Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Deprod

Splitting separate articles from long sections is how wikipedia works: WP:Summary style. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. This was done in accordance with WP:SPLIT. One can of course take it to AfD, but you'll need a better argument that WP:IDONTLIKEIT. (To be honest, I don't like this topic that much, but it doesn't stop me from seeing it is notable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I would seem that modern historiography and hagiography around this matter has made it independently notable, despite "collaboration" (here, and in the original parent article) being a POVish term.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

You take off that delete request, and I'll forward you to incident board, this article is clearly contact forking, because all it does is duplicates stuff on WW2 collaboration page, this article is noting more then user Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus throwing a crying fit over the last article — instead of waiting a bit on the other article. --E-960 (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Read the policy, this is not an uncontroversial deletion, as multiple edds have said so. AFD it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion- you may only PROD once. this article was already prodded and de-prodded. You can't prod again. If you think this should be deleted - you need to do an AfD. Or a merge discussion (back to the list) - I doubt such a motion will succeed, but that's the way forward after a de-Prod.Icewhiz (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiwi (volunteer)

Poles who served in the Wehrmacht (it does not matter if they are ethnic poles) Poles in the Wehrmacht, they were Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not the correct application of Hiwi, it primarily relates to other ethnicities that served in the SS, however I agree that the Poles in the Wehrmacht is ok in this case, as there were many Poles from Sląsk who were drafted in, but they were not willing collaborators. On the other hand Hiwi is a willing collaborator who joined the German uniformed services. --E-960 (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Primarily is not solely, if poles served in the capacity of Hiwi it is a valid see also.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought (by the way) no poles served in the SS?Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No they did not serve in the SS, and there was no such thing as a Polish unit, that's correct. --E-960 (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if they were a unit [[1]] "...members transferred to various units of the SS, Gestapo..." so poles served in the SS, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should let-off the subject, because I'll ask you what do you mean by "Pole" someone of ethnic back ground or former citizenship? Because an ethnic Poles was a non-entity with no legal status, and he would not have been allowed in to the GERMAN Wehrmacht, Gestapo, or German SS units. --E-960 (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

BTW, read the the opening paragraph of Hiwi: "Hitler reluctantly agreed to allow recruitment of Soviet citizens in the Rear Areas during Operation Barbarossa." and "Between September 1941 and July 1944 the SS employed thousands of collaborationist auxiliary police recruited as Hiwis directly from the Soviet POW camps." This term relates to folks in the Soviet Union who collaborated, not Poland. This is what I was afraid of, editors who do not have sufficient knowledge of the subject just adding every questionable item to this article. --E-960 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

So are you arguing that Ethnic Germans were not Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Either way, Hiwi relates to SOVIET collaborators, pls read the article. This term is not applicable here. --E-960 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does (relate TO POLES) [[2]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it does. Second, "see also" links aren't always directly related to the article's subject, so even if it didn't it was still worthy of inclusion. François Robere (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup, I can see you're back and trying to add everything negative about Poles. This is a false statement that's just ignorantly lumps Poles with the Soviets, and in English speaking media this is not uncommon, just like the Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht... now the Polish Hiwi. --E-960 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It is sourced, your claim is not.Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One dictionary reference, is hardly a reference source backed by full text, I can find you hundreds of short definitions on many things that are inaccurate. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not have to be, it demonstrates what you claim is not accurate. It has been applied to Poles, and that is all a See also needs, a link to the subject (ohh and [[3]]). You have not one source saying it was used only for Russian volunteers.Slatersteven (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, same with Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht I'm sure you can find in the English speaking world 100s of references that use those term. Still not correct, though. --E-960 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not judge that a source says, we repeat it. You have provide no valid rational for exclusion of this see also, and this is getting to the stage of tendentious editing.Slatersteven (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

E-960 oh, so we are having a debate about Polish Waffen SS now :)? Interesting. Did we have a discussion about Polish Gestapo yet? Sorry for asking but I'm not following this closely anymore? In any case, let Piotr deal with this now E-960. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

He added the material claiming that Poles had joined the SS and the Gestapo, I am happy to remove the whole section.Slatersteven (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven No, Poles couldn't join SS or Gestapo. Volksdeutsche did, mostly Wehrmacht. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Sop why are they in an article about Poles? If they were not Polish they have no place here, you cannot have it both ways.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal commentary and try to stay on-point. This is per MOS:SEEALSO. Do you have anything else? François Robere (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiwi is a term for Soviet collaborators, and is misleading if someone uses it for Poles, it is wrong just like Polish death camps, the Polish SS and the Polish Wehrmacht. --E-960 (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, it's related to the issue of collaboration with the Nazis, and so appropriate in the very least in the "see also". François Robere (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This claim has no source baking it, please stop making it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you going to add Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany or Cham Albanian collaboration with the Axis to this article because it is related to collaboration? Not need here. --E-960 (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

If RS say they were Polish, yes, do you have any that say this?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If it's major, it can be added. If not, better add the category or "parent" article. François Robere (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is pending, and you stated your point. --E-960 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note - Poles did serve in the SS, however generally they declared themselves to be German first via Volksliste. After the war some of them reverted to being declared Poles.Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you give me a sample name of a Polish SS-men Icewhiz? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Per this - there were some, though perhaps not many. Conscription to the Wehrmacht was more common, see - Kowalska, Magdalena. "A Polish heart in a feldgrau uniform–complicated journeys from the Wehrmacht to the Polish Army in Exile." Edukacja Humanistyczna 2 (2015): 97-105. for instance.Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Right, as per the only source you could find, "few Polish nationals," which means pre-war citizens, subjects, not ethnic Poles. These SS men were Ukrainians, pre-war Polish Citizens. Ethnic Poles were not allowed into the SS even if they wanted to. Wehrmacht, the same story, you had to be declared a German to be drafted, such in the case of Silesians, the Germans viewed as their own. Ethnic Poles could not join Wehrmacht even if they wanted to. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As long as the remained declared ethnic Poles - indeed - they could not join. However, the Germans promoted (and actually forced) a large number (in Western Poland) to sign Volkslistes - which made them German in German eyes.Icewhiz (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

---

This should be restored as per MOS:SEEALSO. Any objections? François Robere (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Baiting"

One of the Jewish collaborationist groups' baiting techniques was to send agents out as supposed ghetto escapees who would ask Polish families for help; if a family agreed to help, it was reported to the Germans, who—as a matter of announced policy—executed the entire family.

This looks like blood libel material, and is only sourced from Money.pl and Salon24, which seem like popular magazines and not RS for a claim of this gravity. Are there any other sources supporting this? François Robere (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Might want to take it to RSN, not sure these are RS for such a claim but they might be. but i do not think making statements about blood libel help matters.Slatersteven (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These are two reliable sources attached to this statement, both are full articles that deal with Jewish collaboration. But, you don't like them cause they are Polish news magazines, however you had no problem using Israeli internet news sources as reference. --E-960 (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Do they quote reputable research/ers? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I have never heard of then, so have no idea how reliable they are. Hence my suggestion to take it to RSN rather then just go ahead and delete it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not considered RS, and Salon]24 appears to be a blog. I will tag the sources.Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These are not blogs, they are news magazines. --E-960 (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Odd as I can only find reference to one as a blog, hence why I think this needs taking to RSN, so they who have a better knowledge of Polish media can cast an uninvolved eye over it.Slatersteven (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not a statement about the editor, but about the material. Popular media tends to repeat common perceptions, in this case antisemitic. This means we need to be extra careful with our due diligence. François Robere (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

It is still not helpfull and prerogative.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Noted. François Robere (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

These two sources are reliable though not academic, and the tags are ok, in time I'm sure academic text on this topic will be found, so just give it time and the references will bulk up the text here. Just so you know, in a TV discussion names of actual people involved in baiting were named, so this is a valid subject that is documented, it's just a matter of finding more sources to back it because in the English speaking media this topic is taboo and ignored. --E-960 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Without multiple academic level sources (and this is a widely studied topic, some Jewish collaboraters were tried after the war, e.g. Rudolf Kastner) - this should not be included. Leave the newspapers for contemporary subjects - not history.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations are a reliable source, though not prime, per Wikipedia guidelines. --E-960 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: That's about news reporting, not historical facts. Notice caveats on "scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources" and the need to check on a story-by-story case. Do the two articles cite any RS (eg. studies, books, archives, scholars that we can consult)? François Robere (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Railroads workers

I see we have already Poles working at railroads who would be executed in 2 minutes if they refused to operate the trains, but they are now collaborators. :) Remarkable. Whats next? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I'm expecting a reference that if you were Polish and just went about your daily tasks, you were a 'collaborator' and an 'enabler' because you did not charge the Germans with a pitchfork or garden rakes at the first possible instance. This is history according to Wikipedia, who can get more of their "like minded' to force through their content, does not matter if it's accurate. --E-960 (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

One could say the same regarding some of the Judenrat. Not everyone who collaborated had an "easy out". Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, but in the case of Judenrat someone conveniently keeps removing this statement form the text. "Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that without the assistance of the Judenrat, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews." --E-960 (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That would be because as far as U+I can say that is not talking about Poland, so it is synthesis to use it to make a claim about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would probably want more than 1 opinion. My own 2 editorial cents would be that Jewish collaboration should be in a separate article for two reasons. First this will reduce POV warring on "degree of collaboration" between groups and allow us to focus on the facts. And finally, Jewish collaboration was more or less the same throughout Eastern Europe (in areas Nazi Germany had direct or almost direct control) - the Polish Judenrats were not different from the Ukranian Judenrats (beyond city/region variations) - the two sets were more or less the same.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz Could you please give me a sample name and location of a Ukranian Judenrat? And by the way, I'm still waiting for at least one name of a Polish SS-man. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

::: :) Firefighters??? GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Public sanitation worker, no doubt??? --E-960 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

All gardeners, that's for sure. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsstand vendors, cause the Germans occupiers were able to buy newspapers. --E-960 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The rail was vital for the German war effort - all the supplies east went by rail. Was also very important for the Holocaust. Railcars filled with ammo and cattle cars stuffed with people.Icewhiz (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, but, was that collaboration or a form of forced labor?? When you are forced to show up for work, or you'll be deported to a concentration camp — work under coercion is not collaboration, but slave labor. Surly you can see the difference. --E-960 (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no suggestion in the cited sources of coercion. François Robere (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Look François Robere, I will openly say that you fellows have no idea about the German occupation of Poland. Railroads workers had to report to work; everybody was required to have an Ausweis (prove of employment) and Kennkarte. Without these documents, in łapanka or if simply stopped on the street, deportation to the Concentration Camp or German labor camp was your only future. Railay workers were not collaborators; they had to work; I'll remove this later, but for now, I'm just having fun watching you guys. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I removed it. It was original research and synthesis. The first source [4] does discuss the employment of Poles in unskilled labor positions by the Ostbahn but does not call it collaboration. The second source [5] is primary and also does not say anything about collaboration afaict.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

1. There's no need for a source to be explicit in using the term "collaboration" as far as it answers the definition of collaboration as given in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. This issue has been discussed there before.
2. The first source describes work for the Ostbahn including in the roles of train engineer, switch tower operator and train technician - skilled labor - including on German military trains.
3. The second provides witness accounts by such workers regarding transport trains. There's nothing in policy against using primary sources.
4. Each source is used to establish the claim it is preceded by, and both satisfy WP:RS. As such, they do not satisfy WP:OR.
5. However, to assuage your fear of WP:SYNTH, here's a source that uses the term "collaboration" explicitly [6]; a secondary source that uses the term "complicity" to describe various aspects of train use, and specifically mentions the Ostbahn participation in death transports [7]]; a secondary source mentioning both [8], and in addition the fact drivers of the like received incentives; and another one with a whole bunch of examples of collaboration, including the Ostbahn [9]

François Robere (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So where is your reference above saying that the Polish railroad workers were collaborating with the Nazis? :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no need for a source to be explicit in using the term "collaboration" as far as it answers the definition of collaboration - it has to be pretty clear though. And this source isn't. Neither sources supports the claim of collaboration. That's your own invention - i.e. original research and synthesis. This is pretty textbook actually.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As to your new sources, the first one doesn't say anything about the Ostbahn. It does mention Polish railroad workers but does not say they were collaborating. It uses the word "collaboration" somewhere else in the article. I can't access the second source - you can try and provide a quote - but even then, "complicity" and "collaboration" are two different things.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

First, what the sources describe is simply "work", which is exactly what eg. Polish officials in the GG did. That's in-line with the definition in the other article.

The title of the source is "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust", are you really going to contend the mention of Polish railway workers isn't it?

There was a whole discussion in the other talk page about whether complicity equals collaboration, and the consensus was that it does, as several sources support it. You can see now how there's a section here Poles and the Holocaust.

I've added a couple more sources for you to browse. François Robere (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's the title, but in that paragraph the article is just describing the nature of German occupation. It does not say that railroad workers were collaborators. I don't knw what discussion you're referring to so I can't comment on it. What other sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And look, if you're gonna link gbooks and claim "it's in there" then we need to see the quotations if the books themselves are not accessible. After the shenanigans with the other sources and the original research, not gonna take it on faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The paragraph starts with "As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies..." in an article that's about "widespread collaboration". There's no misreading-it. Do you want a third opinion? RFC? Take your pick.

Please avoid making such comments. You do not know me or my approach to editing, and jumping to conclusions isn't becoming anyone. I merely wanted to avoid using a tertiary source, and thought it was obvious from the other texts. As for G-books: I didn't use a proxy server for accessing them, and you shouldn't need to either. If the linking troubles you, I can give you a full citation instead.

• Gigliotti, Simone (2009). The Train Journey: Transit, Captivity, and Witnessing in the Holocaust. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-427-0. - p. 36 mentions the Ostbahn as one of several "national carriers" who supplied death trains.
• Webb, Chris (2014-04-15). The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-3-8382-6546-9. - p. 179: "It is no exaggeration to state that without the close collaboration of the Reichsbahn and the Ostbahn with the SS, the Holocaust would not have been possible."; p. 186 with testimonies by Polish train engineers operating death trains and a mention of receiving vodka from the Germans for morale support.
• Kroener, Bernhard R.; Muller, Rolf-Dieter; Umbreit, Hans (2000-08-03). Germany and the Second World War: Volume 5: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power. Part I: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160683-0. - ch. 4.1 provides numbers on various collaboration agencies, including the Ostbahn.

François Robere (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, "drew upon some Polish agencies" is not "collaboration". What the article is doing is describing the nature of the German occupation. The rest is your own original research. As for your other sources:

The Train Journey: - yeah, but where does it say anything about Polish collaboration? Again, you're drawing inferences and making SYNTHesis.

The Treblinka Death Camp - again, this just says that Ostbahn "collaborated" (which is a bit strange choice of words seeing as how it was a German enterprise). It says NOTHING about "Polish collaboration". This article's title is not "Ostbahn collaboration with Nazi Germany".

Germany and the Second World War - ditto.

So it looks like my concerns were justified - you presented three sources which you claimed that supported the charge of collaboration by Polish railroad workers with Nazi Germany. Yet, when pressed on what's actually in those sources, all you're capable of providing are quotes about how the Ostbahn, not Polish railroad workers, was involved with the Nazis. In other words you were misrepresenting sources.

Look, you need sources which say that Polish railroad workers collaborated or it's a no go. And no amount of personal synthesis and original research can substitute for that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I've asked for WP:3O. Summary of argument:

• Armstrong, John A. (1968). "Collaborationism in World War II: The Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe". Journal of Modern History. 40 (3): 396–410. – defines collaboration as "co-operation between elements of the population of a defeated state and the representatives of the victorious power". This is the definition used in Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II.
• Mierzejewski, Alfred C (2000). The most valuable asset of the Reich: a history of the German National Railway. Vol. 2, Vol. 2,. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-6088-5. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) – pp. 80-82 describes the Ostbahn, the railway operator set up by Germany in Occupied Poland: 60,000 Poles supervised by 5,300 Germans. The Poles were employed in everything from manual labor to high-proficiency jobs like switch tower operators, train engineers and technicians, including on German military trains.
• "Collaboration and Complicity during the Holocaust". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved 2018-03-18. – lists instances of collaboration and explicitly mentions Polish railroad personnel.
• Webb, Chris (2014-04-15). The Treblinka Death Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-3-8382-6546-9. – p. 179: "It is no exaggeration to state that without the close collaboration of the Reichsbahn and the Ostbahn with the SS, the Holocaust would not have been possible."; p. 186 has testimonies by Polish train engineers operating deportation trains, and a mention of receiving vodka from the Germans for morale support.
• Gigliotti, Simone (2009). The Train Journey: Transit, Captivity, and Witnessing in the Holocaust. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-427-0. – p. 36 mentions the Ostbahn as one of several "national carriers" who supplied deportation trains.
• Kroener, Bernhard R.; Muller, Rolf-Dieter; Umbreit, Hans (2000-08-03). Germany and the Second World War: Volume 5: Organization and Mobilization of the German Sphere of Power. Part I: Wartime Administration, Economy, and Manpower Resources, 1939-1941. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-160683-0. – ch. 4.1 provides numbers on various collaboration agencies, including the Ostbahn.
• "Aktion Reinhard Train Transports – Eyewitness Statements". Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team. Retrieved 2018-03-18. {{cite web}}: no-break space character in |title= at position 16 (help) – provides witness accounts on Polish personnel operating deportation trains.

François Robere (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And again, none of these sources state that Polish railroad workers were collaborating with the Nazis! You've invented that part yourself and you're pretending not to understand the objection (WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT). Look. If collaboration by Polish railroad workers were an established fact or opinion in the literature you wouldn't be having this much trouble finding sources. But you can't find even one. Instead you giving us sources about how ... the German rail organization Ostbahn was collaborating! And that's on top of blatantly misrepresenting some sources (not to mention the fact that you listed several sources which were not accessible and claimed they supported the text, and only once you were asked to provide exact quotes did it come out that you were just making shit up).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I was under the impression that collaboration could be forced (in fact we make that point often about things like the Blue Police).Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but it's irrelevant to this question, since there is still no source which says this was collaboration (railroad workers, Blue Police is a different matter).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp Familiarize yourself with this. Blue Police should not really be listed as collaborators. GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Which part deal with the definition of collaborators?Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't remember, it talks about the Police force, I may look for it later but read the whole thing plus amendments, it's actually very informative. GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

You mean then parts about how POW's have to obey the law and are subject to the police?Slatersteven (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

A request for a third opinion was filed. I have declined it, as there are more than two participants engaged in substantive discussion here. I recommend a different form of dispute resolution if discussion here does not resolve the issue. Thank you, /wiae /tlk 19:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey /wiae, the discussion in general includes other participants, but the part I asked for a third opinion on - the sources listed above - only involves one other editor, so it should satisfy WP:3O. Your thoughts? François Robere (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No, there's at least two others who objected to this text. The difference is that I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, whereas they - rightly as it turns out - just rolled their proverbial eyes at you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Marek, you're being hostile for no good reason, and I suggest you drop the attitude. François Robere (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Strike that, I've opened an RFC. François Robere (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, François Robere, but I find it hard to separate the specific points you are making from the larger discussion in this section. Even if a third opinion is procedurally appropriate here, in my view it would be better to choose a more robust form of dispute resolution. This is a fast-moving talk page with many participants, and I'm not sure a casual third opinion would really do much beyond adding an extra informal voice to the discussion. My two cents. /wiae /tlk 20:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see you have planned to open an RFC. Sounds good. /wiae /tlk 20:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Re-add statement by Hannah Arendt about Judenrat

This statement should be re-added, but it keeps getting deleted by other editors focused and adding as much negative detial on Poles all the while sanatizing material related to collaboration of Polish-Jews:

Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that without the assistance of the Judenrat, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews. --E-960 (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Extremely notable source; whether to quote or just cite is, again, a matter of editorial consideration. Note the hypothetical is disputed, but the general sense of importance of Judenräte to the Nazi plans can, and should be conveyed. François Robere (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I've become convinced that we should at most cite this source, not quote it. The book itself is from 1963, and she mentions Raul Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews from 1961 as a source. There's been a lot of research on the subject in the half century that passed, some disputing this hypothetical's factual accuracy. Her opinion can be cited, but quoting it in full gives it undue weight compared to later sources. François Robere (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it is not talking about Poland, so it is synthesis. The passage seems to be talking about Germany, but even if it is talking about the wider issue it is not specifically about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the statement can be shortened, but to say it's irrelevant and removed all together is wrong. --E-960 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly contains synthesis of material (explain here)

Explain the rationale before reinserting, please. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I did explain above about the re inclusion of this material, I shall copy and paste it here

Because it is not talking about Poland, so it is synthesis. The passage seems to be talking about Germany, but even if it is talking about the wider issue it is not specifically about Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? What is not talking about Poland?? GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The pages from the book do not mention Poland as far as I can tell. Provide the quote where they do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me check GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It mentions Warsaw further on, the passage quoted refers to the round up of Berlins Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven What are you talking about?? Can you be more specific GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I can find no interference to a claim that "without the assistance of the Judenrat, the registration of the Jews, their concentration in ghettos and, later, their active assistance in the Jews' deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished because the Germans would have encountered considerable difficulties in drawing up lists of Jews" I can find such a quote relating to the removal of Berlins Jews, Not one about Poland. I cannot see how I can be more specific, the source does not say what we claim it does.Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven Judenrat's were only in occupied Poland. What removal of Berlin Jews are you talking about? Wait, I'll find you a helpful ref. GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

uh, Judenrats existed elsewhere...there was on in Vilnius, for example. You’ll want to consult Trunk’s book on the Judenrats. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC) p.s. also on for the Minsk Ghetto. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

uh? you mean this Wilno Ealdgyth? One of the pre-war biggest Polish cities? GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

But mainly Lithuanian, and not part of German-occupied lands until the invasion of the Soviet Union. And Minsk is certainly not in Poland. There were also Judenrats in three other Lithuanian cities - Kovno Ghetto, Švenčionys Ghetto, Šiauliai Ghetto. Other ghettos outside of Poland with Jewish councils - Daugavpils Ghetto, Riga Ghetto, etc. And ... Arendt's comments also apply to Jewish Councils in Western Europe - which were usually organized on a larger scale than city ghettos - especially the German ones, but others as well. Just quoting Arendt is misleading to the scholarship as it has developed in the years since 1963. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It does not matter if Judenrats only existed in Poland, what matters is if the source says this about Judenrats in Poland. Does it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, Švenčionys Ghetto that was in the pre-war Polish Republic, and beside you keep linking ghettos, please link to Judenrat's. Even in short-lived Mińsk Ghetto, it's Judenrat head Joffe was a Polish Jew and lasted on his position from February until July 1942.GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The other issue is that Arendt's view isn't the only one in scholars of the Holocaust. Other scholars (and more recent scholars) take the view that the Judenrat's activities were not actually that helpful to the Germans, or that even if the Jewish councils had not cooperated, the Holocaust would still have happened. Here is the USHMM's article on the Jewish Councils, which takes a more nuanced view than Arendt's quote would imply. The Jewish Virtual Library's summation also points to the varied views of the Judenrats - not a monolithic Arendt-viewpoint in the scholarship. Dan Michman has a good summary on pages 193-197 of The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies (Oxford University Press 2010), which basically says it's impossible to generalize, because Jewish Councils/headships/Judenrats were so widespread across occupied Europe (not just in Poland) that the conditions and people involved make generalizations "problematic, if not impossible". (Dan Michman "Jews" Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies p. 194 Oxford: 2010). Ealdgyth - Talk 12:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Judenrats' existed everywhere. Frankly - I think "Jewish collaboration" should be a separate article - there was nothing unique to Poland (except for the death camp location - however Sonderkommando there were from "all over") - the Nazis didn't differentiate between Jews in different Eastern European countries all that much - same control structures.Icewhiz (talk) 12:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Everywhere? Can you please give me few examples links included? GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

See above. They also existed in western Europe, where they are generally called Jewish Councils, not Judenrats. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

As for a Ukranian ghetto with a Judenradt - see Boguslav, where a ghetto was set up and a Jewish Council appointed. Ref for that is the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945, volume II part B, Ghettos in German Occupied Eastern Europe. Pages 1590-1591 "Soon after the occupation of the town, the German military commandant ordered the newly established Jewish Council (Judenrat) to register all the local Jews.". Same work, pages 1593-1594 Fastov - "Soon after the start of the occupation, the Ortskommandantur ordered the newly created Judenrat to organize the registration and marking of the Jews (they were required to wear armbands), as well as the collection of a monetary “contribution” and the use of the Jews for various types of forced labor." Page 1596 in Kremenchug - there was a Jewish council of elders for the ghetto. Page 1598 Ol'Shana - "The military commandant appointed a Jewish Council (Judenrat) within the ghetto." Page 1611 Zvenigorodka "In the ghetto, there was a Jewish Council (Judenrat), which was established on the orders of the German authorities." This is just from the Kiev area section of the work on Ukranian and other non-Polish ghettos and camps. I could continue... but I think this establishes that non-Polish ghetto Judenrats existed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Western Europe was indeed somewhat different (for a multitude of reasons - both German methods in general, and the characteristics of Jewish and general society). As for some examples - Kherson[10], Riga(Riga Ghetto), Minsk(Minsk Ghetto). I'm not aware of anything that was really Poland specific (certainly there where peculiar situations for each individual ghetto - but I'm not aware of any difference as a class between ghettos in main Poland (1939), eastern Poland (1941), and Ukraine or Belarus (1941). The Jewish communities themselves (with the exception of Mountain Jews and Crimean Karaites#During the Holocaust) were fairly similar (all speaking Yiddish primarily, being part of the Pale of Settlement under the Russian Empire).Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Judenräte's please, not small short-lived GhettosGizzyCatBella (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)+

Like the Minsk one mentioned in the article you Linked to (is Minsk in Poland)?Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Both Ol'Shana and Zvenigorodka lasted from August 1941 to May 1942. In the terms of the Holocaust, that's not short lived for a ghetto. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

-Arendt wrote that: "To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story. [...] In the matter of cooperation, there was no distinction between the highly assimilated Jewish communities of Central and Western Europe and the Yiddish-speaking masses of the East. In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, in Berlin as in Budapest, Jewish officials could be trusted to compile the lists of persons and of their property, She is talking about Judenräte's, is she not?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Arendt is clearly discussing Jewish leadership across the entirety of German-occupied Europe. I don’t think we can generalize it to just Poland here. And she certainly doesn’t use the word Judenrat there...it seems to me to be OR to use the statement by Arendt to source a sentence about Judenrats, especially if, as below, some are arguing that Judenrat should only apply to councils in Polish ghettos. Arendt is quite clear she’s discussing more than just Poland. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Arendt (I am not sure) is making that point anyway. as I said the passage appears to be saying that then Germans were so impressed with the Berlin Jews actions they try (not always successfully) to implement it elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you for guys for real???? Judenrat originated in Reinhard Heydrich's memorandum in September 1939 that said: “In each Jewish community in occupied Poland, a Jewish Ältestenrat should be installed." Only in June 1941, few small, short-lived Judenrats were installed in the occupied Soviet area to be copied as per Polish example. In ALL other taken or allied states, formal Jewish representatives were formed on a countrywide level and stood described individually. Please research before arguing for god's sake. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So is Arendt unreliable for clams about Judenrates?16:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, she is reliable, she correlates Poland while citing Judenrat. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not seeing where the google books excerpt that supports "Political theorist Hannah Arendt stated in her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem that, without the assistance of the Judenräte in the registration of the Jews, in their concentration in ghettos, and later in their deportation to extermination camps, fewer Jews would have perished, because the Germans would have had considerable difficulty drawing up lists of Jews." actually says anything about Judenrats? It says "Jewish leaders" - the highlighted quote is "To a Jew, this role of the Jewish leaders in the destruction of their own people is undoubtedly the darkest chapter of the whole dark story." but that isn't a Judenrat necessarily. The excerpt then goes on to discuss Amsterdam, Warsaw, Berlin, and Budapest, but still nothing about Judenrats. In fact here Arendt says that the only Judenrat member to testify at Eichmann's trial was Pinchas Freudiger, who was a member of the Judenrat of Budapest! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth In Hungary, the Jewish representative was named Kozponti Zsido Tanacs. I'm not sure why she calls it Judenrat GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

She correlates Warsaw with Berlin, Budapest, Amsterdam and others.Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

you know Slatersteven, I have second thoughts in regards to Arendt quoting. Let me think about it. I may agree with you after all. GizzyCatBella (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I think now Slatersteven, that you can eliminate her quote actually. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So do we now have consensus that Arendt is not a valid inclusion?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven you may desire to wait for an evaluation of other working editors but after a secondary thought, (not entirely agreeing with you) I think that she may be ejected from this particular article. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Is already done, that's ok. GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And back again as an unexplained removal.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

lol, and with an impresive speed! ( fixed it ) GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, this statement should be included (though abridged), because it relates to Poland, and the largest ghettos were located in the country. So, if some editor makes the argument that what Hannah Arendt said is not applicable to Poland is wrong. By the way I noticed that three editors were for the inclusion of the statement, so why was it removed since only User:Slatersteven objected to it, it should be re-added in a shorter version? --E-960 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No it does not, if it does provide the quote where she says Poland.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Either way, you're the only one that's advocating it's full removal, no one else. --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I take it from that that no you do not have such a quote. Please read wp:or.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, I'm pretty sure it has... did you actually open the book? On the same page that the reference is on, it also states: "In Amsterdam as in Warsaw, Jewish officials could be trusted to compile lists of persons", and there is more, the book has dozens of references to Poland on this subject. --E-960 (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Err this does not say what our article claimed. If you want to add "In Warsaw polish officials were trusted to compile lists of names" go ahead, not sure what it adds to the article but go ahead. What you need is tio source to say "and without Polish Jews fewer jewes would have dies", or something along those lines).Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Recent reverts

A book published by a scholar is a proper, legitimate source (I don't have it so I can't provide a page number, but that's not a reason to remove it). The statement is clearly attributed in text. Is it opposed because of WP:IDONTLIKEIT or because of some other hidden motive which I haven't been made aware of? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you link the WP:DIFF? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Original removal (based on a flagrant misunderstanding of the sentence), and my revert (which adds the source - as I said, I don't have the book so can't check for the page number but the source is clearly identified in the text and it happens to have been in the list of references already, so adding it was simple business which doesn't warrant a removal even on WP:V grounds - and the other editor didn't go that far, staying to their simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT stance) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

this tells us nothing about collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

It does - it tells "how much people were killed because of collaboration" (I assume there are various estimates for that number, and assuming the source is reliable and not too old, it deserves to be included). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And, additionally, there is no number currently in the article which gives any estimate of the death toll, except for "30k Poles killed because of attempting to hide Jews from the authorities". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

No it tells us how many Jews were killed due to antisemitism.Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

And somehow antisemitism in this form would not count as being part of the Holocaust? I mean, can you name any other period in history in which antisemites, anywhere, killed 200k people? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, of course it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Insofar as we accept participation in crimes against Polish Jewry in light of the Nazi occupation as collaboration with its racial agenda (and we have RS to establish that) it's obviously relevant, and indeed was part of the earlier text that were split into this article. François Robere (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Killing Jews would be collaborating with the Holocaust. Grabowski is widely cited, andnthe claim repeated by multiple RS, e.g. this. Note Poles were rewarded by thhe Nazis, and Haaertz frames this in the context of As Hunt for the Jews is published in Israel, a debate is raging in Poland about the role of the local population in the Holocaust. At its center is the question of whether the Poles were victims of the Nazis or collaborators with them, and where they are to be placed in terms of rescuers, murderers or bystanders in relation to the fate of their Jewish neighbors..Icewhiz (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it is complicity in the Holocaust, but that is not the same as collaboration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Complicity: association or participation in or as if in a wrongful act" (source: [11]), "Collaboration: to cooperate with or willingly assist an enemy of one's country and especially an occupying force" ([12]). That's the same thing, no (except for the fact that complicity isn't necessarily with one's enemy, but that's irrelevant to this debate)? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah no. Complicity is not standing up and doing your "day job" which the Reich takes advatage of. Killing Jews (with or without German blessing) for antisemitic reasons as in Jedwabne pogrom is taking an active part in the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree it was part of the holocaust, but the Holocaust was not official or open German policy (nor was it unofficial German policy before 1942). It is an interesting question, does collaboration have to be unwitting aid of the enemy, or does it have to be a conscious choice to knowingly aid them. I really am not sure how telling people how many Jews the Poles murdered helps us to understand collaboration with Germany(as opposed to the Nazis), it does not even tell us a great deal about Polish antisemitism (after all what is a better indicator 1 man killing 20 or 2 men killing 5?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust is generally considered by reputable historians (ignoring David Irving) to be explicit German policy. Atrocities against Jews, but the invading German troops, was well known by the local population. Poles are said to have been "encouraged" to kill Jews in Wąsosz pogrom, Jedwabne pogrom, Lviv pogroms, Tykocin pogrom, and many others who do not have a named article (however in Szczuczyn pogrom - a German Wehrmacht unit intervened and stopped the massacre of Jews by Poles). In fact - modern Polish ethnonationalist historians often advance this narrative (that the Polish population only did what the Germans told them to do) - though more mainstream research tends to frame this as general antisemitism couple with incitement by the advancing Germans, who encouraged, but did not direct, the killings. Later killing of Jews by Poles during 1943-44 was in a period of time in which the Holocaust, while not widely known in the west, was known by the Polish government in exile ([13]) and widely known inside Poland.Icewhiz (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that is my point, the Poles who killed Jews would have done so anyway, that is why I say Complicity not collaboration. This was not Poles carrying out German policy, it was Poles using the Germans as a cover fort their Policy.Slatersteven (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely disagree. You have several cases here (popular killing in light of the German policy; killing or denunciation of passing refugees, for or with no material gain; hunting for refugees on German request or no one's), some of which are clearly collaboratory, all clearly complicit, but in all cases occurring with full knowledge of German policy, that wouldn't have occurred there and then otherwise. This means that in all cases the killers collaborated, whether as a primary goal or as a side-effect, with the German "racial" policy. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfound ref

Can anybody trace the "riesenbach" source and determine what it is? it seems to have been added here, but the original edit has no proper reference, only a refname. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove. François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Remove what?? His link leads to nothing.198.84.253.202 be more specific.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The text and the unclear source. François Robere (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Jan Grabowski's estimate from "Hunt for Jews"

A reference to Jan Grabowski was removed, again. The editor suggested it's controversial and unsupported by other scholars [14], and I would like them to provide support for their claim. In the meanwhile:

• His book received good reviews from John Connelly [15], Timothy Snyder [16], Joshua D. Zimmerman [17] and others, and a book award from Yad Vashem [18].
• Fellow historians in Poland made public statement of support in response to a smear campaign conducted again him [19].
• He was quoted in multiple news outlets (Haaretz, CBC, Guardian), and his estimates were cited by the likes of Yehuda Bauer [20].

François Robere (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Question to anyone who has read Jan Grabowski's work: What sources and methods did he use in arriving at his conclusions? Thanks. Nihil novi (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That second source about "fellow historians" actually exemplifies the fringe nature of the work. It's a cherry picked source - but it does reference a letter by more than 130 historians academics which criticize Grabowski's book and "research".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek and Nihil novi I believe that the fate of Grabowski is eventually the same as that of Gross. The seeking attention, foolish statements such as: "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" made Gross already almost completely devalued. I'm afraid the same future awaits Grabowski if he continues his fringe activity. GizzyCatBella (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski should not be included in this text, his work is as stated by other editors more of a fringe view. --E-960 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski is a widely respected scholar. He is criticized by Polish ethnonationalists (who reject Polish complicity in the Holocaust - a mainstream view), and them only. The letter by 130 Polish scholars, does not contain Holocaust scholars[21]. While the Polish government and elements in Polish society may WP:IDONTLIKE this research, it has been recognized by his peers, e.g. winning the 2014 Yad Vashem International Book Prize.Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's view might be considered fringe by the Polish society, however, WP:FRINGE clearly applies to "mainstream views in its particular field" and states "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight" (emphasis mine). If Poles do not accept his opinion, that is an ad populum, their government prohibiting it is a breach of academic freedom, and quite frankly, irrelevant, since neither the Poles nor the Polish government are Holocaust scholars (i.e. reliable sources in the particular field of study). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a letter signed by more than 130 historians academics saying it's fringe. "Polish society" has nothing to do with it. One more time - please stop judging sources or opinions on the basis of ethnicity. That constitutes prejudice and bigotry.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

And that letter, signed by "academics" rather than expert historians, is as representative of the consensus in the field as the Oregon Petition is in climate science. If anything, it shows you just how politicized this discussion is in Poland. François Robere (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with Grabowski, but his estimate has total right to be in the article. It should not be given undue weight, but per Evelyn Beatrice Hall I will defend this quote. It is relevant (if IMHO wrong). Of course, if we have sources saying that this estimate has been criticized by others and/or is controversial, this shold also be discussed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Support removal, we should not give credibility to extreme and very controversial views like Grabowski has.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Fact Check, this is what non-Polish sources are writing about Grabowski award winning work: Historians defend professor who wrote of Poles’ complicity in Holocaust, Prof. Studying Poles' Complicity In Holocaust Criticized By Polish Nationalists, Historians defend prof who wrote of Poles’ Holocaust complicity. The fact that 134 Polish scientists (not historians per the sources), who happen to ascribe to nationalists views (per [22]), signed a letter by the Polish League Against Defamation means little. As does recent Polish libel investigations against reputed historians or Polish legislation that would outlaw "defaming Poland" [23]. So yes - some elements in Poland do not like Grabowski's statement. Most of the world outside of Poland, and in particular holocaust historians, do not ascribe to this viewpoint.Icewhiz (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Fact Check anyone can cherry pick sources.Extreme and controversial views do have their supporters and it seems your own strong reaction is based on completely different subject regarding law banning holocaust denial that was recentely implemented in Poland.Most mainstream holocaust researchers do not claim Poles and Poland are responsible for Holocaust, but Nazi Germany.Again, strongly controversial and extreme views shouldn't be given undue weight--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski doesn't claim Poles are the main party at fault for the Holocaust. He estimates some 200,000 Jews by Poles - which would leave some 5,800,000 Jews by others (mainly Nazi Germany, some minor parties (e.g. Ustashe, Arrow Cross Party, or Romania of course)). He also says 200,000 Jews is greater than the number of Germans killed by Poles. He does not say Poles are the main party responsible for the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So he doesn't distinguish between ethnic Poles, Polish citizens, and states over the top numbers while claiming Poles as a whole are partly responsible for Holocaust ? Like I said, extreme POV that seems to be intented to inflame debate as much as possible.Btw Germans claim at least over 400,000 Germans were killed by Poles--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

So 200 000 victims (out of a total of over 6 millions) killed as a result of (not necessarily directly by) the collaborators is an "unsourced sensationalist claim"? Yet, we already established that the POV is not fringe among scholars, that it has been misinterpreted by some editors so that they can attack a straw man, and that the opinion of non-scholars is irrelevant since they are not the most reliable sources, academics having precedence over the unreliable opinion of the mob and the politically motivated opinions of governments and lobbyist groups. Why is this still a contentious matter? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ahm... it's not a fact check if you don't supply facts. You think his view is fringe, contrary to what Icewhiz and myself claim? Show it. François Robere (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems to be just sensationalist statement not based on available estimates Prof. Grabowski alleges that Poles may have killed more than 200,000 Jews who escaped from the ghettos and camps. He knows full well that this number is “hot air.” The knowledge we possess allows us to estimate that at least 50,000 Jews escaped in the entire territory of occupied Poland. No other number has yet been proved by research. The estimate that 250,000 Jews escaped from the ghettos was cited more than 30 years ago by the historian Szymon Datner in an interview he gave at the end of his life. But Datner did not conduct studies that relate to the whole of Poland or even to one of its districts. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept his claim as scientific truth.Profesor Grzegorz Berendt chairman of Jewish Historic Institute. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The claim is not that the local population "directly killed" but "assisted in the act of killing" - this might go from something as simple as denouncing escapees to the occupiers to pure and cold blooded murder. Is Professor Berendt a recognized Holocaust scholar or not? So far I see, this seems to be WP:SYNTH, therefore WP:OR. And per this page, [24], this professor doesn't have the credentials you ascribe to him (i.e. no such thing as a chairman of the JHI). Anyway, even if it were true, one statement by one source isn't sufficient to completely reject one book by a scholar, who is otherwise recognized positively by his peers, as demonstrated above. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

He is named as member of the board here [25], and yes he is respected scholar whose book was published by JHI. And no, Grabowski I can't support as a reliable source in regards to numbers as quoted above.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Grabowski's work received a major Holocaust scholarship prize,, and was reviewed positively in an academic journal setting. It is also widely used cited in the international media. Barbara Engelking, a Polish historian, has corroborated Grabowski's research. Frankly - it is difficult to find criticism of him originating from outside of Poland (where indeed he has been criticized by many - given the nature of his research attributing responsibility to Poles - his groundbreaking research being described as one of the triggers for the Polish "Holocaust law"), and he's been defended by historians as well as being covered positively in the international media following the letters sent out by the Polish League Against Defamation and the death threats he received.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

So you're suggesting we ignore all of the other historians who expressed confidence in his work? François Robere (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

"Frankly - it is difficult to find criticism of him originating from outside of Poland", nothing wrong with this.Just because something is criticized in Poland doesn't discredit the criticism. Minor note: Barbara Engelking is a sociologist and psychologist, not a historian.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As to Grabowski's book, as far as I understand it is a about a small local area, not about whole Poland.According to reviews I have read It contains several flaws and errors, including ignoring Polish witness statements,and ignoring some Jewish survivors in the count of survivors and extrapolating numbers and circumstances from this area to whole Poland(just some of many errors and problems in the books, there are many others). As I understand from reviews the book itself is short often with just Jewish witness statements without larger context.There are better and more comprehensive works.Due to flaws and errors and controversies I believe it would require it's own section to describe it neutraly, and frankly it isn't that important to deserve one in this article.I also don't believe Grabowski is that important or visible scholar--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That may be your opinion of Grabowski's work, it is not the opinion of several notable historians which is sourced above. We certainly should not ignore Polish thoughts on the matter, however if the wider worldwide scholarly community accepts Grabowski, while opposition to his prize winning research is limited to certain circles within Poland (and one should note, some in Poland have seen Grabowski's work as positive) - then we would generally follow the worldwide academic consensus.Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Grabowski's 162 page book is notable enough to warrant naming it as discussed by worldwide academic consensus.Not only it is about about small region in Poland, but its subject itself is a niche history really.I would kindly suggest, like others have, that you stop with pointing out ethnic identities of historians.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort - it is hard to escape use of the word Polish in relation to criticism of Grabowski when he's been directly criticized by the Polish government (via its embassy in Ottawa )[26], by the Polish League Against Defamation[27], or when his research is mentioned as a motivation for Polish legislation[28]. However, reception in reviews (as well as the noteworthy award) is generally positive.Icewhiz (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: You've thus far provided mainly your opinion, and just one quote by a scholar on the matter. This isn't enough for removal. By the way, his research institute published just this February a lengthy study that is claimed to further establish the accuracy of his estimates.[29] We'll know soon in enough when it starts being circulated. François Robere (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

May the Lord save ye and protect ye from all of this. I will pray this afternoon that ye may stop all of this. Put away your truncheons. Learn to love one another. Find a place for Our Lady, the Saints and Angels in your hearts. Open up to one another. Show respect, affection and love. Kiss. Fondle. Stroke.Bishop Morehouse (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Bishop Morehouse Amen :) GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Mock not when you hear the word of God being preached!Bishop Morehouse (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Can we doubt it, at least? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe I can find the Datner number that is referenced as source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Even if that number is found (and then [pseudo-]discredited [with some poor attempt at WP:SYNTH]), only that number (the Datner number) would be discredited (and that seems unlikely given that it is cited by newer research). Anyway, newer sources [Grabowski] (in this context of academic study) are probably better than older ones [Datner]. His view not being liked in Poland can be detailed either here or on his article (IMHO the second option would be the best - this page is too general to go in-depth about the criticism of some scholar's work by the public). Opposing views within scholarship are also things which happen - our duty is to report them with due weight, not judge them or state our opinion on them. If Grabowski is only criticized by the Polish government/population/..., then there's no point mentioning it in this article (the criticism should still be mentioned in Grabowski's article, either case) - since the Polish government (and population and ...) have been established as not being reliable, independent academic sources. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm against the exclusion of Grabowski but, it has to be revealed that his theory is radical, right in this article, not his bio.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You can be against it all you want, but unless you have RS to support some reasonable claim of why his theory is objectionable, it doesn't matter. François Robere (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

So you are for Grabowski to continue to be excluded? ok, its fine with me. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

As I said, unless you have RS to support some reasonable claim of why his theory is objectionable, it will be listed as acceptable as it is outside Poland. François Robere (talk) 01:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Most, and possibly all, English language RSes do not treat Grabowski as a "radical". In fact it would seem most treat him as the mainsteam consensus. RSes do note objections from Poland or Polish historiansCBC, along with a "surge of anti-Semitism online and in Polish state media. Some of that anti-Semitism ends up in Mr Grabowski's mailbox." per the BBC. There is no indication this criticism has any weight. The work has won a major Holocaust prize in 2014 and reviews in leading peer reviewed journals have been positive e.g. IDONTLIKE is not an editing rationale.Icewhiz (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If the topic is controversial, it would be good if it was supported by several independent sources. Grabowski's opinion is not enough. The articles shown here do not refute or support the number 200,000. The only historian (presented in this discourse) who expresses opinions on the number of 200,000 is Grzegorz Berendt, who considers this number unlikely. Mat0018 (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Not just "unlikely". Impossible and made up ("hot air").Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

IPN statement on 200,000

Polish IPN has issued an official statement on the estimate of 200,000. There was considerable debate on this, and it seems the estimate was taken partially based on Datner's numbers of fugitives but rejecting the number of survivors[30] IPN statement[31] Never, in any of his works, did Simon Datner mention any number of 200,000 murdered Jews, nor did he ever describe such a number of victims as the result of crimes perpetrated by Polish people in the occupied territories. Imputing these statements to Datner amounts to falsifying the scholarly record of this undisputed authority on Holocaust studies. Datner differentiated between the actions of German State officers and armed German services and the attitudes of civilian people in all occupied areas. Some of the participants of the current debate ignore such distinctions, either due to lack of knowledge or intentionally

The IPN is a politically appointed institution, and press announcement it releases do not carry nearly the same weight as a peer reviewed journal. Furthermore, as this statement was made after, Holocaust law wields a 'blunt instrument' against Poland's past, BBC, Polish legislation limiting possible discourse on the Polish role in the holocaust, we should consider whether statements from within Poland may be made freely without fear of criminal proceedings.Icewhiz (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

It is, but it is also generally considered reliable. And I don't recall the 200,000 claim being in a peer reviewed journal. Isn't it from a book? And those are not always subject to a peer review. (Even if the publisher is considered reliable, the quality control may focus solely on language and manual of style issues, with no review by fellow academics). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is taking place in like five different venues so it's becoming unwieldy. To avoid repeating things said elsewhere, Icewhiz's characterization of the IPN is nonsense. It is staffed by professional historians. And his continued attempts to blanket-exclude sources simply because they happen to be Polish constitutes WP:TENDENTIOUS editing on a topic covered by discretionary sanctions. In the past such an attitude has resulted in prompt topic bans from this area and such a ban for Icewhiz in the end may wind up being the only remedy that works here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to partially agree with Icewhiz on this. The IPN has been considered generally reliable, but the amendment introduced last month makes future publications questionable. In addition to the criminality clause, which applies nation-wide and its effects on future Polish scholarship are unclear, there's an amendment to the IPN's mandate making it responsible for "protection of the reputation of the Republic of Poland and the Polish Nation". This is an implicit mandate for selection and publication biases. Another problematic clause addresses "crimes of Ukrainian nationalists and members of Ukrainian formations collaborating with the German Third Reich" - the IPN is now to focus its research on a particular ethnicity rather than the phenomena at large - a clear politicization of its research, casting doubt on its objectivity from now on. François Robere (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

We are not discussing future publications, nor is there any reason to think that the amendment would in any way impact the work of the institute. Not clear on how this is relevant.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The proper venue on the effect of the 2018 law (from 2018 onwards, or possibly 2016 onwards (when this was drafted)) on reliability of sources affected by the law on subjects (mainly complicity and attirbutions to Ukranians if I understand correctly) affected by the law is probably RSN. I will also note that the IPN's reputation has changed over the years - e.g. back in 2001 there were few questions on their reputation - they were well respected among scholars. We question sources from countries with freedom of speech issues (in this case in a narrow subject) routinely - e.g. most Russian news orgs are not considered reliable for reporting on geopolitics.Icewhiz (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"possibly 2016 onwards (when this was drafted)" - hey, why not 2005 onwards? After all there might be a source that you happen to WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT from 2007? Or better yet, 1864 onwards? Or 245 BC onwards? Stop making stuff up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you contending that the law that defines the IPN's mandate doesn't have an effect on the IPN's work? François Robere (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, you are being lured into the waste discussion. Both of them can dislike IPN as much as they want, their personal opinion is irrelevant. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not about liking or disliking, it's about legitimate concerns about the politicization of historiography and media. And it's hardly our "personal opinion" - similar concerns with the fate of Polish research on the subject have been raised worldwide. François Robere (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Until we have scholarly sources discussing consistent, recurring biases in Polish/IPNs works, this is mostly OR. Some Russian sources have been discredited because of criticism in other reliable sources shown such bias. I agree the new Polish law has potential to cause damage to research in Poland, but it will be years until we have academic studies of that. For now, IPN is still considered a reliable research institute, through of course it can and sometimes should be attributed, because reliable doesn't mean unbiased. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree in part. The problem with these biases are that they're invisible, in that what they present to you isn't wrong at face value; it's the big picture that gets distorted. This means it's our responsibility to consider the bias we allow that material to introduce into our articles. So it's something we need to keep an eye for..

As for sources - a very quick search came up with these: Mink, Georges (2017-11-02). "Is there a new institutional response to the crimes of Communism? National memory agencies in post-Communist countries: the Polish case (1998–2014), with references to East Germany". Nationalities Papers. 45 (6): 1013–1027. doi:10.1080/00905992.2017.1360853. ISSN 0090-5992. Retrieved 2018-03-27., Peters, Florian. "Cultures of History Forum : Remaking Polish National History: Reenactment over Reflection". Retrieved 2018-03-27..

PS I've seen this a while ago, but didn't think it was relevant enough to any particular discussion. The guy can't wait to smear Gross, shift blame to the Jews, and claim the book was nothing but a tool for damaging "Polish national identity". The host, on her part, challenges him on nothing, and mentions the completely irrelevant statistic on the number of recognized Righteous in Poland. It's a pile of crap that in any self-respecting research institute would've in the very least stopped someone's promotion. The thought someone like that is employed by an institute of that caliber is disturbing. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Peters publishes political comments about Poland. It's opinion of a German radical liberal. Is radical left O.K. and any other opinion unacceptable?Xx236 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I partially agree, through first, until we have reliable sources critical of Piotr Gontarczyk's scholarship, he is reliable, and two, nothing is white and black. Some of the claims made by this historical faction are POVed, but some are drawing attention to stuff that has and is not being properly researched in some places because it is politically incorrect... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"This means it's our responsibility to consider the bias we allow that material to introduce into our articles." - um, no. This is a recipe for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT original research and synthesis.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - which is why a WP:PRIMARY press-release (which does not seem to even name an author) by a government agency is not a WP:RS for history. If and when this gets published in reputable peer-reviewed journal or high-quality academic publisher - it might merit inclusion.Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

By that token, we should remove most links to content from USHMM or Yad Vashem... WP:PRIMARY is a slippery slope, and not particularly well understood or enforced here.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I'm just astonished someone can be so anachronistic and still considered "respectable" (as opposed to "reliable"). I'm also uneasy with how an interview like that can pass as journalism in some parts. François Robere (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

YadVashem has recently ignored obvious critics regarding alleged Blue Police in Łódź/Litzmannstadt. There was no Blue Police there, Łódź was annected to Reich. What about YadVashem's reliability? Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Please cite sources/links to relevant discussion. Otherwise it not particularly helpful. What did YV ignore? Where is the criticism of it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A short form [32]. Yad Vashem has published the picture with erroneus caption at least 5 years ago and ignored several critics. Recently JTA has answered incorrectly and later changed the text without explanation, which is Orwellian. Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Which just goes to show historians and their publishers/institutions make mistakes (not too mention are biased). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Five years means biased to me. Not to misinform, but to reject anything told by outsiders. Xx236 (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5