Talk:Military enrolment in German-occupied Poland

}

Neutrality
The article speculates rather than inform about the real situation of the Poles, eg. illegal drafting of Polish citizens, tortures applied toward wounded soldiers. Studnicki wasn't a politician, he didn't have any party. He was an old (born in 1967 exactly like Józef Piłsudski, who died in 1935 as an old man) writer.Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Former Wehrmacht soldiers of Polish Ethnicity in Polish Armies
The article currently states that "89 600 (23,89%) of Polish Wehrmacht soldiers joined later Polish Armed Forces in the West and fought against Germans". The data I have is that 89,300 of the Polish members of the German armed forces captured by the western allies joined the Polish armed forces. Hansard states that 68,693 "Polish members of the Wehrmacht [were] captured in North West Europe by British troops or transferred to our keeping after capture" and that 53,630 subsequently "enlisted into the Polish Army under British Command" .Varsovian (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * TO be honest this article has been pretty badly chopped up. For example, there is an incomplete sentence left in "Volunteers and non-volunteers" and the numbers of confirmed Wehrmacht and (Waffen-?)SS have been removed, though I am putting them in with the Hansard ref.
 * @VolunteerMarek - can you please be so kind as to go over your most recent edits and check that material removed was not relevant, and merly badly or unsourced, and cannot now be sourced and included. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which material are you referring to? I removed mostly EL links to random internet websites and a list of supposed sources which are not even used in the article (somebody just copy/pasted the list from a webpage).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Overhaul
High school boys poking fun at each others in Polish blogosphere and pretending to be quoting something they have read (see below) are a good indication of where this thing is going. If you know the languge, you can get a feel for it at http://hartman.blog.polityka.pl/2013/10/28/kaczynski-kaputt/ There's no place in reference section of this article for the fantasies of one Wojciech Zmyślony (translating into English as, literally, Adalbert Made-up), the owner of an amateur website in Polish with preposterous claims and alleged (!) communist propaganda sources for his fantasies, the sources otherwise known for spreading Soviet-style ethnic hatred among the general population during the Cold War. Poeticbent talk 04:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, nothing contained re Poles with German-appearing last names (no, mine is not).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Poles in the Wehrmacht. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://tygodnik.onet.pl/1,16768,druk.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Grammar
Article reviewed and edited for grammar, B-Class-4 flag cleared. Tedmarynicz (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Felix Steiner's opinion should be removed
It's about history (WWI) and SS, not about Poles in the Wehrmacht. Xx236 (talk) 06:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They were declared citizens of the Third Reich by law
Not exactly, at least at the beginning people were able to choose, even if it was a choice between Wehrmacht and concentration camp.Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Selbstschutz
The article is about Poles in the Wehrmacht; not about Selbstschutz. K.e.coffman (talk) 11:13, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Restoring edits by a brand new account editing in violation of the 500/30 restriction without obtaining consensus on talk is very problematic. You’re well aware of the problems in this topic area so how in the world did you think this was a good idea? The edit summary is also misleading - first, there’s two issues which are confounded in the edit. It’s not just removing info about the Selbshutz, it’s also adding info about SS. Second the sources need to be checked.  Volunteer Marek   17:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, in addition to the problematic nature of the account who's edits you're restoring, the edit also violates the sourcing restriction for this topic area, which is also sanctionable.  Volunteer Marek   18:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

- here is the link to the edit by K.e.coffman (mentioned above) that restored an edit of now blocked sock puppet that at the time was in violation of the 500/30 restriction --> Edits summary -This version of the article does not mention Selbstschutz Note in the removed text ...As soon as the war started, the Selbstschutz engaged in widespread massacres of Poles and Jews.. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC) indeffed sock Elinruby (talk) 04:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Write-through, starting with the intro
This article needs work. It comes across as the result of a POV battleground between Polish nationalists versus their WP:BAIT. It started out with a different title where content was rather Polish nationalist PPOV almost set up to argue against the prevalence of Polish collaboration. The current title, as if in response, can come across as righteous allegation levelled at Polish nationalists unable to admit any of their nation's wrongdoing. But let's come back to the title later. Our current intro goes into a strange discussion about estimates, which is then immediately repeated in the 'Estimates' section, so it should be mentioned in passing at best. The intro fails to introduce the context to the general, previously uninformed reader. It also lacks adequate simple overview of the complex topic; for example, the references I have say Wehrmacht troops had to identify as German Volksdeutsche no matter how Polish they were, and also say forced conscription of non-Germans was rife. Such paradoxes are confusing for anyone and need to be explained with careful phrasing. I'll start with a bit of work on the intro, feedback welcome as I go. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted the IP's good faith second round of edits, the first of which were already reverted by User:GizzyCatBella. I concur that the content I recently added can be improved, but I wouldn't support all the changes that the IP is proposing. For example, the use of the word "even" takes WP:EDITORIALIZING too far, and there is also a red link. I invite the IP to raise any further specific issues here, and also to choose a username so that we can address them in a friendly way with a name. In the meantime I will make a content adjustment that may satisfy them somewhat. Many thanks for the input. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

They can of course comment here. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:04, 2 February 2023 (UTC) indeffed sock Elinruby (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, is this IP an editor who has had discretionary sanctions imposed on them? Or is this a rule about all IPs? In either case, I can't immediately see where this decision has been logged. Chumchum7 (talk) 09:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

- see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC) indeffed sock 04:29, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Title
Having given it some thought, I am not sure this WP:BOLD title change to Poles in the Wehrmacht was the right solution as it doesn't accommodate the parts of the article that cover the Waffen-SS (including its Ukrainian and Lithuanian units), which was not the Wehrmacht. Moreover, I'm not sure it was the optimal change of title when considering identity and classification: the various issues of enlistment versus conscription, and ethnicity versus citizenship. First, the title doesn't incorporate those enlisted in Nazi-occupied Poland who were ethnic Germans not Poles. Second, as the Polish pre-war state ceased to operate, there were no citizens of Poland resident inside the Reich; enrolment especially took place in the parts of pre-war Poland that were incorporated into the Reich, and so it was enrolment of German citizens not Polish citizens. If the purpose of this article is the cover ethnic Poles alone, then the more accurate title would be Forced conscription in German-occupied Poland or Forced conscription of Poles by Nazi Germany. If we still want to cover ethnic Germans who tended to enlist, the word 'enrolment' covers both enlistment and conscription. So a more accommodating title would be Military enrolment in German-occupied Poland. Chumchum7 (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Content without citation
I have removed the following, which was without citation:

''From the Polish perspective, German citizenship was advantageous, although it came with obligatory military service. Early German victories in the war conferred prestige to being a member of the German military.''

A ref to Kulczycki came later in the paragraph, so if that is the source of this content, let's discuss, because otherwise this is sheer WP:OR. Based on my 35+ years of reading quality sources around the subject, I am not convinced the general view of reliable sources is that the Poles' perspective was as simple as that it was advantageous to take on the citizenship of their existential enemy, nor that it was prestigious to be a member of the military of the existential enemy. Chumchum7 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)