Talk:World War II/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

opening figure death toll

can we change the opening figure to match with the causalities page, figure of 70-85 million this page right now says 50-85 million for the opening?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC) @Nick-D: @Paul Siebert: I just wanted to point it out I know the range gives a neutral point of view

What sources support that range? Nick-D (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, on the World War II casualties page it has 70-85 million for the total deaths,and on the chart on the casualties page it has the 70-85 million range with sources, for each country to.I was suggesting to change it so it world match,with the causalities page.Jack90s15 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC). Jack90s15 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

WP:NOTSOURCE--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

was trying to suggest since the World War II casualties page uses the 70 million figure and that page as multiple sources for the death toll. Is to simply just switch the 50 to 70 so both Pages can match.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC) @Paul Siebert:Jack90s15 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't using it as a source I was using it as an example to explain, why I suggesting to switch it to 70, so both Pages have the same death toll range.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC) @Paul Siebert: so it would read World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 70to85 million fatalities then both pages would matchJack90s15 (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Discussing his latest book, Victor Davis Hanson gives the number of 60 to 65 million: Victor Davis Hanson: World War Two-Then and Now, via Youtube. This is an interesting lecture, by the way, and well worth watching. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I saw that video when it came out last year it was good,the National World War 2 Museum uses the about 70 million, figure for total deaths. was just trying to suggest since the World War II casualties page uses the 70 million figure, and that page as multiple sources for the death toll,Is to simply just switch the 50 to 70 so both Pages can match. Jack90s15 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC) https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war @K.e.coffman:Jack90s15 (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I realize now the the range given on this page would make the reader, go over to the World War II casualties page, and look at it more in depth. And then they would see that the overall, death toll would be about 70 to 85 million.Jack90s15 (talk) 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I got his book The Second World Wars How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won and on Pg 463 chapter 19 the dead, he gives a range the highest he gives is 85 million, so the page does fit what historians say the death toll is around.Jack90s15 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC) @K.e.coffman:Jack90s15 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hello Paul Siebert and Nick-D

I was sidetracked for a bit, but am recovered after a bout with H1N1 Influenza A. I wrote up a start on "Collaboration," from which we can work on to whittle down/add to it. It's about 1,000 words, 3-4 par.

Collaboration

Collaboration does not conjure up anything righteous, but rather, reprehensible: nothing short of conspiring with the enemy. The word “collaboration” has thus become synonymous with any accomplice for the Axis Powers or Tripartite Pact. People, politicians, or populations who cooperated with, aided, assisted, or abetted Fascist Germany, Italy, or Japan — were regarded as traitors.

In any sense of the word — broad or narrow — the collaboration was reviled and despised. In its broad sense, there are those who avoided bloodshed by idolizing fascism and dictators from afar while espousing impressionable leaders and their fascist ideologies — such as Fritz Kuhn and the German American Bund party. A more malevolent meaning in its stricter sense meant those who found the chance of personal, political, or profit-making reward — collaborated with the Axis occupiers. It may have been as simple as an individual acting as an informant: alternatively, as complicated as well-known politicians bent on political gain. France’s Pétain and Norway’s Quisling (the modern-day word for “collaborator” bears his name) sought such an alliance with Nazi Germany. There are others who reaped economic profits, such as neutral Sweden, who reluctantly acquiesced to allowing the German import of Swedish steel. Money-making as it was, Swedish nationals perceived it as contemptible, and equivalent to collaboration.

Others with the fulfillment of territorial expansion like Mussolini strove for a re-emergence of the Roman Empire, from which Hitler appears to have modeled the same playbook. Mussolini’s collaborative effort with the signing of the Rome-Berlin Axis catapulted both countries into a contest of conquest. While Mussolini’s Greco-Italian campaign failed, Hitler’s blitzkrieg succeeded, leaving Europe quickly occupied by one or the other fascist leader, or both, aided by co-conspirators in conquered countries. Freedom from oppression — welcomed in Ukraine and the Baltic states that were first occupied by the Soviets, followed by the Germans — regarded the Axis occupiers as “liberators” and sought to collaborate and reap the spoils of victory. Many others who feared the inevitable onslaught — such as Yugoslavia’s Prince Paul, compelled into signing the Tripartite Pact — feigned approval. Nonetheless, Axis-occupied countries eventually developed sycophantic regimes that cooperated with their Axis masters, laying bare their country's' coffers, and inevitably, their most important asset — its people.

Sympathies towards the Axis-occupiers undoubtedly were found in groups of people who were encouraged by their fascist-led parties. Fascists parties of the conquered countries allowed collaborators to join Axis military and paramilitary organizations or field gendarmerie. Some were even encouraged towards the inception of their unique entity, where enlistment became a form of nationalism (see Collaboration with the Axis Powers). German-speaking Eastern Europeans known as Volksdeutsche sympathised with their Teutonic brethren, some joining police squads. Collaborationist police forces such as Poland’s Blue Police forcibly conscripted native ex-policemen or faced severe penalties. Collaborationist military forces arose to combat communist fear publicly announced by the Germans, much like Greece’s infamous Security Battalions. Authority to arrest and detain anyone they so wished without due process was common. Axis-occupied countries evolved into sycophantic mouthpieces of their Nazi or Imperial Japanese overlords, designed to maintain law and order once they relinquished power. Economic collaboration also grew and developed either with or without existing banking systems in place. Occupied countries eventually came to terms with the reality of Germany or Japan’s absolute rule. Both political and economic collaboration was a necessity to avoid loss of the workforce and sustain its people, banking system, economy, and maintain the civilian rule of law.

Fear became an all-too-often-seen motivator, as the prospect of imprisonment or death became too high a risk, choosing instead to collaborate with the Axis powers. State-sponsored religious and minority hatred for the Jews, the Gypsies, as well as for communist sympathy, was rampant. Germany's European puppet governments cooperated with the Nazis by enforcing anti-Jewish legislation. In some cases, they even deported their own Jewish citizens into German custody en route to concentration camps or labor camps. Fascist paramilitaries terrorized or murdered indigenous Jews: the Hlinka Guard of Slovakia, the Iron Guard of Romania, the Ustasha of Croatia, and the Arrow Cross Party of Hungary, are just a few of the all-too-pervasive evil thread entwined in the populace of occupied Europe. Additionally, military police and the gendarmerie played a vital role in the seizure of property, imprisonment, and deportation of Jews and political dissidents. Police and military officials in Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria, and Vichy France, to name a few, implemented Nazi policies of deporting Jews to killing centers or concentration camps, the most grisly instrument of terror used by the Nazis and its Final Solution, too atrocious even to comprehend.

Collaboration had no respect for border or culture. For those who worked alongside the Germans to earn favor — and for many, their lives — the collaboration was ubiquitous. Like the multi-headed monster of Greek mythology, it came in many forms of both personal and political gain. In the long run, Germany and Japan oversaw complete control of its occupied countries. Puppet governments were installed, with the ultimate benefit to Germany or Japan the final objective: never for the benefit of the vanquished. Many subdued countries experienced poverty and runaway inflation resulting in famine, as occurred in Greece. Agricultural and dairy products were already scarce and diverted to the Germans, worsened by Allied embargos. Axis promises were eroded and exposed as capricious. Japan, victorious over their Asian foes, had equally never intended for a harmonious relationship between themselves and those they conquered. They ruled their occupied countries with brutality. Occupied China became tantamount to a slave-state, where pillage, rape, and murder knew no bounds, as occurred in Nanking. Japan's vanquished quickly found their Asian-overlords to be the worse ruler over their former white colonials, seen in the Philippines and French Indo-China. Where one colonial rule had replaced another, Japan’s regard for fellow Asians was nothing short of vicious and brutal. Nonetheless, collaboration existed under Asian colonies of American, British and Dutch rule. Eventually, this led to the emergence of an independent Philippines and Indonesia and the rise of the Viet Minh in Vietnam, longing to rid white colonialism from their shores.

Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That material isn't suitable at all - it's written as an essay, and not in the tone used in the article. It's also rather lengthy. Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bigeez, I took a liberty to re-format your post and separate it into a separate section.

I agree with Nick, this text needs to be significantly modified. First, we do not need to speak about collaboration in general (we have a separate article on that subject). Second, the section must be as compact as possible and as concrete as possible: (i) who was collaborating and with whom (as a rule, we can focus mostly on collaboration with the Axis, probably, separately in Asia and Europe), (ii) what collaboration consisted in (including the participation in the Holocaust); (iii) the reasons for collaboration (nationalistic movements, support of Nazi ideology, etc). Third, every key statement should be supported with a reference to a reliable source.

Currently, I am busy, but I'll join you in a close future. Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D and Paul Siebert,

Right on all accounts. I am indebted to your counseling and editing expertise. I hope I haven't led you astray, believing this is the tone of the submission (which isn’t in plain English at all, and rather unWiki in style). The brief wasn't meant to be a copy/paste; it is, rather, me blurting these 4 paras, merely to serve as a fact-finding mission to capstone the project. In that, it succeeded. Therefore, outlining the “collaboration” heading will be 3 para., of which these are:

(i) who was collaborating, and with whom

1. Asia
2. Europe

(ii) what collaboration consisted in? (or better, what collaboration consisted “of”?)

(iii) the reasons for collaboration

1. nationalistic movements
2. support of Nazi ideology
3. ?
4. ?

Thank you for the feedback.

If you will, also on (ii) and (iii) above?

Cheers,

Eli. Bigeez (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Eli. First of all, please, don't mark your edits as minor, it is misleading. Second, your responses are easier to understand if you put proper indentation (I reformatted your post as an example). If you stick with that style (as recommended), other people will be able to follow our discussion more easily, and they are more likely to join us.

I am less familiar with Asia, but in Europe, overwhelming majority of collaborators collaborated with Nazi Germany (Slovaks, French, Croats, West Ukrainians, Baltic nations.

Collaboration consisted in participation in hostilities on the Axis side (WaffenSS, auxiliary troops, or paramilitary forces), identification and killing of Jews an Communists, anti-partisan warfare, etc. Some of collaborators (e.g. POWs did that semi-voluntarily or the collaboration was purely compulsory), with regard to ideology driven collaboration, there were four reasons for it: support of the Nazi ideology, anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, or a desire to establish independent fascist-type national state. The examples of the first type collaboration are West European Waffen-SS volunteers (Norwegian, Dutch, French), second - some East European collaborators (Ukrainian or Lithuanian), third - Baltic, West Ukrainian, fourth - Slovakia, Croatia, West Ukraine.

In addition to the description of the very facts of collaboration, we should give a reader an impression of its scale: thus, the contribution of local population to the defence of the Northern segment of the Eastern Front near Estonia or Latvia during 1943-45 was very significant. Mass killing of Jews after the start of Barbarossa was perpetrated by special troops composed primarily of local volunteers, and so on.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken to prevent this section from being too long (two paras is probably a good target) and too Europe-centric. The complexity of "collaboration" in South East Asia also needs to be recognised, as the dynamics were different than in Europe. The Japanese presented themselves as liberators of colonial peoples, and this was accepted by at least parts of the local independence movements. The reality was of course much different in most parts of South East Asia, but it took time for this to sink in. In the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its (limited) collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support to declare the Netherlands East Indies independent, which doomed the Dutch attempts to regain control after the war to defeat. Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D (talk) and Paul Siebert (talk), Mia culpa, so sorry for my ignorance on indents (as recommended). Thank you both for your expertise on WWII as well as in mentoring me. I will strive to hit the mark. Regards, Eli — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigeez (talk • contribs) 21:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D (talk) and Paul Siebert (talk), feel free to add/detract from outline. Also, the paradigm: Collaboration/Resistance is best left in another article, unless you both believe otherwise. Besides, two paragraphs is far too much already. Regards, Eli

I. Collaboration in Europe

A. Who was collaborating, and with whom in Europe

1. Countries

2. Dictators

3. Ethnic groups

4. Political groups

a. German American Bund

5. Industrial groups

a. Hollywood

6. Individuals

a. John Amery (England)

b. Gertrude Stein (American)

7. POWs

a. Semi-voluntarily

(1) Kathleen de Haas

(2) Pearl Joyce Vardon

b. Compulsory (Ostarbeiter)

B. What collaboration consisted in? (what collaboration consisted “of”?)

1. Participation in:

a. hostilities on the Axis side

(1) Waffen SS

(a) Ukraine - Galician SS Division

(b) Latvia - Latvian Legion

(c) Belgium - ‘Légion Wallonie’

(d) Norway - ‘Wiking’

(e) Croatia - ‘Prinz Eugen’

(f) Hungary - ‘Hunyadi’

(g) Albania - ‘Skanderbeg’

(h) Holland - ‘Landstorm Nederland’

(2) Paramilitary groups

(a) Feldgendarmerie

(b) Selbstschutz

(c) SS-Totenkopfverbände

(d) Security Battalions of Greece

(e) Hlinka Guard of Slovakia

(f) Iron Guard of Romania

(g) Ustasha of Croatia

(3) Auxiliary troops

(a) Hiwi

(b) Organization Todt

(c) Schutzmannschaften

(i) Lithuanian Auxiliary Police

(ii) Latvian

(iii) Estonian

(iv) Belarusian

(v) Ukrainian

(d) Trawniki men

(e) Polizei of occupation countries in the East

b. hostilities on the Allied side

(1) John Amery (England)

(2) Gertrude Stein (American)

2. Identification and killing of

a. Jews

b. Communists

c. partisans

d. Minorities

(1) Ethnic groups

(2) Roma, or Gypsies

(3) mentally ill

(4) genetic illnesses

C. Reasons for collaboration

1. Nationalistic movements as causes for collaboration

a. Austria - Anschluss

b. Czechoslovakia

2. Ideology-driven causes for collaboration:

a. Nazism — West European Waffen-SS volunteers

(1) Norwegian

(2) Dutch

(3) French

b. Anti-semitism — East European collaborators

(1) Ukrainian

(2) Lithuanian

c. Anti-communism

(1) Baltic

(2) West Ukrainian

(3) Greek

d. Desire to establish independent fascist-style national states

(1) Belgium (VNV, DeGrelle’s Rexists)

(2) Croatia (Ustasha)

(3) France (Vichy)

(4) Greece (Greek National Socialist Party)

(5) Hungary (Miklos Horthy, Arrow Cross Party)

(6) Norway (Quisling)

(7) Slovakia (Jozef Tiso, Andrej Hlinka)

II. Collaboration in Japan

A. Who was collaborating, and with whom in Japan

1. Countries

2. Dictators

3. Political groups

4. POWs

a. Semi-voluntarily

(1) British Free Corps (BFC)

b. Compulsory

(1) Major Charles Cousens

(2) John Holland

B. What collaboration consisted in? (what collaboration consisted “of”?)

1. Participation in:

a. hostilities on the Axis side

(1) Waffen SS

(a) Indische Freiwilligen-Legion derWaffen-SS

(b)

(2) Insurgent armies

(a) Burma Independence Army

(b) Collaborationist Chinese Army

(c) Battaglione Azad Hindoustan

(d) INA - Indian National Army

(3) Auxiliary troops

(a)Kenpeitai

a. Ethnic groups

b. Communists

c. partisans

d. Minorities

C. Reasons for collaboration

1. Nationalistic movements as causes for collaboration

a. French Indo-China

(1) Sukarno, Indonesia

(2) Vichy-French controlled protectorates

(a) Cambodia

(b) Laos

b. Malaya

(1) KMM

c. Siam, becoming Thailand

(1) Pibul Songgram

d. Philippines

e. Burma

2. Ideology-driven causes for collaboration:

a. Desire to establish independent fascist-style national states

(1) India

(2) French Indo-China

Bigeez (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it me or is this growing into sub article territory? Britmax (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bigeez, assuming that "Collaborationism is cooperation with the enemy against one's country in wartime", I think a significant part of what you propose is beyond the scope of this section. Definitely, collaboration of one state or one nation with Nazi Germany or Japan was more like an alliance. I propose to narrow the scope of this subsection to just collaboration of local population of some occupied or subordinated territory with the enemy. In addition, taking into account that during WWII the foreign territories were occupied primarily by the Axis, we can speak about collaboration with the Axis only. That means, Quinsling in Norway or Latvial Waffen SS Legion should be included, but Spannish Blue division or Thailand should not (no collaboration against own country). Similarly, Horthy should not be included (Hungary was a German ally), but Salazi should be included (Germany occupied Hungary and installed a puppet regime). I also suggest to include only the most typical and important examples, we cannot provide a comprehensive description (we have a separate article about that).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paul Siebert (talk), Britmax (talk), and Nick-D (talk), thank you for steering me in the proper direction. I overextended the outline on account of being all-encompassing, but unsure as to how far to reach without fulfilling anyone's expectations of over-writing/indulging. If you would be so kind to point out (if possible, x-out), those parts of the outline which you believe are unnecessary, it would be most helpful. Cheers, Bigeez (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Given how impractical the outline is (only a small fraction of those topics could be covered in the small amount of space available in this article), I don't think that's workable. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Bigeez, since the section will provide a link to Collaboration with the Axis Powers article, it should contain just a very brief description of only the most important aspects of collaboration: the goal of this article is just to give a very general picture, a reader can find everything else in the links provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Paul Siebert (talk), all very good points. We can add/subtract from this as a start. I agree with your proposal and leave the rest elsewhere:

Collaboration took many forms by cooperating with the Axis Powers, such as a local population within an occupied territory or a sovereign state within a vanquished country. When Nazi Germany overran western Ukraine, the clash of ethnic Ukrainian-speaking people with Russian-speaking natives was inevitable, and cleverly fueled by Nazi propaganda. Western Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera and the UPA, as well as soldiers of the Galician Division, were regarded as heroes by the liberated territory, yet as collaborators who murdered thousands by Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Greece’s Ioannis Rallis and his Security Battalions, lashed out against communist-backed ELAS partisans, as did Quisling’s Statspolitiet in Norway against communists. Cheers, Bigeez (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

205.201.65.68 (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please provide what you want to edit.--94rain ^Talk 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MrClog (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi 94rain (talk) , MrClog (talk), Paul Siebert (talk), Nick-D (talk), After much deliberation, the editorial review board for World War II have conferred upon this writer the task of putting together a ‘Collaboration’ and ‘Resistance’ subheading (please see prior entries in Talk:World War II). Therefore, I have decided to address the subheading ‘Collaboration’ in this way, in order for the editors to add/subtract from the article’s inception. Specifically, MrClog, there is no part of the article that “X replaces Y,” since it is a new subheading: there is no “X”. Nonetheless, please continue to supply your comments, which I promise, will be well taken. No one hits the target with the first arrow. Let us hope to make these subheadings as concise, instructive, and sublime as the rest of the article:

Collaboration took on many forms of cooperation with the Axis Powers. Cooperation from a local population within occupied territories or from a sovereign state within a vanquished country were all too common. Germany's manipulation of the regional fear of communism and portraying themselves as saviors, fueled ethnic and political unrest. For example, when Germany overran western Ukraine, the clash of ethnic Ukrainian-speaking people with Russian-speaking natives was inevitable, cleverly fed and abetted by Nazi propagandists. Western Ukrainian nationalists, like Stepan Bandera and the UPA and soldiers of the Galician Division, were regarded as heroes in the liberated territory. Yet, they were considered collaborators by Russian-speaking Ukrainians who were murdered by the thousands. Greece’s Ioannis Rallis and his fascist Security Battalions lashed out against communist-backed ELAS partisans and the civilian populace, as did Quisling’s Statspolitiet in Norway against communists.

Cheers, Bigeez (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

According to modern updates of the MLA's publishing, some excerpts are not cited properly, and there are some grammatical errors (although they were valid before any recent MLA publishing), which I plan to fix. Wikicyclopedia12321234 (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done not a request for any edits. ~ GB fan 01:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

adding an image

Huddyhuddy (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Hello,

Good morning. Would like to discuss the possibility of adding an image to World War II please. It depicts the diplomatic passport of German consul being expelled from new Zealand and indicated as such inside.

Would it be possible to do so?

Here is image link...

Due to the outbreak of war, German consul general's diplomatic passport endorsed as being expelled - Wellington, September 4th 1939.

Thank you, Neil

That doesn't seem well suited to this article given that it depicts a very minor incident. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the role of Kiwis in WW2 is a much neglected topic. Was there a German plan to invade the Land of the Long White Cloud? This is lost in the mists of history, and our role — as I see it — is to unearth it from the air, using reliable sources, of course.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

? There is the detailed but somewhat neglected Military history of New Zealand during World War II article. I don't think this image would be particularly useful there either given all it shows is the documentation of a German diplomat with a stamp on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Participants

Instead of it just saying allies and axis in the participants could I put all the allies and axis invovled in world war 2 Pizzasuperman (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

No - please see the above thread. The simple infobox reflects the outcomes of an extensive discussion. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, the "Commanders" section (with flags) provides correct information about major Axis/Allied countries, so I see no reason to duplicate this list (I believe everybody recognizes Nazi or US flags, and everybody knows who were Roosevelt, Stalin or Hitler. With regard to the whole list of Allies, it is definitely too long.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Background in Asia

Could I add a little more information about the background of the war in Asia Pizzasuperman (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you propose to add? It's good practice to post the exact text here. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This is what I meant to put: The Empire of Japan was created in 1868 with the Meiji restoration ending the almost 300 year long Tokugawa shogunate. The new emperor Meiji immediately made a political reform known as the Meiji constitution. Japan was first involved in a big war during the First Sino-Japanese war when they got the Liadong peninsula and Taiwan. The west later forced Japan to leave the Liadong peninsula. Than Japan went to war with Russia and got a part of Sakhalin. They annexed Korea in 1910. Meanwhile the Qing Dynasty ended with the revolution of 1911 and the very weak Republic of China ruled by the party of Kuomitang was created. Japan joined World war 1 in 1914, taking German colonies in the pacific. Pizzasuperman (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I would also like to add this picture: https://lyndenpacifictheater.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/ija_infantry_in_manchuria.jpg Without the approval of Emperor Hirohito the Japanese Infantry Division invaded Manchuria effectively taking control of the region in less than a week. Pizzasuperman (talk) 08:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

The article really only covers the lead-up to the war from about 1914. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok Pizzasuperman (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Since 1939 and until 1941 Soviet Union was in Axis de facto and is trying to hide this.

In this article the mentions of Soviet Unions are all hidden.I suggest these edits:

1. In a table of fighting parties: to Include Soviet Union into axis de facto from 1939 to 1941 . Together with Germany they partitioned Poland.

2. Change from

"World War II is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939,[6] with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom"

to

World War II is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939,[6] with the invasion of Poland by Germany and Soviet Union and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom

It is known fact, the pact of Hitler-Stalin and occupation of Finland, Poland, Baltic states, Romania. 193.19.254.45 (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The USSR was not a member of the Axis, and it didn't invade Poland until 17 September. What reliable sources state that the USSR was a "de facto" member of the Axis? I don't believe that it cooperated much with it other than the agreement with Germany. As the western Allies didn't fight the USSR, this wasn't part of the world war. Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

a de facto ally is one who closely cooperates in warfare (as in Poland) and who makes real gains out of the deal (in Balkans, part of Poland, etc). Britain predicted--correctly--that Hitler would eventually turn on USSR and then Stalin would become a de facto Ally of UJ. RS statements of "de facto ally" include: a ) George H. Quester - 2017 - ‎"the USSR had become a de facto ally of Nazi Germany in 1939" at https://books.google.com/books?id=XiRBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT38 (b) Robert H. Zieger, ‎et al. 2014 - "on August 23, 1939, the Soviet Union announced that it had concluded a nonaggression pact with Germany. From being Naziism's most vehement opponent, the Soviet Union overnight had become its de facto ally. " in https://books.google.com/books?id=IzI_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114 (c) Robert F. Miller (2003) - "the Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, which made the Soviet Union a de facto ally of Nazi Germany" at https://books.google.com/books?id=aoqOiSh5WqQC&pg=PA27 Rjensen (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The only example of Nazi-Soviet cooperation in warfare was in Poland. However, it is hard to say if it was close enough to call them de facto allies. At least, for contemporaries it didn't look close: just read what Churchill wrote about that. Only after the secret protocol was discovered some people started to speak, retrospectively, about an alliance, however, if something didn't look like an alliance in 1939, how can a discovery of some paper make it a de facto alliance? Ok, I could agree that, had some secret document been discovered that was a secret military alliance between Nazi and Soviets, we could speak about a de jure secret allians, however, "de facto allies that didn't look like allies according to the contemporary observers" sounds odd. Moreover, on Sept 9 Ribbentrop sent a telegram to Stalin asking if the USSR was going to invade Poland, and threatening that if it would not invade, Germany would have to occupy Eastern Poland. By no means that can be interpreted as "close cooperation".

Furthermore, there was no Axis in September 1939, however, if we assume there was some informal Axis by that time (which actually developed from the Anti-Comintern pact, an alliance directed against the USSR (sic!)), we have to keep in mind that there was a de facto state of war between another future Axis member, Japan, and the USSR, which ended with an armistice (not a peace treaty) only on September 15. How could be the USSR a de facto member of some de facto alliance in a situation when it was still having a military conflict with one member of this alliance?

Next, there is a fraction of historians who believe that all USSR's territorial gains in 1939-40 were the result of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. However, this view is shared only by a significant minority of authors, mostly political journalists. Actually, only Eastern Poland was obtained in accordance with the pact, all other territories were not. German and Soviet interpretation of "spheres of interest" were different, and, whereas "mutual assistance treaties the Baltic states were forced to sign with the USSR were in accordance with the pact, a complete occupation and subsequent annexation were considered as a hostile act by Hitler. It was annexation of the Baltic states which triggered a start of preparations for Barbarossa planning. Moreover, Geoffrey Roberts writes (in "Stalin's War") that the decision about annexation was made by Stalin after he saw how easily and quickly was France, the strongest military power in Europe, was defeated by Hitler. Stalin realized that, from that moment on, the USSR is vis-a-vis with the extremely strong and efficient military machine, and he decided to move the border of the USSR westward as far as possible. In other words, occupation of the Baltic states was a part of preparations to the future war with Germany, according to Roberts. And, again, Hitler correctly interpreted that as a hostile step. If these relationships were de facto alliance, then I even don't know what to say.

Finland. If you remember, the whole Winter war started because Finland refused to cede territories around Leningrad, as well as the Hanko military base. What was the reason for that request? A military threat from which power forced Stalin to do that? Obviously, neither Finland nor any other power except Germany was incapable of posing any serious threat to Leningrad, therefore, the goal was, again, to prepare for was with Germany. And, by the way, Germany unofficially supported Finland in this war, at least, German public opinion was on Finnish side.

Bessarabia. In contrast to Eastern Poland, Finland, or Baltic states, the USSR had never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (it occurred according to the scenario that was very close to the recent annexation of Crimea by Russia), moreover, if I remember correct, some other states, including the US, didn't recognize it too. Therefore, this case is a separate story, and, again, annexation of Bessarabia was seen as unfriendly act by Germany, because it threatened to the strategically important Romanian oil fields. With regard to Bukovina, it was a direct violation of the pact.

To summarize, despite the fact that the USSR made some territorial acquisitions during 1939-40 (I am not aware of any acquisitions in 1941), there is no consensus in scholarly community on whether they were made in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet pact, and whether they can serve as a demonstration of de facto allied relationship.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paul Siebert (talk), Picking up where I left off, after a long sabbatical due to health reasons.

Returning to the 'Collaboration/Resistance subheadings,' I'm really at a loss for where to go ... shall we make them smaller or larger than this? In essence, the reader can be directed to excellent coverage under each respective collaborator or resistor Wiki page. The additional subheadings will assist the readers' grasp of the subject, in order for he/she to conceptualize the fact that there were indeed, collaborators and resistors ubiquitously, and not only in Yugoslavia (Yugoslavian resistance, small by comparison to others, can be deleted under Mediterranean (1940–41). The following is a start only, minus the references, and cleaning it up a bit with Wiki page redirects.

Collaboration, or cooperation with the Axis Powers, frequently came from local populations within occupied territories. Practically every occupied country developed its unique partnership. Those with communistic majorities were used by German propagandists, portraying Germans as saviors, fueling ethnic unrest by manipulation of the regional fear of communism. When Germany overran western Ukraine, the clash of Ukrainian-speaking with Russian-speaking natives was inevitable. Western Ukrainian nationalist leader, Stepan Bandera, and soldiers of the Galician Division were regarded as heroes in the liberated territory and yet considered collaborators by Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Greece’s Ioannis Rallis and his fascist Security Battalions attacked communist-backed ELAS partisans and civilians, as did Quisling’s Statspolitiet in Norway against communists. See Collaboration with the Axis Powers.

Resistance by local populations took place in every occupied country that the Axis Powers overran, both small and large-scale, by bands of fighting men and women, to widespread partisan movements, like the Free French Army and the Polish Underground. Resistance continued unabated until the end of the war, from Europe to Asia and the Pacific. Extensive, Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of both the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). See Resistance during World War II.

Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC) Bigeez (talk)

Invasion of Poland

Why is it considered a part of the World War 2, even though it did not involve both sides of WW2? Since at that time, both sides of WW2 were against Poland, should this not be treated as a separate conflict? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.113.189 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Unless you can provide reliable sources that say it wasn't part of WWII, it won't change. Even then it would be a point of contention with differing view points. ~ GB fan 16:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@~ GB fan, we don't need to prove the opposite.

@Anon. Invasion of Poland is considered a part of WWII because that event caused declaration of war on Germany by Poland, UK and France, and Poland and UK remained at war with Germany from the very beginning to the very end of WWII.

"both sides of WW2 were against Poland" What does it mean? UK and France were not against Poland, and UK was involved in naval warfare. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Paul, if the IP wants to add that that the invasion of Poland was not part of WWII, they need to show that with reliable sources. They do need prove the opposite of what the article currently says if they expect any changes to be made. ~ GB fan 18:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

When Poland was invaded by Germany it was in an alliance with both France and the UK, who consequently declared war on Germany (leading to the phoney war). As such Germany's invasion of Poland brought it into war with France and the UK, the start of World War 2. While this view is the accepted interpretation of the military conflicts at that time, it is not universally accepted. The USSR were Germany's ally and co-aggressor at the start of World War 2, having entered in to an alliance with Germany via the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact according to which Germany and the USSR would divide the lands between them. Soviet (and post-Soviet Russian) history writing has no "World War 2" but instead the "Great Patriotic War" which commences only in 1941 with Germany's invasion of the USSR. This Soviet/Russian perspective conveniently makes the USSR a victim of aggression, instead of the more complex, actual situation where the USSR were also an initial aggressor, having in coordination with Germany attacked Poland from the East (and subsequently invaded several other countries including the Baltic states). Also for this reason, it is essential to not be confused about the starting date of World War 2. Lklundin (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Lklundin, according to 1939 views, there were no alliance between the USSR and Germany. The USSR didn't declare war on Germany's enemies, and Germany's enemies didn't declare war on the USSR (no war was declared on the USSR by UK, Poland or France). In contrast, when Japan (who was a real ally of Germany) declared war on the US, Germany immediately did the same. Anticipating your argument about Soviet-Japanese neutrality, it does not work, because (i) the Grand Alliance was signed after Soviet-Japanese pact, and (ii) it was a joint Allied decision that the USSR should stay neutral towards Japan.

With regard to Soviet historiography, it is absolutely incorrect to say that "Soviet (and post-Soviet Russian) history writing has no "World War 2" but instead the "Great Patriotic War"". That is just untrue. Soviet historiography considered GPW a part of WWII, and that is absolutely correct, and it corresponds to other local historiographies. Thus, Finns use the term "Continuation war", which does not imply there is no term "WWII" in Finnish historiography.

Regarding "the USSR were also an initial aggressor, having in coordination with Germany attacked Poland from the East (and subsequently invaded several other countries including the Baltic states)." There were no coordination at all. In 9th September, Ribbentrop was asking Stalin if he is going to invade, and even threatened to invade Eastern Poland if there will be no Soviet invasion. No common military plans existed, and there is no evidences they ever existed. Regarding invasion of other states, Germany considered their invasion as a violation of the pact by the USSR, because they interpreted "sphere of influence" differently (as conversion of a state within the sphere of influence into a political satellite, not direct annexation).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC

The great majority of RSs state the start of WWII as the invasion of Poland. Debating why they do so may be interesting, but it doesn't matter. WP just follows the sources. Now, it's possible the sources could shift over time, and may evolve to a favor more technically accurate or less Euro-centric view, but I wouldn't hold my breath. At least for now, I suggest we just move on to useful article editing. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Add Charles de Gaulle to Main Allied Leaders list

Dear Volunteer Team,

In order to be more historically accurate, as well as non-biased and coherent with the French version of the page, it would only be right for Wikipedia to add

Flag of Free French Charles de Gaulle

...to the list of "Main Allied Leaders" in the "Commanders and Leaders" box section... after Winston Churchill and before Chiang Kai-shek... on page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

Best regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14C:8380:99:99A4:6BC4:6ED5:89DC (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

This was discussed as part of the RfC which lead to the current infobox. The decision to include the current set of four countries was made largely on the basis that reliable sources argue that these were the dominant leaders of the dominant Allied powers (often called the "Four Policemen" or the "big four"). The consensus in the RfC was to keep this list very concise, and use only these leaders. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm surpised a RFC was even necessary. Representatives of France were present at Germany's surrender, and as a measure of France's importance in WW2 it is one of the five permenant members of the UN Security Council with veto power, the chief institution of the post-WW2 world order. Even Britannica acknowledges Charles de Gaulle as one of the top leaders in their article on World War II: "The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China". Wikipedia should be a reflection of what reliable sources say according to due weight, when did that change? --Nug (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Representatives of France were present at Germany's surrender only as witness. Military contribution of France into the Allied war efforts was comparable (or smaller) than that of Poland. France (Vichy) was collaborating with Germany during a significant part of the war, and there were even a naval battle between this power and the British fleet. de Gaulle was a commander of just a fraction of French forces, and only during the last part of the war, and the contribution of Free French into the allied war effort mas pretty modest.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It must be remembered that France was a significant global power in 1939, it had one of the largest armies and airforces in the world and the fouth largest navy, and second to Britain in terms of colonial possessions, and included those in Indochina. One of the motivations on the German side was to reverse the humiliation at Compiègne. Sure, France was defeated early but that does not diminish it's importance. It seems incongruent not to include France in the info box when it had an occupation zone in post-war Germany along with Britain, USA and USSR. --Nug (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

In reality, de Gaulle was not a main leader or a really decisive one...also we could argue on Chiang Kai-shek's position comparing to Stalin, Roosevelt or Churchill, there are many aspect that could be taken into consideration. Recently the infobox does not claim an exhaustive list, thus in the current form, the inclusion of de Gaulle would be heavily arguable.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC))

Need help from Admins!

I used the confirmed militera.lib.ru, ww2stats.com and rus-sky.com for statistics, battles' detalis and I expanded the page , but user Ruslik0 and his puppet account Wildkatzen consecutive reverted my add-ons in battle of Rzhev. He said "You're using Soviet propaganda" when these sources from militera.lib.ru and rus-sky.com I see them are very helpful and informative; Soviets and Germans fought that war so we use their sources is normal. Does we must use his American sources with even have more propaganda sounds? So now how can you help me, I don't know how to deal with Ruslik0 please. Thank all admins if you take some little time for replying. Meliodas Sama (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There are several options.

1. For general questions, visit WP:TEAHOUSE.
2. As far as I know, Militera is an inhomogeneous collection of sources, some of them are reliable, some of them are not; some of them are obsolete, some of them are modern; some of them are primary (memoirs), some of them are secondary. Read WP:PSTS for further details. If you want to use some particular source, and other users object, ask a question at WP:RSN.
3. In general, English Wikipedia prefers to use English sources. However, good quality peer-reviewed English sources are significantly different from what popular English web sites or mass-media say. In addition, I would be cautious with modern Russian sources, because some of them (e.g. Zamulin) are very good, some (Isaev) are acceptable, whereas many others are unsatisfactory. A good criterion for acceptability of some concrete Russian source is positive reviews on it in international scholarly journals. You can relatively easily check that using [1]--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you for helpful comments. I am trying to expand the Battle of Rzhev by translating from various Russian sources. They are very creative and informative reliable sources for battle progresses, both sides' preparations. The page is so aboriginal so may you join for expanding it, very appreciate history portals, thank you! (Sorry English isn't my first language) Meliodas Sama (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have protected Battles_of_Rzhev article for a week, please help to solve the content dispute on its talk pages. The best place to start a sock puppet investigation is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Talk pages of major articles is a very poor choice for such discussions as it is quite easy to upset people Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

WWII Military Box Edit

I was wondering,i know not whom i need approval,if we could restructure the Infobox to be similar to the WWI infobox.I do not mean to list the allies on the box but i mean to put personnel numbers on both sides,and to keep it shortened only armed states and i have put the troops of empires such as british all under the main ruling kingdom flag.I provide an box with accurate numbers as well as the flags of all armed states.While the numbers may be changed over time this is bascially a rough draft for the edit.I do hope that i can put this up and that ohters will be able to make it more accurate than i did.

"The Second World War", "WWII", and "WW2" redirect here. For other uses, see The Second World War (disambiguation) and WWII (disambiguation).

World War II
(clockwise from top left) Chinese forces in the Battle of Wanjialing Australian 25-pounder guns during the First Battle of El Alamein German Stuka dive bombers on the Eastern Front in December 1943 American naval force in the Lingayen Gulf Wilhelm Keitel signing the German Instrument of Surrender Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad
Date 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (1939-09-01 – 1945-09-02) (6 years and 1 day) Location Europe, Pacific, Atlantic, South-East Asia, China, Middle East, Mediterranean, North Africa, Horn of Africa, Australia, briefly North and South America Result Allied victory Fall of Nazi Germany Collapse of the Japanese and Italian Empires Beginning of the Nuclear Age Dissolution of the League of Nations and creation of the United Nations Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as rival superpowers and beginning of the Cold War (more...)
Participants
Allies	Axis
Commanders and leaders
Main Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill Chiang Kai-shek	Main Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini
Strength
Total: 91,676,724 35,126,700 17,843,000 16,353,639 14,000,000 4,880,260	Total: 37,268,226 21,449,535 9,400,000 3,430,000
Casualties and losses
Military dead: Over 16,000,000 Civilian dead: Over 45,000,000 Total dead: Over 61,000,000 (1937–1945) ...further details	Military dead: Over 8,000,000 Civilian dead: Over 4,000,000 Total dead: Over 12,000,000 (1937–1945) ...further details

JoshRamirez29 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

the info box that is used now is good it shows key players for the war and the death toll range for world war II you want to keep with the key players for the info box like it does with the big 4

What should an infobox not contain? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Infobox#What_should_an_infobox_not_contain?

(Infobox templates are like fact sheets, or sidebars, in magazine articles. They quickly summarize important points in an easy-to-read format. However, they are not "statistics" tables in that they (generally) only summarize material from an article)

and it all ready says in the opening A state of total war emerged, directly involving more than 100 million people from over 30 countries.

Jack90s15 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to state the fact that the First World War Infobox uses more flags and they have not been removed.This shows a quick summary of total troops by country and i did not put any foreign support or anything.This is a quick summary which i think should be put up.While i see the need to prevent eyesores i think this is a necessary summary.While I understand icons should be minimal in infoboxes i shortened it best I could such as putting all armed colonies under ruling flag and only choosing armed states.Other editors should have a say in this as well. therefore I believe it would be a great improvement not to mention a help for many people.Lets say a guy wants to see how many french fought in ww2.With this new addition rather than go to 3 different websites he could look up WW2 scroll down and see how many.These quick facts would be helpful to those and would be beneficial to the community.Lets not forget one of wikipedia's rule of being bold JoshRamirez29 (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I was Just Giving my thoughts on this and yes and other editors will put there say in to this has well,this is a high traffic page so other editors will say there input on this to Jack90s15 (talk) 05:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course.This page receives 20,000 visits a day and I think it should be put up and see what other editors think because they cannot comment on something that they dont see. JoshRamirez29 (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

On the talk page other editors will give there consensus when they come on the talk pageJack90s15 (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The current simple infobox reflects the results of a major RfC a few years ago where it was agreed that due to the complexity of the war, focusing only on the two main blocs and their leaders was the best way of summarising the conflict. I personally think it's vastly superior to the WW1 infobox (I'd note also that this article is a GA while the World War I article is assessed as B-class but actually C-class as the sourcing is lacking). Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nick. A very complex war and we need to simplify the infobox to just the major players who had a significant impact on the outcome. As an aside, personally I've never been convinced by the inclusion of Chiang Kai-shek, because he seems to be justified by total military and civilian deaths rather than an objective assessment of the impact he personally had on the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

DO you then suggest shortening the list from all allied and axis powers just to the Allies having USSR,UK,USA,France and China and for Axis being just Germany,Italy and Japan but keeping the totals. Perhaps that would be better?I reedited the box to include just those countries but kept total allied and axis totals.I think this will both minimize flags while keeping small summary. JoshRamirez29 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's still confusing and misleading. Also, what's your source? Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Fall of Nazi Germany Collapse of Japanese and Italian Empires GSK108 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Why dont they edit this? GSK108 (talk) 07:43, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration and Resistance

Good day 94rain (talk), MrClog (talk), Paul Siebert (talk), Nick-D (talk), NiciVampireHeart (talk), GB fan (talk), I've taken the noted requests over the past few months, keeping Collaboration and Resistance as short as possible: two paragraphs. Any additional comments from all of you would be invaluable, so that this subsection could finally be completed. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Collaboration, or cooperation with the Axis Powers, was accepted by local populations within occupied territories. Practically every occupied country developed its own unique partnership. Countries with communist majorities were manipulated by German propagandists, portraying the Axis Powers as saviors and thereby fueling ethnic unrest. This occurred when Germany overran Western Ukraine, and nationalist leader Stepan Bandera and soldiers of the Galician Division were looked upon as heroes; yet, regarded as collaborators by Russian-speaking Ukrainians. A similar occurrence was repeated following Germany’s invasion of Soviet Russia and annexation of Belorussia, allowing a collaborationist Belarusian regime that hoped for independence from the Soviets with Germany's support. In the Balkans, Greece’s fascist Security Battalions attacked communist-backed partisans and civilians, as did Quisling’s treacherous collaborationist regime in Norway.

Resistance by local populations took place in every occupied country that the Axis Powers overran. Small and large-scale bands of fighting men and women, as well as widespread partisan movements like the Free French Army, Polish Underground, and Greek Resistance flourished. Resistance continued unabated until the end of the war, from Europe to the Pacific. Extensive, Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of both the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In Southeast Asia, resistance was far more complex, as the dynamics were different than in Europe. The Japanese also presented themselves as liberators of colonial peoples, and this was accepted by at least parts of the local independence movements. In reality it was much different, since Japanese sought its own colonial empire and intended to subjugate every country they invaded. However, in the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its limited collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support; enough to declare the Netherlands East Indies free, which doomed the Dutch attempts to resume control after the war.

Bigeez (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response - I'll share some thoughts on this over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D (talk), no worries. Cheers Bigeez (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Bigeez, "bands of fighting men and women" doesn't look good. Wikipedia is not a politecorrect place, we do not need to stress a role of women, the WWII was waged primarily by men. Why not use just "fighters"?

I haven't read this text carefully, but it looks like you are not familiar with the situation in EE. Your text:

"This occurred when Germany overran Western Ukraine, and nationalist leader Stepan Bandera and soldiers of the Galician Division were looked upon as heroes; yet, regarded as collaborators by Russian-speaking Ukrainians. A similar occurrence was repeated following Germany’s invasion of Soviet Russia and annexation of Belorussia, allowing a collaborationist Belarusian regime that hoped for independence from the Soviets with Germany's support."

is totally unsatisfactory. Who was looked upon as heroes in Ukraine and by whom? In reality, the relationships between Bandera/OUN/UPA and Nazi were much more complex, OUN was a fascist organisation, there were two different OUNs, OUN-b and OUN-m, there were no division among Russian and Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians: actually, Bandera was popular in (some) Western parts of Ukraine, and almost unknown in Central and Eastern Ukraine; Galizian division was created by the end of the war, not "when Germany overran Western Ukraine". Furthermore, you mention this division explicitly, but its military role was very limited, whereas many other ethnic WaffenSS divisions (Latvian, Dutch, Norvegian, French, etc) played much more significant role. By the way, currently, a contribution of Estonian volunteers and conscripts in stopping Soviet offensive near Narva is mentioned in the Course of the War section, whereas it would be logical to move it to the Collaboration section.

There were no "similar occurrence" in Belorussia or Russia. The anti-Nazi partisan activity in Belorussia had enormous scale, but virtually no self-organised national groups of Nazi collaborators existed there (with very small exception, like so called Lokot Republic).

Regarding Asia, imo, Viet Min should be mentioned, because this anti-Axis partisan movement became a seed that gave a start to Vietnam anti-colonial movement and later to Vietnam war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert, starting off the section by making a reference to Bandera and OUN is a stretch, since compared to other 'underground' movements they were somewhat ineffective in their military objectives against the Soviets and Germans, limited to harassing the enemy on a tactical level, and are mostly remembered for widespread massacres Poles and Jews. --E-960 (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Paul Siebert too, except for his suggestion of moving the text about the contribution of Estonian volunteers and conscripts in stopping Soviet offensive near Narva from the Course of the War section to the Collaboration section. As we all know, a collaborator is a person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy, whereas the majority of Estonians did not see that effort in stopping that Soviet offensive in anyway traitorous. In fact Jüri Uluots fully supported the January 1944 conscription call that preceded the Battle of Narva, having had opposed previous calls. --Nug (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, Bandera didn't cooperate traitorously with Germany either: OUN's goal was to establish allied relationships between a new fascist Ukraine and Nazi Germany. Their ideology was fascism, they wrote about that openly, and they saw USSR as a foreign state.

Regarding Uliots, I am always puzzled why some Estonians manage to make a stress on two mutually exclusive things: that Uluots openly proclaimed a support of Germany and that Estonia was neutral. Either the conscription was forcible and unvoluntary, or Estonia was de facto a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether Bandera cooperated traitorously with Germany, or not, is dependant upon view of the majority of the Ukrainian people, that's not for me to judge.

With respect to Uluots, he never "openly proclaimed a support of Germany" but was a democrat who generally opposed any support but saw a chance to restore Estonian independence. There is a world of difference between supporting Nazi Germany (and all that implies), and supporting one particular conscription call. It was clear at that time Germany was headed for defeat and the war would eventually end, the 1944 conscription call was seen as a means of stalling Soviet re-occupation until Germany surrendered, in order to create conditions for the restoration of Estonian independence.

That thinking was probably derived from the experience of Uluots and his contemporaries of the conclusion of World War I just 25 years before, where troops of Imperial Germany had occupied the Autonomous Governorate of Estonia (then a part of Russia) but subsequently capitualated before Russian forces could return to Estonia, creating conditions for Estonian independance which later was affirmed as a part of the post-WW1 order. --Nug (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The opinion of a majority of Ukrainian people is not a reliable source per our policy.

With regard to Uluots, I am not sure if he was a democrat (the only democratic states in pre-war EE and NE were Czechoslovakia and Finland, all other were authoritarian regimes). By the way, democratic Finland was de facto Nazi co-belligerent, so I still cannot understand how can the call to wear a German uniform and to fight in German army against German's enemy be not a call to support Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

But there are reliable sources that discuss the opinion of the Ukrainian people, as this section Stepan_Bandera#Legacy mentions.

Uluots' own political party was banned after Konstantin Päts' declaration of a state emergency in 1934. Some historians characterise Päts' rule as an authoritarian democracy, Päts justified it as nessecary to prevent the rise of the extreme right Vaps Movement and by 1938 the situation had improved. In any case Uluots constitutionally assumed the Presidency after Päts was arrested and deported by the Soviets.

Given that the Soviets disbanded the Estonian Army and shot the entire Estonian High Command during their occupation, and the Nazis were not interested in restoring Estonia's military forces, and the looming Soviet re-occupation of Estonia, there really wasn't any other choice. That lack of choice was acknowledged when the Nuremburg trials exempted Baltic Waffen-SS conscripts in their judgements. In fact veterans of the Baltic Waffen-SS were employed by the Allied authorities to guard the top Nazis during those trials, so certainly those Baltic formations were not seen as collaborationist. And anyway, the term "collaborationist" is generally applicable to civilians and civilian organisations, not military personnel. --Nug (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paul Siebert (talk), thank you for your insightful comments. I’ll change it to “fighters.” Second, the point of Bandera was to continue on the premise about the existing communist threat in EE, and how it played into the Nazis’ hands. Pritchard’s many articles elaborate on those topics, and who or whom was marginalised by either the Soviets or the Nazis. Nonetheless, if it’s too contentious or inappropriate, and for the purpose of this article, no need to beat a dead horse. Let’s delete it or modify it. Any suggestions would be wonderful. Third, most certainly, the Viet Min was in my thoughts, yet I didn’t want to add too much and confirm the previously-mentioned possibilities of lengthening the article unnecessarily and confirm anyone's expectations. What would you think: perhaps, something like a sentence or two, on the Viet Min? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

This article covers a very broad topic, we can't discuss everything in detail, so sub articles are extensively used. For example on the topic of Collaborationism there is a link to Collaboration with the Axis Powers. --Nug (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nug (talk), Eli here, and I'm glad to receive your constructive comments. Yes, there is a link to a fabulous collaboration article, so the point here was merely to introduce and highlight it. Then, the reader can be directed to that article, as you wrote. Mia culpa for introducing some contentious points as Paul Siebert (talk) wisely brought up. Best to keep it short and sweet, concise and every bit suitable, too, within Wikipedia's guidelines. The reverse of this argument is to be indulgent, so that the reader will lose attention and as a result haven't accomplished anything. The editor should be more blunt, too-the-point, and less thought-provoking. Regards, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paul Siebert (talk), Nick-D (talk), I hope I have perservered to be within Wiki constraints. Please provide your thoughts, as they are greatly appreciated.

Collaboration, or cooperation with the Axis Powers, was accepted by local populations, particularly within occupied territories of Europe. Practically every occupied territory developed its own unique partnership. Moreover, countries with communist majorities were manipulated by German propagandists, portraying the Axis Powers as saviors and fueling ethnic unrest. In the Balkans, Greece’s fascist Security Battalions attacked communist-backed partisans and civilians, as did Quisling’s treacherous collaborationist regime in Norway.

Resistance by local populations took place in every occupied country that the Axis Powers overran. Small and large-scale bands of fighters were common as well as widespread partisan movements like the Free French Army, Polish Underground, and Greek Resistance. Resistance continued unabated until the end of the war, from Europe to the Pacific. Extensive, Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of both the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In Southeast Asia, resistance was far more complex, as the dynamics were different than in Europe. The Japanese also presented themselves as liberators of colonial peoples, and this was accepted by at least parts of the local independence movements. In reality it was much different, since the Japanese sought its own colonial empire and intended to subjugate every country they invaded. However, in the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its limited collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support; enough to declare the Netherlands East Indies free, which doomed the Dutch attempts to resume control after World War II ended. In French Indochina, the Viet Minh gave rise to an anti-Axis partisan movement. This initiated Vietnam’s anti-colonial movement, in which the American OSS became a key player. Eventually, the United States became embroiled in its own conflict with the Viet Minh two decades later in the Vietnam War, the seeds of which were sown during World War II.

Comments sincerely appreciated. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the text really should start by covering the 'resistance' first not 'collaboration' since in the majority of the occupied countries (even with puppet governments) most of the people were against the occupation and anti-axis (Norway is a perfect example among others).--E-960 (talk) 06:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The two concepts (Collaboration and Resistance) are closely interlinked. To one degree or another there was both in every country affected by the war. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This is shaping up well, but needs a bit more work. The first para is flawed in that it implies that most people in occupied countries supported the collaborationist regimes - in general, they did not. The statement that " Resistance continued unabated until the end of the war, from Europe to the Pacific" is also not correct - resistance movements tended to build fairly gradually until 1943-44, and in some areas were defeated. I'd suggest dropping the last sentence - the Vietnam War was a different conflict, and the history here was very complex. It would be helpful to note in the first para that for many people in occupied countries there wasn't a black and white division between collaborating and actively resisting - most muddled through. The very important role of collaborators in the Holocaust should be noted. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D (talk), thank you again for steering me in the proper direction, your suggestions are spot on. I believe it is shaping up, finally! In referring back to yours and Paul Siebert's (talk) valid points on 16 March 2019, plus your most recent, I'll condense the two paras down without endlessly quoting Footor Beevor, only to include the most salient. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, though I agree with you that "most [people] muddled through" the occupation, I would stress that most did NOT support the occupation of their counties even if people did not actively take part in the resistance. Also, I'm concerned about your generalization "very important role of collaborators in the Holocaust should be noted", because the Holocaust was conceived, planned and put into action by Nazi Germany, and no "collaboration" took place on that level, it was all Nazi Germany. Also, unlike political or military collaboration, in the case of the Holocaust, collaboration was mostly the result of coercion and threats of severe punishment by the occupying German authorities, with the exception of the foreign volunteers for the SS.--E-960 (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello E-960 (talk), Thank you for joining us in this subsection's work-in-progress. I understand your points entirely, though I'm not in total agreement. Firstly, perhaps switching the two topics with Resistance first, followed by Collaboration, might not flow as nicely. We (Nick-D (talk) Paul Siebert (talk) will get back with you on that point. Second, this is not meant to be impertinent by any means and most likely was an oversight, but please comment to the correct Wiki user (Nick-D (talk), not Paul Siebert (talk). Thirdly, there was, as we are all aware, ideology-driven collaboration; this is not a contentious topic. That is, there was support of the Nazi ideology itself, including anti-semitism and anti-communism, and those seeking their own, independent fascist country, of whom Mussolini and Hitler were the chief architects, as you said, but to which the collaborating European cabal then tagged along. We need to be clear in this short, concise narrative on Collaboration/Resistance. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D (talk) Paul Siebert and (talk), currently working on this subsection. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Bigeez, thanks for considering my points as collaboration is indeed a contentions subject, because of the debate around the definition of "collaboration". The universally accepted definition is "willing collaboration", but in many instances this was not the case. If you are talking about regular Police forces, under international law, following orders of the occupiers was not considered collaboration, also disobeying orders resulted in summary execution or imprisonment. This is also mentioned by Dariusz Stola director of Warsaw's POLIN Museum, who highlighted the "hostage system" set up by the Germans calling it a "diabolical mechanism" which forced people to collaborate — if you are threatened are you than a "willing collaborator" or a hostage? However, the example of Jozef Tiso and the Slovak Republic, when Tiso actually paid the Germans to send Slovak Jews to concentration camps is a clear example of "willing collaboration" as were foreign volunteers for the SS and auxiliary Police formations, whose members served as guards at concentration camps. If we are going to raise examples other than "willing collaboration" than we are opening up a topic which is debated and not as simple to properly articulate in a few overview sentences. --E-960 (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

It is simply not true that collaboration relating to the Holocaust was typically forced, and that the Germans were solely responsible for the mass murder of Jews. Many anti-Semites willingly handed over Jews in their communities to the Germans or actively took part on pogroms. Dutch public servants, operating under vague and stupid instructions left by the Dutch government before they left of the UK, handed over the addresses of most of the country's Jews. Local police officers in France were the key figures in arresting Jews, and had a fair degree of discretion in whether and how they did so. And, of course, elements of the governments in Nazi Germany's puppet states and allies murdered large numbers of Jews and handed many more over to the Germans. The US Holocaust Museum has a couple of good articles on the topic: [2] [3]. Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Though, I agree with you that co-belligerents and puppet governments willingly handed over Jews to the Germans, I completely disagree with your statement which disputes the fact that "Germans were solely responsible for the mass murder of Jews". Who came up with the idea to exterminate Jew and later Poles and other Slavs? Looking at the details of Operation Reinhard in occupied-Poland, it was conceived and implemanted by the German Nazis, how many "collaborators" sat in on those meetings? There were collaborators accross Europe to do some of the dirty work, but the responsibility lies fully with the people who came up with the idea and organized it. Also, who created concentration camps where the overwhelming majority of people were killed — German Nazis. --E-960 (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Jewish Ghetto Police guarding the gates of the Warsaw Ghetto, not "Polish" police, June 1942

• Also, regarding some of the statements in the second link you provided, as they are not entirely correct, in occupied-Poland it was the Jewish Ghetto Police which guarded the ghettos and was responsible for deportations (photograph link: [4]) to concentration camps (memorialized in a scene from the movie the The Pianist), also it was the Judenrat who provided lists of local Jews and identified them. Both these things were highligted by historian Hannah Arendt and documented by Emanuel Ringelblum, these misrepresentations are glaring, and USHMM completly omits the topic of Jewish collaboration assinging blame instead to "Polish" police and institutions, btw there was no Polish railroads, all were taken over by the Deutsche Reichsbahn. --E-960 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello E-960 (talk), thank you for your response on our talk page. Yes, it is a rather contentious subject. The contentiousness of this topic is quite controversial, to say the least. What is not controversial, however, is how many “individuals who either sold out their motherland for personal gain or simply had personal reasons to hate [whomever]” and have been written about/accused of, over the years … from all walks of life and from all over Europe, mainly Eastern Europe. With that said, let's stay focused on a rather short 2 para summary statement, since this Wikipedia article is not the forum for expounding on controversies. Your points are well taken. Perhaps, some of them are opinions as well, and then, that is best suited for discussion on our talk page. We do not wish to set up a defence for, or against, this purpose. The article is for the thousands of young and old Wiki readers, probably more young than old, who are seeking guidance and wish to be educated about WWII. Furthermore, that collaboration existed in some form or another, either coerced or duly supported, is not contentious. Rather, your methodology of interpretation to discern the difference, or hermeneutics, are contentious. Let's pray those Gen-Xers, Millenials, etc., who seek some information and direction won't get drawn into the same fire, either. I believe we are on the right track. We will not fail to be truthful, and I continue to encourage your thoughts and constructive critique. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Bigeez, I can agree with your suggestions for the text. --E-960 (talk) 09:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Bigeez, I was just looking over several WWII related pages, including the Holocaust article, which covers collaboration in this area, and based on this shouldn't the WWII article cover collaboration more along the line of military and political aspects, not as Nick-D suggested the holocaust? It can be briefly referenced, but it seems a bit POV-ish to focus on this issue here as well. --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The Holocaust is a fundamental part of the war. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I disagree. Despite knowledge of the Holocaust, it had no impact on the Allies' conduct of the war, no resources were expended to oppose the Nazis on that front, so to say it was a fundamental part of the war, i.e. the conflict, is somewhat of an overstatement. Let's not forget that "collaboration" is a term derived from French, and originally referred to those who co-operated with the Nazis in occupied France, two years before the Wannsee_Conference of 1942 that laid the foundation of the Final Solution. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Every history of World War II I own devotes considerable space to the Holocaust, with modern historiography stressing the role the mass murder of the Jews played in Germany's conduct of the war from its outset. But we're getting a bit off track here: in regards to the role of collaborators in the Holocaust, it can be covered here in a sentence at most. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nick-D, Peacemaker67 this is where I find your approach just plain wrong. You want to address in greater detail the Holocaust in terms of "collaboration", but the article barley addresses some key facts such as the ELECTION of Hitler in Germany. I would like to point your attention to a book by Daniel Goldhagen, titled Hitler's Willing Executioners in which the author argues that "that the vast majority of ordinary Germans were 'willing executioners' in the Holocaust because of a unique and virulent "eliminationist anti-semitism" in German political culture which had developed in the preceding centuries".[5] But, instead you want to push a narrative that the Holocaust occurred because of "Nazis" and "collaborators" everywhere else but Germany.--E-960 (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello E-960 (talk) and Nug (talk), thank you for your comments and for illustrating your points. It’s quite simple to formulate two paras regarding collaboration/resistance. However, I must clear up one thing: whether or not, as you remarked, the subjects of Goldenhagen’s novella were “willing executioners” is not the point of these two paras. All I need to write is that it occurred and the collaborators were cooperating with the Nazis. It’s more than apropos; collaborators are cooperators, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, not by the Vichy French early in the war. Remember, Wikipedia is focused on relaying this article to thousands, and not to the exclusion of the collaboration/cooperation by those in bed with the Nazis during the war. Those who aided and abetted the rounding up, imprisonment, and execution of Jews, Roma, communists are a part of the collaboration. Nonetheless, Wikipedia readers need to be cognizant that not only military and political aspects (as you wrote earlier), were components of cooperation either coerced or duly supported, and again, is not the bulls-eye of the article. Simply, there were cooperators. The methodolgy you are employing is misdirected. Rather, collaboration was the cooperation of any local population of an occupied territory with the enemy, and whether they were “willing executioners” or not, they were there. This includes, but is not limited, to those who supported the Nazi ideology, including anti-Semitism, anti-Communism, and those desiring to establish an independent fascist country. I hope I have not been impertinent, forgive me if I have been. Looking forward to your cooperation and comments when the section is finalized. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to open up the Holocaust in reference to collaboration, than we'll need to augment the text to frame the political and social mind set in Germany, because at the moment we are putting the carriage before the horse. Also, Bigeez if we are going to cover "collaboration" than there needs to be a proper reference to military and political collaboration, as Nug rightly suggested these impacted the actual fighting. --E-960 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello again E-960 (talk) and Nug (talk), I thank you both for your comments; they are most helpful. I understand your concerns. Please trust in the process. Wikipedia editors, in concert with each other, will strive to hit the mark. They will pay homage to all those who were cofactors, cooperators, or collaborators in the collaboration. We understand it is pluralistic cause and effect. In medicine, a similar term is comorbidities: patients have a laundry list of things like diabetes, hypertension, cancer, obesity, etc, which if left untreated, all collaborate towards the demise of the individual. With that said, military and political collaboration will be included, as well as collaborators, who were:

1. aiding and abetting in the roundup, imprisonment, and execution of Jews, Roma, and communists;
2. in local populations within an occupied territory who cooperated with the Germans;
3. supporting Nazi ideology, anti-semitism, anti-communism;
4. hoping to establish an independent fascist country;
5. assisting with Hitler’s Final Solution.

Nick-D (talk) and Paul Siebert (talk) are keenly aware of the verbiage required on this platform. E-960 (talk), your use of "cart before the horse" can only be brought into play metaphorically if indeed that were the case; if antisemitism, nationalism, or the hatred of one ethnic group over another evolved simply out of newly-emergent Nazi Germany. We know this is false, and all the above were anything but new. I am a Greek/Roman historian first. Every Classics student is knowledgeable about the same issues: ancient Sparta’s subjugation over the Helots and their neighboring Messinians, enslaving and colonizing them respectively, while they went bust warring. No biggie surprise that Hitler emulated them.

To suggest that the machinations of Germany’s vanquished may not have reacted the same way, had they not been led down the garden path by a tyrannical ruler or hoodwinked by his cronies, is a contentious point. It will never be known, since the past is the past. One cannot turn back the hands of time to prove or disprove it. Nug (talk), your proposal — inserting a clause or statement which impacted the actual fighting — will appear to the reader as Wikipedia's disclaimer of those who collaborated. In other words, A + B ≄ C? On the other hand, the statement that there were collaborators, whether or not they did so willingly or by force, is not contentious. It is, rather, Socratic. A + B = C.

Finally, Wikipedia is in no position to act as a moral compass; neither should we all. With utmost respect, Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you can group anti-semitism and anti-communism as a part of collaborationism, since both these phenomena existed independently long before the Nazis existed. Individuals can engage in anti-semitism or anti-communism without having to necessarily collaborate with anyone. Also I don't think the aim of "hoping to establish an independent fascist country" is valid either, independence movements also existed long before the Nazis too, and reliable sources wouldn't support the claim that any such movement was "fascist" in nature. The main criteria of collaborationism is that these individuals acted traitorously against their own people in support of the occupying power, in this case Nazi Germany. --Nug (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I object to the opening. "Collaborator" is a charged word, and cannot be used based just on our own reasoning and logic; English, like all other languages, wasn't designed to be logical. If a man enters the bank I'm in, waves a gun and shouting "everyone lay down!", I am not a "collaborator" if I lay down. If he orders me specifically to look out the window to see if cops are outside, and I do so and report accurately, very few would think of me as a collaborator. If I follow his orders to search others for hidden guns, and I do so and turn them over to him, that might be getting into a gray area. By the point that I'm reloading his gun for him during the shootout, I may now be called collaborating, but that still won't be unanimously agreed. Replace the bank with a whole countries, and the gunman with whole armies, and me as single person to the whole "local populations", every one of them trying to avoid getting executed in their own situation in their own way; we can't start by labeling everything the whole population did as "collaboration". Unless the overwhelming consensus from RS is to label all local populations as collaborators, we must not do so, or even hint at appearing to do so. I'm okay with saying that there were many who collaborated, but that's not the way it's worded. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nug (talk), I am glad to see your comments, truly I am. I do understand your point. What you’re saying is of course, true, that in and of itself, both phenomena did exist before the war, and still do. Yet, specifically, with regards to ideology-driven collaboration, there were four sentinel reasons for it:

1. antisemitism, with collaborators among Eastern Europeans (Ukrainian or Lithuanian)
2. anticommunism, such as the Baltic countries and Western Ukraine;
3. the desire to establish an independent fascist-type national state, such as Slovakia, Croatia, Western Ukraine;
4. support of the Nazi ideology, producing Western European Waffen-SS volunteers such as Norwegian, Dutch, and French.

The Dutch, late French, and Hungarians (Szalasi) were fascists, who believed Germany would throw them a bone. These were some of those who were “led down the garden path.” Rallis, in Greece, was another. We might touch on these in the article. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello A D Monroe III (talk), thank you for your comments. Your analogy is simple and well-understood. I have a hunch that collaboration/resistance was passed over in the article’s inception and for good reason. It is not far-reaching to say that it is more than contentious; it is argumentative, bordering on impertinence. Wikipedia will keep it simple, something along the line of collaborators were either coerced or duly supported. BTW, we are using OED ‘s pejorative definition of collaboration (Oxford English Dictionary). Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

OED, and our personal interpretation of how to apply it, are irrelevant on making a statement that the whole of local population of all conquered nations were "collaborators". That must come from sources, only. Again, I fully believe there were multiple clear cases of collaboration in all these nations, but that's just my opinion, and is just as irrelevant as other opinions expressed in this thread. The only question: do the great majority of the sources label the whole population as "collaborators"? Yes or no? If yes, we use the suggested wording -- indeed, we must do so (or something pretty close to it). If not, then we must not in any way imply that they were all collaborators, a crime in most nations' courts, which would still have to be qualified as "alleged" until formally convicted. All I'm suggesting is rewording so as not to imply they were all guilty, such as "Passive cooperation combined with coerced and even willing collaboration was present in all the local populations..." I don't see the harm in this, but there is definite harm in not doing this, without any benefit to the reader or article. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@A D Monroe III. Try to play an "ignorant Wikipedian" game: pretend you know nothing about collaboration and the Holocaust, and try to figure out what reliable sources tell about that. I believe, the most obvious step would be to type collaboration Nazi Holocaust in google scholar (not Google, for obvious reason). What do you get? A large number of books and article of collaboration of local population of Nazi occupied countries and about its voluntary participation in persecution of Jews. That is how the mainstream sources describe those events. Therefore, it absolutely doesn't matter whether "collaboration" or "collaborator" is a charged word or not: if this word appears in the sources that are in the top of the list that can be obtained as a result of a neutral search procedure (and you must agree that the search string 'collaboration+Nazi+Holocaust' is quite neutral) then the word choice is correct. Of course, one may argue that anti-Communism or anti-Semitism of local European population was the absolutely independent factor, which doesn't make them Nazi collaborators. I agree that it is quite possible to find reliable sources saying that. However, to obtain such sources, one has to to look for these sources specifically, because those sources never appear on the top of the list. In other words, only a person having some specific POV can find this type sources, which immediately rises the question of neutrality and POV pushing.

I believe if you do a neutral search, it doesn't matter which concrete keywords you type in: as soon as you do a neutral search and do not try to find sources that support some specific idea, the overwhelming majority of the sources you find will tell the same: collaboration of local population in Nazi occupied Europe did take place, there was a large number of collaborators, and they made a significant contribution into extermination of Jews due to their anti-Semitism and nationalism. If someone disagrees, they are welcome to present the highly cited sources obtained via a neutral gscholar search saying otherwise.

I believe it is very important to say about that in this article, because of the emerging tendency in many European country to blame only Germans in extermination of Jews and whitewashing the crimes of their own Holocaust perpetrators, who are regarded as freedom fighters or even role models. This tendency is considered as a new form of the Holocaust denial (Rossoliński-Liebe, Grzegorz (2012). "Debating, obfuscating and disciplining the Holocaust: Post-Soviet historical discourses on the OUN–UPA and other nationalist movements". East European Jewish Affairs. 42 (3): 199–241.)

@E-960, I suggest you to remove your post about auxiliary Jewish police made at 10:52, 3 July 2019: in this post you de facto twist facts and denigrate Jews: participation in the police was not voluntary, the police members were executed by Nazi, and their position was not too much different from the position of such a "collaborator" as Sasha Pechersky. This you post is especially inappropriate taking into account that the Polish antisemitisam is currently a subject of the arbitration case, and this your post may serve a good example of it. Please, remove it, and we all will forget about that.

I also disagree with the idea to blame only Germans in the Holocaust. Yes, everybody knows that the Holocaust was designed by Germans (actually, by few Nazi leaders). Everybody agrees that a significant part of Germans enthusiastically supported persecution of Jews. Moreover, many authors absolutely correctly point out that Germans should not be considered as victims of Nazi regime: overwhelming majority of them were beneficiaries of the regime, and they were victims not of the regime, but of the failure of the regime. However, these facts already belong to the common knowledge domain, and they are universally recognized, and recognized by Germans themselves. However, that does not mean Germans were the only nation that was responsible for the Holocaust, because a large number of representatives of other nations made an immense contribution into extermination of Jews.

Currently, we have a situation when some European nations claim that Nazi were exclusively resopsible for the Holocaust, whereas local population just was fighting for their independence against Communists (and killed some Jews, which is considered as a collateral damage). However, the Germans themselves totally disassociated themselwes from Nazism, and any Nazi symbols are absolutely banned in Germany, any Holocaust denialism is considered as a crime. In contrast, many nations that claim they were not Nazi collaborators are quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols, and they consider ex-waffenSS fighters as national heroes. In my opinion, there is a direct linkage between this trend and the attempt to blame Germans, solely, in the Holocaust. That is one of the reasons why it is absolutely necessary to discuss collaboration in this article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: "participation in the police was not voluntary" - as a point of fact, it was indeed voluntary (unlike the Polish Blue Police for example), though there was some variance from place to place and over time. Indeed, over time many individuals quit these police forces (esp. in Warsaw, Lodz and Krakow) once they realized their nature and what the Germans were using them for [6] (also ""Otoczone drutem państwo". Struktura i funkcjonowanie administracji żydowskiej getta łódzkiego" A. Sitarek and "Przeciw swoim: Wzorce kolaboracji żydowskiej w Krakowie i okolicy" W. Medykowski) Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The source you cite says:

"in Israel several policemen were charged, but most were acquitted, based on the terrible context in which they had to function during the war."

this "voluntary" participation resembles a voluntary participation of POWs in German auxiliary troops. If you read the sources carefully, you will see that most of them put this story separately from other examples of collaboration. In general, to my big surprise, this discussion has demontrated that the level of antisemitism among Poles is greater than I thought befoire. I think it would be better if yo guys deleted the post about the Jewish police and stopped this discussion, especially keeping in mind the current ArbCom case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, first Paul, your generalized remark about "Poles" is completely unnecessary as it adds nothing to this discussion, and frankly, it's offensive. Second, I don't know why you refer to "yo guys" and ask me to delete someone else's post. It's their comment not mine, even if we do have the same ethnicity. Third, you ignore the part of the source which states "40 Jewish policemen were found guilty of improper behavior and ostracized by the Jewish community". Fourth, assuming the accuracy of your analogy with the POWs, those German auxiliary troops, however they were formed, are indeed usually described as collaborationist in the literature.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this generalisation was quite legitimate: during last couple months I am seing that several users whose interest is clearly Poland express pretty similar POV. In my opinion, that sample is reprersentative enough to make a conclusion about the mindset of a Polish society as whole (in the same way as by monitoring editorial behaviour of Russocentric users one can draw a conclusion about the mindset of Russians as whole). In connection to that, I am a little bit surprised to see that modern Poles seem to be more tolerant to antisemitism than I thought before. Note, in my previous post, I didn't say "the level of antisemitism is high", I said it is higher than I thought, because, frankly, I thought there is no antisemitism among modern Poles at all, and I am disappointed to see that I was wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's disappointing in itself, that you chose to stick by your offensive generalizations. But the relevant point is that this generalizations is, well, irrelevant to the discussion, and just an pointless distraction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A statement that there is still some level of antisemitism among Poles, and that is a big surpise for me, because I believed there is no antisemitism in modern Polish society, is hardly offensive. Actually, this very issue is a subject of a current ArbCom case, so this my statement is hardly totally groundless. I am very far from claiming that the group of editors who are intersted in Polish topics, includiong you, are real antisemites, but some of your statements really surprise me. Although I didn't participate actively in the Arbitration discussion, I watched it closely, and I was a little bit disappointed with the mindset of a group of users who supported you (let's call them "Poles" conditionally). I cannot say you were always not right, and I don't think еру "Jews" (let's call your opponents "Jews" conditionally for simplicity) are always right, but...

Regarding irrelevance, the whole discussion was initiated by the post about Jewish police, which is irrelevant and offensive, and it is still not removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Yikes! When did I say "there was no collaboration"?! Collaboration existed, and that is completely, totally, absolutely irrelevant here. All this wall of text in no way proves the whole of all local populations were guilty of collaboration. So, we should not even hint at implying that. Go ahead and keep the paragraph, just change the opening wording so it doesn't sound like we've somehow convicted entire populations of citizens of collaboration.

(BTW, even if I had said collaboration didn't exist, a wall of text still wouldn't help. It's all just personal opinions, easily countered by equally irrelevant other personal opinions. Sources would help. Those are a lot easier to list, and to read.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The idea that the whole of all local population may be guilty of collaboration is as weird as the idea that the whole of all German population were Nazi. Of course, I never claimed that. However, that does not change the fact that there was a collaboration in Nazi occupied Europe, and there were many collaborators. Moreover, some of those collaborators are currently considered as "freedom fighters" in their countries. With regard to "sources", all what I am saying can be supported by reliable sources, I presented some, I demonstrated how exactly they can be found. However, since this is just a talk page discussion, I don't have to add a reference after every sentence, but I can provide a source supporting some specific statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Paul Siebert (talk), I concur. Wikipedia readers will also. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

German General Government poster requiring former Polish Police officers (Blue Police) to report for duty under the German Ordnungspolizei or face "severe" punishment

This is rather revisionist history, I simply do not agree with the approach suggested by Paul Siebert, User:Nick-D and Bigeez. Also, user Paul Siebert, pls stop accusing users of inappropriate behavior, your claims are inaccurate and misleading, in your statement about me you said: "in this post you de facto twist facts and denigrate Jews: participation in the police was not voluntary," my point exactly NOT VOLUNTARY. Yet you, Nick-D and Bigeez want to label all collaborators as voluntary, a point clearly articulated by A D Monroe III. Jewish collaboration was not voluntary and this was the case for most of the police forces in occupied countries, along with many civilians, pls take a look at this poster from occupied Poland, it looks like a threat to get the local police to submit to German orders, not a recruitment posters designed to appeal to someone's views on anti-antisemitism and anti-communism.. --E-960 (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've re-read your post about Jewish police, and it is not obvious from it that you are talking about a coercive collaboration. However, if you meant non-voluntary collaboration, it is totally unclear what point that post was supposed to demonstrate: as I already explained, even Sasha Pechersky was collaborating (non-voluntarily) with Nazi camp administration, however, it would be totally inappropriate to mention his name in a context of collaboration. One way or the another, your post is highly inapprofriate and (in the context of this discussion) insulting, so it must be removed, othervise I will have to refer to it at the Arbitration case as an example of EE antisemitism (which, to my big surprise, appear to be more widespread than I thought before).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, you can stop with the veiled threats, and intimidation tactics. Referencing the fact that there was Jewish collaboration (coercive collaboration, or not) is not anti-semitism — there are reliable sources which discuss this phenomenon. However, threatening and baiting other editors is a violation of Wikipeida rules, especially since I followed up your initial comments with a explanation of what my reason was for the reference was, because you along with Bigeez and Nick-D do not want to differentiate between different types of collaboration, when I raised the issue, you predictably responded that "[Jewish] participation in the police was not voluntary", and that was the point not all collaboration was voluntary, so stop trying to present it as such in this article. --E-960 (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not a veiled threat. It is the statement that the post we are talking about is, in my opinion, an example of anti-Semitism, and I am going ask Arbcom's opinion about that is it will not be retracted. It is quite obvious that the example of collaboration are supposed to include service in auxiliary police formations, like Ukrainian Auxiliary police, volunteers killing squads (Arajs Kommando, WaffenSS, spontaneous Jewish pogroms that were just minimally orchestrated by Nazi (like Lwov pogrom or 1941 pogroms in the Baltic states) etc. Coercive collaboration is a totally different story (for example, collaboration of POWs hardly should be discussed), and that makes the reference to Jewish police (its members were de facto ghetto's inmates, and they all shared the faith of other inmates, although later) totally irrelevant to the discussion of voluntary collaboration. Moreover, I presented a sources that directly says that the attempts to negate the fact that the voluntary collaboration of local population was an important factor of the Holocaust is an example of Holocaust denial. Therefore, I don't see what can we discuss here, just admit you make a mistake and retract this post.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Paul Siebert, my statement echos points form this Harretz article titled 'The Holocaust’s Evasive History in Both Poland and Israel' [7]. Some of the points include, quote: "For example, in places where Jews in hiding were turned in by the Jewish police, it’s stated that it was the Polish police." or "However, Jews seeking a refuge couldn’t overcome the obstacles of the closed village society, its social norms, the traditional anti-Semitic hostility and the fear of the Germans’ response." Is this Harretz article also inappropriate? Looks like you just want to stifle the debate regarding this article, with threats and false allegations. --E-960 (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, there were no Jewish police outside ghettos, so the mistake the article is talking about is just a minor mistake, and it does not change the overall picture. One way or the another, we have nothing to discuss here until you retracted your post about Jewish ghetto police.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Paul Siebert, you do realize that even in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers article there is a Jewish collaboration section, making your arguments all the more unreasonable. --E-960 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing my attention at this article. The first reference in this section that is supposed to support the statement "a minority of Jews chose to collaborate with the Germans" says: "What Morawiecki said is technically accurate, but historically unfair in light of the specific nature of the Nazi persecution of Jews, according to scholars who have studied the dozens of indictments brought forward in Israel against Nazi collaborators." And that is exactly what I say. Do you agree to remove this post, or I should ask ArbCom to include it into the discussion of the Antisemitism in Poland case?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that part of the ArbCom is exactly about what you are doing, making-up allegations and baiting other editors, especially that user Nug already exposed another one of your inaccurate statements in this very disscussion. --E-960 (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I am not "making-up allegations and baiting other editors", I even don't say anything about you. I am saying that this particular post is irrelevant to the current discussion, it is an inappropriate argument (the point that is supported by a reliable source found in the WP article you yourself found), and it is de facto anti-Semitic. I am not drawing any conclusions about you personally, I am just asking you to remove this post as irrelevant and insulting. However, if you prefer to know a third opinion on that account, I can ask ArbCom to look at it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Also, after reviewing many of the past conversations on this page, it's rather visible that Paul Siebert and Nick-D have for quite sometime always in unison argued in favor or watering down the text to shift the focus away from German responsibility for the War and the Holocaust. Here is a perfect example that's quite relevant to today's discussion: [8]. In it, user Nick-D argues against the use of the word "Genocide" (a reference to the Holocaust) arguing instead for a softer term when talking about German involvement, side stepping the issue by referencing the Soviets and the Japanese: "I'd suggest "mass killings" or similar over genocide: the large-scale murders committed by the Soviet and Japanese governments which were related to the war generally aren't considered to have been genocides. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)" However, now when dealing with the Holocaust and in terms of "collaboration" he states: "The very important role of collaborators in the Holocaust should be noted. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)". A rather very capricious approach to the issue of Genocide/Holocaust. --E-960 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

If I read Paul’s take on the situation in Eastern Europe I would wonder if he gets most of his information from RT.com or Sputniknews.com. Ofcourse Germany (and Austria) has banned Nazi symbols and consider Holocaust denialism a crime and have banned publication of Mein Kampf, given their own history in perpetrating the Holocaust it is obvious why. But I can walk into any bookshop in Australia, USA, Britain and most of Europe and see still see copies of Mein Kampf on the shelf because these countries do not share the same guilt. But Paul falsely claims that many Eastern European nations are “quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols”, which simply is untrue, most of these countries have banned Nazi symbols, see Post–World War II legality of Nazi flags. If Paul can’t get his facts on something so easily verifiable as the legality of public displays of Nazi symbols in Eastern Europe, the remainder of his argument regarding this apparent “germanless” Holocaust in Eastern Europe must be called into question too. --Nug (talk) 09:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nug, I have no idea what Sputniknews.com is, but from what I know about RT, it is obvious that that your post is a direct personal attack. That is a good demonstration of the idea that the notorious EEML, you were a member of, was a highly inhomogeneous group of people, some of whom are pretty reasonable persons. I think I don't have a reason to be tolerant to the insults of that kind, so, unless I get immediate apologies from you and the promise to never ever resort to this type language, this case will be reported to AE.

Regarding Mein Kampf, yes, one can buy this book in Australia or the US, and I think it is quite correct. However, in those countries, no streets are named after notorious Nazi criminals or Fascist ideologists, there is no parades of ex-SS military, and the exposition of museums of genocide devotes a considerable space to the Holocaust (in contrast to the exposition of the Museum of Genocide Victims, which allocated just a small room to Jews, and that was done only as an attempt to address wide international criticism).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Seriously? Questioning your sourcing in light of your claim that Eastern European nations are “quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols” is not a personal attack. Given that RT.com (which also has a cable news channel in the US) has more coverage of "Waffen SS Parades" and "Glorification of Nazism" in Eastern Europe than any other news channel, it was entirely reasonable to enquire as to your sourcing given the parallels in your claims and those made by that news outlet.

As far as parades of former Baltic Legion conscripts in Latvia go, which Nurmberg exempted from their judgement on the SS and HICOG declared that they were not to be seen as "SS" given the circumstances of their servitude, where is the connection to "collaboration" if the definition is "A person who cooperates traitorously with an enemy; a defector" and they are not viewed as traitors in Latvian society? In regard to controversy around Museum of Genocide Victims, that is more a consequence of 50 years of Soviet occupation rather than any kind of indicator of the role of Lithuanians in the Holocaust. The Soviet authorities tended to be somewhat anti-semitic themselves and did downplay the Holocaust, even building a huge Palace of Concerts and Sports in Lithuania over an ancient Jewish cemetery and paving the front steps of a state seized chuch with Jewish grave stones[9]. It was only after the end of the Soviet occupation that Lithuanians were free to begin assessing the Holocaust in a meaningful way. --Nug (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

You accused me of reproducing what some Russian goivwernment funded news agency says. Obviously, that was an insult, and I demand you to apologize. That is my last request, I am not going to discuss it with you.

Just to put all dots on "i", let me add that it is notr only an insult, it is just not true. If a neutral Wikipedian wants to learn about the SS veterans in modern Europe, arguably, the best way would be to open google scholar and type something like SS veteran parade or waffen SS veteran parade. This will be not cherry-picking, this will show what a totally neutral reader would find. The most relevant results will be Rudling's paper and the Hurd&Werner's paper (for your convenience, I reproduce the abstract here):

"Heinrich Himmler created the Waffen-SS in part as a multinational force, willing to fight for a New Europe based on Germanic blood. After the war, many international Waffen-SS units formed veterans' associations (VAs). Like other VAs, these provided veterans with the chance to engage in ‘memory work’ and to keep alive a sense of comradeship and of valiant sacrifice, as well as an emotional commitment to the fallen. Waffen-SS veterans were, however, alone in celebrating their ‘sacrifices’. Others shunned them for their participation in atrocities. To defend themselves, they developed a counter-hegemonic Second World War narrative that presented the Waffen-SS as uniquely heroic ‘European’ volunteers' against Bolshevism. This counter-narrative, however, only gained resonance with the fall of the Berlin Wall. After 1989, in fact, veterans could seek out and establish sites of public commemoration, not in Western but in Eastern Europe. Hurd and Werther use veterans' journals and books to explore the redeployment of SS ideology in a revisionist version of history. They examine the resurrection of a mass Waffen-SS graveyard in East Ukraine as a telling case history, discussing, not least, the implications of a ‘reconciliation’ of the former German soldiers with both Ukrainian villagers and Red Army veterans. Finally, they explore the significance of the veterans' ‘European’ counter-history for a younger generation of neo-Nazis."

As everybody can see, that is exactly what I am saying, and there is no need to involve RT to explain where did I obtain this information from.

If a neutral Wikipedian would like to learn more about waffen ss veterans in Latvia, the most reasonable way is to type nazi collaborators veterans latvia. Among top 20 results, there is the article "Collaborator: No Longer a Dirty Word?" in History Today, which says:

"Attempts to restore the public reputation of wartime collaborators are particularly common in the former Communist countries of East-Central Europe, the Balkans and the Baltic. In Latvia, for example, an annual parade is held on March 16th to commemorate the Latvian Legion of the Waffen SS. Though the parade is not an official event, it has been attended by members of the Latvian parliament. In 2012 the President of Latvia, Andris Bērziņš, publicly defended the annual parade. Similar events are held in the two other Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. In all three, such commemorations have led to political controversy. Jewish groups have vigorously protested against the celebration of military units that included many men who, before they joined the Waffen SS, were members of nationalist militias that carried out massacres of Jews. Ethnic Russians who live in the Baltic states have also condemned the rehabilitation of collaborators and there have been sharp diplomatic protests from the Kremlin."

Obviously, that is again very close to what I am saying, and that is exactly what any neutral person would find as a result of a neutrally formulated search.

Therefore, it would be quite correct to characterize Nug's allegations as both insulting and false, and I am requesting, for the last time that Nug apologized and promised to refrain from similar steps in future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have not accused you of anything. You do know what the verb "wonder" means, right? I was wondering what was the source of some of your more controversial assertions as discussed above.

In response you have provided some Google scholar searches and two quotes, the first about veterans of the German Waffen SS essentally attempting to hijack memory politics in Eastern Europe to serve their own agenda, while the second quote mentions parades of Latvian Legion veterans and goes on to claim "Similar events are held in the two other Baltic states, Estonia and Lithuania. In all three, such commemorations have led to political controversy.". Ofcourse Lithuania had no such Legion to begin with, the Nazis never created one. So for this paper to claim that veterans of this fictional Lithuanian Legion held commemorations calls into question the credibility of that source.

But I don't see anything that supports your claim that these Baltic countries are quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols in those google scholar searches. --Nug (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This does not look like a real apology. If I write "If I read Nug’s take on the situation in Eastern Europe I would wonder if he gets most of his information from Mein Kampf" and than claim that I haven't accused you of advocating Nazi ideas, that would be a lie: such a statement would be a direct accusation.

With regard to your second paragraph, that is just an awkward attempt to derail a discussion: the google scholar search provided by me demonstrates that all information I use can be easily found (without resorting to cherry-picking) in scholarly sources that have no relation to the Russian government sponsored media. I am waiting for a real apology.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Context matters. If I was spouting nonsense about the superiority of the Ayran race, then wondering if I had sourced my views from Mein Kampf would be a fair question. If you withdraw your false claim that the Baltic states are quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols, then I will withdrawn my question as to where you sourced that claim from. Generally you are quite meticulous in your sourcing, but we need to be especially careful with regard the Baltic states due to the level of misinformation present[10]. The pernicious effect of this ia amply demonstrated with the second article you sourced from Google scholar that claimed both Estonia and Lithuania hold waffen-SS veteran parades similar to Latvia, which they don't and Lithuanian didn't even have a Waffen-SS unit during the war. And even in the case of the Latvian procession, any picture will show there are no Nazi symbols in sight, but in fact banners carried by the veterans themselves saying "No to Nazism"[11]. --Nug (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, context does matter. I wrote:

"However, the Germans themselves totally disassociated themselwes from Nazism, and any Nazi symbols are absolutely banned in Germany, any Holocaust denialism is considered as a crime. In contrast, many nations that claim they were not Nazi collaborators are quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols, and they consider ex-waffenSS fighters as national heroes."

As compared to Germany, which declared zero tolerance, many European nations look quite tolerant to Nazism, and noone can deny that. Actually, that my post was a responce to your Mein Kampf example: indeed, Australia, as well as many other nations, is more tolerant to Nazi ideology than Germany, and that was the main idea I was trying to convey. Yes, Germans committed numerous crimes during WWII, however, they fully admit that now, they are doing their best to atone the crimes of their ancestors, and they demonstrate almost zero tolerance to Nazism, which means there is no need to contunue blaming only Germans, and it is a time to point our attention at the nations that committed less crimes, but who are still denying that fact, and instead blame Germans in their own misdeeds. Second, I don't remember I ever mentioned Baltic states in that my post, so to withdraw the statement about WaffenSS parades in the Baltic states I have to make it first. Instead, I'll let Zuroff to do this job: The chief Nazi hunter of the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center on Monday blasted an annual Latvian march to honor countrymen who fought in a German combat unit during World War II, calling it part of Latvian efforts to equate Nazi and Soviet crimes. The annual march, which was held through the streets of downtown Riga on Sunday, is a misguided attempt to create a false symmetry between Nazi and Communist crimes that will help minimize Latvians' guilt in the crimes of the Holocaust, said Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the organization's Israel Director. "By permitting a march to honor those who fought alongside the Nazis for a victory of the Third Reich during World War II, the Latvian authorities are sending a deeply flawed message which distorts the historical events," Zuroff said.

As regards to your "No to Nazism" banner, that is again a misinterpretation: the banner says "No to Nazism and Communism", and that is directly related to the main article's point about a "canard that fighting alongside Nazis was patriotic, and that Soviet domination was in anyway comparable to the Holocaust".

To summarise, instead admitting your mistake and bringing your apologies, you just distorted my words by taking them out of context. If that is an awkward attempt to apologize, I do not accept such an apology. Please, stop that and apologise.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It was apparent to me that you were referring to the Baltic states with your statement:

"In contrast, many nations that claim they were not Nazi collaborators are quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols, and they consider ex-waffenSS fighters as national heroes."

What other nations where your referring to if not the Baltics? I can only think of maybe one other that fit the criteria, perhaps Ukraine? But then you wouldn't have said "many nations" if you were only thinking of that country. Public display of Nazi symbols have been banned in the Baltics for quite some years now, and no scholarly source would claim otherwise, not even Dr. Zuroff. Ofcourse Communist symbols are also banned, which is understandable given the Mass killings under communist regimes. Germany hasn't totally disassociated themselwes from Nazism, it still secretly pays pensions to former Waffen-SS men[12] --Nug (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

In your post, my username was was mentioned in a context of two nasty propagandistic resources sponsored by Putin's government. That is a personal attack, and that is an insult. Taking into account that I never used TR and dont-remember-the-second-one as sources, this personal attack was totally groundless. If it was apparent to you that I meant Baltic states (I actually meant primarily Ukraine, although some worrying processes occur in Romania too; the Baltic states, as far as I know, essentially stopped to commemorate their Nazi collaborators, primarily due to a fierce international responce, although there are still serious problems with the Holocaust teaching in these states, as the UNESCO report says), that has no relation to the problem: I didn't mean primarily and solely the Baltic states, although, even if I did, that would be in a full accordance with what the majority of western reliable sources say. I am still waiting for apologies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but you do know that Ukraine banned public display of Nazi symbols four years ago[13], right? So the Baltics and Ukraine have banned Nazi symbols for some time now. However perhaps I should have framed my question with regard to your sourcing in a better way, because it obviously offended you when asked if the source for this claim was RT or Sputnik. I accept that you didn't source that from either of those two sites. However it is also clear that no western reliable sources, let alone a majority, would support your assertion with regard to tolerance of Nazi symbols either. It is not inconceivable that some may construe demonstrably false claims about particular peoples that suggest an affinity to Nazism (or an anti-semitic tendency) as an ethnic slur, so we need to be cautious in making generalised claims regarding the character of particular countries without supporting sources. I think we have expended more than enough text on this and should move on to more fruitful activities, I now understand your position, as I hope you understand mine. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I perfectly understand your position, and I was understanding it from the very beginning: your position (equating Nazism and Communism) is a local POV, which is especially popular in some post-Soviet states, especially in those where the influence of nationalist and rightist movements is strong. Although it is not supported by majority of Western sources, you believe everybody who questions your POV is either a Russian nationalist or is being paid by a Russian government. Actually, the only thing you could probably have accused me of was some exaggeration (the words "many" or "quite" were probably a little bit too strong). Everything else was quite correct, and I expect you to to make clear that you never ever will mention my user name in a context of RT or the-second-shity-site (I am too lazy to re-read your post). Obviously, everything I am saying is possible to find in western sources, and some degree of exaggeration is quite acceptable during a talk page discussion. In contrast to accusations of being RT's mouthpiece. Apologies are still not accepted. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Nug there is an interesting item related to this debate, as noted a 2016 article by writer Matt Lebovic, which highlighted the fact that for years there have been an effort to shift blame away from Germany for the Holocaust, led by West Germany's Agency 114, which during the Cold War years recruited former German Nazis to West Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, which for example spread the term "Polish death camps" in order to minimize German responsibility for the Holocaust, and implicate Poles and everyone else for the German atrocities during the war, quote: "but responsibility for doing so can be assigned to former Nazis operating in West Germany during the Cold War, and decades during which secret services undertook to whitewash history." [14] --E-960 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the two authors of the above barrage of ad hominem personal attacks above are hoping to achieve... Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up your past comments or edits, is not a personal attack — this was raised to highlight the fact that you and Paul Siebert continually favor a minority interpretation of the events, though not fringe they are not the primary interpretation of the events (similar example to the start date of WWII debate, which re-surfaces every few months). --E-960 (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, no. You're both abusing other editors with ad hominem attacks to try to streamroller your way to I'm not sure what. Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Both who? Are you suggesting that calling out a demonstrably false claim that Eastern Europe is “quite tolerant to public demonstration of Nazi symbols” (particularly in comparison with Australia, USA or Britain) and thus calling into question the remainder of the argument that is based upon that false claim, is an "ad hominem attack"? --Nug (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

In any case, I think that additional text needs to be included to describe anti-semitism/racism in Germany between the wars — the "stab-in-the-back" canard, the "living-space" demands, "inferior-races" ideology. I think it is very obvious that when Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and repeatedly blamed Jews, Slavs, etc. for Germany's problems in his political speeches, Germans knew what he stood for, and around 37% - 44% VOTED for the Nazis in the July 1932 German federal election and then March 1933 German federal election. --E-960 (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Good day all, Paul Siebert (talk), Nick-D (talk), A D Monroe III (talk), E-960 (talk), after a brutal day saving humanity (my day job), I believe we stepped into the looking glass, so please, let’s step back out, breathe in deep, and analyse this for what it is. The statement, collaborators were either coerced or duly supported could be further refined to collaborators either cooperated — some freely, some with reservations, others by force — with the German authorities. All of us partaking in this discussion are well-informed of the history of the times, or at least, we seem to be. This topic is undeniably contentious, well-known by this writer from every angle. As the Americans say, "I didn’t ride in on a turnip wagon." But I see indisputable, those which I enumerated earlier. We all are aware that the Germans sought locals (a few, or perhaps many locals ... who cares?). It occurred, so it is indisputable, especially since the Germans were outnumbered and needed their help (cooperation/collaboration). It was similar to the American invasion into Iraq in 2003; of course, on a different scale.

Further, I judge myself to have an unbiased opinion of the issues. I try to follow the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. I do not have any cross to bear, and I am not cooperating or collaborating with a specific Wikipedia editor. Nor do I have the right to judge anyone. As I said earlier, my strength is Greco-Roman history. I read the tomes of well-known WWII historians, personal observers/journalists from that time period — as I did Herodotus and Tacitus for ancient history — to gather the first-hand account of what transpired during modern history (A. Beevor, Rick Atkinson, James Brady, Dear, Foot, Cronkite, to name just a few). I’m sure you have done your homework, too. Yet, I cannot recall any great book/author/journalist who failed to mention collaboration and its scale of involvement during World War II. Please, anyone, do share it with us if you have one on your list.

Now, perhaps I can share this book if it escaped your reading list: it exemplifies most of what this subsection hopes to accomplish: at least read the Prologue]”

With all due respect to all my colleagues, Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Bigeez, could you please repost the latest version of the text under consideration here? (perhaps as a new sub-thread) I fear that it's gotten a bit lost. Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D (talk), of course. I'm a bit frazzled with vay-cay. Yearning for the Cornish Sea, but Clearwater will have to do. No problem. Will get to it ASAP. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a separate article Collaboration with the Axis Powers. I have suggested to define the notion of collaboration there and I qote academic sources,Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers#Hans Lemberg noone cooperated. You haven't informed there about your thread. How is it possible to write so many lines ignoring Hans Lemberg and Werner Rings?Xx236 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"some European nations claim that Nazi were exclusively resopsible for the Holocaust" - who were the "Nazi"? ETs? No they were Germans, Austrians and Sudetengermans. The listed Germans designed the Holocaust and implemented it. Romania acted independently but didn't finish its project.

Which exactly "some European nations"? Any nation has its own history and its own evasion, but the German and Austrian evasions are the biggests - "Nazi were responsible" and "we have squared the Holocaust". Germany didn't punish thousands of Nazis responsible for genocides. The Nazi judges, lawyers, academicians build democratic Germany.

In this Wikipedia a number of editors accuse Polish people and refuse to contribute to general pages about Nazi crimes, so they transfer responsibility from Germans to Poles.Xx236 (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

"an example of EE antisemitism"

The recent book Intimate Violence explains 1941 pogroms

"Intimate Violence is a novel social-scientific explanation of ethnic violence and the Holocaust. It locates the roots of violence in efforts to maintain Polish and Ukrainian dominance rather than in anti-Semitic hatred or revenge for communism." The book ignores the third side of the triangle - the massacre of Poles by Ukrainians, much bigger than 1941 pogroms.

So we have an academic work against stereotypes, propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Your discussion about Jewish collaboration misinforms. Jewish communities collaborated 1939-1941 creating ghettos and producing lists of Jews. At that time tens of thousands of ethnic Poles conspired and died or were imprisoned. It was irrational but it happened. Thousands of Polish soldiers slank to France and UK to fight. How may Jewish fighters died since October 1939 till 1941? How many Jewish soldiers went to France? Some Polish-Jewish soldiers refused to fight when in Palestine, some others continued to fight and died liberating Italy.

Lodz Jews wanted to survive and offered their children. Wasn't it it a form of collaboration? I give something and I obtain something.Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Lithuanian collaborators murdered Jews and ethnic Poles in Ponary massacre.Xx236 (talk) 12:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

http://defendinghistory.com/ criticizes Lithuanians and Latvians, not mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

References

"As compared to Germany, which declared zero tolerance," - Germany accepts neo-Nazi meetings and concerts.https://www.ft.com/content/dcd4aee8-936f-11e9-aea1-2b1d33ac3271 Xx236 (talk) 09:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Image selection in Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour

At present the section has two images - nameless victims at Bergen-belsen (following liberation), and a mug shot of a 14 years old Polish girl in Auschwitz (killed by a phenol injection to the heart - and not in the gas chambers). This image selection is far from a representative selection of genocide and concentration camps in WWII (it isn't representative for Auschwitz either - see Auschwitz concentration camp#Death toll), and the mug shot lacks context (without the caption - this could be any mugshot). Several other high quality photos are available, inlcuding for instance - the Warsaw Ghetto boy.Icewhiz (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the image selection is rather representative and does not need to be changed, because the German Nazis murdered millions of people, Jews being their first and prime target, but also Poles, Roma and so on, this need to be captured. Even The Holocaust article highlights the fact that it was not only the Jews which were deemed as inferior and slated for extermination. In the case of Poles, Hitler's orders were to exterminate Poles only they were to be liquidated at a slower pace than the Jews, through forced labor, executions and food and medicine depravation. --E-960 (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the current pair of images are a good combination: the first illustrates the scale of the murders, and the second helps to put a human face on them. The statement that "Approximately 230,000 children were held prisoner, and used in forced labor and medical experiments" needs a citation though given that it's substantive content not covered in the body of the article. This also seems to greatly under-state the figure for the number of caught up in the Holocaust and other mistreatment and killings. I'd suggest replacing it with "Approximately 1.5 million children, of whom 1 million were Jewish, were murdered by Germany and collaborators" per the US Holocaust museum [15]. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not a forum

Opinion of Paul Siebert about "the mindset of a Polish society as whole" doesn't belong here. Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The start of this discussion was given by the post that was irrelevant and didn't belong to that thread. Since it insulted the Holocaust victims, I requested the author to remove it, but it is still there...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Does a "start" allow you to misbehave and to ignore Wikipedia rules?

Icewhiz insults 99% of Holocaust victims ignoring them and selecting the one percent of victims (including the indirect ones) of Poles. He transfers responsiblity from Germans and Austrians to Polish peasants, which is Holocaust revisionism. Shame on him and shame on you.Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

A discussion of a mindset of a Polish society is not prohibited by our rules. This discussion was relevant, because the resurrection of the thesis about Jewish police as an instance of collaboration is directly related to it. In contrast, commenting of editors, especially the claims like "a user XXX insults 99% of the Holocaust victims" is not only wrong, it directly contradicts to our rules (comment of contributions, not a contributor). In addition, exceptional claims require exceptional evidences: your claim about my "misbehaviour" requires a solid evidence, otherwise it must be retracted.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Memebrship of the Blue Police wasn't fully "voluntary", too. The majority of the policemen was drafted in 1939, only later some volunteers joined it. Some policemen worked for the Polish underground. Some policemen were murdered by Germans. The police wasn't "Polish" but "German", commanded by German SS and police officers. Some policemen were punished by Polish underground. Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

See the answer in the next section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any regarding the police. Your opinion what is wrong is yours. The Germans and Austrians are responsble for the Holocaust. Icewhzi and FR don't contribute to general Holocaust pages, they remove pro-Polish texts and add anti-Polish ones. Frydel and even Grabowski describe the context of the Hunt for the Jews, Grabowski's conclusions are biased and accepted by wishful-thinking Icewhiz and FR.

The 200,000 story means that 40,000 of Jewish victims (according to Borkowicz) are unimportant. One needs 200,000 to attack nasty Poles. Such stories insult the victims. Similarly Polish nationalistic stories about millions of Polish heroes insult the real heroes.

You don't have any right to tell stories about "the mindest of a Polish society as a whole", beacsue you don't have any such data. Xx236 (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Your conflict with those two users hardly belongs to this talk page and to this thread.

I have a right to make a conclusion on a talk page about a mindset of a Polish society. This is not the article main space, so WP:V is not applicable here. By the way, the Jews killed in Poland in 1939-45 were Poles (Polish citizens) according to modern views. Therefore, by writing that some Polish citizens were responsible for a death of other Polish citizens is by no means anti-Polish edits. In contrast, saying that that edits were anti-Polish implies you are pushing ethnic nationalistic views, which is a total anachronism in the modern Europe.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Government-in-exile

The president Mościcki passed his powers. and general Sikorski created a new anti-Sanacja government in France. The phrase "government ministers, and the commander in chief of the military fled to Romania" is true but unimportant. Xx236 (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. However, this statement is not in the article, so I don't think we have to discuss it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Polish underground state/resistance movement

@E-960: - please justify DUEness of this content. We hardly mention any other underground movement, and the Polish movement (outside of the failed Warsaw uprising mentioned in the text in 1944 where it is relevant) had little impact on war (if were are to mention it - perhaps it bears mentioning estimates of killing more Jews than Germans - [16]). The content you reintroduced is sourced to an 117 page illustrated history published by a publisher mainly known for its ethnic cookbooks and by an amateur author who hasn't published anything else (per the amazon profile (not much else on him) - "His lifelong hobby was history of World War II, especially from the Polish view. He lived that history as a young man. The book he published, is the crowning effort of many hours of research and writing. He was racing against time and debilitating effects of Parkinson's disease to finish. "[17]. At present we don't cover movements with more significant impact - e.g. Soviet partisans. Icewhiz (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

the Polish movement (...) had little impact on war - straight up WP:OR. Pretty much any source on WW2 discusses the Polish underground movement in general or the Home Army in particular. perhaps it bears mentioning estimates of killing more Jews than Germans - please stop trying to provoke other editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, imho, it would be good if you answered to this Icewhiz's statement not with a personal attack, but by presenting some useful facts supported by reliable sources. Frankly, I am not aware of any action of the Polish underground movement that had an military impact deserving a mention in the Course of the War section. By "I am not aware" I do not mean there was no impact, I literally mean I know no examples of the activity of the underground movement that had a significant impact: Even the Warsaw uprising had more political than military impact. I may be wrong, but in that case you are expected to provide facts that prove I am wrong. (signed after VM's reminder --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC))

User:Paul Siebert, please sign your comments. I did not make any "personal attacks". If you're in doubt as to the nature of Icewhiz's irrelevant off topic comment then just consider his reply below in which he posts another non sequitur about "Teh Poles" and something something "myth" all sourced to a... .... psychiatric journal. As to your unawareness, I'll address that below but please note that this article isn't about JUST "military impacts" of WW2 (although unfortunately it reads that way to a significant extent - it's an article on the "Military History of World War II" not actually an article on "World War II", but that's also off topic). As already mentioned, the interception of V2 rockets, the intelligence provided to the allies, and Operation Tempest, were all "impactful" though not all were combat operations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I do not find Icewhiz's comment really relevant, but your response to them was not productive either. As regards to "this article isn't about JUST "military impacts" of WW2", yes, you are right, however, the section we are talking about is devoted mostly to military aspects. Therefore, whereas some additional materials about Poles may be relevant to this article, it is not relevant to this particular section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

VM - to the contrary - if you want to show the Home Army had in impact (other than triggering the uprising which led to the German decision to destroy Warsaw) - please provide non-partisan sources indicating a military impact - preferrably in a top-level summary of the war (Britannica for instance ignores the Home Army - in a much more detailed analysis). There are, however, sources treating the Home Army myth and emotions surronding the issue in Poland e.g. - "The Polish myth, the Polish memory is a local matter, saturated with its own emotions, legends, and nightmares. These have not been included in the treasury of universal symbols as opposed to the Jewish Extermination. The symbols of national tragedies such as Katyń, Armia Krajowa (the Home Army), the Warsaw Uprising and Auschwitz have been, in the eyes of the supporters of the myth, either ignored by the world or appropriated by the Jews, as happened in the case of Auschwitz. And so the defence of the Polish point of view is the main duty of a Pole. Negating the heroic vision of the history of Poland is an attack on Poland. Therefore, the Jewish memory becomes a danger to the country." - Józefik, Barbara, and Krzysztof Szwajca. "Polish myths and their deconstruction in the context of Polish-Jewish relations." Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy 1 (2011): 35-41. - we should take care not to promote such muth. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you posting this? It's a complete irrelevant non-sequitur. What does "Polish myth" or "Polish emotions" have to do with anything? Why are you trying to cite material on historical events to a ... psychiatric journal that deals with psychotherapy (!!!) ??? Even putting aside the derailing of the thread that this constitutes, that's obviously scraping the bottom of some source barrel. If you wish to write about your own opinions about "Polish myths" or "deconstruction of Polish-Jewish relations", please do so in a a more appropriate forum.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "mentioning estimates of killing more Jews than Germans", this section does not discuss civilian and military casualties, so the discussion of this statement does not belong to this thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that referencing the Polish Government in Exile and the setting up of the Underground State in the section which talks about the Polish invasion is reasonable (as the outcome of the German occupation). However, I agree that talking about it as being the largest is excessive in the case of this broad article. --E-960 (talk) 06:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It would be worth considering whether general histories of the war place particular emphasis on the Polish underground state and resistance. My impression is that the underground state and resistance in general don't receive any particular emphasis, but the Warsaw uprising of 1944 does. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "emphasis" but pretty much all sources on WW2 discuss the Polish underground to some extent. Whether it's the Warsaw Uprising, or Operation Tempest, or the acquisition of V2, or the reports sent to the West regarding the Holocaust.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that the article should include a bit more text on Resistance, this includes some of the more successful formations, such as Polish, French, Soviet, Greek and Serbian resistance, which actually were effective enough to force the Germans to divert sizable resources to combat them, and provided intelligence to the allies - thus having a legitimate impact on the war itself. If I recall correctly, one example of this was that the Soviets knew of the Kursk offensive because of partisan intelligence gathering, and the Western Allies of concentration camps and extermination of the Jews because of Home Army intelligence (though they chose to ignore it) --E-960 (talk) 09:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

While some resistance movements had an impact (e.g. Soviet or Yugoslav) - non-partisan sources showing an impact (beyond the starting the insurrection that resulted in the destruction of Warsaw by the Germans, but had little military non-civilian impact) of the Polish AK are quite lacking - please provide a source, a non-partisan source that treats the subject a comparative fashion (i.e. a general WWII top-level source - and not a short illustrated book by an amateur published by a publisher known for its ethnic cookbooks) that places this emphasis on the AK. Icewhiz (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, this is pure WP:OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is an example Zamość uprising, which made the Zamość region a no-go zone for the Germans. Another is Żegota organized by the Polish AK which saved an estmated 60,000 Jews. --E-960 (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Zamość had little to no military impact (the largest battle - Battle of Osuchy - being a two-day one-sided affair). Żegota was welfare, not military (and its impact is, well, disputed - you are citing a Poland-specific source here - and are confusing aid rendered with actual survival). Any comparative WWII-wide histories, by non-partisan authors, that treat this as significant (beyond the destruction of Warsaw, which we cover elsewhere)?Icewhiz (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Very bias, "Poland-specific source here", so you reject a reliable source published by McFarland&Company, because the author was Polish. Żegota had civilian and military (AK) support. --E-960 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, what the heck is a "non-partisan authors"? Pls, stop making stuff up, is the book a reliable source or not, don't discriminate against a source by calling it "Polish" — that's so bias of you. --E-960 (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Please read WP:PARTISAN, however more relevant here is WP:DUE - if you want to show this content is DUE here - please show that sources on WWII as a whole (what this article is about - and we're supposed to summarize!) - treat this at some length. The Britannica article (which is longer than ours) - doesn't cover the Polish underground. It also doesn't cover the government in exile (to be precise - it mentions the flight of the government - "The next day, the Polish government and high command crossed the Romanian frontier on their way into exile"). Warsaw 1944 does get a short mention (in [18]). Britannica (in an article structured in a manner that is far larger than our own) rather clearly shows this is UNDUE. Icewhiz (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree. It would be helpful to make comparisons to the extent of coverage in general reference works on the war. Accusations of anti-Polish bias are distinctly unhelpful, and suggest a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Except there's an ArbCase regarding the very matter.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Tadeusz Piotrowski (sociologist) is not a partisan author, he's a mainstream academic who researches WWII, the Holocaust and occupied-Poland, so I'm not sure what user Icewhiz is trying to articulate by saying "you are citing a Poland-specific source here", that he researches issues related to Poland, so now he's disqualified as a reliable source? --E-960 (talk) 11:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Please see the second sentence of Icewhiz's post, where they noted the need to consider the coverage in general histories of the war rather than works focused on Poland such as that in question here. As this article is a general history of the war, considering the coverage in specialised works isn't the best approach. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

If Icewhiz wants to make the claim that the Polish underground had no impact then it's up to him to provide a ("non-partisan") source which says so. I've never read a book on WW2 which did not discuss the Polish Underground to some extent. And this is a single sentence we're discussing here so it's not like it's UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So please find better sources. We should cooperate rather than rewrite history of WWII according to West-centric sources.

The war against Poland in this Wikipedia wasn't started by Polish editors, there are thousands of biased anti-Polish edits in hundred of pages and their Talk pages. The battlefield cannot be ignored here. Xx236 (talk) 09:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not smelling gunpowder nor hearing bullets flying by (though I do have Ghost Riders in the Sky in the background, might be missing something). In regards to "in this Wikipedia" - I've taken the liberty of examining the German Wikipedia - which has the Polish government fleeing to exile on 17 September but not much else - like Britannica. Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, it seems the words "..the war against XXX in this Wikipedia..." perfectly reflect a mindset of some nationalistic users, not only Polish ones. I am pretty sure many Ukrainian users believe there is a war against Ukraine in this Wikipedia; another example is a sock of some (probably) Russian user who believes there is a war against Russia in this Wikipedia, and I know many similar examples. Believe me, there is no war against Poland in this Wikipedia. It is you who believe it is. The real state of things is as follows. There is a conflict between a nationalistic views of some Polish (Ukrainian, Russian, Latvian etc) sources that depict the history of their countries a heroic and bright, and an international views. According to the former, their own countries committed no (or very little) sins, and they always were victims of foreign aggression or oppression. In contrast, according to the latter, there were no impeccable countries or nations, at least, in XX century. Obviously, only the latter view is correct, because local nationalistic narratives are mutually exclusive. Thus, infamous EEML (which was formed to wing the perceived war against Poland, Ukraine, Baltic states in this Wikipedia) broke apart because of the conflict between its members that started immediately after the common enemy (the Russians) was defeated. And the situation reproduces again and again: Polish users agree there was massive participation of Lithuanians in the Holocaust (the fact many Lithuanian nationalists vehemently disagree with), but disagree when someone says the Poles also participated. Ukrainian and Polish nationalists share the same views about Soviet Russia or Jews, but the Vohlyn massacre (a.k.a. "Second Polish-Ukrainian war") is seen totally differently by them. Jewish users have totally different opinion on that (and the last Arbitration case is a perfect example of that). The fundamental reason of this conflict, which will never end if we continue the conversation in this format, is that you all implicitly assume there was a party that was essentially without a sine (and this party, obviously, was your motherland :-)). However, that is not the case, and pointing at some misdeeds of Poland and Poles doesn't mean there is a war against Poland in this Wikipedia. Writing that some Poles participated in the Holocaust doesn't mean we blame the Poles in Germany's sins: no, that doesn't make Nazi guilt smaller, that just gives a more detailed and historically correct picture of such a complex event as the Holocaust. In contrast, understating participation of the Poles and other occupied nations in the Holocaust is a new version of the Holocaust denial, for, as Rossoliński-Liebe noted "In post-Soviet space, the Holocaust has not usually been denied as such and post-Soviet radical right activists did not question the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz, or the anti-Jewish politics of Nazi Germany. Instead, nationalist post-Soviet discourses denied some of the national or regional elements of the Holocaust, like, for example, the contribution of different nationalist organizations or armies to it, or very frequently the participation of local populations in pogroms and other forms of anti-Jewish violence." ("Debating, obfuscating and disciplining the Holocaust: Post-Soviet historical discourses on the OUN–UPA and other nationalist movements". East European Jewish Affairs. 42 (3): 199–241).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

There were no Ukrainians during WWII, but many groups fighting each other. So if I were an Ukrainian, I would call your opinion anti-Ukrainian.

The list of edits by Icewhiz and FR is available, their anti-Polish texts are available. They don't understand that Gross and Grabowski fight Polish nationalist (partially imagimed by them) and reeducate Polish people, which isn't exactly academic. Hate, errors and methodological problesm make the reeducation countereffective. Polish anti-Semites (Bubel, Rybak) produce much less anit-Semitism than 1,600 by Gross and 200,000 by Grabowski. "Poles killed more Jews than Germans" - what does such statement mean and what it brings? Were Polish Jews more effective than ethnic Poles? Xx236 (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I can give you just one fresh example. I think Icewhiz was right when he pointed our attention at this content. Indeed, the section it was added to is called "Course of the war", therefore, the facts and events presented there are supposed to have a significant impact on the course of the war. Had activity of Polish underground a greater impact on the course of the war than the activity of, for example, Soviet partisans (not mentioned in this section)? I saw no evidences of that, except, probably of the effect of the Warsaw uprising (which is already discussed in the section). Therefore, this text should be removed, and, probably added to the future "Collaboration and resistance" section.

And now please, answer my question: is this my proposal (to exclude the mention of Polish underground in this particular context) a part of the "anti-Polish war in this Wikipedia", or it just an attempt to write a good and balanced content? Do you agree that the decision about inclusion/exclusion of some material should be based not on "yes, this material is important", but "yes, this material is more important than other facts of that type, which have not been included in the article"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope this edit rectifies things. Oddly our previous text did not mention that the Polish government fled Poland on 17 September. Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Well - seems E-960 reverted this (complete with illustrated history by an amateur author published by a publisher known for ethnic cookbooks). I will note that the edit summary is inaccurate - "of just saying that the Poles set up a government in exile, you focus on them fleeing to Romania, which is only part of the story, since after that they moved to Paris and later London." - the Polish government did not in fact move to France - its members (as well as accompanying men and material) were interned in Romania for quite some time - a different Polish government was formed in France later in September after the interned members of government resigned. In terms of the campaign itself - the Polish government giving up the fight on 17 September conceded the defeat and is mentioned by most sources AFAICT. @Paul Siebert:, @Nick-D: - your input here appreciated.Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so you want to write all that in the article or just summarize that the Poles set up a Government-in-Exile. Which is shorter? Since, it was you who wanted to trim this text? Btw, what is up with you and that cookbooks example, you know that publishers publish a verity of books on many different things. --E-960 (talk) 10:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• If you feel that a better source is needed, then do the collaborative thing and include one, instead of bringing up the cookbooks example for the 4th time in this discussion. --E-960 (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Imo, this is not a question of reliability of sources, because the information is pretty well known and is not a subject of debates. We also have to keep in mind that the military contribution of Poland into the Allied war efforts was comparable to that of France, so we definitely have to devote some space to the 1939 story, because the only other event which is discussed in the article is Warsaw uprising (and a brief mention of Polish troops participating in storming of Berlin). Meanwhile, Poles participated in other fronts, for example, in Italy, and, since we cannot mention them explicitly in each case, the explanation about the future role of Polish military provided in this paragraph is needed and relevant. I think the only modification we can make is the replacement of "Polish government" with "Poland", because a government cannot surrender, it is a state which can surrender. Everything else looks ok.

"On 8 September, German troops reached the suburbs of Warsaw. The Polish counter offensive to the west halted the German advance for several days, but it was outflanked and encircled by the Wehrmacht. Remnants of the Polish army broke through to besieged Warsaw. On 17 September 1939, after signing a cease-fire with Japan, the Soviets invaded Eastern Poland under a pretext that the Polish state had ostensibly ceased to exist. On 27 September, the Warsaw garrison surrendered to the Germans, and the last large operational unit of the Polish Army surrendered on 6 October. Despite the military defeat, Poland never surrendered, instead forming the Polish government-in-exile and a stay-behind clandestine state apparatus in occupied Poland. A significant part of Polish military personnel evacuated to Romania and the Baltic countries; many of them would fight against the Axis in other theatres of the war."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the above fragment by Paul Siebert is ok, the bottom line is that Poland never surrendered or acknowledged defeat and continued to fight and resist Germany which is notable fact as it meant continuation of the war.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks alright. --E-960 (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Hel till October the 2.

A number of Polish army officers organized small divisions and countinued to fight, eg. Henryk Dobrzański. (Military significance of the fights was negligeable, but Poles fought till Spring, even till Summer 1940.)Xx236 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, if you want to edit the article about WWII, you are supposed to do that not from Polonicentric viewpoint. As compared to a huge number of WWII battles in Europe, the battle of Hel was just a minor skirmish; this article mentions just the most important battles that had a real military or political impact. If we are going to tell in details about the Polish campaign, I don't see why shouldn't we discuss other battles in Central/Eastern Europe at the same degree of detailisation. However, such an approach would be a disaster, because that would dramatically inflate the article's volume and make it unreadable.

In addition, the notion that Poland never surrender already implies that the military activity of Poles never ceased, so there was no de facto end of hostilities in Poland, and after small pockets of resistance were suppressed by Germans, partisan movement started.

To summarise: the proposed paragraph adequately describes the 1939 -... story of Poland in WWII at the general level of detailisation that is universally accepted by majority of users for this high level article. Addition of further details about Poland would be a nationalistic POV-pushing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Break

Let's step back here for a second and get a sense of perspective. All the discussion above is about this single sentence. Nobody's proposing that we add a section on Polish resistance. Nobody's proposing we add a paragraph about it. All that is being proposed is that we add a short informative sentence which says "The Polish government in exile also established an Underground State and a resistance movement". In response 3500 words (!!!) have been plopped down on this talk. This is simply disproportionate and WP:TENDENTIOUS.

And yes, most comprehensive texts on WW2 do in fact mention the Polish resistance. Not at length. Maybe not whole chapters. But they do mention it, and like I said, all we're talking about adding here is a single short sentence which acknowledges its existence, which apparently is too much for some editors because it, according to them, is some kind of "Polish myth" (sic).

Here is actual historians. Antony Beevor in The Second World War:

Polish patriotism was perhaps romantic in some ways, but it remained astonishingly resolut in the darkest days of both Nazi and Soviet oppression (...) Although Poland's army was crushed in 1939, a new underground resistance movement was created very soon afterwards. At its height, the Home Army reached nearly 400,000 members. The extraordinarily resourceful Polish intelligence services, which had provided the first Enigma machine, continued to help the Allies. Later in the war, the Poles even managed to spirit away a trial V-2 rocket which had landed in their marshes, and disassemble it. (...) Both the Home Army and the intelligence networks reported to the Polish government-in-exile in London, which Stalin reluctantly recognized in August 1941, after the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. The Home Army was always desperately short of weapons. At first, it concentrated on releasing prisoners and sabotaging rail communications, which provided great but unacknowledged assistance to the Red Army. Armed attacks came later.Beevor, Antony (2012). The Second World War. Little, Brown.

Beevor goes on to discuss other aspects of the Polish underground, including the part it played in taking Lwow from the Nazis as part of Operation Tempest.

This is a general, comprehensive level work, and it discusses the topic in some detail. Other similar works approach the topic in a similar fashion.

This more than justifies adding a single, short sentence which just acknowledges that the Polish resistance movement existed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

VM, I have an impression all needed arguments in support of the mention of the Polish underground movement have already been presented, and there were no counter-arguments. The last version of the article already contains this information, so I do not understand if we have anything here to discuss. The only difference is that the current version says that both the government in exile and the underground movement were formed by Poland (as a country), not by the "London Poles", which, seems to be a reasonable assumption, and presents the Poles in a better light, because that means the underground resistance started, at least, partially, not after the order came from London. As far as I understand, the London Poles just established a connection with already formed resistance, not created it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You are right - the underground was created bottom-up. Main organisations (Peasants, Nationalists) accepted London control in 1942 or 1943 (some Nationalists and all Communists didn't.)Xx236 (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Question about infobox

Hello why is the Taiwanese leader mentioned?

He was the leader of a major Allied power. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Really...? I dont know of any major thing Taiwan did during the war.

Well, It wasn't quite "Taiwan" at the time. See Republic of China (1912-1949). Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)