Talk:War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/Archive 2

← Archive 1 (2004–2008)  • Archive 2 (2008–2010)  • Current discussion →

Facts? What facts?

Why does this page even exist? Isn't Wikipedia a compendium of facts?

This page is the very definition of POV, because to call something an atrocity is to define it within one's own moral view point. Unless someone can come up with a rigid and unambiguous definition of atrocity, this page should be deleted.

Not only is this page not NPOV, but I was reading over the articles on "Original Research", and I think some of this qualifies.

"Origin of this policy: the opinion of Wikipedia's founder

Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, has described original research as follows...

An article that 'makes no new low-level claims', but nonetheless synthesizes work in a non-standard way, is effectively original research that I think we ought not to publish. This comes up most often in history, where there is a tendency by some Wikipedians to produce novel narratives and historical interpretations with citation to primary sources to back up their interpretation of events. Even if their citations are accurate, Wikipedia's poorly equipped to judge whether their particular synthesis of the available information is a reasonable one. ... I think in part this is just a symptom of an unfortunate tendency of disrespect for history as a professional discipline. Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history" (WikiEN-l, December 6, 2004)."

Non-standard interpretation of history? Makes no new low-level claims? That sounds just like half of these incidents to me.

Wikipedia is not a place for people to espouse their own theories, no matter how accurate they may be, because Wikipedians do not have the specialized knowledge necessary to verify theories. If the theory is not widely accepted by the community most capable of falsifying it (in this case, academia), then it has no place in Wikipedia. If you want to keep this article, I suggest that you redefine it in a sense which clearly labels it as interpretation, or that removes the interpretation from it. If this article doesn't receive some attention soon, I'm going to begin the process of deletion. --72.240.124.125 11:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support in objective honesty! This page purely is propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.171.3 (talk) 15:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kaunas pogrom

What is the connection between the Kaunas pogrom and Poland? I believe that the link should be removed, the same the other one about Kaunas.Xx236 (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Support it being removed as I can see no connection. I think I created this section giving it the title “Lithuanian collaboration and massacres” but meaning that relative to the article title World War II crimes in Poland. Maybe the person adding the Kaunas pogrom was thinking of the section name only not necessarily the overall subject of the article. Jniech (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tykocin pogrom ?

It was a German organized maasacre rather than a pogrom. Xx236 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JewsandPoles/message/111 Xx236 (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

German terror v. Nazi terror

We make an effort to say Soviet terror rather than Russian terror as many of the perpetrators were non-Russian and to say "Russian terror" would imply the will of the Russian people. Should we lend the same consideration to the crimes of the Nazi state? - Schrandit (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects the references, which are many. If you any concerns then say which and I will double check source but from memory they state German not Nazi hence the article reflects this. Jniech (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt that many of the sources do say "German" and I am sure that they do so with the best of intentions but is that term accurate? I would again point to that Russian v. Soviet situtation. Though I have not read this page's references many of my old textbooks would "Russian" when "Soviet" would be more accurate and that seems to be the term we strive for here. - Schrandit (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Editor of Wikipedia are meant to reflect the sources not their personal views. This article reflects the sources. The change you want appears too simply be to match your personal views.

Further the argument doesn’t hold as Soviet doesn’t mean Russia. Nazi however does mean the government of Germany. Therefore Nazi is associated with Germany and Austria only but Soviet is associated to 15 different modern day countries.

Put it another way, it was the army of German which attacked Poland and carried out many of the atrocities it wasn’t the Nazi army. It wasn’t the army of Russia but the Soviet Union which invaded Poland. The article reflects this. Jniech (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My views are merely grammatical.

By the time Poland was invaded the Nazi government ruled over Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia and this article does not stop at the invasion. By the end of the war the Nazi state encompassed over 20 nations (not including Vichy and Italian proxy states) and though relatively few Poles were employed by it there were nazi soldiers and genocideiers from every race in Europe and even a few from beyond it, especially toward the end when a delegation of French SS volunteers were the last men left defending the Reichstag.

It is not grammatically correct to describe these crime as "German" as many of the men perpetrating them (excluding those who had no choice in the matter) where not Germans. For this reason we refer to Nazi concentration camps rather than German concentration camps and to the Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles rather than German crimes against ethnic Poles. I figure this article should merely conform to that grammatical logic. - Schrandit (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The article already has sections for Soviet, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian crimes. If a crime can be put down to a particular group then it should be done in this article. If/when I find crimes by French SS volunteers in Poland then they will appear as such.

You basically want to write out Germans from this article which means those who were primary victims such as Jews and Poles have to face up to their crimes but the Germans can hide behind the word Nazi.

If you disagree with the article then change it PROVIDED you put enough references to support. I used almost two hundred to support the work I did on the article and stand behind it as fairly reflecting their views expressed in the sources used. Jniech (talk) 18:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to write any one out of anything, if anything I'm writing people into things. All I had to do was take a quick peek through wikicommons and I found a bunch of pictures of Cossacks working for the Nazis in Poland, Russians working for the Nazis in Poland, Poles working for the Nazis in Poland and so on. If you really want more evidence I get it for you but continuing to use the term "German" to describe Axis crimes in Poland is just as misleading as describing Soviet crimes as "Russian". - Schrandit (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If you check the article prior to my first edit, then there were no sections for any crimes beyond German/Nazi. I added all the sections on crimes by Soviets, Poles, Jews, etc. Tell me which crimes you plan to say were German as I doubt you plan any which means Soviets, Jews and Poles who suffered at the hands of the Germans will be named but you plan to hide German crimes behind the word Nazi. I accept non-Germans committed crimes but the bulk of the crimes were by Germans.

Anyway edit the article BUT please ensure you put sources to support changes. I stand by this article fairly reflects the sources used. Jniech (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you accept that the bulk of the crimes committed by the Soviets were committed by Russians? - Schrandit (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I think has no bearing on this article as editors of Wikipedia must simple use existing work NOT try to do original research.

Answering your question merely in the hope we can move on, it is impossible to say.

German crimes are simpler as it was the German government which authorized it making Germany ultimately responsible. Further the bulk of the crimes were done by the German army, police and similar. Collaborators such as Polish, Jewish and Ukrainians were generally kept separate such as the Blue police and Ukrainian SS units. This makes it easier to separate their crimes into sections.

The Soviet leadership authorised crimes such as Katyn massacre on behalf of all the republics which I believe make up 15 modern day countries. I don’t know that much about the make up of Soviet armed forces but apart from a few units such as the Polish army, the Soviet Union appears not to have this division.

Put it this way, the gulag were set-up by the leadership of all Soviet republics, the camps in occupied Poland by the German authorities not on behalf of others such as their allies Finland and Hungary.

Still in my personal writing I do say Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia BUT this is out of line with standard writings hence I don’t use it when editing Wikipedia.

Anyway back to the issue. If you have proof of crimes committed by Slovakia for example then start a section. If a crime is currently reported as German but you believe Russia collaborators did it then you should challenge. Currently there is nothing about Slovakia crimes as I unaware of them. Crimes by collaborators are stated e.g. in the Warsaw Uprising atrocities section it states “In Ochota district, civilian killings, rapes, and looting were conducted by the members of Russian collaborators from SS-Sturmbrigade RONA.”

To my knowledge the article fairly reflects sources but I am happy to check any individual source you feel maybe wrongly used in the article. Jniech (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1. - The majority of Nazi forces, perhaps even the vast majority of Nazi forces were Germans and almost to a man most Nazi leaders were Germans. At the same time, a majority of Soviet forces, probably even the vast majority of Soviet forces on the Easter Front were Russian.

2 - The Soviet Union was a Russian-centric dictatorship, not a representative democracy. Many of the states in the USSR were absorbed by force and many in them were risking their lives trying to break away from it 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Stalin no more Represented the will of the Ukrainian people than Hitler represented the will of the Czech people. The NKVD represented the will of the Polish people the same way the SS represented the will of the French people.

3 - Most Soviet forces were not racially integrated. Soviet units were formed from local military districts and were usually entirely made up of a single linguistic/ethnic group. If we really felt it necessary, we could assign an ethnic character to many Soviet crimes.

4 - The war was messy, very messy, especially toward the end. Hilfswilligeren became ever present. Even if a unit was labeled as German up to half of its strength could be non-German. Even though the German Sixth Army was the main body at Stalingrad a quarter of its strength was non-German. Labeling units as German serves no point and is usually incorrect. - Schrandit (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In 1939 the Polish army under the Polish government control defended Poland. The fact it was made up of Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Belarusian and others likely including some ethnic Germans, does not stop it being the Polish army. The fact the pre-war government was authoritarian does not stop it being the Polish government. The fact parts of Poland were claimed by others and modern day Poland has different borders, does not stop it being Poland.

It doesn’t matter if we agree or disagree, as your and my views are not important. What is important is what can be shown as original research is banned on Wikipedia. Please do edit the article BUT ensure you put sources to support any changes. I stand by this article fairly reflecting the sources used. Jniech (talk) 10:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"The Nazis were also guilty of the ultimate crime - the crime of genocide.(http://www.electronicmuseum.ca/Poland-WW2/soviet_crimes/soviet_crimes_eng.html)

"The mass grave in Katyn Forest was discovered by the occupying Nazi forces in 1943." (http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3486292.html)

" They simply disappeared, until their mass graves were discovered and publicized by the Nazi government, whose troops occupied the area in April 1943." (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/special.studies/katyn.massacre/katynlrc.txt)

"the event was widely broadcast by the Nazi propaganda machine." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-03-05-stalin-massacre_x.htm)

"he stands by the patients of the hospital sentenced to death by the Nazis" (http://www.um-swiecie.pl/index_en.php?cid=142&unroll=142)

"the incident was used by Nazi propaganda for retaliation against Poles after Bydgoszcz was occupied by the Wehrmacht on September 9." (http://www.studyinpoland.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=43&Itemid=58)

"The Nazi terror was, in scholar Norman Davies's words, "much fiercer and more protracted in Poland than anywhere in Europe."" (http://www.holocaust-trc.org/poles.htm)

"The Nazis conducted indiscriminate retaliatory measures against populations in areas where resistance was encountered." (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005473)

"the report claimed 3 million non-Jewish victims of the Nazi terror, including civilian and military casualties of war." (http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.php)

"One-sixth of all Jews murdered by the Nazis were gassed at Auschwitz." (http://www1.yadvashem.org/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/auschwitz.html)

"So far the complicity of local populations in the Nazi extermination of Jews was discussed mostly in reference to the Ukraine and Lithuania. " (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JewsandPoles/message/111)

"The armed force pursued the ideal of an independent Ukraine, which led it to fight Polish, Soviet, and Nazi forces at various times." (http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1068362.html)

"The Nazis established killing centers for efficient mass murder." (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005145)

"The Nazis had already experimented with gassing as the means to kill " (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007183)

"Daily life in the ghettos was administered by Nazi-appointed Jewish councils (Judenraete)." (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005059)

"The Warsaw Ghetto was established by the Nazis to pen the city's Jewish population" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pole-who-saved-2500-children-from-the-nazis-dies-827006.html)

Many, if not most of the sources say Nazi, it really isn't original research. I could ask for a third-opinion if it would make things easier. - Schrandit (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You claim “Many, if not most of the sources say Nazi, “. Remember these are your sources. I had a quick read and they appear to use German far more often than Nazi.

For example (http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/academic/history/marshall/military/wwii/special.studies/katyn.massacre/katynlrc.txt)

You pick up “the Nazi government, whose troops occupied” which simply mean Nazi Germany in my mind. You completely ignored

a local Katyn resident who had worked as a laborer for the occupying Germans.

German-occupied Poland

It is estimated that 5,384,000 Poles, including Polish Jews, died during the German occupation through slave labor exhaustion, disease and starvation, repression of resistance, or outright extermination.

Conditions in the Soviet-held territories were so ghastly that some resident Jews actually petitioned--a few successfully, tragically--to be transferred to the German-occupied zone

Later, during the German occupation, the Ukrainians and Poles fought pitched battles against each other.

The Poles under German Occupation, 1939-1944, it emphasized German atrocities.

the then retreating German occupants

The Poles under German Occupation

It a long article hence I may have missed some but I made it 8 references supporting the idea the German occupied Eastern Europe to 1 for Nazi occupation. That hardly seems to support your case.

Not that it matters much but if we're going to just play the numbers game I can hit control F too...

"Nazi history expert Dr. William Combs"

"until their mass graves were discovered and publicized by the Nazi government"

"Although the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union"

"The Nazi and Soviet extermination policies, which had decimated the Polish intelligentsia"

"Another motive for the extermination of the Polish officers was Stalin's effort to appease his Nazi ally"

"The Nazi Army of invasion and the Russian Red Army of intervention"

"The Nazis launched a calculated campaign"

"as well as the more intently genocidal Nazi SS"

"rather than that of the Nazi SS"

"the Soviet NKVD shared its well-practiced terror and extermination technology with the Nazi SS."

"The only Nazi "improvement" over Soviet extermination methods"

"it may seem to be grimly amusing and fair justice that the Nazis would ultimately turn these extermination techniques against the NKVD"

"In spite of warnings from the British and Americans of imminent Nazi attack, trainloads of Russian raw materials were being faithfully sent"

"The Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union"

"the Soviet government responded on 15 April 1943, suddenly remembering and declaring that the Polish officers had been captured by the Nazis in late Summer 1941"

"Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels"

"as considerably more sympathetic toward the Russians than toward their Nazi-alleged victims, the Poles."

""Progressive" Western intellectuals disputed the Nazi charges"

"British Prime Minister Winston Churchill did not dispute the Nazi charges"

"unwilling to accept the validity of the Nazis' charges."

"The Western Allies at this time were primarily concerned with keeping the Soviet Union in the war against the Nazis."

"it should also be pointed out that at this time reports of the Nazi extermination"

"ethnic and political strata of Allied forces--would have given the Nazis additional time"

"The Nazis exterminated half the Jews of Europe"

"Professor Francis Naville, was a proven anti-Nazi."

"One of the provisions of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939"

"While the Katyn controversy was in the news, the Nazis"

"Indeed, some Polish Home Army guerrillas were meanwhile fighting pitched battles with the Nazis in Warsaw"

"Lesinski confronted Congress with the 18 April 1943 Washington Times-Herald account of the Nazi charges"

"to convince Miss Harriman and her friends at the time that August 1941 was when the Poles had been killed and that the Nazis had actually done the killing."

"Red Army units advancing on the city, broadcast to the people of Warsaw the exhortation that they rise up and throw out the Nazis before"

"General Tadeusz Bor-Komorowski did just that, expecting the Red Army to lift the Nazi siege"

"the Red Army did not advance and the Nazis were allowed to shatter the Free Polish military"

"Crushed by its Nazi SS besiegers, the Home Army surrendered on October 5th"

"thought the Soviet and Nazi governments equally bad"

"thought the Soviet government worse than the Nazi version"

"only slightly better or worse than the Nazi government."

"the Russians maintaining the biggest front against the Nazis"

I'm not yet a fifth of the way through the paper but I'm sure you get the point. - Schrandit (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

If you like we go over each of the example you think support your case. Like us start with

(http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005473)

Let see what support your case for using Nazi:

The Nazis considered Poles to be racially inferior.

The Nazis sought to destroy Polish culture by eliminating the Polish political, religious, and intellectual leadership.

The Nazis sent thousands more to the newly built Auschwitz concentration camp, to Stutthof, and to other concentration camps in Germany where non-Jewish Poles constituted the majority of inmates until March 1942.

The Nazis conducted indiscriminate retaliatory measures against populations in areas where resistance was encountered.

Nazi governors (such as Arthur Greiser in the Warthegau and Albert Forster in Danzig-West Prussia) expelled hundreds of thousands of Poles from their homes in the Generalgouvernement.

Hundreds of thousands were also imprisoned in Nazi concentration camps

That seems to be 6 points to you.

The German occupation of Poland

Germans launched a campaign of terror.

German police units shot thousands of Polish civilians

German contempt for Polish culture

the German occupation authorities launched AB-Aktion”

the Germans shot thousands of teachers, priests, and other intellectuals in mass killings in and around Warsaw, especially in the city's Pawiak prison.

the Germans expelled over 100,000 people from the Zamosc region

subjected to "Germanization" policies.

the Polish resistance staged a violent mass uprising against the Germans in Warsaw in August 1944. The rebellion lasted two months but was eventually crushed by the Germans

It is estimated that the Germans killed at least 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War II. In addition, the Germans murdered at least 3 million Jewish citizens of Poland

That’s 10 points to me.

It clear to me that you must accept that using German for the occupation, crimes, etc is fully supported by your references but occasional they abbreviate Nazi Germany to Nazi. The alternative is these articles make no sense as they claim both Germans and Nazis occupied the same land, both the Germans and the Nazis had contempt for Poles, etc.Jniech (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1 - These are not my sources, these are the sources that you claimed are fairly represented by the article. I can dig up plenty of sources but instead of doing that I just took a look at the ones you kept bringing up.

2 - The sources do not exclusively use the term "German" as this article does, they use it the same way they use "Russian" in place of "Soviet".

3 - Neither one of us is changing our minds, I'm going for a third opinion. - Schrandit (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You don’t have to change my mind, merely show proof that your case is valid. Using the reference from the article was silly as they were always going to say German more than Nazi.

Please keep all editors informed of any debate of this page.

Further please note that Nazis are referred in the article e.g. Nazi Germany, Nazis' goal, a Nazi secret program, Nazis in occupied Poland, Nazi terror, Nazi leadership. Nazis upon the city's population, and the end of the Nazi crimes are all in the article. This is done when the sources support the Nazi not German. Jniech (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That is just silly. Some of the sources are going to say "German" but that terminology is both purposeless and incorrect and we should change it. Like we do by changing "Russian" to Soviet.

For example;

The Source - "The Russians deported almost 1,700,000 Polish non-Jews to Siberia." (http://www.remember.org/forgotten/)

The Article - "the Soviets deported more than 1,500,000 Poles," - Schrandit (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on War crimes in occupied Poland during World War II/Archive 2 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Another disclaimer: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This opinion is one of that kind. I don't think that the exact terminology used by the sources is important unless there is clear evidence in the source that the author was specifically making the distinction, in the context in which the work is cited as a source, between the two terms in question. If that is not the case, then I don't think that it's any more original research to change the term for consistency or clarity than it would be to use the alternate term to reword the source to avoid a copyright violation. That being equal, I think that the name of the national government involved should be used, i.e. Germany or Soviet. I know that some of those countries would now like to distance themselves from the acts of groups within their governments during that era, but who they were is who they were. Consider: Would we refer to the Republican Party seizure of Baghdad in 2003? No, we'd refer to the US seizure. The fact that the Republican Party was in control of the US government at the time would not make any difference. The same would be true for any war crimes perpetrated by US forces during that seizure. If a government was a puppet government, such as the Vichy or Lublin governments, I would usually make that distinction clear, especially if there was a government in exile elsewhere. If the crimes were perpetrated by some specific ethnic group or foreign nationals unambiguously working for a government and the fact of their identity was relevant to the context in the article and was supported by the source, I would make that distinction too, making clear both the identity of the individuals and for whom they were working (if not important to the context, I would merely refer to the government for which they were working). But I would not use, for example, Nazi for German simply because there were some Germans who weren't Nazis or merely because the Nazis were a subset of the German government or German people.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, we refer to the Coalition seizure of Baghdad in 2003 as many of the troops were not Americans.

I agree that if, "the crimes were perpetrated by some specific ethnic group or foreign nationals unambiguously working for a government", but this is worth noting, but this is not one of those cases. In addition to substantial Non-German units formed toward the beginning of the war most units of the German Heer were bolstering their numbers with Hilfswilligeren, some of them very heavily (a full half of the 71st and 76th Infantry divisions). Most Nazi units were mostly German, but very few meet your "some specific ethnic group or foreign nationals" suggestion while some, particularly operating in Poland, were made up mostly of non-Germans. History is complex and we are obliged to tell of it. I fear this generalization may fall short of that duty.

Is it accurate to describe these Nazi soldiers as German?

How about these ones?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrandit (talk • contribs) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My thanks to TransporterMan for taking the time to comment on this issue. I would like to discuss your views on original research on your talk page if that would be alright.

I take it by Schrandit reply this has not gotten us further forward?

Regarding the photos that Schrandit has added, the short answer is no it wouldn't be correct and has not been done in this article to my knowledge. The first is a unit made up of Indians called the Indische Legion shown in France. To my knowledge were never in Poland hence couldn’t have committed an atrocities there. The second photo I have no knowledge of. Still both appear to be non-Germans hence if they have carried out atrocities in Poland then I would refer to them as such like I did for the SS-Sturmbrigade RONA to make it clear that unit wasn’t German.

The simple answer to this problem is for Schrandit to say which units were made up mostly of non-Germans, which atrocities they were involved in and those non-Germans inside German units (rather than foreign units) show these non-Germans took part as Hilfswilliger were generally used for supplementary service (e.g. drivers, cooks, hospital attendants, ammunition carriers, messengers) then we can correct the article or add the information. Jniech (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How German does a German unit have to be? 95% German? 85% German? 60% German? 51% German? or just plurality German? What if it was 95% German in 1940, then 60% German in 1942 and 40% German in 1944? Is it still a German unit? What if most of a Division's regiments are German but one is entirely Cossack - is it a German division? If it was German soldiers commanded by a Hungarian is it still a "German crime"? What if exact ethnic figures cannot be found? What if they are disputed?

The logical thing to do, in my opinion, would be to handle these descriptions just like we do with the Soviet army but barring that solution what will the qualifications be for ascribing a crime to the German people? - Schrandit (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My answer to Schrandit would be the number is at the time of the atrocity not at all points of the war. The amount is not important as if you have the details, we can work it for each atrocity e.g. let assume you find out that 50 Germans and 5 Poles took part it in a massacre we could be worded the German unit with a few Poles in their ranks carried out the murders or even simply put the numbers.

There were seveal units in the whermacht that were half Germand and half non-German. Are they German units? Are their crimes German crimes? - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no way to change the descriptions like with the Soviet army. You can’t use Nazi as not all of them were Nazis (15 million served in the various German forces during WWII, 8 million in the Nazi party assuming ½ were elderly, woman, other non-combatants then somewhere between 1/3 and ¼ of the German forces were Nazis). We can’t use Axis as not all of them took part in atrocities in Poland. There is no word other than German.

What percentage of Soviet troops were members of Soviets? Clearly the term, through its use in academic discourse and in other articles of the same nature is acceptable. - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Let try a different route. Over at the World War II article it makes many claims about Germany and Germans. Here is a selection of them

Germany invaded Poland.

The war crimes were committed by German forces.

The Holocaust was the notorious German crime

It has territories controlled by Germany.

The Germans test biological and chemical weapons against civilians.

It states Sixty percent of Soviet POWs of the Germans died during the war.

Stalingrad was in the path of the advancing German armies

By mid-November the Germans had nearly taken Stalingrad

German troops at Stalingrad had been forced to surrender

Schrandit said “Even though the German Sixth Army was the main body at Stalingrad a quarter of its strength was non-German. Labeling units as German serves no point and is usually incorrect.”

Surely you can see the point that that statement makes? - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If Schrandit can get German written out of that article, then Schrandit can do what Schrandit likes with this article. Jniech (talk) 14:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to say something? - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the analogy between "Russians vs Soviets" and "Germans vs Nazi" is not correct. Russians were just one of the nations of the USSR (which had no title nation), so the "Soviets" were used as a name for the citizens of the USSR irrespective of their ethnicity. By contrast, the word "German" was (and is) used to describe both nationality and citizenship (which is almost the same in contemporary Europe). In that sense, it would be more correct to speak about "Soviets vs Communists" and "Germans vs Nazi". Although the Paulus' Army was composed not only of the ethnic Germans, it was a German not Nazi army. Although Auschwitz was run by mostly German administration, it was a Nazi, not German camp. All crimes committed by SS and similar NSDAP related formations were the Nazi crimes. However, all Wehrmacht actions must be attributed to the Germans, not to Nazi.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the distinction you are making between the wehrmacht and the rest of the axis. Do you think that wehrmacht units should still be labled as German when they were made up of non-Germans? - Schrandit (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

To Schrandit: Can I suggest you put your comments at the end, as it getting very confusing as I missed some of your comments as they are embedded. Further it maybe worth starting a new section as this one is getting long or even dividing the debate into areas to make it easier to follow.

If a Wermacht unit was half German and half non-German then it is a German unit with a large number of foreign troops. It should be made clear that the crime was not carried out solely by ethnic Germans but Germans were present and had overall control.

Soviet troops simply mean they come from the Soviet Union hence membership of a Soviet is not necessary.

Paul and Schrandit you both appear experienced editors. Do you not agree that Wikipedia encourages article using the same standardises? Now if we can’t call them German in this article, then we can’t in other articles. Does Schrandit plan to challenge the 6th Army (Germany) article as being wrong? The Battle of Stalingrad article? The World War II article? There are thousands of articles on German units that Schrandit claims can’t described as such. If Schrandit doesn’t plan to challenge those articles then why is challenging this article? I repeat that should take this debate to somewhere the debate will involve more editors such as World War II article as would get the input of more editors. Jniech (talk) 19:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The 6th Army is a bit different, it was a unit of the Heer and it has a history in Germany that stretches well before the Nazi regime but you do have a point, this is a rather systemic conversation, and WP:RFC may be called for. I recall a similar dispute on Irish-related pages was resolved this way. It is a thought. - Schrandit (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am glad if I understand you correctly that you accept that this debate is more than an issue with a single article. Still I want you to name the articles you plan to challenge for using German beyond this article. It must be hundreds if not thousands. I stand by this article being fair compare to other Wikipedia articles and matching sources. There is no way if the rules you want applied to this article were applied to all Wikipedia articles that it would be accepted by the bulk of Wikipedia editors. Jniech (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading this article and it jumped out at me. Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right. If we file an RFC, which would not be unreasonable, editors would be obliged to follow its recommendations when they can across all articles on English Wikipedia. I'd be willing to file. - Schrandit (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC on German terror v. Nazi terror

((In part starting a new section as the old one was getting so long))

Schrandit talked about filing a RFC but unsure still what he plans to ask. Schrandit said “Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right.”. I agree as they clearly use German(y), the same way this articles does

Examples from Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles

The majority of those killed by Nazi Germany were civilians

Germany intended to realize the plan laid-out by the Nazi leader Adolf Hitler

The aim of this plan was to turn Eastern Europe into part of greater Germany

the so-called German Lebensraum ("living space")

invading forces of Nazi Germany

Columns of fleeing refugees were systematically attacked by the German fighter and dive-bomber aircraft.

During the 1939 German invasion of Poland

It was continued by the German AB-Aktion operation in Poland

The Einsatzgruppen were also responsible for the murder of Jews and Poles during the German invasion of the Soviet Union

Polish attacks against German troops and mass executions were conducted in reprisal

German army and paramilitary units composed of Volksdeutsche also participated in executions of civilians

for every German killed a group of between 50 and 100 Polish civilians were executed

the Germans engaged in cultural genocide

It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles

Germany planned to completely remove the indigenous population of Poland.

their place was to be taken by the German military and civilian settlers.

During the occupation, more than one million Poles were expelled by German authorities,

923,000 Poles ethnically cleansed from territories Germany annexed into the Reich

German-occupied Poland

German-occupied Europe

German forces utilized to indiscriminately round up civilians off the street.

German invasion of Poland,

Although Germany also used forced laborers from Western Europe, Poles and other : :Germans closed elementary schools where Polish was the language of instruction

The Germans also closed seminaries and convents persecuting monks and nuns throughout Poland.

German forces committed many atrocities against Polish civilians

Heinz Reinefarth's command and the amnestied German criminals

Polish resistance fighters were not considered by Germans as combatants

Examples from Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs

soldiers of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany

the subsequent German–Soviet War

Some of them were arbitrarily executed in the field by the German forces

died under inhuman conditions in German prisoner of war camps

when the Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs primarily through starvation

By comparison, between 374,000 and 1 million German prisoners of war died in Soviet labor camps

ill-equipped German troops

The Allied regulars kept by Germany

prisoners in the German concentration camps.

during the German invasion,

the Germans did not want to ship these prisoners back to Germany

until some German soldiers became infected.

Soviet–German War

Sobibor, after which the Germans closed and dismantled the camp.

German leaders decided to use prisoners for forced labour

One often finds statements that Soviet POWs who survived German captivity

Thousands of Soviet POWs indeed survived through collaboration, many of them joining German forces including the SS

Can Schrandit explain what those articles got right and this article got wrong?

Further does Schrandit agree that Wikipedia requires consistency? We won’t be allowed to use German unless we are sure it only involves ethnic Germans? For example I take it Schrandit would agree that in the article Germany national football team, all references to German team, German players and the like must be removed as this wrongly implies they are all ethnic Germans living in Germany. The current squad includes many born outside Germany, have non-German parents’, etc e.g.

Serdar Tasci has Turish parents

Jérôme Boateng has a Ghanaian father

Sami Khedira father is from Tunisia

Mesut Özil is of Turkish descent

Michael Ballack lives in England

Piotr Trochowski was born in Poland to Polish parents

Thomas Hitzlsperger lives in Italy

Aaron Hunt has an English mother,

Marko Marin is of Serbian descent

Lukas Podolski was born in Poland to Polish parents

Miroslav Klose was born in Poland to Polish parents

Mario Gómez father is a Spaniard

Cacau was born in Brazilia

Robert Huth lives in England

Andreas Beck was born in Kemerovo then part of Soviet Union

Dennis Aogo of Nigerian descent

Andreas Hinkel lives in Scotland

With there being thousands of articles, e.g. Rape of Belgium, talking about German as if all those involved were ethnic Germans, it would impossible to monitor or enforce the ruling let alone do the work to change the existing articles from German into a neutral form.

Further to ensure consistency will the same standard be set for non-German articles? For example the article on Guantanamo Bay says it “is a detainment facility of the United States” but not all those involved in the war were American, not all those who work at the camp are American, not all Americans support the war, etc. If the ruling enforces that German become Nazi then should we not change American to say Republican? Will it change as the President is now a Democratic? Will the ruling mean we change the massacre at Jedwabne so it simply reads Nazi collaborators rather than Poles? What about the Boer wars it claims it was between the Boers and Britain but other countries such as Australians, Canada and New Zealand sent troops, what will that be changed to?

If what you want is to be consistently applied across Wikipedia, it basically means rewriting most of the articles. Jniech (talk) 11:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, especially not stupid ones. Read up on how an RFC work, look at past filings and then come back. - Schrandit (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn’t means to put words in your mouth. I thought I understood your argument then applied the logic beyond this article.

Please explain what the following sentence means as clearly I got it wrong. “Its not a huge deal and most of the others that I have looked at, like Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs seem to already have it, in my opinion, right.” Thanks in advance for your help Jniech (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm raising a pretty reasonable concern about what ought be the correct shorthand for various units in the Second World War. You are spinning purposely illogical and unraised points about the names of soccer teams and descriptions of Guantanamo Bay and then claiming that these are analogous to my statements. You point out that Wikipedia is currently pretty inconsistent when it comes to shorthand for various units in the Second World War. I think ought open up an WP:RFC to solicit other opinions and hopefully come up with a general suggestion on that matter for the WP:MOS. This is how discussion on such broad topics, or discussions about a general but important page are gone about. There is a nice example of one regarding the Catholic Church happening now.

So, I'll write a brief description of the disagreement, very short and as neutral as I can make it, something like; "We were discussing how the description of units in the second world war should read on the page World War II crimes in Poland and have not come to an agreed upon conclusion. It was pointed out that English Wikipedia is inconsistent in its description of forces in the second world war and we would like to get some broader input on the issue."

I'll write up a proposed solution, you write up a proposed solution, then other parties, if they are so interested, will also write up proposals and everyone will discuss them. There is a good chance that with greater discussion and fresh ideas we will arrive at some sort of a compromise and that will likely be posted as a guideline on Wikipedia's manual of style or maybe we won't agree on anything and nothing will change.

What do you think? - Schrandit (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

In the main I support your last posting which does seem fairer than when we started this debate (i.e. not just Nazi vs. German but a general discussion of naming units). I do see it as a positive move forward hence thank you. I still have a few issues and thoughts which I hope you will consider.

First why are we limiting it to World War Two? Should it not be consistent across different wars? This issue equally affects the Boer Wars, First World War and Second Gulf War for example. Likewise if there is an issue naming German units then the same is true of anything using German such as for football teams. Hence I don’t see it as “spinning purposely illogical” to raise these issues as I did. Still limiting it to war related, can you please explain why we should limit it to WWII? Personally any modern war, say inside the last 130 to 150 years, should be covered.

Second can you explain why you limited it to units? What about the issue of who occupied a country. We could end up with a German occupied Poland where Nazi carried out atrocities. Any comments on this?

I have no interest in writing a proposed solution as such. I will ask on the WikiProject Poland page to see if any of them would care to take part if we go down this route.

Finally as you appear to know much more about how Wikipedia works than I do, could you comment on this. Without seeing your proposal I can’t be sure but I feel your proposal will either fail or make editors lives impossible as data on the ethnic make-up of most units is unavailable. Would it be simpler to put a disclaimer on articles e.g. the usage of ethnicity/nationality, e.g. German, doesn’t necessarily mean all were that ethnicity/nationality. Please reword as you see fit if you see any mileage in this. Jniech (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

1 - Not really sure why I'm limiting it to WW2. Other conflicts suffer from confusing labeling as well. Optimally I'd like to open up the discussion on just WW2, see if we conclude anything productive and then ask if those conclusions can be applied to other conflicts as well.

2 - I don't think it should be limited to units. I think article titles like Nazi concentration camps, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina or the Commonwealth evacuation of Greece are preferable in this regard and that most articles should be titled along those lines.

3 - I realize the burden of finding ethnic data on mixed units and suspect that in most cases it will be unobtainable. This is one of the reasons I think it is better to default describe units/actions in political rather than ethnic terms, only moving to ethnic terms when the data is available.

4 - Do you think my above statement of our discussion is accurate/neutral? - Schrandit (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Very busy but here are some initial thoughts which I hope answer your questions.

1 – In agreement. I would even suggest we limit it further initially. As this comes out of a discussion in Poland during WWII, we could limit it to units normally called Polish, Russia/Soviet and Nazi/German in WWII but make it plain this is with a view to expanding well beyond this before starting alternating Wikipedia.

2 – I don’t agree with titles such as Nazi as not all those involved were Nazis. Still I agree it better to widen the discussion beyond just units.

3 – I disagree at present but it seems to have some merit. You're going to have to explain it more before I would support it. Some Germans fought for their country not for a belief in Nazi policies. Further you appear to be making all Germans supporters of Nazi ideology which they were not. What about the British as they were basically fighting for their country not for a political idea? What would Polish units be at the start of the war, middle and after the war? What happens if units fight those with the same political views? Perhaps a few examples will help make it clearer.

4 – I accept it more neutral than focusing only on Nazi vs. German but I don’t support it at present but if you want willing to listen to further arguments from you. Alternatively raise a RFC as you previously suggested or some other action to get more editors discussing it.

5 – How do we avoid this being original research? I know German/Nazi are both used but not really seen anything than Polish. Any comment on this? 17:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: " We could end up with a German occupied Poland where Nazi carried out atrocities. " Not completely correct. Since not only NSDAP structures were involved in athrocities, it is incorrect to speak about Nazi crimes exclusively. Wehrmacht crimes were not Nazi crimes. Population transfer or usage of slave labour were not Nazi crimes. Although it is possibly correct to speak about the Holocaust as Nazi crime (because it was an implementation of the Nazi doctrine and was performed mostly by NSDAP structures), many other actions should be attributed to Germany (as the state or as the nation), not to the Nazi party only. And, again, to avoid incorrect analogies with "Russian/Soviet/Communist", please, keep in mind that, whereas different words were used in the USSR to describe a nationality and citizenship ("Russian", or "Ukrainian", or "Jew" etc vs "Soviet"), in Germany (that, by contrast to the USSR, did have one title nation) the word "German" meant both nationality (ethnicity) and citizenship.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)