Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine/Archive 1

Archive 1

Title and opening paragraph

This is a perfectly legitimate subject for an article, but it must be a properly researched and referenced article. There is a problem with this title: Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration during WW2. "Ukrainian" is a nationality, whereas "Nazi" is a political party. It should be Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. Secondly the opening paragraphy says:

Ukrainians are among the nations that suffered the most in the course of WWII. The absolute majority of Ukrainians fought the occupants of their lands. As among other occupied nations, a vain minority, howeever, collaborated with Nazi in massacres against other nations.

Apart from poor English, which can be fixed:

• The first sentence is a completely unverifiable comparative statement. It may be true, but can't be proved or disproved.
• The second sentence is untrue. The "absolute majority" of Ukrainians neither collaborated with nor resisted the Germans - they simply tried to survive. From my reading, it seems that in the first year of occupation most Ukrainians welcomed the defeat of the Soviets, but by 1943 most wanted the Germans gone.
• The third sentence is editorialising. It is not this articles's business to say whether Ukrainian-German collaboration was good or bad, although others can of course be quoted as saying various things about it. Adam 23:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced the opening paragraph with a sentence, which isn't very good, but mentions more or less all the relevant facts, that were there before. Anyway, it's only meant to temporary.--Carabinieri 00:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I also added some facts from a paper by Yehuda Bauer.--Carabinieri 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW [1] this also an interesting article on this topic.--Carabinieri 00:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it is not about Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration, but about how Ukrainians murdered Jews. There are no sources apart from the Holocaust research. If the topic is about how Ukrainians were bad to the Jews than it should be called that way or maybe merged with a similar article about how Jews (Kaganowitch and Trotsky) were murdering Ukrainians and expand on how these two peoples were murdering each other throughout the Russian revolution and the two World Wars. It might be interesting, actually.--Hillock65 01:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

infoukes.com

This pro ukrainian insurgent army website is hardly a scholarly source or reputable source of information, it's equivalent to using stormfront.com as a source on the holocaust article.--Yarillastremenog 00:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This kind of comment clearly shows how much the "authors" of this "article" really know about Ukraine and Ukrainians. This is not an insurgent army website - please familiarize yourself with the site before making bigoted remarks, it doesn't serve any useful purpose, except alienating Ukrainians and Jews, unless, of course this is what you are after.

InfoUkes Corporate Page An Internet Information Resource about Ukraine and Ukrainians —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hillock65 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

by their own admission, infoukes.com is pro ukrainian insurgent army, a quick look at their list of articles shows this, this biased internet website should not be used as a reliable let alone neutral source of information, this has nothing do to with 'alienating' anyone, but using apologist and biased websites as 'references' is a joke -Yarillastremenog

For this discussion to be meaningful, please give instances of their bias. It is just as neutral as the sources in the article, all written by Jewish authors and none by neutral authors. Writing in positive light about Ukrainian Insurgent Army is not a sign of bias, if that was true, than quoting Jewish authors for this article is also biased.--Hillock65 03:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Gilbert is Jewish? not that it would matter, he is a recognized expert and historian on the holocaust with many published books to his name, unlike infoukes.com which is run by a couple of Ukrainians living in North America, it certainly appears your antisemitic tendencies are coming to the surface by claiming a Jewish author is naturally biased, whereas those who promote a recognized terrorist group with human rights atrocities are 'neutral'-Yarillastremenog

I would advise you to tone down the level of your agression and stop using slandering remarks, otherwise a complaint agaist you will be filed. Name calling and labelling of an opponent is not only civil and also counterproductive. Calling a site about Ukraine and Ukrainians biased only because it is run by "a couple of Ukrainians living in North America" is just as racist. You started to assign labels and accusations without having the vaguest idea about the site. As well you unfouded and outrageously false categorization of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as a "recognized terrorist group" is another sign of your prejudices. Recognized by whom, when, where?--Hillock65 03:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian women and German soldiers

My first intention was to delete this completely irrelevant to the topic of this article and openly xenophobic statement about sexual relationships between German soldiers and Ukrainian women, but then I decided to leave it, as it clearly illustrates the level of the contributors to this article as well as their true intentions. For it appears, that the purpose of this article is not to examine the Ukrainian-Nazi collaboration at all, but rather to engage in xenophobic diatribes and slanderous accusations. I would also ask other users not to delete it to give the full picture about the authors of this article and of their true intentions.--Hillock65 10:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock65, I added a reference for that claim (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_ell_5990153_25/02/2006_66850), which shows it to be 100% fact, I hope you reconsider calling it 'Xenophobic' as I believe everything else written in this article to be also 100% true, sometimes things in history may upset you, like the fact that most Ukrainian women slept with German soldiers and this is a form of cooperation between the germans and ukrainians and thus quite relevant to the articleYarillastremenog 11:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain, how this is relevant to Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration? Not just this xenophobic part but 90% of the article. The article doesn't upset me in the least, in fact I am glad it is here with its biased and overwhelmingly false allegations. People are not that stupid, you humiliate yourself with this article first and foremost. Please continue! --Hillock65 12:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hillock65, "I would advise you to tone down the level of your agression and stop using slandering remarks" (that's what you wrote in the previous section). Yarillastremenog merely added a section to this article, which was relevant to the topic in his/her opinion. Whether it is in fact relevant or not is worth a discussion, but adding the section doesn't humiliate anyone. Further, remember WP:AGF. I don't know how you can conclude anything as to Yarillastremenog's "true intentions" as you put it. I actually do think that mentioning sexual relations between Ukrainians and Germans (especially if they are soldiers) might be worthwhile to a certain extent, since these do indicate that the women who had the relations were not hostile to the German soldiers, as long as it was voluntary of course.--Carabinieri 12:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats how I feel, especially since women who slept with German soldiers were considered 'collaborators' in France or Norway, even post war, makes this perfectly relevant to the article. After all the reader can draw their own conclusion whether it is good or bad, just stating the truth isn't grounds to get upset like Hillock65 is getting over that section and labelling it xenophobicYarillastremenog 12:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't answer the question how it relates to the topic of the article (Ukrainian Nazi Collaboration during WW2), or this is part of collaboration as well? In what way? Look up the meaning of the word collaboration. You cannot assume that sexual relationships with Jews or Ukrainians is collaboration. Comparing to what people thought in France is rediculous. If it is worth discussing, then one should also add how Jewish women or any other had sex with German soldiers. I am sure all kind of women had sex with German soldier, Ukrainian, Russian, Jewish, Polish. How does this add to the topic of discussion? Maybe the author could be more precise, how sex for Germans with Ukrainian women was different from sex with Jewish women and since relevance is not that important, he could elaborate on sexual positions and types of perversions perpetrated on Ukrainian/Jewish women.--Hillock65 12:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually articles on the Holocaust do detail how the Germans operated brothels in concentration camps, as well as the wehrmacht also quietly sanctioned their use in other areas "Comparing to what people thought in France is rediculous" why? Both Ukraine and France were occupied by Germany making a comparison is a good idea. Also this is not just about sex, statistically, more 'children of German soldiers' were born in the Ukraine than possibly anywhere else, it appears many of them assimilated into Ukrainian society.Yarillastremenog 12:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be tragically missing the point of this article. This is supposed to be about how Ukrainians collaborated with Germans. Sex is not collaboration, you provide no sources that it is in fact so. It has never been collaboration even in France. How many children and whether Germans preferred Ukrainian women to Jewish is not the point of discussion of this article. How is this relevant? The only relevance in my point is that the author tries to denigrate Ukrainians as much as possible. No one argues that collaboration existed, but thumbing through used condoms finding whether women participated in collaboration is indeed way too too much. This only entices antisemitism and animosity towards Jews, as this article is a mix of stories of mistreatment of Jews by Ukrainians with sordid stories of women sleeping with Germans. Ukrainians and Jews need understanding of each other, not mutual accusations. This is unnecessary and wrong. Write about SS divisions, local auxiliary police but denigrating Ukrainians that much is inciting anti-semitism, unless that's what you are after.--Hillock65 13:10, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly you have never read about or seen the photographs of women getting their heads shaved in public in France for having sexual relations with the Germans, or how Norwegian women who did the same thing or the children born from those relations (lebensborn program) they were considered collaborators after war, by that they were considered to have aided the invading occupying military. Your statements about encouraging anti semitism or damaging 'ukrainian jewish relations' is nonsense, the Jews were put in concentration camps or murdered by the nazis and this was aided by some Ukrainians, however Ukrainian women sleeping with German soldiers and producing many offspring is a relevant topic for this article, both could be considered 'collaboration' and were so by the soviet government, and detailing history is not the fault of the JewsYarillastremenog 13:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What does Ukrainian-German sex have to do with anti-Semitism. Accusing Yarillastremenog of inciting anti-Semitism is completely ridiculous. People don't become anti-Semites because they read something on Wikipedia.--Carabinieri 13:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we please have an intelligent discussion, rather than this bickering.--Carabinieri 13:27, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I explained it quite clearly. This article is designed to humiliate and denigrate Ukrainians rather than meaningfully treat the subject of collaboration. Please read above.--Hillock65 13:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of the article

The title of this article should be renamed to more neutral one "Nazi Collaboration during WW2 in Ukraine", because this attempt to show Ukrainians( as well as other ethnic groups) as the Nazi collaborators is a political bias. --Alex Kov 14:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Title

As flagged earlier, I am moving this article to Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. Adam 23:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the article's move. --KPbIC 00:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I support also. Now it needs to be cleaned of unproven tendentious allegations and something might come out of it.--Hillock65 01:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This article in general

Hillock65, I agree with you this article is not very good and very one-sided. This is why I re-wrote the opening paragraph with a citation of a paper by a well-known and internationally renowend Holocaust historian, Yehuda Bauer. I was hoping this would start an effort to re-write the entire article and make something better of it. You went on to partially remove the claims by Yehuda Bauer without explanation ([2]). You also added a few completely irrelevant sentences.

This article is about crimes committed by Ukranians. You're going to have to leave your national sentiments by side and deal with that. Most Ukrainians welcomed Nazi Germany after it attacked the Soviet Union and occupied the Ukraine. You can't change that and the fact that numerous Ukrainians took part in the Holocaust voluntarily. Your actions remind me of the numerous German historical revisionists I deal with everyday, who think the Holocaust was committed by Hitler and noone else. And yes, other nations behaved similarly, but this article is not about that.

If you want to write about the more positive side of Ukrainian behavior during this period start an article about Ukrainian resistance against Germany during World War II or something similar, but the topic of this article is just a different one.--Carabinieri 18:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of Ukrainians fought in the WWII, estimated to be 4,5 million. As well, statement that Jews collaborated witn Nazis is not irrelevant. Just like Ukrainians participated in the Holocaust, so did the Jews. You will have to live with that too. Jews are not immune from war crimes as well, neither in the past nor today. Bringing neutrality and another point of view is just what this article needs if instead of collaboration you dwell on who participated in the Holocaust. Well, a noted american historian believes Jews did too. So this is very relevant. Please do not erase parts which you consider irrelevant, instead explain your position. Plese see: Wikipedia:Vandalism Erasing and reverting is not going to help anyone.--Hillock65 19:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny that were Jews, who had some responsibility for the Holocaust. But that's not the topic of this article.--Carabinieri 20:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW: try reading WP:AGF.--Carabinieri 20:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Take a long and careful look at the title of the article, it is not about the Holocaust, but about Ukrainian - Nazi cooperation. If you mention Holocaust, however, than all aspects of it should be mentioned and not only the ones that you like. Take responsibility.--Hillock65 20:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A long and careful look at the article tells me its about the cooperation between the Ukrainians and Nazi Germany during World War II. My own knowledge tells me that the Ukrainian participation in the genocide against the Jews, i.e. the Holocaust, was a big part of this. Hence, the Ukrainian part in the Holocaust is relevant, the "evil Jews'" part is not.--Carabinieri 03:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there an evidence that Ukrainian Jews cooperated with the Nazis? Why a half of the intro talks about it? I am removing it. Whoever thinks of restoring, please bring reliable sources (see WP:V, WP:CITE). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead talks about others participation in the Holocaust as well, including Jews. I quoted a famous American historian, Lenni Brenner Jewish himself. There is an article on him, check it out. He mentions about Zionist contribution to the Holocaust as well. It is relevant, it shows that all participated in the genocide, including the Jews themselves. Please do not delete sources that you don;t like. Deleting them will not help. War of reverts is counterproductive.--Hillock65 04:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So don't do it. Read the title of this article, then read WP:LEAD. Then answer the question: Is there an evidence that Ukrainian Jews cooperated with the Nazis? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is none. This is just an anti-Semite lie. The einsatzgruppen went through Ukraine in 1941-42 and killed the great majority of Jews. They had no chance to "collaborate" even if they had wanted to. Has Hillock65 not heard of Babi Yar? If he is going to base his case for revising this article on this kind of garbage he won't get much sympathy from anyone who know the history of the Holocaust.

Of course there were Ukrainians who helped Jews (see below), but not very many, and there were many more Ukriainians who joined in killing the Jews, or collaborated in other ways. If it were not for the fact that the Germans intended to turn Ukraine into a "German Garden of Eden" and enslave the Slavic population, there would have been much more collaboration. It was only the unspeakable behaviour of the Nazis that drove the majority of Ukrainians to end their support for the Germans and welcome the return of the Soviets, though undertsandably not with much enthusiasm.

I don't blame the Ukrainians for welcoming the Germans in 1941. After what Stalin had done to Ukraine it was quite understandable. But there is no point in denying these facts. Adam 04:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not going anywhere. This article is designed to demonise Ukrainians and full of unverified and outright false facts. I propose you have a hard and long look at the title. It is not about how Ukrainians or Jews participated in the Holocaust, but rather how Ukrainians collaborated with Germans. Mind you an overwhelming minority, millions of Ukrainians fought in the Red Army. Millions. There were a number of reasons for a minority to cooperate - lets examine those. There were different forms of collaboration SS divisions, auxilliary police, etc. - let;s examine those as well. And most imoportantly the horrors of war are not for the present generations to spread the blame around and compete who suffered more. However, that being said, if you still wish to focus exclusively on Holocaust and demonise Ukrainians than you unwittingly - and maybe even purpusfully - will entice antisemitism and resentment of Jews for demonising others. It will only alienate out two peoples and create more unhealing wounds - it is not for the benifit of Ukrainians or Jews, trust me. War experienc was traumatic for both, let's not profit on it, there is enough blame on Jews too. A reputable American historian writes extensively on Zionist leadership cooperating fully with the Nazis. I am reading it right now and will probably write an article about it. If you insist on spreading blame, there is enough for everyone, it is just counterproductive and unwise. Think ahead.--Hillock65 05:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"profit on it"? Obviously, you have some strong POV but WP is a wrong platform for it. I find it very disturbing that you chose to neutralize the subject of Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II with allegations against Jews. Nobody is off to "demonise Ukrainians" - please review WP:NPOV.

On the subject: there are volumes upon volumes of evidence similar to what Adam cited below. I asked you the same question twice, no answer so far. BTW, a proper characterization for Lenni Brenner would be a political activist, not "reputable historian". ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Literature (reference list)

Please, explain to me, why reference #10 are valid? It seems, this research hold by only one person. So this brutally violates Wikipedia policy on [3] rule.

Also, if you want to ensure -- google for that name "Stavros Tzimas" - [[4]] - it seems, that guy is just journalist, not even historian. How that reference could be cited?

Admins, please tell me what steps I have to do to remove that reference? --Galkovsky 01:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Gilbert on Ukrainians

Some quotes from Martin Gilbert’s The Righteous: The Unsung Heroes of the Holocaust (Henry Holt and Co, 2003)

“Professor Edgar Gold, who survived the war in Germany as a hidden child, and whose father survived four concentration camps, including Auschwitz, writes that his father often told him ‘that the Germans could not have done what they did without the assistance of their Ukrainian [and other] “helpers.”… My father also often mentioned that the cruelty and bestiality of Ukrainian and Baltic States’ concentration camp guards often far surpassed the cold, calculating cruelty of the Germans.” (xix)

At Lutsk, the Mironiuk family hid numeous Jews who had escaped from the ghetto. “However, the local Ukrainian population could also be terrifyingly hostile to those who sought refuge; it had, after all, carried out murderous progroms of its own against the Jews in the first weeks of the war.” (9)

“Boryslaw was another East Galician town with a substantial Jewish population… On 1 July 1941, when the Germans entered Boryslaw, local Ukrainians, supported by the Germans, started a day-long anti-Jewish pogrom in which 300 Jews were killed.” (63)

On the next page is the story of Julia Schepaniuk family of Boryslaw, who sheltered a Jewish family of eight in her storeroom, and was awarded the title Righteous Among the Nations. (64)

Oops forgot to sign. Adam 04:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam, You know, I also have this book, and read that. But revise this: 1. Gilbert provides us few people's interview, that could not prove the fact; 2. Also few quotes You provide, and many from Gilbert's papers says about Jews pogroms (also, review that that's main focus of Martin's research). Can it be clarified as Ukrainian-German collaboration? Martin's research doesn't mention that. Please, give more detailed arguments, why this author applies to whole article --Galkovsky 01:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I must say, that recent Gilbert's book is discussed even by Jews: according to Mordecai Paldiel, Yad Vashem historian, 17,500 righteous Ukrainians had been identified in comparison to Gilbert's "almost 2,000 Ukrainians". And Martin provides only few unique cases of Jews pogroms, without citing any official documents. ONLY few interviews. --Galkovsky 02:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, and the most important -- read short overview, with cites of those books [8] - reference of the article. And notice, what are names of Martin Gilbert's books -- in "The Righteous: The Unsung Heros of the Holocaust" -- there are plenty of facts of Ukrainian-heroes who saved Jews during German occupation. What You'll recommend? All of that relates to Jews, not to Ukrainian-German collaboration. So, maybe it will be better to remove Gilbert's book from references? That doesn't relate to the actual article title and it's content. --Galkovsky 02:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this article a POV-fork?

I want editors to think about merging this article with Ukranian resistance during World War II, or renaming it and including data about resistance. With collaboration as the focus, editors with Ukranian sympathies are obviously going to be concerned about the trend of the article. That is the reason that we should avoid forks. A single article that examined collaboration and resistance in a single article is more likely to find a consensus. Bucketsofg 02:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please notice, that my quick overview of sources cited pointed out, that most of them are irrelevant to current article's title and content!!! How this can allowed in Wiki - to write an article with only or very-very few references --Galkovsky 02:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian women and German soldiers

I'm going to comment this section in a few hours, because it violates the Wikipedia rule about verifiability and Original research. "Kerstin Muth" is psychologist with no sources in English, and "Tzimas, Stavros" is a little-known journalist --Galkovsky 02:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

If you will read original of [10] reference -- here [5] - you can see, that citation used in article body was extracted incorrectly. More reliable source have to be used, according to Wiki standards. --Galkovsky 03:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, this section (citation, mainly) falls under Sources of dubious reliability together with Sources in languages other than English + First pillar ("Nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents").

Hope provided facts are enough for section commenting. --Galkovsky 03:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

Please, do not delete images from article text. I think they are highly relevant to the article subject. Also, I corrected the licensing of images. I've got them yesterday from state archive. If you have any questions -- please ask here before edits. Thanks. --Galkovsky 15:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected

2006-12-28T15:14:00 Bucketsofg (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II: protect to end edit warring [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) but is now on wiki-break so I have "acquired" it. Discuss... William M. Connolley 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of {{fact}} tags

When you add a fact tag to a sentence please make sure the assertion is not already sourced. "Immediately after the invasion, the Germans were enthusiastically welcomed by most of the Ukrainian population except for a pro-Soviet minority." That assertion is covered by the paper by Yehuda Bauer, which is mentioned in the following footnote. I'm all for singling out un-sourced assertions, but sourced ones should be left.--Carabinieri 19:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've remvoed the tag as you have had no answer William M. Connolley 19:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Split up

As you can see -- most of this page contains information on Jews genocide in Ukraine. So it would be right decision to split up this article into two relevant, covering own title. --Galkovsky 05:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian - German collaboration includes the implementation of the holocaust, i believe the article should not be split up =Redstone357 06:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As an outside admin trying to promote cooperation here, it seems to me that a split is the wrong way to go. As I mentioned above, an article on Ukrainian-German collaboration is a POV-split that is bound to cause edit wars. Editors should consider creating a new article on Ukrainian-German collaboration and resistance that aims at presenting a historically accurate and balanced view: some collaborated, others resisted, most kept their heads down. Bucketsofg 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• You're mistaken regarding: "some collaborated, others resisted, most kept their heads down." There was widespread collaboration in the theft from, and murder of, the Jewish population in ukraine. On D-Day the Allies were fighting ukranians. The guards in Europe's death camps were substatially all ukrainian. The historical sorces of ukrainian complicity in theft and murder is overwhelming.--Lance ^talk 17:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you trying to pick a fight with Ukrainians? You are taking historical facts and interpreting them in the most anti-Ukrainian way possible. Let's let the facts speak for themselves. Specifically:

"There was widespread collaboration in the theft from, and murder of, the Jewish population in ukraine"

Do you know how many Ukrainians were killed or captured working for the Nazi regime, or how many were employed in important roles? If not, then you can't just say it and hope that it's true.

On D-Day the Allies were fighting ukranians. The guards in Europe's death camps were substatially all ukrainian.

Sources?

Here's what we do know, millions of Ukrainians served in the Red Army and Soviet Partisans fighting against Nazi Germany, and even the UPA turned against the Germans. Kevlar67 21:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks to Kevlar67. Completely agree. What's the mess with Ukrainians? Jews live not only in Ukraine, and Holocaust wasn't held only on territory of Ukraine. And when some guy says, said all "guards in Europe's death camps were Ukrainians" - the only thing I can say about him -- he doesn't know history (he is imperialist). :) --Galkovsky 06:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

What do editors think about merging this article with History_of_Ukraine#Ukraine_in_World_War_II or creating a new article History_of_Ukraine_in_World_War_II? Bucketsofg 17:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Creating History_of_Ukraine_during_World_War_II may be a good idea, but as is the case with most other nations, which were under German occupation, collaboration is an important topic, which merits its own article. Beit Or 19:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there are no other such articles. There is, however, Occupation of the Channel Islands, Occupation of Czechoslovakia, Occupation of Denmark, Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany, Occupation of Greece by Nazi Germany, Occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, and Occupation of Latvia by Nazi Germany. There is also Reichskommissariat Ukraine which has much material in it already about this phenomenon. Bucketsofg 20:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with you Beit Or, I think it would still be a good idea to merge this article. The contributors to this article who can't bear having Ukrainian crimes mentioned by themselves have made large parts of this article talk about other things than collaboration. (I mean the whole "Righteous people of the world" section is interesting and worth mentioning but purely and simply off topic in this article).--Carabinieri 01:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I am against the merge, Bucketsofg makes a point that other articles about German collaboration are lacking, but that doesn't mean this one doesn't merit its own existance as a unique article, after all it is correctly claimed that Ukraine contributed more concentration camp guards, SD and SS volunteers/conscripts than any other ethnicity or nation, I also agree with the point made by Carabinieri that pro Ukrainian editors are unfortunately adding irrelevant topics to the article, however this information should be judged on whether it has relevance to Ukrainian-German collaboration, if not it should be deleted or moved to another article where it has more relevance --Yarillastremenog 00:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge would be a good solution for current situation.--Bryndza 02:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

copyvio images

recently inserted images violates copyrights --Galkovsky 09:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate? I do not see copyvio here. Alex Bakharev 10:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

copyrights stated on both pages, artukraine site is selling such photos, so it can't be used. --Galkovsky 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If photo is public domain everybody can sell the reproductions of it. Copyright sign is most probably related to the design of the webpage rather than the image. You could ask the webowners if they claim the copyright for photographs but I doubt the validity of such a claim Alex Bakharev 11:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

time to unprotect

here are some good sources to add to the article that corroborates some of what is written about Ukrainian involvement in the einatzgruppen and atrocities against minorities which was collaboration with Nazi plans for Europe

http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/chronology/1939-1941/1941/chronology_1941_11.html

http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob57.html

some other Issues I have with the current version of the article

The photos uploaded and linked to this article have little relevance to the subject matter, they would have more relevance in an article about the history of Ukraine in general or WW2, a good photo is one I have seen in the Jurgen Stroop report' which shows 'askari' (nickname for Ukrainian militiamen by Germans) during the warsaw ghetto revolt, that is a valid photo of Ukrainian German collaboration, showing a woman 'distraught' after the soviet soldiers left is a nice photo but not for this article, unless someone can prove some direct relevance I recommend they be unlinked from this article

Also some of the sourced information has been removed by some editors Galkovsky/Bryndza without good reason, the section on Ukrainian women and German soldiers was decided to have relevance to the subject of Ukrainian-German collaboration by several people here in a previous discussion, it should not be removed by one editor who perhaps has his own personal reasons to dislike the subject matter, certainly if they want to expand that section and show why perhaps Ukrainian women were compelled to engage in sex with German soldiers then so be it, but deleting a relevant subject is counterproductive --Yarillastremenog 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Counterproductive is providing dubios references. And only one. Just read: "Almost any child that was born in that country between 1942 and 1944 was the offspring of a German soldier". Now take into account that 85% of population in Ukraine at that time was rural. And do you want to claim that German troops stayed in every village? Now: "For Russian women in the Soviet Union after the war, to have borne the child of a German soldier meant either execution or a gulag in Siberia for life." So all the children died in Siberia? Next: "An estimated 1 to 2 million children of German soldiers were born to women in the occupied countries". And a sentence before: "She has already found a woman in Thessaloniki who was born in 1944 to a German father and a Greek mother". That was really hard with such a big number of cases. Sheer nonsence. Don't you think that "There were strict prohibitions on marrying Ukrainian and Polish women, because they were Slavs and hence 'subhuman.'" tabu would stop Germans from relations with these women? Anyway. For making such claims as you do yu have to provide sorces other than some yellow press dubious self-reserch article. Regards.--Bryndza 02:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You are extracting information from that [article] incorrectly to prove your point, for example on your last point "There were strict prohibitions on marrying Ukrainian and Polish women, because they were Slavs and hence 'subhuman. it goes on to say 'Yet in spite of that, there were many marriages' By the way you call this a 'dubious yellow press self research' even though Kerstin Muth is a historian and bases her research on 'meticulous study of the Wehrmacht archives in Berlin' to quote from the article. You have not provided any sources to refute the claims made by Kerstin Muth, indeed you have not provided any references at all that would dispute what is claimed in that article. --Yarillastremenog 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please differentiate between marriage and sleeping around. What about rural population? What about other things I pointed out? I would like to see here those documents from archive in Berlin or at least one more historian has to find them and make same conclusions. Otherwise there is nothing to disprove. I can see now why you have no future. One who builds his history from denies and accusations to others instead of at least remembering those saved can not be respected.--Bryndza 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New sources provided by Yarillastremenog contain references to Ukrainian militia, but those are "eyewitness account", it contains no information on actual scale of those events. No actual science paper covers that.

So it's obvious, Yarillastremenog just misinterpret information from Yad Vashem. That's improper. --Galkovsky 12:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts are acceptable by wikipedia standards, you certainly have not even attempted to dispute any information posted, maybe you have no references to do so --Yarillastremenog 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, section about Ukrainian Women. That question was already discussed, no valid sources were provided. Wikipedia can not contain material from papers, as valid sources. Only scientific papers, by historians can be used here. --Galkovsky 12:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

read my reply to User:Bryndza --Yarillastremenog 09:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Since when are papers of journalistic nature not reliable sources? What Wikipedia policy are you basing that assertion on? Have you even read WP:RS? It states that scholarly sources are better, but does not say that newspapers, etc are not. Take a look at the article about Gerald Ford, for example, it cites plenty of non-scholarly sources, but reached WP:FA. On the other hand, I do agree with you, Galovksy, eyewitness accounts - like all primary sources - are good for some things, but not in this case. They generally do establish (more or less) that the information contained within them is true, especially if these are respected in the scientific community. They do not, however, establish relevance in the grand scheme of things. They can be used to provide details, but not as the sole sources for a particular event or aspect of a topic, especially since they can easily be used to misinterpret the situation as a whole.

Why doesn't everyone start citing accurate information about the topic at hand (cooperation between the Ukrainian people and/or the Ukrainian state with Nazi Germany during WWII) and stop adding rants or other non-relevant information about sexual relations, resistance against Nazi Germany, etc. In discussions like this it's important to always cite Wikipedia policy or guidelines or notable precedents, when claiming that a source is not reliable, e.g.--Carabinieri 17:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Please start cyting documents.--Bryndza 13:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

Can you please also highlight what have I reverted, it seems we are working on two separate versions of the article.--Kuban Cossack 15:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You also changed removed my edits to the lead section.([6])--Carabinieri 15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Several problems with it, first of all do make an effort to re-write the english, then it says most welcomed is also untrue, except maybe in the western regions, and this has to be highlighted. Likewise during the liberation of Ukraine (and see lengthy Talk:Battle if the Lower Dnieper and the mediation that followed it) on why the term "liberation" is acceptable to be used on any Soviet anti-German action in the course of the War. Lastly the section should read Galicia and parts of Volhynia instead of Volhynia and Eastern Galcia, or better just leave Western Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 15:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Most Ukrainians did enthusiastically support the Germans when they first arrived (see the last sentence on pg. 13 of the paper by Yehuda Bauer, which is cited in the article.) I guess you are right about the word "liberation". Though I do believe it to be a POV term, because judging which system is "freeer" the Soviet, Western democratic, etc on the one hand or the Nazi on the other is just that a POV. But since it is an established term in historiography, I highly doubt it will ever be removed from articles relating to France for example, so I guess it's probably best if it is applied to all articles relating to Germany's military defeats in territories it had conquered in WWII. "Volhynia and Eastern Galcia" is more exact and is also the term Bauer uses so I consider it to be preferable.--Carabinieri 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said by most Ukrainains applies only to the Western Ukraine. I do not need to tell you about just how much percentage of Chernigov Oblast was involved in partisan resistance, and that is greater than 90%. The UPA and German sympathy outside Western Ukraine was minute, I am not denying that it was absent altogether, but then the same can be said about any other occupied country. --Kuban Cossack 18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for this?--Carabinieri 18:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a million Soviet History books and even modern Ukrainian books, well go ask any Ukrainian outside Western Ukraine whether they welcomed the Germans, particularly in the eastern Ukraine. --Kuban Cossack 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't know any and when dealing with controversial articles like this it is extremely important to provide reputable and verifiable sources for every assertion.--Carabinieri 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Kuban Cossack provides his own opinion. Even mentioned page 13th says completely other things. --Galkovsky 18:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think comments like that will help?--Carabinieri 19:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feed trolls. --Kuban Cossack 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious section

I have removed the section below. It has no info only highly dubious second hand citation from a "psychologist and historian". If almost all Ukrainian offspring of 1942-1944 was born to a German soldier and then sent to Gulag. Then almost all Ukrainian born at that time were sent to Gulag it contradicts all the known statistics and a common sense.

Besides this I see no credible indications that German-Ukrainian "cooperation" of that sort were more widespread than on any other occupied territory. The topic is highly inflammatory and the facts are almost none. Thus I removed the following fragment: Alex Bakharev 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Salacious pictures

These pictures in the article only underline the real motivation of the authors of this xenophobic article. Leaving aside the inappropriatness of these pictures in an article about WW II there is no proof these women are actually Ukrainian or Jewish. Presence of this material in this article is not only inappropriate, unverified but also without any proof whatsoever.--Chuprynka 17:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows nudity in other articles, so why are these 'salacious', in the documentary video Mein Krieg, the German soldier explicity mentions that footage he filmed was in western Ukraine, if you don't want to rent or buy this documentary, try reading of the reviews posted online or on amazon.com, indeed they confirm that it contains a brief scene of a naked Ukrainian woman, it may seem offensive to you but we are trying to show all levels of cooperation between Ukrainians and Germans during world war II and that includes sexual relations --Yarillastremenog 23:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Now again, two direct questions which you neglected to address:

1. How does exactly nudity relate to the topic of cooperation?

2. Where is the verifiable proof those are Ukrainian and not Jewish women?--Chuprynka 00:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems every debate with Ukrainian nationalists degenerates into a debate over who is Jewish or Ukrainian etc, remember it was hillock and other Ukrainians who criticised this article for only concentrating on the holocaust and atrocities against the Jewish minority in Ukraine during WWII, therefore sections on other forms of sexual collaboration between the occupying axis forces and ukrainians is indeed relevant in its own section. I didn't mention religion but when you consider that Jews were already being mass murdered at babi yar and even the documentary mein krieg shows Jews being hanged, it seems unlikely those civilians would be Jewish considering how friendly they are with the German soldiers in 1942, but if you want to believe that, fine. What is undeniable is that the screenshots I posted from Mein Krieg are of Ukrainian civilians (in all liklihood, Ukrainian Christians, not Jews), if you want to dispute the validity of the screenshots, you must watch the documentary first to make such a claim, but at the moment you have no facts and no right to claim they are 'unverified' --Yarillastremenog 08:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from isults and irrelevant gibberish you seem to be singularly missing the point. Unlike you I am not an avid viewer of porn films even if they are made by Nazis. A very legitimate question was if there is a proof that those women are actually Ukrainian. I don't want to watch this porn film to find the proof: since you post these salacious images the onus is on you to prove their nationality and most importantly the relevance to the topic of collaboration. I don't care if they are Jewish or not, that is irrelevant — what is relevant, however, the proof of their nationality. Preferrably a documented one. You cannot expect others to watch porn films to find out who the subject is. Check out WP:V and don't abuse this policy. On the side note, not all Jews were mistreated — some performed other duties as well. Educate yourself: Margherita Sarfatti If a Jewish woman was providing intimate services to Benito Mussolini, I find it entirely conceivable there were a few that did the same for Germans. In other words you have to prove the nationality of the women with documented sources. --Chuprynka 16:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is inappropriate and I consider to be a personal attack, the images are sourced and referenced and not from a 'porn film' if you are too stupid to even check what documentary I was talking about then obviously you are too stupid to discuss this further with. By the way the documented sources that those civilians are ukrainian are in the documentary itself, and the onus is on you to disprove the validity of that documenary --Yarillastremenog 18:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia can have such pictures in Nudity, with an entire Portal:Nudity, it can have them here about a real topic. IZAK 21:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, plus these photographs shed an important added historical context to the article sub section --Nfvatutin 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First solve the question about copyright. Then prove nationality. Then insert.--Bryndza 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bryndza, the woman looks Jewish to me, unless there is a specific proof that she is Georgian, Hungarian, Belarusian, Ukrainian or Russian I don't see it is appropriate to insert salacious pictures in a topic about WWII. Let's be serious.--Chuprynka 22:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this going to turn into an absurd racist discussion about whether this woman looks Jewish or not? Please, how can you possible tell that from the way she looks? Don't act like it's copyright you guys are concernced about. That is indeed a relevant question that should be dealt with, but I doubt that's really the reason you object to the image. When you add information or pictures to Wikipedia you say where you got them from, that's called citing your sources. But that's about as far as a burden of proof goes. You don't have to prove that a certain piece of information really does appear in a book, you just cite the book and that's enough. It is up to everyone else to check the source to see if the information or picture is there if they don't believe the editor adding it.--Carabinieri 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It has turned into an absurd racist discussion a while ago, it's too bad you just noticed. The user took it from some unknown source and claims it is Ukrainian, so why not Jewish of Russian? Moreover he has been posting it all over, and notably in Striptease. If a burden of proof is not needed for alleging it is Ukrainian, why all of a sudden it is racist to suggest she is Jewish? Where is the proof it is one way or another? Where is the PROOF of anything? On the reference site the authors of the film don't even mention Ukraine by name! Why didn't you have the same objections when it was posted originally?--Chuprynka 22:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If Yarillastremenog writes that the film claims she is Ukrainian then he has cited a source just as Wikipedia calls for. If you want to dispute that, then it is up to you to check the source. What else is Yarillastremenog supposed to do other than say where the image is from and what that source says about it? A racist claim that the woman looks Jewish is not the way to go.--Carabinieri 22:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've commented the images out for now until thy're status is cleared.--Carabinieri 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen this documentary, but the photographs are very relevant if they are Ukrainian women during German occupation, if they are Russian or Jewish doesn't change the relevance only the location matters to show some relevance to the article, I would say that saying someone looks Jewish and therefore the image is false is bigoted remark, she looks to have typical Slavic features to me, not unique to any religion. --Nfvatutin 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to contradict yourself, first you mention it is bigoted to say someone looks Jewish and then you mention that she "looks to have typical Slavic". Maybe before writing you should examine yourself and decide if you are bigoted yourself, and maybe then you can pass judgements on others.--Chuprynka 23:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the main principles of Wikipedia is Verifiability. That image doesn't even come close to it. Just because he spews hatred against Ukrainians this woman became Ukrainian and he thought it fit to post it on Striptease as well. And if he was an antisemite she would be Jewish as there is no proof one way or another. This is not the way it should be, it is unverifiable and should be deleted. I am dismayed that noone noticed it before when it was downloaded and no one questioned it. On another note I wish someone looked into this character Yarillastremenog, from what I see he has been a major troublemaker all along. From sockpuppetry, posting nude pistures all over encyclopedia to creating all this controversy in this article and inflaming feelings and emotions. If anything, this is very counterproductive and disruptive for all. It should not be allowed to happen. --Chuprynka 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:V only says that you have to say where information comes from so that others can double check it. The user has done that. The fact that the user has posted nude pictures on Wikipedia and angred Ukrainian nationalist editors is not the problem. The problem is that this article is a big mess and of course Yarillastremenog's suckpuppetry, which appears to have started again with User:Nfvatutin (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yarillastremenog (2nd)).--Carabinieri 23:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has done what exactly? Pointed out to the site about the movie, and this is supposed to serve as a source? Source of what exactly? Where do the files come from and who is pictured there do not need to be proven?--Chuprynka 00:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has written what movie the images come from - that's the source. I'm assuming the files are merely screenshots from the film. I can also imagine that the person pictured is merely a Ukrainian woman whose further identity is unknown. Why don't you believe that? And don't tell me she just "looks Jewish".--Carabinieri 16:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

A mess

This article is an outright mess and needs to be rewritten from scratch if kept. To start with, very few editors can claim a greater credit for keeping the Ukrainian nationalism out of the wikipedia articles than myself. So, I have a certain right to speak up when I see an article which looks outright as an ax grinding exercise attempted to represent the Ukrainians as Nazi sympathyzers, Judophobes and the Holocaust accomplices.

The willing and eager collaboration was limited to the very few in the nationalist element among the Ukrainians. The truth is that the Ukrainians met the Nazi assault head on, contributed disproportionately many fighters into the Red Army to the ranks from the private to the Marshals, organized a massive partisan resistance and had their country devastated totally with millions dead, millions taken to slavery and economy ruined.

Nothing can be further from the truth that the representation of the Ukrainians as a nation of the eager accomplices who were licking the Hitler's ass. Even within the nationalist resistance there was a significant opposition to Nazis and the fights between the nationalist UPA and Nazi forces are well documented.

There is another disgusting piece there. Some unreliable source quotes a number of chlidbirths in Ukraine under the Nazi occupation, attributes all these children as fathered by Nazis and somehow paints this as a "proof" of collaboration. Shame!

Whatever the correct number of such births was, women who did this where most assuredly scared to death to refuse. Or were starved and did this for food or to save their lives or to avoid being deported as slave laborers. Also, many were raped. And this is somehow painted as "collaboration with Nazis". Disgusting! My close relative, she is still alive in her mid-80s, knock-on-wood, ran away from Polizei (she was 16) that were "mobilizing" all young women and girls to round them up and send them for slave labor to the Reich. To this day when she hears the German language on TV she shatters as it reminds her of the time she spent in the ditch when Germans were looking for her all around with dogs and she heard them. Her village was being searched for all able-bodied young women and those who were taken did not expect to ever come back. Can you blame the woman for giving sex to a Nazi hoping this would save her from deportation to a slave camp? And someone is presenting it here as a proof of Ukrainian collaboration. I don't know who is worse, those Ukrainian nationalist editors who wrote that Jews in the Bolshevik leadership bear the responsibility for the Holodomor (a disgusting antisemitic lie) or those extremists who fight back here painting such picture of Ukrainians.

My own grandfathers and grandmothers fought and worked towards the victory. They wore their war decorations proudly and it is a spit in their memory to represent Ukrainians as the nation of collaborants, like this article attempts.

I will not even touch it in the current shape, provided that the warning tags are left on top.

I say, rewrite it from scratch and neutrally. --Irpen 22:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I will have to say this is the first sensible message on this thread. The way I see it, this shameful (I have to agree) article was created to inflame passions and to start stupid bickering who fathered who, who looks Slav or Jewish and other nonsense. It is a shame this disgrace have been allowed to continue for too long - it should be rewritten and made into a sensible and factually true representation of the events. --Chuprynka 23:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I voted to delete this at the AfD. Not that the topic is unencyclopedic, but the current stuff just cannot be used as the basis for the encyclopedic article. --Irpen 23:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have wikified and copy-edited the article. It's a fairly good one now. IZAK 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Fairly good? Are you talking about GMT 23:16, January 21, 2007 version by IZAK? --Irpen 23:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, yaa, they are fairly good (not up to featured status yet) and both of the following are mine: the original edit I did of this article, [7] and when I reverted to it after people had doubts about socks or whatnot, at [8]. Thanks, IZAK 23:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I said it all above. You can play with it unless the AfD vote nukes this disgusting mess. However, the tags will stay. --Irpen 23:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a sorry site to see some people actually calling this fairly good. Whoever receives enjoyment from all this must be a really sick person. It has nothing to do even with an article, let alone a good one - it is in its present state is a filthy mess of unsubstantiated and spurrious allegations designed to get someone rather than to represent the history truthfully. --Chuprynka 23:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Irpen summed the article up nicely, and in its current state it is exactly that. I have a proposal to transform it into History of Ukraine in World War II and so far it I am yet to hear any other sensible alternatives to the future of this article. --Kuban Cossack 00:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to write a Ukraine in the Second World War article from scratch using the existing info onwiki as a starting point. I will take it slowly and with the help of the other editor's this can be slowly built up.

I need first to deal with certain issues unrelated to this mess and I will offer my time to this project. In between, this current disgusting stuff needs to be nuked. If keepers win the ongoing AfD vote, I will just keep an eye to make sure the casual reader is warned by the appropriate tags. I don't have time to try to improve this piece. In the current state it is just unworkable. --Irpen 00:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is hardly a good article at the moment, but "totallydisputed" and "noncompliant" tags are repetitive. Beit Or 08:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a disgusting ax grinding exercise and the non-compliant tag is not warning enough for the casual reader who needs to be conspicuously scared away or warned that this article is a trollfest. --Irpen 08:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put.--Riurik ^(discuss) 21:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Future of this article

It is quite likely that the voting results will be forced to have this article removed. I propose that this be a cornerstone into a new article History of Ukraine in World War II or a title equivalent. Essentially a few sections need to be added, Soviet Partisans, various articles about Eastern Front battles and so on...and the meat is there already. A few copyedits and minor tweaks on its structure...and the article will be uncontroversial, encyclopedic, VERY useful as it is a topic that requires IMO needs an article. Effectively some of the points covered on the future article are already in the spinoff we have here. --Kuban Cossack 01:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good sub-topic and deserves its own article. IZAK 21:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, for two reasons, first of all its an extremely sketchy title, controversial, and the article itself is short and in need of a lot of work, secondly effectively if we are going to expand it then it will pretty much morph into History of Ukraine in World War II save a few details (like partisan activity, and frontal battles). The question is, why not add those details?

Here is (rough) template:

• Intro
• Background History
  • Soviet Ukraine
  • OUN in underground Poland
• 1939 war
• Barbarossa and the overruning of Ukraine
  • Frontal Battles
• Reception by Ukrainians
  • Partisan
  • Collaboration
  • Insurgency
• Nazi Occupation
  • Holocaust in Ukraine
  • Nazi adminstration
• Liberation of Ukraine
  • Frontal Battles
  • Reception by Ukrainans
• Ukrainians made famous by war
• Aftermath
  • Insurgency
• Modern implications
• Usual article footers

The article should make a clear diversion of the POVs involved, including a definition of what is a Ukrainian POV and so on...We have an FA star sitting here and nobody seems to have any initiative to make it one. --Kuban Cossack 22:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This one and the proposed new article are not at all incompatible. Beit Or 17:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course. The point is that such complex issues cannot be given outside of their context and the right order would be to write a comprehensive, neutral and well-sourced Ukraine in the Second World War article as a part of the slowly developing History of Ukraine series. Collaboration issues would have been properly covered in such article along with all the connected issues.

If then there is enough material to spin off the collaboration into a separate article, such action would make sense. What we got here is exactly the opposite. A confirmed sock started this, so called, "article" with the sole purpose to grind an ax and avenge the horrific mistake made by a certain Ukrainian nationalist editor who wrote in a different article an antisemitic nonsense about Jews starving Ukrainians in Holodomor. That antisemitic crap is long since removed and we still have this masterpiece in place. --Irpen 17:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD

• Kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II. `'mikka 17:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I would like the vote closed by an admin who did not vote himself. No disrespect to Mikka in any way. Thanks, --Irpen 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Further unsubstantiated and misrepresenting pictures

The original German caption reads: "Askaris used during the operation." Please read on Askari - they have absolutely nothing to do with either Ukraine or Ukrainians. This is another false and misleading picture, which should be kept out of this article.--Chuprynka 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly you failed to read the source description http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/GALL31R/51008.htm or http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/art-58247 I consider the captions from the university of south florida and britannica to be more reliable than the poorly written wikipedia article on askaris (which doesn't even discuss ukrainian SS) --Yarillastremenog 00:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Britannica has no authority in this issue in the form as it is. It doesn't discuss ukrainian SS as askaris in an encyclopedic manner either, i.e., it is no better than wikipedia. A photo caption proves nothing. It is quite possible that Germans referred to Uk-SS as 'askaris' in a derogatory manner. But you cannot use it is as a definition. So I'd say, wikipedia's attitude is in fact healthier than that of britannica. `'mikka 17:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Righteous people of the world

That section is not relevant to this article. The article is supposed to deal with Ukrainian cooperation with Nazi Germany during WWII. Therefore I will be deleting it or moving it to a relevant article if no persuading arguments against this are posted here within 3 days.--Carabinieri 13:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur completely --Yarillastremenog 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But I don't. Do not hurry with it.--Bryndza 20:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

When participating in a discussion you have to give reasons for things, you can't just say that you disagree. The only reason I haven't deleted the section and won't delete it is that it looks like this article will be merged into other articles anyway, so I think it's ok if the section remains here until the merging and deleting is done.--Carabinieri 20:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as much reasoning as Yarilla's or yours. You say it is not relevant. I say - this is good traditiion at WP to present both sides of the coin to balance material. Enough?--Bryndza 23:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But the topic of this article is not the role of the Ukrainian population under German occupation, but only the collaboration. --Carabinieri 11:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but since it seems like the article will be destined for trash and transformation, let's stop our arguments for now. Everything will find it's proper palace in the new article, I hope.--Bryndza 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right. And that's the only reason the section is still in the article.--Carabinieri 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Other forms of cooperation with occupying axis forces

{{Expand}} A contentious and possibly controversial issue is the interaction between German soldiers and local women in countries they occupied during world war II, many of these women and resulting offspring from such relationships were treated quite poorly after the war in other nations such as France or Norway and the subject deserves mention here.

The screenshots are from the documentary [Mein Krieg] (1991) which shows many scenes of German occupation in what is modern day Ukraine during WWII.

As the English edition of the Greek newspaper 'Kathimerini' reported in an article about the children of the German armed forces during occupied Europe during WW2, quoting German psychologist and historian Kerstin Muth: "The case of Ukraine is striking. Almost any child that was born in that country between 1942 and 1944 was the offspring of a German soldier. Ukraine was under occupation and the men were at the front without any right to take leave to see their families. When the Wehrmacht left, any mothers who were able to changed the birth date, because if the authorities learned the paternity of their children they could be sent to Siberia."

References

I just cannot see how this can be improved or expanded, what does it have to do in this article at all? What is the rationale behind all this, that women somehow consciously collaborated with the Germans by bearing their children? This is an insult to common sense. Besides, the screen shots are unsourced, the link is only to the site about the movie, there is no proof the stills are coming from the movie. Moreover their use in this article is in violation of fair use rationale, as they are to be used exclusively to illustrate the movie not to illustrate WWII events. The 'fair use' clause is quite explicit about this.--Chuprynka 06:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Though you're probably right about the fair use thing, how is anyone supposed to prove they really got the images from the movie? How is anyone supposed to prove they really got a quote or a piece of information from a certain book?--Carabinieri 16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually sources are provided to the file created by the authors of the film or the file is clearly identifiable as the one from the movie with the main characters cited in the description. These files have nothing of the kind and leave the door wide open for all kinds of speculations and guesses as to the origin, authenticity of the images and validity of the claims he made. Clearly the author of this had other motives in mind as evidenced by his flagrant violation of the fair use clause not only here but by posting them on other sites, notably relating to nudity and striptease. --Chuprynka 18:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop arguing about nonsense. Even if a particular picture is authentic, it proves nothing. There is no evidence that they represent the typical trend to illustrate this article. There is plenty of evidence how many women from Ukraine were deported to Reich as slave labor and how many fought in the Red Army and partisan units as well as how many evacuated and worked in the Soviet industry towards the victory. The rest is just disgusting products of someone's sick fantasies. --Irpen 18:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, relevance of these disgusting pictures has been questioned multiple times by what appears, by many people on this thread and yet each time they are persistantly posted with explicit purpose to provoke edit war and inflame passions. --Chuprynka 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, the original of the picture (http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/8534?hr=null) clearly says that "Askari or Trawniki guards peer into a doorway past the bodies of Jews...", and, also, "the Trawniki guards included men of a wide variety of nationalities, including Ukrainians, Russians, Belarussians, Poles, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, ethnic Germans, Kazakhs and Tartars.". --OlexiyO—Preceding undated comment added by OlexiyO (talk • contribs) 11:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

please read this page fo justification http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n28texts/isajevych.htm—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.83.22 (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And more document from polish and ukrainian historian here http://www.ji.lviv.ua/n28texts/28-zmist.htm—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.83.22 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And to correct the origin of the picture http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/query/173?uf=uia_UGiPVB—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.249.83.22 (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/9865?hr=null —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.27.86 (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

See the link http://www.ushmm.org/uia-cgi/uia_doc/photos/9865?hr=null —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.94.243 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Askari The term askari was also reported to have been used as a nickname by German soldiers in World War II to refer to Russian deserters or prisoners who volunteered to join SS units.

And re read all the discussion above!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.94.243 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Outrageously inaccurate

There are so many inconsistancies and outright inventions, it is even hard to pinpoint which one is the worst. Even thought there are sources listed, there are no citations at all. I guess the most outrageous fabrication is that "local population frequently provided an added dimension of danger for the local Jews" - there are many Ukrainians, who risked their lives to protect the Jews.[9][10] [11] Even the State of Israel recognized their heroism - and to make sweeping allegations like that is grossly unjustified. Also the 'story' about Ukrainian participation in Babi Yar is grossly inaccurate, to tell that Ukrainian nationalists rounded up Jews, when Ukrainian nationalists were themselves massacred there! Please consult an existing article. I think this kind of vicious and unjustified propaganda is a shame for Jewish people most of all. --Hillock65 00:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Lacking International overview and references to Nuremberg Tribunal. Nuremberg considered all SS as criminal, and Article 10 of Tribunal Constitution allowed for personal prosecution of individuals belonged to SS. Waffen SS was under control of SS so it cleanly falls under that judgment. Canadian proceedings only touched those individuals living in Canada, not Internationally.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.125.157.185 (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Eastern European units, primarily formed after the Holocaust and to fight against the Red Army, were recognized as not part of the criminal SS. Latvian Waffen SS were even Allied guards at Nuremberg. Your statement about what "clearly" falls under what is grossly innacurate. —PētersV (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Forced labor - Baudienst

See Baudienst, which according to pl wiki has interwiki to uk wiki, for some forced labor collaboration.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of tags

I have removed two tags.

The "WHO?" tag was obviously not needed as the authers were the very next two names mentiones.

The "Cite needed" tag was placed at the end of the article and refers to "none of them was ever charged..."

Unfortunately it is the onus of the person placing that tag to find evidence of the crimes and so that tag has been hidden until such time as evidence for those crimes is provided. It is not possible to provide evidence of something which has not happened, and so it is not possible to provide a cite for that sentence.

If evidence is found of war crimes committed during membership of the 14th div. then of course the sentence should be removed. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC) As regards Canada there is a nice ref here though...[12]

Before removal you need to find a source WP:RS which directly prove text incerted. Remember -WP is no place for WP:OR - please behave. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

? No, it is the onus of the individual placing the tag to go and do some research and if they find evidence, then come back and instead of putting a cite needed, then they could put the sentence "This person or that person was found guilty of war crimes"

Until then it should remain as it is.

Are you telling me to behave ? ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you pleae add a WP:RS for text Neither the division nor any of its members were ever charged with any war crime. Thank youJo0doe (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back after your absence Joodoe.

As you can see I have undone your latest edit which is totally ignoring this conversation. The cite tag was hidden many months ago because it is not possible to find a source for something which has not happened. If you can find a source which states the opposite then consideration can be given to your request.

Until then I expect discussion rather than reverts and undoings etc ??

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So does it mean that you've found a source which prove claim appeared at the article (mentioned above)? If not - I suggest you WP:CITE - If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the tag, which will add "citation needed," but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time.. Also I suggest you a book Грицак П. Вежі і кулемети (Спогади з Дивізії і большевицького полону). Мюнхен, 1959 (published by CICERO) which clearly indicate that the members were charged with a war crimes in USSR. Same suggestion also appeared at Боляновський А.В. Дивізія «Галичина»: історія — Львів: , 2000. ISBN 966-02-16351 ThanksJo0doe (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Learn how to indent correctly...

First of all lets get back to basics. This is the English Wikipedia. You need to provide refs in English. The translated text should be from a reliable source. It is no use that you keep producing sources in Ukrainian or Russian or Polish with unreliable translations. We cannot rely upon Babelfish or other translators as they do not work properly.

Secondly it is the onus of you in this discussion to prove that there are sources. I have already provided a source for Canada and can provide sources for other countries as well.

I have been impressed with your change of attitude from reading your contributions over the last few weeks. You are making much moore valid arguments and quotes as well as applying Wikipolicy and guidelines. Do not, however, think that you can just give more and more WP: quotes to brow beat editors into submission. You have a habit of repeating the same thing for weeks on end and I will not tolerate too much of that attitude anymore - you are no longer a noob and you obviously know more policy than you did a year ago. There is a reference I have given you - did you read it ??

19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC) (now you can start a new line if you so wish)

• Unfortunately suggested source about 1980s Canada unwillingness to deal with war-criminals does not suggest the conclusion given at the article. If you've a sources for other countries - feel free to add it to artice - but do not forget - per English Wikipedia policy WP:NOR - . If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is "original research". To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are both directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. I also can add a Poland sources about staged criminal proceeding against SS-Galicia personnel. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 07:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunatelty it does - it states that none were charged. As there were only really two places they went after the war - Canada and the UK.

WHat are you trying to say exactly about the Polish staged proceedings ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Source say In one of its more controversial findings, the commission said that war-crime allegations against the Galicia Division, a German Army unit composed of Ukrainians, have never been substantiated, and that there should be no prosecution of the unit's members as a group. Could you specify here were is here "none were charged" ? Thanks . Please find as requested [13]- Równocześnie w 2001 r. IPN podjął na nowo śledztwo w sprawie wymordowania w lutym 1944 r. przez żołnierzy Ukraińskiej dywizji SS „Galizien” ok. tysiąca Polaków we wsi Huta Pieniacka. RegardsJo0doe (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced comments

This is one of the most apologetic and unscholarly entries I've yet to read. I'm not sure that voting is the correct method of addressing the inconsistencies, misrepresentations, and bald partisanship in an article that no scholar would countenance. Reliable history is not voted upon, but rather emerges from a consensual process in which unfounded and provocative statements of the kind contained in this essay are cast out in favor of more reasonable arguments. As a historian, I implore the editors to close this page until it is rewritten under the supervision of a professional. 71.233.208.71 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has been restored to its previous state. The user Marsha Skrypuch had heavily edited/vandalized the article recently by eliminating the photographs and many cited facts and instead wrote up the biased crap that you refer to. I will watch this article very carefully and report the user if she attempts to sabotage this article again. Razum2010 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Folks, new comments go at the bottom.Volunteer Marek 22:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Dubious claim by a dubious source, which can't be verified

I mean this one here:"By the time the Red Army returned to Ukraine, a significant number of the population welcomed its soldiers as liberators". Got anything to substantiate such a claim? I rather got the impression the Ukrainians welcomed the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS as liberators. --196.215.157.155 (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Why does this remnant article from the good ol' days of POV edit warring still exist?

Any relevant information should have been dispersed or merged into other articles as has been done with the other "Aha, this ethnic group and that ethnic group were collaborators because we know this to be THE TRUTH" pieces of vitriol lurking in the shadowy corners of one of 'those parts of Wikipedia'.

It's just been revamped to encompass the same sweeping statements (although I concede that I believe the editor who did so was trying to develop it in good faith), but it inevitably ended up yet again as WP:COATRACK, ergo I've reverted it to it's previous, long time consensus state.

Honestly, this article is such a simplistic treatment of the subject that it's plain embarrassing. Either it needs to be developed to such a comprehensive level that it provides a solid context and realistic figures for those who 'went over to the dark side' (and which of the two distinct sides of the split entity know as 'Ukraine' at that time are actually being talked about?), or it's spread throughout articles discussing other nation-states and their relationships to the Nazis (or the Italian Fascists... or the Spanish Fascists) as part of an entire overview. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Expanding this page

Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II doesn't mention US volunteers [14].Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers Xx236 (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Why revert [15]? I think it was just fine. My very best wishes (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• I think I can explain. – World War II was one of the saddest lessons of history in human memory. We all would wish that it didn't happen; but it did. Ukraine is a sovereign country now, with the sense of integrity and self-pride. As a country, present-day Ukraine did not "collaborate" with anyone. In my overhaul I strived to make that distinction, but apparently this wasn't enough. Ukraine is equated with the Ukrainians... How can we change that? Perhaps there's a better way, but for me, focusing on the historic differences between occupied Poland and the occupied Soviet Union was the logical answer to that quandary. Some of the stuff from previous edits to this article I did not have energy nor time to revise. I asked in my summary for help from others, but to no avail. Earlier POV statements should be toned down. I also understand why User:Iryna Harpy mentioned the problems with Category:Collaborators during World War II occupations series of articles. Because, this is 21st century. If we want to counterbalance the negative assessment of the past which is the focus of the books by leading war historians whom I quote, than perhaps a brand new article (or a new section) could help, devoted to Ukrainians helping others survive in that period. Poeticbent talk 17:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I simply think that your version was an obvious improvement, hence it should be used as a basis for further improvements, rather than outright reverted. Here is an important distinction: are we talking about the population of the Ukrainian SSR, rather than about Ukrainians as an ethnic group on this page? I am not sure, but we probably should be clear about this. One my suggestion would be to tell in intro how many "Ukrainians" (in any definition) actually collaborated with Nazi. It tells that "more than 4.5 million Ukrainians joined the Red Army to fight Nazi Germany, and more than 250,000 served in Soviet partisan paramilitary units", which is good. But how many served on the opposite side? My very best wishes (talk) 17:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep such a general article to a minimum, a list of links to separate articles to specific Mains, to minimize potential POVforking. This is how the Russian collaborationism article is set up.--Lute88 (talk) 19:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, page Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers must be significantly expanded. There is very interesting history behind it, with people like Andrey Vlasov and Boris Bazhanov and important related events like Operation Keelhaul. Not sure though should it be "collaborationism" or "collaboration"? I think latter is better since we have general page called Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the respective article on Bazhanov, he "allegedly attempted to organize a legion of Russian emigres to fight with the Finnish Army in the Winter War against the Soviet Union, but the plan never became reality". This surely does not make him a collaborator of Axis powers, as the USSR rather than Finland was an ally of Nazi Germany at the time.Dorpater (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I think Bazhanov described this himself in his memories, but it does not really matter. My point here is that article about "Russian collaboration" should be improved rather than be a prototype. On the other hand, in that context "Russian" probably means ethnicity because a lot of them were not Soviet citizens. That sounds biased, but apparently was described in this way in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for taking so long to return to this article, all. Yes, I did recognise that Poeticbent's expansion and clarification as being good faith. What I hadn't done, however, was to thoroughly check around the various articles discussing collaborationism. My take was that there is something askew about examining an ethnic group - most particularly where borders have changed many times over - and discussing the subject without an indication of how much of the population can actually understood to be involved in collaborationist activities.

Since then, I've looked at a few more of these articles (i.e., Blue Police in Poland, plus other countries with enormous populations in comparison to the number of collaborationists in opposition to countries with far small populations but a far larger ratio of collaboration is something I cannot, by any measure of logic, consider to be comparable and to be treated with the same tone of delivery).

Well, that said, I suppose it's probably moving into the area of WP:OR to use WP:CALC for such ratio discrepancies... and what RS say is what they say... and it is RS that must guide us.

Per Xx236's observation, there seems to be an under-representation of information about the extent of collaborationist activities and what collaborationism effectively encompasses. In answer to MVBW's query as to the difference between the use of the two terms, there is lexicological difference that matters: the degree to which it matters is negligible, but perhaps worth discussing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagged for WP:SYNTH

I've tagged the following sentence as WP:SYNTH: "Ukrainian natives were offered choice unavailable to Russian soldiers dying of starvation and exposure in the POW camps for the Red Army." It uses this article to support the statement and makes no sense as it doesn't discuss the subject of the article, plus conflates Ukrainian Soviet Soldiers with Russian Soviet Soldiers. The number of Soviet POWs who died includes a vast number of Ukrainians (substantially beyond the 5,000 quoted elsewhere in the article as having defected to join the Nazis). So, what is meant by a Ukrainian 'native', and who was offered a choice 'unavailable to Russian soldiers'? Western Ukrainians? Central and eastern Ukrainians? Civilians? Soldiers... and with which 'army'? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. See local consensus here as well as community consensus to rename. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers → Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany – In view of the currently ongoing RMs at Talk:Russian collaborationism with the Axis powers#Requested move 14 March 2018 and Talk:Byelorussian collaboration with the Axis powers#Requested move 14 March 2018, this title should be also moved to reflect the other two proposals. There is another article which already bears its own form of the title proposed here — Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany. As a related matter, the sensitive issues associated with such titles and topics are currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This really hasn't been explained properly. Surely Ukrainian collaborationism with Nazi Germany is a subset of Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers? It isn't mentioned in the article as it stands, but did Ukrainians collaborate with the Italians, Hungarians, Romanians etc on the Eastern Front? If so, then both could potentially have their own article, but it would seem to me that you'd start with the Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers article, and spin off Ukrainian collaborationism with Nazi Germany later if that section got too large. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The question as to whether Ukrainians — and, for that matter, Russians, Byelorussians and Poles — collaborated with any Axis entity, other than Nazi Germany, is currently being discussed at the above-mentioned linked venues. So far, consensus indicates no other entities. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. If such collaboration happened it was minimal and marginal. And it can be discussed under NG angle because all those other countries were de facto underlings or puppets on NG, at least when it came to the Eastern Front. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support. I somehow missed this article when proposing similar renames for Russian and Belorussian collaboration articles. Support for reasons I stated there and RS mentioned here (clarity). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Formally organized by a Ukrainian government OR Universally applicable?

"Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany" implies a formal (as in, Ukrainian government) and/or universal action (all ethnic Ukrainians). That is, a Ukrainian government or ALL Ukrainian's allied with the Nazi Germans during WWII. I'm confident that neither is as qualitatively applicable as the suggested replacement: Collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine. However, the latter fails to recognize collaboration by Ukrainians prior to the German invasion and occupation nor to identify the time frame or context for those who are new to learning about the rise of the Third Reich, WWII and so on.

Perhaps even more c;ear would be the following: "Collaboration by Ukrainians with Nazi Germany during World War II."— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.119.184 (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The above text, "However, the latter fails to recognize collaboration by Ukrainians prior to the German invasion and occupation" is unclear — with whom were Ukrainians collaborating "prior to the German invasion and occupation"? Is the proposed form "Collaboration by Ukrainians with Nazi Germany during World War II" intended solely for Ukrainians, or is it also proposed for others — Russians, Poles, Danes, Italians, etc?    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Ukrainian collaboration with Nazi Germany → Collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine – Per WP:NPOV. Compare with Collaboration in German-occupied Poland and Collaboration in German-occupied Soviet Union. The latter article was recently moved itself; please see the discussion here: Talk:Collaboration_in_German-occupied_Soviet_Union#Requested move 15 April 2018. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk | contribs} 18:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination and consistency in titling forms.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Catrìona (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
• But see Turkic, Caucasian, Cossack, and Crimean collaborationism with the Axis powers (!), Byelorussian collaboration with Nazi Germany and Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany. Perhaps they need a move too, but good luck with "Turkic, Caucasian, Cossack, and Crimean". 216.8.143.171 (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose won't this change the scope? Ukrainians collaborated outside of German-occupied Ukraine, working in concentration and extermination camps in other areas as well as joining units like 14th SS Division and the Dirlewanger Brigade, so they would be explicitly excluded if this went ahead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – I think there is an issue here which is not being properly addressed. Is the scope of the article intended to cover where did the collaboration with Nazi Germany take place, or who did collaborate? If it's the "where" that matters, the scope would cover all kinds of collaboration that took place in German-occupied Ukraine irrespective of the ethnicity of those who did collaborate. If what matters is the "who", then the scope would cover all Ukrainians colaborating with Nazi Germany irrespective of the place where such a collaboration took place. As I see from the article, it is focused on the "who" (i.e. it addresses Ukrainian collaboration not only in Ukraine, but also in Poland or Belarus as well as collaboration throughout 1945, when the Germans had been already expelled from Ukraine), so I'm opposing the move because the proposed title, by modifying the scope of the article, would fail to meet WP:PRECISE. Impru20^talk 12:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Engineered genocide"

The article refers to the Holodomor as a genocide that was engineered, I thought Wikipedia was neutral, because there is no international consensus about the Holodomor being a genocide. If you simply read Holodomor_genocide_question, it is clear that many historians do not consider the Holodomor as a genocide, or one that was engineered, and the argument about the famine being genocide still carries on to this day. Please, there shouldn't be a side purposely favored, it should be recognised on this page that the genocide question still lives. For users such as Lute88 who have claimed that it isn't disputed, read the WP article, instead of continually reverting edits without giving a REASON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.41.228 (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In fact, the article by Tauger, which is cited, argues that the famine was not engineered. The article and the articles that have followed in Europe-Asia Studies Journal (Hiroaki Kuromiya (2008) The Soviet Famine of 1932–1933 Reconsidered,Europe-Asia Studies, 60:4, 663-675) point out that there is no evidence to come to such a conclusion. Instead the two scholars agree that Soviet mismanagement of an actual food shortage caused by droughts were more to blame. What the Hiroaki concedes, is that Stalin may have used the state of emergency to do away with some subversive elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.190 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)