Jump to content

Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy/Archive 2

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

Polish Waffen SS

Please follow the link [[1]]--Jacurek (talk) 17:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

All Eastern European countries had volunteers in various divisions of the SS. Poland is not the sole exception. I have supplied TWO well known references that there were Polish in the SS, but Wikipedia has a long history of 'picking and choosing' published sources. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong.--Jacurek (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Did you even read the two sources I supplied ? 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

There were whole divisions of Slavs in the SS. Hitler twice wrote in Mein Kampf that Russians are a 'Great people', so obviously Hitler did not consider Slavs subhuman at all. The two sources I provided are Williamson's book and Rikmenspoel's book, these are BOOKS not websites. Both of these BOOKS say there were Poles in the 14th division SS - and it is wikipedia policy to accept sourced material ! 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sir "Anon", what are your real intentions here[[2]] ?--Jacurek (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My intention is to abide by wikipedia's policy of respecting sourced material. You are trying to ignore sources that you are personally bothered by, perhaps because you are Polish ? That is my suspicion. You don't mind that most all European countries had volunteers in the SS but you don't like it when someone points it out that the Poles did it too.65.32.128.178 (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Most European countries had volunteers in the SS, you are right, but there were no Polish SS formations. Germans had quite different plans for both Polish Jews and Christian Poles. You can find a lot of information about it right here in Wikipedia. Thanks for you comments.--Jacurek (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Not a Polish division but Poles were scattered into other Divisions. Also, Hitler had absolutely nothing whatsoever against Christian Poles at all ! 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well..he killed almost 3 million of them, plus 3 million Polish Jews (they were Poles also, you know).... Hey, what about reading this to start. [[3]] You can also follow link there to other articles. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Skorzeny and Nietzsche are POLISH NAMES. Any Poles the Germans killed were either Jews or Communists. Germans killed lots of German communists too. That's all. And Lebenstraum only referred to traditional German lands, nothing more. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I have a feeling that you are just trolling here. (or maybe you need (no offence) basic Holocaust education) I have to end this conversation. Bye.--Jacurek (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You Americans don't even know what WWII was about. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Really? Then why are YOU using a U.S. internet service? Stop being a tiresome troll and stop propagandizing Wikipedia.

OrgName:Road Runner HoldCo LLC
OrgID: RRSW
Address: 13241 Woodland Park Road
City: Herndon
StateProv: VA
PostalCode: 20171
Country: US
ReferralServer: rwhois://ipmt.rr.com:4321
NetRange: 65.32.0.0 - 65.34.15.255
CIDR: 65.32.0.0/15, 65.34.0.0/20
NetName: ROADRUNNER-SOUTHEAST
NetHandle: NET-65-32-0-0-1
Parent: NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: DNS1.RR.COM
NameServer: DNS2.RR.COM
NameServer: DNS3.RR.COM
NameServer: DNS4.RR.COM
Comment: ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE
RegDate: 2000-08-22
Updated: 2004-08-26
RTechHandle: ZS30-ARIN
RTechName: ServiceCo LLC
RTechPhone: +1-703-345-3416
RTechEmail: abuse@rr.com
OrgAbuseHandle: ABUSE10-ARIN
OrgAbuseName: Abuse
OrgAbusePhone: +1-703-345-3416
OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@rr.com
OrgTechHandle: IPTEC-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Tech
OrgTechPhone: +1-703-345-3416
OrgTechEmail: abuse@rr.com
91.32.94.5 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Why ? To educate brainwashed Americans, that is why. And to put some truth into wikipedia. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Rikmenspeol is explicit. His Page 190 there are two paragraphs that say Ethnic Poles served in both the SS and the Wehrmacht. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exact quote here it is: Rikmenspoel on page 190 states, quote: Ethnic Poles..served in all branches of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. - Unquote. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I just provided a definitive exact quote ! Wikipedia rules are clear ! Rikmenspoel is precisely quoted in the footnote.65.32.128.178 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Schutzmannschaft 202

Please, don't write if you don't know the subject. The numbers are for a number of units, not the one 202. Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Any Poles the Germans killed were either Jews or Communists

How to stop the ignorant? A number of people in my family were killed, neither Communist nor Jewish. Xx236 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In Poland as in France, a number of fools at first resisted the Germans entering their countries in 1940, but in both France and Poland once the Germans came in and stabilized things they all got along very well, because Pétain really thought just like Hitler, and so did anticommunist Poles. My Polish grandmother's family in Krakow had no problem with the Germans at all, they knew the real terror was from the Soviets. You need watch the documentary the sorrow and the pity about how well Germans got along with the French, it was the same in Poland, except for communist Poles. I'll say it once again, you Americans don't even know what WWII was about. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Only 500,000 ? Yesterday you said it was 2 to 3 million. The Germans were perfect gentlemen with my Polish grandmother's family in Krakow, they got along perfectly fine. No commies in my family. Also, think about this, the Americans murdered 3 million Vietnamese, how about that ? 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't. Don't lie. BTW - do read what Wikipedia is, you seem to ignore basic ideas of this project. It's not about your ego.Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Yesterday someone claimed it was 3 million. You cut it to 500,000. So you must be a revisionist. Also, answer my question, did not you Americans murder 3 million Vietnamese, many of them Christians ? This is a pertinent question.65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Exact quote here it is: Rikmenspoel on page 190 states, quote: Ethnic Poles..served in all branches of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. - Unquote. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, Xx236, DFTT [4]. Just revert on sight and let him rave his crazy on the talk page until it gets too racist and then remove it from here as well.radek (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I just provided a definitive exact quote ! Wikipedia rules are clear ! Rikmenspoel is precisely quoted in the footnote.65.32.128.178 (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor

Wotcha. I just came over from AN/I where I saw this thread. Now, I'm not a particularly old editor, but I've seen my share of disputes. Perhaps I can help as an uninvolved editor and offer some mediation? Perhaps we could start by laying out, quite simply, what each editor wants to appear on this page, and we could end the edit-warring and infighting? Does that sound good to anyone? Skinny87 (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one side of this dispute involes editors. The other side tells stories about his grandmother and Vietnamese. Wikippedia isn't an open forum.Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I've indented your post to make it easier to see, and might I suggest you make only one section per talkpage at a time for ease of use? Anyway, do you have diffs referencing what you're saying, or any links to talkpage sections? Skinny87 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

[[5]] Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

USA

No paragraph about US collaborators. Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This [6] could be the basis for such a paragrpah.radek (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Axis, not Nazis

The title is about the Axis, the article mostly about the Nazis.Xx236 (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As it includes a section of collaboration with Japan, there is hardly any other title the article could bear.--Erikupoeg (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but the section on Japan is like 10% of the article if that. Why not split it off, call this one "with the Nazis" and then have an article for Axis which mostly directs to the various subpages. Also, in terms of someone looking for information my guess'd be that they'd be more likely to type in "with the Nazis" or "with Japan" in the search box, rather than "with the Axis".radek (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Agree--Erikupoeg (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Prominent collaborators

The article informs about organisations. I believe that prominent personalities should be also mentioned, eg. Ezra Pound.Xx236 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Polish in the Wehrmacht and SS

Mark Rikmenspoel, Encyclopedia of the Waffen-SS, on page 190 Rikmenspoel states, exact quote: Ethnic Poles..served in all branches of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS. - Unquote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.128.178 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.. I'm tired of typing same thing over and over .... I will just copy/paste one comment [[7]]of another editor concerning Mark Rikmenspoel and your recent edits:

....some Polish citizens, classified as Volksdeutsche by the Germans, were conscripted into service in the Wehrmacht. This is well documented in the west because many of these soldiers were taken prisoner and many again opted to serve in thePolish forces in the west. However, the article in question concerns collaboration, and for me at least, it is a very questionable idea that someone who is forced into military service is a collaborator. As is pointed out in Partisan Warfare by Nigel Thomas and Peter Abbott, there were no ethnically Polish units formed in the Wehrmacht or the SS. It did not happen precisely because the German attitude toward occupied Poland was so ferociously anti-Polish. The IP editor also downplayed the murder of some six million Polish citizens, almost evenly divided between Catholic and Jewish, and then went on to assert that many countries in Europe were relieved to have the Germans invade because it made the countries orderly. As to the quoted author Rikmonspoel, a survey of his literature paints him as an SS apologist. For example, one of his articles makes the brazen claim that the church at Oradour-sur-Glane, France, was set afire by the French resistance who supposedly did so to make the SS look bad. This claim is based on stories supposedly told by citizens of Oradour to an unnamed Bundeswehr officer who purportedly visited Oradour in the 1960's. This stuff is pure fantasy that is fodder for those who have adopted Hitler's soldiers as their Second World War heroes and who are prepared to believe any nonsense that attempts to put organisations like the SS in a positive light....

Hope this will help.--Jacurek (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Rikmenspoel is a recognized expert specialized in the Waffen-SS. He states as a fact there were indeed Ethnic Poles in the SS, and not just Volkdeutsch. The authors you quote are specialized in the Partisans, not the SS. As for Oradour it is well known in France the communist resistance was responsible for the church fire. Your calling Rikmenspoel an antisemite is laughable and no argument. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You are doing nothing but repeating revisionist lies. Rikmenspoel's "idea" concerning Oradour is nothing new, he is just parroting Reynouard. For commentary on this, see: SS apologist Reynouard. Rikmenspoel is another SS apologist and can in no way be categorized as a "standard reference". You are also clearly unfamiliar with the book on partisan warfare mentioned because it also addresses the German side and collaborationist organisations. The authors, unlike Rikmenspoel, have a balanced approach to this topic. 91.32.124.191 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

None of these books[8] confirm your claims that ethnic Poles served is Waffen SS. Please stop.--Jacurek (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you really read all of those books ? I seriously doubt you. Rikmenspoel is a standard reference, he has published knowledge of it, Poles in the Wehrmacht and SS. Also Gordon Williamson quotes a Polish General who recognized that there were Polish SS, Williamson's page 124. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Polish general' was an ethnic Ukrainian with pre war Polish citizenship. Please stop you disruptive editing.--Jacurek (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

    • I will try last time with exact numbers of Waffen SS personel:

Reichsdeutsche : considered as german citizens (Germany, Austria, Sudetes, Alsace & Lorraine (French), Luxembourg, sud Tyrol) : 400 000 SS troops

Volksdeutsche : considered as fereigner germans : (Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Banat Yougoslavia, Poland, Lithania ) : 300 000 SS Troops

Nordiqs SS : Finland : 4 000 Danmark : 6 000 Norway : 8 000 Nederland : 40 000 Belgians : 25 000 (flemish) Sweden : 300 Latvia : 25 000 Estonia : 15 000

Western European SS : France : 10 000 Belgians : 9 000(Walloons) Switzerland : 700 UK : 100 Italia : 10 000

Slavic, Asin and East European SS : Russia : 18 000 Belorussia : 10 000 Ukrania : 30 000 Cosaques : 30 000 Turkmènes : 15 000 Goergia : 3 000 Armenia : 3 000 Tatars : 10 000 Kirgiz : 2 000 Uzbeks : 2 000


Central & Balkans : Slovenia : 6 000 Albania : 4 000 Serbians : 4 000 Bosnians : 20 000 Greece : 1 000 Slovak : 5 000 Hungary : 40 000 Bulgaria : 3 000 Romania : 5 000

From L Van Greelen & F Steiner (germans), G Stein (US), and F Duprat (France).

      • There was no ethnically Polish Waffen-SS unit or ethnic Poles throughout the whole war. The Germans never tried to create such units. In 1942 they made an attempt to create a Waffen-SS unit composed of the Polish highlanders Gorale whom they considered as being the closest to the Aryan race among the Polish "sub-humans". They managed to amass around 200 people and sent them to Trawniki base where they were to recieve their basic trainig. Half of the volunteers deserted while on the road, the remaining half started fighting with the Ukrainians who trained at the same base. Only 12 of them finished their basic training and Germans abandoned the whole idea...

What else do you need do convince you or you just playing with everybody ?--Jacurek (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Jacurek, this is unfortunately a waste of time. This person is a true believer and is here either to agitate or propagandize. 91.32.124.191 (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
You are probably right. Thanks for your comments.--Jacurek (talk) 07:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Jacurek just contradicted himself. His source regarding Polish Gorales is a prime example of Poles in the SS. As Jacurek admits, a number of them finished SS training successfully. This confirms Rikmenspoel, and Rikmenspoel is aware of other examples of Poles in the SS as he affirms in his well known Encyclopedia of the Waffen-SS. Thank you Jacurek for confirming Rikmenspoel, with your example of the Polish Gorales. Wikipedia says the Gorale consider themselves Polish and that they speak a southern dialect of Polish. My thanks to Jacurek for this example of Polish in the SS. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are actual official photographs of the Polish SS in uniforms: http://www.irekw.internetdsl.pl/202Schutzmannschaftsbatalion.html

While, like I said already, the above disruptive editor is just a revisionist troll and needs to be ignored, the issue of the Goralenvolk is something that could be mentioned in the article. Mostly about how that attempt at collaboration by a couple pro-Nazi Gorale failed spectacularly. The whole story behind Goralische Division SS is that in trying to impress the Nazis (and hoping to carve out their own satellite state in southern Poland), Krzepkowski, Szatkowski and Cukier promised Hans Frank ten thousand volunteers for the SS Division. 300 actually volunteered, mostly for the material rewards offered. Only 200 were accepted and put on a train to a training camp. Less than twenty arrived as everyone else jumped out of the train on the way there and deserted. And after that fiasco the Germans never took the Goralenvolk leaders seriously again and in fact most of them spend the last couple years of the war hiding from *everybody*; Soviets, Gestapo, Polish underground, Polish army, Slovaks etc. So again, this could be mentioned in there somewhere although going into too much detail would be undue weight for what is essentially a footnote to a footnote of history. On the other hand the Goralenvolk article could use some work.radek (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The above actual photographs of the Polish SS belie your account. And so does the Polish language discussion there, which you obviously cannot read. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Goralen declared they weren't Polish and as non-Polish were accepted. Schutzmannschafen were Schutzmannschafen. I bet the Germans knew what they created. Xx236 (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Volksdeutche were Volksdeutsche, not ethnic Poles. Some people in Poland had unclear ethnicity, eg. in Upper Silesia and Pomorze. Many of them emigrated to Germany, some identify themselves now as Silesians. Germans persecuted pro-German ethic Poles until it was too late in 1944.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Goralen are 100% Polish, it would be like saying Texans aren't Americans. Also, there were many Poles in the SS the highest ranking of which was SS General Von dem Bach whose real name was Zelewski, he was 100% Slavic Ethnic Polish, both his mother and father were 100% Ethnic Poles, and it was Zelewski who destroyed Warsaw to crush the Warsaw Uprising, and for this Adolf Hitler awarded Zelewski the Knight's Cross. 66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes dear Anon... Adolf Hitler was an ethnic Pole also. Could you please stop now?--Jacurek (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The phrase "it would be like saying Texans aren't Americans" is an application of logic that does not apply because Nazi "rules" about who belonged to which ethnic group were notoriously arbitrary and conveniently subject to change and review as the Germans found the spectre of defeat growing ever larger. For Himmler and other goons of the SS, it would have been quite enough for the Goralen to claim they were not Polish. That, and a little specious "research" by the SS-Ahnenerbe would have been more than sufficient to celebrate the "discovery" of a new "Germanic Volk" that could be potentially used as Reichs-cannon-fodder. 91.32.110.149 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you do a quick search for SS General Zelewski and then eat your words. There is no question that Ethnic Poles were in the SS at the highest levels.66.194.104.5 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Can we end this "cabaret" now ?--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Goralen are 100% Polish. Reality is they are in no sense German whatsoever. Once the Nazis occupied, a number of locals identified with the Germans for advantages, but this then exposed them to conscription in the SS, which is where you then have the Goralen SS, who were nevertheless Ethnic Poles. Rikmenspoel talks of this on his page 190. Also, I notice that someone has just altered the article of Von dem Bach-Zelewski to try to find him a German ancestor, from 1735, this is laughable, the fact is Zelewski was Polish, by both his parents.66.194.104.5 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a photograph of Polish SS for Wikipedia http://www.ioh.pl/pelne.php?Art=1052&Strona=6 12.184.176.57 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the Goralenvolk division which never actually came into being mentioned above. Go away.radek (talk) 02:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From the article, on the 1939 attempt to recruit Gorale into Goralenvolk division: "Przedsięwzięcie to zakończyło się fiaskiem – praktycznie udało się zwerbować dwu mieszkańców Podhala.". - "This undertaking (formation of a Gorale division) ended in a fiasco. For all practical reasons they (Germans) managed to recruit only two (yes, two) inhabitants of Podhale".

And later on on the actual Goralnische Division: "Ostatecznie do poboru stanęło 410 młodych mężczyzn. Po badaniach lekarskich pozostało ich około 300. Wśród rozpoznanych u odrzuconych chorób dominowały weneryczne. W drodze do obozu w Trawnikach, gdzie Legion miał odbywać przeszkolenie, prawie połowa zbiegła. Z pozostałych 140 górali z powodów zdrowotnych w krótkim czasie zwolniono 21, a 19 innych zdezerterowało. Kilkudziesięciu Niemcy odesłali do domów, gdyż brakowało im jakichkolwiek zdolności do służby lub odmawiali pełnienia wojskowych powinności. Ci, którzy pozostali, rozpoczęli otwartą wojnę ze szkolącymi się tam Ukraińcami. Skończyło się to dla nich nie najlepiej, gdyż część została wysłana do obozu koncentracyjnego Auschwitz. Ostatecznie według stanu z 21 marca 1943 r. w Trawnikach pozostało tylko dwunastu i Niemcy zrezygnowali z tworzenia Legionu. Niedoszłych legionistów wysłano „w nagrodę" na roboty do Rzeszyxlvii."

"Finally 410 young men were recruited (from the entire Podhale region). After medical exams, there remained around 300. Among those who were rejected the most common cause was venereal diseases. On their way to the camp in Trawniki where the legion was supposed to undergo its training, almost half of the recruits ran away. Out of the remaining 140 Gorale, another 21 were let go for further medical reasons and another 19 deserted further. Another couple dozen the Germans sent home because they acted unfit for duty or refused to follow instructions and orders. Those who remained immediately began "open warfare" against the Ukrainians who were training at the same camp. This didn't end so well for them and a portion of them were sent to the concentration camp in Auschwitz as a result. Finally according to the records from March 21st, 1943, in Trawniki there remained only twelve (yes, twelve) recruits and the Germans just gave up on the idea of a legion. The remaining would be legionnaires were "thanked" by being sent to for hard labor deep within the Reich".

So there you have it. Your supposed collaboration. It might also be added that out of those 410 initial recruits many joined after being threatened with being sent to concentration camps or hard labor. And it should also be said that the would be, half-hearted, collaborators didn't regard themselves as Polish and Germans didn't perceive them as such either. Like I said before, the whole Goralenvolk thing could be mentioned in the article but pretty much only as an example of a complete failure at finding collaborators. Now, really, go away.radek (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The actual photograph of the Polish SS says it all. We can today make excuses that they supposedly all deserted, or that Goralski are somehow not Polish, or whatever other excuse, but the picture says it all, there were indeed handsome Polish Waffen SS. http://www.ioh.pl/pelne.php?Art=1052&Strona=6 Also, many authors classify the 14th Division Waffen SS as Polish/Ukrainian, and not to mention SS General Von dem Bach-Zelewski who was an Ethnic Pole who changed his name to Bach. And read here even more about Polish SS

http://www.irekw.internetdsl.pl/202Schutzmannschaftsbatalion.html 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation, but all subjects you write about are described in this Wikipedia, see Category:Polish Nazi collaborators. Please, don't misbehave here.Xx236 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The information I provided belongs right here in this present article with specific mention of Polish SS, and it should give the links to the two Polish language sites which I provided, including Rikmenspoel's quote his page 190. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you create problems instead to contribute? "Polish SS" - really.Xx236 (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Don't ignore the facts. I provided sources that need be included in the article. Every country in Europe had volunteers in the SS and Poland is not the sole exception. Don't play holier than thou, all countries are here admitting their sins, and Poland cannot be allowed to hide theirs, plenty of Poles were in the Waffen-SS, as the photographs prove. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

UK - a source

http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/History/sark/index.php Xx236 (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a Russian source, and it doesn't look all that reliable anyway. Can you give a synopsis of what it says? Unless it's about the Jersey Islands or the British Free Corps, I'm not sure about British collaboration during the conflict. Skinny87 (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)~

It's probably http://www.flipkart.com/imperialism-fascism-manuel-sarkisyanz/8176294454-2v23f8360d

It's more general than the article, about British roots of the Nazism. For us, people living on the continent, British individuals active in Nazi propaganda, were also important. Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is a "collaborator"?

There appears to be some wailing and gnashing of teeth over who is and isn't a collaborator and who did or didn't "serve" in the Wehrmacht or Waffen SS. The black and white idea that "you served in X's army, therefore you are a collaborator of X" oversimplifies the circumstances of WWII in Eastern Europe. Anyone the Nazis or Soviets concripted was done so illegally. Take Poland, the latest area of angst. My understanding of Poles in the Wehrmacht is that ethnic Poles declared themselves of German ancestry hoping for better treatment after the invasion and were rewarded by being conscripted. So, if someone tells you serve in my army or I shoot you, does that make someone a "collaborator?" No. Let us apply the litmus test that a collaborator is someone who "cooperates traitorously with an enemy," that is, who cooperated with the Axis powers in alliance against their own country, citizens, and nation (people). PetersV       TALK 03:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a whole spectrum of choices. If someone wasn't forced and declared to be German, he was German. Other Poles were imprisoned/persecuted and forced to do something, eg. join the army or Waffen SS - they were victims. The biggest "Polish" group in Waffen SS were probably Upper Silesians, people with unclear ethnicity/nationality, many of them born as Germans. Xx236 (talk) 07:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Creating your own litmus test is considered WP:OR. Instead, it is appropriate to report what various WP:RS say, and describe their methodologies if necessary. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
The text quoted by our SS expert http://www.irekw.internetdsl.pl/202Schutzmannschaftsbatalion.html contains a short paragraph about 150 000 Jewish soldiers in Wehrmacht.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
And I think he's also confusing SS with Schuma. IOH's not too bad of a source though. And that book apparently has a positive blurb from Chodkiewicz and looks legit.radek (talk) 08:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
To Malik, entire articles and perpetual edit warring campaigns are waged on WP on a daily basis based on the WP:OR that one can use piece parts of the Montevideo Convention to attribute sovereignty to breakaway territories, some legitimate, but in more cases seeking to paint the illegitimate as legitimate, the point being, true WP:OR is used every day to make far grander contentions than are being made here. My "litmus" test, on the other hand, is not opinion or interpretation of any standard or convention, it is a simple checklist according to the definition of the word collaborator as applied to conflict an war.
  It's not WP:OR to state the facts that a collaborator should be limited to someone who (a) collaborates of their own free will and (b) does so in sympathy and support for the regime they support in emnity to their own. It's statements like "anyone who wears a uniform is a collaborator" that is the WP:OR here. PetersV       TALK 17:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Here I agree with Malik, but with emphasis on the "describe their methodologies" part. Well, actually I don't think we should include sources that flippantly count anyone who's ever ate a Bratwurst in the definition, but at least by including the methodologies we allow readers to be able to judge the reliability of a particular estimate. BUT. The latest round of discussion initiated by the anon troll is not even about this. He's just making stuff up to rile people up and citing SS apologists as sources. Just ignore it.radek (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
THe paragraph "Poland" is longer than the "France" one. It doesn't prove that Poles were collaborators more than French people but rather that the authors were biased. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone wearing a SS uniform is a collaborator. Period. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone acting like you isn't an editor but an agent-provocateur. Period.Xx236 (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Anyone wearing a SS uniform is a collaborator. Period. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 12:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, no. The Waffen SS units in Eastern Europe were formed after (1943) the Holocaust and exclusively fought against the Red Army--these were people fighting to keep being reoccupied by the Soviet Union. That has nothing with being a collaborator traitorously supporting Nazi ideology and Nazi hegemony over one's homeland. PetersV       TALK 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For sure the motives to join Wermaht or SS were much, much different for Latvians, Estonians or Finns than for French, Dutch or Belgians. I think people understand that.--Jacurek (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure.radek (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Good, you boys are thinking. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Some time ago I was asked to comment on some sources, books on the Holocaust, and more than one lumps all Waffen SS into "SS=Holocaust perpetrators." And we see this fiction replayed today when, for example, the Latvian Waffen SS commemorate their dead fighting against the Soviets and

  1. the Russians call Latvia a neo-fascist Nazi-rehabilitating state
  2. the Wiesenthal Center et al. decry the glorification of the agents of Hitler's Holocaust
  3. those who survived fighting to keep Latvia free of the return of the Red Terror, who only wish to commemorate their comrades in arms who died dreaming of a free Latvia, are told by their own government to celebrate at home because "it looks bad for Latvia's image."

Bah! The Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. depicts the Soviets liberating Hitler's death camps and says nothing of the Jews Stalin deported to the worst treatment reserved especially for them. Sorry for getting slightly off topic. PetersV       TALK 17:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"Illegal" conscripts.

Not sure the word "illegal" belongs in there. Some were conscripts, but many, particularly in the Western countries and Scandinavia were volunteers. The word "illegal" doesn't really makes sense here, at best, "forcibly" would be better though this needs to be sourced. While I realize that some of the Tatars, Balts and Ukrainians might have joined either because they got brutalized by Stalin or because their only other choice was a concentration camp, this wasn't true for Dutch, Belgian, Norse etc. (Don't know enough about situation in Southern Europe to have an informed opinion). The given source, which is probably not RS anyway (it's a collection on Dachau "from the tourist point of view") does not support the inclusion of the word "illegal".radek (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Conscription of people from occupied territories is illegal under the Geneva Convention. Martintg (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe we are discussing the volunteer element as being described as illegal conscription, in other words 60% were volunteers and 40% conscripted rather than the illegality of those 40% conscripted. The "illegal" phrasing was used in a sentence which was using a quote that stated "60& volunteers" and in the article this was changed from "volunteer" to "illegal conscript" :¬) --Chaosdruid (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, okay. There certainly was no conscription in occupied Western Europe, they were all volunteers as far as I know. Martintg (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

NPoV

This whole article and some of it's linked pages are getting a bit out of control.

I really think people need to look at it again and decide whether these continuous edits and reversions are necessary, accurate or in the good interests of factual documentation.

As for me, I consider some parts of the Ukraine section a little non NPoV.

I am thoroughly disheartened that these types of article can attract so much bickering and infighting, I understand that there are many people that wish their respective ancestors did not do things that are written here, or that there are those that wish more people knew about the horrendous things that happened to their ancestors. This is an encyclopedia and if we do not start to take more responsibility for the content of pages such as these we are guilty of crimes equal to those purported to in the articles them selves.

I will leave it for a while to see what transpires here, as well as in the linked pages, but really we need to start to find consensus and then stick to it.

--Chaosdruid (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

added word non↑ - omitted from original during edits --Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is slightly out of hand. The lead does not present a strict definition of collaboration, starting by listing the countries who were occupied, (unintentionally?) tagging the countries as the major collaborators, and bogging down to the dubious concept of ""passive collaboration", where people on the occupied territories just went on with life, but were necessarily influenced by the occupation authorities." What the lead section should first do, is straighten up the definition of the issue at hand, as does the Collaborationism article by stating:"Collaborationism, can describe the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government." This means, serving under an occupying force by itself does not make you a collaborator. The concept excludes police units who did not commit crimes and involuntary military service as explicitly stated in the Nuremberg Trials and by the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. See Nuremberg Proceedings Volume 22, September 1946 and Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity. I support a cleanup of the article to match a concrete definition of collaboration. Erikupoeg (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the Ukraine section, could you please point out the statements which you find NPOV? --Erikupoeg (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pétain coined the term 'collaboration' it means anyone willing to work with Hitler for a common goal. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not operate in the context of Vichy Republic, 1940 but of the World, 2009. A modern definition should be used. And your definition excludes involuntary conscripts as not 'willing to work with Hitler'. As for the police, I'd like to know how does a police unit in general duties 'work with Hitler for a common goal'? Should we consider the fire brigades operated by occupation authorities collaboration as well? Erikupoeg (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The Paris police force rounded up thousands of jews, they were collaborators. Anyone in a SS uniform is sworn to fight for Hitler by oath. Firemen could have walked off or gone on strike, but they didn't. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I said 'general duties', which excludes killing civilians and other criminal deeds. Anybody whose cooperation with the occupying powers is considered traitorous by the major WP:RS or who committed crimes in the service of the occupying power, should be mentioned in the article. Anybody who is explicitly excluded from collaboration by a comprehensive investigation on the matter does not qualify for this article.
Like, do I understand correctly that you propose to include fire brigades as collaborators? Can you provide solid reference for that or is it something you figured out yourself? How about medical service and other public services of the occupying administrations? Were the wartime civilian doctors also collaborators? Do you have any idea of the implications of calling a fireman 'working with Hitler'??
About SS units: If their oath for Hitler was voluntary, I would agree to include them as collaborators. Not if it was involuntary as in the conscription-mobilisations in Latvia and Estonia. Erikupoeg (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
All SS took the Oath to defend Hitler. Even in Estonia and Latvia. The Oath was never 'voluntary', never. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The idea gets to me that you are not too familiar with the conscription in Estonia and Latvia. Do sincerely believe that the German officers kindly asked the conscripts, whether they wished to give the oath or not? Erikupoeg (talk) 15:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a video on youtube of Estonian SS taking the Oath. SS means 'personal guard' of Adolf Hitler.65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The US authorities thoroughly vetted Baltic Waffen SS veterans after the war and concluded that "the Baltic Waffen SS Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German SS, and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States". Fun fact: some veterans of the Baltic Waffen SS units served as guards under US command at the Nuremburg war crimes trials. Martintg (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That is just politics. Reality is, Estonian SS killed more jews than the Germans. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that somebody was ordered to give the oath to Hitler under the threat of a punishment does not make the person a collaborator. Read this for a start and try to get your hands on something solid like Estonia, 1940–1945 by the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity or Estonia in World War II by Mart Laar.
As far as the responsibility for the 6000 Jews killed in Estonia is concerned, the International History Commission rests it not at the SS but 1000-1200 Omakaitse (Home Guard) civilian defence troops and the 286th, 287th and 288th Estonian Police Battalions, who are already represented in the article. Erikupoeg (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I read your source and it says only Latvian volunteers went into the SS and they did indeed take the SS Oath. If they did not want to do that they were not punished as you had claimed. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this voluntary:“During the past weeks all young men born in 1919, 192G, 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924 who have registered with the police or the labor authorities have been sent induction notices. Every man born in these years who has not yet received such notices or does not receive it within the next few days is hereby summoned to appear on the dates given below during states hours at the pertinent recruiting office with the necessary documents of identification in a sober condition. Food for one day should be brought . . .

Whoever fails to comply with this last summons will be punished in accordance with existing military laws."? --Erikupoeg (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you just playing dumb ? It goes on to say they had alternative choices not to go into the SS. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
...and on saying:"Those youths who were mustered in the end of March were quite frankly told in the recruiting stations that they must join the Legion—there was no other alternative for them." The alternative was there for only a part of the Latvian SS Brigade formed in February, 1943, while the rest of the two Latvian divisions and the Estonian SS Division had no such choice. --Erikupoeg (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh really ? See the next discussion section below about Baltic SS units. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Baltic Countries had Waffen SS units

The article does not talk about the Waffen SS units formed from Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians. How about some information on their units and deeds ? 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Baltic SS do not qualify as collaborators, being compulsory conscripts who committed no crimes the modern investigators are aware of. Erikupoeg (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
They were volunteers just like the others, and did the same things. They are even proud of it and their medals and they still have parades in their original uniforms to this very day: http://www.girodivite.it/Integration-and-Minority,10599.html and look at this: Veterans who fought in specially formed Baltic Nazi SS Waffen divisions are still honored as national heroes, source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/wl_nm/us_russia_medvedev_history_1 and watch them still marching the original Baltic Waffen SS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdT9UR7QL8U and they still today honor Estonian Waffen SS veterans watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeE3yV_4QUc 65.32.128.178 (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please ignore the trolling by user 65.32.128.178

It just encourages him/her. Discussions are pointless. Better yet since it's obviously a troll, just remove his/her comments from the talk page.radek (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)'

Stop ignoring history, and on youtube you can watch original Baltic SS still marching in their parades to this very day. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdT9UR7QL8U and they still today honor Estonian Waffen SS veterans watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeE3yV_4QUc 65.32.128.178 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
65.32.128.178, you're at it again. Look, if they were conscripted they were not collaborators. What is next - are you going to say that ppl in the death camps did some work and that means they were collaborating?
You really need to go and sit down, have a nice cup of tea and think again about what you are trying to do here.
Small point though, just because someone didn't commit crimes does not mean they are not collaborators. I would say that my father was a collaborator even though he did not commit any crimes to my or anyone else's knowledge. He volunteered so he could fight the communists, but he volunteered into the German army. That does not make him a Nazi, just a collaborator de facto and yet some would still call him a hero - I do neither, it was a long time ago and the world has changed a lot since then.
Stop this incessant "shoving it down our throats" and try to realise that this is a place for discussion, it doesnt always mean that you will get your way, and if you don't then you need to give up and move onto other means, like consensus.
I haven't had an email back from Riksmanpeol - when I do you WILL be the first to get a message. --Chaosdruid (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Conscripts/collaborators definitions etc

The majority of Polish "Collaborators" were also conscripted.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is actually an issue that is brought up by Erikupoeg's proposal above. If we achieve consensus on what the definition of 'collaboration' should be to put in the lead, how are we going to treat sources which take a different definition when in the text? Some, supposedly reliable sources, are pretty flippant about treating conscripts, low level bureaucrats and even people in forced labor camps as "collaborators". If we have one particular definition of collaboration in the lead, should these sources be included, even if they're talking about something else?radek (talk) 09:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The article will not make sense if each paragraph uses a different view on the concept of collaboration. We should cite only second hand sources listing the people who willingly worked in a political position during the occupation, volunteered to an Axis military service, or committed war crimes in Axis auxiliary or military forces. --Erikupoeg (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

3 edit conflicts in trying to post this lol !!

I have been busy trying to rescue an article from demotion, so only have a quick comment as have been editing for 11 hours and need a break and will catch up on all comments later today.
It may be more difficult to define than it at first seems.
For example, I live in country X which is occupied against our will by Z. If the Germans come along and offer to help us fight against Z are we traitors for joining them, as we do it in the national interest of X ? Obviously if we join the Germans and adopt Nazi beliefs that is a different matter --Chaosdruid (talk) 10:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That truly is the essence of the task here. We should find an individual answer in the reliable second hand sources for each occupied nation. --Erikupoeg (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Pétain coined the term 'Collaborate' it just means Cooperate. Also, 'Conscripted' only means 'Enrolled', not necessarily by force, simply enrolled. I myself was once conscripted and I had no objection. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary has two alternative meanings for the verb 'collaborate': 'Work with' and 'Support the enemy'. Petain used the term in the meaning of 'Work with' while in the context of WWII it developed the alternative meaning of 'Support the enemy'. I don't see why should the article use the more general neutral definition while in the context of WWII it has a certain meaning of 'Work with the enemy'.
The dictionary's definition for 'conscript':"To force someone by law to serve in one of the armed forces." In other words, even if you didn't object the conscription, you were still forced into it by law. --Erikupoeg (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Conscript does not neccessarily mean by force, not in my dictionaries. Also, no one, I repeat, no one was forced to wear a SS uniform. Also, 'Collaborate' did not mean 'support the enemy', that pejorative connotation is just old war propaganda. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be losing it again by calling Cambridge, Oxford, and Webster dictionaries "old war propaganda". As for the SS uniforms, the above listed major sources on the history of WWII in the Baltics claim the conscripts had no other choice than to wear it against their wish to form a national co-belligerent army. --Erikupoeg (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

4 edit conflicts this time !

Agreed, there are many definitions, we are trying to work out which ones we should use 65.35.128.178 (PLEASE get a login so we dont have to keep typing your number!) I have an english reference dictionary, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary which comes in two huge volumes and they have these:-
Collaborate - to co-operate.
Collaborator - one who works in conjunction with others

.

Conscript - from the Latin, conscriptus, meaning to enrol by having written your name.
A adjective -
1. Enrolled or elected a senator
2. Enrolled, or formed by conscription, as a soldier, or an army
B substantive - One compulsorily enlisted for military or naval service
Conscription
1 Writing down together (since 1220 AD)
2 Enrolment or enlistment (of troops) (since 1483 AD)
3 The compulsory enlistment of men for military (or naval) service (since 1800 AD)
Volunteer - One who of his own free will takes part in any enterprise
A 1 One who voluntarily offers or enrols himself for military service, in contrast to to those who are under obligation to do so, or who form part of a regular army or military force.

So there we have it, we can go on and on all day, but both sides are sort of right, however the modern most used definition of conscription is 3 - compulsory, as we would now use the phrase "I joined up" or "I signed on" for Conscription 1 & 2.

--Chaosdruid (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Chaosdruid, you had it wrong with the Oxford English Dictionary:

"collaborate, v.

1. intr. To work in conjunction with another or others, to co-operate; esp. in a literary or artistic production, or the like. 1871 J. H. APPLETON Life & Lit. Relics (1881) 25 The collaborators of the Revue critique, especially those who collaborate for the Academy. 1882 V. LEE in Contemp. Rev. XLII. 850 Composers who collaborated with Metastasio in the opera of the eighteenth century.

2. spec. To co-operate traitorously with the enemy. 1941 Ann. Reg. 1940 165 The futility of attempts to ‘collaborate’ with their German conquerors. 1943 Times 5 June 5/2 Not all have a record as black as Laval's... There were some who collaborated with a sick heart. 1959 Observer 8 Mar. 1/2 Certain Africans who had collaborated with the Government." --Erikupoeg (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You see, the verb has two meanings: intransitive and specific. I don't see why you are pushing the intransitive definition while there exists a specific meaning for warfare.
That is taken EXACTLY as is from the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary Volume I, which has no mention of "traitorously" in it anywhere.
Do not call me a liar, or insinuate that I am pushing anything - I did not "Have it wrong" - I can even scan it and show it to prove that.
--Chaosdruid (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

PS which version do you have there ??

Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition Erikupoeg (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Two Thirds of the Waffen SS were non-Germans, they were all volunteers, I personally know many, there were recruiting posters in all languages to gather the international Volunteers. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We can't use your experience as a source. You need to come up with a report on Estonia or Latvia to appraise them.--Erikupoeg (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it was different everywhere else in Europe, where the draft was voluntary. Not in Estonia and Latvia where the Directorates issued laws to force men into military service under the punishment of imprisonment. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Osprey books has many titles of 'Volunteers' in Hitler's forces. And look at this fellow from the Baltic States does he look like he was ever forced conscripted ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeE3yV_4QUc 65.32.128.178 (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The term 'volunteer', as you should have understood from the link I posted on Latvian Legion, was a Nazi euphemism in the Baltic context. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
They were denied their wish to form a national co-belligerent army and drafted to SS in a compulsory mobilisation. What else do you need? --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Erikupoeg - What do you mean by "co-belligerent army" ? And what volume of OED 2nd ed. is that definition from, or is it on CD ?
65.32.1XXXXX do you believe that it is possible that some were volunteers and some conscripted ? Also, we know where that 65% comes from, and as yet it has to be validated so you can't keep quoting that --Chaosdruid (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The dictionary is online. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
... and why you guys are "feeding" the troll ? This is total waste of time.--Jacurek (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
By forming a national co-belligerent army I mean the restoration of the armies of the Republics of Estonia and Latvia. --Erikupoeg (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove lines from my comments again - that's a little bit naughty.--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about it, at that point I was sure you had made a mistake. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok - apology accepted, its just we are using different versions of the same publishers dictionaries lol, mine is 1980, and does not contain any quotes. It mentions collaborateur, the french word, which has now been adopted in your version and in mine it simply says - see collaborate --Chaosdruid (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
So where are we with the definition? --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Lol - I only put that in about collaborator so that it would make sense when I came to put the "by their own free will" as it is only by your own free will that you can be a collaborator.
I think we should think about cutting this page size down by archiving and/or summarising also.
We could do a FAQ and see if we agree on them so far :-
-
What is a collaborator ? - someone who willingly volunteered, without being forced in any way, to join the German army, navy or police force in an occupied country.
What is conscripted/conscription ? - where the German or German controlled authorities forced or threatened someone into joining their army, navy or police force.
Why is someone who stood by and did nothing called a collaborator ? - (this bit I am unsure of - I think it will be difficult)
--Chaosdruid (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
We can't do this as OR. We need to agree on an existing definition. Erikupoeg (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
That isn't OR - its seeing if we agree on the definitions so far applied to "Axis powers during world war 2" or if we need to look at other sources for clarification. I have already raised the traitor part :-
(earlier post)For example, I live in country X which is occupied against our will by Z. If the Germans come along and offer to help us fight against Z are we traitors for joining them, as we do it in the national interest of X ? Obviously if we join the Germans and adopt Nazi beliefs that is a different matter (Chaosdruid) to which you replied :-
That truly is the essence of the task here. We should find an individual answer in the reliable second hand sources for each occupied nation. (Erikupoeg)
I took that to mean that you had already decided on how to deal with that part of it - that anyone who says "they were traitors to their own country" would have to prove it with sources specific to that country instead of relying on generalisations such as "there were 60% of collaborators in the SS, so that means every country was 60% collaborating" --Chaosdruid (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought we hadn't agreed whether the definition would include treason or would it be any cooperation with the occupying power. I definitely agree with what you stated in the above post. Erikupoeg (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Currently it appears being down to whether to go for definition 1 or 2 of the Oxford English Dictionary. I strongly feel, definition 2 suits this article. --Erikupoeg (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Your OED or mine lol - I assume you mean yours ? I thought we should follow Wiktionary - go have a look ? [10] (and on the chat page there - lol) but it has a similar problem. --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with definition 1 is that it would include virtually everyone living under the occupying power, including the people who were forced into it. We have the specific case of military occupation in WWII on our hands, therefore we must the specific definition generally used in this context. Erikupoeg (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The old SS veterans from all the various countries today have their reunions, so they were quite happy indeed volunteers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.176.57 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what happiness has got to do with the issue of voluntarism. You can get quite happy in compulsory service, you know. Erikupoeg (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Baltic States did not force men to go into the SS. But they were required to defend the country against Russia, either by working or supply or Wehrmacht or SS, they had a choice not to join the SS in particular. Hitler obviously would not want dissidents in the elite force of the SS. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Not true. The auxiliary forces or Wehrmacht were available as options for a neglectable number of men volunteering until January 1943, whereas from February 1943, the conscripted Estonians and Latvians were sent to the SS without exception. Will you please read the sources I've pointed out? --Erikupoeg (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Without exception ? What page number do you have for that quote ? I doubt it truly. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
It was not a quote anyway, just making a point. The reports have established that starting from February 1943, Estonian and Latvian conscripts were sent to the SS only. During 1943, the last of the small Estonian and Latvian troops in Wehrmacht were deployed to the SS. During 1944, most of the Baltic auxiliary forces were sent to the SS. Erikupoeg (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
They didn't want the commies to take over their countries. It was clearly voluntary, they were not stupid. They are hailed today as national heroes. They saw themselves not as traitors. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/wl_nm/us_russia_medvedev_history_1 65.32.128.178 (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break #1

Let's not confuse the two completely different definitions for "collaborate", let's keep it simple per One Look:

  1. verb: work together on a common enterprise of project = NOT THIS ARTCLE
  2. verb: cooperate as a traitor ("He collaborated with the Nazis when they occupied Paris") = THIS ARTICLE

The introduction starts with the suggestion that even to say "don't resist" (avoid annihilation by overwhelming forces, live to fight another day) is collaboration, leading to the inclusion of all sorts of material which is wholly inappropriate to the topic. The very definition of what is included as collaboration reeks (editorially) of WP:OR.

At a minimum, true collaboration (traitor) must be separated from allegations of "collaboration" ("wearing a uniform makes you a collaborator") if we cannot agree to simply delete that content—which given the uninformed collaborationist name-calling (e.g., "The old SS veterans from all the various countries today have their reunions, so they were quite happy indeed volunteers.") going on here appears unlikely. PetersV       TALK 01:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

They didn't want the commies to take over their countries. It was clearly voluntary, they were not stupid. They are hailed today as national heroes. They saw themselves not as traitors. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090127/wl_nm/us_russia_medvedev_history_1 65.32.128.178 (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Latvians were conscripted under threat of being shot, regardless that they would have taken up arms against the Red Army anyway. And even then, only the first 300 were forced to swear "allegiance." Be that as it may, since you agree that their actions were motivated only by protecting their country's sovereignty and freedom and had nothing to do with supporting Nazism: its tenets, political or territorial ambitions, etc., and certainly had nothing to do with supporting Nazi actions (of which there were many) against their own countrymen, then they were not collaborators and do not belong in this article. QED. PetersV       TALK 02:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:::Read this about a Latvian SS man who was far more Nazi than most German Nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arajs_Commando 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Can I ask you all again to stop feeding the troll already? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

:Read this about Latvians who were true SS volunteers: Latvian Legion. 65.32.128.178 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
(comment deleted - not relevant now --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Lol I see our pet troll has got blocked again --Chaosdruid (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like we are using definition 2, and that the third and most difficult part (involuntary collaboration) has already been dealt with in the same way as I would have, complete removal.
Excellent, I think we are done on this issue now. Good work all --Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) So perhaps we could do something about the introduction to the article, which states:

  • Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation, organizing trade, production, financial and economic support to joining various branches of the armed forces of Axis powers or special "national" military units fighting under their command.

In contrast, at List of alleged collaborators we find:

  • Collaborationism, as a pejorative term, can describe the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.

I am sorry, but "remain calm" is not "collaboration," it is more often than not living to fight another day. The definition used for this article is WP:OR and so poorly worded that to even to retreat could be taken as a sign of collaboration. PetersV       TALK 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Hi all

I have created the first archive page here /Archive 1 and copied everything from the top to the start of the "collaborators" topic into it.

I have also added the Archive box (at the top of the page) and a search function for it to search the archives. I have left both boxes on for now so I can see that the bot has built the Index (it only does this twice a day so need to wait couple of hours) - after it has I will delete the top box

Shall we go ahead and archive - if so from where to where and which articles posts to leave here

I suggest we move all the comments by our Troll there also as per Wikipedia:Refactor#Prune

--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

workers in forced labor camps (ex. Zivilarbeiter and Baudienst)

Forced workers worked both in camps and outside. The above phrase in unprecise. Xx236 (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Lord Haw-Haw

The article describes a number of important collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

i smell b...s...

quote "only part of the pre-war citizenry collaborating with the Nazis was the German minority in Poland..."

pure revisionism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.225.88 (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't go as far as calling anything revisionism, but I agree, the word 'only...' is pure prejudice. The section should state exactly how big was the share of the population who collaborated, not assess whether is was 'only...' or 'an entire...'. --Erikupoeg (talk) 17:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There was collaboration of the worst possible kind in many Nazi occupied countries, however Poland was unique were collaboration was rare. Not because the Poles were "special" but simply because the Germans had different plans for "Polish subhuman's" (both Jews and Catholics) and almost did no attempts to find collaborators. Polish Underground State was also executing anybody collaborating with the Germans. Here is part of work of Polish Home Army Ex-Servicemen Dr Andrzej Slawinski who explains it:

The situation in Nazi conquered Poland was somewhat more complex because of the division of the country into three parts. The Western territories were incorporated directly into the Third Reich and many Polish people were expelled from them into the central occupied part of Poland, while most of the remaining population was offered one of several possible grades of the German citizenship. Those who accepted were soon forcibly inducted into the German Army or even in some cases into the SS. This cannot strictly speaking be seen as collaboration, although some may argue that it was.

The eastern territories of Poland were annexed by the Soviet Union, but soon after the outbreak of the German – Soviet war, they were divided into a western section which was added to the General Gouvernment (central Poland) and the eastern areas which became part of German occupied Soviet land, with some degree of autonomy for the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Lithuania, whose populations extensively collaborated with the Nazis.

The central part of Poland, occupied by the Germans was named the General Gouvernment. Its inhabitants had virtually no rights and were exploited and persecuted by the German occupier in various ways.

As far as collaboration with the Nazis in the lands of the General Gouvernment was concerned there were cases of informers, spies and traitors working for the Gestapo, but these were rather the exception than the rule. Such collaborators were usually dealt with by the Polish Resistance. Then there was the Polish (and later Jewish) order police. --Jacurek (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hi all

There has been discussion on whether Williamson's book is a valid reference and although this is still a true statement "By April 28, 1943 German Command created the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galizien (1st Ukrainian) manned by 14,000 volunteers." I would consider adding other references than this one, such as Logusz or Melnyk. It is still not entirely true that they were volunteers, however that is not really an issue at the moment.

I have hidden the sentence which describes the Galychnya division :- Atrocities and massacres were committed by the SS Galizien division against various ethnic minorities, during the course of WW2

This is referenced solely on the basis of Sol Litmans book which so far has been contradicted by other historians and so I feel we should at least exclude it before either making it NPoV or completely leaving it out. I think that having read three books on the subject that this is unfounded and also that there were no accredited instances to the division itself.

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, someone with access to Litmans should check, on which data his conclusion relies on and in case he lists any atrocities, are they notable. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania: some fixes, rm sentence not supported by ref

I'm not able to find which sentence wasn't supported by ref.Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Berezov links to a Russian place, wrong.Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion sprees by User:MartinDK: ignorance or political bias?

I have just posted the following on this user's Talk Page:

The damage you have done on the Collaboration during World War II page has been undone, and it has been noted that although you have been admonished earlier for using insulting language when adressing other members of the WP community, you seem to consider that this is still is the way to proceed when editing the contents of pages you don't agree with. «Crap» is not a valid argument, and «libel left wing propaganda» is sheer nonsense thrown at those who do not know the period's history in Denmark.

Either:

*You are not familiar with Danish history, and you chose to delete them agressively because you do not like them. Besides the articles in Wikipedia in English which are linked to in the sections you have deleted, a profusion of books, articles and research theses, primarily in Danish, have been published that document the period. A number of articles on the period can also be found in the Danish Wikipedia. I cannot tell whether you understand Danish or not, but if you don't I would suggest that you ask someone to read some for you, starting, for example, with the two books in Danish which have been added to the article's References section (and which you seem to have overseen in your deletion spree). I do not recommend that you also try to delete these references.

Or:

*You have an agenda that cannot accept that documented facts which are contrary to the demands of certain ideologies be brought to public attention. While informed Danish opinion is fully aware of the issues discussed, it is rarely the case outside of that country. Certain ideologies would prefer that historical facts do not taint the country's positive image in official propaganda. The phrasing of your "arguments" (?) for deletion leads me to strongly suspect your political biases to be at play. What might confirm my suspicion is the fact that, generally speaking, relatively few of the entries for the different countries are referenced in the article's notes. Yet, you have chosen to vandalize this particular entry on Denmark.

I shall be away from Internet connections for several weeks. If it turns out that you repeat the damage done to the article, I shall have no other choice than to place a request for arbitration on your behaviour.

· Michel 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as I'm concerned, since the section doesn't cite any sources, reads like an anonymous political commentary, it can and will be challenged any time by any editor. Since there seems to be a clear disagreement, I'm going to tag the section accordingly for the moment. Please feel free to refer to any sources, "who says so" while making claims as such like the ones over there regarding Denmark. Thanks!--Termer 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Termer, as mentioned very clearly, I have posted two books in the Reference section (that's 50% of all references for the whole page), but MDK has chosen to oversee them (and hurl insults instead). Are you also overseeing this? I could find many more references (although I'm not sure at all that posting lists of references in Danish on the English WP is appropriate), but as said I wouldn't have the time before many weeks to do anything about it. I'm not sure I'd feel like wasting my time on that particular either, if anyone with "4000 posts" feels that they're more qualified to tinge the historical integrity of Wikipedia by editing away anything that doesn't fit their political agenda. Generally speaking, I have little time and patience for dealing with this sort of attitude. ·Michel 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michel the Reference section has been broken. I've fixed it by bringing the Refs and "Notes" together. Please reformat the refs you've added to the article according to the way it has been done with the rest. Please note that any controversial claims such as were only too willing to.. etc. should be clearly referred to exact book, exact page and to whom the opinion belongs to. For example was the citation a decision of Nuremberg Trials? I'd avoid such opinionated phrases in an encyclopedia anyway. It's not going to stay here unless it's clearly refed to whose opinion is it. I would stick to the facts only and avoid such political commentary on WP. Please also note that the Danish King, Christian X of Denmark symbolized the "mental resistance" of Denmark and its people against the Nazis and the King was still the official head of the Danish government. Therefore I'd take more care while coming up with opinions like The occupied Danish government cooperated reluctantly with the Nazi regime by various means. Please make sure that he section is written according to WP:NPOV and there shouldn't be any problems with it. Thanks.--Termer 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Termer, and thanks for the comments. Sounds more constructive than others ;-) As stated several times, I won't have time before a number of weeks to work on this, as I'll be out of Internet range. I have amended the only too willing part, though. As for Christian X and ...cooperated reluctantly..., those parts were as far as I remember not penned by me at all, and I certainly am no one to go and chop in other peoples' text at whim. What it boils down to is that either by omission or by chosen formulations, the article before I made the additions was a whitewashing of Denmark during WW2, a whitewashing which plenty of research (as I mentioned on the MartinDK talk page) over the past 5-10 years has shed light on, but which "institutional" Denmark is by all means attempting to maintain. Note that MDK the deleter's answer to me was more insults and bad faith, but that he carefully avoided replying to the issue of the referenced books (and decided to drop the subject altogether). That should give you an indication of what is at play... On the other hand, what about all the other countries' entries? Maybe you should place the POV tag on top of the page instead, mentioning that some of the entries etc...? · Michel 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.... bad faith assumptions? Why don't you try to read your comments/manifests and tone down your language a bit. Then you can get back to me. Fortunately I'm also Danish so I know that the so-called research you refer to is only half the story. Please understand that this is not the Danish Wikipedia - we actually have fairly high standards for what we include here. Try reading WP:V and WP:NPOV. Also, your sentiments against Venstre are pretty obvious indicators of your true motive for editing this page but I will try to assume good faith and regard your defense of that section as a misunderstanding of our policies on neutrality. This all boils down to the fact that the ref markup was broken and the text you had inserted along with some of the other text was clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Also, please do not end your messages with insults against the one guy (Termer) who actually tried to help you. I certainly am no one to go and chop in other peoples' text at whim oh please... read WP:OWN. Oh - and in the future please do not cross post your accusations and threats against me. It is very disruptive when you do that. MartinDK 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Michel, since I won't have time before a number of weeks is not a good enough excuse in my opinion to leave the chapter into "blackwashed" state. I would say it needs to be "whitewashed" in order to remove the tag until you'll find time to return to the subject with clear citations and references. Until then we go with common knowledge that the 4 years of Nazi occupation was the worst tragedy that ever happened to this country. Thanks!--Termer 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)--Termer 06:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So it's done. since the old text didn't refer to any sources, it was changes all together according to the text and sources provided in the main article. --Termer 06:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also refer section titled "Denmark" below, with reputable referenced data about Danish collaboration. Farawayman (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Channel Islands

The Channel Islands are not a part of the United Kingdom, they are a British Crown Dependency. The Channel Islands are neither a part of the British Isles. 79.71.174.119 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

"In Jersey and Guernsey, laws[9][10] were passed to retrospectively confiscate the financial gains..." Was retroactively meant instead of retrospective? I don't know if you can confiscate retroactively, but you can tax retroactively. Temblast (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Denmark

Some possible additions to the section of text related to Denmark:

  • The DNSAP had their own Storm Troopers - the SA (Storm Afdelinger) In August 1942 they had a strength of 2,514 men and were frequently trained at the SS camp at Sennheim in Alsace (Pg81)
  • Nordland Regiment. Established 20 Apr 1941 and open to volunteers between the ages of 17 and 23 from Denmark and Norway, serving for two years, after which they were eligible for joint German citizenship. The Nordland Regiment was later incorporated into the Wiking Division. (Pg93)
  • Freikorps Danmark. Established 28 June 1941. Most of its members were transferred to the Nordland Division when it disbanded. (Pg99)
  • Schalburg Corps: Established by a splinter-group from the DNSAP by Max Arildskov. Effectively the Danish equivalent of the German SA - uniform was identical to the German SS as was the rank structure. (Pg101)
  • Intelligence Service (ET Efterretnings-Tjenesten) - also known as the Hipo Corps. Was a sub-division of the Schalburg Corps until 1944, when it was made autonomous and placed under the leadership of the SS and the Danish Police, lead by Gunther Pancke. (Pg 109)
  • G.S.D. (Germanishe Sturmbann Dänemark) Establishd by the German Allgemeine SS as a Germanic Battalion as a volunteer unit. (Pg 110)
  • Somer's Guard Corps. Established by Danish pilot Poul Sommer for the protection of Luftwaffe airfields located in Denmark - officially it was the Guard Corps of the German Luftwaffe, but became known as Somer's Guard Corps. It was staffed by up to 1,200 men (Danish volunteers) and organised into five companies. It was not only was responsible for protecting airfields, but actively supported the SD in combating the Danish resistance. (Pg 112)

References are from: Littlejohn, David. Foreign Legions of the Third Reich: Vol 1: Norway, Denmark and France. 1979, R. James Bender Publishing, San Jose, CA. Farawayman (talk) 09:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph

Hi all

I thought we had consensus on using definition 2 (see above) of collaborate which was "2. spec. To co-operate traitorously with the enemy." and so the wording was to stand but to remove/rewrite the section about "Collaboration ranged from urging the civilian population to remain calm and accept foreign occupation," as this could even include the local population and Jewish people as being collaborators simply because they did not resist the Germans.

Should it not be as it was ? "Nationalism, ethnic hatred, anti-communism, anti-semitism and opportunism induced citizens of nations occupied by the Nazis to collaborate with the Axis Powers."

We have agreed the definition of the word collaborate and "knowingly help" is ridiculous as by allowing a German to eat or to not resist being taken into captivity I am a collaborator?

thanks--Chaosdruid (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed lead so that collaboration is clearly working with enemy against one's own nation and fellow citizens. Choosing to live to fight another day is not "collaboration," I've deleted that entire sorry synthesis. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia

The text in the article does not seem to reveal any information regarding collaboration, merely some geographic data. Should Slovakia thus not be deleted from the list until such time as there is referenced data which corroborates Axis collaboration? Farawayman (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Important information removed

Essential to the total picture of the section sentence has been removed twice today[[11]][[12]].

Cooperation between Soviet authorities and the Nazis is not well documented, however it did exist in the period up to the Nazi invstion of the Soviet Union. Most horrifying was the cooperation that took place after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact in the period when the Baltic states and territories formerly administered by Poland were annexed by the Soviet Union in 1939. The cooperation between the Nazis and Soviet authorities leading up to the Katyn massacre are being researched despite the fact that Russia has still not made pertinent archival documents available to scholars.

Opinions appreciated.--Jacurek (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

See WP:COATRACK. The text's "cooperation" here implies collaboration – in an article about WWII collaborationism! The "most horrifying" comment is also editorializing. Per long-standing policy, please keep this article concerned with the topic of the article. Wikilinking to the Soviet-German non-aggression pact in an opening sentence talking about Hitler's breaking of the Molotov-Reibbentrop non-aggression pact would be quite enough here – the reader can always use that. This is not an article concerned with pre-1941 German-Soviet relations or a World War II overview. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
It was a non-aggression pact with a secret protocol - forced division of E.Europe among the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, that is why it is essential to be here.--Jacurek (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
That has to do with Soviet collaborationism (something obviously different from pre-war cooperation) with the Axis? How? PasswordUsername (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Stalin's collaboration with Hitler certainly seems notable and relevant here. I guess what's at issue is what collaboration is - this comes up perennially in this article. The question then becomes whether sources refer to this as 'collaboration' or just 'cooperation'.radek (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is truly preposterous. What's next, we'll go and include the Munich Agreement as UK collaborationism? How about IBM, should it be included as an example of US collaborationism due to the selling of technology to the Nazis? Anonimu (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The term 'collaboration' has two meanings: 1) WORK WITH and 2) SUPPORT AN ENEMY. This article should use only meaning No. 2. The cooperation between Germany and Soviet authorities before Operation Barbarossa was not collaboration as the countries were not enemies at the time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

removal

I don't think the presence of a small typo justifies removing a whole section, which starts with "Stalin had ignored several warnings..." and ends with "...were it not for the economic cooperation of the Soviet Union."radek (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Poland

The Poland section reads like nationalistic cheerleading. It may very well be that Poles didn't collaborate with the Nazis much, but the indisputable fact is that Poland Jewish population was hit far harder than any other country's, only 3% survived. I'd say this speaks to considerable collaboration or passiveness on this particular issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.214.157.157 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stop looking at statistics and look at the actual numbers instead: more Poles were involved in saving Jews than people of any other nationality and more Jews were saved by Poles than by any other nation. Also, in many countries there were no ghettos or death sentence for helping Jews so it was fairly easy for them to seek help unlike in Poland where the vast majority of Jews never managed to even get in contact with Poles. How about you do some actual research before jumping to conclusions. The number of Jews killed by Germans does not equal the number of Poles who collaborated with the Germans. Polish collaboration was minimal compared with other countries and that is also an indisputable fact.

Burma

Shouldn't there be a Burmese section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.217.162.8 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Palestine/Jews

While there is evidence that the Stern Gang offered to cooperate in exchange for a recognition of Israel, there was no actual collaboration happening. I don't see this as something that should be included, since no actual collaboration took place. I'm going to remove that section unless I hear a good reason to include it.Thalia42 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC).

South African collaborators

No coverage of groups like the Ossewabrandwag or Greyshirts? What gives? ----DanTD (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

"Collaboration"

It seems to me that when one end of collaboration is willing complicity in the Holocaust, the other end of "collaboration" is not telling the population to stay calm. That may well be live to fight another day, not, we welcome the invader. Do we have scholarly sources which back the latter contention? I would also argue that "collaboration" includes acting with the enemy against your own nation and peoples, that is, being a traitor to one's nation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Collaboration_with_Nazi_Germany_and_Fascist_Italy/Archive_2&oldid=1165511600"