Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Winstone on fear

User:E-960 made this change. Here's some context:

Extended content

It may therefore reasonably be said that only a minority actively helped Jews, just as a minority actively persecuted them. As in every other country, the response of the largest part of society was indifference with varying degrees of sympathy, ambivalence or enmity. It is undoubtedly true that a major inhibition to greater help was fear. Frank’s shooting order of October 1941 had left rescuers potentially liable to the death penalty. Although the numbers so punished were less than might have been expected (in the hundreds), the threat was real, as demonstrated by the fate of Mieczysław Wolski and his nephew Janusz Wysocki who were executed together with Ringelblum and the other 33 Jews they were hiding in March 1944. In the countryside, there was a genuine fear of collective reprisals, whether against families or the whole village, which helps to explain why some farmers changed their minds or other villagers attempted to expel the Jews, especially since, as in other respects, the sołtys did face real pressures from the Germans. However, there were many crimes which carried the death penalty in the General Government. As Michał Berg put it, it was clear that the Poles ‘were a courageous people, and were threatened with death not only for sheltering Jews, but for many other things’, such as smuggling or underground work. Yet ‘they kept right on doing them. Why was it that only helping Jews scared them?’ It may well be that the risk of hiding a Jew was greater, but that is in itself suggestive since the Germans were not the only danger. Rather too many survivors’ accounts echoed the experience of Leon Weliczker at liberation: his rescuer Kalwinski ‘asked us not to come back to visit him or for any other reason; it would be hard for him if it were known that he had hidden Jews’. Furthermore, fear can only adequately explain sins of omission – such as the refusal or even cessation of shelter – not those of commission like denunciation or murder. ... The behaviour of Gentiles during Aktion Reinhard therefore presented a less than wholly edifying picture. It should be repeated that such a conclusion is not a judgement on Poles (or Ukrainians) but, sadly, on human nature. This was a pattern repeated across the continent. That responses were sometimes more extreme in the GG than in most other territories may primarily be seen as reflection of the fact that it was the central killing ground. Indeed, it could be argued that making judgements about national character – positive or negative – may not be the wisest lesson to draw from the Holocaust. Rather, one suspects that few people could honestly say how they would have reacted in such situations. (Winstone (2014), pp. 183-184)

François Robere (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, ok, I made the change, but the suggestion to include this statement was made by Xx236, and minor adjustments were recommend by 198.84.253.202. So, this statement was hardly my own initiative, but rather one of the few examples of compromise. --E-960 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Noted. It's still problematic, as it seems - again - like synthesis for the sake of apologetics, rather than a straightforward summary of Winstone. François Robere (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is the discussion Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland#Academic book about the GG, so this statement was done through consensus, yet you just took it down in one swipe, let's not return to the bad habit of deleting entire sections of text. --E-960 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

That someone failed to notice - is not an excuse for text that grossly misrepresents the sources - and our text at the moment clearly misrepresents Winstone. I'll note that we probably should add content from Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz - which seems quite relevant and is a widely cited book (over 350 citations by scholar).Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Just stop with the overblown statements of disapproval, this is really coming across as a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The text simply says that most Poles did not help or on the other hand did not persecute Jew. That's exactly what Winstone says. Also, this statement was re-edited by other editors who think it still accurate enough, so we are not going to just remove text when user FR or you decide that you don't like it — you're not going to re-challenge every statement in the article, every several days, until you get your way and it's removed. It's obvious that this is what you are doing. --E-960 (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Btw, the book by Gross that you are referencing to, is about post-war events, so it does not relate to collaboration. Also, Gross has been criticized for synthesis, taking a the Kielce pogrom and assuming that happened everywhere. --E-960 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No, this is coming across as "none of you read the source and you're quoting it based on a review." The text has a complex position which, I might add, I very much agree with: That the issue at hand is not one of nationality, but of individuals' choice. As such, quoting it as if it acquits Poles as a nation of antisemitism and its ilk is not only WP:SYNTH - it's deceptive. François Robere (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Please, you challenge every statement in this article (even if the text was added through consensus), and if you fail to get your way, you just re-start the discussion a few days later, this is a clear case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it and WP:FORUMSHOP. --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's go with this, sentence by sentence. Taking what is presently in the article:

Historian Martin Winstone writes that only a minority of Poles actually took part in persecuting or helping the Jews.

This is directly supported by the first sentence directly from Winstone, who says "It may therefore reasonably be said that only a minority actively helped Jews, just as a minority actively persecuted them." Next:

Winstone also downplays claims regarding the purported Polish lack of resolve in saving Jews in German-occupied Poland, noting that the tendency not to help was due more to natural human wariness rather than to ethnocentrism.

Again, this is supported by the original text from Winstone, who says "As in every other country, the response of the largest part of society was indifference with varying degrees of sympathy, ambivalence or enmity. It is undoubtedly true that a major inhibition to greater help was fear." and "It should be repeated that such a conclusion is not a judgement on Poles (or Ukrainians) but, sadly, on human nature. This was a pattern repeated across the continent. That responses were sometimes more extreme in the GG than in most other territories may primarily be seen as reflection of the fact that it was the central killing ground. Indeed, it could be argued that making judgements about national character – positive or negative – may not be the wisest lesson to draw from the Holocaust."
In short, Winstone says that the vast majority of Poles were indifferent (neither collaborating nor resisting) to what was happening (something which can be explained mostly by fear, i.e. as quoted "a major inhibition to greater help was fear."), and that this isn't caused by ethnocentric tendencies (i.e. as quoted "such a conclusion is not a judgement on Poles (or Ukrainians)") but by human nature - which, surprise, also happens to be exactly what is said in the article... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Winstone)

I agree, this statement is quite accurate to what the entire text by Winstone says, and you made a couple of minor adjustments such as removing the word "blatant" and I think that's fine, in order to make the text more neutral. --E-960 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

You're doing a very narrow reading of a broad text. That chapter covers a variety of behaviors, including some of the worst that were exhibited in Poland during those times. He doesn't "downplay" anything, least of all anti-Semitism; nor does he say anything about "weariness". What he does do is claim this shouldn't be used for generalizations of the kind this very text tries to do, and that all of this should be judged on the individual's level: He describes both Polish, German and Ukrainian people who took part in either saving or destroying lives, and even gives an almost ambivalent description of Hans Frank. "The Holocaust was made possible at every stage by moral choices" - it's a complex message, and one that directly contradicts the subtext of what you're trying to include - that people do not bear responsibility for their choices. François Robere (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No. The text here says "whole nationalities do not bear responsibility for the choices of individuals" and that is exactly what it says. Saying it is "caused by human nature" does not excuse it. As for what the source says and what is in the article, we have a secondary source (i.e. the review) analyzing what is written - per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources". Winstone's book is a secondary source about the events it describes, but a primary source for what is written in it. Since we disagree on what it says exactly, we should trust the review of the book more than our gut feelings about what we think Winstone is saying, especially since the reading it makes is more reliable than the interpretation random wikipedians can make - by relying on the review, we avoid possible POV problems while making sure that the text represents the source accurately... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I find that the content, as added, does not quite match the spirit of Winstone's text. He does not "downplay" the responsibility. If he "downplays" anything, it's perhaps the effect of the death penalty for aiding Jews on the Polish population. In another thread, I pointed out a source that says that the death penalty was a common form of punishment under the German rule across Eastern Europe, for many forms of active or passive resistance, including aiding the Jews. Winstone says: "However, there were many crimes which carried the death penalty in the General Government. (...) Yet ‘they [Polish citizens] kept right on [resisting]. Why was it that only helping Jews scared them?’". Winstone provides a nuanced discussion of what has occurred, without excusing or vilifying. I think this is missing in the content that I see in the diff at the top of the thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, not all Poles helped Jews and not all Poles worked for the Resistance, most were on the sideline (scared to help and scared to fight). I would say the current statement in article is fair, however this discussion is a type of WP:FORUMSHOP initiated by user François Robere. If you notice his comments in the initial discussion he did not object to the wording, now in bulk he is questioning several statements at once. We are not going to re-open every discussion because of the Wikipedia:I just don't like it now argument, when the same editor keeps challenging multiple statement and when they don't get their way in a discussion, than a week or two later they just re-open the debate. --E-960 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I commented on whether the text in the diff matched the source. To me, it did not. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: Is this more acceptable or is it worse? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

198.84.253.202, E-960 You both admit this is a statement about human nature, then why are you proposing it for this article rather than for non-nationality-specific Collaboration with the Axis Powers or the Holocaust? François Robere (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the newly proposed text by 198.84.253.202 is quite acceptable, and at this point should resolve any more objections. --E-960 (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: I fail to see how an author who directly discusses the subject matter (collaboration with the Nazis in Poland, even giving Poland-specific examples) is not relevant to this article. Winstone also serves as a useful comparison with other countries - after all, Nazi occupation/the Holocaust wasn't limited to just Poland... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say he's not relevant, I said your attempt to draw this particular conclusion from that particular text is misguided, and doesn't actually reflect what he wrote (what K.e.coffman calls "the spirit of the text"). François Robere (talk) 13:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, "It may therefore reasonably be said that only a minority actively helped Jews, just as a minority actively persecuted them." this is the first sentence of the text which you provided above, and this is what's in the article now "Historian Martin Winstone writes that only a minority of Poles actually took part in persecuting or helping the Jews.". I think that it is pretty accurate, and same goes for the the other sentences, they capture the "spirit" of the text quite well. --E-960 (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

That sentence alone isn't contended. If you want to quote just that for "statistical purposes", shall we say, be my guest. The rest is a different matter. François Robere (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that you did not even bother to specify what part of the original statement you have an issue with, you keep moving the goal posts on this topic. --E-960 (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't clear. The two statements were added in the same revision, and I assumed you wanted them both. François Robere (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "I assumed you wanted them both"? Again, I was not the editor that proposed this source and text, just added it per other's suggestion. In any case, I'm assuming you are now fine with the neutrality changes that the IP 198.84.253.202 made earlier in relation to you comment, if you were able to notice them. However, you still did not say, what part of the original statement you had an issue with, which is very questionable in light of the current AE discussion on arguing against reference sources. --E-960 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but I didn't know that, did I? Again, the problem was with the flattening of a complex "global" message to suit a narrow, ethnic narrative. It's more than just an arithmetic composition of words - "remove that word, add this one". The IP's suggestion is an improvement over the previous statement, but still isn't a good summary of the text. Nevertheless, it's good enough that we can keep it for the meanwhile, seeing as we have more pressing concerns resulting from the policy changes the AE case will bring. François Robere (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point the revised text captures the full statement by Winstone quite well. I don't see a need to keep revisiting the issue. --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, not really. The relevant segment is several paragraphs long, and I didn't quote all of them. A proper summary of that segment must give an idea of the complexity of behavior and motives that he describes, which this fails to do. But again, as the biased subtext is gone, we can keep it for the time being. François Robere (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

First, you just deleted the entire text without gaining a consensus of any kind, or even stating on the talk page what your issue was with this text, now you can't even point to a particular passage or passages you have a problem with. This type of editing behavior is very questionable, and again comes across as WP:FORUMSHOP and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. The statement was added through consensus, it has a valid source, and per you request was adjusted, at this point since you can't articulate any further issues other then just voicing you dislike. This matter in practical terms is resolved. --E-960 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Drop the drama, and stop making accusations. It's two sentences, not a "whole text". If I think this needs to be rephrased, I'll rephrase it. In the meanwhile, I suggest you get a copy of the book - arguing as you do based on a review is ridiculous. François Robere (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. It's not about non-helping Jews.

If non-helping Jews is collaboration, so we need Collaboration in the USA and Collaboration in the UK, because the both nations did little during the first years of WWII.

Xx236 (talk) 06:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That section is about the Holocaust. It would be a flagrant one-sided, unbalanced section if we didn't mention the "general indifference by the population" or that "only very few actually collaborated in the Holocaust" or, similarly, that "only very few actually tried helping". The article subject being "collaboration" doesn't mean that we must talk only of collaboration, especially when that would introduce (additional) POV issues. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

How many non Jewish Poles died during the Holocaust IP? Do you know? If not check. So, who is responsible for not aiding these people? Those Poles who were “generally indifference” and somehow survived? GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, there is a passage in Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces [1] (pages 44-45), which perhaps should be included in the Holocaust section, to provide more depth on the controversial view that Poles lacked resolve in helping Jews because of alleged ethnocentrism that excluded Jews, this text is related to Poland and states: "...the traditional home of diaspora Jews [Poland] had to be compromised with with allegations of widespread Polish anti-semitism". This is a controversial statement, but it does provide an additional layer of perspective on this very complex topic — the publishing house is McFarland & Company.--E-960 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I fail to see how this is relevant to the Holocaust: Poles died. Germans (yes, the evil bad guys too) died. French, Italians, English, Americans, etc... died. That is the story of World War II, and it is most surely not specific to Poland... 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@198.84.253.202: How do you read that quote? What does it convey from your perspective? François Robere (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Winstone still doesn't refer to anybody in particular. "The Germans were not the only danger", yes, but he doesn't precisely say what the "other dangers" are. Given the continued talk page fuss this has caused (this section and "François_Robere_misrepresenting_sources,_again"), we better just not mention that Winstone suggests anybody (because he doesn't, or if he does it's in an extremely subtle way and us writing it in the article would be WP:SYNTH). Solves the problem, once and for all (hopefully?). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresented sources, again

François Robere, I'm a not sure why you decided to change the text related to the Martin Winstone reference, from "suggesting those who hid Jews were also in danger from Polish szmalcowniks" back to "suggesting those who hid Jews were also in danger from their fellow Poles". Not only is "fellow Poles" a broad term which crudely implicates all Poles, but in your Edit Summary you wrote that "This is post-war ("at liberation"), so "szmalcowniks" were no longer an issue." How do you even justify that Winstone was talking about post-war, when in his statement he specifically talks about Germans, and Frank’s shooting order of October 1941? I ask other editors to review this text, because this again appears as a blatant misrepresentation of what the reference source actually says. --E-960 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Sadly it seems like a misrepresentation of sources, possibly FR made a mistake. It has been fixed now, that’s good.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@E-960, Volunteer Marek, and GizzyCatBella: You're really pushing WP:BATTLEGROUND here [2].

1. What does the phrase "at liberation" means, and what does it imply for the statement that follows?
2. Who does Winstone suggest was a danger in "the Germans were not the only danger"?

"It may well be that the risk of hiding a Jew was greater, but that is in itself suggestive since the Germans were not the only danger. Rather too many survivors’ accounts echoed the experience of Leon Weliczker at liberation: his rescuer Kalwinski ‘asked us not to come back to visit him or for any other reason; it would be hard for him if it were known that he had hidden Jews’."

François Robere (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you are mixing two different statements related to two different ideas. You took the end of one thought relating to the German occupation, Frank’s shooting order of October 1941, etc. and combined it with a reference to the a post-war experience — pls note that the 'rescuer Kalwinski' says "it would be hard for him" but, he does not that he would be in "danger". So, the latter passage clearly relates to a different experience, at a different time, other than during the actual occupation (btw, pls keep in mind that this article is about collaboration during the German occupation, not post-war). --E-960 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: In this case the text is stating that "...it would be hard for him..." means "danger." The paragraph begins by describing the risk of hiding jews and continues, "Germans were not the only danger... Kalwinski ‘asked us not to come back to visit him or for any other reason; it would be hard for him if it were known that he had hidden Jews’."

Also, Robere is correct [3] that the text is describing a postwar danger for Poles who had previously hidden Jews. However, I think the text leaves some ambiguity as to whether the danger being described applies equally to the war period. -Darouet (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's in the same paragraph. I didn't mix anything up. And that paragraph is about the war. Now answer the questions! François Robere (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hm, now you just said that it "is about the war", but in your Edit Summary you wrote "this is post-war". Clearly, the second part of that passage is not related to collaboration, since the Germans would have been gone. So, if the source is a unclear or ambiguous in its wording, why persist on keeping the questionable text. --E-960 (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Because you messed it up with a reference to "szmalcownik", which is a wartime term and not part of the actual quote. Also, Winstone didn't talk about szmalcowniks specifically.

Clearly, the second part of that passage is not related to collaboration Clearly, you shouldn't make accusations before reading the text. What is that part about? François Robere (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

In that case, the entire passage after the long pause should be removed, if it's not related to szmalcowniks and talks about post-war experience. --E-960 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

How you manage to break that one paragraph into so many little parts so as to claim it's devoid of meaning is beyond me. François Robere (talk) 14:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think this has been hopefully solved now[4]GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Collaboration by Armia Ludowa (People's Army)

One glaring omission from this article is the collaboration by the communist Armia Ludowa. Generally and specifically. In particular the joint AL-Gestapo action in Krakow in February of 1944 in which they captured the archives of the Krakow Home Army (pg. 27). Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Please see above Communist collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes but Communist collaboration seems not be discussing AL-Gestapo action in Krakow. Should I make an effort on adding this info into the article Xx236? What other editors think? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I have mentioned a number of examples I know, I don't know about Krakow. Is the information available somewhere here, eg. in Armia Ludowa? If not, please start there, which isn't controversial.Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Please throw every bit of verifiable skulduggery by every party into this collective compost heap so that we may once and for all establish the vileness of the human species. This will prepare us well for taking up, in turn, the crimes against humanity of our own time. Nihil novi (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support a short statement on the AL. --E-960 (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It was Communist Armia Ludowa tactical cooperation? Similar to NZS? GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Double agents aren't tactical.Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Colors

What are the rules of using grren or blue texts? Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Green text is usually generated by the tq template. Blue text is, obviously, wikilinks. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

There's more than one kind of "denouncer"

A recurring theme in the discussions on this talk page was the identity of the people who denounced Jews to the Germans. Some editors claimed this was a marginal phenomenon, limited to what's known as "szmalcowniks", or "blackmailers". However, it's well-known that this wasn't the case - denouncers were "ordinary people" coming from all walks of life. Many sources address this, and I hope this handful will resolve this discussion once and for all:

• Take any Polish book on the subject, preferably one with a happy ending, written by or about Jewish survivors who lived through the war assisted by the Poles. One realizes immediately from such a reading that the hiding Jews, as well as the Poles who were helping them, were vulnerable to denunciation. German functionaries, Gestapo agents, or extortionists who blackmailed Jews (the so-called szmalcownik), as the literature on the subject tells us, were few and far between in occupied Poland,and therefore the likelihood of a chance encounter with any of them was negligible for a hiding Jew. Why was it so difficult and dangerous,then, to hide a Jew? Reading Bartoszewski and Lewin’s volume, Righteous among Nations—compiled to show the record of assistance extended to Jews—makes one realize that the precariousness of a Jew’s existence among the Poles was due to a generalized, diffuse hostility toward the Jews. Historical record shows, I think, beyond reasonable doubt that a constant danger for a Jew hiding on the Aryan side, and for the Pole helping him to do so, came from a casual passerby, a house superintendent, a neighbor, a child playing in the courtyard who might, and frequently did, reveal a Jew’s presence outside the ghetto...

  — The politics of retribution in Europe: World War II and its aftermath. István Deák, Jan Tomasz Gross, Tony Judt (eds.). Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. 2000. p. 87. ISBN 978-0-691-00954-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

• It must be clearly said that Poles did denounce Jews to the Germans during the occupation... Since they did denounce the Jews, we need to examine the practice of denouncing—who was denounced and how?

  — Engelking, Barbara (2012). "Murdering and Denouncing Jews in the Polish Countryside, 1942–1945". The Holocaust in occupied Poland: New Findings and New Interpretations. Bern; New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang. pp. 61–67. ISBN 978-3-653-01247-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Engelking gives examples of denouncments:

• ...of Jewish children by the Poles who hid them for money
• ...by landlords who had Jews hiding on their grounds
• ...by acquaintances, neighbours and friends
• ...by passers-by - peasants, villagers, people roaming the forest
• ...of Jewish children by Polish children

She mentions greed was an important motive for denouncement - both for a reward from the Germans, as well as "[The] desire for the Jewish property... [which] was often based only on the belief that Jews were wealthy."

• Both Skibińska (Skibińska, Alina (2012). "Perpetrators' Self-Portrait". The Holocaust in occupied Poland: New Findings and New Interpretations. Bern; New York, N.Y.: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-3-653-01247-7. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)) and Snyder (Snyder, Timothy (2015). "12". Black earth: the Holocaust as history and warning (First edition ed.). New York: Tim Duggan Books. ISBN 978-1-101-90345-2. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)) give a myriad of examples of denunciation, the latter characterizing it as a common phenomenon in the Polish countryside both between Poles and Jews, and Poles and Poles. Skibińska concentrates on the motives and rationals of denouncers, as given in post-war trials; Snyder gives a complex account of behaviors and motives, including both help and denouncement, both in Poland and abroad, reaching some harsh, but enlightening conclusions that I recommend all editors read.

François Robere (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Denouncers existed in many countries Sonderabteilung Lola. If an editor writes only about denouncers in Poland, is it possible that he is biased? Snyder writes about abroad but the editor doesn't inform us which abroad.

There is no general study of the subject in Poland. Why don't you inform which groups are described by Skibińska and Engelking? The terror system in both occupations exterminated good people, cruel ones survived.

The study by both authors has been financed by Polish taxpayers, including me. It seems that some other countries are greedy to study their vices. Who finances study of Jewish denouncers? Hannah Arendt isn't popular in Israel.

Poland existed about 20 years. Many Poles were born and educated in Germany, Austria or Russia, sometimes in two of the three countries. Many good citizens inform the authorities.

Poland is known to have low Social capital. Some reasons were occupations and terror, poverty, slavery. Slavery was imposed by local nobility, but occuptions and terrors were imposed by mentioned three nations. Does your bias help to craete the capital in Poland and meke ethnic Poles pro-Jewish? You are fighting a war against Polish people. You may win the war, but your victory may create more problems than cooperation.

Home Army fought mail denounces [5].

Xx236 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome to fill the blanks in all the other article, if you're so inclined. In the meanwhile, remember WP:ASPERSIONS. François Robere (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you specify what issue you're actually addressing? As in, what part of the article? Because right now it seems like you just wanted to post some negative text about Poles in general. Yeah, of course there were denouncers. I'm puzzled why you think it note worthy that it's possible to provide examples. Anyway, what's your point? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A recurring theme in the discussions on this talk page was the identity of the people who denounced Jews to the Germans... Many sources address this, and I hope this handful will resolve this discussion once and for all.

I may integrate some of this into the article later, but at the moment it's just to clarify the misconception, which was repeated on these talk pages, that denunciations were only (or mostly) due to blackmailers. The fact that they weren't is one of the reasons to eg. Grabowski's number, which was widely contested here. François Robere (talk) 11:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, still not clear on what this has to do with the article or, well, anything.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

DS

I think it may now be time to remind people this page is under DS sanctions that are rather severe.Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Who were the collaborators according to Poles?

Who were punished as collboarators during and after the war? Writers and actors, editors and producers. If you find such POV Polish, it still deserves to be mentioned. Double agents were regarded to be collaborators ( pl:Muszkieterzy (organizacja), pl:Wanda Kronenberg).Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The underground state didn't allow certain activities. There are plenty of texts about the underground state. I haven't written the poor quality page so I'm not oblidged to correct it. I'm informing you about the bias. If one writes about collaboration in China. he/she should quote Chinese sources and Chinese opinions. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Korbonski, Stefan (1981). The polish underground state: a guide to the underground 1939 - 1945 is quoted as a source about a liberation of a concentration camps in Cechoslovakia. What about the other hundered pages?Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC) BTW - the title of the book is incorrect, Polish.

Directorate of Civil Resistance - an unsourced stub. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Anita J. Prazmowska Civil War in Poland 1942–1948 Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't read the text by Paul, but he quotes many sources. [6] Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

https://fbc.pionier.net.pl/details/nnlv2sp Collaborating journalists were punished after the war.Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

http://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc-r2009-t8-n1_(14)/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc-r2009-t8-n1_(14)-s103-132/Pamiec_i_Sprawiedliwosc-r2009-t8-n1_(14)-s103-132.pdf Młynarcyk is quoted once regarding 1944, what about the former years?Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/historia/1519780,1,aktorzy---kolaboranci-ii-wojny-swiatowej.read Actors Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Szarota, Okupowanej Warszawy dzień powszedni, Czytelnik, Warszawa 1973, 1978, 1988, 2010, ​ISBN 83-07-01224-4​; in German: Warschau unter dem Hakenkreuz. Leben und Alltag im besetzten Warschau 1.10.1939 bis 31.7.1944, Schöningh Verlag 1985, ​ISBN 3-506-77472-7​ Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe that foreighners ignore the role of Polish culture during the war. Both Germans banned the Polish culture, including Chopin, and the government of Poland supported some artists and didn't allow cultural collaboration. Xx236 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

These matters of cultural collaboration should be touched on in the article. The rhymed wartime Polish saying, "Tylko świnie siedzą w kinie" ("Only swine go to the movies"), is proverbial.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Did the NSZ's Holy Cross Mountains Brigade collaborate with the Germans?

It would seem from the incident's description ("Collaboration and resistance", paragraph 2) that what the Brigade entered into with the Germans was not a collaborative arrangement but a tactical ceasefire.

This article is supposed to be about "collaboration".

Nihil novi (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

While modern Polish nationalists do not "like" this collaboration (which entailed coordinated movements, supply, and actions - the brigade flipping back to an anti-Nazi stance only when the end of the war was quite obvious) - it is widely reported as such in contemporary sources - [7][8][9][10]. Beyond the news reporting, plenty of academic WP:RS refer to this collaboration/cooperation, and not the Polish nationalist apologetic stance on the matter.Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I'm going to ask you to please stop demonized the other point of view, in the last AE [11] your name came up as the editor who conveniently raised the issue and the term "nationalists' (or "right-wing") to suit your POV during the discussions on this talk page and referencing statements in the article. So, I'm a bit taken aback that again in your comments you want to belittle the other position by labeling it as belonging to "Polish nationalists". --E-960 (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, I was not referring to editors. I will cite Debating, obfuscating and disciplining the Holocaust: post-Soviet historical discourses on the OUN–UPA and other nationalist movements, Grzegorz Rossoliński-Liebe and Kurkowska-Budzan, Marta. "2.‘Coming Out of the Woods’: How Partisans of the Polish Anti-Communist Underground Adapted to Civilian Life." Continued Violence and Troublesome Pasts (2017): 44. who relate to this modern ZZNSZ discourse in regards to the NSZ, and apolgists for the movement.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you just call Nihil Novi a "modern Polish nationalist"? Seriously? You really need to step back from this topic area.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt - As is evident in the multiple links to news reports I provided (referring to the brigade as Nazi collaborators) - I was referring (beyond general public discourse on the subject) to public events such as an official visit to the brigade's memorial site in Munich.Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Caption to German agricultural-recruitment poster

I believe that my caption to the German agricultural-recruitment poster in this article's "Individual collaboration" section is more accurate than the one that has now replaced it.

My version: German recruitment poster: "'Let's go do farm work in Germany!' See your village chief [wójt] at once."

Current version: German recruitment poster—"Let's do agricultural work in Germany: report immediately to your Vogt"

The poster does not use the German word Vogt but the Polish word wójt ("village chief"), which is a borrowing from the German Vogt. There is no reason to substitute the German word for its Polish borrowing. My caption version preserves the derivation of the Polish wójt from the German Vogt within the link to Vogt.

Moreover, the current version ignores the distinction between the farm worker's enthusiastic exclamation, "Let's go do farm work in Germany!" and the propaganda poster's advice to the farm workers, "See your village chief at once."

I believe that my caption version is the more accurate.

Thank you.

Nihil novi (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That usage did look odd, and "agricultural work" isn't really a thing. Three minor changes: "'Let's do farm work in Germany!' See your village head (wójt) at once." François Robere (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with your suggestions. Nihil novi (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I could see the image caption as: Let's go do farm work in Germany! Report immediately to your Vogt. We should use proper names, so why say "village chief" when there is Wikipedia article about what is a "Vogt" (Polish: Wójt). It's like translating the Governor of the state of New York to Chief government official of the state of New York. Also, "natychmiast" translates directly as "immediately", while "at once" as proposed by Nihil novi would be "od razu" --E-960 (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"Let's do farm work in Germany!" is what the prominent farm worker is exclaiming. It should be kept under separate quotes from the poster's advice, "See your village head (wójt) at once."

Why use the German word "Vogt" instead of the Polish "wójt", which is what the poster uses in addressing Polish farm workers?

"Village head" is the English meaning of "wójt", and this is the English-language Wikipedia.

"Natychmiast", according to my Polish-English dictionary, is "at once; immediately; instantly; forthwith; straight off; on the spot; out of hand; promptly; straight away; right away; right off". I chose "at once" because it is colloquial, accurate, and 2 syllables as opposed to 4 for "immediately". Nihil novi (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Readability. "Vogt" isn't English, "governor" is. François Robere (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Just as important, "Vogt" isn't even Polish. Nihil novi (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If there was no Wikipedia article on "Vogt" I would agree, however in this case there is, so lets not oversimplify. --E-960 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I repeat: "Vogt" is not a Polish but a German word, and even this German poster does not use it. Nihil novi (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So, just write "Wójt" with the current hyperlink to Vogt#Poland, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, we can use technical terms. "Let's go do farm work in Germany! Report immediately to your Wójt" --E-960 (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I did just that. And I would use François Robere's suggestion: "'Let's do farm work in Germany!' See your village head [wójt] at once."

In this context, "Zgłoś się" is more colloquially rendered in English by "See..." than by "Report to..." Nihil novi (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

A German poster isn't any form of a collaboration. The Germans lied to Polish peasants to enslave them using little resources. The only person who collaborated was the wójt, terrorized by the Germans and underground. Xx236 (talk) 06:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Very true. This poster may be worth keeping as an example of underhanded German efforts to get Poles to work for them. Nihil novi (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point, the image lacks statement in article to provide context. --E-960 (talk) 10:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Captions are very important; the article's lead and illustrations are probably the main things a reader will look at, at least initially. The captions should be accurate, communicative, and concise. One of the peculiarities of captions is that, in English, they frequently forgo article adjectives when these are not indispensable to a clear understanding of the illustration. Nihil novi (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have copied the poster and its caption to General Government#Nazi propaganda. Xx236, 11:55, 18 June 2018

Just noticed that this poster is on the Forced labour under German rule during World War II page, so I'm not sure if this is exactly related to collaboration? --E-960 (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

This is a recruitment poster. The Germans didn't have to bother with recruitment posters if they needed forced labor. All they had to do was arrange a street łapanka (round-up) and ship their catch to wherever it was needed. Nihil novi (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Make sure you copy the translation to the image's page as well, so it's available to others. François Robere (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Good idea. Anyone know how it's done? Nihil novi (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, which translation, "village head" does not appear in the original wording? Let's see what other editors have to say on this — there are several Polish speakers involved in editing this page. Just threw in the text to see how Google Translate would word it, got this back: "Go to agricultural work to Germany! report immediately to your mayor". I think it's closer to the original text, and we can perhaps say "mayor" instead of Vogt?. --E-960 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Poland uses various expressions to convey the sense of the English-language term "mayor". Large cities such as Warsaw have a "prezydent"; villages have a "wójt". "See your village mayor" sounds a little odd.

Google Translate clearly has a tin ear for the nuances of Polish speech – and of English usage; apparently it hasn't spent much time around Poles. I disagree that its rendering is close to the original Polish text.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

In Wikipedia article on Vogt, it states that Wójt is a village mayor "Today, a wójt is the elected mayor of a rural commune". At this point, I'm fine with using "farm work" in the caption, but "village head" and "at once" are not the best translations, in Polish they are "głowa wsi" and "od razu" and this is not the wording found in the poster. Perhaps user Piotrus who added the image can weight in on the wording, to provide a bit more insight? I'm for just using "wójt". --E-960 (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

My Webster's English dictionary defines "at once" as "1. immediately [natychmiast]. 2. at the same time [jednocześnie]." Do either of those sound to you like "od razu"?

We can use plain "wójt", linked to the Polish section of the "Vogt" article.

Nihil novi (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Those all seem like minor wording issues, I have no comment other than to confirm that wójt is a Polish word. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so if the final caption reads "Let's go do farm work in Germany!' See your Wójt at once." it's fine. --E-960 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I would delete "go", which, though it appears in the Polish original as "Chodźmy", is superfluous in the English version; and I would use lower case for "wójt" (even the title of U.S. "president" does not require capitalization, unless the word immediately precedes a specific president's name).

I'll go ahead and make the caption adjustments; and of course I'll be open to considering any further thoughts you may have on this or other captions.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)