Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Ukrainian section

Just got back to this section and the references are far far worse than I had remembered and the only reason that I didn't kill the whole thing with fire is that some part of it may possibly be true. See tagging. In fact maybe the whole thing needs to be reworked on the talk page. Since part of it deals with Ukrainian units in the Warsaw ghetto, Holocaust in Poland rules should probably apply but any topic would need verifiable references and anything this serious should have academic references. Actually, the referencing is probably bad enough to remove, per:

All articles and edits in the topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland are subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction. When a source that is not an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution is removed from an article, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Administrators may enforce this restriction with page protections, topic bans, or blocks; enforcement decisions should consider not merely the severity of the violation but the general disciplinary record of the editor in violation.

So. I really can't leave this up, even if it has been up for years and years. Bear in mind that this was not a full verification, but we have what seem to be poorly formatted primary sources, many turn-of-the-millenium hobby sites, 404 errors, a couple-three sources that do look like they are academic journals, one of which is in Polish. Oh and at least two english-language websites on *.ru domains. I know the above talks about removing sources not text, but that would leave a lot of unsourced accusations of responsibility for mass murder, and yes the text does say murder, even if we "know" it is true. I am doing the deed and will be offline for the rest of the day. Current text of the article below. Elinruby (talk) 13:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

reference errors

The move broke the list-defined references, I see. (Sorry, ActivelyDisinterested) Will fix these a little later today unless somebody comes through with a bot before I can get back in; just checking messages and not available yet. I should have anticipated this and it seems only fair that I take care of it. 00:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I took care of this but found another problem, starting another another section for that Elinruby (talk) 11:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Given the fairly massive rewrite that will be required in this section I probably need to annotate as I go, so people may want to unwatch the page and I will probably hat the section to keep it from over-running the page.Elinruby (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Further followup: the references that don't work on this page were list-defined references in the article. With the exception of the IPN references these have been commented out rather than removed, but with the exception of a BBC article maybe and a German-language text I haven't investigated yet, none of them meet the referencing criteria for Poland. Elinruby (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

since nobody seems to have an objection I am going to move this forward by removing the references below that failed verification Elinruby (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

+++++++

==== Ukraine ==== {{Main|Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany}}

"Hitler, the Liberator", in Ukrainian – German propaganda poster, December 1942

Collaborationist Ukrainian personnel in 1943

Present-day Ukraine was divided before World War II between the Ukrainian SSR of the Soviet Union and the Second Polish Republic. Smaller regions were part of Romania or Hungary.

Ukrainians remembered Soviet policies that led to the Holodomor of 1932–33 qnd the Great Purge (1937–38), which included the persecution of intellectuals during, the massacre of Ukrainian intellectuals after the annexation of Western Ukraine from Poland in 1939, and the introduction and implementation of collectivization, which impoverished Ukrainian farmers.

The Ukrainians also remembered that their country's brief independence from 1917 to 1920 was helped by a treaty with the Central Powers and intervention by German forces.

Some Ukrainian collaborationist organizations participated in the Holocaust. The Ukrainian Auxiliary Police solicited the 1941 Babi Yar massacre of Kiev's Jewish population. Sonderkommando 4a and the 45th Battalion of the German Order Police conducted the shootings. Servicemen of the 303rd Battalion of the German Order Police at this time guarded the outer perimeter of the execution site.

On 18 September 1941 in Zhytomyr, 3,145 Jews were murdered with the assistance of the Ukrainian People's Militsiya (Operational Report 106). In Korosten, Ukrainian militia rounded up 238 Jews for liquidation (Operational Report 80) and carried out the killings by themselves similar to Sokal, where on 30 June 1941 they arrested and executed 183 Jews. At times, the assistance was more active. Operational Report 88 stated that on 6 September 1941, for example, 1,107 Jewish adults were shot by the German forces while the Ukrainian militia unit assisting them liquidated 561 Jewish children and youths.

On 28 April 1943, German Command announced the establishment of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician). An estimated 83,000 people volunteered for service in the Division. The Division was used in anti-partisan operations in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and in the fight against the Soviet forces during the Brody offensive and Vienna offensive. Those that survived surrendered to the Allies and the bulk emigrated to the West, primarily England, Australia and Canada.

Some Ukrainians participated in the suppression of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising of 1943 and the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, where a mixed force of German SS troops, which included Russians, Cossacks, Azeris and Ukrainians, backed by German regular army units, killed up to 40,000 civilians.

The German high command estimated that there were 180,000 Ukrainian volunteers serving with units scattered all over Europe and proposed to merge them into a single force. The Ukrainian Liberation Army (Ukrainian: Українське Визвольне Військо, Ukrainske Vyzvolne Viisko, UVV) was formed by the German Army in 1943 to collect them together.

References

note (Netherlands)

Henneicke Column Elinruby (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

note (Denmark)

from Denmark in World War II: A 1998 study showed that the average recruit to Free Corps Denmark was a Nazi, a member of the German minority in Denmark, or both, and that recruitment was very broad socially. Historian Bo Lidegaard notes: "The relationship between the population and the corps was freezing cold, and legionnaires on leave time and again came into fights, with civilians meeting the corps' volunteers with massive contempt." Lidegaard gives the following figures for 1941: 6,000 Danish citizens had signed up to German army duty; 1,500 of these belonged to the German minority in Denmark.

Will address the named references shortly. Answer to the question of whether they were willing ideological volunteers. It doesn't quite prove it for every individual case but is strong support for the truth of a general statement to this effect imho Elinruby (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 13:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

"In 1943, Nazi sympathisers burnt many of Tivoli's buildings, including the concert hall, to the ground. Temporary buildings were constructed in their place and the park was back in operation after a few weeks." — From Tivoli Gardens. I remember reading, long, long ago, in David Lampe's The Savage Canary that the Nazis unleashed the Schalburg Corps to wreck Tivoli as a reprisal for the 1943 Danish national strikes. (See also Chapter 13 of The Bitter Years by Richard Petrow ISBN 0-688-05275-4). —— Shakescene (talk) (Adding my signature long after posting this)

References

note (Albania)

Eventually, a large number of light tanks were unloaded from the Italian ships. After that, resistance began to crumble, and within five hours the Italians had captured the city.

from Italian invasion of Albania Elinruby (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Removal by Paul Siebert

Paul Sievert has reverted this edit for the second time. The edit primarily introduces sources in place of {cn} tags, corrects spelling and formatting mistakes, adds some images to corresponding sections, and streamlines {see also} policies by linking only overall articles covering collaborationism in specific countries instead of all possible organizations involved in it (they are featured in these articles). I do not understand why the editor is opposed to that revision, and will restore it if the editor does not provide valid reasons for keeping the current version (the one filled with {cn}s and mistakes). Pizzigs (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary, I support your good faith addition of sources instead of tags and, if you will not add them, I am going to do it is a close future (right now I am somewhat busy). However, I find the wording added by you somewhat problematic. I'll provide my criticism a little bit latter.

In addition, your initial edit had no edit summary. That is not a good style. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As I see, you have resolved the issue. Thank you. Pizzigs (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

good Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Pizzigs: I've been reviewing sources in Eastern Europe and Poland in particular and just wondered if you could explain you reason for adding the Polish-language Grabowski source? I am not saying you were wrong to do so, and off-hand a Polish-language source is better than no source. I am just asking before I crank up an online translator. There is nothing especially wrong with a source in Polish (or French or German or Russian) but English is preferred for ease of verification and since I am verifying due to some prior problems with Polish-language sources in particular, I am asking. I am familiar with this author and know he also writes in English, for another thing. If you are more comfortable in Polish than in English, then welcome, as we do need a Polish speaker on this page. That would be an acceptable reason, at least to me, but the source may wind up getting replaced. Please answer at your convenience, as I will be verifying for quite a while, it looks like Elinruby (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure Szantażowanie Żydów: casus Warszawy 1939-1945 is available in English and I'm okay with replacing it with Grabowski's English-language works. Pizzigs (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

As of 2023, there has been talk of reviving the third Reich under German software developer Jan Biniok. 172.56.121.248 (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Is this relevant to an article about wartime collaboration with the Axis? There's certainly room in Wikipedia for objective discussions of the Far Right in Germany after 1945, including the role of Axel Springer, but this doesn't seem relevant here (nor does it add much). For one thing there haven't been any Axis powers since 1945. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm also inclined to agree with Shakescene's analysis here. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Trifles

Typo in section "Belgium", last paragraph: Among the etaliatory massacres of civilians ("retaliatory").

Rotten footnote link in section "Lithuania", last paragraph: {{Ref label|a|a|none}} (after near total decimation of Lithuanian Jews). 89.64.68.162 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Will confirm completion when done Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Leaning down the categories

I am going to weed the huge list of categories again because of the inordinate amount of scroll it causes on mobile. In particular we've agreed that the "volunteer" units are best dealt with in something other than these uncited lists, and Romania for example is dealt with in this article not in the slightest. Anything I do is of course open to discussion, but since I've been trying to discuss for several months now with very little response, imma say it is time to be BOLD. Oh and those uncited lists of units are getting the axe next. Elinruby (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

In the third sentence, the word "and" should be deleted before the word Belgium. Labtek00 (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of too long

What in the blankety-blank happened to the archiving on this page????? Elinruby (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are Axis countries in the list?

I did some research, dug up some stuff, and came prepared to write a sub-section on collaboration with the Romanians by the people of Odessa, with a few consideration for Transnistria as a whole. But seeing Romania among the countries listed here stopped me in my tracks. I can sort of understand having Hungary, since it did go through German occupation in the last year, but...Romania and Bulgaria?! Axis members that were never occupied by other Axis members?! This is moronic, the sections of Romania and Bulgaria should be gone entirely, unless we mean to talk about collaboration with them. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The rationale for Hungary's inclusion is the collaboration of General Werth, who single-handedly put the country in the Axis camp despite his government's wishes. It is entirely possible that this is not very well spelled out. I will try to take another look at this shortly. Without looking it up I don't recall the specifics of Romania's inclusion, but I believe it had something to do with the Romanian government's subsequent acknowledgement that it gleefully participated in massacres of the Roma for its own political purposes. This can of course be discussed.

I encourage you to add your material about Odesa, under Ukraine; the above does not prelude it. The article tries to include some shades of grey is all. I have had to delete the entire section on Ukraine, which previously was an uncited mess about massacres in Poland, so any academic writing about Ukraine would probably be an improvement. I say this with the caveat that this is not a simple military history article. It does however need a lot of help.

Please do note that the article covers contentious topics however and is subject to discretionary sanctions under the eastern Europe and Holocaust in Poland decisions. I'll drop off a template at your talk page later today; it basically just means that disputes here may wind up at the arbitration committee not ANI. Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense to me that this article lists as Axis collaborators countries that were Axis. Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I see you've already been warned about this and described the contentious topic designation of some other article as a 'technicality'. This does not bode well, but if you want to work on this article and discuss matters with an open mind please do. Let's start with the "in" approach we're trying to use. What Romania did in Odesa would come under Odesa, which, correct me if I am wrong, was the Soviet Union at the time (?) Would go there not under Romania Elinruby (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

there are different levels and definitions of collaboration. Since I don't know much about either Transnitria or Romania it's difficult to argue the point with you without context. Why don't you take 'this is stupid' out of the header (or I will) and tell us about what you want to include? Elinruby (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I did wrong a while back. I wasn't in a good place back then, so I took 2 months break to cool off, and I won't be nearly as belligerent, now or in the future. That being said, it's not the Odessa thing that's the "meat" here, I understood where I should add it. My contention is that - as an Axis that Germany or Italy never occupied - Romania (and Bulgaria) shouldn't be here at all. Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

thank you for changing the header. I have previously seen a contention that collaboration is something that only happens in occupied countries but I was unable to ever source that. I think this idea refers to things like survival sex with occupying forces, which of course did take place and is mention in this article in France and the Channel Islands, but didn't have the same social ramifications as the actions of a Werth or Darlan. The article cannot include all events everywhere so we're trying to include the important ones. This does not mean to say that you don't know of some that aren't currently in the article Elinruby (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure that alliance and collaboration are mutually exclusive. Due respect but I think you exaggerate, you don't have to prove a negative. Romania and Bulgaria were not collaborationist because they were at the next level: allies. Funny enough, Italy fits well into this article, since it did have a Nazi puppet state in its territory, whereas Romania and Bulgaria didn't. Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Events in Italy aren't even mentioned in the article, although one editor, now blocked, seemed to think that there was collaboration there between its surrender and takeover by the Allies. But he never did any actual editing and I tried without success to substantiate this, unless we are talking about occupation soldiers who fought on in places like Montenegro. But my expertise is *France* not Italy, Montenegro, Romania, Transnitria or the Soviet Union. So I am willing to hear that I know nothing Jon Snow, and you would be far from the first person to say this to me. Elinruby (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you tell us what you want to include, where, and why? The article does have obvious deficiencies wrt Eastern Europe. I need to go deal with real life, but I promise you I have no particular preconceptions in this topic area. I will read whatever you write with an open mind. I will expect the same from you, mind. And I consider that you have acknowledged that that this is a contentious topics article. Elinruby (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ugh, still trying to leave to deal with RL. But may I draw your attention to the thread titled "What exactly is the problem with giving Romania due weight?' at The Holocaust. I don't pretend to know who is right about this. I just want this article to be as accurate as possible, according to reliable sources. Btw, you mentioned Bulgaria. Without spending more time on this than I have right now, I can't really comment. It is possible that this is because a previous version of the article had a much broader definition of collaboration, and there was as I recall a fascist militia there that fought against the Soviets. I am not sure that this is properly classified as collaboration with the Axis powers, if so. As best I can tell the current academic thinking is that it was almost impossible to live life under German occupation without dealing to some extent with the occupiers but that this also sometimes intersected with resistance. See the actions of Dr Best in Denmark for example. The term collaborationist was coined in France to refer to those who joyously collaborated for ideological reasons. While I have been unable to document the use of this term with respect to another country but France this is one of the types of collaboration the article is trying to spotlight. The other is the appeasement-like attempt to bargain that we see in Vichy, Belgium and Holland. Elinruby (talk) 21:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Changes

Clearing some misconceptions. Germany had 4 officially recognized non-Great Power allies. Of these, only Hungary was occupied, in March 1944. I deleted from its section the pre-occupation content. The other 3 Nazi allies, Bulgaria, Romania, and Finland, were never under Axis occupation, so they cannot make the object of this article. I explained their status in the heading. I deleted Bulgaria's section and moved its content to Greece's. I also deleted Romania's, with a heading disclaimer as to why the Romanian Holocaust WASN'T collaboration; the Romanian extermination program was a fully distinct process which rejected Nazi involvement. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It was rather BOLD to do that without discussing first, but I will review what you have done when I come back. I am missing a RL event right now talking to you. Since you claim knowledge, go for it, I guess, (and Greece does make some sense based on the little I know). I seem to be the only one paying attention at the moment -- it's a long weekend in North America.

I don't however think I agree that no collaboration can take place in an allied country. Vichy for example was technically a Nazi ally, yet is the poster child for ideological collaboration. I do hope that you have included some sources with your bold changes. Other than that, carry on I guess and We can discuss later.

Also, we are trying to put acts of collaboration in the section for the place where they happened not in the section for the country that carried them out; I would ask you to respect that attempt to bring order to this big, sprawling and very contentious article where lots of points of view have previously been pushed <g> Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916: Occupation is nothing to do with it. Regarding: "The other 3 Nazi allies, Bulgaria, Romania, and Finland". Bulgaria collaborated with Nazi germany and particularly on the Holocaust. A simple reading seems to confirm that Romania did collaborate with Germany particularly on the Holocaust, so it is collaboration. They worked with German troopers to implement pogroms. So I'm not sure where you are coming from. scope_creep^Talk 22:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I found five documents including and T&F and jstor that the discusses the nature of collaboration between Nazi Germany and Romania. The statement "Romanian Holocaust WASN'T collaboration" is false. scope_creep^Talk 22:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't Italy collaboration then?! What you are describing are the results of alliance by willing partners. Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

And honestly, it shouldn't even matter, because Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary were Axis. The article implies that Axis collaborated with Axis, does that make sense to you? Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Italy will be added in eventually, I assume. It collaborated as much as anybody else. What your talking about is semantics, not the meaning of collaboration nor meaning of the article. The main introductions blocks with likely be rewritten multiple times before the article is finished. If you rewrite it, then please do it but don't state something that is patently and so visibly false. The article is still under heavy development. There is so much still to do on this subject. One is the definition of the meaning of nazi collaboration is still be written. We don't have that article but it will be written. What is sure, is the every country that was subjected either as a client state, or an occupied state or a partner state, colloborated at some level which was totally designed to meet the nazi states objectives. scope_creep^Talk 00:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ever since I moved almost all the Asian sections to Collaboration with Imperial Japan to reduce clutter and confusion, I and other editors here have wondered whether and how to rename this article. Since collaboration can have several meanings, perhaps a better article title might be Collaboration with Nazi Germany or Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This might finesse the problem of what cooperation fits the definition of collaboration, if there's some problem with Axis Powers collaborating with each other. —— Shakescene (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It just seems asinine to me to list Axis countries as collaborators of the Axis. Or to imply that the Axis was only its 3 founding members. If 4 more countries could be held co-responsible for the war in its peace treaties, then their agency should be acknowledged. That's the bottom line. Good night gentlemen. Transylvania1916 (talk) 00:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

/me Just getting back - has anyone looked at the changes yet? It is entirely possible that something in-scope happened between Bulgaria and Greece, but I sort of disagree with the idea that Axis members can't be collaborators because they were allies. What about General Werth then? I also took a read just now of Arrow Cross Party, and apparently they and the Nazis disapproved of one another. However, a lot of the text he is complaining about has been here God knows how long. I've been through the entire article but in the Balkans mainly in terms of verifying what was there and adding references. Context could easily be missing and btw if anyone else is reading this please do have a look.

Maybe it's time to revisit "what is collaboration" again. I'm also interested about in where the line is between looking the other way when Hitler invaded Austria and trading Polish Jews for French prisoners of war like Vichy did, but that's just snark. Lemme check out whether these new changes are sourced, for a start. Elinruby (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916: ok... This whole Axis countries cannot be collaborators thing

needs to be cited if you are claiming academic consensus. I don't believe it can be because I looked hard for sources for that statement when I took it out of the lede a couple of months ago for it

1. overlooks the fact that the article not about countries per se. Hungary for example is included because of General Werth, who was definitely an ideological collaborator.
2. needs to be sourced

The other problem with the edit is that you dumped all that that in the lede, which, you may notice, does not mention any other country. OK, besides France, because of collaborationism, which perhaps should be in a terminology section. If you (or someone else) wants a what-are-the-Axis-powers section, this could be discussed. And raises again the problem that the article does not discuss Italy per se. And what is an Italian military unit that refuses to stop fighting.

Also, a sourcing requirement is part of the Holocaust in Poland contentious topics designation (whose scope is being very loosely defined indeed and includes Ukraine, apparently, for example...). It's easier for us all if people don't start revert-wars to insert unsourced statements whose truth they believe to be blindingly obvious. Bring sources. We go by sources.

@Shakescene: it isn't clear to me whether the statement about Tito that you removed was new; for what it is worth, I think it is correct, or at least I have seen it before. But yes, it should be cited. And maybe explained a bit better. This was in retaliation for alleged collaboration right? Stalin did much the same thing with the Kalmyks and the Cossacks as I recall. Elinruby (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say Axis countries couldn't be collaborators of Germany. I said Axis countries couldn't be collaborators of "the Axis powers", which is the title of the article. It's a logical fallacy of the most obvious degree. The title alone implies that the scope of the article is outside the Axis. There already exists an article about collaboration with Nazi Germany. I doubt we need a clone of it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there really. Feel free to take that redirect to AfD. Look, I spent a lot of time yesterday trying to explain things to you and that's time I'll never get back. Bottom line, if you have a constructive edit that comes with some sources, welcome. if not please go troll some other article. If you're new to this and truly don't understand the problem I suggest that you investigate the arbitration cases for Holocaust in Poland, the Balkans, and Eastern Europe, which all apply to this article and all say that your uncited beliefs, however sincere, do not belong in this article.

The other editor was completely correct to revert you. And you aren't even listening, as demonstrated by your repeat of the countries collaborating with countries claim. That's not what any of this is about, see above. Elinruby (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay. So how can it be said that individuals from Axis countries collaborated with the Axis? Still doesn't make sense to me. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have already explained General Werth to you several times. Because he ignored his government and made a personal deal with Germany for reasons of nationalism, Hungary joined the Nazis and many deaths ensued. I will not respond to further questions from you that do not include a source. If you think that something is wrong prove it. Elinruby (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I do understand now; he went over the head of his own country to strike a deal with the Nazis. Makes sense now. But in that vein, why is Romania here? And Bulgaria for that matter? Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, why does this keep happening? This is a unique case from what I can tell: no other alliance that I've researched is treated as only really constituting its founders, with its subsequent adherents apparently inherently assumed to be subservient to the founders. Like, the Axis is always taken as being the "Big 3". So what if Romania perpetrated all steps of the Holocaust of its own volition, committed well over 1 million troops to the total Axis war effort, and provided indispensable resources? It wasn't a real Axis member amirite? If I want my faith in humanity to drop, I just type "Axis Powers" on Google Images and have a cavalcade of images depicting the exact same 3 countries and no one else wash over my eyes. But referring to this article, I still find its very premise to be intellectually bankrupt. If nothing else, it should be renamed to "Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy". Not to mention the utter fallacy of having sections for Romania and Bulgaria - never occupied by any Axis country, and not having one for Italy, which had a whole puppet state going on for 2 years. Just my final takeaway on all this. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If there was a Nazi visiting the country in question to arrange to help folk to plan something that was aligned with German plans and national interest, then its likely a form of collaboration and its needs to be included. The list is countries may be quite big. We perhaps start by defining what needs to go and compare it with what we have. My view is it will depend on how the axis is defined on Wikipedia. If it is the case of the purview is designed as only the axis countries, then we may shorten it somewhat and get another article upto speed that takes the countries.. Colloboration happened economically, sexually, criminally, ideologically and they're was another important classification, can't remember it at the moment, so it happened up multiple levels, so I think it needs a good broad article to encompass the whole lot with this one as this open being the operations Re:above. On the infobox for Axis powers, it has 9 countries including Bulgaria and Romania as well as Hungary, Japan and Thailand. scope_creep^Talk 16:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

And one more thing. I know I said that was my final takeaway, but I discovered new stuff. Found today a Yad Vashem-published article about the Holocaust in the Berezovka county of Romanian-occupied Transnistria. There were a lot of Volksdeutche in the area, that had a large degree of autonomy under the Nazi SS. The Romanians dumped around 30K Odessan Jews in the ethnic German area, essentially forcing the SS to get its hands dirty. Clearly, this is an instance of the Nazis collaborating with Romania, under Romanian pressure. Which leads to my point: Why would you automatically assume that if Nazi collaboration is in question, it's not the Nazis collaborating with someone else? Why is it always with you that the Nazis must dominate in every single instance of collaboration? Clearly, it was not the case. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the title is probably correct given the context and the only country that is not on here is Thailand, which I didn't know was an ally of Germany. scope_creep^Talk 16:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia lists Thailand as a country that had a bilateral treaty with Japan, rather than as a member or ally of the Axis powers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_powers#Bilateral_Pacts_with_the_Axis_Powers

—— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: It states in the infobox under eff tag "g" "Declared war on the United Kingdom and United States in alliance with Japan on 25 January 1942, generally considered to be a member of the Axis (e.g. Bowman, p. 432)." States in the infobox general as well. scope_creep^Talk 22:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

ISBNs

Re several edit summaries about these: anyone know what that's about and/or whether it's been resolved? Elinruby (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Semantic quagmire

Article name

Much of this could be finessed by changing the title to what it covers, i.e. Collaboration with Nazi Germany (currently a redirect to this article) and Fascist Italy — unless we're also covering collaboration with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania, or perhaps collaboration with Ustashe Croatia, a junior member of the Axis. (I haven't heard of treacherous collaborators with Finland, except perhaps in Stalin's mind).

So I may well propose a Requested Move to Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, as we already have done, after a split, with Collaboration with Imperial Japan.

Meanings of "collaboration"

In English, "collaboration" covers a collection of meanings which might well not correspond with the bundle of meanings associated with "collaboration's" synonym in other languages.

In English, one can easily say that allies collaborate. The U.S. collaborated with Britain in operating the convoy system and in breaking Axis machine-cyphers (the U.S. Magic teams concentrated on the Japanese Red and Purple cyphers while Britain's Ultra project — with French and Polish help — worked on the Germam Enigma and Neptune). They also collaborated with each other (but not with the U.S.S.R.) on atomic weapons (the Manhattan Project and Tube Alloys). The U.S. and Britain collaborated with each other and (after June 1941) with the U.S.S.R. against Germany and the other European members of the Axis.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union did not collaborate with the U.S. and British Empire against Japan until August 1945. Before then, Japan still exchanged ambassadors with the U.S.S.R.

Home-grown anti-Semitism

It's true that (among other occupied or allied countries) Pétain's Vichy France, Monsignor Tiso's Slovakia and (apparently) Marshal Antonescu's Romania, domestic anti-Semitic measures began before any prompting by Germany. {I understand, perhaps wrongly or too-simplistically, that this was not the case in Bulgaria.) So we do have to be careful about ascribing motives and origins of the Holocaust and preceding presecutions (as I did in a rather vague way with #France).

¶ I'll stop here until my head clears and I hear from other editors. Happy Bastille Day; Joyeux Quatorzième! —— Shakescene (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we really do need to change the article name. That said, yes, I am not sure how often collaboration with, for example, Bulgaria specifically, might have taken place, nor to what extent it would have been the same thing as collaboration with Italy or Germany. I've been doing a lot of reading about the Balkans since the Arbcom case closed, I but am still more confused than not about that. It's a lot to take on board. I will try to come back to this discussion in the next few days. I realize this response doesn't help much with the burning question of what we should change the title *to*. Elinruby (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to split it as proposed. I notice we don' thave an article on collaboration wih the Soviet Union, a somewhat related topic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I did the deed, since we have three people in the thread agreeing with it finally. Also, Piotrus has a good point. Elinruby (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest, that "(apparently)" of yours kind of made my heart sink. You guys really don't know, do you? I suppose I shouldn't expect everyone to know what *I* have researched. I'll give you a crash course: Romania had been the most antisemitic country in Europe for decades before WW1. At the end of WW1, Romania was the only European country yet to give citizenship to its Jews. Straight up Nazi-like laws on state employment were passed as early as the 1880s in Romania. In late 1913, in a litany of over 30 pages, a US congressman (forgot his name, but I'll find it) enumerated the dozens of Romanian anti-Jewish laws and essentially called for war with Romania unless the country improved the plight of its Jews. After WW1, Romania was conditioned by the peace treaties to give rights to all its minorities. This temporary cap was done away with by Octavian Goga in 1938. The Nazis did nothing more but enable Romania. One can enable something without being in control of said thing. Alas, I shouldn't have to prove a negative, should I? You mean to imply the Romanian Holocaust amounted to collaboration -- How?!. Look through Romania's Holocaust history and tell me where exactly do you find Nazis in position of leadership? You do find Nazis alright: as somewhat unwilling partners coopted into Romanian extermination plans and you also find them being turned down for deportations. Romania was the only country other than Germany itself that "implemented all the steps of the destruction process, from definitions to killings" (per Raul Hillberg). Romania was the only Nazi ally that started exterminating Jews without Himmler having to intervene. For weeks, Romania was killing all Jews while the Nazis were still only massacring Jewish men. For crying out loud people, GET IT RIGHT!!. It will be more clear in 1 week. I will add a section at Transnistria Governorate about the local SS and their contribution to Romanian plans. And also a comprehensive Background section on The Holocaust in Romania. I was only able to properly set up the lead as of now. Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

yanno... It's becoming clear to me why you've been warned so many times. I suggest you exercise a little patience, unless you think you can pass a quiz on the finer points of Danish or French collaboration, which you clearly can't, since you think that anti-Semitism in the 1880s was unique. Please look up the Dreyfus Affair. And be glad that I despise taking people to noticeboards. That said, you're talking to people trying to rescue a very bad article, in the face of contradictory policy pronouncements. We should not have to put up with you. Strike your italicized upper case insults, please, and process that there are people in the world who have researched other history than Transnitria.

I am in fact listening to you, as you seem to know more about your niche of this war than I do, but eight hours in I think you are misinterpreting it.

So look. The article is about pivotal people whose collaboration changed the course of events. Antonescu seems to qualify. But countries don't collaborate, people do, so the whole thing about the Nazis collaborating with Romania is outside the framework not only of this article but of the usual definition of collaboration. I am not up to typing out a draft theory of what is collaboration right now, but I rewrite the lede to this article, specifically to excluded the poor slobs who got gang-pressed in Poland or Ukraine and wound up guarding a gate at a concentration camp. In fact, most people collaborated to some extent in World War II, and we're trying to concentrate on the ones who had a choice, and helped the Nazis anyway.

I do see what you are saying about Transnitria, that the occupying force was the Romanians, but this is not a military history article. Also please note that I have not yet looked at your sources, and they are critical under those contentious topic standards that people keep warning you about. If you haven't clicked those links yet, you really should, and Slatersteven is correct to say that you seem to need to read WP: BLUDGEON as well.

So far you are getting a pass from me because you are spurring us to address a leftover section that we haven't yet, but this is my last warning to you. People come to this article knowing the history of one or maybe two countries, and they ALL think their country suffered the most. This is the English-language Wikipedia and no, not everyone knows what happened in World War II in Transnitria, and the jury is still out on whether you do either. You should discuss changes to the article here before you make them, or Slatersteven will probably righteously revert you. Let's not go there, but FYI I just spent eight hours on your ideas, and got yelled at, so don't expect me to be so polite if you start breaking things again.

But sure, if you want to write a draft Romania or Transnitria section, emphasis on draft, have at it and post it here. Probably we'll adopt it if the sourcing is good, but I am still not sure that you know what that means and would like to look at it before you start over-writing what's there (and may revert any such moves that you may already have made). As I recall Romania was mostly military history written by people who made egregious mistakes elsewhere, but I've been all the way through this article several times and improved most of the sections, so there may be something worth salvaging. You asked above who the hell are we, and on another article that would be a legit question. But. We're people who have read some policies that you apparently haven't, and I in particular am somebody who just participated in a weeks-long arbitration about how those policies apply to this specific article, among others. And note: I don't care about anything in this article; I am just here trying to address an embarrassment. Not that it should matter. You are supposed to listen to other editors, as I am trying to do with you, because sometimes they know stuff you don't. Please process that this goes both ways, because now you have annoyed me into taking a break from doing something that you want me to do and that I didn't have much interest in doing in the first place. Peace out. I will read what you write, but please don't dump it in the lead of this article mmmmmkay? Elinruby (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Collaboration by Nazi Germany

In Romanian-occupied Transnistria, the Nazi SS set up an autonomous administration for German settlements. This was a "state-within-a-state", a separate administration which nonetheless formally accepted Romanian charge: it could elect its own leaders, but they were subject to confirmation by Romanian prefects. In the winter of 1941-1942, the Romanians deported 30,000 Jews to the German settlements, where they were supposed to be killed. The SS were somewhat reluctant to carry out these killings and also displeased that the Romanians put them through this. Deporting those Jews in the German areas forcing the SS to deal with them was a Romanian idea, and the SS was pressured to comply with this plan. Clearly, this is an instance of collaboration by the Nazis. This is the gist of a new sub-section I have in mind, and I do have the required RS for it. May I, though? Is there some unwritten sacrosanct tacit agreement to gatekeep against the very notion of collaboration by the Nazis? With you people, I don't even know anymore, so I must ask, lest I waste some hours in vain. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I will tell you you will be waisting your time, as this is an... interesting interpretation of collaboration. Its a bit like saying the SS were collaborators because they carried out Hitler's orders. What you woud need is RS identifying this as collaboration. And not just the Rumanians taking advantage of the German's antisemitism. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

... Right, but when the SS makes cameo apparences in ultimately Romanian-planned and mostly Romanian-executed massacres that is collaboration by Romania and grounds for having a Romania section here, right? Double standards all the way... Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

No it is not (as it has not been objected to), if you want to object to that section object to it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I did. Just deleted it,and I explained why in the desc. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You did not have consensus for this edit, but I will not revert it. You raised the issue of German collaboration, not Rumanina. Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not object to the existence of a Romania section, but it must have legitimate instances of collaboration. The Holocaust in Romania is no such thing. I understand this may seem confusing to the everyday man, as normally when a country carries out the Holocaust, there is some obvious Nazi direction. That's the neat part though: Romania is the exception. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How? As I am now unsure your reason is valid I shall be reverting, make a case. Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I made my case here, if you would care to give it a look. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

You have to make a case here, not create an article and then claim it covers it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would literally be copy-pasting and besides, it's not even a long read. I didn't create the article but I started developing it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Until someone makes a case here (policy based) as to why Rumaina is special take my opposition to removal of it as read. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Well alright then, copy-paste it is:

• Romania ranks first among Holocaust perpetrator countries other than Nazi Germany.
• Romanian antisemitic legislation was not an attempt to placate the Germans, but rather entirely home-grown, preceding German hegemony and Nazi Germany itself. The ascendance of Germany enabled Romania to disregard the minorities treaties that were imposed upon the country after the First World War. Antisemitic legislation in Romania was usually aimed at exploiting Jews rather than humiliating them as in Germany.
• Romania was the only country other than Germany itself that "implemented all the steps of the destruction process, from definitions to killings."
• The Romanian Holocaust was outside the control of the Nazis. Its beginning did not require Nazi intervention, Romania being the only ally of the Third Reich that carried out its genocidal campaign without the intervention of Heinrich Himmler's SS. Romania also rejected Nazi designs on its Jews, ultimately declining to deport Romanian Jews to the Belzec concentration camp. Romania even took the lead in the Holocaust for the first weeks of Operation Barbarossa. This was acknowledged by Adolf Hitler on 19 August 1941: "As far as the Jewish Question is concerned, it can now be stated with certainty that a man like Antonescu is pursuing much more radical policies in this area than we have so far.". The regime of Ion Antonescu had been killing Jewish women and children, clearing entire Jewish communities, while Nazi Germany was still massacring only Jewish men.

As you can see, mere participation in the Holocaust doesn't imply collaboration with the Nazis in Romania's case. That's why the whole section is moot.

References

Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

That is OR. Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

How? Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Because you yourself demonstrated that the Rumaninassent some of their Jews to be murdered by the Germans (collaboration). Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Germans in officially-recognised Romanian jurisdiction, according to a Romanian plan. It's not Romanians that collaborated with German extermination plans, it's the opposite. Nazi presence in a Holocaust atrocity doesn't automatically imply Nazi leadership, especially if its planning isn't theirs. I maintain that Romania's section - as it stands right now - has no grounds to be here. It merely details the Romanian Holocaust, and fully relies on the notion that mere perpetration of the Holocaust amounts to collaboration with the Nazis, a notion that in Romania's particular case has no merit, as shown above. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I find that really really hard to believe. France, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands were also nominally sovereign states in this period. But not really. I am still looking at this though, and ask you to give me the time to do that. I think I am hearing a nationalist narrative here (every country has one about this period) but I have an open mind Elinruby (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Time for others to have a say. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Um. Weren't you saying the other week that Romania should not be on the list because it was an Axis country? But actually I am glad you are here, because I noticed after you got shut down here that there actually were some references in what you added to the article so I want to apologize for calling your work uncited. I haven't actually looked at the references, and that material did not belong in the lede, but since I will be the first to admit that the Romania section sucks (which pre-dates our current attempt to improve the article) we may have a meeting of the minds.

However, there were several countries where local strife with Jews or Serbs or Czechs or ethnic Germans was used by the Nazis. For a take on who *I* think should be included, which may not meet with the approval of everyone here, I give you the just-added example of Konrad Henlein, who encouraged the Nazis to invade Czechoslovakia, and the British to let them do it. I am going to take a better look at what just happened here before commenting further. Nobody is trying to keep you from editing the article, at least I hope not, since Romania does need work, but I *will* caution you that there are some large-scale disagreements about what the Holocaust, and collaboration, even were, so this is not a good place for a newcomer to be impatient, because those contentious topic guidelines I posted to your talk page mean that you could easily get into trouble. As could we all, mind you, but the people you are talking to here have been around quite a while and know how to avoid the more obvious minefields. I will have more to say later. Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Elinruby, nice to hear from you again. If you recall, I specifically accepted your example of General Werth in Hungary's case. If one could find a similar example for Romania, I would not oppose keeping the section for its sake. As somewhat of an expert in the matter (read many books about Romania in WW2, would read even more if I knew Romanian), I could not find one. Matter of fact, I found some sort of infirmation of Romania collaboration: After the August 1944 coup, the Germans were pretty surprised they couldn't find a single Romanian general willing to work with them as a puppet ruler. Yes, this happens a lot. When my edits are particularly bold, they get reverted out of seeming reflex, but I do cite everything I publish, and it pains me that people don't even bother to check, even when I actually link them do the book, as I do in 95% of my sources. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a certain youthful exuberance to your editing that I will no doubt find less alarming once I determine that it is accurate and meets the sourcing standards. But national narratives are rarely *completely* accurate -- at least I have never seen one that was -- and it's something we've been going through with this article. You sound to me like you have internalized one. As for the revert on sight crowd, they do exist. Sometimes they are right, sometimes not.

A couple of points in no particular order -- your edit of the short description to match the new title was constructive, thank you. Racism in Poland talks about anti-Semitism going back to the 16th century. I looked at the Romanian section of this article and yeah, it's laser-focused on what military unit was where, which is ok for context, but a lot of those people were conscripts thus not voluntary collaborators, so yes there is a lot of room for improvement in that section according to me. What's your objection to calling

Ion Antonescu a collaborator? I haven't looked into this very deeply, but coup + dictator + Holocaust makes him at least worth looking at, no? Elinruby (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Motivations in the lead: "conviction, desperation, coercion"

The three motivations for collaboration listed in the lead are from a quote, and that's fine as far as it goes, but is it fully representative enough to be WP:DUE for the lead? There may be other motivations that are worth mention in the lead as well. I'm thinking of all the people who just did it out of laziness, or taking the easy road, without thinking that much about the politics of it. Think of all the hangers-on and sycophants of a schoolyard bully, loyal so long as he's on top, but who melt into the wind the minute he's deposed. Of course it would need sourcing, but my guess is that that is the largest category of collaborators: just acolytes of the bully-du-jour. I think Henri Lafont was a good example of this. (Our article about Lafont sucks; read fr:Henri Lafont^{[auto-translated]} instead, and watch the exceptionally good documentary about him (Henri Lafont, godfather of the Gestapo; YT, 52 min.) Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

good point. What word would you use for that? Jemenfoutisme? Apathy? Going along to get along? Moral indifference sounds a bit judgey and so does apathy. But yes, apart from the nomenclature question, you're right. That is a big category of people who arguably collaborated, which we may not address well enough. Part of the problem may be our geographic approach, but yes, there is definitely room for improvement there. Suggestions welcome. Elinruby (talk) 20:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

PS I don't insist on the quote being in the lede, but OR had previously been raised. I think it's a good summary but maybe it should be in a what is collaboration section. Which could perhaps be expanded in the wartime collaboration<? I really need to go again but Scope creep has previously expressed interest in this topic. Elinruby (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

My theory about it being the biggest category is just that—a theory—and of course we'd need to follow the sources. Not sure how much sustained involvement I have time for here, but I did want to raise the point. To look at yet more motivations, why did Coco Chanel collaborate so deeply as to be considered a Nazi agent or spy? Sounds like it might've been mostly to get ahead in business, layered over a core of antisemitism. Chanel was wealthy and powerful by the outbreak of WW2, so didn't "need" to collaborate just to survive; she was hardly a typical French woman. But I wonder if her reasons might've also been more widespread. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, she would be notable. There is also Lord Haw Haw, who's been mentioned a few times, but I was thinking more of the restaurants the served German Army officers because well what else were they to do? And at what point does this become biens mal acquis? Not trying to be difficult, just sharing my perplexity. Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

PS what were her reasons, do you know? Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Between interruptions

@Mathglot: re your tagging yes yes are right and I will fix that when I get back and can track it down. @Shakescene: you seem to be suggesting that a group can collaborate, and therefore a government? I think it may be a fine line between government and a country, but I think there is one. But this is discussable and maybe I am overly influenced by the insistence in deprecated French historiography that Vichy was an illegitimate government and not "France"....later Elinruby (talk) 20:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Imho, groups and countries *not under occupation or threat* don't collaborate, they cooperate. Maybe if under threat they "appease". Individuals collaborate, and occupied governments collaborate, but I would say that the U.S., for example, wasn't "collaborating" with Nazi Germany before its entry into WW2, although many American companies reaped big profits by continuing to do business with them. See wartime collaboration for a definition as "traitorous cooperation with the enemy" dating to 1940 Vichy France and Philippe Pétain. Mathglot (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

For the record, Elinruby is, I believe, referring to this edit tagging this citation as unmoored. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(on hold with expected 90 min wait time) Yes. I can probably do that right now. Was looking at :fr:Henri Lafont just now; interesting that he said he would have joined the Resistance if he'd been asked. There's a fair amount there, definitely more than English, but I don't think I can translate that on my phone while on hold. How did I miss this guy when I worked on the Bonny bio? Got lost in the side work from Liberation of France maybe? Meanwhile I guess I will go fix that reference. Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

(off the call but still have stuff to do) The reference was there, but apparently I need to spend some more time with the documentation for Harvard references. I finally just changed this citation to the reference style I am used to, so that particular referenc is fixed, but we still have an inconsistent reference style, which should be addressed at some point. Meanwhile, let's see -- some further questions: I could probably bang out a mechanistic translation of the French article, but this is likely to require referencing, as most French articles don't meet our standards as you know. He may be worth the trouble though, as an example of collaboration that is not Vichy, what do you think? Because two other issues have arisen, ie we're saying that we don't have room for Finland, but we're repeating a lot of Vichy France, which has its own article, and we should pare that down to the minimum of that necessary to explain context. Also, we have a section titled "Business collaboration", which should probably be expanded, and also renamed, but to what? I sort of agree that if the business transactions were legal they might not be collaboration, but the IT people in particular had to known what was going on.

Finally, are you yourself seeing OR? I know Slatersteven is throwing the word around, but I'm pretty sure he hasn't read the lede let alone the rest of the article. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Its complex (without offering a solution) I see the wartime collaboration seems to be the article I was plannning to write, on the definition of collaboration. I'll read it. scope_creep^Talk 09:13, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be a linking article + defintion and etymology and enough there to expand with new refs. scope_creep^Talk 09:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

that's what I am thinking. It actually looks like most of the people in this thread including me have worked on that article at some point. It seems pretty sparse actually, but it's a good place to put the stuff about what is collaboration and why people did it. That would make this a daughter of that article, so the more general article should expand? One good reason to do that would be to get away from the ambiguity about the HiP Arbcom case. Elinruby (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree that Wartime collaboration is the place the definition should probably live. Ultimately, it all comes down to sources (as it always does), but for example: would we say that people in Warsaw pact countries under the thumb of Moscow "collaborated" with the USSR, if they went along with things because they had no choice? Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968 showed them what happens when you don't go along. I'm just not sure if we can use the term collaboration in that context, though. Seem to me that there has to be *some* element of free will left for it to be "collaboration"; if it's completely forced, then it's not collaboration anymore, as I see it. Pétain pretty much single-handedly provided the modern definition when he announced on the radio in 1940, "I enter today on the path of collaboration". Mathglot (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That is the definition I suggested. Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Structure of the page

1. Lead
2. List of cases
3. Volunteers
4. Business

The lead quotes four sources:

1. 1968, twice
2. 1980
3. recent

I believe that some common problems should be summarized, eg. punishing the collaborators, the Holocaust. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

You think coverage of the Holocaust in inadequate? Punishing collaborators is possible, I guess; it's mentioned in some sections but not systematically or separately. Volunteer units are very difficult to cite because a lot of them really weren't volunteers. I deleted the a lot of uncited material in this area, and I am not sure this area. On the other hand our country by country approach doesn't fit well with the fluidity of borders in some areas. Thinking particularly of Cossacks and Cham Albanians for example. POWs are another criss-border issue. Elinruby (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

So should we flesh out Wartime collaboration

That is how I am reading consensus. Also, I was wrong about the Holocaust in Poland decision; it would also cover that article, since the Holocaust in Poland is one of the examples. I will bring this up on the talk page over there, but I suggest we just delete that section, which repeats some of the PoV pushing the Arbcom case was about, ie "there wasn't much collaboration in Poland".

I will probably not do much of substance for the next couple of days; the temperature is going back through the roof again tomorrow and the last time that happened I got my electrolytes all scrambled and made a bunch of typos and rookie mistakes. Possibly the forecast is wrong, shrug, as we're on the cusp of two climate zones here, in which case maybe I can. Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I think so. I plan to add to the definition, from the book I found about 4 months ago, if I can get hold of it, through inter-library loan and I'm going to contact that academic I found at the same time, who is an expert on the meaning of collaboration, to see if he can shine some light on it. scope_creep^Talk 09:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of the definition are by academics from 60's and 70's. It think it needs a modern definition as an addition to the "Definition" section, to see what the modern "take" is. scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a book I found that contained a number of different definitions on Nazi collaboration depending on the context. Its written in 2021. Complicated Complicity European Collaboration with Nazi Germany during World War II I'll order it via inter-library loan. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Some, not all, so remove the stuff arbcom objected to. Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what are you even talking about? What did I tell you about doing the reading before you try to police discussions? Arbcom per se didn't object to ANYTHING. Some of the discussions involved some editors saying certain specific sources about Poland should be deprecated, which has not happened, btw. But yes, that case is a factor in this article.

Since I was in the case, scrutinized and unsanctioned btw for what has gone on here, let me clean up Slatersteven's misapprehensions. Pretty much any academic journal was fine as a source under the previous decision. Since this had been used to exclude museums and some other very fine sources, this was amended in the most recent decision, which as I recall just talks about "quality' sources. It is unclear whether this only applies to the Poland section or the entire article -- all the other articles Grabowski complained about were solely about Poland -- but we don't want to use trash sources anyway, right?

When it comes to Poland, there are certain authors and publishers who have pushed a now-discredited trope that the Poles did not collaborate, which is why I suggest deleting the Poland section in the Wartime collaboration article. There are plenty of other examples of collaboration, while on the other hand when it comes to World War II, so much of the Holocaust happened in Poland that we really have to discuss it.

@Scope creep: bottom line, good idea. Slatersteven is completely beside the point and out of line; feel free to carry on. Elinruby (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I know. The editor seems to stall the discussion. Arbcom is about behaviour not content. scope_creep^Talk 17:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

We can't then delete a whole section, based upon the behavior of some editors. We can only remove content, based upon that content failing policy, what does? What is sourced to questionable sources? Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

(trying again) Slatersteven, I know you know there was an Arbcom case, because at one point you asked why I mentioned you there. So.... again, what are you even talking about? What? deleting which section? Channel Islands? It contains two references to legislation and one to a blog. We talked about this back in February. I know you think we should keep it but it's just an assertion that nobody got convicted of informing, and another uncited assertion about women's heads being shaved. There is a cite to some legislation about black marketeering, and an uncited complaint about its scope.

Scope creep and I on the other hand were talking about putting the generalized definition discussed above at Wartime collaboration, and Scope creep had thoughts about updating the sourcing over there. If you want to check out the sourcing of *this* article, which is what I *think* you are talking about, feel free. I did do that back in February, and have since removed a lot of uncited content, but I went in with rather light hand. There's still an RS tag in Hungary, I think, and the Channel Island section still doesn't meet standards, so that should be deleted. Given the hours I put into sources at the time I could well have missed something I guess, but apart from the above and any other RS tags, as far as I know, sourcing is no longer the problem, it's scope. You are welcome to check it out, of course.

If you are trying to be helpful, one of our current burning questions concerns "collaborationist", which is a useful word for ideological collaboration, but that I could only find in sources that were discussing France. Finding that word in use in a source about some other country would allow us to stop changing this word when we see it in other contexts and that would be helpful.

Good luck with your ANI complaint. Maybe it won't bomerang... Elinruby (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That's also my impression, that it's only used in connection with France. Or, actually, let me rephrase that: when people are writing carefully, especially historians, then that's what it refers to. Otoh, there are plenty of writers who casually throw around the term collaborationist as a loose equivalent of collaborator, especially if France is not their topic. This issue of the collaborator–collaborationist distinction is covered somewhat at Wartime collaboration, Vichy France, and also at the French article on collaborationnisme. The French article mentions that the term collaborationnisme was already used by the Resistance. The French term may have been, but from what I've seen, the English term collaborationism is from Stanley Hoffmann as explained at Wartime collaboration#Definitions; (Hoffmann is French). I'm not sure how to deal with the other sources, probably a lot of them perfectly reliable in their own topic area, when they use the term collaborationism loosely as a term for collaborator. Mathglot (talk) 06:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Channel Islands redux

I found at least one good public source about collaboration in the Channel Islands — a 1992 report by the impeccable British national daily newspaper The Independent describing British official documents on the Islands that had just been released. Since this is the newspaper's summary, we can avoid the Own Research trap of using our own judgement to select and summarise the official papers.

—— Shakescene (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah Except we aren't doing own research -- sorry if I sound annoyed but I am getting tired of hearing that -- we are proposing to delete original research. If there is a source, then by all means, somebody add it. Even if they are official documents, if they were published by the Independent that makes the secondary not primary sources afaik, and yes it is a very fine source. Elinruby (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That was exactly one of my points: A Reliable Source described the documents, not Wikipedia editors or contributors. There's also a ton of reliable secondary sources at the relevant C.I. articles:

*Civilian life under the German occupation of the Channel Islands#Collaboration and

*German occupation of the Channel Islands#Collaboration —— Shakescene (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok!then interested.editors should add them. Elinruby (talk) 01:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(later)thanks for that work. I see several possibilities. Next question:length? @Slatersteven: your opinion is requested. Elinruby (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

If we have sources that say there was collaboration we can have a section on it. Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Is someone editing the section now? The second paragraph ended in the middle of a sentence. Mathglot (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

(Minimal) participation in the Holocaust has been admitted, not mentioned here. https://www.cam.ac.uk/channelislandsvictims Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, why is it "British channel islands" (which also is not true, they are not ruled or governed or owned by Britian, they are crown lands)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I did think about this subtitle and "British Channel Islands" seemed to be the best I could do. "British" does not necessarily mean juridically part of the United Kingdom, and if you asked 500 Wikipedia readers, I doubt you'd find one who would say that the Channel Islands weren't British. (You might not find one if you asked 500 Channel Islanders.)

"Channel Islands" was originally a sub-subtitle under "Great Britain", and they're clearly not part of Great Britain (anymore than Hawaii is part of North America). And, as you say, they're not part of the UK. However the Islands are and were not fully independent, while "Crown" is not a country (whose crown?) Similar quandaries arise if you pick a subhead to replace "Great Britain". And it would be pedantic and unhelpful to use "Bailiwick of Jersey" and "Bailiwick of Guernsey" or "Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark". Constructive suggestions gratefully accepted —— Shakescene (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As it links to Channel Islands that name, we do not need british should be fine. Slatersteven (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

What is collaboration?

I have asked this question quite a.few times now, (see archives if interested), and mostly got told that I shouldn't be editing this article if I didn't know. But like most very simple questions the question has many possible answers and here for discussion are some of mine. It's based on recent reading, so I believe it can be cited and rewritten if we decide to, and if course if it can't it will have to change. I am just going to write it out, and maybe edit in some sources later. I also encourage other editors to propose rewrites, I guess in replies to this post to keep things organized (?)

To live under German occupation required people to at least tacitly accept their authority, so a strict interpretation of the word would include anyone who didn't enlist or join the Resistance. Clearly this is mind+bogglingly broad, but let's start with that as a context.

At the village level, collaboration could take the form of doing business with the occupiers or welcoming their business, again too common to individually discuss. Informing the German authorities of Resistance activities would be collaboration, but this article with its huge geographic scope is clearly not the place to discuss this also very common activity, although some of the more notable instances might have a place in for example, an article about the Warsaw ghetto, in other words several levels further down in narrowing the scope. Survival sex and attempting to prevent the deportation or relatives were probably even more common.

When I came to this article in February it was focused very narrowly on the Holocaust. I don't disagree with that, and administrators of the Final Solution are definitely collaborators in my opinion. I personally don't believe we should extend this to all of the "volunteer" units, however, since despite the name many of them were conscripts. Many of the others were prisoners of war who enrolled to get out of the camps and joined the Free French (for example) the moment they got a chance to do so.

This is not to say that volunteers did not exist. I have for example established to at least my own satisfaction that the Charlemagne unit, at least in its early stages, was comprised of ideological collaborators who joyously supported the Final Solution. Probably for the lifetime of the unit, actually, since come to think of it I seem to recall that they were among the last defenders of Hitler's bunker.

The ideological fellow travellers were an important category, at all levels of society, but obviously those who held positions of power were the most notable. Some of these only gained power when the country was occupied, and were motivated by ambition an nd a thirst for power to help the invasion take place. Quisling, Déat, and Henlein come to m....

A larger category includes the nationalists. World War I had redrawn the map of Europe and particularly in Central Europe a desire to take back lost territory was an important motivating factor, (General Werth) but mostly for government foreign policy that led several countries to ally with the Nazis. (A related group of countries (Britain, US, Canada and France - before its occupation - for example) simply wanted to avoid war, whether due to exhaustion or indifference. But this is not the same thing as collaboration by individuals.

On the other hand, an even larger group of collaborators thought of themselves as freedom fighters against imperial colonizers, and either hoped the Nazis would at least be preferable as occupiers, (Ukraine perhaps, possibly Poland), or in some cases received weapons and military training (Burma, Chetniks). Ironically those who thought the Nazis might be preferable to the Soviets were also those the Nazis considered least amenable to Germanization and therefore were much worse treated than others. But so many freedom fighters were convinced that the Germans would help them that this must have been a deliberate well-planned strategy. It didn't work anywhere except, briefly, in Slovenia, for reasons that I currently do not understand

I have in the past proposed a standard of voluntarily taking at least one action that benefited the Nazis. It, like all of the above, is naturally discussable. Elinruby (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

If RS calls it collaboration, so do we. If no RS calls it collaboration for us to do so is w:or. Slatersteven (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

sigh, you realize you say this every time, I bring this up, right? And it always shuts the discussion down. This is called a Thought-terminating cliché. Yes of course we go by RS. What is a reliable source in this context? We just had an Arbcom case on that. Hundreds, probably thousands of RS that meet those criteria exist on the topic of World War II, and often they contradict each other.

When in the past I have asked you to bring some RS to the discussion, then, I got crickets. Please stop obstructing this discussion, which the editors on this page do need to have. The above is based on much reading of sources, and I can source it, but I am not at the moment trying to prove that it's *right*, just to discuss it with other editors. Who can bring RS if they like, or not, but I really would like to see them bring some thought. TL;DR if you aren't going to help, you should get out of the way.

A related note while I am thinking of it: can you find a source that uses "collaborationist" about some country other than France? That's a good RS question you could work on if you are trying to help. Elinruby (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, its called wp:policy. All this idea would do is create endless discussion as to whether or not X is collaboration (see the stuff above about Hungary). Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Dude. I am trying to discuss the scope of the article, which is a reasonable and necessary part of article creation on a topic this big. You certainly aren't claim ming that we need to cover everything that any RS anywhere has ever called collaboration, are you? Listen to yourself. You are repeatedly violating policy by disrupting discussions and biting You oppose all change in an article that clearly needs it, where we are still finding major problems, like oh by the way the fragmented writing process has completely omitted any mention of the Munich Agreement until yesterday. This is about building an encyclopedia right? Stop claiming it's a violation of policy to do that. Consider this a formal warning to drop the stick. Elinruby (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I am saying that any additions must be backed by RS, and we can't subtract anything backed by RS. Unless a good policy-based argument (not any kind I don't like it argument) can be made to the contrary. So everything must be done on a base-by-base case, unless you can provide a clear (RS-backed) definition of collaboration (such as "traitorous cooperation with an enemy."). Of course, this needs a formal RFC to bring in fresh opinions and let the community decide. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Some words just don't lend themselves to a single interpretation that can be decided by some Reliable Source or Sources.

See, for example, the lead section of Treason, which gives a useful and reasonably precise legal description in the first two paragraphs, but concludes with a discussion of the word's many other meanings.

See also Wartime collaboration.

Wikipedia editors have to decide together what they want to tell readers of an article about and then decide what is the clearest, most specific and most accurate title they can give to it. Reliable Sources can be used when describing specific meanings (A and J use the word corn to describe grain in general — as in the British Corn Laws — while B, D and G just use corn only to describe maize) but they can't magically decide what we want to discuss or describe. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. RS don't know that Japan is a separate article or that there are article length requirements or that I for one will quit if we're supposed to collate every damn village informer that some RS mentioned, which of course we are not. Nor

@Slatersteven: (trying again) Nobody is talking about sticking that text in uncited! Also,I told you, and said in the OP, that the above is based on RS, and you just dismiss this I guess? (see definition 2) Since you aren't working on the article in the first place, it is burdensome to constantly have to stop and explain things to you when you ABF, or as I am now having to do, have someone else explain it to you. Either take the time to understand what is going on or stop trying to police it. Please. It's hard enough to get people to help in here without you.

@Shakescene: This is at the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, where I am asking for someone to explain scope to him. You hadn't posted here at the time and I didn't know if you wanted to be involved. At this point I guess you can be if you want to be, but I don't think it's necessary. So DENY is probably what applies there.

Did you have any issue with my understanding of who we're after? the Darlans and the Werths, pretty much. The nationalists and the ambitious who took some sort of notable action. LMK. We have talked this through before, I think. I mostly typed all that out for Transylvania in answer to his idea about the Nazis collaborating with the Romanians.

Elinruby (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually, @Elinruby: I have no problem at all discussing how the Nazis or the Fascisti helped (collaborated with) — say — some anti-Semitic or anti-Gypsy or anti-Allied programme started by a satellite/ally within (or even outside) the Axis, such as Slovakia, Austria, Hungary, Vichy France or Romania. Some SS leader or German diplomat — rather than directing some local puppets or stooges — might have given assistance to a local initiative with native roots that was already under way.

Insofar as my limited knowledge goes, the 1st & 2nd laws on French Jews' status were not German directed or inspired. Even less so for the laws against Freemasonry, a vivid target for Catholic reactionaries but of distinctly secondary importance to the Reich. (Roughly the same could be said about the Ustashe's forced conversion of Orthodox Christians to Catholicism at the edge of a cliff — although this home-grown campaign might have received no significant advice or assistance from Germany or Italy.)

That's why I was trying to make an inquiry about how we should replace the obsolete title, e.g. ¿ Collaboration with the European Axis powers.

But one editor seemed to have misunderstood my purpose in writing a parenthetical "(apparently)" when it was an admission of my own ignorance rather than a challenge to his (or her) assertions.

And another editor thinks that a vague term like "collaboration" can be restricted to its use in Reliable Sources — when we could be describing exactly identical behaviour (e.g. scheduling death trains or requisitioning foodstuffs) in two different countries, where there's only one country where a Reliable Source calls it collaboration and we can find no such RS that calls identical behaviour in the other "collaboration" (rather than say, complicity, collaboration or compliance).

But (although much of the heated debate and documentation is TL;DR for me) I'd prefer to keep it on the most-relevant article Talk Page, rather to some User Talkpage or to any external noticeboard. [Of course, if that doesn't work, I may change my mind.] —— Shakescene (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I only them to explain article scope to him. Probably no content decisions will be involved. Most likely they will say it is a behaviour problem and punt it to ANI. Which definitely doesn't do content. But I had to try; I've just had that conversation way too many times and apparently it"s been falling on deaf ears. As for our newish editor; turns out they are in college, which explains some things, not necessarily bad, like a slight aura of caffeine. But although I had to repeat itself a few times, he did finally realize what I was saying about General Werth, so if his sources are good he may turn out to be a valuable contributor. I meant to check on that today but I seriously need a nap now so in the morning maybe. And it sounds like we need to discuss whether groups can be collaborators, but sure. Hasta la mañana Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

/1165833006]. Elinruby (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

" where there's only one country where a Reliable Source calls it collaboration and we can find no such RS that calls identical behaviour in the other "collaboration" (rather than say, complicity, collaboration or compliance).", that read like content to me. So yes this is about what we include is it not? Also (yes)m this does look like you want to include unsourced claims of collaboration based upon criteria we decide upon. Slatersteven (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I have provided an idea for the scope "traitorous cooperation with an enemy.", so far I am the only one that has suggested criteria. Maybe we need to see some actual suggestions? Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

You're still assuming bad faith, it seems to me, and it's annoying from someone whose own substantive contributions have been limited to chasing off contributors because the article is "fine", keeping out the British Fascist Party when {u|BobfromBarkley}} tried to add it, and defending a Channel Island section that doesn't meet CT sourcing standards. So now you want to discuss? Ok. Please lose the attitude and explain why you took the url and the RS tag off that blog in the Channel Islands section? Is it really within scope to asset that nobody there was guilty of informing? PS your dictionary definition doesn't help us much with scope, whereas the lede I wrote contains one that is cited and at least provides us with broad criteria that you are now objecting to. So maybe read that and let us know. Apology is optional since I can figure the odds. I rewrote the one that was there because it limited collaboration to cooperating with any occupying force and I failed in my attempt to source the notion that you can't collaborate unless your country is invaded. And while we're discussing, someone should go through the articles in the Collaboration with the Axis powers category. We seem to be omitting quite a few broadcasters for one thing. @Shakescene: I did see Collaboration in wartime, which is a pretty good article but short. Probably the what is collaboration could be expanded upon there. There are some other considerations, but for now... coffee Elinruby (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not about me, or my edits. Discuss my suggestion or make an alternative one.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I did discuss your suggestion. I said it wasn't helpful. I did make an alternate suggestion, at length, above, and you made a bunch of aspersions. I also suggested, post-aspersions, that you read the definition in the existing lede, which you obviously have not if you think that nobody has proposed a definition, and explained (yet again) what was wrong with the one it replaced.

Let me give you an example. Say you are a Kalmyk conscript in the Soviet army and are taken prisoner. The mortality rate in the POW camp is high, say 40%. You are informed that you are now a member of a German infantry unit, where you will be fed. When you reach the Western Front you desert and join the Free French, along with the rest of your unit. Did you traitorously cooperate with an enemy? If so to what extent was that cooperation notable? Elinruby (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

fun as it is to explain to you the posts you didn't read in hopes that this will somehow be the explanation you *will* read, I have things to do. By the way, I note that before you reverted Transylvania the other day you hadn't touched the article itself in two years, so it wasn't Slatersteven who removed the RS tag. I'll look into that for the lulz, but today I need to see about the light bill. Tomorrow maybe I'll delete the Channel Islands section, which has cites to two laws and a primary source. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to have the word collaboration in the title, then because of historiographical developments in the use of this exact word, and the fact that this is an article about history, imho you are going to have to restrict the content to the type of thing that the majority of historians are talking about when they use that word (or change the title). If we agree so far, then we have to address the next step, which as I understand it, is the point of disagreement: what if the *exact same thing" is happening in country B that happened in country A, and historians called the situation in A collaboration, but we can't find sources that call them that in B, what do we do? I could imagine cases where A is very well known with tons of sources, maybe B less so, say. Conjecture: collaboration is just an English word, so if it's identical behavior in A and B, and it's reliably collaboration in A then it's collaboration in B, by some sort of syllogism.

If the word collaboration *were* a plain, ol' English word with no historical baggage, and the title was a descriptive title, then I would agree, and say fine, the conjecture is true, so go ahead. But collaboration is no longer that type of "innocent" English word, and is used in a very specific sense among historians, and I think what historians *don't say* about something can be just as illuminating as what they do say. Why isn't such-and-such called a "genocide" when this case right over here which seems identical is *not* called a genocide? The point is not that it's mathematically obvious that it's the same, the point is, we cannot put ourselves in the position of making the call about calling a given situation a "genocide" because *we* think it's identical to the other one; that would be substituting our opinion for the opinion of historians.

Even consensus that they are identical and therefore we can say "genocide" even if historians don't, won't fly, because WP:NPOV trumps consensus and cannot be overturned by it. To my (initial) view of this, it looks to me like collaboration here is a loaded word with specific meaning among historians, just like genocide is (although plenty of non-specialists throw it around for all sorts of different situations, which we can safely ignore) and therefore we cannot apply the term collaboration in Wikipedia's voice to a situation where the majority of historians have not used that term, because that would be original research by attempting to substitute our opinions (even majority, even 100% if it came to it) for the opinions of the reliable sources, and we can't do that.

Historians are professional writers, and they think very carefully about every word of their output, because their reputation is at stake with every publication. That goes equally for the words they *don't* say; we can never assume that they "just didn't happen to think of that word" or something; I'm sure they think over and over and over, and rewrite and rewrite and rewrite; if the word collaboration is not in their published text C, it's because they didn't want it to be there; they didn't just forget, or find some other word randomly. We cannot decide amongst ourselves to use a term loaded with historical significance for a given situation, where the majority of historians choose not to use it. Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

You exaggerate. From my experience of deep dives on Google Books, historians are often negligent towards "lesser" countries, routinely getting things wrong about them or mixing things up. And this in case they don't just "forget" about them, overlooking them altogether. The acknowledgement of the actions of a country shouldn't be influenced by its status in the world. There's a British historian and professor on Youtube (I won't name him), guy is an absolute encyclopedia on anything Nazi. But when he made a one-off video about Moldova and Romania, the amount of BS he spewed could fertilize a whole field. I strongly disagree with you, Mathglot. They do "just forget". A lot. Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets have an RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

We should only be talking about how collaboration is defined when referring to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. There are a number of useful definitions in the academic literature regarding this. For example, Collaboration with the Nazis: Public Discourse After the Holocaust edited by Roni Stauber and published by Routledge has very useful observations about this. As does Davies' Dangerous Liaisons: Collaboration and World War Two published by Pearson/Longman. Davies examines four types of collaboration with the Nazi: political, financial, The Holocaust, and social collaboration. Drapac and Pritchard's Resistance and Collaboration in Hitler's Empire published by Bloomsbury is also very helpful. I think an examination of the academic consensus on what constituted collaboration, and the types of collaboration and the motives for and outcomes of collaboration is probably the path where a solution to this lies. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Cough, I will say again: I spent several days on sources when I re-wrote the lede. Slatersteven assumes otherwise but is Simply Wrong. That said I will take a look at your suggestions and repeat my invitation to you to actually work on the page, as you seem to know quite a bit about Yugoslavia, where the article does need help. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: How goes it? I will try and get hold of those books. Have you came across this book perchance [1]? scope_creep^Talk 15:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: If I can get that book definition I gave you, it would ideal. I'll try on interlibrary loan. However those three texts you posted are ideal. Excellent reading. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

List of omissions

Thanks for the list, was thinking of making one of these.Elinruby (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Croatian pilots

Croatian Air Force Legion describes the problem differently. I have no idea who is right. Xx236 (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hungary

Arrow Cross Party and Szálasi not mentioned. Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe one line. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

They were pretty important. They probably need more than that. I had ready noticed this one and am on it. Elinruby (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Romania

Iron Guard not mentioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have been crushed (in 1941), so unsure this needs adding. Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

of course it needs adding. We go on at huge length about other fascist movements Elinruby (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

But most (all?) of those others had some collaboration (such as setting up governments, for example, not being crushed). So (sorry it has to be said) we need RS to add this, as right now it just seems to be a case of "they were fascist".Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

eyeroll of course it needs RS. I just don't believe there isn't any Elinruby (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't even think about it. The Iron Guard was the only Fascist Party that rose to power without foreign assistance. See here and here. In general y'all seem to ignore - or worse, actively refuse to accept - Romania's exceptionalism. I do not oppose the existence of a Romania section, but it is yet to present any actual instance of collaboration. As you can see here, the Romanian Holocaust - besides being "by far" the largest killing of Jews by non-German forces - also wasn't part of the Nazi Final Solution, being "operationally separate". While in general it is reasonable to assume collaboration with the Nazis when a country perpetrates the Holocaust, in Romania's particular case, this just isn't the case. All Romania's sorry excuse for a section has right know is the shoehorning of imagined Nazi preeminence in Romanian plans. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources for Romania [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] [[5]] . Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

These provide no examples, they merely use the titular word. Even the one stating that Romania collaborated with the Nazis in extermination actions a) fails to give any example and b) specifically states that Romania wasn't occupied, which takes us back to what we actually mean by collaboration. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Occupation and collaboration are not the same thing and an example "The Romanian army and police forces collaborated with the Nazis helping to plan and carry out the murders of thousands of Jews. They also acted independently to carry out several barbaric executions and pogroms in annexed or occupied territories. In total, German and Romanian troops, with assistance from local Romanians and Ukrainians, murdered over 160,000 of Romania’s Jews.". Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

These are just empty words. I have researched the Romanian Holocaust extensively - the camps, ghettos and massacres - and I have not found a single instance of Romania collaborating in any Nazi-planned extermination action. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Other examples [[6]] " Nazis' Einsatzgruppe D, with the collaboration of the Romanian army:" [[7]] [[8]] "The countries that signed alliances with the Nazis represent official collaboration. They provided troops for the Axis forces (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and took part in the invasion of the USSR from June 1941. In addition, they all complied with Nazi requests to round up and deport their Jewish populations to Poland from 1942."!. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Romania distinctly didn't comply with Nazi deportation requests. See here. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Only from October 1942, initially they agreed, page 74, also page 157, "Antenescu deported the Jews just to impress Hitler". Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. No number of Jews for any of said "initial" deportations were provided, so likely they never actually commenced. Anyway, answer me this: if the planning of a massacre is Romanian, most of the forces involved are Romanian, but there is also a minority of Nazi units involved, aren't the Nazis doing the collaboration? Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

NO...do I really need to say why? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, actually. In any other case the answer would be yes, but since it's the Nazis it somehow makes it special. Explain why the slightest presence of the Nazis in an action of an allied state automatically turns said action into collaboration with the Nazis, explain why you give the Nazis all of this undue weight. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

OK, see wp:or wp:rs and wp:v, any edits made in violation of those is not valid. What you think is true is irrelevant you need RS to actually say it, the source you provided says they only stopped deportation STOPPED in 1942, it does not matter if you think this means none were deported, you need a source that says none were. Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Stop whining about RS already! You know what I found yesterday on Google Books? It said that Romania gained Transylvania in 1920, and then lost part of it in August 1920. Very obviously a goof by the author, clearly meaning to say 1940 instead. This is why you don't just blindly follow RS. You like to throw your little wps around, well you know what else is OR? COMMON SENSE!! Alas, rest assured, I never intend to edit this article ever again. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

If we use a source that says that feel free to remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

There is enough here (and already in the article) to say Romania collaborated. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Sweden

• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/murky-truth-of-how-a-neutral-sweden-covered-up-its-collaboration-with-nazis-5372299.html Xx236 (talk) 08:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yep, collaboration, RS says so. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Business, source

• https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cars.12262 Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Good. Elinruby (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Stauber

https://books.google.pl/books?id=X_ktCgAAQBAJ&dq=collaboration+nazi&hl=pl&source=gbs_navlinks_s Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

IRA

https://www.qub.ac.uk/sites/frankryan/InterpretativeResources/HistoricalContext/TheIRAslinkswithNaziGermany/ Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Much as I think it should go in, I can't find anything that actually says it was collaboration. So by using my own criteria no. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Hollywood

https://escholarship.org/content/qt97m7w0gs/qt97m7w0gs_noSplash_a6f7eff117f760f718ff016c0ab5c1bc.pdf Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, RS say it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It has a cite, the link. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a cite, but there is a book about it The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is a review [[9]]. Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, the long-standing business section talks about this. It probably could use more citations, but we've discussed spinning this one off the be its own article, so length doesn't have to be a factor. In fact the draft already exists, although it's still a duplicate of the section. Elinruby (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good then. Not questioning that it was the case. Elinruby (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

France

Holocaust trains#France Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

We have a section on their collaboration in the Holocaust. Unsure we need to expand it given the number of articles that fork off it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Switzerland

"Swiss banks provided necessary access to international markets by dealing in pilfered gold". Holocaust trains#Switzerland Xx236 (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Have a source [[10]], yes add. Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I am a mathematician

We can formulate any statement about collaboration using one definition of the collaboration. One source may say 'X collaborated' using one definition and an another one may use an another definition.

The USHMM defines "The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its allies and collaborators.", so cooperation with allies is different from collaboration.

• Who 'collaborates' - a state, a puppet state, an organization, individual people?
• Who collaborates with whom in a hierarchy of powers? If Bulgaria occupied some area, common people collaborated there with Bulgaria and Bulgaria collaborated with Nazi Germany, am I right? But the collaboration with Bulgaria does not belong here.
• Romania murdered the Jews, but did it indpendently or collaborated? Did the government/army know German extermination policy or had its own genocidal plans? Some historians may transfer responsibility to Romania, some to Germany, I do not know the sources.

Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

It hard to answer any of this without "shutting down the conversation". This is why we have to go by what RS say, because it is not an easy question. Anyone can collaborate from the man who gives directions to the state that supplies aid. The article scope has been changed, so this is about collaboration with Germany and Italy, so (no) collaboration with any other powers should not be included). As to Romania, as pointed out above, it did both, again we can only go by what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If the RS use undefined word 'collaboration' they misinform. Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

RS can be assumed to use the word deliberately. Nothing really more to add, we go by what RS say, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 10:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

To illustrate the problem, the Nazis' wanted to eradicate the Jews from Europe, that was the Nazi plan. Therefore (even if they did it off their own backs and for their own reasons) I (personally) would argue that if you participate in the Holocaust you collaborated with that plan, thus with the Nazi's. But this is my personal opinion (or wp:or), why does this get trumped by anyone else's OR? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In another words - is unaware action collaboration? Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I am unsure how you came to that idea. Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

You have written this ("if you participate in the Holocaust you collaborated with that plan"). Common killers obtained orders and killed - Jews, Soviets, criminals. They had no idea about any Holocaust. Some killers were opportunistic, killed and robbed golden teeth, they knew that killing of Germans was dangerous. Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Because your take has little to do with reality. I'm sorry if I come across as hostile to you, but the truth is that you do come across to me as an epitome of a glaring problem I keep encountering: overvaluing the Nazis to the detriment of their allies. As if Romania didn't have it's own rich history of antisemitism, merely paused by the post-WW1 minorities treaties. As if Romanian actions weren't explicitly outside the framework of the Nazi Final Solution. As if Raul Hillberg didn't explicitly single out Romania as the only country other than Germany to carry out full genocide: "from definitions to killings". Two things can happen at the same time and be separate. One thing you have to understand about RS: not all countries get the same treatment. If you're only working on countries like Germany and US then it's natural you get used to almost blindly trusting RS. These are countries that the masses "care" about, so research into them is given due diligence on a near-universal level. Not so much with countries that not many think about, like Romania. Corners are cut and things get mixed up. I for one thoroughly vet my sources before deciding to quote them. Just yesterday I stumbled upon a publication of the Colombia University Press. It said that the Romanian prime minister who issued the Romanian version of the Nuremberg Laws was legally rehabilitated. Except it gave the wrong name, completely mixing things up and naming Antonescu's finance minister instead. And while both were rehabilitated, this glaring flaw renders this otherwise prestigious source unusable. Clearly a result of what I came to call "small country negligence". Not to mention the plethora of sources on German-Soviet battles that completely fail to mention Romania, even when it literally was the only other belligerent present. And these people, well, they're people like you. People who - for whatever reason - quasi-deify the Nazis and give them heaps of undeserved credit,to the detriment of their allies. Yes, they did have allies. Even though some would portray mere Nazi German presence as occupation (which hardly ever happens with any other country; nobody portrays US military presence in NATO allies as occupation), even though some would portray every Nazi ally as "occupied" (even when they demonstrably weren't. And yes, these allies did have minds, agendas and plans of their own. And they did get to disagree with the Nazis and successfully stand their ground over it. In conclusion, I'm not saying I necessarily oppose Romania's inclusion in this article, I'm saying that it is included for the wrong reasons. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

No, not me, RS. We go by what RS say (this is policy as is wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not know the details and sources,but my general opinion was exactly the same. Xx236 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Xx236are there any sources in this article that have a contradicting definition of what collaboration is ? Durraz0 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

See above. The USHMM defines two types of cooperation - alliance and collaboration. Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Germans collaborated with the Nazis, according to the Wiener Library. https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/resistance-responses-collaboration/german-collaboration-and-complicity/ Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

With the Nazi's, not Nazi Germany (which is what this article is about). But if you are going to try and argue for inclusion of this as collaboration, go ahead and add it, I will not remove it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think German collaboration with the German government or the Nazis (which are essentially the same thing) belongs in this article. That opens up a whole new can of worms about the definition of collaboration. We have an article called German resistance to Nazism which covers the opposite and much more definable subject. Smallchief (talk) 11:43, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes the Hiwi made up ?

Hiwis? Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I hope I addressed your questions in these edits with the rephrasing [11] and the explanation of what Hiwi means [12]. Cukrakalnis (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Plural is 'Hiwis'.Xx236 (talk) 06:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fixed by now Cukrakalnis (talk) 10:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Countesses of the Gestapo

Should be linked, probably. Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Merge, too little for one article, and has a whiff of OR. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A Ref Desk question that may be of interest

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Soviet peoples response to German invasion @Elinruby: @Mathglot: @Marcelus: —— Shakescene (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Improving lead

proposed re-write of lead to make it clearer, remove references to particular countries to achieve a more neutral and WP:IMPARTIAL tone and mention additional collaboration motivations such as the fear of communism and ethnic ties. see below @Elinruby@Shakescene@Peacemaker67@E-960

During World War II, several countries, organisations and individuals opted for collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, a decision shaped by a complex interplay of political, economic, and strategic factors. Political alignment constituted a significant motivator, as some nations shared authoritarian or fascist ideologies, seeing collaboration as a means to further their political interests. Stanley Hoffman in 1968 used the term "collaborationist" to describe those who collaborated for ideological reasons. Additionally, territorial ambitions played a role, with countries seeking to regain territories lost during and after the First World War, pursue expansionist goals or settle disputes with neighbouring states through the support of the Axis powers.

Economic interests were another driving force for collaboration. Many nations sought economic benefits, such as access to resources, trade opportunities, or financial assistance in exchange for aligning themselves with the Axis powers. Germany, especially, leveraged economic incentives to secure collaboration and support from various nations. Security concerns also influenced collaboration, as some countries aligned with the Axis powers to protect themselves from external threats or potential aggression, believing that such alignment would enhance their security. Others believed that Germany would prevail, and either wanted to be on the winning side, or feared being on the losing one.

The fear of communism played a significant role in shaping collaboration, as some nations viewed the Axis powers as a bulwark against the spread of communism. This ideological rivalry between fascism and communism led certain countries to align themselves strategically with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Occupied territories faced a different dynamic, where collaboration often resulted from coercion. Invasions and occupations led to the establishment of collaborationist governments, administered by the Axis powers to maintain control over the conquered territories.

Ethnic or cultural ties also played a role in some instances, where regions with populations sympathetic to Nazi ideology or historical connections to Germany or Italy were more inclined to collaborate. Moreover, the fear of reprisals influenced the decisions of certain countries, as they chose collaboration to mitigate potential negative consequences for their populations or governments. Aeengath (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

That may well be the case, if it is supported by high quality reliable sources. However, what also needs to be mentioned is that many of them collaborated with those who were murdering or expelling etc members of their country or ethnic group. This needs to be carefully calibrated, because some collaborators had mixed motives, including wanting to be in power after the war etc etc, and anti-communism in particular was a common cover for plans to seize power. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Not against a rewrite as it no longer reflects even my own understanding and I'm the one who rewrote what was there into something less simplistic. You have, by the way overlooked some important contributors to the current version such as @Mathglot: and @Shakescene: @Cukrakalnis: and @Scope creep: I have issues with your version and probably we should take them one by one. First of all there is a lot of weasel. "Populations or governments"? In many cases these were separate sets of interests. Also Communism, at least in the Baltics, was often a code word for Jews. It is true that in countries like Ukraine the Nazis were initially seen as liberators from the Soviets, and if that is what you meant I agree with you, but this should be more explicit. The fear was not of communism per se but of Gulag prison camps and corrupt collectivization schemes (see Holodomor). What you are expressing is coming across to me as anachronistic McCarthyism, but no doubt I am reading that wrong.

I also have not found the a good source for the template the Nazis used to encourage nationalists to believe that their countries would be liberated from imperialism, and so grand sweeping statements about this become synth; yet this was definitely the case in at LEAST half a dozen countries and this is why despite the usual practice there were sourced examples in the lede. There has also only recently been any attempt to define "what is collaboration"and since we will inevitably be told it is whatever the sources say, and the sources say it is everything from selling out your country for a promotion to sleeping with a soldier for food to buying and selling on the black market (without which people starved) to signing up to defend the homeland against the Soviets to joining an SS unit to get out of a work camp with lethal living conditions to trying to keep the lights turned on in Copenhagen. The tragedy of all of this moral ambiguity of course is that almost inevitably there was a slippery slope and collaborators found themselves betraying their moral principles inch by inch, but the historiography is increasing going in the direction of less ideological fervor and more attention to actual facts. And that is a good thing. And it is also what the sources say, cough.

I am wary of proposals that start with the lede. The article has big glaring problems that should be addressed before we discuss a wholesale rewrite of the lede -- that is not the way it is supposed to work and people were telling me at one point that I needed to rewrite the article to fit the lede, which is exactly backwards. I had to delete a couple of entire sections of completely unsourced ethnic slurs for example, and yet there is no question that collaboration did take place in those countries. One question is "in" vs "by", plus the definitions of countries. if a man born in what is now the Donbas committed an atrocity in Poland, what section does this go in? And since the yopic is so big perhaps we should separate out the war crimes for their own article? I have recently written one about the black market in France, for example.

Note that because Poland this is a Contentious Topic article, not merely with respect to Poland; all of the current sources are academic and I will do my best to enforce that. Let's start with you explaining in what way you feel the lede is not IMPARTIAL. Possibly you are right, but impartiality was certainly my intention when I wrote it. My constructive suggestion would be that I do something with the notes I have been making elsewhere about a collaboration typology and the role of propaganda.Elinruby (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I appreciate the proposer's courtesy in putting the idea here and informing other regular editors, before editing or replacing the current lead. I know how hard it is to write a lead and I know we're all unpaid volunteers in search of a common object, so it pains me to say that I hate the prose and organization of the proposed substitute. Many words are long, the paragraphs seem dense and some sentences are involved. I found myself nodding off somewhere in the middle of paragraph 3.

For whatever weaknesses it may have, the current lede is relatively easy to understand and besides summarizing and unifying the article's contents, it fulfils another main purpose of WP:Lede — to entice the reader to proceed further into the body of the article. The substitute, on the other hand, seems just as likely to deter readers from finishing the lede or exploring further into the article's body.

¶ On the other hand, there may well be (as the current lede's chief creator suggests) individual points that can be improved, corrected, amplified or clarified, and I think it would be far more useful to discuss individual points than to replace the whole lede in one fell swoop. (I have to confess that I haven't yet had the patience to seek out and judge each individual point, but I'd certainly be interested in considering those points of which I can at least pretend to have some knowledge.)

@Elinruby, Mathglot, Peacemaker67, Aeengath, E-960, and Scope creep: —— Shakescene (talk)

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

perhaps a point of departure: Western and northern European countries were, at least initially, considered "Aryanizable" and competent to provide the bureaucracy to keep the lights on, ie France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark. In Eastern Europe the plan was always Lebensraum so forced deportations at a minimum were always in the cards for Poland and Lithuania and Ukraine. I have no idea why Slovenia was an exception. Perhaps pour encourager les autres (I realize that the phrase is not meant to be taken literally; it's a joke). Anyway, I saw this dichotomy in an explanation of why Lithuania was never going to be allowed autonomy and believe I can find it again, so for the sake of the argument, if we can source that, does that get us anywhere? Clearly the consequence is that in France for example, the stakes were not the lives of people initially, although they got there soon enough; but at first the Germans just wanted to buy raw materials at any price and some people said hey why not. In Lithuanian however almost the entire Jewish population was massacred within days, so denial of the Nazis' murderous intentions wasn't possible.

Also, we really need to address Ukraine, Poland and the Balkans before we try to summarize the article in the lede imho. Elinruby (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with Elinruby about doing the body first. Nevertheless, there are some specific things we can look at in the lead. As one example, the last two paragraphs (from "Other volunteers willingly enlisted..." to "...advocacy of the occupier's ideology", currently) are all about the terminology used in this topic, in particular collaboration vs. collaborationism as per Stanley Hoffman. For starters, the two paragraphs should be combined. Secondly, Hoffman, Gordon, and the terminology are not mentioned in the body, but it is an important subtopic, and I would create section #Terminology in the body as the number one section. (For now, that can be very easily accomplished just by sticking "== Terminology ==" in front of "Stanley Hoffman in 1968 used the term...".)

We can then expand the new Terminology section a bit, making clearer the distinction between those who were full-throated ideological supporters of Nazi Germany hoping for, and actively working for Germany's victory in the war (i.e., collaborationists) and the much larger group of collaborators who went along with Nazi objectives somewere between grudgingly and resignedly in order to save their own skin or for opportunistic reasons. This is not a mere quibble about words, but became a central theme, in France at least, such topics as the Sword and shield theory supporting the actions of Petain (the "Shield") as actually an attempt to protect French citizens as much as possible by going along to get along lest it make things even worse, and the post-war widespread view in France that everybody was a Resister and nobody a collaborator—roughly historian Raymond Aron's view (mid 1950s) until smashed to bits by the historiographical Paxtonian revolution (late 1970s).

Only two people are mentioned by name in the lead. Dutch General Hendrik Seyffardt appears (but not in the body); how representative is he? Also mentioned is another general, Theodoros Pangalos (as well as in section § Greece). Many collaborators were neither generals nor politicians but merely opportunists, some having almost no political goals or opinions at all. For example, according to his own words, Henri Lafont could've gone either way pro- or anti-Nazi; as there was more money and power to be had in the former, that's where he ended up. While collaboration was by no means limited to France, to my knowledge that's where a lot of the historiographical attention has been (as the subsectioned #France section shows, without ever even mentioning Lafont), and imho it would make sense to have a French example in the body and the lead, which we don't currently have. Doesn't have to be Lafont; there's a very long list of characters to choose from. Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There are huge discussions of what is collaboration going on even today in Lithuania, to the point where this was made a contentious topic in December. At least two historians have historiographical pieces, which generally follow the same pattern of "it was the Nazis", "no, it was us", and then "it's complicated". I don't have this written up yet because I got into it when it wound up at ANI then Arbcomwith respect to specific articles, but I have some material about it that could be included, with some side problems, in a historiography section.

What Mathglot has put under "Terminology" is a separate issue. Someone, possibly not a native English speaker, has misused "collaborationist" across a wide variety of articles as simply the adjective for "collaborated", including for edge cases like the units that were recruited in Lithuania to fight the Soviets when they thought they were going to be allowed to have a country. This is not reflected in sources; neither I nor the Reference Desk could find instances of it being used in this way anywhere but English Wikipedia. There are a few instances of "collaborationist" being correctly used by analogy outside France for ideological collaborators. And yes, those ideological collaborators are what the sentence you moved up was talking about, Mathglot, so you did right. I'm thinking Terminology would go under Historiography, but it could also be a separate section if people prefer.

Getting back to France -- Lafont is an example of a collaborator who was willing to be bought, no? Depends how the text is written, but Darlan is better known, and might be better for the lede, although that's complicated by the fact that he switched sides. Rene Bousquet is another possibility, but how well know is *he*?

Gonna go look at this Soviet Union thing now, got sidetracked last night. Elinruby (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Forced labor

we have a dedicated subsection about this under France but I think that is merely because the more recently active editors mostly came to the article from Vichy. Wasn't there also forced labor from other countries? I am thinking there was. Somebody said something about Poland, for example. Elinruby (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course there was. And how can forced anything be collaboration? See Forced labour under German rule during World War II. Also Forced labor in Nazi concentration. What's next? Calling concentration camp inmates collaborators because they let themselves be incarcerated and murdered in them? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 7 February 2024 (UTC)