Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

RFC BFC

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 this article make mention of the British Free Corps?.Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No or at most an Extremely brief mention. There are two issues here - one whether BFC personnel were actually collaborating as opposed to volunteering to serve in a foreign force, as Nazi forces did not (with the exception of the Channel Islands) occupy British territory making collaboration with an occupier difficult. The second issue, if the first is resolved as a yes, is that the BFC's size was minute - some 54 individuals in all - and insignificant in relation to other SS volunteer groups by nation (the SS had many such units, a partial list is Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts).Icewhiz (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• A Concise mention is important. The BFC is notable as membership was offered to 142,319 UK servicemen held as POWs in Europe during WW2, but accepted by less than 54 (some of whom were not from the UK). Small numbers do not equal lack of notability. Also, the article's definition of collaboration is inadequate - see OED ("To co-operate traitorously with the enemy"), British Army terminology in questioning liberated POWs about collaboration by other POWs and Imperial War Museum usage for other definitions.
  ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• A Concise mention with the picture in an own pharapraph or next to to other Waffen-SS Groups is important. How it would be like, can be seen in my last edit (reverted). Since even those volunteers/collaborators have an own section or mentioned who are much more less known or even less notable, many oppositions seems like a defence for British pride or whatsoever. For more deatails of arguments and standpoints are in the "Collaboration" section in this talk page. I as well agree that the definiton of "collaboration" is fallacious/ambigous/misleading - as it was said before me - so it should be as well modified.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC))
• A concise mention, exact form TBD. François Robere (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• No Given it's small numbers and lack of importance (as well as issues such as BLP (many of its members were not convicted (based upon claims they in fact were trying to sabotage it), thus calling them collaborators would be a BLP violation) a brief mention would not provide enough coverage, and more then a brief mention would give it too much weight.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes , but it should be clearly stated that members of the Legion of St. George, as it was first called, had no combat value. It should also be said that these few who joined were rather traitors, not actual collaborators and that they were used by the Germans for propaganda goals. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• No (I was invited here by the bot through a strange twist of fate as I've recently been creating a ton of articles on collaborationist subjects.) The article, as it's currently written, opens by defining collaboration as "a co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power". This definition is mirrored in other sources like France and the Second World War by Peter Davies which says "collaboration can be defined as a working relationship at governmental level between victor and vanquished" while in an article in European Review of History [1], Fabian Lemmes acknowledges there is no clear-cut definition of wartime collaboration before declaring that government-to-government cooperation by a defeated state to its conqueror is probably the most apt. Since the UK was (a) not a "defeated state" and since, (b) the BFC personnel were not official representatives of the British government, the BCF could not have been, by the definition set-out in this article or one of several alternate definitions published by RS, have been collaborators. The BFC would, however, be appropriate to include in the article Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, or in a "see also" section of this article. (To clarify, however, this "no" !vote is not a simultaneous !vote to prevent discussion of collaboration occurring within the context of the Channel Islands or HK as the definitions advanced do not preclude cooperation by sub-national polities.) Chetsford (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Threaded discussion

• Please assume good faith and stop claiming this is about things like British pride (after all plenty of material about Britain is not being removed, and the BFC were not solely British), make arguments based upon valid reasons for inclusion, not strawman questioning of other edoitors motives.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• I would hope that any points I have raised are not seen as involving national pride. The interesting thesis of Clare Makepeace is that British POWs almost universally had optimistic expectations about how long they would be prisoners (i.e. the length of the war) and that Britain would be on the winning side. (Strangely, it is only when the allies were clearly winning that a few hints of pessimism arose.) Compare this with the nationals of occupied countries where defeat was a fact. Then there are the numbers involved. The pool of, say, French citizens from which collaborators could be recruited was substantially larger - there were 2,000,000 French POWs, as well as the whole civilian population. (UK Nationals who were POWs in Europe: 142,319 and only a few civilians in German controlled territory). The aspirations of the article should be to lay out the facts and let the reader make any judgement they wish based on full information.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Especially, I totally assume good faith. "many seems like" != "claiming" and was not an universal statement/judgement of the counter-arguments. The versatile composition of the BFC does not change the issue or the reasons pro or contra, as well there were dominions, interests outside especially Britain, and they were as well "British" in a way of meaning. My valid reasons may be read and seen in the relevant sections, I think if I describe some thoughts and opinions freely as everyone may do it is as normal as any other editor may express their opinions/thoughts.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC))

ON the issue of propaganda usage, one of the bizarre things is the Germans did not in fact try and use it in this way, if anything they kept the whole affair secret (it was in fact through the officers of members of the BFC that the British were informed of both it's existence and training (And membership)).Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven If the decision will be not to include B.Corps then Australia should be also removed from the article, just look at the Ausse section. GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 8 March 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.

The lead

The lead references USMM definition of collaboration with Nazis against Jews but this page is about Collaboration with the Axis Powers, it's a more general idea.Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Austria

Austria isn't mentioned.

[2] Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it may well be because even by the lose standards applied here it is hard to see how Austria collaborates...with their won government.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Please comment the article of Deutsche Welle. Some people see.Xx236 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I did, It is hard to see how this fits with this article, so maybe you would care to respond with a reason why it fits? This further weakens an already all over the place article, by now even adding countries that were voluntary (allied, not occupied) members of Hitlers axis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/over-half-of-austrians-think-the-nazis-would-be-elected-if-the-party-was-readmitted-to-politics-8528218.html The Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra admits it collaborated with Nazis.Xx236 (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Adding Islamic collaboration

Houseini and other muslims in the Middle East also collaborated with the Nazis. He met with Hitler and they even had soldiers to help the Nazis. Hitler also said that Islam has a lot of similarity with Nazism and it would fit Europe better than Christianity. Wierd that's not on the article. Can someone add about their collaboration? -Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.133.133 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Reversal of material removed in main article

Re: this - it was discussed in the main article and it was decided to blank those parts. You were there, what's your problem? François Robere (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus there main article, so why do you push your changes here? You are welcome to blank the same parts of the disputed material but do not make contested changes here instead. Removal of anything here should also be explained.GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree with GizzyCatBella, you need to stop blanking text. --E-960 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

E-960 You're in such a hurry to revert my edits you didn't even read what Bella said: You are welcome to blank the same parts of the disputed material. And that's the consensus. You should either self-revert or go challenge it in the other page. François Robere (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The text in this article about Poland should match (in summary form) what was agreed upon in the Collaboration in Poland article, Specifically, we agreed not to say that Germany failed to set up a puppet government in Wikipedia's voice as it is unclear they seriously tried to do so.Icewhiz (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, someone blanked-out text about folks like Wincenty Witos and others who were approached by the Germans to lead a puppet government. Also, what happened to the sourced statement that that by 1940 Hitler decided to against any further plans to pursue a Polish puppet government. Ok, so you blank all that out and then say its 'unclear they [Germans] seriously tried to do so', there is ample evidence that this idea at least had some traction. That's why this whole-sale blanking of text is very, very questionable, and should stop, because this is an issue related to collaboration, though not about outright collaboration itself since they refused. --E-960 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• Anytime someone just goes in and deletes entire paragraphs, I question the validity of such an action. The fact that people were asked to collaborate and refused it legitimate in this context, and it comes across as if some editors want to hide that fact. --E-960 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I blanked it in accordance with Slatersteven's suggestion, linked above. If you have any objections, raise them in the main article, not here. François Robere (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country

I've created Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country to list the stand alone articles on that topic. Should be add red links to it based on sections here? Presumably every occupied country should have a dedicated article, eventually. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a good move, but because of the occupation/partition of Yugoslavia in WWII, the dedicated articles for what was Yugoslavia before the war will probably be a combination of the occupied sub-territories (like Italian governorate of Montenegro and Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia) and puppet state (Independent State of Croatia) created during the war, which will complicate matters a little in that part of the world. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I find your template misinforming. There were no Belarus or Ukraine as countries at that time, rather ethnicites. According to your logic Jews collaborated, why don't you list them?Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please compare this page and the template. It's cherrypicking, misinforming.

The template is valuable, because it shows how much this Wikipedia is biased Western and anty-Eastern. Western people are good, Eastern ones are collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The template should be deleted. It suggests that Eastern Europeans collaborated and Western ones didn't.Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The name of the template misinforms, the template is about collaboration with Nazi Germany only.Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

The template isn't linked in the article. Is it because anyone could see discrepancies between the article and template?Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Lehi's offer to collaborate with Germany

Information about the Jewish Lehi organization's offer to collaborate with Germany has been removed from the "Jewish collaboration [3]" section. Why? It was a legitimate offer. Nihil novi (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

These were feelers that went nowhere, and further more the offer of an alliance to fight the occupying British does not fit the definition of collaboration - as Lehi were not in a teritorry occupied by the Axis - you also have issues regarding whether Jewish Palestinians owed allegience to the occupying forces of his majesty.Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

An unsourced paragraph in the lead

The last paragraph says:

"The term "collaborator" has also been applied to persons, organizations, or countries that were not under occupation by the Axis Powers but that ideologically, financially, or militarily, before or during World War II, supported Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, or World War II-era Imperial Japan."

It seems it contradicts to a common definition of collaborationism, which is usually refers to a person or a group that works with an enemy who has taken control of their country. I would like to see a source that supports this paragraph, otherwise I'll delete it as an original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

It refers to the material about (for example) us companies, and they are sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a mainstream view. I agree that the term "collaborator" (collaborationist) is applied to Vichy France, as well as to many semi-independent regimes that were formally or informally dominated by Nazi. However, it seems this article mixes two different terms, "collaboration with the enemy state against the interests of own country" (aka "collaborationism", which is a petty negative term) and "collaboration/cooperation of one individual, group or state with some foreign regime (not an enemy)". I would like to see mainstream sources that equate these two totally different phenomena.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

With many users involved we already made a consensus to include these, I don't see why it "would be needed" to "equate" them. In the lead, with a consensus it is described what may be meant by collaboration in the scope of the article. There are more types of collaboration, these are described in the lead and as well detailed in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC))

The problem is that user consensus cannot overrule our policy. We cannot re-define the term "collaboration" in a way that contradict to what mainstream reliable sources. In addition, it is simply ridiculous: the lead provides three definition of "collaboration" attributed to reliable sources (and I other RSs that give similar definitions), each of which says pretty much the same: collaboration is the some form of cooperation with an enemy/ex-enemy against own country. After that, a separate paragraph provides an unsourced definition that directly contradicts to these three. I am not sure a local consensus can overrule our policy and common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The situation is not the case you want to refer, since no-one re-defined "collaboration", and since it has more interpretations, there is not any contradiction. However, the consensused pharagraph you wish to remove is about "collaborator", not collaboration. However, even "the some form of cooperation with an enemy/ex-enemy against own country" holds still to those parties that you wish to remove. I don't see any overrule of common sense/our policy, since those organizations, etc. collaborated with Germany.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC))

Re: "the consensused pharagraph you wish to remove is about "collaborator", not collaboration" The article's title is "Collaboration with Axis powers", and the paragraph should speak about collaboration.

Anyway, just provide references to mainstream source that define the term "Axis collaborator" in that way, and that will resolve this problem. Otherwise, I remove this sentence per WP:V.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I see...so yout first have a problem that another definition is not sourced properly, after it is shown that is speaks about a different term, so say it should not speak about that....so we have to really debate on what are the connection between "collaboration" and "collaborator"? Seems you desperately wish to remove theat pharapgraph, why don't you search for sources or in a contructive way to resolve the issue? Why your fixa idea is to remove?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2018 (UTC))

Why do you think I haven't searched sources? I had, and I found nothing. It seems that some person decided to expand the article's scope beyond what is considered collaboration with an enemy, and decided to add an unsourced para to the lead to justify such an expansion. However, per WP:BURDEN, the source is supposed to be presented by those who adds the text. It is not my job to find the source to support the text I find questionable. However, I did some research, and I failed to find any good source to support this statement. If you cannot provide sources, I will remove this text. Later, if an adequate source will be provided, the text can be restored.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, still it seems a desperate want for removal. Regarding this, I have not any further reaction or anything else i've already mentioned before.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC))

Political collaboration?

Besides Vichy, which was characterised as a "collaborator" regime by many sources, and Denmark that was under German control, other states mentioned in this section (Iraq, Egypt, etc) have never been occupied by the Axis. I am not aware of any sources that characterise allied relationship with foreign state as "collaboration/collaborationism". I am going to remove this part of the paragraph as an original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2018

(UTC)

I am also wondering if collaboration of companies with a foreign state = collaboration with a former enemy. At least, a main article about IBM and Holocaust contains not a single word "collaboration". I am going to remove this section, because it covers the events that are beyond the article's scope and is not supported by mainstream sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but these additions were made by consensus, and they are obvious collaborations and as well with this consensus we have already defined what fits in the scope of the article. I don't see the meaning of your equation, since in some cases it is not just the collaboration with a "former" enemy, but a recent enemy of the state. Just because an article did not use the word "collaboration", it would mean no collaboration happened? Come on...these cases are obvious.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC))

First, consensus can change. Second, in English, "collaboration" have different meanings (one of them is pretty neutral, another has a strong negative connotation), and, it seems this article discusses collaboration as it is defined in the lead (all three definition speak about what is also known as "collaborationistm"). All three sourced definition speak about collaboration with an enemy/former enemy against one's own state/nation. One more definition has no sources, and it seems it was added later by some Wikipedian to make article's scope broader, but I am not sure this view is supported by mainstream reliable sources. If my guess is correct, this unsourced paragraph should be deleted (because original research are not allowed in WP independent on what a local consensus says), and the article's scope should be adjusted accordingly.

So far, all examples of "collaboration" that do not fit the (properly sourced) definitions presented in the lead should be moved to the "Controversy" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that consensus can change was not debated, I don't know why you refer to that. Yes it has more definitons, like:

merriam-webster -> to work jointly with others or together especially in an intellectual endeavor/suspected of collaborating with the enemy/to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force

another -> Collaboration is a working practice whereby individuals work together to a common purpose to achieve business benefit.

Without the aim to repeat why I pipointed in the section above, the all three sourced interpretation of collaborations HOLDS for those companies, etc. since they collaborated "with an enemy/former enemy against one's own state/nation", i.e. Nazi Germany or her allies, but I have to repeat that speaks about the term "collaborator", if we want to be very precise.

That pharagraph was formed by more Wikipedians before it reached it's final form, it was a consensus co-operation also regarding the related material. So your main problem is really if it is sourced or not?

Why would should be in case they moved to any "Controversy" section, you deny those companies - i.e. GM, FORD, IBM etc. collaborated with Germany? Or you say they did not? These are famous and well known cases, as well some of them even trialed the U.S. for their losses in the war! Maybe many are not proud of this because U.S. was a decisive main belligerent of Germany, but it happened....(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC))

The lead provides several sourced definitions of collaboration as "collaboration with an enemy against own country" (which is actually a criminal act and has a very negative connotations). It is a narrow definition, and it is pretty negative. After that, using a dictionary definition of the word "collaboration" you are trying to widen the scope of the article and claim that "Nazi collaborators" are not those who were collaborating with Nazi against own country, but everybody who collaborated (sensu lato) with Nazi. This step is not based on what mainstream sources say, is an original research. Nazi sympatisers in, e.g. Iraq did not act against own country, they do not fit the narrow definition. If you want to make the scope of this article wider, provide mainstream sources that say that

"Nazi collaborators" ≠ "those who happen to collaborate with Nazi", this term is more close to "collaborationism", and is much more narrow. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, your conclusions are fallacious, since not I made "the scope of this article wider", it was a consensus and co-operation of more users that what is mentioned or considered collaboration and what should be included in the article. I have shown you more definiton just to demonstrate there are more definitons as well elsewhere, as well in this article and in all fits the cases mentioned in the article. Iraq is not even mentioned, so it just reinforces the validity of the present state of the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC))

I am not sure your reference to a previous consensus are helpful. Reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I've come here and expressed a legitimate concern, which points at violation of certain WP policies and guidelines. That means, no matter if there was a consensus before I've come here, there is no consensus any more.

The dictionary definitions of the word "collaboration" are not helpful, because this word has several meanings. WHat you are doing can be summarised as follows. (i) "A dictionary defines "collaboration" as "a working practice whereby individuals work together to a common purpose"", (ii) "An individual X, nation Y, or state Z worked together with the Axis to a common purpose", (iii) "therefore this activity can be called "collaboration with the Axis powers". However, that scheme is exactly what WP:NOR prohibits. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I support the removals as they were unsourced or added on shaky foundations. The Banner talk 08:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am still waiting for fresh arguments from KIENGIR. If there will be no arguments and sources in one week, I'll delete it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

If your concern is legitimate, yes, but it does not mean all part of the consensus void in case, only just that single part. You still did not understood that just because I gave some other definitions of the word collaboration I wanted to demonstrate that there are more defitions/interpretations, as it is already in the lead even without your debated pharagraph, so any other forced "deduction" from them is useless. You already removed a relevant part of the political collaboration section, but other material should not be removed.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC))

New article on profiteering

Following a suggestion made here - I believe there's need for an article on Profiteering during World War II. Opinions? François Robere (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I think yes, it is not really (by most definitions) collaboration as such. Thuis we fork this all out and just have a see also. It also means we can legitimately cover it in greater depth.Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Well even if there is a new article, the current content should stay also here, since the proposed article - as per title - would wash together Allied and Axis collaborators/supporters/call it as you wish, and i think it is not a good idea.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC))

Good point. Alternative names? "Profiteering from collaboration with the Axis Powers"? François Robere (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Well first of all I suppurt the current version, that collaborators/supporters/call as you wish should be put in one article, as it is right now.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC))

I agree, but not everyone do (see the previous discussion, and some of the comments here as well). We need to resolve this. François Robere (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Well I think the situation/discussion in German-occupied Poland is not necessarily may be extended here, even if there are surely common points. I just read one of the examples in that talk page, if a Pole or Jew would kill a Pole or Jew could be motivated by collaboration, maybe but as well it could be done beucase of other reasons that has not any connection to it, I think it has to be judged in the corresponding article if a case could be treated as a form of collaboration or not. Thus, who there don't agree with something that is not present here, they disagreement does not apply here.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC))

Top-down versus bottom-up writing

I describe your method of work as bottom-up. You find some examples and you create a generalization. Apparently you lack academic sources, so you are close to OR.

My method is top-down. I read Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly and I read that the Nazis designed a sysem of confiscation of Jewish property in Germany and later the plunder of the conquered countries, and especially their Jewish populations (I quote the page, not the book). I'm not sure if there was a place for any accepted non-German profiteering. Even rich Germans were radically taxed, only a number of Nazis like Hermann Göring collected jewelry and artwork.Xx236 (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

National Radical Organization

User:Slatersteven, I'm not seeing anything which would confirm the claim that the National Radical Organization was a legitimate contender for setting up a collaborationist government in Poland, I think that this statement is factually incorrect, and should be removed. This is a clear case where facts are exaggerated, as this tiny organization which only lasted for a couple of months did not accomplish anything other than being a bunch of street thugs. This item is a footnote, and should not be included in a summary text which focuses on the most significant facts. --E-960 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

We have two RS, and it doers not matter of it was a "legitimate contender for setting up a collaborationist government", it can be argued the fact it failed is what is relevant, not the fact it was a serious attempt. It is ancillary to the paragraph above it explaining (to some degree) that the certain Polish elements tried and failed.Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, about that, the first source [4] says nothing about Narodowa Organizacja Radykalna (National Radical Organization), you can scan through the PDF yourself, and the other book title does not come up in any search (perhaps is self-published?), so they are not reliable sources. This is probably a dubious claim, with no source to back it up. On the Polish Wikipedia article [5] I'm also not seeing anything that this organization was trying to form a collaborationist government. Again, this looks like a dubious claim. --E-960 (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

First source try page 21. As to the second source, it certainly exists, but I cannot find the specific issue (here is the home page for the magazine [[6]], its not a book).Slatersteven (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Slatersteven, yes, it says nothing about a NOR trying to form a collaborationist government (throw the text in Google translate). Just that they wanted a Polish-German alliance against Soviet Union, and that the Germans actually de-legalized the organization after a few months. Again, one source does not say anything about a collaborationist government and the other is just missing. --E-960 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This English book - "National+Radical+Organization"+germans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiU9prkgO7eAhUDjqQKHZOXD5oQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q="National%20Radical%20Organization"%20germans&f=false - addresses them - seems the Nazis were not interested, but not for lack of trying. They do get a mentiin in the entry on Fascism in Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

• In any case it appears that this organization was totally useless, just a bunch of anti-Semitic thugs, nothing more, and was a footnote to history, it should not be mentioned with such prominence as it did not accomplish anything in terms of a "collaborationist government". Also, they were tiny from what I'm seeing only a few dozen members, with 4 leading names. --E-960 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that this organization was so minor and insignificant that it hardly registers in the sources on the topic. And as such it does not belong in a general level article like this one. It's UNDUE. Volunteer Marek 06:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The 1990 source is a book Antoni Dudek, Grzegorz Pytel: Bolesław Piasecki: próba biografii politycznej. Warszawa: Aneks, 1990. According to Polish Wikipedia (I don't have the book) there are two stories - either Piasecki wanted to collaborate and fight the Germans at the same time, or he was against the collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC) There exists one account, that Cybichowski wanted to rule occupied Poland. Many people want something, we don't describe them here.

Mówią Wieki is a serious monthly. BUT the quoted text was published in 1965, under hard censorship, without access to archives. Xx236 (talk) 09:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Belgium

Issue 1

Old text: VNV's comparatively moderate stance meant that it was increasingly eclipsed later in the war by the more-radical and pro-German DeVlag movement.

New text: VNV's comparatively moderate stance meant that it was increasingly eclipsed later in the war by the reactionary and pro-German DeVlag movement.

Issue 2

Old text: Rex became increasingly radical after 1941 and declared itself part of the Waffen SS.

New text: Rex became increasingly reactionary after 1941 and declared itself part of the Waffen SS.

Bold added by me. The old text is the original text that was changed into the new text. I have reverted that, as, in my opinion, "reactionary" is a valued statement and not a neutral statement like the original. Am I right here? The Banner talk 18:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

How is "radical" any less a value term? It's regularly applied to terrorists and it cost Bernie Sanders the presidency.GPRamirez5 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

"radical" shows just a position in comparison. But reactionary is a valued term. By stating that "Far-right Catholic groups are reactionary by definition" you are clearly leaving the neutral stance required for Wikipedia. The Banner talk 10:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

reactionary, in my mind, does indeed imply a negative value judgement on the subject of the label - and is usually used in polemics. Radical can also, in some cases, imply a value judgement - however not always.Icewhiz (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

AFAIC both can be used either way. However, "reactionary" requires knowledge of positions versus one another or over time (that is, what is the reaction to), while "radical" only requires knowledge of positions versus the consensus. All else being equal, unless we explain how a movement is reactionary, "radical" would be more friendly to the reader.

Regardless, see Slatersteven's comment below. François Robere (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The removal of my image in the Poland section.

There is no reason to defend Poles against scrutiny, they can also be judged. Poland was not innocent in WW2. Polanophilia is dangerous. You cannot try to whitewash historical fact. Torba17 (talk) 10:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Nor do we soapbox.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hans Lemberg

His typology should be quoted here.Xx236 (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Academic book

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313893059_Collaboration_and_Resistance_Some_Definitional_Difficulties Xx236 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

https://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/bib2013 Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The definition

prompted by nationalism, ethnic hatred, anti-communism, antisemitism, opportunism, self-defense, or often a combination does self-defence mean to survive German terror? It's not obvious.Xx236 (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Allies or collaborators

Allies (Romania, Hungary) aren't listed here. Small Allies (Croatia, Slovakia) are listed here. The Holocaust links this page as Local collaborators. It's crazy.Xx236 (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I may have made a similar point a while ago. Of course Croatia, Slovakia and a number of other states were created by the Germans out of larger states. As such they could be seen as collaborationist entities (like Vichy France). Thus we would have to approach this on a case by case basis.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The Allies are listed under Axis powers. Dimadick (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The problem is they aren't linked in the lead of The Holocaust. Austria is smart, neither ally nor collaborator. Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What has that got to do with this article?.Slatersteven (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hungary was an Axis Power, Croatia and Slovakia are not listed, but are just mentioned related to previous Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, obviously because they were founded as Axis Powers. We should not confuse Axis Powers or the collaborators of Axis Powers. Austria is obviously not on the list and not any way smart, because did not exist during WWII as a country, as her territory was part of Germany.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC))

Austrian people existed, many of them were influential in Nazi Germany, eg. in the Holocaust and T4 structures. An average reader doesn't know it, many believe that Austria was a vicitm. Post-war Austria is very smart. Austria – the Nazis' first victimXx236 (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

So did Saxons and Bavarians. The simple fact is that Austria was part of the Axis, an ally (if we want to treat it as if it was an existent entity at the time), not a collaborator.Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Austrian people existed only that way, that they were citizens of the former Austrian state, but this cannot be used as a claim of ethnicity, that did not exist that time. You may refer them as former Austrian citizens, nothing more. We should not mislead the "average reader" and support any possible ignorance (WP is a far better project and initiative than this), we should be precise and accurate. The fact there are other articles or such view spread and/or are supported as victims, is another thing, make relevant edits then there if you consider something would be not balanced. Austria was NOT an existent entity on the full timeline, it became part of Germany since 1938.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC))

Are we precize writing about Poland Polish, Poles? Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The term "Poland" is problematic, as I expressed in the discussion under the talk page of the Holocaust article, "occupied Poland" as a synonyme of the former Polish (let's say on that timeline, that belonged to the Second Polish Republic) territories may be appropriate, if it is not stating the the country would exist that time de facto & de jure. Polish/Poles, if it is reffering to the Polish people or the Polish nation is appropriate, since those existed.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC))

Poles as in people who had been (and would be again) polish, no not a problem.Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a native speaker, so I don't understand your statement, please rewrite it to standard English. In my opinion we write "Polish" and "to polish".Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not obvious what was the "Polish nation". Nationalists accepted only ethnic Poles, liberals accepted loyal Polish citizens. Szmul Zygielbojm was a Polish politician, so he was Polish. Xx236 (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

What I take Polish to mean is the same as I take "British" to mean, people who hold Polish passports or citizenship. So we just use the same standard as everyone else, if you held Polish citizenship at the time (in this case between 1939 and 1946) you were Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

You have fantastic ideas about WWII. Polish citizenship. Xx236 (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Poland existed before and after WW2. People did not suddenly stop being Polish because the nation did not exist, otherwise the "polish Home Army" is a lie and myth, as there was no Poland to have an army.Slatersteven (talk) 13:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Changing wording.

I recently changed the wording of some of the article from:

Dutch Jew-hunters massively helped the Nazis

To:

A small group of fanatical Dutch policemen helped the German occupiers in locating Dutch Jews. Most of these men were members of the Dutch fascist party and constituted a special police unit.

This is supported by the original newspaper article (for which I'm looking into alternative, more reputable sources) which states: 1. "This illustrates that the hunt for Jews was executed by a small group of fanatical Dutch policemen." 2. "Almost all belonged to the Dutch Nationalist Socialist Party (NSB)." Thanks to this change, weasel wording like using "massivly" without substantiation is avoided. I would have liked to quantify the number of Dutch Jews victimized by these Dutchmen, but the newspaper article does not give numbers; only in relation to German Jew hunting squads active in the Netherlands. In the long term, it's better to look for a proper source as this article only consistst of an interview and secondhand reporting on two books. Vlaemink (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would delete the word "fanatical" from your edit. It's a point of view word, just as "massively" is. Smallchief (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Its clear form context it is referring to the police (I.E. not all police some some fanatical ones), as the article also says "‘The private Jewish head hunters of the so-called Henneicke Column", who were not part of the police.Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what the word "fanatical" adds to the meaning. Without it, the sentence reads, "A small group of Dutch policemen helped the German occupiers in locating Dutch Jews." That seems to express the thought intended without introducing the word fanatical.

How do you know the small group of Dutch police were "fanatical." Maybe they were just following orders? Maybe the Nazis were paying them? Maybe the source for the word "fanatical" is biased or less than reliable? Smallchief (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with you, I would also prefer to remove the word fanatical. I merely used it as it directly cites the newspaper article.Vlaemink (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be sufficient to mention the Henneicke Column in a rather neutral way instead of this biased version. The Banner talk 16:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I have rewritten the text to a neutral one. The Banner talk 19:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The last rewrite of the text was already neutral. As stated in my edit summary, I removed the last sentence of your rewrite as you used a personal blog as a source. I'm sure the number cited is plausible, but you need a proper, valid source. Vlaemink (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I again reverted your edits. You did add a new source, but it did not mention the number of Jews taken by the Henneicke Column. I would suggest looking into more scholary sources, instead of news paper articles. Vlaemink (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Read the source, my friend. The Banner talk 20:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read the newspaper article you provided and it does not mention "900 people being arrested by the Henneicke column alone". If you hadn't blindly reverted my addition of properly sourced material, you would have found that the actual numer is closer to 3000; which was already made very clear in the article. Making your accusations of me adding POV and trying to downplay Dutch collaboration with Nazi Germany ... quite absurd. Please do not remove properly sourced material again and please keep in mind that a newspaper article does not have precedence over actual historical literature. Vlaemink (talk) 08:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Please don't revert until you've obtained consensus here. Merely outlining your position here is not obtaining consensus. 130.95.175.240 (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Could someone be so kind to read the above article and confirm that it does not mention 900 Jews being arrested by the Henneicke column? Thank you very much in advance. Vlaemink (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I will point out that the last but one edit was very poorly written and contained at least one piece of nonsensicality. I suggest that any alterations are posted here first.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What specific edit are you refering to? Vlaemink (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have more details about "Nazi rule and Dutch collaboration: the Netherlands under German occupation, 1940-1945", written by J. Presser? I can not located that book at all, not even in the catalogue of the Royal Library of the Netherlands. The Banner talk 11:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

"Nazi rule and Dutch collaboration: the Netherlands under German occupation, 1940-1945" was written by G. Hirschfeld. Jacques Presser is the author of "The Destruction of the Dutch Jews". Something you probably aready knew, hardly making you look constructive. Vlaemink (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What your edit said "Nazi rule and Dutch collaboration: the Netherlands under German occupation, 1940-1945, by J. Presser", so it was reasonable to assume this is what you meant. So no it does not make them look unconstuctive.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You'd be right about that, if this had been the first instance of unconstructive behavior. Sadly, it has not as in the past few days; my talk page has been spammed with accusations of introducing falsifications and not being neutral, edit warring, or being accused of being unconstructive. So no, I'm not going to assume is an honest constructive question when the correct author pops up immediately and the page number checks out without any further problems. Now, I've tried to be very constructive here by taking this issue to the talk page and I think this speaks volumes when contrasted with the types of accusations mentioned earlier. Wikipedia is not my life, not even a hobby ... I only write occasionaly and I'm not interested in adding this kind of personal drama to the mix. I don't need that, there's plenty of books written on this and I very much doubt this is a personal matter for anyone involved. Now, my addition contained two scholary references open for anyone to inspect. Unless someone can come up with a reason why these are less trustworthy than a newspaper article, I'd like to hear it. If not, I'd like to resolve this matter and spend more time on more useful matters. Vlaemink (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I will remind users this talk page is not the place to discuss users actions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Adolf Hitler Greek monastery.png (discussion)
• Volksdeutschers or Serbs?.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Politically motivated content/Unbalanced/Disproportionate-Biased Attention

Not quite sure what was "WSay to much wrong" with the edit, all of my edits were corroborated and factually based. Instead of retaining substantiated information it appears that unvalidiated information that has not been cited are being kept to fill and expand the section under a country for whatever the reasons. To avoid any edit warring and appease all parties I am happy to make a 'case' for inserting information sourced directly from a book on the public domain and paraphrased information. Below are links to the books and quotations form which the information was sourced.

• The 6th Army Unit of the Wehrmacht under Paulus, that participated in the Battle of Stalingrad, had over 50,000 Russian auxiliaries attached to it's front-line divisions, representing over a quarter of their strength.

Antony Beevor's publication 'Stalingrad', pg 184-185

• 'Russians in the German Army can be divided into three cateogires. Firstly, soldiers mobilised by German troops, so-callled Cossack sections, which are attached to German divisions. Secondly, Hilfswillige made up of local people [Russians] or Russian prisoners who volunteer, or those Red Army soldiers who desert to join the Germans. This category wears full German uniform, with their own ranks and badges. They eat like German soldiers and are attached to German regiments. Thirdly, there are Russian prisoners who do the dirty jobs, kitchens, stables and so on. These three categories are treated in different ways'

(Direct quote from 'Stalingrad' pg 184-190)

• Scherbakov was informed that 'On some parts of the front there have been cases of former Russians who put on Red Army uniform and penetrate our positions for the purpose of reconnaissance and seizing officer and soldier prisoners for interrogation

Information from Antony Beevor's acclaimed history 'Stalingrad'.

• On the 22nd June, 1943 a parade of the Wehrmacht and Russian collaborationist forces was welcomed and positively received in Pskov. The entry of Germans into Pskov was labelled "Liberation day" and the Russian tricolor flag was included in the parade inspiring "scenes of moving patriotism"

Soviet Russians under Nazi Occupation: Fragile Loyalties in World War II

Slatersteven Any other citations needed can be provided, regardsDanielLerish (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

Can someone with access to Antony Beevor's confirm this, as the English is a bit off. I (also) suggest you make a case here for what you want to add with specific examples.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

also, we do already mention Russian collaboration. And lay of accusation of "Politically motivated content/Unbalanced/Disproportionate-Biased Attention".Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To clarify not one Wikipedia guideline stipulates that the citation of an edit must be verified by an independent party before the edit is inserted. Secondly, as one of the thousands that own a copy of the 'Stalingrad' book I can verify that it does indeed include what is being claimed. Although, I would change the intro to the second paragraph for copy right reasons. DanielLerish has my support going forward with edits that can have a functioning link or verifiable source, that is the hallmark of Wikipedia and all encyclopaedias that are well regarded. Slatersteven Noah221 (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)Noah221 strike sock comment-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok, thankyou for the tip (talk). As for the other sources they are all still on the public domain, kind regards and thank you againDanielLerish (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

Then they need to correctly cite, and not to world cat (see wp:cite. Also I am not sure that we need to worry about individual battalions (see wp:undue). Also why was information removed? Moreover much of the addition read like list entries, not very encyclopedic, this is what I mean by way to much was wrong.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you mean by 'correctly cite' or 'world cat', all of the information in my edits were cited according to wikipedia guidelines and referenced easily accessible information and publications. The information I deleted and you replaced was about 'Soviet passports', was uncited, and completely irrelevant to the page or to Ukraine. Ultimately, uncited information completley irrelevant to the page is being retained yet cited information is being deleted and called 'undue'. Strangely enough Soviet passports is relevant to Ukraine but physical battalions are not. Also WP:UNDUE pertains to focusing on a minority or majority view not to excessive information. Again, please find me a guidleine from Wikipedia specifying that the information must flow like an encylopaedia otherwise the edit can't be made. Please refrain from WP:STONEWALLING, the edits have complied with all the guidelines WP:EP. RegardsDanielLerish (talk) 15:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)DanielLerish

:I Have been watching this one from the sidelines but agree with (talk), if the user has cited their edit, the edit is not disruptive or is vandalism there is no reason why it should not be allowed. "The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits", "Please boldly add content summarizing accepted knowledge to Wikipedia" and "However, it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. You are invited to show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources". The edit made byDanielLerish was relevant to the topic and from what I could see and noted from the latest edit was cited. As per WP:ROWN, a good rule to go by is the 'One-Revert Rule' and partially deleting edits if absolutely necessary. I again concur with Noah221 and have to agree with DanielLerish to follow through with the cited and referenced edits. Hopefully Slatersteven this has resolved everything for the better.Theodore4404 (talk)Theodore4404strike sock comment-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No the purpose of reversion is not just to undo vandalism, and I have no idea where you get that idea.Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What I mean is you need the page number for a start, it is not enough to just link to a page about the book.Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Theodore4404 thankyou for that, have tried to comply with all the guidelines and believe the edits are fairly justified. I am g±lad that a consensus has now been formed with your help. Very strange how information for some countries must go under laboreous and strenuous tests but for others it can have not even one citation and be completely irrelelvant. Anyway, thankyou again Theodore4404. I agree, hopefully this has resolved things for everyone and all those involved can move forward in perfecting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielLerish (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Note that I have struck through the comments by two confirmed socks of DanielLerish. @Slatersteven: so you are aware.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2021

The 18th reference currently redirects to the front page of berlingske.dk, the new website for the newspaper that published the article. Please change the reference from

{{cite web |url=http://www.b.dk/danmark/anders-fogh-siger-undskyld |title=Anders Fogh siger undskyld |publisher=[[Berlingske tidende]] |language=da |access-date=12 September 2015}}

to

{{cite web |last=Weiss |first=Jakob |date=5 May 2005 |language=da |title=Anders Fogh siger undskyld |trans-title=Anders Fogh apologizes |work=[[Berlingske]] |url=https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/anders-fogh-siger-undskyld |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210802142625/https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/anders-fogh-siger-undskyld |archive-date=2 August 2021 |url-status=live}}

Thanks for the trouble! ArcticSeeress (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Lebanon needs work: sympathizers or collaborators?

I left some stuff on place about the Vichy army. But this needs work: "The Kataeb party, which became an important factor in Lebanese politics, was established on November 5, 1936 by Pierre Gemayel as a Maronite paramilitary youth organization, modeled after Spanish Falange and Italian Fascist parties he had observed as an Olympic athlete in the 1936 Summer Olympics held in Berlin, then Nazi Germany. The movement's uniforms originally included brown shirts and members used the Roman salute." Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Foreign volunteers

this section is completely uncited and so are all of the linked articles that I have checked so far. Elinruby (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I also have UNDUE questions about some of the entries. They all have articles, but here is a sample from one of the articles: "it was never properly formed, trained, or equipped, and after being evacuated from its training camp in the face of the advancing Soviet Red Army, it surrendered to the United States Army in Austria in May 1945." Elinruby (talk) 06:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

This talk page approaching 100 kiloBytes

This talk page is — in itself — approaching 100 kB (about half the bloated size of the topic page), and is becoming a little hard to navigate. There are archives for this page, but I don't know if some bot archives the page automatically, or if one of us should bite the bullet, create a new Talk Archive 9, and manually archive the sections that aren't currently live. (This can be a little hard, since some contributors jump around between sections while discussing the same thing.) —— Shakescene (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I started the dirty work by removing this talk page's first four sections to a new Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Archive 9. But this reduces the current page's length by only about 3.5% (3.5 kB/nearly 100 kB). It's harder to choose what else to move because either a particular topic is relatively recent (as in this month, Feb. 2023) or because the topic seems to be still live (although I think that the long #Jewish collaborator section may not attract further discussion). Anyone here who wants to be Bold and archive any other sections here, should feel free to do so. (However I and User:Elinruby found that half the sections I'd archived at Talk:War of 1812 got moved back to the main talk page by someone who felt the need for more debate.)—— Shakescene (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

So far, I've moved the six sections below (about 30,000 bytes out of 90,000 +) to Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Archive 9. Feel free to move any other sections that are no longer live topics for discussion.—— Shakescene (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

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

¶ I cut another 11,000 kB from this page, by moving "Jewish collaborator section" to Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Archive 9#Jewish collaboration section. This Talk page is now a more manageable size, although some smaller items that no longer need to stay here could also be moved. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Belarus: removed PoV, section still completely uncited

This can return if cited, please cite the rest of the section also "Some Belarusian collaborators participated in various massacres of Jews and Belarusian villagers, however, most of these massacres had to be carried out by Baltic and Ukrainian collaborators because of a relatively small willingness of Belarusians to participate." Elinruby (talk) 07:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)