Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 2

Statement on German failure to establish a puppet state
Of the sources provided:
 * – contradicts the claim: What made it even less likely that the occupiers would sponsor a collaborationist government was the model of occupation, based on the principle of unlimited exploitation, specifically prohibited the Germans to contemplate granting any concessions to the subjugated populace. This, as far as I know, is the consensus on the matter.
 * – makes a very general statement about "offers to restore Polish autonomy under German rule" (p. 82); footnote no. 26 should be checked to see what it says exactly. If there's anything else there, please provide page numbers. Aside, it's interesting to see the parts about AK collaboration, to which several pages are devoted. He gives several examples of collaboration spread over two years, but then concludes they were "purely tactical". I can't help but think that while each may have been "purely tactical", combined they already show a strategy. Cursory reading suggests much apologia in parts of the text, of the kind criticized by later writers.
 * – link doesn't support the claim. pp.?
 * – Doesn't' seem to support claim. pp. / quote?
 * – don't have access to it at the moment. pp. / quote?

François Robere (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * François Robere you misinterpreted the sources, I hope you are not doing this intentionally. The fact that you never heard about it does not mean it was not occurring. Examine closely sources again as well as the sources by the names of the potential collaborators. Study about Wincenty Witos a little. I entered additional information backed by ref. to Karski as well. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC) also, deal with one problem at the time. Inserting massive chunk of material is not helpful. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof, Bella. One source of yours contradicts the claim; another is unclear; two more don't seem to address it. You're left with just one, which I haven't had a chance to review. You made the claim, so please provide pp. or quotes that support it. François Robere (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A few more sources, in order of appearance in the article: François Robere (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * – very early secondary sources (1940).
 * – page missing. Quote?
 * , – mentions "refusal to collaborate" in general, nothing specific to your claims.
 * – reprint of a 1945 book that supports your claim regarding Estreicher.
 * – 1943 book and inaccessible.

Polish puppet state
There is a discordance. The Germans attempted to recruit Kazimierz Bartel as a puppet in July 1941 after taking Lwów, so how can we say the German puppetry efforts ended in April 1940? Nihil novi (talk) 08:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the qualifier mostly. Anyway, the Bartel story is doubious. Ref: "Wersja, w której motywem zamordowania prof. Bartla była odmowa współpracy w tworzeniu kolaboracyjnego rządu, acz powtarzana i potem, nie znajduje potwierdzenia ani w dokumentach, ani w realiach epoki. Niemcy nie przewidywali bowiem możliwości utworzenia polskiego państwa marionetkowego, nie było zatem potrzeby poszukiwania ludzi, którzy stanęliby na jego czele. " To be honest, I'd suggest removing Bartel from this article. Per this source, the other claims are old, bad scholarship. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, there are several sources that confirm that. Check earlier versions of the article because references have been eliminated little by little. Bartel died as a result of collaboration refusal. You shouldn't remove his name from the article. Make an effort and research yourself. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have several references Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus against above work that ends with the conclusion "W świetle powyższych uwag jednak bardziej uzasadniony wydaje się pogląd, że zamordowanie prof. Bartla miało motywy polityczne. Czy uda się kiedyś wyświetlić je do końca?" GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is fair to say it is a claim, that not every scholar accepts. So it might be best to attribute it. Of course ORing it a bit We do not know what kind of state, just that it was in an area that used to be Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bella, if you have refs you want to present, link them here. I linked my source from IPN. This claim is disproved by modern research, unless you have a newer academic work. As a doubious claim, it can be discussed in Bartel's bio, but it does not belong here. And the sentence you quote talks about 'political motives', but doesn't specify which ones, and the article also discusses other theories, like the one that Bartel was collaborating with the Soviets, and Germans executed them to sever the Soviet link... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's ok, the inclusion of Bartel is not essential. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I've reviewed the last source (Tonini, Carla. "The Polish underground press and the issue of collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, 1939–1944"), and it seems unconcerned with the subject. I does, however, provide information on anti-semitic views in WWII Poland and the politicization of the subject in recent decades. From what I can see the statements suggesting a serious and failed German effort to establish a puppet state are unfounded. François Robere (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seriousness is subjective, but overall you are right. In the first few months of the war, local German military commanders kept that option open and talked with few senior politicians, who rejected this. After a while, Nazi top brass/Hitler made it clear that there are no plans for a puppet government, and said attempts stopped. The few minor footnote politicians who were somewhat interested in this were such low key that they were pretty much ignored by the Germans, and ironically, bunch of the NOR anti-semites even got executed later, despite all of their efforts. The article should note those facts. The claim that Poland did not have a colalborative government, unlike France etc., is true, but both sides forget about two aspects: the Polish patriots forget or chose to ignore that Germans didn't much care to establish anyway, while the Polish critics forget that no senior / serious Polish political figure was interested in that anyway. A simple, correct sentence would say that "Poland did not have a collaborative government, due to the fact that neither the Germans nor the Poles were much interested in this option". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've checked some more source (see above) - it's mostly early secondary material. If we have no recent sources that support this, and we do have some that don't, I suggest moving on with it. François Robere (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by 'this' in your sentence. Try to be precise, please. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I apologize. The question is about this whole block of text about Nazi attempts to establish a puppet state in Poland. From what I know, from what the sources suggest and from your comment above, the Germans never intended to do so, and whatever contacts they had with Polish intelligentsia wouldn't have amounted to anything anyway. Hence my suggestion of just removing the whole block and stating something simple like "Unlike in other occupied, countries Poland did not have a national government." François Robere (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * YES THEY DID TRY TO ESTABLISH A PUPPET STATE, read page 97 and stop making things up.https://books.google.ca/books?id=EJ5vIyDBpLcC&pg=PA97&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=falseGizzyCatBella (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per our Wikipedia "Stanisław Estreicher" article, "Estreicher was offered by the Germans to form a puppet Nazi government in Poland,[1][2][3] but he refused.[4][5] Consequently he was arrested by the Gestapo on 6 November 1939, along with his brother Tadeusz, and sent to the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. Stanisław Estreicher died on 28 December 1939 of uremia caused by the difficult conditions in the camp. His family was not informed until 13 January 1940, and his funeral was not held until 28 July 1940."
 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * GizzyCatBella's source: Halik Kochanski, The Eagle Unbowed:  Poland and the Poles in the Second World War, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2012, ISBN 978–0–674–06814–8, p. 97:
 * "At the start the Germans did indeed search for collaborators. Wincenty Witos, leader of the Peasant Party and a former prime minister, was offered, but declined, his release from Gestapo imprisonment in exchange for becoming prime minister in a collaborationist government.  The Germans obtained the release of Prince Janusz Radziwiłł from the Soviet-occupied zone and suggested that he form a Polish government subservient to the Reich, but he declined."
 * Nihil novi (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know all that, there is one user, François Robert, who insists that this never happened, making things up such as "the Germans never intended to do so". This information is backed by references and remains in the article, end of discussion. I'm considering this matter explained and resolved. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not "making things up", I've been asking you for better sourcing for weeks, since before this article was split. One of your own sources claims this never could've happened:
 * Lee, Lily Xiao Hong (2016-09-16). World War Two: Crucible of the Contemporary World - Commentary and Readings: Crucible of the Contemporary World - Commentary and Readings. Routledge. ISBN 9781315489551.: "What made it even less likely that the occupiers would sponsor a collaborationist government was the model of occupation, based on the principle of unlimited exploitation, specifically prohibited the Germans to contemplate granting any concessions to the subjugated populace."
 * So which is it? Before we continue, sort your sourcing, as you can see in the list above most of it is irrelevant. If you don't, I'll have to remove them myself, and then you'll have to explain how a 1945 pamphlet is better than recent academic work. François Robere (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Lily Xiao Hong Lee is principally a historian of East Asia. Halik Kochanski is a specialist in Polish history.  Nihil novi (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't need to tell that to me, it's not my source. Bella looked under any rock for sources to support her claims, and came up with some that contradict it. You figure this out, then we can discuss whatever RS that are left. And by the way - if you're going to quote Wikipedia, you might as well pick some of the quotes here that make it very clear the Nazis had no intention of keeping Poland autonomous in any way. François Robere (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why such governments are called "puppet" governments. Thanks for the link.  Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if the word 'national' is correct. I think I prefer my version: "Poland did not have a collaborative government, due to the fact that neither the Germans nor the Poles were much interested in this option". This can be followed by a sentence or two similar to the current one, stating that few politicians were sounded on early on, but they rejected this, and shortly afterwards, per the source you cite, among others, Germans stopped pursuing that. I do think that the fact that mentioned 2-3 notable individuals, otherwise relatively prominent in pre-war Polish politics, declined those early proposals, is relevant. The fact that if the accepted, this entire scheme would likely come to naught soon afterward is not particularly relevant to the topic of this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now tried my hand at a revision. Please see what you think.  Nihil novi (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what Piotr is suggesting is a good compromise, and Nihil novi's revision is a step in the right direction, but again: at the moment the paragraph is chock-full of irrelevant sources, some of which I reviewed above (and I didn't cherry-pick, I took them in order of appearance in the section). What I want is for someone else to wade through them - preferably Bella, who added them to begin with - and leave just the most relevant and reliable sources (eg. Kochanski, who despite her flaws is a respected source). Googling stuff and adding it indiscriminately to get the "opposition" stuck reviewing sources is not the way to conduct "business" here, and I don't want to "play" like that. François Robere (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One more: Because of a lack of interest on the part of the Nazi leadership, there was no basis for state collaboration. On the contrary, overtures even by Polish fascists and other staunch anti-Semites were rebuffed by the occupiers. François Robere (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

So I've made an edit here and removed much of the material, which consisted mainly of references to specific Polish leaders and their fate. Why? First because of RS - I've already shown above that most of those sources simply don't support the claims they're supposed to support. Second, for relevance - the paragraph didn't actually give information on the subject of the article, and looked out of place. So I took Piotr's suggestion and kept just two reliable sources that exemplify it from "both ends" - Halik Kochanski and Klaus-Peter Freidrich (you can see the relevant quotes above). I the current revision is good enough for the time being - we need to get the core facts straight before we continue to develop the article, and we're not there yet.

Some material that we may want to incorporated somewhere else:

Andrzej Świetlicki of the National Radical Camp Falanga supported the occupation forces, and Władysław Świetlicki formed a collaborationist organization, the National Revolutionary Camp (NOR), but it did little except perhaps contribute to anti-Jewish riots in Warsaw during Easter 1940.

Around April 1940 Hitler forbade talks with Poles about any degree of autonomy.

Germany's primary aim in Poland was, analogously to Germany's plan for Europe's Jews, the total extermination of the Polish nation; the General Gouvernment was, within 20 years, to become exclusively German-settled territory.

François Robere (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The section looks just fine. Stop destroying essential and well-referenced necessary data, claiming that "it's not referenced" or whatever other 100's of other different reasons you keep coming up with. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bella, you've been consistently avoiding my questions on your sourcing. The fact of the matter is you flooded the section with unnecessary details backed by doubtful, and sometimes contradictory sources (have you noticed that the text itself is self-contradictory?). Piotr suggested a reasonable compromise. Before you restore your revision, please answer my questions about your sources as posed at the beginning of this section. François Robere (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not clear on what is suppose to be wrong with the sourcing. It's been quoted at length for you above. It's from reliable publishers. Your repeated requests to "sort the sourcing" (whatever that means) smacks of simple WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Quoted at length"? The only quote there other than mine and Piotr's is from Kochanski's, and she's included in my revision.
 * Now if you've anything else to add on the sourcing, there's a list of 10 sources at the beginning of this section. Do explain how each of them is an RS here, and how they all help establish the argument made in the article rather than contradict it (as with at least two of the sources) or not mention it at all (as with several others). If you can't, or won't, then it's your "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT", not mine. François Robere (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are also quotes and sources provided by User:Nihil novi and User:GizzyCatBella which you appear to be purposefully ignoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear, next time you comment in any way on my person, you will get reported.
 * Nihil Novi's quotes both refer to sources I've already covered, one in my previous comment and one in the list above. One of Bella's quotes have been dealt with by Piotr, and she conceded that it can be removed; the second, again, refers to the Kochanski source. Anything else? François Robere (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't refer to me as "dear" since that is obviously meant to be condescending and insulting in this context. You really shouldn't do this while at the same time making empty threats and false accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a threat, Marek, and not empty - just a warning, given your mannerisms in the past week. If you wish to keep your eyes on the ball, so to speak, you'd save us both the trouble. François Robere (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is this: Regarding the claim on a failed German attempt to establish a Puppet government: Several very old sources (1940-45) and one recent source support it, in parts; several very old sources (1939 onwards) and three recent ones reject it (including this one ); and several sources do not mention it at all. Several sources (including this one ) support Piotr's assertion of a "lack of will" on both the German and Polish sides, which seems a reasonable conclusion. So? François Robere (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ... it's not that hard unless you purposefully avoid looking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Or... it's not your (or in this case mine) burden of proof. Bella made the claim, Bella should've established it. Are you suggesting otherwise? I claimed most of the sourced cited are irrelevant, and I established it above. As for your sources: all of them were added today, so claiming ignorance on my part is disingenuous. If anything, it shows others' understanding that their claim is not grounded well enoguh.
 * – the source casts doubt that the Germans intended on establishing a puppet state ("how serious it is hard to say"); the source does not claim Witos was to head a puppet government; the source further states that only after Stalingrad did the Germans start thinking about Polish-German collaboration. The two other cases mentioned there - Studnicki and Kozlowksi - are discussed by Kunicki (see above), who dismisses the claim either of them was considered by the Germans to head a Polish government.
 * – the source supports the statement regarding Witos, but it casts doubt on the German's intentions on following through (note, for example, the quote from October 10th on the next page). It also supports the notion that some Polish statesmen were willing to collaborate, but Germany refused their offers.
 * – this source repeats the case of Studnicki, mentioned before. It again clarifies that there were Polish politicians interested in collaboration, rejected by the Germans. It also suggests the suggestion of an independent Polish state was part of "diplomatic maneuvering" and "misleading" of the West by the Nazies, rather than a real offer.
 * All in all, the sources support claims regarding Witos's character, but not about Germans efforts: "failed to establish a puppet state" and "that effectively ended German efforts to create a Polish puppet state". Rather, the sources suggest - as Piotr already summarized - that at most this was a local initiative, never seriously considered by the Nazi leadership. The sources further illustrate some Polish leaders' willingness to collaborate, again casting doubt on the implication that "the Germans failed because the Poles rejected them".
 * Back to my rough count: Out of the 18 sources cited in that section, only two provides clear support for two of the claims; three support some claims and cast doubt on others; and two oppose the whole case (plus one cited above). In addition we have some sources on this page and elsewhere that support Piotr's case, which I still think is a reasonable suggestion. That leaves us with 11 sources and a handful of claims that shouldn't be there. Again, by a rough count. François Robere (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read hundreds of texts about WWII and I don't know any serious failed attempt. Germans accepted Polish administrations only on local level, not even in Kreis (county) or District. Blue Police was subordinated to German Police and SS commanders. Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Eagle Unboved isn't academic.Xx236 (talk) 11:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Borodziej Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

You've restored one source and added another, but neither source states the Germans failed in establishing a puppet state. Why did you add them? François Robere (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another source: – pp. 15-24 describe Hitler's intention of decimating Poland from April 1939 onward; jurisdiction conflicts between the Wehrmacht and the SS; the Wehrmacht's preparations for a military administration of Poland, and later a handoff to a (German) civil administration. Makes no mention of a subordinate Polish state. François Robere (talk) 12:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you see anywhere in your quotation: "The Germans never, ever, intended to create a Polish Puppet government" ?????? NO, you don't, and I don't. Other sources appended to the article unquestionably (again unquestionably) affirm that Germans attempted to create a Polish puppet government in 1939-early 1940. I consider this subject closed unless you come up with few legitimate sources that will declare CLEARLY "The Germans never, ever, intended to create a collaborationist Polish Government." GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bella, I don't think you read any of the sources, including yours. You don't actually have a source that states any of that. Even Kochanski (, you read that as well) doesn't say that much, and in fact says just the opposite at the end of that paragraph: During the war Poland was very proud of its record in never having had a 'Quisling', but the reason was 'not because a sufficiently prominent person could not be persuaded to cooperate, but because the Germans had not interest in granting the Poles authority.
 * So? François Robere (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Shalk also accused inner drama at the office of a half-dozen or so executive appointees who were revolting against him. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So you see even Kochanski contradicts your claims. I'm going to make some edits to reflect that. François Robere (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NO, I don’t see that, stop assuming. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)GizzyCatBella
 * You didn't see that? During the war Poland was very proud of its record in never having had a 'Quisling', but the reason was 'not because a sufficiently prominent person could not be persuaded to cooperate, but because the Germans had not interest in granting the Poles authority. François Robere (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't see that? https://books.google.ca/books?id=RnKlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA2852&dq=Wincenty+witos+refusal+germans&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirjIC2qr_ZAhUC9GMKHTPaAdcQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=Wincenty%20witos%20refusal%20germans&f=false GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that. Can you address the point? We have several sources, including two of your own, that make it very clear that the Germans had no intention whatsoever of establishing a Polish puppet state, and that whatever attempts they supposedly made were either a) limited in scope, and not supported by party leaders; b) mainly as "window dressing" (to quote one source) and for diplomatic reasons. François Robere (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll make an attempt to elaborate but first -- Go the past comments and read it. All of them. And I'm reminding you that you were already blocked as a result of your behavior. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bella, you're again off-topic. I asked you for your reply perhaps a dozen times now, on two article, and you're still avoiding it, and you've had plenty of time to do so. As for that block - the only reason I was blocked rather than you or User:E-960 is because I wasn't interested in approaching ANI. Trust me that if you continue to revert my edits here without proper discussion, it won't be the case this time. François Robere (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you François Robere read the 1977 book by one of your beloved authors Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish Society under German Occupation", particularly Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation". Quote from pages 126-130 ! :

"Sovereign" Poland.

One possible solution for the Polish problem envisaged in the early days of the occupation by the Germans was the creation of a "token Polish state", a Reststaat. Two groups in Polish society were queried about their willingness to help in such a project.

In March 1939 the Germans tried to get in touch with peasant leader Wincenty Witos, who at the time was in exile in Czechoslovakia after having lost his appeal in the Brzesc trial. Witos immediately informed the Polish authorities about this incident and, partly as a result of German approaches, decided to come back to Poland, although he knew that he could be sent to prison on his return.

When the hostilities ended in October 1939, Witos was arrested shortly after being found by the Germans, along with many other Poles who had played prominent roles in public life before the war. The Gestapo sent him to prison at Rzeszow, where he was approached again with an offer of collaboration, which he refused. He also rejected a proposal that he write an "objective" history of the peasant movement, suspecting that such a work would primarily serve as a directory to ferret out all activists of the movement who had not been arrested thus far. In spite of his refusal to collaborate with the Germans, the conditions of his confinement remained, to say the least, very liberal [after five months in prison in Rzeszow, and a further five weeks in prison in Berlin, he was sent to a sanatorium in Potsdam, and then to a health spa in Zakopane, where he remained under Gestapo supervision]. In March 1941 he was permitted to return to his house at Wierzchoslawice, where he remained until the end of the war, with the authorities periodically checking on him. Although this treatment was highly unusual, we should not attribute too much significance to Witos's fate. His survival was due, in all probability, more to some lucky coincidence than to a carefully designed policy. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that he was spared from death, the usual fate of members of the Polish leadership stratum and, indeed, of several other prominent leaders of the peasant movement itself.

It seems quite apparent - and Witos's fate is also indicated in this respect - that it was among the peasantry that the Germans were initially willing to look for collaborators. The Völkisch ethos naturally designated the peasants as virtually the only class uncontaminated with either bourgeois or revolutionary influences. Also, it was in the countryside that the German armies were received with the least hostility. German officials must have taken this attitude into consideration when they prepared the internal memorandum stating that only with the support of the peasantry would Germany be able to set up a collaborationist regime in Poland.

Another group approached by the Germans with propositions for collaboration were prominent patricians and aristocrats with openly conservative views and a political tradition of loyalty and collaboration with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy before the First World War. Professor Stanislaw Estreicher, the most prominent Stanczyk, was reported to have been contacted by the Germans. The names of Princes Zdzislaw Lubomirski and Janusz Radziwill and that of Count Adam Ronikier were mentioned as other candidates consulted after Estreicher's refusal to collaborate.

Thus the Germans approached a representative of the Polish peasant movement, the least hostile, from their point of view, of the three main political movements alienated from the Second Republic [the other two being the National Democrats and the Socialists]. They also appealed to conservative aristocratic elements, and were justified in doing so on two grounds: first, this class had a tradition of collaboration: second, the traditional ethos of noblesse oblige stresses the responsibility of the aristocracy for "its people" when in need and its obligation to protect them. One must take into account this attitude of the aristocracy in order to understand why Prince Janusz Radziwill, Counts Ronikier, Potocki, Plater-Zyberk, and Puslowski, Countess Tarnowski, and others participated in the formation and works of the Rada GLowna Opiekuncza (Main Welfare Council).

Now, could you please drop it or at least leave me alone (all I'll consider this as a harassment of an elderly person) and talk to all others who also disagree with you? Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting text, but I'm still looking for your comments on all the other sources, at least if you intend on reverting my recent revision. If not, then as far as I'm concerned this discussion is concluded. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * you changed the article text that basically says the same as before. This is beyond me.GizzyCatBella (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You stated that's "my" speculation. It isn't - it's in the sources.
 * You removed this text, which again is per sources.
 * This change seems minor, but it is important: The source doesn't preclude collaboration entirely.
 * You (again) marginalized fascist leaders' role. One of them was Poland's Prime Minister, so "prominent" is very much appropriate there.
 * Can you explain any of these changes?
 * François Robere (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course. Can you elaborate in detail your extensive recent changes that say essentially the same as the original writing you changed? Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They very much don't, otherwise I wouldn't have done them and you wouldn't have reverted them. Now, can you answer my questions about the various sources that contradict your assertions, eg. Lee, Kochanski, Friedrich, Weinberg, Kunicki et al.? François Robere (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your changes confirmed that the Germans tried to establish a collaborative government. So why all this fuss before? Can you please explain in details why you kept arguing otherwise and finally suddenly passed on your claims? The "myth” of the Red Baron? PS. I have made few necessary amendments in my opinion. So far nobody other than you is opposing it, and the page has been edited by another editor already. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah... not really. Now, can you tell me how does Lee, Friedrich or Kochanski support your opinion that the Germans "failed" in forming a government? Or why after this reversal you have six (!) references about Janusz Radziwiłł, despite the fact only one source mentions him? Or why you have no source later than 1945 supporting the inclusion of Estreicher? François Robere (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Another revision
I've went through all of the sources supplied thus far (again), and overhauled that section. I invite anyone interested to read through the sources and raise their objections here (or just amend the text) if they believe any was misrepresented.

I've removed some material:
 * The Piotrowski book isn't very clear on this issue, and where it is it contradicts several other sources ("there was never and organized Polish response to the German overtures" - except the fascists?). We have other, clearer sources on this.
 * A Polish source that I couldn't translate for (I think) one of the less significant claims.
 * The claim re: Estreicher, which is based mostly on pre-1945 sources that look like wartime news/propaganda (of the kind that's meant to both inform people and keep their morale up), and others not actually mentioning a "puppet government". Only one scholarly source published in 1945 (reprinted twice later) clearly says so, but if there's nothing more recent then that claim should be dropped.
 * Sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with the section, eg. the one on underground press.
 * Claim re: Bartel, as per Piotr's argument (and Bella's agreement) above.
 * Suggestions marginalizing the fascist collaborators, which aren't supported by the cited sources.

There's a lot of overlap between different sources, so some sources were used multiple times in different locations to establish different claims. If someone wants to name the references and remove duplicates you're invited to do so, otherwise I'll do it later.

François Robere (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove any sources (as you did before) ahead of obtaining a consensus to do so (fair warning) Thank you. GizzyCatBella (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Bella, you've done zero effort to engage on the points, so from now on I'll disregard any comment of yours that avoids doing so.
 * Also, I've added several sources to the text. Can you account for them? François Robere (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging everyone involved in this section. Again, you're welcome to check the sources for yourselves - you'll see my revision (diff) reflects them faithfully. You'll also notice Bella has consistently avoided answering my questions about sources she cites as supporting her claims, while in truth they contradict it (I've quoted Lee, Friedrich and Kochanski above).

(Nihil novi, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, Slatersteven, Volunteer Marek, Xx236)

You're welcome to comment. François Robere (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Reviewing changes in the last 24h I have the following questions:
 * why was this removed: "The Nazis obtained the release of Prince Janusz Radziwiłł from the Soviet-occupied zone of Poland and suggested that he form a puppet Polish government in the Generalgouvernement, but he also declined." (ref: Halik Kochanski (2012). The Eagle Unbowed, pp. 97–103.
 * why was this removed: "Around April 1940 Hitler forbade talks with Poles about any semblance of autonomy;" ref Halik Kochanski (13 November 2012). The Eagle Unbowed: Poland and the Poles in the Second World War. Harvard University Press. p. 97. ISBN 978-0-674-06816-2.
 * mention of Easter Pogrom that NOR contributed to. Ref Kunicki, Mikołaj Stanisław (2012-07-04). Between the Brown and the Red: Nationalism, Catholicism, and Communism in Twentieth-Century Poland—The Politics of Bolesław Piasecki. Ohio University Press. ISBN 9780821444207.
 * I think this info is relatively relevant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The mention of Janusz Radziwiłł wasn't removed, just the details, for the sake of conciseness: "Wincenty Witos... refused several offers to lead a puppet government, as did Janusz Radziwiłł." Add it if you think it's relevant.
 * This wasn't removed - it's at the end of the section: "Finally, around April 1940 Hitler forbade talks with Poles about any semblance of autonomy."
 * The problem wasn't with mentioning the pogrom, the problem was with minimizing its importance: "Świetlicki formed a collaborationist organization... but it did little except contribute to Warsaw anti-Jewish riots during Easter 1940." (highlight mine) This wasn't in the source, and I assume it's part of Bella's agenda of minimizing the appearance of Polish collaboration. We can add it back without the qualifier if you think it important.
 * Other than that..? François Robere (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources
Re: - the source does indeed emphasize the low number of Poles serving in the Wehrmacht. Removing that info is a clear cut case of POV.

This edit is just plain false - the source says nothing of the sort. Since this is the same obscure source being used by both accounts, additionally it looks like we have some sock puppetry going on as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Some editors have been adding low quality/offline/hard to verify sources. We should prune all non-verifiable sources from this article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I second that. François Robere (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What is "The Essential Guide to Being Polish" and where does it mention collaboration? François Robere (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

SECTION III
Can someone provide the passage they claim absolve the Police of an accusation of collaboration. I see no mention of Police.

In fact as far as I can tell it makes no mention of civil authorities continuing to operate, rather that they must take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

Sorry that does not mean the Police must cooperate with them.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am a bit confused what you are asking for. This may be relevant: "However, an order under the direction of Frank in October 1939 ordered all former Polish police oflicers to serve in the “Blue Police” under penalty of death for refusal. ". Source: . Collaboration under the thread of death is still collaboration, I guess. Through this reminds me of the recent comments related to comparisons between Jewish and Polish collaborations being unfair as the Jewish collaborators did so only under direct threat of death while the Poles presumably had a choice. Errr. Collaborate or die. The difference eludes me a bit, at least for this moment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The article, says this "The police force aren't collaborators by definition (Section III of Hague IV, 1907) except if they state political or military backing for the occupant", Where in section 3 does it say this, what part of section 3 is being used to support this claim? I did not ask about claims they would be shot if they did not cooperate.Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with you, nothing in the linked section seems relevant. The section doesn't use term collaboration, nor does it discuss police forces there. I support removal of this weird claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II"
Once this article on "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany" is deemed stable, I suggest that the "Poland" section of the article on "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" be edited, replacing passages, as appropriate, with corresponding passages from "Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany", which has been more thoroughly edited for clarity and English usage.

I also support the suggestion on the "Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II" talk page, that "during World War II" be dropped from that article's title, so that companies' pre-September 1939 collaborations with Germany, where germane, may logically be included.

Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There's still much more work to be done on this article. We need to shorten the other one to keep the most eminent cases, then with time adjust it according to this. François Robere (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said several times, we should be cutting and/or moving details from that section here. There is no reason to wait for 'stability' here. We can work on multiple articles. (Also, as was pointed, there is stuff that needs similar treatment in the History of Poland (1939-1945)). On that note, the section on the recent Polish legislation that was deleted from the former article and is now a bit forgotten would be fine to be restored here, IMHO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. I Actually think a whole section on the discussion of the subject in Poland is merited. François Robere (talk) 09:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Reference to prosecution of collaborators in lead
You restored this sentence. My problem here is that this followed just one very obvious definition of collaboration, disregarding complicity in the Holocaust and other cases that are still being discussed here, such as employees of the GG. I suggest keeping the lead as short as possible, with only the bare uncontested facts, until the rest of the article is finalized. François Robere (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this sentence can be restored, but I think it is relevant and interesting that some collaborators were persecuted and executed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is too short, it implies (by omission) that not everyone accused of collaboration was executed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I hope a mere accusation would not suffice. Nihil novi (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sadly not always (though to be fair this was by the Russians, and it is a comments section but none the less does illustrate that maybe it is not so cut and dried). Also, I did not mean then, I meant now. The issue of what did (and did not) constitute collaboration is very complex, and not as black and white as that one sentence implies.Slatersteven (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some, yes. "Judicious" implies "many" or "most", and we're not in a position to make that statement. François Robere (talk) 13:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nit is means showing good sense. And we are not in the position to say that either.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Does someone mean "judicial" when they write "judicious"? NB many Home Army executions involved trials in absentia, followed by assassination. Some sources refer to this as "extra judicial" killing. Chumchum7 (talk) 10:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Some killings were allegedly oriented against collaborators, but politically motivated, pl:Aleksander Reszczyński.Xx236 (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * pl:Aleksander Reszczyński was killed in his home in March 1943 by the communist Gwardia Ludowa, which apparently was unaware that this Blue Police chief was collaborating with Polish Home Army counterintelligence! Nihil novi (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Source? François Robere (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just goes to show that Francois is right stating this is a non-binary situation. Here we have a person executed by the resistance as a collaborator - a person who was in fact a resistance spy, infiltrating the German security apparatus... How do we classify such people? An impossible task. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A hero. Nihil novi (talk) 11:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Xx236 (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * pl:Muszkieterzy (organizacja) is poorly researched.Xx236 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A Polish-British intelligence contact of the Musketeers was the SOE agent Krystyna Skarbek. The Musketeers took their name from the codename of a Polish antitank rifle.  Nihil novi (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Madajczyk source
User:Volunteer Marek talked high and mighty about "making stuff up" and prejudging sources, and then removed a source because it's... "Stalinist". I want some RS on why that particular source and its particular estimate are indefensible.

As for the claim of a "Red flag" in the subsequent removal, I've explained it before: Claiming ~3% of the Polish population collaborated is not "exceptional" given the collaboration rates across Europe; claiming only 7,000-100,000 did is. François Robere (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To count collaborators you have to define collaboration first. Sometimes standards were very high, eg. actors weren't practically allowed to perform. Visiting a cinema was illegal. Writing for press was illegal, eg. publishing of cooking recipes or romantic stories.Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, but that's not the reason this source was removed from the lead. François Robere (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * FR, I'm not going to discuss things with you if you continue to use insulting language such as calling me "dear" or referring to my comments as "high and mighty". You want to rephrase your comment? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I recall warning you some nine days ago - on the day we first corresponded - to drop the attitude. You didn't. Since then you've repeatedly attacked myself along with two other editors (Icewhiz and an IP editor) as "making stuff up", "making shit up" or "dishonest", and suggested banning one of them. This does not strike me as behavior of the kind that entitles you to claim the high ground on matters of civility. Now, if you have no objections, I'll restore the the Madajczyk reference, 'Stalinist' or not. François Robere (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Any text published in Communist Poland was censored - some were written in New-speak, which may be misunderstood by contemporary readers. The subject of Nazi crimes was relatively acceptable but Jewish subjects were censored 1968-1970.Xx236 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Since it was me who has added this number with the cite, let me copy my post - nobody really discussed Czesław Madajczyk in the other discussion, despite my request to double check/verify the source: "While reading Klaus-Peter Friedrich's Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II (remember, folks, Library Genesis is your friend - I am a scholar but when I am at home even I can't be arsed to log in to uni network, all those hoops...). It is an interesting article, not particularly friendly to Polish cause, but I think reasonably neutral, more so than some studies done by scholars affiliated with the Polish or Jewish side (IMHO, one's national and family ties are paramount here, Poles will try to minimize the issue, and Jews will exaggerate it - perfectly normal in any similar debate). Interestingly, he states: "Estimates of the number of Polish collaborators vary from seven thousand197 to about one million.'198". He cites for 197 Lukas, Forgotten Holocaust, 117, a work we already cite, and for 198, Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk,"' 146. That spiked my interest, since Czesław Madajczyk is a respected Polish historian, who did a lot of work on WWII casualty estimates, and furthermore, as an old-date scholar I would not expect him to be in the 'high' estimate camp. Unfortunately, he quotes a German translation or original work of Madajczyck: "Czeslaw Madajczyk, "'Teufelswerk': Die nationalsozialistische Besatzungspolitik in Polen," in Eva Rommerskirchen, ed., Deutsche und Polen 1945-1995: AnndherungenZbliienia (Diisseldorf, 1996), 24-39, esp. 33". I don't speak German so hunting for verification for this is beyond me, and as the book is not free online, I cannot access the page 146 to translate and verify. The title suggests it may be a translation or summary of his earlier (1970) Polish work Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, but as an old Polish book, it is not digitized, legally or otherwise, and I am not in Poland to look this up in a library. Frankly, it would best if someone in Germany could help by checking the exact page in German version, but anyway, since we do have a reliable source, I will update the high-end estimate in text to one million." Anyway, on topic: I don't see why Madajczyk would be unreliable. Of course, as pointed out in his bio, his works were subject to communist POV, but let's have some common sense. Communists - Polish in particular - were not interested in exaggerating the number of Polish collaborators, like all Poles, they'd prefer to keep it low. It would be good to see Madajczyk's original research, maybe it was misinterpreted, but he is hardly some 'Stalinist historian' interested in slandering Poles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Belgian collaboration during World War II - there existed rather two separate collaborations Flemish and Walloon.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

"The title suggests it may be a translation or summary of his earlier (1970) Polish work Polityka III Rzeszy w okupowanej Polsce, but as an old Polish book, it is not digitized, legally or otherwise, and I am not in Poland to look this up in a library."

I have read this book(it is actually divided in two volumes).I don't recall him ever making such claim. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Polish collaboration with Nazi Germany ?
Or rather collaboration in occupied Poland? Do we discuss only ethnic Poles or citizens of pre-war Poalnd, which includes Volksgermans, Western Ukrainians, Goralenvolk.Xx236 (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Everyone. François Robere (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So Collaboration in Nazi ocupied Poland, Polish may be understoo as ethnic Polish.Xx236 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that depends on the reader more than the writer. François Robere (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are right Xx236, it should be "Collaboration in occupied Poland" since not only ethnic Poles collaborated (Jews and others also). Redirect the page please to reflect that. Thanks GizzyCatBella (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Aren't Polish Jews Polish? François Robere (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A fundamental question. Some Polish writers timidly inform that at least 25 000 of Polish-Jewish Christians were killed during the Holocaust.
 * Jews had their political and cultural authonomy in Poland, many of them didn't speak Polish. Christan and Jewish groups were frequently isoloted, only few mixed marriages took place. According to US historians there were less pogroms in integrated communities, where Jews supported Sanacja BBWR.Xx236 (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think this term is confusing, but we could hold an RfC - however one that would also relate to other relevant articles in Category:Collaboration during World War II, as they'd all have to be renamed to be fair and to avoid confusion (ex. Category:Belgian collaboration during World War II -> Category:Collaboration during World War II in Belgium). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's highly confusing, which was my rationale for heavily editing the lead a few days ago. We need to set aside our own geekiness for a moment and look at this from the perspective of a Googling schoolgirl doing a history essay. For all she knows, from this title, Poland would be categorized alongside Vichy France as a collaborating power in WWII. No historians would support this categorization, afaia.


 * It's also paradoxical and nuanced. For example, when e.g. the Jedwabne massacre took place, the Polish Navy and Air Force were fully operational against Germany, Polish troops were on their way to fight Germany in the Siege of Tobruk, where there were Jews in Polish uniform. The Polish government, which included Jews, continued to operate in London and ran Poland's massive anti-German intelligence war (48% of all British Secret Intelligence Service reports on Nazi Germany came from Polish sources, including Polish-Jewish sources such as Skarbek). German slaughters of non-Jewish Poles were well on the way to the final death count of 3 million, and 1.5 million Polish slave labourers were being forced at gunpoint to work in German fields, factories, and 'joy divisions'. We know all this, but the hypothetical schoolgirl doesn't. Meanwhile antisemitic Americans had influenced the US decision not to allow Jewish refugees to immigrate, and the USA had still not entered the war against Nazi Germany, almost two years after it began. The Googling schoolgirl will have seen Saving Private Ryan and her lack of knowledge will be reinforced by this Wikipedia article. It urgently needs clarification.


 * As has been stated by other editors above, this is an especially multi-dimensional subject; that needs to be explained either in the opening paragraph or indicated by the title which is currently misleading. Still, any clarification should not diminish the thorough and growing scholarship on collaboration inside Poland (primarily in the form of antisemtism, and almost never in the form of support for the strategic German war effort). There are probably many views on this so an RFC may eventually be a good idea. On the other hand, it will be a magnet for bias from a larger pool of editors, with people commenting according to their sometimes under-informed preconceptions about Poland in WWII. My vote would be to first attempt to fix this lack of consensus here and now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BOLD, I have responded to GizzyCatBella's request arising from the point raised by Xx236 and changed the title. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You performed the correct move Chumchum7, thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost
The Generalplan Ost didn't accept any puppet state.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What's your point? This plan covers years 1941-1945 Xx236. GizzyCatBella (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

USHMM misinforms
https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/press-releases/museum-statement-on-holocaust-legislation-in-poland Andrew Hollinger - Director, Communications
 * they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel
 * Germany drafted Polish policemen into German police called "Polish police". Do we accept Nazi lies here?
 * Germany robbed Polish State Railroads (PKP), both hardware and staff. Many railwaymen were murdered or imprisoned in concentration camps.Xx236 (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You're opening a lot of new sections on stuff that's already in discussion / has been discussed. "Blue Police" are described as collaborators in many sources, as are railway personnel. "Collaboration" isn't binary - there's a "spectrum of collaboration". François Robere (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If German Nazis use bad words describing Jews you don't accept it, do you? But Nazi language describing Poles (Polnische Polizei) seems to be acceptable here. The Polnische Polizei was organized and controlled by German terror machine. There was no Polish police structure in GG, with a Polish commander. There existed local sections commanded by SS and police leaders. Xx236 (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This source - THE POLISH POLICE: Collaboration in the Holocaust has excellent information (and sourcing within!) on the role of the Polish police (or "Blue Police") and firefighting brigades. USHMM is a pretty respected source.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Grabowski as a source about Grabowski's reliability. Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Grabowski is an esteemed historian on this topic and his work in and of itself carries much weight - however the work above is also useful in that it is in English (as opposed to say Tropiąc Emanuela Ringelbluma. Udział polskiej Kriminalpolizei (Kripo) w „ostatecznym rozwiazaniu kwestii zydowskiej or Ja tego Żyda znam!) and that it clearly cites source material.Icewhiz (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why does the esteemed historian select nasty details and ignores Yad Vashem Reighteous list? Xx236 (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Yad Vashem - At least eleven of the Righteous were, or had been, formal members of the Nazi Party a convincing proof that there was no necessary congruence between such membership and hatred of Jews. The righteous (Polish and non-Polish) were a select few, at threat from both the Germans and their fellow countrymen. The existence of an exception does not make a rule (e.g. - there being 11 Righteous Nazi party members does not reflect on the nature of the Nazi party as a whole).Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The text by Grabowski isn't about the Blue Police, it's only about the collaboration of the police. It's what we call here POV, bias. As Grabowski informes - some of the policemen cooperated with the underground. Situation of a Polish underground soldier in the police was complicated, he did some underground work but he had to obey, eg. to imprison or kill members of his organizzation or Jews. Any police forms has methods to control the force.
 * Please define Hatred of Jews. Please find one academic source describing relationships between people using one measure (here hatred, probably you mean hatred-love). Marxism analyses economy first, there are probably several levels between economy and hatred. Works by Kopstein and Wittenberg are about local politics. A society (here in pre-war Poland) had families (there were not many Christian-Jewish families), political organizations (sometimes the Jews supported Jewish organizations), economy (frequently Jewish business dominated in regions/branches, which generated hatred of other business). Xx236 (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about Polish collaboration, hence one would expect us to use sources describing such collaboration, making Grabowski's text quite appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Please comment Hatred of Jews. Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ask Yad Vashem - this is a quote - though it does seem self explanatory - I'm not sure what sort of definition or comment you are looking for here.Icewhiz (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

“National Revolutionary Camp” Narodowy Obóz Rewolucji, or NOR
What is this? - “National Revolutionary Camp” Narodowy Obóz Rewolucji, or NOR That has been produced in the "Political collaborations section" recently by François Robere Anyone knows? Or maybe you François Robere?can explain what organization is this? Thank you.GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's one of those things you should check before reverting someone's changes. Not only is it in the source, but it was in your revision as well . François Robere (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. They were so unimportant that nobody even knows about them. Not even a Wiki article about them. You might want to dedicate your enthusiasm to create one perhaps François Robere. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Or... You can just answer my questions about your sources, which clearly don't support the narrative you've introduced to this article. François Robere (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When did Studnicki join that group? page number? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You realize I didn't introduce this source, right? It was in your revision. Now feel free to go back up and answer my questions. François Robere (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I answered your questions, you keep coming with the new one all the time, every few minutes copy/pasting tons of text/references. I'm getting lost. Is this what you are doing intentionally? Why are you doing that? Can you elaborate on this? Thank you? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. I asked you about the Lee reference as early as March 9th (on the other page), and you just ignored it. I asked you for some page numbers 11 days ago, and I still don't have them. The proper answer to "link doesn't support the claim. pp.?" isn't to tell me to "examine the sources closely", but a page number.
 * I'm sorry if it's getting you lost, but you added so many references in that little piece of text, and in such a short length of time, that it made going through them that much harder and that much longer, and you know that. Put differently: I didn't just pull that revision out of my ass. It took several hours to go through all the sources, sort all the different claims, make sure each is backed and that all of the sources are in place. You shouldn't have reverted that, but now that you have you risk needing to repeat all that work yourself. François Robere (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You insulted me with your "a..s" remark. You can use such language speaking to whoever you want but not when you are talking to me. Do you understand? This conversation ends right here. GizzyCatBella (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Your sensitivities don't concern me, Bella, and this conversation will be over when you either a) stop reverting my revision without proper explanation; or b) answer my questions about your sources. It's not that difficult. François Robere (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a minor but interesting organization, pl:Narodowa Organizacja Radykalna (That's the correct pl name) is on my TL list, but sources are sparse. And do read the sources, Studnicki's joining NOR is right here: - that's the source used. I've added it, and it seems reliable (author: Mikołaj Stanisław Kunicki, publisher: Ohio University Press). I hope you can see the Google Book page for verification?  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  07:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Three more "attempts" to create a pro-German Polish government
I'm copy/pasting this just for the record to close this once and for all. This is from our favorite Jan Tomasz Gross himself. "Three more "attempts" to create a pro-German Polish government should be mentioned here in order to complete the record. The first, initiated by a declared Germanophile, Professor Wladyslaw Studnicki, has been very well described by Weinstein [Zeszyty Historyczne 11:3-91, Paris, 1967]. Documentation presented by him shows that the Germans did not take Studnicki's proposals seriously, knowing well that he could not muster enough significant support from any strata of Polish society to make his projects worth their consideration. The second attempt was an alleged public declaration by a former Polish prime minister, Professor Leon Kozlowski, of readiness to create a pro-German government after he escaped from Russia in 1941. After his release from prison in 1941 he joined Anders's Army, in which he was given the prominent post of quartermaster general (Szef Intendentury). However, for reasons unknown ( he may still have feared the Russians), he fled to the German side of the front. He was taken to Berlin, where several officials talked to him, and he was permitted to grant an interview, entitled "De Samara à Berlin", to the Journal de Genève on December 20, 1941. After this, news traveled far that he had offered to join a pro-German Polish government. The rumor was false, however. The Germans must have used his defection in their anti-Bolshevik propaganda, but the whole affair was interpreted incorrectly in Polish circles as an abortive attempt to create a "Quisling" government. Kozlowski was sentenced to death for desertion by a Polish military court, but the sentence could not be carried out, as he died in Berlin in unknown circumstances, possibly during an Allied bombing. The whole affair still awaits full clarification. The third and last "attempt" that I want to mention here is probably linked to the preparations of the July coup by the German army. It took place in Budapest, where Count Bem, a Hungarian citizen and a major in the Polish army, was approached by an acquaintance of his, "an eminent member of Russian emigration", who told Bem that, on instructions from the German military attache in Budapest, he was seeking contacts with the Polish government in London or with eminent members of the local Polish emigres, preferably with officers. The Germans wanted to know under what preliminary conditions the Poles would agree to begin talks with them. Bem responded that in order to begin negotiations, Poles would demand restitution of Poland in its 1939 frontiers. Two days later the Russian go-between told Bem that the German attaché had called Berlin in his presence and reported Bem's opinion to a certain "N". In response, he received instructions to get in touch, through Bem, with someone who could report to the Polish government the following offer: the German side was prepared to issue immediately a manifesto proclaiming Polish independence within 1939 frontiers; Poland would be linked in an anti-Bolshevik military alliance with Germany; Polish foreign policy would be coordinate with Berlin's, and the staffs of the armies of the two countries would be in permanent contact. "Germans consider the whole matter very urgent and request a response within three days". The incident took place at the beginning of March 1944. Broszat (Nationalsozialistische Polenpolitik, 1939-1945, Frankfurt and Hamburg 1965, pp 18-19) also mentions some conversations held with Polish emigrés in Switzerland in October 1939 concerning the Reststaat." GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading, and doesn't contradict any of the other sources. Of Studnicki and Kozlowski we already know; of Bem we need more information, but this whole "Russian talking to Hungarian on behalf of the Germans" isn't convincing at face value. Using Kozlowski for propaganda, post-Stalingrad thoughts about Polish independence and the idea of a Reststaat are all discussed in the other sources. François Robere (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the above is the continuation from 1977 book of Jan Tomasz Gross, "Polish Society under German Occupation", Chapter 5, "Collaboration and Cooperation". Pages 126-130:

"Sovereign" Poland.

One possible solution for the Polish problem envisaged in the early days of the occupation by the Germans was the creation of a "token Polish state", a Reststaat. Two groups in Polish society were queried about their willingness to help in such a project.

In March 1939 the Germans tried to get in touch with peasant leader Wincenty Witos, who at the time was in exile in Czechoslovakia after having lost his appeal in the Brzesc trial. Witos immediately informed the Polish authorities about this incident and, partly as a result of German approaches, decided to come back to Poland, although he knew that he could be sent to prison on his return.

When the hostilities ended in October 1939, Witos was arrested shortly after being found by the Germans, along with many other Poles who had played prominent roles in public life before the war. The Gestapo sent him to prison at Rzeszow, where he was approached again with an offer of collaboration, which he refused. He also rejected a proposal that he write an "objective" history of the peasant movement, suspecting that such a work would primarily serve as a directory to ferret out all activists of the movement who had not been arrested thus far. In spite of his refusal to collaborate with the Germans, the conditions of his confinement remained, to say the least, very liberal [after five months in prison in Rzeszow, and a further five weeks in prison in Berlin, he was sent to a sanatorium in Potsdam, and then to a health spa in Zakopane, where he remained under Gestapo supervision]. In March 1941 he was permitted to return to his house at Wierzchoslawice, where he remained until the end of the war, with the authorities periodically checking on him. Although this treatment was highly unusual, we should not attribute too much significance to Witos's fate. His survival was due, in all probability, more to some lucky coincidence than to a carefully designed policy. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that he was spared from death, the usual fate of members of the Polish leadership stratum and, indeed, of several other prominent leaders of the peasant movement itself.

It seems quite apparent - and Witos's fate is also indicated in this respect - that it was among the peasantry that the Germans were initially willing to look for collaborators. The Völkisch ethos naturally designated the peasants as virtually the only class uncontaminated with either bourgeois or revolutionary influences. Also, it was in the countryside that the German armies were received with the least hostility. German officials must have taken this attitude into consideration when they prepared the internal memorandum stating that only with the support of the peasantry would Germany be able to set up a collaborationist regime in Poland.

Another group approached by the Germans with propositions for collaboration were prominent patricians and aristocrats with openly conservative views and a political tradition of loyalty and collaboration with the Austro-Hungarian monarchy before the First World War. Professor Stanislaw Estreicher, the most prominent Stanczyk, was reported to have been contacted by the Germans. The names of Princes Zdzislaw Lubomirski and Janusz Radziwill and that of Count Adam Ronikier were mentioned as other candidates consulted after Estreicher's refusal to collaborate.

Thus the Germans approached a representative of the Polish peasant movement, the least hostile, from their point of view, of the three main political movements alienated from the Second Republic [the other two being the National Democrats and the Socialists]. They also appealed to conservative aristocratic elements, and were justified in doing so on two grounds: first, this class had a tradition of collaboration: second, the traditional ethos of noblesse oblige stresses the responsibility of the aristocracy for "its people" when in need and its obligation to protect them. One must take into account this attitude of the aristocracy in order to understand why Prince Janusz Radziwill, Counts Ronikier, Potocki, Plater-Zyberk, and Puslowski, Countess Tarnowski, and others participated in the formation and works of the Rada GLowna Opiekuncza (Main Welfare Council). GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You already quoted that in another section. Now can you go back and answer my question about the rest of the sources? François Robere (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Narodowe Siły Zbrojne - claim needs verification
Can somebody verify this claim? Quote - "The brigade (NSZ) numbered 850 fighters but did not accept Jews, and on occasion killed or gave up Jewish partisans to the Germans" end quote. This page 138 source does not back the claimed: Cooper, Leo (2000). In the shadow of the Polish eagle : the Poles, the Holocaust, and beyond. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave. p. 138. ISBN 9780333992623. OCLC 313430363 link here https://www.worldcat.org/title/in-the-shadow-of-the-polish-eagle-the-poles-the-holocaust-and-beyond/oclc/313430363/viewport The editor accountable for this addition declared later that the info is accessible on page 149 not page 138 as he originally claimed (page number in the source has still not been adjusted) however the page 149 is not accessible in the incorrect connection given as a source. I asked for the proper source by inserting a customary template, but I was reverted twice by the user in question François Robere with no due reference given. So again can anyone reference the above claim? Thanks, fellows. GizzyCatBella (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The references are there and were there from the beginning. Plural - because there are two. If you paid attention instead of just looking for edits to revert you would've seen that. François Robere (talk) 20:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * http://academicworks.cuny.edu/yc_pubs/133 - Leo Cooper is biased and not an expert.Xx236 (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Plese continue this discussion here Talk:National Armed Forces.Xx236 (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There are two estimations of the number of soldiers. Please read the paragraph you edit.Xx236 (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)