Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy

Is it collaboration if:

• You keep the trains running?
• You allow Nazis to use your ports or airspace?
• You export food to Nazi Germany?
  • What if it's tobacco?
• You deport Jews or other people knowing they will be killed?
• You maintain a list of Jews?
• You publicly espouse anti-Semitism?
• You accept funding from the Nazi government?
• You allow them to use you in their propaganda, ie portray you as Nordic übermenschen?
• You turn back refugees from your borders?
• What if you refuse them transit visas?
• You sabotage your own country, which is not occupied by Nazis?
  • What if it isn't occupied by Nazis but is fighting them elsewhere?
• You voluntarily enlist in a Fascist army?
• You enlist in a Fascist army to get out of a POW camp?

I could go on. All of these are real; there are no trick questions. I am looking for a way to break up a big topic. Comments welcome. Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

If RS say it was, yes. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe definitive definitions are possible as to what comprises "collaboration" and what comprises "resistance." In both cases the gray areas are wide. To my mind, the great majority of the people in the occupied countries of Western Europe were passive collaborators to some extent and only a small minority (1-3 percent) were part of the organized resistance to German occupation. Most people tolerated the Germans to survive, or prosper, or with the opinion that they could serve their country best by cooperation with the Germans where cooperation was possible. I wouldn't be too hard on the passive collaborators -- nor buy into exaggerations of the participation in and accomplishments of the resistance. After a war everybody likes to claim they were on the winning side. Smallchief (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s collaboration if the reliable sources say it is. Editors deciding what is and isn’t collaboration is original research. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, many sections of this article have no source -- reliable or not. I agree that only reliable sources should be used on wikipedia -- but an editor has to use discretion, honesty, and impartiality in evaluating the information in so-called "reliable sources." In controversial topics such as this, nationalistic fervor often trumps a search for reality. I'm not a robot. Smallchief (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No they do not as that violates wp:or. But in one repct you are rioght, and that is why wp:rs is clear, sources have to be third party. So one can argue that if a source is published by a party with a wp:coi it is not an rs. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Give an editor some credit as he sorts though contradictory "reliable sources" and selects a tone that is fair to all of them. Using reliable sources, a biased editor could portray resistance movements as brave, noble, and successful or as back-biting, fragmented, partisan failures. Both interpretations have some truth to them. Smallchief (talk)

They asked for comments, they have received them. No one has so far done any more than say "we go with what RS say". Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

And I am interested in them. We're going to have to split the article pretty soon and doing so by continent is awkward because of the colonial empires. I think everybody agrees that Vichy was a collaborationist régime, but we have all of the above in different countries. One thought I recently had is that a Belgian (for example) voluntarily joining the SS is definitely collaborating, and such instances are scattered through the country sections. If we consolidate those and spin it off that would reduce the article size and allow somebody to get into gray areas like POWs who joined because they didn't think they would survive the camps.

All suggestions and comments welcome. I am trying to remediate the referencing as dispassionately as possible. 02:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: another idea. We could do both? @Mathglot: you might be interested if you aren't too busy, or want a break from what you're busy with Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as Europe is concerned, it is hard to go past Raphael Lemkin's Axis Rule in Occupied Europe. There are more specific texts on collaboration in different countries, but I have found with Yugoslavia that it is important to examine the possible national biases and the eminence of academics when deciding whose views determine the academic consensus. For example, it is not difficult to find Serb or Croat academics published mainly or only in Serbia or Croatia who seek to justify or downplay collaboration by Serbs and Croats. In such cases, you only have to look to subject matter specialists who, while they sometimes have family ties to the former Yugoslavia or were even born there, are published outside the former Yugoslavia by high quality university presses (Tomasevich, Hoare, Pavlowitch etc). I am sure the same would apply elsewhere in the world. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is helpful. FYI, Belarus is completely unsourced and while Kosovo has references that superficially look reliable not one of the dozen or so I just checked can be verified through Google Books; they either have no page number in the reference or no preview. Which doesn't mean they aren't just fine, but it's a problem in this context Elinruby (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Scope should correspond with the lede. From current lede: "In nations occupied by the Axis powers in World War II, some citizens and organizations collaborated..." and "Collaboration has been defined as cooperation between elements of the population of a defeated state and representatives of the victorious power." (emphasis mine) Romania and Bulgaria were Axis members, not occupied, and therefore should be removed from here. Along the similar lines, Hungary was only occupied after 1944 coup, so everything previous should be trimmed. There are Axis Powers, Responsibility for the Holocaust, and dedicated country specific articles for that stuff. Only a small part of Egypt west of El-Alamein was occupied, and current content is completely irrelevant to that. Whole "business collaboration" section has literally nothing to do with collaborating with an occupying power.--Staberinde (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Staberinde agree. This article was recently laboriously edited by a single editor. This is the most correct version editors might consider regressing to eliminate mistakes addressed above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Staberinde Or begin removing mistakes such as removing Axis power countries such as Romania etc. but that would take time. I would revert to the correct version and then maybe examine what could be saved later. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It would be better to rewrite the lede. And I'm lumbered with a long section of misrepresentation that was reverted back in. The Middle East needs to be revisited, that's true, but if as proposed we spinoff all the regimental history, some of it may be important. we aren't sure what to do about individuals who broadcast propaganda. Pending a split, we are trimming out mentions like "and there was this one guy, he was definitely a notorious anti-communist." Most of the material GCB so dismissively proposed to revert is referencing, so *that* is a bad idea. Elinruby (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

PS - The Business collaboration section Was written by Piotrus, I believe he said; he definitely suggested expanding it. I actually agree with him -- these manufacturers were deeply involved in the forced labor programs, so they definitely bear responsibility for many hundreds of deaths. Yet that is lost in the current list-like section. I'd actually like to spin it off and expand it. Let's see what @Piotrus: thinks Elinruby (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Regarding spinning of a list, we already have the List of companies involved in the Holocaust... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

So... Is everything in the section covered somewhere else? Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

By the way, "collaborationist" is almost exclusively used with respect to Vichy. Maybe we should move that to France. Elinruby (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and has a specific, different meaning than "collaborator", although non-specialists often conflate them. Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

• All* of the sources in the lede discuss France specifically Elinruby (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

There's also a copyvio in the second paragraph Elinruby (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I have fixed that copyvio (3rd one I have found in this article) so I removed the tag for that. I have also re-written the lede to be less simplistically accusatory, but it is still very focused on France. Possibly unduly, possibly not; France is a very well-known example, and one of the less controversial. nonetheless until we split this article, its scope is still world-wide, and there are other countries in the world besides France. Working on referencing. Elinruby (talk) 03:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Moving out Asian sections barely trims this article

I finally did the deed and moved collaboration with Japan to Collaboration with Imperial Japan. However, this barely scratches the surface, since it moved only about 16,000 bytes out of 222 k (~7%), leaving a bloated 206 kilobytes here, which is just over what's considered a reasonable limit on Wikipedia. And, though it might just scrape the ceiling, few people are going to read all of that at one sitting (after 15 years working, on and off, on War of 1812, I still haven't read the whole article through). I see two major needs:

1. The non-Asian portion that remains still needs drastic pruning. But almost all of the recent edits I've seen (justified though individual ones might be) have added to this article's length, not trimmed it. Not every nominal volunteer Waffen-SS unit (e.g. the British Free Corps) need be mentioned here, rather than at its own country's collaboration (or resistance or WW2) page. Ditto for isolated idiosyncratic individual collaborationists or microscopic paper pro-Axis parties. But there are also major excisions and abridgements that still would need to be made to maintain balance and return this page as a useful, coherent, readable summary and comparative narrative for a topic that would interest the general reader.
2. The new article I created, Collaboration with Imperial Japan, now something of a skeleton, needs major work to make it more useful, informative and coherent. I've done enough work as I reasonably can for the moment, and with any luck, some experts on Asian history, Asian nationalism, and the Asian theatre of World War II will join in contribute, fill out and correct what is there currently.

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

We do need experts for collaboration with Japan. I've made an effort but I am positive that we are missing a lot.

Since we're getting nothing but crickets on our various proposals, I think bolder moves are in order. I'll see what I can do with the volunteer units, but much of it is completely unsourced. And somebody seems to have conflated units that were ideologically driven with recruiting PoWs and forced labor. I totally agree about the British Free Corps, btw. Some countries may not longer have an entry after the volunteer units spin off, but maybe that's a feature not a bug. Anyway, here goes. Elinruby (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Re your edit summary for adding Japanese to the lead, one of the sources is for Burma. Maybe I need to be explicit about this.Elinruby (talk) 07:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources in #Jewish collaboration

Several sources in the section are tagged as "unreliable". Some of them can be removed per WP:APLRS, along with the statements to which they're attached. François Robere (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Channel Islands

i really feel like the length is undue, but I can't come up with a way to condense the multiple sentences about the collaboration accusations being unfounded. Moving past it to other problems but I do see it. There are also still discussions of volunteer units that should be summarized and moved to the draft, but I am getting tired and just want to smooth out any problems created by the major snippage I just did. Elinruby (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

France: do we need this milhist here for context?

it could probably help another article if not: Vichy was also reluctant to either disarm or surrender its naval fleet in North Africa to the British, who worried that it might fall into German hands. Eventually the British Royal Navy sank or disabled most of the French Navy, killing over a thousand French sailors in a July 1940 attack on the Algerian naval port at Mers-el-Kébir.

References

Egypt

I hear the people saying it's UNDUE. I think it may tie into Abyssinia, but would be ok with the text getting copied to the talk page, here for example, while we figure that one out. Elinruby (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

British collaborators

seem to be missing at present. See British Free Corps as well as John Amery, [[ George Johnson Armstrong]], Norman Baillie-Stewart, Leonard Banning, Victor Carey, Dolly Eckersley, Gertrude Hiscox, Jessie Jordan, William Joyce, John Lingshaw, Arthur Owens, Jack Trevor etc. Possible sources:

• Pryce-Jones, David (31 October 2020). "Britain's Nazi collaborators". The Critic Magazine. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
• Philpot, Robert (17 September 2018). "The men and women who plotted to stab Britain in the back during WWII". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 3 March 2023.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• No, as this is a general article, and we should not have lists of every collaborator. Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• However,I did just discover that Wikipedia has a List of Allied traitors during World War II with an ample UK section. But I may add a brief line here about Lord Haw Haw and his colleagues. —— Shakescene (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

• I think Haw Haw is notable enough on his own to be mentioned here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

We've been taking out individuals for space reasons, unless they were political decision-makers. I'd rather not make exceptions to that since I think we should delete the appallingly-sourced section on Jewish collaborators that was POINTily reverted back in.

However I was thinking that there is probably enough material for an article about propaganda broad broadcasters. Another such was Louis-Ferdinand Céline, and it seems to me that I noticed a couple of Japanese-Americans when I was clicking around in the category, which is, on the other hand, totally about individual people. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Review for national pride

The comments in the British section have reminded me that a lot of the country sections seem to seek to minimize the extent of collaboration in particular countries. I propose that we scrutinize them all, as there actually seem to have been a lot of British collaborators, as long as we aren't defining collaboration to require occupation. Also see Belarus and Denmark. Just a something to mull over; I know we all have multiple other irons in the fire. Elinruby (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ I don't think that (relatively speaking) there was that much opportunity for British collaboration. Most of what we might consider collaboration (restricted as we try to be to collaboration with an occupier, as opposed to treason, sabotage or defeatism in a threatened but unoccupied country) was just assistance to the Axis from outside. The exceptions here are those Britons who either absconded to Germany (like Lord Haw-Haw [William Joyce]) or found themselves under Axis occupation, e.g. the Channel Islanders and P.G. Wodehouse living in France when the Germans came.

National pride and Yugoslavia

To raise up a hornet's nest from a question (like Poland's) of mortal interest to Serbs, Croats, Communists and anti-Communists, do we need to balance the discussion of the Chetniks' sometime collaboration with Germany and Italy with the ever-problematic German–Yugoslav Partisan negotiations? Although they might have led to a more lasting arrangement, the resulting understandings lasted only a few weeks or months until Adolf Hitler ordered an end. Whether included or excluded, they pose gnarly questions of neutrality, balance and WP:Undue weight and could, if incorrectly or improperly handled, invite very heated debates, reversions, counter-reversions, and special pleading (q.v. the long contention over Jewish collaboration balanced against Polish collaboration). —— Shakescene (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have looked at that but there is a steep learning curve. My best suggestion at the moment is a lot of talk page discussion. It seems a lot of what went on was in the category of welcoming what was perceived as outside help with ethnic nationalist disputes.Elinruby (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

France

For a long time France maintained that Vichy was not a legitimate government, presumably to downplay French responsibility. 00:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Morocco

The Morocco subsection refers to Vichy — both administrative arrangements and anti-Semitic campaigns, but unless we can show that the Vichy anti-Semitism in these cases was directly done to please, placate or obey German (or even less likely, Italian) occupiers, the whole subsection is irrelevant to this article's topic and should therefore be excised or moved somewhere else. French anti-Semitism (like French philo-Semitism) has it own deep, rich roots long preceding any Axis occupation — no one attributes the anti-Dreyfus campaign to collaboration with foreign powers.

—— Shakescene (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

a good point. Give me a little time to mull it over though; I need a break from this article. Or if you copy it here to be worked on or moved. I am probably ok with whatever but would prefer not to need to track the material down in the history Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

With this talk page again approaching 100k, what could be archived?

This talk page is now around 86,000 bytes (of which nearly 10,000 is just importing the Jewish collaboration section from the Article page).

At some point, we'll need to move some of this page as it now exists either into #/Archive 9 or into a fresh Archive 10.

I'd like to know which current Talk Page sections other editors here think could be archived and which they'd like to keep here, either because the topic hasn't been fully resolved, or because they'd like to keep it handy for reference purposes (e.g. #Is it collaboration if: or various sets of sources and citations).

On the other hand, some simple queries or discussions of topics now settled (e.g. should we split between Asia and Europe/Africa?) can probably be safely moved to Archives with no significant loss to useful current discussion. Any candidates for archiving or keeping here? —— Shakescene (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

first top six sections can go unless you need something there. I was looking up how to archive and I'll get Madagascar and Brittany, which should help quite a bit, but I want to find a home for the text. The French Navy too. The very long BRD fail section has an active discussion. I'm not sure we're done with British collabotators. HtH Elinruby (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

And yeah, splitting off Asia is settled Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

All right (if jumping the gun), I went ahead and moved about three dozen sections from this page to #/Archive 9, whose contents page now reads as follows:

== Contents ==

• 1 * "Self-defense"
• 2 * Is a separate Political collaboration section still needed?
• 3 * Marseilles roundup conflated w/ Battle of Marseilles
• 4 * Axis
• 5 * Poland : failed verification
  • 5.1 * References
• 6 * Polish puppet government considered but rejected by Germans
• 7 * Jewish collaborator section
• 8 * Going to need a split
• 9 * Request for Input
• 10 * France
• 11 * Iraq
• 12 * Lebanon and possibly South Africa
• 13 * Reichskommissariat Ostland
• 14 * Needs work: no discussion of collaboration
• 15 * South Africa
  • 15.1 * South Africa
• 16 * High-priority: Estonia
• 17 * Note on references
• 18 * Adrian Weale
• 19 * Volunteers -split proposal
• 20 * Kosovo
• 21 * Greece
• 22 * Hong Kong
• 23 * Sweden

Of course, anyone who wants to move any of these back here for further discussion should feel free to do so.

—— Shakescene (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Added * 24Madagascar: this is milhist, needs a home to contents of #/Archive 9 —— Shakescene (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the Jewish collaborator section of Archive 9 into a new /Jewish collaboration archive page, together with the BRD fail section formerly here (on the current Talk page). This new archive already has 40,000 bytes, and moving those sections here significantly cuts both this page and /Archive 9, while giving us more breathing room here to consider all the other questions and queries. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"volunteers"

For clarity:

I'm working on the "volunteers" off in my sandbox. The section is pretty much uncited, except for the references I had added to the French section. The articles the wikilinked in the list are almost all completely uncited also. I am expecting this to become a separate article, or perhaps a different section here if if this text turns out to also be impossible to substantiate and a lot of of it has to be cut.

One of the reasons for consolidating discussions of volunteer units is that scattered all through this articles are Lots of sentences like: Unit A was recruited from place x and sent to place y where they committed a massacre in village x₁. The unit was renamed to B, and merged into Army M.

I considered a draft but for whatever reason I'm not longer autopatrolled and I'd get a barrage of reference tags., which would annoy me and maybe make me uncivil.

I'll share it here when I have something coherent. Meanwhile most of the material was copied, not removed, from the article, but for decision-making purposes, if other editors are working on articles, it would help this initiative if you could make notes below here. For some countries, if we remove volunteer military units almost no information will be left. We do have a rough consensus, I think, that voluntarily enlisting in an Axis Army would make you an Axis collaborators. What I am trying to figure out is which of these volunteer units was truly voluntary.

Reading through the article I have seen mentions of

• Ideological true believers (Norway? Or was that appeasement? Belgium? France)
• Lied to (Denmark?)
• Conscripts
• Hungry (POWs?)

So anyway, please let me know here if you find applicable stuff in the sections you are working Elinruby (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Task distribution

Here is my understanding of the situation:

Shakescene -- in charge of sanity, format, pointy questions about balance, Did or is doing work on puppet states and collaboration with Japan

Marcelus - discussing Jewish collaboration, has done some work on Estonia that improved that section. Maybe a bit too milhist but I'm thinking it's a first draft and it's still better than the rewritten copyvio that we had there.

Gitz6666 - seemed to be suggesting he cover Italy after the Germans invaded it. Has not actually confirmed that.

Me: deep dives, getting yelled at.Elinruby (talk) 04:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Archiving the Jewish collaboration sections (copied from a User talk page)

Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers

Hi, I'm not sure I understand the move of the discussion to a sub-page: [1]. It would be difficult to find the discussion (Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers/Jewish collaboration) unless you spot the diff in the article history. The discussion also appears to be still active. Could you clarify? -- K.e.coffman (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) Thanks for a very useful comment (about the visibility and retrievability of this archive page). While I was able to do something similar a few years ago at Talk:War of 1812 [2], I couldn't format the added index item very elegantly (I think because the articles used different archive bots), but you can see that I did insert a pointer. If you have greater skill and knowledge with this kind of formatting, please go ahead.

(2) The main reasons I sent two "Jewish collaboration" topics to an archive were (a) because of the physical size of the then-existing Talk Page (pressing beyond the recommended limit of 100,000 bytes), (b) because the enormous length of this topic's extended disputes hampered my reading of other Talk Page items, and (c) to keep several current and future Talk Page discussions of Jewish collaboration together and thus more coherent (not duplicating points in ignorance of earlier discussion). See, for example, my rationales at Talk:Collaboration with the Axis powers#With this talk page again approaching 100k, what could be archived?.

@Elinruby and K.e.coffman: —— Shakescene (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I support keeping the discussion together and have mostly left matters of layout to Shakescene. I largely caused the space crunch by copying the text to talk, as I don't want to delete work that isn't duplicated elsewhere, and the current state of the section tagging is indicative of my reason for preferring to put my time elsewhere. It is notable that the size of the thread tripled overnight.

However, while I rather like the idea of a subpage, I see the point about difficulty finding that subpage. I was envisioning something like a pinned post at the top of the page. Is something like that possible, @Mathglot:? I was looking under the impression that the thread was close to done, but maybe I just wanted to to be.

I take it that you are participating, K.e.coffman? If so I appreciate that. Incidentally, I noticed earlier today that much of the material is duplicated at Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Ping me if there are any questions about this response. Elinruby (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not conventional to move a discussion to a subpage (other than an Archive), although I've seen various highly specialized supporting information (like references for the Buddha, or definitions of gender-related terms) placed in a subpage, which is then referred to from the Talk pages; but the content of the subpages themselves did not contain any discussion at all, just information. Imho, the information moved from Talk to the subpage should be reinstated, and the subpage should be deleted. Just because the discussion is long is no reason to move it to a subpage. As far as pinning it, it's technically feasiable but that's usually reserved for some topic of lasting importance that should always be visible to all editors and never be archived; does this page meet that standard? Mathglot (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really.

Speaking for myself, I deleted the section weeks ago, thinking well, it will still be in the history. Somebody parachuted in and reverted that and proceeded to do nothing with it. Nor did anyone else. I've essentially tag-bombed it, but I stand by those tags, and nobody did anything about them or the problems they represent, including the heavily used source that got scoffed at at RSN. Levivich has posted that he is not going to rewrite the section. Marcelus seemed somewhat interested but now seems more interested in the Baltics, where we do need him. So. The question is, is this text still needed, for rewrites or for the Arbcom case? I think the arbitrators can navigate article histories, and anyone who might want to do a rewrite is a long-standing editor. Maybe we should stick to the letter of policy with this article, hmm? Whatever that is; don't think I have ever looked up archiving policy. I don't want to ping all those people here to Shakescene's talk page. What I *could* do if it seems like a good idea is do the pinging in a post on the talk page asking if anyone is going to rewrite the section and saying that on second thought the thread is simply moving to the archives. Elinruby (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ Although I rather dread the possible results, I'm copying this section of my Talk page to a new section of Collabo Talk. I just hope that this discussion won't convert into yet another interminable, dense contention that clogs up everything else.

And, of course, thanks to everyone for his or her comments. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

[User:Shakescene|—— Shakescene]] (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Yes, I wanted to check on the discussion but could not find it, until I looked through the article history.

@Shakescene: Hi, I don't think this addresses the issue still: [3], since these threads are not searchable via the archive box. And as I mentioned, I wanted to comment further, so it did not look to me that the discussion has concluded. I suggest the thread(s) be restored to this page, and be allowed to be archived by the bot in the regular way. Meanwhile, I changed the archiving period from 90 to 10 days, for while the Talk page is very active. Hopefully, this will help alleviate the clutter. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

(1) I'm too sleepy now to consider and explore this right now, but by copying from an earlier version of Talk:War of 1812, I was able (purely for illustration) to post at the top of this page a sample of the expanded archive box (including /Jewish collaboration) that I was trying to make.

There are technical problems with this that I don't know enough to adjust (e.g. specifying Miszabot as the archive), but simply by appearance, it should clarify what I was hoping to achieve. As with the War of 1812 example, there is also space to insert the dates covered by each archive page. On the other hand, this sample box can be modified or removed for technical reasons, once its illustrative purpose has been served.

(2) "Who won?" was a perennial topic at Talk:War of 1812, so, without a dedicated archive, one would have to search through all those twenty-odd archives to find, learn from, and avoid duplicating earlier discussions covering the same ground. And the other active and archive pages became bloated with this one particular question, making it hard to find and comment on other topics. Something similar can be said about the nomenclature disputes at Talk:The Bronx. But I did go through the titles at Archives 1 to 7 of this Talk page and did not find a similar backlog of disconnected discussions of Jewish collaboration — which makes consolidation less of a consideration, although the two closely-related discussions of Jewish collaboration did come from separate archives. The current consoldated archive would also make a relevant, connected space for any future dicussions of Jewish collaboration

(3) I still believe that restoring the latest discussions here would increase both the physical bloat and the impediment to navigating all the other topics worth discussing.

Enough for now. Best wishes —— Shakescene (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

it was an endless topic because an editor kept asserting with a straight face that Canadian history was a fringe theory, mumble. But that is another matter. I see merit in both positions here, but since I a still annoyed about the war of 1812 and am weary of Poland in the Holocaust. I am going to stay out of this discussion. Elinruby (talk) 08:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I shouldn't. I don't see anything in help: archiving about doing this. I certainly didn't agree with it at War of 1812, but as I recall I was preoccupied with getting dragged to some drama board for daring to suggest that the American version of events might be incorrect, even though I wasn't in fact advocating a change. I mention this not to relitigate the way Deathlibrarian kept getting shouted down, but to say that much as I disagree with the existence of the section, especially in its current state, I don't think that Wikipedia should segregate attempts to discuss that way. We only have a couple of sections on this topic. If the threads proliferate (and I am about to start another) it might in fact be a good idea to maintain a duplicate dedicated archive. But maybe we should stick to policy and refrain from novel formatting. Elinruby (talk) 19:50, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps solution is to pin, as I have done, #Jewish collaboration with Axis nations to the top (no.1) of this current Talk Page, where it reads

For a consolidated discussion of this topic, please go to /Jewish collaboration.

I think that this pointer and item no. 2, the invaluable and handy set of questions posed by Elinruby, #Is it collaboration if:, should stay at the top of this Talk Page and not archive over time. Those interested in discussing the topic would see it on the Table of Contents (or at first scroll) and be directed to a page with all the previous discussion. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Basically, as long as people can find the Jewish collaboratiin thread I personally am ok with whatever. But it is very important that people be able to find the thread. And btw Marcelus is indeed drafting a rewrite. I also think that those questions are important, but then I would. More importantly they are currently mostly unanswered,Elinruby (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Jewish collaboration with Axis nations

For a consolidated discussion of this topic, please go to /Jewish collaboration.

—— Shakescene (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

All Jewish collaborators were Polish?

I encountered this assertion in a troll through the archives last night. This seems to explain why the removed section only dealt with Polish Jews. I am NOT suggesting its return, and definitely not in its currently form, but surely kapos existed elsewhere, and surely, at least in the form of trying to survive, this is not just a Polish phenomenon? Or Jewish for that matter?

I feel the need of a reality check, this assertion having been made with such utter assurance. Elinruby (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on Jewish collaboration section in my sandbox (you can see here: User:Marcelus/sandbox10), I was planning to post here for discussion, because it's almost finished.

And to answer your question: no they weren't all Polish Jews. Yehuda Bauer for example as two the most "collaborationist" Judenrat leaders lists David Cohen and Abraham Asscher from Amsterdam ghetto. Judenrats (or similiar bodies) existed everywhere where German set up ghettos, so Poland, Soviet Union, Baltic countries, but also in Bohemia, Netherlands etc. Marcelus (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you, I sort of needed to hear that from someone. I think, if you would, hold off on starting another thread until we get some sort of decision on archive format; I will go read your sandbox later today. And maybe reply here? We should have a decision soon on archiving, and right now I need a break; the archives were pretty discouraging. Elinruby (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus: based on a fast skim I think I like where you're going with it, and you do provide a rationale for a separate section about Jews. You need more references though. Pinging @Zero0000: who was telling me something about Lehi a while back. Elinruby (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this collaboration?

   Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force

Main article: Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force

The Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force, composed of volunteers, was formed in 1944. Its leadership was Lithuanian, and its weapons came from the Germans. The purpose of the Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force was to defend Lithuania against the approaching Soviet Army and to defend the civilian population in the Lithuanian territory from actions by Soviet and Polish partisans. The LTDF disbanded itself after it was ordered put itself under direct German command, and refused to swear the Hitler Oath. Shortly before it was disbanded, the LTDF suffered a major defeat by Polish partisans in the battle of Murowana Oszmianka. Elinruby (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If sources describes it as such it definitely is. IMO it is it main purpose was to fight against Germany's enemies using Germany's equipment Marcelus (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, yes it is. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for the "Jewish collaboration" section

Link, feel free to comment, I'm waiting for opinions and I'm open to changes Marcelus (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)