • As it happens AK collaboration with Germany is accommodated by the current title, and I'm looking forward to your suggestion about us working in the Snyder quote.
Yes consensus us against me, this does not mean I cannot still answer you. As to an ideological agenda,, I can only say what I see and what I see is arguments based upon ethnicity (not nationality), are you really saying this has not been the major issue here, who is Polish (or to be more precise "they should not be called Polish")? If you want I can provide diffs. If you read that as saying there is an ideological agenda maybe you should ask those making arguments why they are using such arguments, not accuse those of us whop are saying it is not a valid argument of having an ideological agenda.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

collaboration by ethnic Poles

  • Support. I believe this is the correct breakdown - and I will support such a breakdown for other ethnicities - Jews, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians, Volksdeutsche, etc. Poland (as an independent state) didn't exist (from 1795) prior to 1918. The borders of all the involved areas (countries and SSRs) changed in 1917-1922, and in 1939-45. They were all more multicultural prior to the shakeup in the war. Ethnic factions fighting during the war (and yes - there were various inner divisions as well) - e.g. the Polish AK or Ukrainian Insurgent Army - did so irrespective of 1917/1939/1941 borders - on the basis of ethnic allegiance. Nazi control structures over the Jewish population was similar throughout eastern Europe, as was Nazi policy towards various ethnicities (the Nazies did not respect or take into account pre-war borders). In terms of managing editorial disputes - it means we won't see attempts to push or reduce content of different ethnic groups in each country (to show that a favored ethnicity is "better" in terms of collaboration) - each ethnic group will stand alone. This will also save content duplication - in a per-country (by whatever border you choose) there will be repeated ethnic groups from different articles with the same content.Icewhiz (talk) 12:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    Please clarify. Are you proposing separate articles devoted to collaboration with Germany by distinct ethnicities, e.g., collaboration in Poland by ethnic Poles, collaboration in Poland by German-Poles, collaboration in Poland by Ukrainian-Poles, collaboration in Poland by Belorussian-Poles, collaboration in Poland by Jewish-Poles...?Nihil novi (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    No. I suggest - Jewish collaboration with Nazi Germany (it might make sense to break this up to Eastern Europe only - or perhaps not), Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany, Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany, Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany - the geographical scope of each article being all areas where that ethnicity was present (so - entire Central-Eastern Europe). The ethnic lines (and there weren't really lines - it was a hodgepodge quilt of ethnicity that gradually changed as you moved East or North/South) did not overlap with pre-1939 borders, post-1939 borders, or post-1945 borders (and just deciding which borders to use here is complex, as well as deciding citizenship. (e.g. - take ethnic Ukrainians and Belarusians in eastern Poland who became Soviet subjects in 1939 (following the partition of Poland between Stalin and Hitler)).Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
That was my understating. It will mean a lot of re-writing on a few articles. Also you need to alert any affected article now about this proposal, as it does not only impact on this one.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Too much to reflect about instantly... I have to think about all of this. Can you fellows slow down a bit?
2A01:110F:4505:DC00:1DAD:B65D:E100:9863 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Concur. Nihil novi (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: some of the other articles do not exist (in fact - only Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany does (Lithuanian is a redirect) - and it is mainly already along ethnic lines (and also - given the 1939/1945 border shift - Ukraine effectively gobbled up (Western Ukraine) mixed Ukrainian/Polish areas - so there is less of an ethnic disconnect there. Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany is presently about soviet citizens (a different criteria all together - which would include eastern Poland taken by the Soviet Union in 1939 - overlapping with your suggestion). "What was Poland" is a very complex question for 1939-1945 - who was ethnic Polish (language+religion) - less so. If we do this by citizenship or geographic lines - we will end up with Polish content in other articles as well as quite a bit of content on Ukrainians, Lithuanian, Belorussians, Jewish, Volksdeutsche - here. I will note that post-1945 Polish citizenship (as opposed to 1939) is fairly aligned with ethnicity (and this is true to a large degree in other countries as well - the war and aftermath made all of these countries much more homogeneous ethnically..Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
We still need to inform those articles that do exist. We cannot make unilateral decisions here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It is impossible to divide this into such broad category, and would go against established norms of describing the subject in scholarly publications on the subject which use administrative and geographical divisions rather then describing solely based on ethnic group. For one ethnic group is difficult to establish besides some clear cases, for two the same group can be completely different in its behavior and traits in other region due to different policies and conditions.Many authors point out that defining who was an ethnic Pole is virtually impossible.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not what the article title suggests, not what the sources cover, not what complies with Wikipedia policy of NPOV and WEIGHT. Like I said above, these attempts to "let's just limit the bad things we can say to only one ethnic group!" are borderline ethnic trolling, particularly in light of some users previous comments (about things like automatically excluding certain sources based on their ethnicity, or general comments about particular ethnicity). This is a no-go. This is basically a request to violate Wikipedia policy so it's not gonna fly, even if a few people here support it, simply because local agreement cannot override site wide consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment - incidentally, what's the actual difference between "collaboration by ethnic Poles" and the (I assume it was sarcastic) proposal below of "collaboration by ethnically pure Poles"? I'll tell you what. The "pure ethnic Poles" version basically is just upfront about the fact that the article is going to be used to attack a particular ethnicity and will violate NPOV. The version without the "pure" in there aims to do the same thing, but just wants to hide the fact that being used as vehicle for attacking particular ethnicities would be the article's purpose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    This is not a NPOV violation - and I'll note I support creating these along the same ethnic/religions lines for other ethnic/religious groups involved - and mainstream scholarship on the topic is mainly organized along these lines (e.g. study of the Jewish ghettos and judenrats - throughout Eastern Europe, or alternatively discussion of Lithuanians is mainly done by groups/factions - not according to pre-1939, post-1939, or 1941 geographic lines).Icewhiz (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
No, most generalist sources discuss collaboration *IN* occupied Poland, although of course it's possible specialized sources which focus on a particular aspect of the phenomenon. But this isn't a specialist article in a specialist journal, it's an encyclopedia article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually - when speaking about geographical divisions and collaboration (as well as other topics of life under the Nazi boot) - they are mainly done by the Nazi control structures - e.g. the General Government - and not according to pre-1939 Poland, post-1939 Poland, or post-1945 Poland. And likewise for other areas - matching the Nazi administrative lines which affected things on the ground. Country-specific (e.g. Colloboration in country X (pre-WW2 or post-WW2 country)) sources - are usually specific to that modern country and not for a general audience.Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Actually researchers and scholars on this subject cover this in the following way:Poland in 1939 borders, but with distinction between GG and territories annexed by Nazi Germany(both were different in terms of laws and conditions). Of course everyone does indeed study the ethnic sub-categories but within borders of these organizational entities.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Collaboration with the German occupations, in both the German-annexed and the German-occupied Polish lands, cannot be fully understood without reference to all the groups and ethnicities that were involved. It's not just one homogeneous thing, but a whole crazy multipartite mobile, with every element affecting every other one—until this very day, in fact. Nihil novi (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Researches divide occupied 1939 Poland in terms of collaboration between GG and annexed territories.Ethnic categories alone don't make much sense, as situation in GG varied from situation in annexed territories.Madajczak, Eberhardt,Marian Wojciechowski, Luczak-all respectable scholars on this subject use this type of categorization.Subdividing into ethnic groups wouldn't make much sense.They were often murky lines between who was ethnic Pole and who was Jew,German or Ukrainian. Of course there are some clear cases when this is easy to establish, but in general research on the subject uses administrative and political divisions when describing these events and then analyzing situation of different groups on this territory.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic targeting creates problems for Wikipedia. It would require assumptions about ethnic purity. Let's remember it was Hitler who said that one cannot be both a Jew and a German. I beg to differ. There's also an issue about WP:NOR: it's not for us mere editors to debate and categorize who is ethnically Polish. Who would decide whether say Christine Granville was a Jew or a Pole? That would be above our authority. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. François Robere (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes what? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
"Yes" to everything said in the preceding comment, with an emphasis. François Robere (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

struck suggestion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

===collaboration by ethnically pure Poles===

Perhaps here we can find guidance for assessing racial purity in Nazi German racial-purity criteria?
Nihil novi (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
I included because you asked what about people of not pure Polish ancestry, I have no idea what criteria you would use for that definition, or why it is an issue.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If we aren't careful, we could end up multiple-counting persons of mixed descent.
Nihil novi (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Rather depends on what option we end up with. But not sure this is a major issue anyway. If we have such people one line and then a main article about them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
FYI this inclusion could come across as a kind of sarcasm. That would have no place on a Wikipedia Talk page and would be in violation of our community's conduct guidelines. Ethnic purity doesn't exist. It is unacceptable both to imply that (i) an editor thinks it does and (ii) that Wikipedia should run itself according to such a notion. What's worse is that such comments only serve to enflame editors who already have an axe to grind. I request you strike through the line, before an administrator gets involved per ARBEE sanctioning precedent. And then let's work together towards consensus. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
It was not meant to be sarcastic, but I will strike it if that is how it is perceived. I ask ask for no more discussion about how we define people of mixed ethnicity as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment

  • Most researchers don't use ethnic criteria as main category but administrative one: dividing collaboration between General Gouvernment and territories annexed by Nazi Germany. Both areas had different conditions and different aspects of collaboration. Madajczyk for example in his work.
The only two groups that have strong ethnic character are Germans and Jews.
In case of Poles it is difficult to establish who was "ethnic Pole", although of course that term is used in certain clear cases.
You can't really completely divide the issue from administrative region, as certain aspects and forms of collaboration were only in its area and connected to its character.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Home Army definition of treason

It would appear that the Polish Home Army and its superordinate Polish Government-in-Exile reserved the death penalty for traitors to the Polish government and people. How did the Home Army and the Polish Government define treason? Conceivably their treason definition might be coterminous with a strong definition of collaboration and might throw light on how "collaboration" should be defined for our present purposes.

Nihil novi (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

In what way?Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Polish authorities' concern about pro-German collaborationism long antedated the outbreak of World War II and, of course, grew during the war. What better place to begin an investigation of what collaboration meant in German-occupied Poland than the wartime Polish authorities' interpretation of iti?
Nihil novi (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Because it is a definition of treason, A Russian citizen cannot commit treason against Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
The point is, how did the Home Army define collaboration by Polish citizens?
Nihil novi (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Only relevant to collaboration by Poles, not collaboration in Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
First of all, AK shouldn't have priority compared with anyone else. Second, the Home Army's definition of what constituted "collaboration" would hardly suffice even if it had:

Despite the numerous articles that stigmatised the behaviour of the Poles under Nazi occupation, the underground press considered it a marginal phenomenon. The word kolaboracja was rarely used and if it was, it always referred to national minorities, Germans, Lithuanians, Ukrainians and Jews. As far as collaboration by Poles was concerned, it was preferred to use the word współpraca (cooperation) and an attempt was always made to emphasise the particular conditions of the time in order to explain the phenomenon. Moreover, the press insisted on the fact that these were single cases of people and groups on the edge of society, described in terms such as ‘dregs’, ‘scoundrels’ and ‘boot-licking serfs’. In this way, their acts did not change the heroic image of Polish society as a whole.[1]

François Robere (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The Polish language uses the same word, "współpraca", for both "cooperation" and "collaboration", so the above Carla Tonini commentary is misleading, if not frankly disingenuous.
Nihil novi (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Allow me to respectfully doubt it. She's analyzing wartime publications, not contemporary Polish, and the fact that they did make that distinction is meaningful. Also, it settles well with the treatment of the subject as "demoralization" on behalf of the Poles, but "collaboration" on behalf of minorities, which can still be seen in later sources. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Tonini, Carla (2008). "The Polish underground press and the issue of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, 1939–1944". European Review of History: Revue europeenne d'histoire. 15 (2): 193–205. doi:10.1080/13507480801931119. ISSN 1469-8293. Retrieved 2018-03-20.

Working towards article stability: drafting Definition of the term paragraph

See previous discussion above.

Some historians define collaboration as assisting in Germany's military war aims, others define collaboration as assisting in Germany's conduct of the Holocaust or indifference to it. Other definitions include consentual sexual relations with German forces, or mere fraternization. Soviet historians have referred to the Western Allied policy of bait and bleed, specifically the strategic delay of D-Day, as collaboration; the same charge was leveled by the Soviets against the Polish Home Army in order to encourage the Warsaw Uprising.[citation needed]

I included the fact tag already. Plenty to work on here. Feel free to add improved drafts below. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The first thing everyone here needs to acknowledge is that "collaboration" isn't an "either/or" question. There's a spectrum of collaboration, from those simply taking part in an economic system that somehow benefits the occupiers, to ideological collaborators who willingly contribute to the invader's war effort. Different cases place differently on the spectrum, and the line that separates "collaboration" from "non-collaboration" is unclear. This must be admitted first; then we can work on a case-by-case analysis to form a solid definition. In the meanwhile I suggest reading Gross's discussion in Gross, Jan Thomasz (2015). "Collaboration and Cooperation". World War II: crucible of the contemporary world : commentary and readings. ISBN 978-1-315-48956-8. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help). François Robere (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Sure. So what is your specific proposal regarding this article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
That people first read, then write. François Robere (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
[In response to the preceding discussion] It is not our job to define what collaboration is and then include what fits the description in the article (even reliable sources disagree on it). We should report what reliable sources describe as collaboration - which is invariably a rather wide spectrum of activities.
[In response to the above] It would need at least one source (or possibly more), the statement about the Western Allies has only a very tenuous relation to events in Poland (so does not go here) and the specific example of Soviets accusing the Polish Home Army of being collaborators does not go here but rather in the article about the Polish Home Army, Home_Army#Relations_with_the_Soviets, since that would be more on topic. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Collaboration by any definition is not being a solder of an nations army fighting alongside an ally.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Journalists, actors

Underground civilian administration didn't allow publishing and performing. Many Polish female actors worked as waiters. Igo Sym was killed. Writer Alfred Szklarski was imprisoned after the war, because he had published popular stories. Writer Józef Mackiewicz obtained capital punishment, but survived.Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

And?Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
And is the subject covered in the page?Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
This is about collaboration, not resistance.Slatersteven (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The underground civilian administration decided what was collaboration. This page is about collaboration. Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Tajna Rada Teatralna [2].Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
YAhh I get it now, you are saying we should include these as a list of collaborators?Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Resistance in German-occupied Poland

Is there a Wikipedia article on "Resistance in German-occupied Poland"? There is one on "Resistance in German-occupied Czechoslovakia". Maybe a corresponding article should be written for Poland?
Or expand this "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland" article to "Collaboration and resistance in German-occupied Poland"?
Nihil novi (talk) 12:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
Polish resistance movement in World War II, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Eagle Unbowed isn't academic

Xx236 (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

it does not have to be, assuming we are talking about a source.Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
[3] - see the bottom.Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
What am I supposed to be looking at? I think you need to take this to RSN as I see no issue with a book published by the Harvard University Press.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
The description of the war events in Poland, however, is less impressive; the analysis of the Soviet Polish policies and the establishment of the communist power [End Page 152] in Poland is poor and sketchy; and “The Holocaust, 1941-1943” (notice the time frame!) is the most controversial. Xx236 (talk) 06:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

collaborationist auxilliaries

Regarding this piece of text [4]

While it's true that the sourcing here is weak, this is actually non-controversial info that pretty much anyone familiar with the topic is aware of. I suggest we get better sources and include it. In fact pretty much all of this (I'm not sure about the Hungarians) can be easily sourced to Davies' "Uprising '44".Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Concur. This deleted information is important in completing the picture of what was happening in Poland under German occupation and in elucidating Polish actions.
Nihil novi (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
If it is well known then a better source can be found, soc find a better source.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
This should appear under Russian collaboration with Nazi Germany, not here; or at most as a note in the "background", if you think it's important as such. François Robere (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
No, these materials should be included here, but the page about "Russian collaboration" should be renamed [5]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Warsaw 1944: Hitler, Himmler, and the Warsaw Uprising by Alexandra Richie, page 321 Xx236 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll assume good faith on the source, and pending a rebuttal (which seems unlikely), this definitively goes in the article. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
A review of the mentioned book. [6] Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration - Polish-German discussion

http://www.perspectivia.net/publikationen/lelewel-gespraeche/7-2013 (in German).Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

number of "bad" Poles

I found Paulsson's comment, in which he states that the number of "bad" Poles most probably amounted to around 20,000. http://isurvived.org/4Debates/paulsson_supplement.html Mat0018 (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well as far as I can tell he implies between 15 and 30 thousand he does not seem that sure) by saying it is between 10 and 15 percent of a figure between 20,000-30,0000. Not exactly exact.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Why is so vital if there were 20 or 30 or 100 thousand of the "bad Poles" and what is the definition of bad? What makes somebody "bad"? The situation of ethnic Poles during the German occupation was much worse than in any other occupied country. Ethnic Poles were massacred by the millions, along with the Polish Jews. Some people acted wrongly, denouncing each other for various reasons such as fear, personal gains, mistrust, revenge, despair, panic, suspicion, etc. people were even murdering each other. Some were heroes, some not as much but most, and I mean most, were preoccupied with own survival. It is a normal behavior of a human being in such situations. The problems we are experiencing nowadays are eager attempts to portray all Poles as a nation of murderers and collaborators or even people responsible for the Holocaust. (yes, I'm not kidding) There are the reasons behind such efforts of altering history by particular groups, its money. Therefore I'm appealing to you fellows to be unbiased as much as you can and refer to well established and recognized historians and historical institutions.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:555F:2CA9:1843:D98 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
None of this is the case, and it is close to soapboxing. As to why this is so vital, I have no idea. I did not raise the issue.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
There are the reasons behind such efforts of altering history by particular groups, its money. Explain? François Robere (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the holocaust or Polish collaboration. It is for discussing how to improve the article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, but Bella has made recurring suggestions that some sources used here are biased or corrupt. I want to see evidence. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
That is a valid question, but not really for here. I would rather this was raised at NPOV or RSN. Bella, if you are making accusations that sources are unreliable please raise it at the appropriate forum, but this is not the place to talk about of wiki bias or political agendas.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
Also bear in mind WP:LIBEL and the relevant laws pertaining to your state of residence. François Robere (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved edd hat this?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven These are just my thoughts, probably not a place for it here but I allowed myself to express my thoughts about what is happening in general nowadays.2A01:110F:4505:DC00:555F:2CA9:1843:D98 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Stop pushing my comments down , Bella [7][8]. François Robere (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
@Slatersteven I wasn't aware it is such a sin to express a general thought, but if that is the case, I can cross that out if you tell me how, or you can do it for me Slatersteven. Thanks 2A01:110F:4505:DC00:555F:2CA9:1843:D98 (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RFC one whether Polish railway personnel should be listed as collaborators

Closing this RFC as per a request at Wikipedia:Requests for closure. The consensus, rooted in Wikipedia policy, is clear that Polish railway personnel should not be described as collaborators. I concur with those who have stated that no reliable sources have been presented that explicitly make this statement/connection. There are sources discussed here (such as [9] that conclude some Poles were collaborators; there are some sources presented here (such as [10] that acknowledge Polish railway personnel and equipment was used to transport Jews. There has been no source presented that suggests the railway personnel were *collaborating* in doing so; the arguments that such a conclusion amounts to synthesis are persuasive. Fish+Karate 13:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Survey

  • Support as per sources. François Robere (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. USHMM has pointed this out a few times [11][12] As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. There are exhibits (e.g. [13][14]). Primary accounts - e.g. [15] (which contain Polish and non-Polish accounts of rail workers). The Germans may have set up Ostbahn - but for the most part they employed Polish workers (on the pre-existing rail system).Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
As pointed out again and again and again and again, that source does not call railway workers "collaborators", neither in the sentence you quote, nor elsewhere in the article. What it's doing in that sentence is just describing German occupation. The jump to calling railway workers "collaborators" is pure WP:SYNTH and it's POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Against Just living the Poland during the occupation and going about your work is not "collaboration", however I'm aware that some view this a 'enabling' and thus collaboration, but that's a clear a double standard. --E-960 (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Against. I agree with E-960, through per prior discussion, they can be mentioned in the part which discusses the difference in estimates, noting that the highest estimates likely include people who were working in occupations that were to some extent used by the Nazi Germany (I think I also mentioned this earlier, but for example this makes all farmers in occupied Europe collaborators, since German Army used provisions from outside Germany, too... as did concentration camp personel, etc.). The current version of the article doesn't mention railways, and since the OP didn't link an example, I cannot review specific wording. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not a single source has been presented to support that railway workers were "collaborators". Yes, sources were presented... but none of them actually support the contention. Rather, in a bit of a bait-and-switch, several editors are pushing sources which say that Ostbahn collaborated and then claiming that this means Polish railway workers collaborated. Which is both dishonest WP:SYNTH and POV. The same editors appear to wish to exclude certain sources based solely on the ethnicity of the authors or sometimes even the presumed audience!Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Polish railway workers were forced to work under the threat of death and were even forced to transport kidnapped Polish children,whom they tried to save from Nazis, as such they can't be seen as collaborators.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You need RS for that. None of the material I reviewed suggest coercion, and even if they did that would still merit inclusion as per Hoffman's distinction between "voluntary" and "involuntary" collaboration, which merits inclusions such as the "Blue Police" and Judenrat. François Robere (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
[16] Polish railwaymen were forcibly conscripted by German authorities and Polish raliways ceased to exist, being turned to "Ostbahn" and Deutsche Reichsbahnwith German insignia and signs. Thousands of them were mass murdered or sent to concentration camps, and all decision making posts were taken over by German administration counting around 8,3 thousand officials. Transporting of prisoners to concentration camps was carried out by Deutsche Reichsbahn not by Polish railway.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That makes my point. He equates Ostbahn workers with Judenrat and Ghetto Police, which we do mention. You either mention all of them or none. François Robere (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support If workers doing their jobs under (implied or implicit) threat of punishment as collaborators in one country then they arfe collaborators in annotate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support As per the discussion below - academic sources take precedence over newspapers and politically-motivated statements, and as others have pointed out, collaboration can be voluntary or involuntary (unless if it is under extreme coercion, in which case it would not be collaboration, i.e. direct threat of death gun-to-the-head style, which is clearly not the case here) - if there are sources which demonstrate a certain tendency towards one or the other of those forms of collaboration, a note can be added to explain it, as per others. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal is Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS and Wikipedia:POV. Please place responsibility for the Germans' barbaric uses of the German-hijacked Polish railroads at the door of the Germans. The Polish railroadmen had no alternative under German occupation. There was no non-Nazi railroad available to these men who had devoted their careers to helping fellow-citizens move about their own country. Nihil novi (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Nihil novi: Would you then propose to strike out the Judenrat, Jewish Ghetto Police, or Jewish Social Self Help? After all these men were incarcerated inside the Ghettos and tasked by the Germans to do their tasks. Judenrat members, who were often previous speakers for the community prior to the war, were often forcibly appointed by the Germans. Refusal to the task, would often mean their death. For the record - I am not advocating this, but the Judenrat had no choice (ignoring illegal (per the Nazi) escape to the forests which not all people could do) but to be in the Ghetto and their appointment was often by the choice of the Nazis. Regarding the rail - a very large proportion of rail capacity was used for the war effort (and Holocaust) - not much was left for "helping fellow-citizens move about their own country" (and, I believe, there were perhaps travel restrictions as well applied to their fellow Polish citizens).Icewhiz (talk) 10:08, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I suppose the Judenrat nominees might have done what the Germans' nominees to head a Polish puppet government did, and decline the honor. They might also, had they known of it, have asked their British and American cousins to back the proposal by the Polish Government-in-Exile, to bomb the rail lines to the German concentration camps. The Polish railroad workers might have understood, even forgiven. In any case, after the war some egregious Jewish collaborators were pretty much forgiven by their confreres (none received more than 18 months' imprisonment).Nihil novi (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Your comment is very odd, but nevertheless let's follow your logic and see where it leads us:
You imply a similar degree of coercion between heads of state who lived a relatively comfortable life, and heads of communities incarcerated in massive, overpopulated and under-serviced prisons. It doesn't make a lot of sense, but it does suggest that if the latter could refuse, others living in better conditions could as well. This is on par with my suggestion of including, among others, railway workers.
You suggest that leaders who did not send warning letter were complicit in the destruction, implying that knowledge coupled with indifference constitutes collaboration. This is per Connelly and others' definition. Bear in mind that unlike residents of Jewish ghettos, who sent such letters to the outside world through the severely limited postal system that operated in ghettos, many Poles who did know what was going on didn't do even that; how many Poles, do you reckon, were cousins to the 800,000 or so Poles living in the United States at the time (again, as per your suggestion)? A couple of million, perhaps? By your logic, all of them should be labeled "collaborators", and we ought to wonder how none of them got any prison time in post-war Poland. Is that correct? François Robere (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind if we encounter more scholars like Jan Gross and Jan Grabowski, two highly-acclaimed researchers critical of WWII Polish society, who you repeatedly claimed were only doing it for book deals, fame and money... In the meanwhile - we have the sources (see below), so... François Robere (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Volunteer Marek - these sources are not enough to support inclusion. The arguments presented below supporting inclusion are unambiguously WP:SYNTH of multiple sources. The argument that It's pretty clear that unless a person was under immediate threat (a "gun to the head" situation, rather than a general threat), their acts constitute collaboration. is entirely unsourced personal opinion. I am opposing inclusion for these reasons, but am open to changing my mind if more persuasive WP:RS are presented that clearly and directly support inclusion of the proposed content.Seraphim System (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Support The Washington Post confirms this fact. Yes, some Poles were Nazi collaborators. The Polish Parliament is trying to legislate that away. ... a growing body of research both within and outside Poland has established that some Poles were indeed complicit in the Nazi crimes. Even if Poles did not create the extermination camps, some of them collaborated. That cannot be legislated away. .. Some argue that the Germans compelled Poles and other non-Jews to commit violence. It’s true that the Germans encouraged non-Jews to do their dirty work; some pogroms took place with the Germans observing. But in many other cases, the violence began before the Germans arrived or after they left.
Consider Szczuczyn, a town of approximately 5,400 inhabitants located near the Lithuanian border that was half Polish and half Jewish. The Germans arrived immediately after the war began and pushed on quickly, leaving behind a small field troop. That same night, groups of local Poles fanned out on the main streets and began murdering the town’s Jews. Not all Poles participated in these crimes, but many did. Similar events happened in dozens of other places, as we found in testimonies in multiple archives, especially those located in the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw.
.... the mainstream scholarly community has increasingly shown to be true: Some Poles were complicit in the Holocaust.[17]
Peter K Burian (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
@Peter K Burian: And what on Earth does that have to do with railway workers? Nobody here is denying some Poles were collaborators, or even complicit in the Holocaust. But this is not relevant to this RfC. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose.Synthesis of the sources produces an almost convincing argument... but explicit mention of "collaboration" appended directly to "polish railway workers" is still elusive. As per Seraphim, if RS emerge (with enough weight) then I'll change my vote Cesdeva (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Living in an occupied country under a constant threat of death, doing your daily work is not a willful collaboration. - Darwinek (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose A list of professions of whom some or a majority collab'd with is dumb. (Summoned by bot) L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) I can't tell a slippery slope from a post hoc ergo propter hoc, so I'll restate what I mean: We all know there were plenty of Poles more than happy to help murder the Jews, but unless yo're going to believe Nazi propaganda about Poles being untermenschen and "brutal slavs" it is OR to include the Polish railway, as doing your job with a gun to your back is not collaboration. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If this was some random profession which had otherwise no link to the actions committed by the Nazis, then yeah sure that would probably be WP:OR. However, given there are sources which talk of collaboration and explicitly mention the railways (thus, sufficient grounds for inclusion), and given the role railways had in the Holocaust (which is also mentioned in sources), it can't be rejected because of what you say. Your argument is both a slippery slope and a straw man. We are not interested in the generic case of professions and listing which had a higher "collaboration rate" (which is, indeed, irrelevant). Rather, we are simply mentioning the specific, well-defined and reliably sourced case of the railways. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, it brings us back to the question of why not exclude the Judenrat, Blue Police, even some collaborationist regimes. François Robere (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

  • Inclusion is supported by the following sources:
    • Armstrong, John A. (1968). "Collaborationism in World War II: The Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe". Journal of Modern History. 40 (3): 396–410. – defines "collaboration" as "co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power". This is the definition used in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II.
    • Mierzejewski, Alfred C (2000). The most valuable asset of the Reich: a history of the German National Railway. Vol. 2, Vol. 2,. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-6088-5. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) – pp. 80-82 describes the Ostbahn, the railway operator set up by Germany in Occupied Poland: it employed 60,000 Poles, who were supervised by 5,300 Germans. The Poles were employed in everything from manual labor to high-proficiency jobs like switch tower operators, train engineers and technicians, including on Wehrmacht - German military - trains.
    • "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2018-03-18. – lists instances of collaboration and explicitly mentions Polish railroad personnel.
    • Webb, Chris (2014-04-15). The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-3-8382-6546-9. – p. 179: "It is no exaggeration to state that without the close collaboration of the Reichsbahn and the Ostbahn with the SS, the Holocaust would not have been possible."; p. 186 has testimonies by Polish train engineers operating deportation trains, and a mention of vodka being provided by the Germans for morale support.
    • "Aktion Reinhard Train Transports – Eyewitness Statements". Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team. Retrieved 2018-03-18. – provides witness accounts of Polish operators of deportation trains.
    • Gigliotti, Simone (2009). The Train Journey: Transit, Captivity, and Witnessing in the Holocaust. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-427-0. – p. 36 mentions the Ostbahn as one of several "national carriers" that supplied deportation trains.
    • Kroener, Bernhard R.; Muller, Rolf-Dieter; Umbreit, Hans (2000-08-03). Germany and the Second World War: Volume 5: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power. Part I: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160683-0. – ch. 4.1 provides numbers on various collaborating agencies, including the Ostbahn.
François Robere (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Later additions (updated 2018-03-24):
    • Friedrich, Klaus-Peter (2005). "Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II". Slavic Review. 64 (4): 711–746. doi:10.2307/3649910. ISSN 0037-6779. Retrieved 2018-03-19. – mentions another scholar (Czeslaw Szczepanczyk, whose book I cannot access in full) in the context of Polish industrial collaboration, who [came] to the conclusion that the cooperatives carried out the policies of the Nazi regime (just like the railway and the post office administration) and have to be considered a part of it.
    • Friedberg, Edna (2018-02-06). "The Truth About Poland's Role in the Holocaust". The Atlantic. ISSN 1072-7825. Retrieved 2018-02-28. – this is the same historian who wrote the USHMM article, here using a slightly less ambiguous phrasing as far as we're concerned: ...German authorities... drew upon Polish police forces and railroad personnel for logistical support... These collaborators enforced German anti-Jewish policies such as restrictions on the use of public transportation and curfews, as well as the devastating and bloody liquidation of ghettos in occupied Poland from 1942-1943.
François Robere (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
None of these sources support inclusion. None of these sources say that Polish railroad workers "collaborated" with Nazi Germany. What they say is that Ostbahn, a German organization, "collaborated". This has been pointed out over and over and over and over again, yet you keep on playing your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT games. Stop. Making. Stuff. Up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
And the employees of the Ostbahn were what, or let me guess: Martians? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
What's your point (most of them were Germans and it was run by Germans)? Show me a source which says that the Polish rail men were "collaborators" or it's original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Any of the above sources, maybe: " pp. 80-82 describes the Ostbahn, the railway operator set up by Germany in Occupied Poland: it employed 60,000 Poles, who were supervised by 5,300 Germans." 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
False. Again. None "of the above" states that being employed by Ostbahn amounted to "collaboration". YOU (or your buddy Robere) get to decide whether that amounts to collaboration or not. Sources do. And you have not provided any such sources. This is textbook WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. And stop it with the annoying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You know exactly what the point is so stop pretending you don't get what's being asked of you - present a source that calls this "collaboration".Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
From the USHMM website: "As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. Individual Poles often helped in the identification, denunciation, and hunting down of Jews in hiding, often profiting from the associated blackmail, and actively participated in the plunder of Jewish property." Ok, the exact word "collaboration" isn't used, but the page title does include the word and you'd need to be braindead to say that this doesn't fit the definition of collaboration in some way... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, the exact word "collaboration" isn't used <-- yeah, that's sort of the key here. What you got here - as already discussed above - is a source which is describing the nature of German occupation and also used the word "collaboration" when referring to OTHER STUFF. And no, it doesn't "fit the definition of collaboration", at least not according to sources. And if you're going to make personal attacks then at least learn how to spell "braindead". Insults aimed at other people's intelligence sort of fail bigly when the person making them is too dumb to get the basics right themselves.
Anyway, I have a personal policy of not feeding obvious sock puppets so we're done here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
With this tactics, the Schindler's employees are to become collaborators also. :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
That's a straw man and has no relation whatsoever to this situation (completely different context, very different results, ...). The real issue lies here in whether, to fit the description of collaboration, one needs to act willfully or whether as soon as there is coercion it is not collaboration but rather "forced labour". The sources of direct interest to this (above) are the USHMM site, Webb 2014 and Kroener et al. 2000 - these sources explicitly say (if we trust what is written above) that railway operators (and thus, their employees) were collaborators. That pretty much settles the issue - if it's written in sources, then it should be included, and there is currently no "opposing" source which says that the railroads did not collaborate. Attempts to claim that they were not (based on some interpretation of a definition) would tend to be WP:OR and if there's no reliable academic source to support it, there's no point in even debating it.198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think it's a straw man. Clearly, by some arguments, the only way Poland would not have collaborated with Germany would have been if all Poland had committed suicide. Nihil novi (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No, the real issue is whether or not sources describe the Polish rail workers as "collaborators". So far no such source has been produced. All you got is a couple of editors who insist that THEIR OWN ORIGINAL RESEARCH leads them to believe that they were. But why should we care? Sources or no go.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I won't repeat the comments made by others, but we're not here to judge if "the only way Poland would not have collaborated with Germany would have been if all Poland had committed suicide." - that's a straw man because you're purposely attacking a weaker argument nobody here ever made. And sources have been provided. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Exactly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Why not classify as collaborators Polish firefighters who didn't put down flames throughout the uprising in the Ghetto and Polish postman working for Deutsche Reichspost during the occupation? They delivered mail to the Gestapo. Ridiculous.. why we still have this nonsense discussion? Am I missing something? GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That's actually an interesting point, Bella, because we know some mailmen actively collaborated with the resistance, filtering incoming mail that could jeopardize it. What does this say about others who did not, or about their capacity to resist? We also know mailmen were generally aware of what was going on in Poland [18], which raises questions about willingness and motivations. François Robere (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Can you please make these types of comments in the extended discussion sections, this section is for votes - I read through the entire discussion and there are no sources for this, it is WP:OR and personal opinion. There is no need to argue about whether they were under duress or not because the entire proposal is WP:SYNTH from multiple sources - one gives the defnition of collaboration, another discusses the institutional collaboration, another describes institutional structure, etc. - all that is needed is one source that clearly and directly supported the content proposed for inclusion, and after reviewing the full discussion I have not seen such a source. Further discussion about editor's personal opinions is not likely to be productive, and at the very least should be limited to the extended discussion sections that are set aside for these types of deliberations.Seraphim System (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
(Moved message) I've added a couple more sources. We have a source explicitly mentioning "Polish railroad personnel", another mentioning "railway and post office administration" in the context of popular Polish collaboration, and a third explicitly mentioning the Ostbahn, with none of the sources making a distinction between the company and its workers. My argument here is that we can either mention "Polish railroad personnel", the "railway administration" or just the "Ostbahn" - all three are mentioned as "collaborators", and insofar as the overarching question of "collaboration" is concerned the sources don't seem to make a distinction. Some make notes on individuals' resistance within that organization, some make notes on varied levels of compliance, but it's all under the "umbrella" of collaboration at the organizational level. François Robere (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

Addressing concerns

  • Volunteer Marek claims the USHMM source doesn't mention this as collaboration. This is an odd claim to make, as the entire article is a list of instances of collaboration literally titled "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust", and the paragraph where this is listed literally starts with "Germans forces... drew upon some Polish agencies". Reading this as just some "background material on the occupation" is a very odd interpretation.
  • Volunteer Marek claims that the source must use the term "collaboration" within the cited paragraph or page or it is moot; they further suggest we shouldn't apply the definition given by some RSs to others. This wrong for two reasons: First of all, several sources use the term collaboration liberally, and it's clear the cited paragraph or page falls under that definition even if it doesn't make explicit use of it. Second, the application of a definition given by one RS to a fact given by another that clearly falls under the definition does not constitute WP:SYNTH. WP:SYNTH is concerned with reaching new conclusions; merely applying a definition where it fits without implying anything new falls under WP:What SYNTH is not, and is done throughout Wikipedia, including in the originating article.
  • MyMoloboaccount suggests railway workers were coerced, but they do not provide sources to establish that claim. There is no suggestion of coercion in the texts I reviewed, and even if there were it would not be enough to disqualify inclusion in the article: Armstrong (cited above) makes clear collaboration is an act, the cause being irrelevant. Other sources[1][2] make further distinctions, but they all use the terms "collaboration" and "collaborationist". It's pretty clear that unless a person was under immediate threat (a "gun to the head" situation, rather than a general threat), their acts constitute collaboration. Any other interpretation would immediately exclude most cases of collaboration, from Vichy to Judenräte.
  • E-960 Suggested that "Just living in Poland during the occupation and going about your work is not 'collaboration'": no, it's not, but insofar as driving death trains is your work, then that's collaboration. As an aside, claiming that "going about your work" can't possibly be considered as excludes most collaborationist governments from the definition.
" Volunteer Marek claims the USHMM source doesn't mention this as collaboration." - THAT IS NOT WHAT I CLAIM Stop making shit up. What I said, several times now so I have no idea how you're still not getting it, is that the source - which is about collaboration - DOES NOT say Polish railroad workers "collaborated". Yes it mentions railroad workers, but as part of describing the nature of German occupation. This blatant dishonesty on your part has completely depleted my annual stock of good faith. No. Just stop it with this WP:TENDENTIOUS pov pushing and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This isn't "addressing concerns". This is "making stuff up that is blatantly false".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"Volunteer Marek claims that the source must use the term "collaboration" within the cited paragraph or page or it is moot" - this is also absolutely false. If you have source which more or less calls it "collaboration" without actually using that word, that'd be fine. But you don't. What you have is a bunch of sources which talk about collaboration BY SOMEONE ELSE. Please stop grossly misrepresenting what other users say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
insofar as driving death trains is your work, then that's collaboration-this was conducted by German railway, Deutsche Reichsbahn--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Four of the sources cited above mention Ostbahn complicity, including accounts by Polish train drivers. François Robere (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Ostbahn was a German organization, not Polish one.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Which employed 60,000 Poles on both civilian, military and deportation trains as part of operation Reinhardt and operation Barbarossa. François Robere (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Aha - so Poles working in a German organization, such as Ostbahn, could be seen as collaborators by dint of being employed in a German organization? I'll note that there were Polish workers, e.g. The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance, page 186 recounts the experience of one Stephan Kucharek who was a Polish engine driver for Ostbahn who drove transports to Treblinka. The books also recounts Henryk Gawkowski who did the same. Some primary accounts here [19][20].Icewhiz (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Nope they can't be seen as such. Also they weren't employed but conscripted.By your logic even concentration camp inmates were collaborators since they were used for slave labour for benefit of Nazi Germany.Sorry but your arguments are not only becoming absurd but also seem to intentionally distort the historic realities, these weren't normal workers choosing their career.If we follow your logic everyone who wasn't dead in Nazi occupied Poland was a collaborator.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that unless a person was under immediate threat (a "gun to the head" situation, rather than a general threat), their acts constitute collaboration. Any other interpretation would immediately exclude most cases of collaboration, from Vichy to Judenräte. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It's pretty clear it's not a forum.Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
You're one to say! François Robere (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hoffmann, Stanley (1968). "Collaborationism in France during World War II". The Journal of Modern History. 40 (3): 375–395.
  2. ^ Gordon, Bertram N. (1980). Collaborationism in France during the Second World War. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-1263-9.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Poland/Archive_4&oldid=842472460"