Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Optional addition to the lede, for discussion

Outside the sphere of collaboration with the German occupiers, a small minority of Poles murdered Jews during the Holocaust, while some Poles - considered traitors by the Polish state - participated in German-inspired pogroms and informed on and even blackmailed Jews and their Polish protectors. Collaboration by Poland's German and Ukrainian minorities was widespread.

a small minority of Poles invites the question - how many. Noone knows. According to a recent estimate about 40 000 hiding Jews were killed by Poles, so thousands or tens of thousands of Poles were involved. Is it a small minority? However murdering Jews and plundering their money wasn't exactly a collaboration. Everything the Jews posessed was owned by Germans so the Polish criminals acted against the Reich. Participating in plunder was punished by Germans, sometimes with death. Blackmailers (szmalcownik) were punished by German courts.Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a small minority?

This appears to be a rhetorical question, so you need to do the math. Even if ten separate Poles were to have murdered each one of these 40,000 Jews, then 400,000 Poles were involved: that's 400,000 / 24,300,000 1939 population of ethnic Poles = 0.0016% of all ethnic Poles. Even that is a small minority. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It's either 0.016 of the whole or 1.6% .Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This is problematic for several reasons:

• You make a distinction between "anti-Semitic acts" and "collaboration" which is inaccurate. Some of these acts constituted "collaboration", others "complicity" - inadvertent collaboration. This is a semantic problem that I don't think we should touch just yet.
• How small is a "small" minority? I'd argue that however "small" it may have been, it wasn't small enough.
• The treatment of szmalcowniki and other despicables by the Polish underground state varied across time, place and branch. You can't make the sort of unequivocal statement you just made, especially not in the lead.
• "German inspired" is just false.
• The article isn't yet in a position to state that collaboration was widespread within the Germans and Ukrainian minorities. The relevant sections should be further developed before we make that statement in the lead.

François Robere (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The majority of Volksgermans opted for Germany, only few joined the underground or helped oppressed Poles or Jews, there are plenty sources about Volksgerman crimes and only few about good Germans.

The majority of Ukrainians was influenced by Ukrainian nationalists who supported the Nazis at the beginning and later deserted the police and got some independence. 1st Galician SS division didn't desert.Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

So if this experimental paragraph has two objections, let's not include it. For the record, you appear to be perceiving the proposed content as some kind of attempt to diminish Polish culpability for murder, which it is not. It's obvious that any number of murderers is not small enough, and calling something a small minority doesn't in any way contradict that moral standpoint; but in any case we are mere Wikipedia editors and so are not within our rights to make that sort of moral interpretation in the content in any case. Secondly, it's not me making the distinction between collaboration and anti-Semitism, that content reflects the distinction made by the Israeli-American Holocaust historian discussed here before. He says that the reason why Polish anti-Semitism was able to survive was that it wasn't tainted by allegations of collaboration - you can take up your allegation of inaccuracy with him, but our opinions are subordinate to the sources for Wikipedia purposes. Third, there's now general academic consensus that the pogroms in the Bialystok region amid Operation Barbarossa of summer 1941 took place in the context of inspiration and influence from German agit-prop by Gestapo and Einsatzgruppe units, as well as German military control of the area; that in no way diminishes the fact that they were mass-murders by Poles of Jews, including murders of children. Please don't jump to conclusions abut other editors' intentions and please read around the subject more. Now that there are two editors taking issue with it, I am striking out the paragraph per WP:CONS and will not debate the points further as this is not a forum for doing so. -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've seen your edits before and I don't in any way suspect you're diminishing anyone's responsibility on purpose, but this suggestion does does that to some degree, primarily due to inaccuracy. For example, your statement about the 1941 pogroms is no doubt true, but attempting to condense all of it into the phrase "German-inspired" isn't.

Regarding collaboration and anti-Semitism - here's the difference: He's referring to an historical phenomenon (WWII common Polish perception of what constitutes "collaboration" and what not) that is part of what this article is about, rather than an objective (external) definition with which we can define the subject to begin with. François Robere (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

being an accomplice before during or after the fact would still be complicity in the holocaust. Also lets not forget, only a small percentage of Germans actually killed Jews.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Would you please explain me your phrase "being an accomplice before during or after the fact would still be complicity in the holocaust."?

The Western policy of banning Jewish refugees and accepting militarization of Nazi Germany was much more important complicity than crimes committed by poor and terrorized Polish peasants.

The Nazis controlled a big part of Europe and made many non-Germans to do the dirty job for them. The goal of the Holocaust and similar anti-Slavic projects was the plunder not the fun of murdering Jews otr Slavs.

Why is this discussion here rather than in a general page about pro-Nazi collaboration? What was so special with Polish people to write 69,459 bytes about their collaboration? Poland was occupied longer or much longer than any other nation and Nazi politics was more cruel than in the West.

The template Template:Collaboration with Axis Powers by country perfectly shows the anti-Eastern bias of this Wikipedia. Luxembourgish collaboration with Nazi Germany versus several pages about the bad Eastern Europe. Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Well I do not mean having amazing powers of prescience. As to why this exists, because of a huge discussion of the general collaboration page about (pretty much) this very issue. And do not accuse us of boas, we can only go with what the sources say. And we do not duiscus otehr pages, only this one.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent reverts

@E-960: Regarding your string of reverts from today, before we go over them one by one let's just make this clear: The article was last restructured several months ago, when it was still just a section under "Collaboration with the Axis powers". At the state of the article today this structure in inadequate. The sections have no clear criteria, alternating between field (eg. "politics"), case ("Baudienst") and identity ("ethnic minorities), and in some cases mix disparate subjects (eg. early state-level arrangements and later party-level suggestions).

The edits:

1. [1][2] Why undo this? The current section mixes different things: Attempt by Germans and attempts by Poles, attempts to keep the state and attempts when it no longer existed, attitude by heads of state and attitudes by low-level politicians. It makes little sense to keep it all under one section.
2. Also: What's "cultural collaboration"? Cultures don't collaborate, people do.
3. [3] The Baudienst wasn't a security force, but it did take part in operations led by the security/oppression forces.
4. [4] The RfC stated he's not an RS in this field, so why are we quoting him on methodology? And why undo the change about Piotr Zaremba? We should quote him by name.
5. [5] This isn't a "massive" change, merely moving the subsection to the "ethnic minorities" section, where it belongs.
6. [6] So basically you restored the fact that they met in Lisbon. First: Why? Second: Why not just re-add it instead of undoing the surrounding copyedit?
7. [7] What's the rational behind this other than that it's "longstanding"? Mind I was the one who introduced this structure originally.

François Robere (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, why do continually go in every so often and feel compelled to make massive changes to the article?? This time around you changed-out about half the section titles to what you though sounded better, and at the same time changed out long standing order of the sections. Bulk changes like that, are a sign that an editor is pushing a particular POV, I see no rationale to change those titles which were applicable to the corresponding text. Also, what's most troubling to me is that you decided to re-name the section titled Political Collaboration to State Collaboration despite the fact that the POLISH STATE never collaborated with the Germans (went into exile and from London governed the underground army, courts, schools, etc. which resisted the Nazi Occupation). To make such a change is extremely questionable and misleading. As before, it seems like you want to impose you interpretation of the events by making such massive changes to long standing text. Those changes you made are simply wrong and inaccurate. As for the other items on your list, there is nothing wrong with them, and as before it's a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --E-960 (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

E-960 I would appreciate it if you could focus on the issues rather than make personal notes that are counter-productive. As for "massive changes" - when the article gets a WP:GA we can discuss stability; until then it is a work in progress. I would also appreciate it if you bring the issues here before reverting them.

I see no rationale to change those titles which were applicable to the corresponding text - I gave you a rational.

the fact that the POLISH STATE never collaborated with the Germans - does the text imply anything else? No. The sections are supposed to follow a certain order; I expect other articles of this sort would follow a similar structure: "what did the state do", "how did the politicia react", "to what degree did the security services cooperate with the regime of terror" etc. This is an "inventory" of sorts, which in this case would list under "State collaboration" "N/A" (cf. "collaboration and the resistance" that elaborates on both collaboration and defiance). If that'll sooth your worries, we can rename the section "State defiance" or "State noncollaboration"; at any rate I'm of the opinion that section should be split in two.

As for the other items on your list, there is nothing wrong with them - can you explain exactly what's not wrong for each of the cases? François Robere (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

These are substantial changes, and they are rather inaccurate despite your exhausting explanations. Any time an editors just comes in and changes half of the long standing section titles, that raises a red flag. Also, it appears that you simply lack a full in-depth understanding on certain topics, as demonstrated when you moved the text on Gorals and Kaszubs to the Collaboration by ethnic minorities section, not realizing that Gorals and Kaszubs, though having a distinct and unique regional identity, overwhelmingly see themselves as Polish (as demonstrated in the 2011 census), so they do not even come close to being in the same category as Ukrainian, Belarusian or German minorities — this was the case then and today. So, these changes are inaccurate and misrepresent certain issues. --E-960 (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Any time an editors just comes in and changes half of the long standing section titles, that raises a red flag so that's a free license to "shoot first, ask questions later"?

it appears that you simply lack a full in-depth understanding on certain topics, as demonstrated when you moved the text on Gorals and Kaszubs to the Collaboration by ethnic minorities section, not realizing that Gorals and Kaszubs, though having a distinct and unique regional identity... - Gorals: "an ethnographic (or ethnic) group primarily found in their traditional area of southern Poland, northern Slovakia, and in the region of Cieszyn Silesia in the Czech Republic (Silesian Gorals)"; Kashubians: "a West Slavic ethnic group in Pomerelia, north-central Poland. Their settlement area is referred to as Kashubia (Kashubian: Kaszëbë; Polish: Kaszuby; German: Kaschubei, Kaschubien)".

...overwhelmingly see themselves as Polish - so did Polish Jews at the eve of the war - why are they listed separately?

Do you have other objections, or can I restore that revision? François Robere (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Polish Górals and Kaszubs saw themselves as Poles. Those are the ones discussed in this article.

Perhaps the "Jewish collaborators" subsection should be changed to a new section such as "Collaboration by Polish Jews"?

Nihil novi (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

You miss the point: User:E-960 claimed neither group is a distinct ethnicity, and so they shouldn't be listed under "ethnic minorities". But they are, and in the current article structure that's where that paragraph fits. François Robere (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I do object your changes are not correct, also quoting other Wikipedia articles is not a reliable reference source. Gorals in Slovaka migrated over form Poland over the centuries. Pls look at Polish government census data, near total majority of Gorals and Kaszubs declare Polish identity first, and then Goral or Kaszub as their regional sub-identity. So, it appears you do not have a practical understanding of the matter, but just googling around for answers. As for the German, Belorussian, Ukrainian minorities they just declared it as their only identity, so that a big difference in classification you are not understanding. --E-960 (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I do object your changes are not correct - which? You made seven reverts to which I replied at the top of this post - which do you still object, and why exactly?

also quoting other Wikipedia articles is not a reliable reference source - of course not, but they are backed by sources, and it's easy to add some more (, ). François Robere (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, can also rename the section "ethnic and regional minorities", if that will resolve this issue for you. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To all the questionable and incorrect changes you made. Also, you do not need to change anymore section titles because its clear that you are trying to project your POV on to the article, and the Goral/Kaszubs example is proof of that. --E-960 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Which changes and why? Be specific. You won't block these edit by saying "I oppose everything you did and I'm not going to explain why."

@Ealdgyth: Your opinion? François Robere (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

François Robere has been making his "reorganizing" of the article an occasion to also remove documented information that doesn't conform to his interpretation of history—some of which information E-960 has now restored to the article.

Nihil novi (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Like what? François Robere (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the both of you (User:E-960, User:Nihil novi). As I see it at the moment:

1. I made several edits, all explained above and in edits summaries (WP:BURDEN).
2. E-960 made seven reversals, but justified only two.
   1. On the matter of "state collaboration" I explained my reasoning and suggested a compromise (he ignored both).
   2. On the matter of the minorities I brought supporting sources and suggested a compromise (he ignored both).
   3. On the other five points he merely said that they're "wrong" and he disagrees, but refused to explain why (WP:IDONTLIKEIT).
3. Along the way he made several personal attacks and cast aspersions.

This conduct does not promote consensus. François Robere (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, there are editors who do not agree with your massive changes, as they are factually inaccurate and your approach is disruptive. You keep ignoring that, even when an explanation was provided. --E-960 (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

You say they're "factually inaccurate"? prove it. You only explained only two of your seven objections, and even there you didn't commit to a discussion. It's WP:IDONTLIKEIT, plain and simple. François Robere (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@E-960 and Nihil novi: Both of you floated some claims here but refused to substantiate them. Are you going to do so or not? François Robere (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Having reviewed the above discussion I can't support edits made by Francois Robere, they seem to be highly controversial and not in line with mainstream research, for example GG was not a state and we can't write there was state collaboration.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No one said anything about the GG. François Robere (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

References

A new academic book

https://universitas.com.pl/produkt/3751/Wymuszona-wspolpraca-czy-zdrada-Wokol-przypadkow-kolaboracji-Zydow-w-okupowanym-Krakowie Xx236 (talk) 06:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

550,000 soldiers - false

The number of German soldiers in occupied Poland was generally much lower. It was high only when the front passed Poland in in 1939, 1941 and 1944/1945. My source is G. Aly Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State.Xx236 (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Please be precise

National service is a system of either compulsory or voluntary government service.

• The Baudienst was compulsory.
• Bau means construction, not labor.

Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

executed collaborators

• There were many levels of collaboration. Only the most radical cases were punished by death and not all sentences were implemented.
• Józef Kondrat was punished with infam for his participation in the Heimkehr.
• Women who had sex with Germans were boycottet.Xx236 (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion...

I'm seeing a lot of discussion focused on other editors rather than on high-quality sources. Remember, wikipedia editing is based on sources and this should be the focus of talk page discussions, not what motivations you think other editors have. This article is under discretionary sanctions, and if it starts degenerating again it's likely to result in more sanctions for battleground behavior. If you object to an edit, bring sources to the table that show how the edit is incorrect. (And no, I won't be banning/blocking/etc because, again, my Holocaust editing likely makes me an involved editor so I'm posting this just as a helpful reminder of best editing practices and as a wake up call). Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Ealdgyth. François Robere (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, there exists an academic book by Zimmerman and I sugest François Robere to read the book (the Polish edition corrects some errors).Xx236 (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Important section missing=punishment of collaboration

Mainstream works on collaboration in Nazi occupied Poland(besides dividing it between General Government and Annexed Territories, something this article completely lacks) is the massive organized effort to punish collaboration and setting up underground judiciary system by Polish Government in Exile that prosecuted and sentenced collaborators. Polish Wikipedia has a seperate article on the subject https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C4%85dy_podziemne And there are available publications discussing it in detail

• [8]
• [9]
• Jacek Andrzej Młynarczyk. Pomiędzy współpracą a zdradą. Problem kolaboracji w Generalnym. Gubernatorstwie. – próba syntezy. Próba zdefiniowania pojęć.

It would very constructive for the article to add this section and information from scholarly works. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately it wasn't "massive", and depended heavily on some very narrow definitions of what constituted "collaboration". If we're talking <20,000 sentences in total in a country a thousand times that size, it's hardly notable. François Robere (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Since there was little collaboration in Poland that is perfectly understandable.Since you voice no objections, I will add a section about this--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, you're not, and neither can you claim that "there was little collaboration" after removing material stating the opposite just today. François Robere (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I haven't even added anything, please wait till material is added before engaging in objections.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion other than titling it "The massive justice apparatus of the underground state (which had very little work, because hardly anyone collaborated)" then you're welcome to bring it. François Robere (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, please define the collaboration. It's impossible to discuss the level of collaboration without defining it. Xx236 (talk) 06:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime.[1]

Stanley Hoffmann subdivided collaboration onto

involuntary (reluctant recognition of necessity) and

voluntary (an attempt of exploiting necessity).[2]

According to him, collaborationism can be subdivided onto

servile and

ideological

Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed excessive quote that added little on subject of collaboration.

If anyone wants to discuss this[10] I don't see it adding much on the subject. As I mentioned earlier There is almost no mention of collaboration in the quote-we already have numerous quotes and data regarding antisemitism.Note that it on its own isn't necessarily collaboration,some anti-semites were hostile to both Jews and Germans, some assisted Jews in surviving genocide, while wanting them out of Poland after the war. As to number of Jews that were saved and that were denounced-there is already very lenghty passage above it, so really don't see how it improves the article. Generally building articles by adding quotes after quotes doesn't seem good form to me.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. The PR itself clearly states this was a form of collaboration, as have other sources like Connelly ("structural collaboration") on which the section is based: "Polish underground fighters, that were willing to fight bravely and zealously against the German occupiers, contributed on their part to a certain aspect of Nazi policy in occupied Poland and to its vast success: The murder of Jews." They also specifically mention the Blue Police, Jedwabne and its surroundings, and other cases of collaboration mentioned in this article, such as Judenräte. François Robere (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Also: Generally building articles by adding quotes after quotes doesn't seem good form to me Yet you support including Kumoch, who isn't an RS. François Robere (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

You are free to add summaries of examples of collaboration in Poland.This quote however contains nothing of substance that would add anything to the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not true. It directly contradicts claims that Polish collaboration was "marginal" or "insignificant"; it adds to the body of RS stating AK was anti-Semitic and in large parts persecuted Jews; and it completely refutes something you started a new thread about - Polish government efforts to help Jews. Now, what does Kumoch bring to the discussion? François Robere (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It is highly POV and actually that doesn't add antyhing about this subject. "stating AK was anti-Semitic and in large parts persecuted Jews" while in itself a highly doubtful POV opinion, this has nothing to do with collaboration."it completely refutes something you started a new thread about - Polish government efforts to help Jews", again this has nothing to do with collaboration, never mind your false claim about me starting a new thread about efforts to help Jews-I started a thread about efforts of persecution of collaborators.You might take into consideration that not everything that happened in occupied Poland was connected to the issue of treatment of Jewish minority.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A political appointee who isn't even an RS is "highly POV"; three top researchers from a world-leading institution are WP:DUE.

And they touch on prosecution as well.

As for AK: They clearly state they helped promote "an aspect of Nazi policy". This is collaboration as far as this article in concerned.

No, not everything that happened in Poland was connected to the issue of the treatment of the Jewish minority, but given it was a tenth of the population; its wealth liquidated and fed into the German and Polish economies; its properties passed to the hands of Poles; its extermination requiring hundreds of thousands of troops, collaborators, manufacturers and contractors; obviously not everything is related to the treatment of the Jewish minority, but a lot does.

Now, explain to me again why you're preferring the word of politicians over actual experts? François Robere (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

François Robere - There is an academic book by Zimmerman. Please read the book and return.Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The basic question

What is this page about? You can't write about any collaboration if you don't know what the collaboration is. Lack of definition allows to attack Polish people ignoring facts and historical context. Xx236 (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Baudienst

The workers were imprisoned in obozy karne for disobidience. What can I clarify?

I haven't written about an undefined higher education, so I have removed the word higher, maybe subsequent? [11] lists available technical schools "Berufsschulen - dawne gimnazja, czyli 3-letnie szkoły rzemieślnicze lub handlowe I stopnia; Technische Fachschulen - dawne licea czyli szkoły techniczne II stopnia; Berufspfichtschulen - dawne szkoły zawodowe dokształcające - wówczas obowiązkowe szkoły zawodowe otoczone szczególnie troskliwą działalnością propagandową; Werkschulen - szkoły fabryczne w przemyśle zbrojeniowym".

Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: the above - if anyone can give the full citation for http://www.fpnp.pl/info/pdf/baudienst.pdf, as well as a translation of the passage for context. Thanks. François Robere (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"Za odmowę wykonywania pracy lub samowolne opuszczenie miejsca pracy w ramach Baudienstu groziło skierowanie do więzienia, karnego obozu pracy, a nawet kara śmierci." – "Refusal to work or desertion of workplace, under Baudienst, were punishable with prison, punitive labor camp, or even death." Interesting form of "collaboration"! Xx236 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@François Robere: I wikified the citation you asked for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of information that Baudienst was forced labour

This edit removed information that Baudienst was forced labour[12], although it was supported by RS and a quote" Baudienst (Construction Service) was a forced labour scheme for young men introduced in 1940 The Dark Heart of Hitler's Europe: Nazi Rule in Poland Under the General Government page 122". The information that Baudienst was forced labour is not controversial, it's a simple historic fact, and I can provide dozens of both Polish and English scholarly works that state it.

• Children and War: Proceedings of Symposium at Siuntio Baths, ...

Marianne Kahnert, ‎David C. Pitt, ‎Ilkka Taipale - 1983 - ‎Snippet view - ‎More editions "Adolescents and children were also forced to do hard labour at their home. Local forced labour groups were established, the so called "Baudienst""

• The Holocaust: Readings & Interpretations - Page 168

Joseph R. Mitchell, ‎Helen Buss Mitchell - 2001 ... the Polish Baudienst or 'Building Service', a National Socialist forced labour organization which coordinated the exploitation of young Polish male workers

• Obozy pracy w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie w latach 1939-1945

Józef Marszałek - 1998 The second category consisted of forced labour camps, of which type 792 functioned between 1939-1945. ... The forced labour camps of the Baudienst des Generalgouvernements (Construction Service of the Government General)

• The Tragedy of Children Under Nazi Rule - Page 139

Kiryl Sosnowski, ‎Wanda Machlejd - 1962 In Poland, as in other countries, forced labour on the spot was introduced as well as deportation for work in the Reich. In the «General Government*, a Baudienst (building service) was organized.

The fact that Baudienst was forced labour is not disputed by any scholars I am aware of. And as this is a very important fact, then I see no reason to remove this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Some Western editors lack basic knowledge about the German occupation of Poland. Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

German/Polish historian Bogdan Musiał explains what was the Baudienst. Grabowski uses a Nazi propaganda picture of Baudienst conscripts in his book. [13]Xx236 (talk) 07:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude the term, it seems supported by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We already mention that the Baudienst were conscripted starting April 1942. If you want to reinstate the term for that period, do so. For May 1940 - March 1942 we have only partial information on the conditions of their employment by the Germans (and I use that term broadly), so I don't support the inclusion for that period. There's another problem arising from this usage: What do we say of the Blue Police, Judenräte and others that were under duress, but are non the less termed "collaborators"? François Robere (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The question is whether they were always forced, or only in the later stages of their existence. If they provided those services to the Nazi authorities willingly before 1942 then the definition isn't true for that period. We need more sources on this specifically. François Robere (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"We already mention that the Baudienst were conscripted starting April 1942". The source states that death penalty was introduced in 1942 for avoiding this form of forced labour, not they were conscripted, where are you getting this from? Intially the penalty for avoiding Baudienst was imprisonment, but this became so widespread that Germans made the penalty harsher."The question is whether they were always forced, or only in the later stages of their existence. "There is no question-Baudienst was always forced service, although you could volunteer for it. "If they provided those services to the Nazi authorities willingly before 1942 then the definition isn't true for that period. We need more sources on this specifically."If you want to claim that Baudienst was voluntary before 1942 you need to find sources on this, but you simply won't find any.From the start it was a form of forced labour. Since out of 4 editors, only you try to challenge this, without presenting any sources, than it seems that you are not really representing consenus or able to back your claims with sources on this subject. As such I believe this discussion can be ended, unless you find sources supporting your claims.If you want a detalied analysis of this subject, there is an extensive work on it by Mścisław Wróblewski "Służba Budowlana (Baudienst) w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie, 1940–1945" 1984, Państwowe Wydawn. Nauk.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

See comment on another section [14]. François Robere (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Using an eds nationality race or ethnicity to belittle or dismiss their opinions is against policy, I ask all users to stop it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Is editing Wikipedia pages or discussing them without basic knowledge of the subject correct?

Is miquoting Wikipedia correct?

I ask all users to stop it.

Is Western a nationality, race or ethnicity?

Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What is being questioned here? Baudienst were conscripted, through this was not generally done at gun-point, AFAIK - through refusal (escape) could be punished by death in some cases. It was portrayed by German propaganda as "good work", through of course it was little better then slave labor. Still, it is likely some desperate for work individuals might have volunteered; most however had no choice (other than said escape, either before joining or after) as they were assigned to Baudienst by the government officials (essentially, if you had no other job, Baudienst service was de facto unemployment benefit of that time and place - the occupant gov't told you to go to work there. Or else - i.e you became a criminal/fugitive.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Security forces ?

The section should describe the police. The Baudienst was a forced labor service and Wehrmacht was an army.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree about The Baudienst, but not the Wehrmacht , they they are the armed forces. But the British army in NI was part of the security forces as were...But there is no need to go on.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, that's quite correct, perhaps we can move the Baudienst to the Individual collaboration section, since this was a civilian matter? --E-960 (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. If the Baudienst were conscripts, then they're neither "individual" nor "civilian". François Robere (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I named it (and User:E-960 reverted it) "security forces and national services". All three were national services of some sort, all three had a conscript element, and all three took part in the "reign of terror". There's no reason to separate them. François Robere (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Being conscripts does not make them part of the security forces, do you have a source for the claim they were?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I did not say they were a security force, I said grouping them with the security forces makes sense because they all shared some core elements: conscription, taking part in security/terror operations, and being run by the state. This is not unlike how the scouts (or parts thereof) are considered part of the resistance due to their nature, rather than their designation. François Robere (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Are they?Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

There you go again François Robere, your section title was reverted because it was also incorrect. When Poland was occupied there was no "National Services" otherwise you risk implying that there was a collaborationist Polish national service (like in Vichy France). Perhaps the section should be renamed "Uniformed Services". Btw, the Baudienst was a civilian auxiliary service not military (kind of like a mailman has a uniform works for government, but is still a civilian not military) this just shows that again, you lack proper subject matter knowledge. --E-960 (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't. The term "national service" refers to service of the nation, not by the nation. As for "uniformed services" - that includes firemen, train conductors and indeed, mailmen. François Robere (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The Gray Ranks.

So they were an active part of the resistance? So no not the same as something that just happened to be working for the state.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The Baudienst didn't "happen" to be working for the state - they were intended to - and they took part in the organized persecution of Jews; this puts them on par with the "Blue Police" and other "security" organizations. Another parallel for the purpose of this discussion are engineering corps, which are part of a military but are often employed on civilian projects of national importance, and/or those that concern public safety and security. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

And there is a difference (assuming you have a source for the claim) between being part of the security services and engaging in persecution. Did they take an active part in security operations?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they did, and we say so in the article - they cordoned Jewish neighborhoods while the other "services" operated, and searched houses for hiding Jews or valuables left behind. François Robere (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Friedrich (2005), Collaboration in a Land without Quisling:

Beyond strengthening the Nazified education and discipline of the younger generation through "hard labor," the organization also pursued economic and politically propagandistic aims. The Baudienst was made up of eighteen- to twenty three-year-old Polish and Ukrainian draftees who were kept in barracks under the command of German officers, paid "pocket-money," and made to labor in public works... Towards the end of the war, the cheap labor reserve gained importance in the buildup of defense positions in the GG...

Polish firemen, volunteers of "Organisation Todt" who were usually engaged in construction work, and Baudienst conscripts or junacy (as they were often called in Polish) took part in anti-Jewish crimes as auxiliary staff... In June 1942, "an unknown number of Poles from the Baudienst" supported SS, German, and Polish police in a vast operation (Aktion) against forty thousand Jews who had been compelled to reside in the southern Polish town of Tarnow. Junacy dug up graves where Jewish victims of massacres were buried (for example, in Sambor), they closed off the Jewish quarter in order to keep inmates from fleeing, and they took part in deportations; sometimes the Poles had to search houses and apartments after theirJewish inhabitants had been deported. Dutifully, they dragged those who were hiding out of sheds and crawlspaces and collected the Jews' belongings...

François Robere (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, they I think we can say they did operate as part of security forces. They did rather more then just dig ditches or erect fortifications.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Which nation?

• The Ostbahn (General Government) was a branch of the Deutsche Reichsbahn National Railway of Germany, apparently of the German nation and ethnic Poles didn't belong to the German nation.
• The Deutsche Post Osten was Deutsch/German.

Xx236 (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: In general what we're talking about here is a certain class of services provided by the state, intended (in a well-functioning state) to maintain safety, security and order. Different terms are employed in different places to describe different services: national service, emergency services, armed services, community service, civic service (not to be confused with "civil services") etc. My main reason for moving the "Baudienst" in with the "Blue Police" and "Wehrmacht" is that they're essentially part of the same class of organizations; the name of the section is of lesser importance. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It's true that the three organisation belong to one class - Nazi terror organisations. The organisations drafted people and the German state punished those who refused to obey.

Similar organisations existed in any occupied country. Some editors criticize Polish people and refuse to write about other nations. It's propaganda, not Wikipedia. Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This is seems highly dubious original research or lack of knowledge.There was no national service in Genera Government nor was it a state.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

No one said so. You're off-topic. François Robere (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The name of this page is Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, which includes the GG, lands annected to Reich and the East (Northern Kresy). Any area was specific and the page should inform about the details.

the name of the section is of lesser importance - a surprising opinion. Is it your general attitude? Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The GG was a German zone of occupation. If your sources say it was a state or nation, please quote your reliable sources. The Baudienst existed only in some districts of the GG. Xx236 (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as I understand the Poles should have refused to work for the German state. The German state controlled the economy, rationed food, enslaved or imprisoned. The only way to completely refuse in occupied Poland was to die. Xx236 (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Enough wit the emotive rhetoric. The issue of whether or not forced collaboration is collaboration is different from the issue of whether or not labour battalions are part of the security forces.Slatersteven (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Uniformed services makes for an easy fix. --E-960 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Part of this discussion is about English usage conventions: "National services" would make due, despite what some of you think it implies; "uniformed services" is technically correct, but isn't common (neither Merriam-Webster, ODE or Collins have entries for it [15][16][17]). If that'll quell your concerns then use it, but it's not the best option. François Robere (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

national service

noun

a period of compulsory service in the armed forces during peacetime (phased out in the UK by 1963).

Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. As I said, it's one of several terms used to describe such engagement. Some would use "civic service" or "community service" instead. It don't actually mind what term we use as long as it's idiomatic (for example, "community service" sounds off in the context of the "Baudeinst", but it would've been okay if they did not take part in "security" operations). François Robere (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Yet another term that would be used had the "Baudienst" not used expressly for the purpose of advancing the Nazi regime and its reign of terror would be "public works". François Robere (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we are losing our way here. We are talking about their presence in security services. I am, sure we can all agree that renaming this to "public works" is nonsensical given the presence of police. So arew we saying we rename the section, or move them to a new one?Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, I would suggest Uniformed Services, it a catch-all that's applicable to both police, military, and civilian auxiliary. --E-960 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well as a source has been provided saying they did take part (directly) in security operations I do not see what the issue is now, why is the source wrong?Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The goal of this page and this discussion is to prove that Poles are coresponsible for Nazi crimes. There is no such page about any Western nation (excludind Luxemburg). I believe that Wikipedia should be neutral. The Poles weren't allowed to disobey, they were murdered or deported to concentration camps. Please learn about the Nazi terror in Poland, described even by Grabowski in his "Hunt for Jews". The Baudienst workers were drafted and harshly punished. Only some of the officers were collaborators. If digging graves was collaboration, many Jews did collaborate. A number of peasants digged graves for my family. I have never considered them as collaboratora. The head of the village was ordered and no discussion was possible. Friedrich is German so not exactly neutal. The Sambor Ghetto doesn't say anything about the Buadienst but Ukrainian Auxillary Police. Sambor was situated in Distrikt Galizien. Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Do Security forces link any forced labor organisation? The Baudienst didn't have any security mandate. Xx236 (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff is not a valid argument. If other pages do not do this find RS that claim it and alter them.Slatersteven (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

If this page is different, it's so because some editors are biased anti-Polish. And some editors lack basic knowledge, too.Xx236 (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe it is because users on the other pages are? Or maybe it is because there is too much effort here paid to whitewashing the Poles, or maybe it is because no RS have said that Russian POW's being used as forces labour were part of the security apparatus, Or maybe it is because only the Baudienst was used for security operations, or maybe....but there is no need to go on. You do not know why this is the case, and the above is an assumptive PA. We have an RS that say they carried out security operations, do you have an RS that says they did not?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The whitewashing is symmetrical to painting black. The history of the page shows who has started. Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Are chimney sweeps security forces? They are uniformed and they work hard like the Baudienst.Xx236 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Do RS say they took part in security operations?Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

What is missing in the article and this discussion is that Baudienst was forced labour, to which people were drafted by force and located in forced labour camps. The best place to name it would be under Forced Labour section.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the existing source they weren't conscripted until April 1942, two years after they were formed. Not least unimportant, you're raising the problem of defining "collaboration" - the Blue Police were conscripted, and Judenrat members were often under some threat or another, but we don't excuse them for it. We've had a few discussions on it before, and for the meanwhile we've been keeping as close to the sources as possible. François Robere (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"According to the existing source they weren't conscripted until April 1942"-again wrong, the exisiting source says they were punished by death if they evaded forced labour in Baudienst starting from 1942, not that it only became forced labour in 1942. For the record it was forced labour from the start." we've been keeping as close to the sources as possible"-the source you are quoting as mentioned doesn't state it was forced labour only starting in 1942. I have presented multipile sources below confirming that it was a forced labour.If there are no sources to support your claim that it only started being forced in 1942 I will restore this information.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have started (at least to the outside) as a conscripted service, and slowly deteriorated to actual "forced labor" in the sense that you're suggesting (slave labor). One source quoted at the main article elaborates on their living and work conditions at the beginning, and Melnyk (2017) mentions service terms; but other sources mention terrible conditions and arbitrarily long conscription period; neither accounts for the horrors Grabowski (2013) describes that were perpetrated by some of the Baudienst. So it seems we need to console all of this in that one section. François Robere (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"I'm not completely sure, but it seems to have started (at least to the outside) as a conscripted service"-all reliable sources named is as forced labor. If you believe it wasn't you need reliable sources claiming it wasn't.As you yourself admitted you yourself aren't sure.Since you haven't provided any sources, and we are left with yout opinion only, than I suggest ending this discussion until you find sources supporting your theory.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Do re-read what I said: it seems we need to console all of this in that one section - conscription, forced labor, and zeal in persecuting Jews that is unexplained by either. François Robere (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: Please self-revert this. Discussion is ongoing and it's a WP:CRP violation. François Robere (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Please don't demand me to lie. Bau is construction, it's basic German. And I refuse to discuss with you slave work in occupied Poland, it's below my dignity.Xx236 (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair

The text and reference sources on the Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair should be re-add to the article: "Jewish agent-provocateurs were used by the Germans in several high profile actions to entrap Poles who were helping Jews, and to bait Jews hiding outside of the ghettos. In one incident in the village of Paulinów, the Germans used a Jewish agent to pose as an escapee looking for a hiding place with a Polish family, after receiving help the agent denounced the Polish family to the Germans, resulting in the deaths of 12 Poles and several Jews who were hiding with the family. Jewish agents from the Żagiew network, falsely promised Jews hiding outside of the ghetto in Warsaw who held foreign passports a safe place at Hotel Polski, while they waited to leave the General Government for neutral countries. Around 2,500 Jews came out of their hiding places and moved to the hotel. All were then transferred to the Vittel and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps"

I added the text on the Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair as two examples of agent-provocateur actions — first dealing with Poles being victims of the tactic and the second Jews, however user François Robere removed them, both examples are legitimate with sources (more can be included). --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems very informative and I think it would be constructive addition to the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not going to speak to the first two sentences, as they were sourced to a Polish language source I cannot read. The second two sentences, however, are not supported by the original source given. The sentences "Jewish agents from the Żagiew network, falsely promised Jews hiding outside of the ghetto in Warsaw who held foreign passports a safe place at Hotel Polski, while they waited to leave the General Government for neutral countries. Around 2,500 Jews came out of their hiding places and moved to the hotel. All were then transferred to the Vittel and Bergen-Belsen concentration camps" was sourced to this Yad Vashem document. Unfortunately, that Yad Vashem document does not support the entirety of the information in the two sentences removed - there is nothing in the Yad Vashem document about "Jewish agents from the Zagiew network, falsely promised Jews hiding outside of the ghetto in Warsaw a safe place at Hotel Polski". The Yad Vashem document does not say anything about the Zagiew network at all - and it appears that the passports were forgeries ... but not made by Jews or Poles, but rather documents that had been made by the local consulates without the permission of the home countries - the Yad Vashem document says: "In mid-1943 the Gestapo used the Hotel Polski to house Jews who bore citizenship papers of neutral countries—mostly South American countries—and thus were to be exchanged for German citizens imprisoned by the Allies. Most of these citizenship papers were forged documents prepared by the neutral countries' consulates in Europe, without the knowledge of their home governments. Jews who had gone into hiding risked their lives to obtain the papers." and then later in the Yad Vashem document: "Ultimately, 300 Jews living at the Hotel Polski were deported to the Vittel camp, while another 2,000--2,500 were sent to Bergen-Belsen. The last group of 420 Jews to be taken to Bergen-Belsen was instead unloaded at the Pawiak prison and shot. The South American governments did not regard the citizenship papers as authentic, and thus refused to honor them. As a result, 2,500 Jews who considered those papers their ticket to life were deported to Auschwitz in 1943 and 1944, where they were murdered. Only a few hundred Jews were saved by their documents, most of them exchanged for Germans imprisoned in Palestine." It appears that the numbers were - 300 sent to Vittel, 420 to Pawiak, 2000 to 2500 to Bergen Belsen, and 2500 to Auschwitz, which is not what the removed text says. And this does not appear to have any bearing on the collaboration of Jews or Poles in German-occupied Poland. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:07, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Historical Institute mentions these Jewish collaborators: [18] How did the Gestapo get these documents? In the case of Hotel Polski were involved two Jewish collaborators: Leon „Lolek” Skosowski and Adam Żurawin. The A Surplus of Memory: Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by Yitzhak ("Antek") Zuckerman also mentions Zagiew and these collaborators on page 324 as does Tadeusz Piotrowski in Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces on page 74. If needed I can quote them.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Besides the two very good sources above there is mention of this in other publications, for example

Holocaust Survivors in Canada: Exclusion, Inclusion, Transformation,1947-1955 by Anna Goldberg states International passports and guarantees for Central and South American countries were sold by Jewish collaborators at Hotel Polski and came from Switzerland

The book The Case of Hotel Polski: An Account of One of the Most Enigmatic Episodes of World War II by Abraham Shulman also names Jewish collaborators as responsible. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Then those sources need to be used, not sources that do not support the information - the removal of those two sentences when they were only sourced to a Yad Vashem document that did not support the information was correct. And the Chronicle of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising source is a primary source, I suspect - since Antek was one of the leaders of the uprising. Use the secondary sources rather than primary sources - remember we are supposed to be using high quality reliable sources, which means that if secondary sources cover the information- they should be used instead of primary sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

"Then those sources need to be used" Goood, we can use then Jewish Historical Institute, Tadeusz Piotrowski and Anna Goldberg among other secondary sources. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Notes:

• The edit introduced material which contradicts the spirit of an RfC, by introducing a similar phrasing to one that was previously found to be unsupported by sources.
• It also violated WP:CRP, as it introduced parts of a text that was previously removed without first achieving consensus.
• Finally, it misrepresented a source - in itself an offense per the WP:DS rules applied on this page.

Questions:

1. Who's Joanna Kierylak?
2. Does the phrase "Jewish agent-provocateurs were used by the Germans in several high profile actions" actually appear in any of the sources? And what does "high profile" mean in this context?
3. Why is the term "provocation" used in the source rather than "operation" or something similar?

François Robere (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

We can rephrase this information based on available secondary sources.However they are highly reliable and do confirm that this operation took place and it involved Jewish collaboration, which is part of this article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Joanna Kierylak is a guide in Treblinka museum.Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I seem to recall the last time we had this conversation it tuned out none of the sources in fact supported the idea that Jewish collaborators really engaged in entrapment operations to trap Poles. I see this time the same thing seems to be occurring.Slatersteven (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, the original issue was that the sources specifically described the Paulinów incident, while the text in article described the tactic in general terms, so now the text would simply describe the two examples instead of making a broad generalizations. In fact the RfC suggested a rewording to match the sources. --E-960 (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we still imply it was a common tactic, we just give those two as examples. Also the Hotel Polski incident was not about agent provocateurs tricking Poles.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You are not reading the text correctly, no where does it say or imply that Hotel Polski incident tricked Poles, nowhere, in fact it specifically says it targeted Jews, while Paulinów incident targeted Poles. --E-960 (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed this seems to be confusion, the reliable sources provide information about Jewish Gestapo agents entrapping Jews, not Poles in this case.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm again asking:

1. So Joanna Kierylak is a museum guide. Do we have her bio, publications, anything?
2. Does the phrase "Jewish agent-provocateurs were used by the Germans in several high profile actions" actually appear in any of the sources? And what does "high profile" mean in this context?
3. Why is the term "provocation" used in the source rather than "operation" or something similar?

François Robere (talk) 16:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Which RfC supports removal of this few sentences?

@François Robere: Re: [19]? I'd appreciate an explanation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You do not need an RFC, BLD covers it, so feel free to revert and discus it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

[20]. François Robere (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, pls see the last sentence, "here was suggestion of rewriting the sentence so that it would be supported by the sources; further discussion on that can of course occur. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)" So, François Robere why did you remove the text if it was supported by sources, and if you think that they were not optimal, more could be found and were see discussion above. --E-960 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

further discussion on that can of course occur No discussion has occurred. You restored the text with only minor changes, while ignoring the objections raised during the previous discussion. What you should've done is brought it to talk so a text that's acceptable to everyone can be formulated. François Robere (talk) 16:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This text is about Paulinów and Hotel Polski only, the previous text never mentioned the two incidents. How can it possibly be restored old text. --E-960 (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

No, but it referred to those incidents (as obvious from the RfC discussion) and was based on the same sources. François Robere (talk) 19:54, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Can we keep this in one thread?Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I merged this with the other thread to keep things orderly. François Robere (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed the RfC and rewriting was suggested and IMHO preferred. The old sentence made unfounded claims about Jewish collaborationist groups, the current version seems more correct attributing the agency to Germans using individual Jewish agents. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Baudienst

If you have reliable sources about the Baudienst, please correct that page. This page is about the Collaboration in German-occupied Poland, not about basic description of the Baudienst.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Maybe we should move the Baudiesnt discussion to Talk:Baudienst?

Well, in general Baudienst could use improvement. Anyway, the current Baudientst section here is poorly referenced. The ref to "Antoni Mączak, Encyklopedia historii gospodarczej Polski do 1945 roku: O-Ż (Encyclopedia of Poland's Economic History: O–Ż), Warsaw, Wiedza Powszechna, 1981." doesn't have page number or url, and I'll remove it shortly as unverifiable. This is much better (online, verifiable, reliable). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The Encyklopedia is availabe for exchange [21]. Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

What has been added?Slatersteven (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be a different tome than the one cited (through perhaps this is the correct one, considering the tome titles... just another reason to remove this source, since the person citing might have gotten the tome wrong anyway). Anyway, whoever added it should have noted down page numbers. After years here I believe that we need to teach lazy/sloppy editors to be less so, and if this means removing offline sources without page numbers, good. Learn how to cite properly, please. Or if this is too tough, said editors should stick to forums, where the bar to contribute is much less than to encyclopedia.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

A 2006 bibliography is available: [22]

It quotes a 1984 book by Wróblewski. It's based on his doctor thesis. Xx236 (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is a discussion, which quotes one Aktion - the workers were transported to an another place and obtained vodka. [23] Xx236 (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)