Talk:Working Group (resistance organization)

Citation error messages

There are several error messages (permalink). Citations 23 and 83 don't point to a citation. In the Bibliography section, Bartrop, Bauer 1981, Fuchs, Gilbert, Hecht, and Kranzler have no links pointing to them. If you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js, you'll see the messages. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Europa Plan - my October 17 2018 edit

Thank you Catrìona for your note concerning my edit. Actually there is not one view about what happened. Yad Vashem, Bauer and his students (one school of thought) tend to have one opinion and even they generally state that money "could not" have been provided to the Nazis due to allied currency regulations. Bauer said this also in a documentary about Gisi Fleischman by Natasha Dudinski. Other, independent notable historians: Abraham Fuchs, Braham, David Kranzler and others had/have a very different view and felt there was a reasonable chance to save large numbers and the free world Jewish organizations failed to help. My edit presented both views - even that the first constellation of historians state that this was what Yad Vashem calls an "SS trick". These are not "historical facts", but subjective opinions, speculation. The references in my edit are "notable" sources: Yad Vashem, Jewish Virtual Library, article by Wiesenthal Center historian/Nazi hunter Zuroff ...

My edit also listed as some of the Working Group activities intelligence gathering (e.g. following transport schedules, etc) and ransom payments. I could have listed other important activities. Whereas there were bribes (e.g. to Slovak officials) payment(s) to the Nazis were in general ransom based on negotiation vs. bribes.Emesz (talk) 17:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Linking to a prior discussion with Emesz on my talk page.

1. @Emesz: I think you need to have a good look at Identifying reliable sources which is pretty clear about which sources take precedence. Wikipedia consensus is pretty clear that historians' views on events are not all equally respected, and our coverage should reflect that fact. Kranzler and Fuchs are listed on Google Scholar as getting about 20 citations (for "Thy Brother's Blood and An Unheeded Cry respectively—the first of which was published in 1987, before Bauer's work), which shows that historians are citing their work but is not indicative of the same widespread acceptance enjoyed by Bauer 1994 (150), Bauer 2002 (644), Longerich (182), etc. It's a bit harder to assess the mainstream acceptance of some other sources that I'm using, such as Fatran, Rothkirchen, Friling and Kamenec who usually write in Hebrew and Slovak respectively. Hovever, everything I've read about these historians indicates that scholars take their work seriously and that Arrows in the Dark and Kamenec's work on the Holocaust in Slovakia in particular are considered the seminal/best/most comprehensive works on their respective topics. The section on the negotiations is based heavily on Bauer and Friling in particular because it's clear that they are the experts on this topic. This is not to say that some historians do not have other perspectives on the Working Group, but they included elsewhere in the article. Zuroff is a Nazi hunter, not a historian, we can do better than that. I've had Jewish Virtual Library removed from articles because other editors do not consider it a RS, period. Yad Vashem is usually good but it shouldn't outweigh the views of the most respected historians in the area. If Braham accepts the perspectives that the Nazis were actually planning to allow the rescue of a significant number of Jews, that's news to me and should be backed up with direct citations.
2. That information is covered elsewhere in the article, and even elsewhere in the lede, which already fills the screen and may be too long.

Catrìona (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Catrìona. Your thoughtful response is much appreciated.

Few comments.

1. Of course Zuroff is an "activist" historian with BA, MA and PhD in the field. (Latter probably with Bauer at Hebrew University).

2. "Reliable Source" is a tricky concept. The devil is in the details.

For example, Bauer may well be quite reliable on many issues related to the Holocaust, but I consider him often unreliable on the specific issue of rescue due to a variety of reasons. For example, apparently he emphatically declared to someone "Hillel Kook saved no one!" - not a surprising statement since Kook and his fellow then "Palestians" were "Revisionist" and there was intense hatred toward them by the dominant Socialists (perhaps reciprocated). Stephan Wise, America's mainstream Jewish leader who severely obstructed the Bergson Group, was a Socialist Zionist. He was also mainstream, close to Roosevelt whom he called "the boss", and the Bergson Group was necessarily "rocking the boat" in order to try to save Jews. There were also other reasons for that regrettable obstruction. According to David Wyman and David Kranzler the War Refugee Board, which rescued large numbers but still too few and too late, was founded as a result of activism by the Bergson Group plus Morgenthau and his Treasury team. Noteworthy that Bauer was a member of the far-left Hashomer Hatzair (Youth Guard) political movement, far-left Kibbutz Shoval and in Central Committee of the pro-Soviet Mapam party. He ardently defends the extremely controversial Kastner (member of left Mapai) and controversial Swiss Jew Saly Mayer of the Joint. Interesting that Bauer defends Mayer stating that helping to make the Europa Plan down payment was "illegal". Bauer knows well that non-Jewish humane and brave Wallenberg, Lutz, Sugihara, Mendes, Rotta, Ho and many other diplomats acted "illegally" in order to save Jews. Preposterous at best that someone excuses a Jew for hiding behind "legalities" at such terrible times - especially since it is written that Jews are responsible for one another... He disputes Rabbi Weissmandl writing that Mayer, being Orthodox, looked down upon and was suspicious of "Eastern Jews". Apparently Bauer does not know that this was a common view among Western European Jews, including many Orthodox ... Also, so far no one I know ever doubted Rabbi Weissmandl and consider him absolutely credible. I recently read Bauer stating that Kastner was in Bratislava only in August 1944. Someone reliable, who was in Bratislava, told me that Kastner was in Bratislava in April and the Auschwitz Report was translated for him into Hungarian to take back to Budapest .... As far as I recall Braham also states Kastner was in Bratislava in April. There is a pattern... Bauer is very knowledgeable on many details and to be respected for that, but not someone with a neutral POV on rescue. He was probably a very good professor and may well have imprinted many of his students, now historians, which often happens.

Similar can be said, for example, about Yad Vashem in matters related to rescue. Small example is a photo someone gave me of a large sign in their Museum about Kastner. Not one word about the many controversies: including accusations of collaboration, keeping Hungarian Jews uninformed about their imminent fate, being a rescuer of Nazis in Nurenberg... On the other hand, Yad Vashem is reliable source on the horrible atrocities.

3. As I wrote it is a matter of OPINION not FACT what the Nazis would have done if the Western Jewish organizations had provided the down payment for the Europa plan. The only fact is that the down payment was not made. It is very tricky to evaluate reliability of opinions and one has to know well the mindset, motivation of opinion givers. Also being an expert on facts does not guarantee reliability of opinions. Many mainstream Jewish historians have an understandably defensive and apologist motive to state the Europa Plan was a "Nazi trick" - since otherwise the mainstream Jewish organizations stand accused of forsaking an important opportunity to try to rescue their doomed brethren.

The only sober and honest approach is very clearly state both opinions - even if some opinion givers' books, articles have higher reference counts.Emesz (talk) 12:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

PS. Rabbi Weissmandl wrote that after the war those who did not help will rewrite history.

Of course I also can't tell if the Nazis would have kept their word. I only know there was no attempt to try with the Europa Plan! Rest is speculation, not always with pure motives.Emesz (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Emesz: One thing that intrigues me about this topic is that both those who insist that the Working Group was collaborationist (for negotiating with Nazis) and that the Jewish organizations were collaborationist (for allegedly withholding funds from the Working Group) is that both camps claim that mainstream historians are part of a Zionist conspiracy (they only disagree about the extent of the Zionist conspiracy.) Just because a writer is reliable (about Weissmandl, Bauer says that he is incapable of lying) does not mean that the source is 100% correct on all counts—there is still the possibility of incomplete knowledge, incorrect interpretation of facts, errors in memory, or errors introduced during the editing process. Bauer does not let anyone off the hook, and actually accuses Mayer of legalism that hampered rescue efforts, but states that unlike latter-day pundits, Mayer actually tried to help. Again, per due weight and NPOV, we give the viewpoints the weight they receive in the best quality, most reliable sources, rather than equal coverage for all viewpoints. I am happy to consider any peer reviewed publications on the topic that I may have overlooked. Catrìona (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Catrìona, I assume that Wikipedia does not wish to deal with opinions, even by notables. I would rephrase what I originally wrote about the Europa Plan. There aren't two opinions, rather neither opinion about the Europa Plan's chance of success is acceptable: (a) that the Nazis would have kept their word and large numbers of Jews would have been saved and, in contarst, (b) that all that was only a ‟SS trick”. The only hard fact is that the 10% down payment was not made. The rest is worthless and misleading opinion – some by apologists for major Jewish orghanizations and their leaders

The things I noted (e.g. about "Hillel Kook not rescuing anyone!", denial of Kastner's April 1944 Bratislava stay, etc.) clearly indicate that on topic of rescue Bauer has strong bias - in part (not only) based on his strong ideological background. These are not random typing errors, errors in memory, being misinformed, etc. I give Bauer much more credit for that. He is not a sloppy amateur. On the contrary. I presume he has significant knowledge, a good mind and ability to be very precise.

His anti-religious bias (natural for someone with his intense far-left, once pro-Soviet background) is another problem. As far as I recall, in one of his books he wrote that Rabbi Weissmandl suggested bombing the trains to Auschwitz or the crematoria (forgot which). Then Bauer added that such thiought/request is surprising coming from an ultra-Orthodox Jew. That comment says a lot.

Regarding Saly Mayer - as far as I know Bauer wrote a history of the Joint - if he was paid by the Joint then that is a basis for bias.

He says he is ‟incapable of lying”? That is interesting - he seems to "protest" too much. I don't lie and neither do my friends, yet none of us would say such a strange thing. Of course I and just about any honest person could be ‟capable of lying” if wanted to. To be absolutely clear, I surely don't consider Bauer a liar, in fact have respect for him and much of his work - excluding many matters relating to rescue, since he showed he is quite biased. Perhaps he is not even aware of the reasons for his important misstatements.

I read that Vrba may have accused the Working Group of "collaborating". That is nonsense and offensive. Jewish law demands Pidyon Shvuyim (freeing of captives) even involving meeting with an enemy, ransom and bribes if necessary - even more so prevention of capture and murder of innocents. Today's Israel negotiated multiple times with those it considers enemies: Hizbollah, Hamas (e.g. exchanging kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit for 1,027 terrorists). Jewish organizations and Israel negotiated with Communist Romania (with ransom payments, maybe even bribes) and even more hostile USSR to let Jews emigrate. The WG motives and actions were pure and in no way collaborationist. Kastner was a very different case for a variety of reasons and many consider him a collaborator and in some ways also some Jewish Councils (Judenrats). I can imagine that at the time and maybe for decades ardent Zionists considered any discussion with Nazis collaboration even if it was with pure motives and actions. only to try to save lives. For a long time the "Diaspora Jew" was despised, was considered by many "pioneers" weak, corrupt, almost worthless. At the time the only thing respected was being a ‟pioneer” in Palestine and a fighter against Nazis and Fascists in the forests, dying with boots on and weapon or granade in the hand. I didn't hear anyone call the western Jewish organizations ‟collaborators” - certainly not with the Nazis, however often they were apathetic, incapable and some not infrequently obstructed high potential rescue opportnities. Heard there is a Czech made documentary about the Working Group (‟Among Blind Fools”) - the title is apparently a phrase used by Rabbi Weissmandl for many free world Jewish ‟leaders” during the Holocaust.

I personally don't think that the mainstream Jewish historians are part of a ‟Zionist conspiracy” - if anything then maybe a ‟Jewish conspiracy” of silence about actions of western Jewish organizations at that critical time. A better term for many is being sometimes de-facto apologists for the pre-state Zionist leadership and western Jewish ‟leaders” and organizations. I don't think all do this consciously. Some have probably been imprinted which limits their ability to truthfully assess and others may be so troubled by lack of adequate help and frequest obstruction that they may be ‟in denial” - perhaps can't face the tragedy that proabbly many more Jews could have been saved if …

With this I close my comments. Hope there will be some who will assure the Wikipedia article on the Europa Plan is free of opinions, regardless whose, is only fact based and as truthful as we limited humans can produce. Hope the exchange was positive.Emesz (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Weissmandl as – at least -“Co-leader” of the group.

I’ve made an edit on the article to give Weissmandl the “Co-leader” title. This was reverted by editor Catrìona, the reasoning being “Most RS state that Fleischmann was the leader, and Weissmandl played a secondary role”.

This is incorrect. I’ve looked thru hundreds of articles – academic, by Holocaust institutions and otherwise -, News articles, Books – historic, biographical and otherwise – and most of them have Weissmandl at least as a “Co-leader” while some even have him as sole leader. Most of these sources are available online.

True that some sources do put Fleischmann as the “leader” without mentioning Weissmandl, and some do mention Weissmandl in a secondary position, but in the same way some only talk about Weissmandl as the leader.

Weissmandl himself mentions that Fleischmann “had the leader title” for practical reasons, but it’s clear from him and most other sources that Weissmandl was the De-facto leader or at least minimum as an equal Co-leader.

I’m not sure if I should list the sources here – I have some 40 links to prove my point – but will gladly provide them if needed. Bloger (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: Thank you for your interest in the article. However, the quality of sources matters more than the quantity. Currently I have cited multiple peer reviewed academic publications in the text asserting that Fleischmann was the leader of the group, which even go to some lengths to describe how this was possible given sexist stereotypes at the time. This assertion is also backed up in other publications not cited, such as here. If you have comparable quality sources stating otherwise, feel free to list them. The average website, however, is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Catrìona (talk) 00:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: Thanks for responding.

I will give you what I think are good and reliable sources for the fact that Weissmandl was at least a co-leader of the group, but let me preface that with what I think can give us a good perspective on the issue.

This is the way I see it. Let’s first establish what’s clear. Fleischmann was involved in - what became - the “working group” before Weissmandl. At that time she was the “leader” of the group. Also, even after Weissmandl joined them she retained this position.

But here is where I think we have to understand that this was only an official title. After Weissmandl joined he became at least an equal “co-leader” together with her, some will say he became the sole leader, I wouldn’t go that far.

If you examine the sources for “Fleischmann as the leader of the group”, they are almost all based on the writings of Bauer. And he himself makes it quite clear in his books on more than one occasion that he established this from the writings of Weissmandl himself from whom he quotes. And it’s clear from Weissmandl that this “was by design”. Because of Fleischmann’s connections and name recognition, Weissmandl figured it will help then to have her as the official leader of the group. Plus the fact that she was a woman and her personal qualifications Etc. see here,here,here,here,here,here,here

But the real question is, who was the “defacto” leader? Who came up with the ideas? Who gave the orders? Whom did the rest of the group follow? I think that it is clear from all the information available that it was clearly Weissmandl.

Now I understand that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for opinion or a thesis…. I just put the above out there so it’s understandable why we find so many sources stating that Weissmandl was at least one of the leaders and at the same time some sources that Fleischmann was.

I will now post the sources that back up my argument that Weissmandl was at least a co-leader. Some sources are from holocaust museums and institutions, other from several organizations on Holocaust studies and history and some books. Also from several general important institutions and research organizations.

----------

Yad Vashem:

…the group members were of different ideological and religious persuasions, and included Zionists, Orthodox, and assimilated members. Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel were the leaders of the group.

--

The Working Group was led by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischmann.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

In Slovakia, the "Working Group," a secret Jewish rescue organization headed by Zionist women's leader Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel...

Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (book):

Slovakian rabbi and a leader of the working group…

Escaping Auschwitz: A Culture of Forgetting (book):

The spiritual guide in this project was ……… rabbi …… Weissmandel…

The End of the Holocaust (book):

…. Led by ….. Weissmandel …… and …. Fleischmann….

The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz (book):

…. Was headed by…. Weissmndl and Gisi Fleischmann…

Holocaust Museum NYC | Museum of Jewish Heritage‎:

Rabbi Michael Dov Ber Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischmann shared the leadership of the underground group.

Yivo:

In March 1942 deportations began from Slovakia to Auschwitz and Weissmandel became one of the leading figures in the Pracovna Skupina (Working Group), together with his relative Gisi Fleischmann.

--

An illegal “Working Group,” led by Rabbi Mikha’el Dov Ber Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischmann….

Encyclopedia of Jewish communities, Slovakia. Published by Yad Vashem:

While the deportations were in progress, an underground cell known as the Working Group, headed by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischmann, formed within the Center of Jews……

Wyman institute:

……he and his cousin Mrs. Gisi Fleischmann, a Zionist and community activist, established an underground rescue organization known as the Prakova Skupina, or Working Group.

University of Southampton (Dr Jan Lanicek https://hal.arts.unsw.edu.au/about-us/people/jan-lanicek/):

The ‘Working Group’ (Nebenregierung) was a centre established in 1940 under the leadership of Gizela Fleischmann and an ultraorthodox Rabbi, Michael Dov Weissmandel.

Holocaust Research Project.org:

During the deportations an underground group, the Pracovna Skupina was formed within the council, under the leadership of Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel…

Holocaust and Genocide Studies journal, Oxford University Press, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

The “Working Group” was a small group of Jewish activists in Slovakia who…….The group's membership was very diverse; the leaders were Gisl Fleischmann, a Zionist activist, and Michael Dov Weissmandel, an Orthodox rabbi.

European Holocaust Research Infrastructure – EHRI:

…Pracovna Skupina was led by Gisi Fleischmann and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel…

World Federation of Jewish Child Survivors of the Holocaust & Descendants:

In the early months of 1942, a new group of Jewish activists started operating in Slovakia. Fleischman was one of the founders of this new group, simply called “Action Committee”. Rabbi Michael Dov Weismandl was the other founding member.

Yizkor holocaust memorial.org:

……affiliates of the Slovak Judenrat created an underground association known as the Working Group. Gisi Fleischmann and Rabi Weissmandl were their leaders.

Holocaust rescue.com:

……the Bratislava Working Group under leadership of Rabbi Michael Weissmandl and Ms. Gisi Fleischmann.

Zachor foundation.org:

The Europa Plan was devised by the semi-underground Jewish organization Pracovna Skupina (Working Group) in Slovakia ……. one of its leading members, Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel, suggested……

Holocaust rescue.org

It was a group that called itself The Working Group. …… The group was headed by Rabbi Michael Ben Dov Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischman.

Jewish holocaust rescuers:

Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel (1903-1956), Co-Founder “Working Group” In the early months of 1942, two Jewish community leaders began operating to save Jews in Slovakia. They were Gisi Fleischman and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel.

--

Working Group (Pracovná Skupina), Nebenregierung (“Other Government”), Slovakia. The Working Group was a successor organization to the Jewish Center (Ústredna Zidov) in Slovakia. It was headed by Gisi Fleischman and Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel.

Quizlet:

The working group was an alliance between Zionists and Ortodox Jews. All of them were accionists. They were Jews trying to save Jews. The main leaders of this group were: Gisl Fleischmann and Michael Dov Weissmandel.

Bnai brith international:

…..the “Working Group” headed by Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl and Gisi Fleischmann…

Jewish-guide:

In mid 1942 an underground organization known as the Working Group, headed by Rabbi Michael Dov Weissmandel and Gisi Fleischmann, was created…

see also here, here, and here how Weissmandl and Fleischmann are treated as equals.

Also here and here Weissmandl is referred to as a “central force” in the group.

Bloger (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

References

@Bloger: First of all, it would be helpful if you had listed only reliable sources, rather than a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources (Jewish Virtual Library sometimes mirrors Wikipedia and is not considered RS, some of the books appear to be memoirs and/or fiction, and Quizlet—really?). Other sources, like many of the mainstream websites and popular history books listed above, would generally be considered RS, but is overruled by published academic work.

Secondly, most of these sources do not contradict anything in the article, where I make it clear that Weissmandl was a key figure in the group; he and Fleischmann are the only members to be profiled in the "Foundation" section. I would agree that the choice of words in the infobox does somewhat minimize Weissmandl's contributions, so I invite you to think of a better way to describe him that is backed up in scholarly sources.

None of your examples actually use the word co-leader and very few of them assert that Fleischmann and Weissmandl were of equal significance in the group. For instance, Yad Vashem describes both as "leaders", but when listing the members of the Working Group by importance put Fleischmann first and go into considerably more detail on her, indicating that she is more important. Furthermore, Bauer is not the only author to assert Fleischmann's leadership, and he is considered one of the foremost scholars on the Holocaust. The book where he made this assertion has over 600 citations on Google Scholar, indicating that it is a widely cited, mainsteam academic publication. If you can find equally compelling scholarship stating otherwise, please state what it is without the non-RS fluff. The final section in the article shows how relying on popular history books can provide a seriously distorted perspective on what this group was and what it did. Catrìona (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: I’ll be honest and say I’m surprised and a little bit disappointed.

As you can imagine, it wasn’t easy to collect all the sources I sited. Still, I did so under the impression that all I need is to cite “credible sources” and it will be accepted. I can understand that some of the sources I listed are better than others, still, most of them are solidly strong, including virtually every recognized institution with authority on the Holocaust. I did include Quizlet for instance just to show what is out there on a widely read website, so we understand that its common knowledge in a way. But you can ignore those you feel are not worthy, we have more than enough strong and reliable sources.

Now, this is my problem. After I cite over 20 sources, you moved the goalposts! And although you admit that under regular order these are considered good sources this time it’s different it “is overruled by published academic work”.

Firstly, is this a “Wikipedia rule”? I’ve never heard of this one. In every experience of mine on Wikipedia in the past, if a source is good and reliable it’s admissible. Never heard of this “overruled by published academic work” rule before. If it indeed is a rule Please post a link to it.

But be that as it may, how is an “Encyclopedia Published by Yad Vashem” not published academic work? How is a “journal by Oxford University Press and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum” not published academic work? How is a thesis by a widely published professor in the University of Southampton” not published academic work? How are books – at least some of the ones I cited – written by recognized historians not published academic work?

I think it’s unfair to the truth, and to the readership of Wikipedia to dismiss over twenty sources, most of them undisputed solid good and reliable sources, just because you insist on relying on Bauer to such an extent.

It’s true and undeniable that Bauer it a “force to reckon with” when it comes to the Holocaust. But it’s obvious if you know the subject matter and read enough of Bauer, that he, unfortunately, has a strong left-leaning bias – not very dissimilar to most of the academia –. This is really a separate discussion – one that I think needs to be done because of the wide influence his work has particularly in Wikipedia where a lot of articles that pertain to more right-wing individuals – politically, religiously or otherwise – including this one about the “Working Group”, are seriously skewed and factually wrong. But I digress.

That said, even if we conclude that Bauer can be relied on entirely and always, he’s still only one opinion and even if we should grant him more weight than to any average source, he’s still way outnumbered in this case. And that’s even if you will find another source that agrees with Bauer on their own. It’s still a 20 – 2-3 ratio.

Moreover, the possibility that Weissmandl was a co-leader of the group doesn’t even necessarily contradict Bauer that Fleischmann was officially the leader. As I pointed out, Weissmandl himself says so – and this is really Bauer’s source – but that was so put forward for the already mentioned reasons. But still, this doesn’t preclude that Weissmandl was at least in fact an equal leader.

Also, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that “most of these sources do not contradict anything in the article”. After reading the article, admittedly you do go away with the feeling that Weissmandl was somewhat more important than some of the others in the group besides Fleischmann, but that’s far less of what was the case according to the sources that put him in the leadership.

Your statement that “None of your examples actually use the word co-leader” is more than a bit puzzling to me. Do you mean to assert that “were the leaders”, “was led by”, “headed by”, “shared the leadership”, “became one of the leading figures ….. together with”, “under the leadership of”, “the leaders were”, “under leadership” Etc. Etc. is “less” than “co-leader”??

I used the “co-leader” title because this is the crux of the debate, but I would argue that the language in the above sources is at least as strong as “co-leader” if not stronger.

Also, on what basis do you state that the link you bring from Yad Vashem is “listing the members of the Working Group by importance”? I see it as just a list. They obviously have more details about her, maybe since there is no authoritative biography of Weissmandl in English as of yet – there is one in Hebrew and one in Yiddish, and one in English is to be published shortly according to what I hear – so it may simply be a case of having more info on her, I don’t see how this makes the case that she was more important.

I would strongly urge you to reconsider, and maybe it would be appropriate to ask other editors knowledgeable in the subject to consider the question and give their input. Bloger (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history), which states that academic sources are preferred. As I stated above, you use some RS and some non-RS to support a claim that none of the sources make-that Fleischmann and Weissmandl were "co-leaders" in the group. It's already clear in the article that they were the most important members-that's not in debate. Furthermore, you accuse Bauer of left-wing bias, but according to your talk page you have created articles on non-notable ultra-Orthodox topics such as True Torah Jews, which had to be protected due to recreation. Is it possible that you are influenced by pro-Orthodox bias? Catrìona (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona:Thanks for the link.

I don’t see why you decided to make this personal, but I will ignore in for now.

I never claimed I don’t have a “pro-Orthodox bias”, but nor have I asked anyone to take my word as gospel. Bauer is a “source” – looks like a main source – for much of the “Bratislava Working Group” article, and his obvious bias – if you know anything about the subject, which I think you do – can’t and shouldn’t be ignored. For sure as a minimum he shouldn’t be the last and almost only word on the subject. Both on Weissmandl’s position in the group, or any of the other opinions of his on the bribes in general, and on the group in particular.

And what do you mean “to support a claim that none of the sources make”? Don’t they support the claim that both Fleischmann and Weissmandl were the leaders of the group? How is that different then hem being “co-leaders”?

I really am almost convinced that this will not be settled in this way, so instead of an edit-war to involve others, more editors need to become involved in the discussion.

I feel like your “grasping at straws” so to speak – like repeating my “sin” of using “some RS and some non-RS sources” as if this makes a difference in the discussion while you admit that enough sources are reliable, plus your ascend into personal digs – and for a more balanced view on things others need to become involved. Bloger (talk) 21:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Added info about labor camps

Added info about the work of the Working Group, to put into context how Weissmandl become involved with the group.

Propose adding alternative viewpoint

Opinions of some important historians on the subject are completely ignored in the article. In particular the opinion of David Kranzler and Abraham Fuchs on the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus in 1942.

Kranzler’s and Fuchs opinion are much more in line with the opinion of the members of the group. This info should be added to the article in order for it to be more encyclopedic and not one sided. Bloger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits undone again.

@Catrìona: Please explain reason for reverting the edits.

@Bloger: First of all, you are expected to follow the citation style in the article. Bare urls are not acceptable in any case. Second, you were changing the infobox without such changes being reflected or cited in the body. Third, it's unclear whether it's relevant to include the bit about labor camps in the article; IIRC it isn't mentioned at all in Fatran's paper on the Working Group indicating that she considers this part of the Už's activity and not relevant to the Working Group. Perhaps you could bring it up at FAC; I can cite it to Fatran's paper regarding Jewish resistance in general if there is a consensus to do so. The detail about Weissmandl being involved in kosher kitchens is interesting but hard to see the relevance unless it is discussed in secondary sources. Catrìona (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: Thanks for responding.

I don’t exactly understand what you mean “you are expected to follow the citation style in the article. Bare URLs are not acceptable in any case.” Is this a wiki rule? I see URL's as citations all over Wikipedia. Is it just your preference? So does that mean any source not in a book cannot be used? Please elaborate.

The second point about changing the infobox without such changes being reflected or cited in the body, so if I add the info to the body, can I change the infobox then? Also, I see you did add the alternative opinion about the leadership, but you “hid” it in a note. Why don’t you put it in the article?

I can understand your point about the labor camps, and perhaps they were the work of the Už before the Working Group was formed, but the camps were active for some years and were maintained by the Working Group, this is something that’s mentioned by Bauer. But the main reason I added the info is that I wanted to add about the first encounter between Weissmandl and the Working Group as this speaks to the formation of the group and it involved the camps, so I felt a little background info is warranted. If you feel the general info about the camps are not proper for the article, at least add the part about the first encounter between Weissmandl and the Group.Bloger (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: Please see WP:CITEVAR: "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page." The same page gives bare URLs as an example of an undesirable form of citation. (Also: "Other stuff exists" is not considered a good argument.)

Ideally I would mention it in the text but it is a bit awkward as the natural place to mention Fleischmann's leadership is in the paragraph about her, whereas Weissmandl did not become involved in the group until later. Along with the view you endorse that they were "co-leaders" or shared leadership, there is also a third view that seems to endorse the lack of a hierarchy, cf Friling p. 214. However, this is not stated explicity and I will have to think about how to present it without going into WP:OR. Update:  Added to the "Formation" section. I do not think it is appropriate to change the infobox; Bauer is still the most widely accepted authority on this subject.

Where does Bauer discuss the labor camps? I looked, but only got a passing reference in the 1994 book and nothing in the 2002 book. The reference was related to external funding and didn't suggest that the Working Group was involved with the camps. I will link the Steiner interview in the external links (update:  Done) and add a brief reference to the labor camps in the UZ section. (update: see below)

As for the Weissmandl involvement in kosher kitchens, as I said it is an interesting factoid but unless it has been repeated in a secondary source I am not sure it's appropriate to include. Historians usually fact-check information as much as they can, and an interview cannot be subject to the same sort of control. For instance, Steiner misstates Ferdinand Roth's name; inaccuracies can be expected for remembering something decades after the fact. (I would consider both Kranzler and Fuchs accurate for facts, less so interpretation; perhaps there is a mention of the event there?) Catrìona (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Concerning labor camps, I have just double checked some of the sources and cannot find support for the notion that Steiner advances, that the labor camps were supported by the UZ for the purpose of keeping Jews from being deported. The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos describes a complex system of labor battalions and camps existing in early 1941, being dismantled and replaced by another set after September 1941. These were run by the Slovak government with the UZ coerced into helping; the UZ's involvement grew in 1943, after most Jews had been deported. Only 2,500 Jews lived in the labor camps after the deportations finished, much less than Steiner later claimed (Rajcan et al, 847-848; I can send you the pdf if you like). Consider that the Working Group knew nothing about deportations until late February 1942, by which time the labor camps had already been constructed. (OR alert: I find it most likely that this is Steiner's postwar (mis)interpretation of events.) Catrìona (talk) 07:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: What happens if you throw a party and no one shows up? I would love to get a consensus on this and several other items on this page, but no one is taking part in the debate, not here and not on the FAC page…

I don’t know if there is a process or method to ask others to partake in a discussion, if there is, please let me know how it’s done. But I don’t see how it’s reasonable to restrict a citation style if this can result in info getting omitted from the page.

On the “labor camps” see here page 125, and here from Bauer. Bloger (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: Thanks for the links, they were helpful. However, I don't think the sources say what you are insisting. In the 2002 book, Bauer writes, Slovak Jewish leadership organized three labor camps to prevent deportations to Poland— it is a matter of contention whether these camps did not play into the hands of the Nazis when they occupied Slovakia in September 1944. In the previous book, he does not endorse the intentionality of the camps, but does state that they prevented deportations; he is explicit that it was the UŽ, not the Working Group, that was involved in that. After looking at a few more sources, the only support that I can find for your argument is Rothkirchen 1999 640-641, where she briefly discusses the camps, casts them as a deliberate and successful rescue attempt, and attributes them to the Working Group. If we are going to mention the labor camps, it should be clear that it is very much a minority position that they were part of the Working Group's activities. Catrìona (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona:If the UZ turned into the Working Group the administration of the automatically was under the Working Group. Bauer gives the impression that the camps were active until the deportations in ’44.

On the point of the intentionality of the camps. See here, here and here the entries for the camps – Novaky, Sered, and Vyhne - on the Yad Vashem site. There it’s very explicit that the Working Group organized the camps, and that the purpose was to hinder the deportation efforts.

Also, there are entries for the camps in several encyclopedias on the Holocaust. Not all of them are accessible online, some do have a limited viewing, but the entries for the camps are not accessible. The one Encyclopedia I was able to access was the “Encyclopedia of the Holocaust” by Dr. Robert Rozett and Dr. Shmuel Spector here the entry for Novaky, and it does say that the camps were set up by the “Jewish center” so the Jews can work there and be spared from deportations. The same is repeated here for all three camps.

From what I gathered, information on the camps can be found in “Encyclopedia of the Holocaust” by Israel Gutman on page 1071-1072 for Novaky here and on page 1343 for Sered here, and for Vyhne on page 1586 here.

Also in the three-volume “The Encyclopedia of Jewish Life Before and During the Holocaust” there should be info on at least the Sered camp. The three volumes with limited access are here, here and here. Bloger (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Break

@Bloger: Do these sources actually state that the Working Group was involved in rescue activities via the camps? I have a great deal of information on them due to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos volume 3 (2018) which is unambiguous that they were imposed on the UZ by the Slovak government, and that the UZ did try to improve welfare for the Jews in the camps. (I have the pdfs for this if you would like to verify.) Per WP:HISTRS, we should prefer signed, scholarly encyclopedias, and even the Yad Vashem source states that the UZ was involved, not the Working Group. Catrìona (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona:The problem is you keep moving the goal posts.

Your first line was: “Concerning labor camps, I have just double checked some of the sources and cannot find support for the notion that Steiner advances, that the labor camps were supported by the UZ for the purpose of keeping Jews from being deported”.

After I did provided sources to support this, now you want sources that it was the “Working Group”.

I maintain that since the UZ turned into the Working Group, and the camps were active up until ‘44 the administration of the camps automatically was under the Working Group.

Be that as it may, I will provide you with additional sources that do talk about the establishment of the camps – at least the expansion of the cams to make them accommodate more people – and the maintenance of the camps in context with the “Working Group” or “the committee of six” which was how some refer to the group as they worked separately within the UZ.

From what I gather, the camps were established by the government early, and Jews may have been deported there forcefully before idea of using these cams to at least keep the Jews from being deported to Poland. For this purpose the camps were expended, more working opportunities were made available, and money was provided to the government for the upkeep of the cams.

This was done first by the UZ, and then as the UZ dissolved and became the Working Group this continued up until ’44.

See: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Bloger (talk) 05:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, Bloger. However, after examining them I'm not sure that they all support your argument. Links 1 and 2 are both by Rothkirchen, who we've already established attributes the camps to the Working Group. (In the Laquer encyclopedia, she is more nuanced and says that this was done "within the framework of the Jewish Center"). Link 3 is cut off, it is not clear to whom the camps are being attributed to. Link 4 (1989) attributes the activity in the camps to "the Slovak Jewish leadership" and I strongly suggest that this is Rothkirchen's work. Link 5 is a notes section of a text, so the context is somewhat lacking, but here the camps are at Wisliceny's suggestion and managed "by the UZ in tandem with the Slovak government". This is cited to Link 2 (Rothkirchen). Link 6 is part of a paper by Kamenec that I have a copy of, and it clearly attributes the activity in the camps to the UZ. Link 7 is an encyclopedia and does suggest that the camps were run by the Working Group as a form of rescue, but the entries are unsigned, meaning that per WP:HISTRS we should not give this source as much weight as signed scholarly sources. Link 8 says nothing about the Working Group, just that the camps remained in operation during 1943. Link 9 is the same as Link 7.

I am not "moving the goalposts", I am working from Wikipedia policy and making sure that the article reflects what the sources actually state. I would like to add something to the text stating that the external groups funded the labor camps and that 1) some sources present this as a rescue activity and 2) Rothkirchen (but not other scholars as far as I can tell) classify this as part of the Working Group's activities. However, I've been busy working on other articles and checking over these links. Catrìona (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure how you numbered the links, I will repost them and number them.

See: 1) here, 2) here, 3) here, 4) here, 5) here, 6) here, 7) here, 8) here, 9) here, 10) here.

1)”The Holocaust Encyclopedia”, By Baumel Judith Tydor Laqueur Walter, Walter Laqueur, Judith Tydor Baumel.

It refers to the work on the camps in the context of preventing deportations, by the “working group”.

2) “American Jewry During the Holocaust”, Seymour Maxwell Finger.

Talks about expending the camps with international help.

3) “Encyclopedia of the Holocaust”, Israel Gutman.

Talks about establishing the camps, and says it was done by “the committee of six” which was how the Working group” was called after separating from the UZ but before taking the “working group” name.

4) “Approaching the Holocaust”, Robert Rozett.

Talks about the camps in the context of preventing deportations.

5) “Review of the Society for the History of Czechoslovak Jews”, The Society.

Talks about expending the camps with international help.

6) “Saving One's Own: Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust”, Mordecai Paldiel.

Is from Rothkirchen, says it was managed by the UZ, but its Paldiel – another recognized historian – excepting the premise.

7) “The Tragedy of the Jews of Slovakia”, Wacław Długoborski, Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum

Talks about the camps in the context of preventing deportations.

8) “Encyclopedia of the Holocaust”, Dr. Robert Rozett, Dr. Shmuel Spector.

Talks about establishing and expanding the camps in the context of preventing deportations. , by the “working group”.

9) “The Jews of Czechoslovakia”, Avigdor Dagan, Society for the History of Czechoslovak Jews.

Talks about the camps being active also after the deportations, and being extended.

10) Same as number 8.

Bottom line from these sources, in addition to the sources if previous posts:

1) the camps were established or at least expended for the purpose of preventing deportations.

2) The establishment or\and expansion was funded And later managed by the Jews.

3) The camps were active for years, long after the UZ evolved into the “Working group”. Bloger (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Per your number scheme, Links 1 and 2 are both by Rothkirchen (Finger is the editor of a collection of papers), who we've already established attributes the camps to the Working Group. (In the Laquer encyclopedia, she is more nuanced and says that this was done "within the framework of the Jewish Center"). Link 3 makes a distinction between the "committee of six" which later evolved into the Working Group (Page 1183). However, it appears to be a relatively early work and it's unclear whether this is a signed encyclopedia and if so who the author is. Link 4 is cut off, it is not clear to whom the camps are being attributed to. Link 5 (1989) attributes the activity in the camps to "the Slovak Jewish leadership" and may be Rothkirchen's work. Link 6 refers to Wisliceny's suggestion that the UZ expand the labor camps, which I've added to the text (cited to a different source). Link 7 is part of a paper by Kamenec that I have a copy of, and it clearly attributes the activity in the camps to the UZ. Link 8 is an encyclopedia and does suggest that the camps were run by the Working Group as a form of rescue, but the entries are unsigned, meaning that per WP:HISTRS we should not give this source as much weight as signed scholarly sources. Link 9 says nothing about the Working Group, just that the camps remained in operation during 1943.

I am not "moving the goalposts", I am working from Wikipedia policy and making sure that the article reflects what the sources actually state. I've added a note stating that the external groups funded the labor camps and that Rothkirchen (but not other scholars as far as I can tell) classify this as part of the Working Group's activities. The Working Group did not "evolve into" the UZ; even Fatran, who states that they merged, later in her paper makes a clear distinction between these bodies. Catrìona (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you are not understanding in my argument.

My argument is that we may not have “one source” stating that the “labor camps were established and\or extended by the Working group for the purpose of rescue” – we actually do have from Rothkirchen but I’m talking of additional sources – but we do have several sources with bits of info, that taken together – since they don’t contradict each other and complement each other – do give us a clear picture.

We see camps established and then extended by the UZ for the purpose of rescue. We see these camps being active for some time after the UZ was gone and the WG was active. We have no indication that the maintenance and management ceased after the UZ was gone.

This goes perfectly with what Rothkirchen says, and we have no reason to doubt the accuracy of this information. If we didn’t have this authoritative source maybe an argument can be made that its “original research”. But since we have Rothkirchen, we technically have a good source, and the “original research” concern is gone. Then as we examine the other sources we get all those bits of info that is not in any way contradictory to Rothkirchen but actually fits with Rothkirchen perfectly, I don’t see why we don’t accept that as the fact.

About the UZ evolving into the WG. Call it “evolved”, call it “merged”, call it “taken over”… whatever. The point is not the technical term and how it happened, the main point is that at some point the work went from the UZ to the WG. Bloger (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: What source states that the "camps being active for some time after the UZ was gone and the WG was active"? The UZ and WG existed side by side even after Neumann had been appointed to lead the UZ. Fatran (1994, p. 189) states very clearly that in early September 1944 Neumann disbanded the UZ and told its members to flee; this was after guards left the camps because of the Slovak National Uprising and the people in the camps had fled into the mountains. The WG continued to be active until the 28 September roundup. Catrìona (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of my concerns with this page

Ok, as per the request here, let me try to articulate what some of my issues are with this page. (Brace yourselves… this is going to be long….)

I hope other editors familiar with the topic will comment so a consensus can be reached. Pinging Emesz, SlimVirgin .

I first want to preface this with a general comment about this topic and this particular piece of history. Right out of the box there is a big problem when writing about this topic since it has become more than the story itself, it has become a “proxy issue”.

Both extremes on this topic have taken the story to an “if so, then so” conclusion, to try to prove their point. With one side "using" this story - prepping it up Etc. - to prove a point about the general Jewish leadership - and in particular the Zionist leadership - and how they ignored the plight of their brethren at the time of such desperate need.

Meanwhile, on the other extreme, some will use every possible method to dismiss a particular take on the story, in order to defend the Jewish\Zionist leadership.

Because of the probability that if one excepts the story as told by the members of the Working group, one will come to the conclusion that the Jewish\Zionist leadership failed, this obviously is a problem to those who want to strongly defend them, so the “choice” of “whom to believe” comes down to personal perspective and bias.

Those who agree with this conclusion on the leadership will have no problem excepting the story as told by the WG members. Those with "an interest" in furthering this point of view - for whatever reason - will of course have no problem excepting the story. And those who disagree with this conclusion - for whatever reason - in particular those who strongly disagree, will do everything possible to discredit this take on the story, thus-by - in their POV - exonerating the leadership at that time.

And the more one side pulls the strings in one direction, the other side has an equal and opposite reaction. Meanwhile, the truth is out there somewhere, hard to nail down in the storm of disagreements.

So, because this story is more than just a story, it in fact, has very emotional and painful consequences, I would strongly suggest that special attentionbe given in order to not fall into this trap and present a skewed picture.

This brings me to the main issue I have with the page.

The narrative of the page is almost completely shaped by the opinion of Yehuda Bauer, this is a big problem for the article's neutrality.

True, Bauer is a major-league historian on the Holocaust, still we should be very cautious in accepting his perspective on this particular issue as the most exclusive and ultimate view. And this is both because of the general sensitivity of the issue – as stated– and moreover because of the outright bias and ignorance Bauer has shown on this issue.

That Bauer has shown bias and ignorance when it comes to the WG is not only my own conclusion, it is the opinion of others, in particular, it’s the opinion and conclusion of the historian David Kranzler and he gives several examples proving his point. here

For instance, Bauer has in one of his books openly expressed his disbelieve that a religious Jew a student of Talmud would be able to come up with a plan like the plan to bomb Auschwitz and the rails leading to the camp. This is at least partly the basis of Bauer’s dismissing Weissmandl.

This statement by Bauer is in the best case scenario gross ignorance - and since Bauer is not known to be an ignoramus - it is more likely that it shows a clear ugly bias and prejudice.

Bauer also shows his ignorance in basic Jewish law when it comes to the relationship between men and women. He uses his limited and wrong view to come to conclusions about the makeup of the leadership of the WG and why Weissmandl accepted Fleischmann, thus painting Weissmandl as a religious extremist.

Kranzler also relates how he showed Bauer a big mistake Bauer made in his research about the Auschwitz report and the exact date when it reached the free world, thus-by greatly diminishing the direct role of the WG in stopping the deportations of Hungarian Jewry and excusing the general leadership for not acting earlier. According to Kranzler, Bauer admitted he was mistaken and said he will correct this in future books.

Kranzler states that although he respects Bauer “Bauer is wrong on in many things …. He is wrong in quite a few things... especially about Weissmandl, he didn’t understand Weissmandl at all”.

These are only a few examples, Kranzler gives more examples where Bauer was mistaken and proven wrong.

More lectures by Kranzler here, here, here, here and still more here

Besides all this, Bauer, throughout all of his books shows a systematic bias. He “protects” and excuses those agreeing with his general and political weltanschauung, and on the other hand, diminishes the roles and achievement of those with an opposite POV. painting them as ineffective, ignorant or worse.

This manifests itself in his dismissal of the WG’s accomplishments - and Weissmandl in particular-, his dismissal of Hillel Kook’s - AKA Peter Bergson – accomplishments, and in the same time defending - against quite an opposition – the sorts of Rudolf Kastner, Saly Mayer Etc.

This leaves me to conclude, that although Bauer shouldn’t be ignored on the issue completely, his viewpoint is surely worthy of being mentioned even in a big way, still, because of his systematic - both covert and not so covert – bias, it should not in any way be presented as the “mainstream” view on the topic, for sure not to the extent as it is presented on this page.

At the bare minimum, the opposite opinion – also backed up by recognized historians and scholars - should be given at least the same weight and prominence on the page, and they should be presented as equal points of view in a natural way.

A good example to follow would be that of Mordecai Paldiel in his book “Saving One's Own: Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust” page: 109 here.

It should also be noted, that although Bauer is widely published and a recognized historian on the Holocaust in general, Kranzler too is a recognized historian, and has published much more extensively then Bauer on the specific topic of “rescue” in particular as it pertains to the WG. He has published some ten books on the subject and should be given much more weight on this issue then he would otherwise get when in disagreement with someone like Bauer.

Another important point I would stress is that calling and holding Bauer and his opinion as the “mainstream opinion” on the topic is wrong IMHO, for sure to the extent at it is held on this page.

Firstly, although there are others who concur partially with Bauer, relative little original research was done on the subject. And the corresponding opinions can in many instances be traced back to that of Bauer at least partially, some of them clearly citing Bauer as their source. So the impression that numerous historians came to the same conclusion independently is at least partially wrong.

Secondly, even the other opinion cited on the page – besides that of Kranzler - don’t agree with Bauer. Some of them give much more credit to the WG - for example on stopping the deportations in Slovakia and Hungary - then does Bauer. Bauer stands out as the far extreme even among those who don’t agree with the opinion of the WG members - and Kranzler - themselves. And the truth is that Bauer’s view itself has also remarkably changed over the years, and he himself in later books credits the WG much more than in his earlier books as more and more evidence surfaces.

Holding Bauer as the “mainstream opinion” and thus blindly giving him disproportionate weight, is a problem in a very big way for the general points on the page as stated, but also to the less consequential points, for example, the role of the WG on the labor camps in Novaky, Sered and Vyhne. This is my main concern with the page.

In addition, I also disagree with the characterization of Weissmandl’s role in the WG as presented in the “infobox”.

This is also something based on Bauer’s opinion, and as I have Witten before - in the previous conversation with Catrìona on the “Talk page” - others disagree. I have since also found where Kranzler makes this very point. He clearly says that although Fleischmann had the “Leader” title, this was mainly a ceremonies title, and was so placed in order to prevent problems in the group and because of her name recognition and connections, but Weissmandl was the factual leader, and that the main ideas and actions of the WG were those of Weissmandl.

So - again IMHO – Weissmandl should get at least the same title – leader – as Fleischmann. This is my second concern with the page.

Also, the main editor of the page is objects to using urls as sources for the page.

This severely limits what can be added to the page. For example, the above information from Kranzler is from a speech he gave and is available on YouTube. In addition, a lot of information is available on the topic from several websites for example from “Yad Vashem” the “USHMM” the “Wyman institute” ETC.

To conclude, I have numerous concerns. But for now, these three concerns should suffice.

1) Bauer is given too much weight, while Kranzler is given too little, it should be the opposite or at least equal.

2) Weissmandl should be referred to as “leader” of the group equal to Fleischmann.

3) Other sources - like URL’s - should be allowed besides only book pages. Bloger (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time for a full reply right now, but it seems like you might benefit from having another look at WP:HISTRS, which is generally accepted as a standard for finding the best quality sources. There is an abundance of peer reviewed research on this topic; much of it is cited in the article. Virtually anything, including youtube videos, can be cited, the question is should it be cited—and the answer is that academic research is preferred. You also seem to have come to your own conclusions about this organization and are now looking for evidence to back them up, rather than starting with the most reliable, highest quality sources and then reporting what they say. The book of Bauer's to which you refer, received several scholarly reviews including [1][2][3][4] (that's all of the scholarly reviews that appeared in the English reviews that appeared in the first two pages of Google Search, no cherry picking whatsoever). The reviews were mostly favorable and some of them referred directly (and positively) to the chapter about Fleischmann. Just because you are able to find someone who disagrees with his conclusions in the book does not make it the mainstream view. Lastly, I believe you are mistaken that this article reflects Bauer's opinions to the exclusion of other scholars. In fact, the citations for the article reflect the work of several notable historians, including Livia Rothkirchen, Ivan Kamenec, Peter Longerich, Tuvia Friling, etc. If there is any relevant peer-reviewed research that I may have overlooked, please let me know.

As for Kranzler, it's worth noting that he did not voice his controversial conclusions when publishing in peer-reviewed format (ie The Man who Stopped the Trains) instead only publishing them in the Orthodox press and apparently on YouTube. Coverage of different viewpoints should be clear about their support, or lack thereof, in mainstream scholarship. NPOV does not mean false equivalence.

For the labor camps, I've added a short summary to this article which I think is appropriate for where the camps and the Working Group intersected. So far we have only Rothkirchen who connects the two at a deeper level, and that's been addressed in a note. More detail probably belongs in the Ústredňa Židov article. Catrìona (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I've now looked for reviews of Kranzler's books. Thy brother's blood got an extremely unfavorable review by Efraim Zuroff:

the publication of an entire volume on the rescue efforts initiated by Orthodox Jewry, primarily in the United States, ostensibly constitutes a welcome addition to the available research on American Jewry during the Holocaust. The problem is, however, that David Kranzler's Thy Brother's Blood is not an objective study of the response of Orthodox Jewry (as indicated by the book's subtitle), but rather a combination of an extremely one-sided polemic regarding Orthodox policy and ac tivities and a series of vignettes and portraits of observant rescue activists. The result is a popular invective of limited scholarly value.

Admittedly, a second review was somewhat more positive. However, The Myth of Rescue (p. 7) briefly discusses the book and comes to similar conclusions as Zuroff. Given this assessment, I'm not sure that the book could be considered an RS at all. I could not find any scholarly reviews of To save a world, which says something in of itself. Catrìona (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I realize that the WP:HISTRS is generally accepted as a standard. What I propose is an exception in this case – and am looking for consensus on this - given the blatant misconstruction – and biased lies IMO – by Bauer on the subject.

One doesn’t need “peer-reviews” to realize the obvious. One has to just read what Bauer writes and concludes and familiarize him/herself with the facts and it becomes obvious that Bauer is either cripplingly biased or at a minimum gravely mistaken. I came to this realization myself, but that doesn’t really count on Wikipedia… but, if this is the conclusion of someone like Kranzler who was a recognized historian and professor and an expert on the topic - unparalleled IMO - this has to make a difference. I don’t see how “several scholarly reviews” can change facts.

And again, my conclusion on Fleischmann and her role is not contradictory to what Bauer says at all, it’s only “the whole-truth” instead of the “half-truth”. No one is denying that Fleischmann had the “leader” title. But if you actually follow the source that Bauer himself uses – namely Weissmandl - it’s obvious that this was a ceremonies title, not a factual one.

Then once again you are making this debate personal. I haven’t cast any aspersions upon you and didn’t try to analyze why you came to the conclusions that you did. I don’t see how it’s appropriate for you to do so to me for the second time already.

Not that this makes a difference, but I would quite confidently state that I have researched this topic much more than you will ever do. Including reading the books, looking over material in YIVO, the NYPL and FDR Library Etc. Etc., in addition to personally talking to numerous survivors from all over Europe to understand what really happened. So let’s not make this personal, you are entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to mine, still, this has nothing to do with objecting to falsehoods and NoN NPOV pages on Wikipedia.

While it’s true that besides Bauer the opinion of other historians is also included, the general tone of the page is overwhelmingly influenced by him.

That you find negative reviews on Kranzler is not surprising even a bit, as I already stated, they don’t necessarily have a problem with what Kranzler says about the facts on the ground, only with the "if so, then so” conclusion.

I myself am not as interested in the response of the leadership at the time - and if they failed and to what extent - I do have a major problem with the fact that the tremendous achievements of the group are diminished and\or completely denied, because some don’t like what it implies vis a vis the leadership at the time. Bloger (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I will add just so it’s clear, of course I don’t advocate ignoring Bauer, just as I wrote before, I suggest to follow the example of Mordecai Paldiel in his book “Saving One's Own: Jewish Rescuers During the Holocaust” page: 109 here. Paldiel doesn’t come to any conclusions he just presents both viewpoints.

Statements like “Its efforts were mostly unsuccessful”, “The Nazis did not negotiate in good faith”, “mainstream historians maintain that the Nazis would not have allowed the rescue of a significant number of Jews” in the lead of the page is highly NON NPOV.

Both perspectives should be presented in the lead and throughout the entire page in a neutral way. Bloger (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

“Jews on ice” rescue

The “Jews on ice” successful rescue should be added to the page. Took place as part of the “blood for goods” negotiations.

If you are referring to the Kastner train, that really did occur, but the Working Group had nothing to do with it. Therefore, it isn't mentioned in the article. Catrìona (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not referring to the Kastner train. This is a separate rescue of between 12 and 20 thousands Jews that were sent to “Strasshof”.

And the Kastner train was part of the Working Group activities, since it was part – and a direct result - of the "blood for goods" negotiations in which the WG was heavily involved. Also the initiation of the negotiation was by the WG – thru the Weissmandl letter with Wisliceny. Bloger (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

The involvement of the Working Group (the letter, possible continuity) is discussed in the article already. But, when discussing sending Jews to Austria, Braham does not mention the Working Group. In fact, Braham proposes several reasons why this action may have been taken by the Nazis, only one of which was possible negotiation/rescue.[5] However, I don't see how it's relevant to the topic here, since the Working Group was not involved in these negotiations. Catrìona (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It was a show of good faith for the "blood for goods" negotiations, so it is relevant. see here page 148 Bloger (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Another big red light.

The nature of how and why the negotiations in Hungary went from Freudiger to Kastner – and the characterization of Freudiger in general – is terribly NON NPOV.

The fact is that Kastner elbowed Freudiger out and hijacked the negotiations. Than someone in Kastner’s circle – possibly Kastner himself – ratted Freudiger out to Eichmann, and told Eichmann he doesn’t have any real power to negotiate, so Freudiger had no choice but to flee as his life was in danger. This all came out in the Eichmann trial.

The way this part of the story is on the page is Bauer’s POV, and is merely another example of Bauer’s opportunistic bashing of religious Jews. Bloger (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

What is your source for the above? I've taken a look at other sources myself, which also suggest that Freudiger only attempted to save a small number of people with which he was personally associated. See, for example, his page at Yad Vashem. Catrìona (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

There's a more full explanation in the 2004 paper by Randolph L. Braham that I cited in the bibliography (pp. 193–194):

As in Slovakia and Greece, Wisliceny played an active role in the round up and deportation of the Jews of Hungary. Nevertheless, this did not prevent Freudiger from continuing to supply him with large amounts of jewelry and cash every time they met in Budapest... As a quid pro quo, Wisliceny picked out some eighty Orthodox Jewish community leaders [most were later saved by the Kastner train].
Wisliceny was also instrumental in helping Freudiger, his family, and some of his friends escape to Romania on 9 August 1944.

Braham goes on to discuss the allegations of collaborationism and fraud that were brought against Freudiger after the war. Catrìona (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Krychów forced labour camp 1940 (Krowie Bagno).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)