Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

NSZ and Jews

Back to this change: Does anyone have any objections, and if so - what? The main points are as follow:

• Restore Cooper as a source (Cooper was faculty at the Contemporary Europe Research Centre at the University of Melbourne; book held by ~300 libraries), without the quotations.
• Restore the text to the previous revision, such that it reflects what the source says rather than falsely claim NSZ only attacked communists partisans.
• Remove the Bauer reference - that belongs in the previous paragraph, and will be restored in a later change.

Before:

The National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ) from time to time attacked or took prisoner Jewish partisans who were part of the communist People's Army (Armia Ludowa, or AL), a Polish partisan militia that included Jewish detachments. A single NSZ unit, the "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade", numbering 800-1,500 fighters, ceased operations against the Germans for a few months in 1944, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German consent, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp, saving several hundred Jewish women. The NSZ did not have a uniform view about Jews, and though generally considered antisemitic and involved in killing and handing over Jews, it also incorporated Jewish fighters, including ones in higher command positions. Some NSZ members and units rescued Jews and postwar received Righteous Among the Nations awards.

After:

The Polish right-wing National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), widely perceived as anti-Semitic, did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews. It did not admit Jews except in rare cases, and from time to time killed or kidnapped Jewish partisans of other organization. The NSZ operated with the approval and occasional cooperation of the Germans. The "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944. It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp.

The source:

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.

François Robere (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Formatting discussion (versions above in blockquotes, refs, quotation) - resolved
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
François - can you place both versions here in blockquotes and with references? Some of the references (e.g. cooper) are broken in the version you are linking too.Icewhiz (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Added. François Robere (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC) @François Robere: - half the references are still broken. Also, since Cooper is not available online in google books at page 149 - please provide a quotation of the relevant paragraph or point to a different online source.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC) The references are more or less the same except for Cooper, so I didn't think it's an issue. Nevertheless, as you're commenting on it I fixed that. As for Cooper, here's the specific pages. François Robere (talk) 12:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) I don't have an access to that page - google-books preview sometimes varies by location.Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC) I'll add the quotes. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC) Just to clarify a little thing: The original revision had quotes in the refs ({{r}} templates), to mitigate potential challenges by some editors ("cherry picking", "not in source" and the like). Then other editors complained there were too many quotations. Now I suggested adding the text back without them, so I removed them in the above, but then your comment... This is all very disorderly. We need a standard for these things! François Robere (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support After version. Cooper is a good source - an academic in the field who was published by Palgrave and seems to be in agreement with other sources on the subject of the NSZ. I would omit the liberation of the rather small Holýšov concentration camp three days prior to V-E day.Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Do Not Support After version First off, not related to collaboration but to fighting between two para-military organizations. Also, this new version is just another attempt in Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing by François Robere, this is an article about collaboration not anti-semitism. But, I noticed that as with most of your edits François Robere, you are determined to highlight that particular issue. So, you move the term 'anti-semitism' to the front of the paragraph. Btw, this text just sounds dumb: NSZ was 'anti-semmitic' but it "did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews", that's an oxymoron, and proves you are just trying to push POV. Also, you keep using the word 'kidnapped' when referring to Jewish partisans (again not related to collaboration), but do you understand that in a war you take opposing combatants as prisoners, and kidnap civilians. Yet you are perpetuating this victimization POV that people who were in a para-military organization were kidnaped, this is bias and inaccurate wording. --E-960 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

To address your concerns:

1. Regardless of motive, handing off resistance fighters to the Germans authorities is by all definitions "collaboration".
2. The NSZ shared certain ideological lines with the Nazi authorities, which played a part in its choice of targets and partners. This in its own right is worth noting
3. An aspect of that is its of Jews for anti-Semitic reasons - which is part of what this article is about, and again worth noting.
4. How would you rather start the paragraph?
5. The exact phrase is "widely perceived as anti-Semitic", resolving your suggested oxymoron. Also, if you read the sources you'll see that while the organization did not have a coherent policy, its operators' common beliefs were often anti-Semitic. Many right-wing parties today exhibit the same phenomenon, where the platform isn't outright anti-Semitic, but the members and leadership are.
6. Generally speaking, combatants on the front lines are "taken prisoner", while support personnel at the rear are "kidnapped". This is similar to the use of "killed" vs. "assassinated" (and in the case of civilians - "murdered").

François Robere (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, with the WP:SYNTHESIS, when you said above: "handing off resistance fighters to the Germans authorities is by all definitions collaboration", but it says "resistance fighters" not "Jewish resistance fighter" if they were fighters form a Communists paramilitary groups you can't assume automatically that it had to be Jews, that's classic WP:SYNTHESIS. --E-960 (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Also, where in your reference is there a distinction between as you state above "combatants on the front lines" and "support personnel at the rear" again, I don't believe the source draws that distinctions, so again you're not presenting the reference correctly. --E-960 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The source states that they were Jewish, and the precise word it uses is "abducted". François Robere (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah ok, so now you say that the source actually uses the word "abducted" not "kidnapped". Perhaps just using a neutral terms such as "captured" would have been the best option. In any case, this just confirms to me and other editors, that your approach is not neutral, and as I stated before the current text is fine the way it is now — the changes you propose just come across as POV pushing. --E-960 (talk) 15:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And what's the difference..?

Right. So instead of sanitizing what the source says by using a "neutral" term, let's just go with what the source says. Okay? François Robere (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Again, simply no need to change the text as you propose. Also, as noted in the below discussion, there is already WP:UNDUE weight regarding Jewish partizans, since NSZ was explicitly anti-Communist, not anti-Jewish, and killed both Polish and Jewish partizans who were in the AL, or Poles and Jews who supported left-wing causes. You just want to insert a specific POV, which exclusively focuses on Jews, removing the full context of what NSZ did. --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

So when Cooper or Zimmerman say the NSZ was anti-Semitic and targeted Jews as such, they are wrong? François Robere (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• No - while there is some useful information in there, there's also a lot of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and in many cases what the sources say is being exaggerate by the Wikipedia editor - Francois Robere - himself. The text does not faithfully represent the sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

What in particular is OR, and how would you rephrase it? François Robere (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Is "except in rare cases" in Piotrowski's book? Jerzy Makowiecki and Ludwik Widerszal weren't "Jewish partisans" as the text falsely claims. "with approval and occasional cooperation" is not the same thing as "tacit approval" (Cooper also doesn't actually list any examples of actual cooperation, or what exactly does "cooperation" mean in this context). Do the sources actually say that the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade "decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944" and do they explain what this "cooperation" involved? That's just some of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And oh yeah, why are you removing info about the liberation of Jewish women from the concentration camp and the fact that some NSZ members were recognized as Righteous Among Nations? It appears sourced, so this just looks like gratuitous POV pushing (basically the same consistent WP:AGENDA that has characterized your edits from the beginning - add anything negative about Poles, remove anything positive about Poles) Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Piotrowski refers to the "(rare) reports that place Jews in NSZ units". He then quotes Feliks Pisarewski-Parry, a Jewish fighter of the NSZ as "shocked" to discover the unit he joined belonged to the NSZ, saying "I was probably the only Jew in the ranks of the NSZ and for that reason rescued by the NSZ!" (p. 96).
• The exact phrase used by Cooper regarding Makowiecki and Widerszal is "of Jewish origin". Zimmerman mentions the two, heads of the AK "Jewish Affairs Bureau", were Jewish (p. 123).
• As mentioned below (though possibly I wasn't clear enough), Cooper quotes from letters exchanged by an NSZ commander and German officers coordinating their operations. (p. 151 onwards).
• Cooper describes the "Holy Cross" affair as "with German approval and under German protection".
• The question on Holýšov shouldn't be directed at me, as it's not my suggestion.
• The "Righteous Among the Nations" is an issue that's pertinent to the entire article. Piotrowski gives a single example of an NSZ operator receiving RAN acknowledgment (Captain Edward Kemnitz), which some editor then used to acquit the entire NSZ (speaking of WP:AGENDA...). That's inappropriate. François Robere (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Parry says also that 50% of partisans didn't know ideology of their organisation.Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Remove reference to NSZ and Jews entirely

I would recommend that the reference to NSZ and Jews found in the "Collaboration and resistance" section should be removed entirely from the article, because it does not relate to collaboration, but is an example of hostility between two opposing paramilitary groups. Again, no evidence that this behavior was related to collaboration, and the references presented by François Robere do not equate this with collaboration — this is a clear example of WP:SYNTHESIS. --E-960 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See notes above. Also see this in the source: There was in fact a silent understanding [between the Germans and the NSZ] that as long as the NSZ did not engage in any acts of sabotage against the Germans, it would be allowed to operate against Jewish partisans. François Robere (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It is quite clear the NSZ collaborated with the Nazies in this regard.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for additional sources on this, the very term "silent understanding" is extremely controversial, if it was silent how do we know about it - sounds like speculation. Every one of your explanations, yield more questions unfortunately. --E-960 (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Cherry picked quotes and sources again. Why not use other sources such as these[1],[2], [3] that dispute straight Antisemitic motivation of NSZ actions as motivated solely by antisemitism? Of course, my sources are "fringe," not scholarly, "far-right" or everything else you'll trow at it, right? No, these sources are as good as yours. Let me tell you something, NSZ did not collaborate with the Germans in WW2. On occasion, they were allowed to operate more freely only when the Germans decided on it. NSZ was not only anti-Nazi but also anti-commusit and anti-soviet, so they clashed with communist partisans, and some of these partisans happen to be Jewish. NZS was "so anti-semitic" that they liberated the concentration camp freeing all the Jewish woman there.GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

A Yad Vashem bulletin from 1956 would be primary, and one can not tell much from the snippet. Your second source, Chodakiewicz, is a fellow covered by the SPLC and who sees Jdueo-Communism not as a slur but a historical reality - well outside the consensus of most scholars. The third source is somewhat partisan, but does not support what you are asserting above.Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Piotrowski is already cited. While he's not as critical of the NSZ, he does make it clear that Jews were rare there and that the understanding at the time was that the NSZ was anti-Semitic. He suggests more evidence is needed before making a final judgement, but given that his book is now 20 years old, one can assume it's not entirely up-to-date on that. François Robere (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

He explicitly used the term "cooperation" in several places. François Robere (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Jews were accepted by Soviet partisan troops, it's certainly not a slur. Xx236 (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If NSZ is anti-Semitic should be discussed in another place. This page is about the collaboration.Xx236 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Many academic sources explicitly state collaboration - [4][5][6][7][8] - specifically, the Germans were happy to let the NSZ be as it was killing communists and Jews, and the higher echelons of the NSZ coordinated with the Germans to that effect (coordinating movements, attacks, etc.). So - the anti-Jewish and anti-communist stance of the NSZ was a principal factor in its collaboration with the Nazis.Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, those sources confirm the main premise that the NSZ fought the Polish communist AL (and some of the members were Jewish partizans), along with other left-wing organizations, even peasants. Here are some of the statements:

• ...NSZ was directing it's guns not at the Germans, but at the members of the Polish communist underground — the People's Guard (AL)."
• ...NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists in the killing of Jews and in battling against our own [Polish] left-wing underground forces... NSZ with hostility for the numerous cases of its repressive actions against the peasantry.
• ...NSZ killed 26 Jewish partizans.
• It [NSZ] was an implacable enemy of the AL, as it had decided that it's main enemy were the Russians and the Polish communists.

So, basically the text skews what NSZ was about, by focusing exclusively on the Jews. While in reality, the NSZ fought against the left-wing/communists (that should be the main focus), and killed both left-wing/communist Poles and Jews. But currently, that section text just links NSZ to the killing of Jews removed from the full context, and that's clearly WP:UNDUE weight. No where does it say they were explicitly anti-Jewish, just anti-Communist and killed everyone that was a communist. You could just as well skew the text and say NSZ was anti-peasant. --E-960 (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually it does. Zimmerman is very clear on the NSZ being antisemitic and targeting Jews, and the problems it caused for AK leadership when the two partially merged in 1944 (p. 371 onwards), and Williamson seems to make a distinction between the different groups that the NSZ targeted, including Jewish partisans.

Are you objecting to the inclusion of a "Jewish" part, or to the absence of a "communist" part? I've no objection to adding material on the latter. François Robere (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Nota bene, the Germans also "silently approved" or "tacitly" or whatever, when the Communist AL killed Jews or Home Army members. I mean, OF COURSE the Germans "silently approved" of any kind of infighting among Poles, so what? Hell, the AL and Gestapo collaborated in capturing the Krakow archives of the AK which led to the capture and death of a number of anti-Nazi resistance fighters. That right there is actual collaboration not imagined one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Cooper quotes letters exchanged between the Germans and an NSZ commander in the Radom district as an example of explicit collaboration (p. 151). François Robere (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how that relates to anything I wrote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

And also you're incorrect. Those aren't "letters exchanged between the Germans and an NSZ commander in the Radom district". Cooper refers to internal German documents (i.e. Germans writing Germans) and then, weirdly, does a little segue to some statements made by a guy from Hubert Jura's (Tom) unit. Now, actually Hubert Jura was a straight up Gestapo agent who infiltrated NSZ and lots of these incidents of "collaboration" can pretty much be traced to him. He had his own little group at first and only later did he contact NSZ. If I remember correctly several underground organizations had a death warrant for him (including some of the factions within NSZ or its splinter organizations). So yeah, that guy was a straight up collaborator or an agent of the Gestapo. And yeah, he was responsible for murders, including those of Jews (although in the particular case discussed in Cooper that was in fact a unit of the communist Armia Ludowa which had previously murdered some NSZ members, so it was more tit-for-tat stuff). However, to what extent Jura can be associated or said to be representative of the NSZ is debatable. Some units of the NSZ .... "late in the war", in particular the HCM Brigade, made use of his contacts with the Germans to get the hell out of Poland before the Soviets got there. They also turned on him (maybe - depends who you talk to). But this is a different aspect than all of NSZ.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how that relates to anything I wrote You suggested this was "imaginary" collaboration; well, Cooper gives evidence of very real one.

Those aren't "letters exchanged between the Germans and an NSZ commander in the Radom district". At least two of the letters quoted there are by Jura himself.

does a little segue to some statements made by a guy from Hubert Jura's (Tom) unit Where? From what I see there are only Jura's letters and those by two SS commanders (a letter and an agreement, to be exact).

Hubert Jura was a straight up Gestapo agent who infiltrated NSZ RS?

to what extent Jura can be associated or said to be representative of the NSZ is debatable Cooper gives him as a particularly notable example of a general phenomena, of which he gives other examples as well. François Robere (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I was reading pg 149. For Jura, see for example [9]. He was a Gestapo agent most likely already in 1942, if not earlier. He was most certainly NOT a "notable example of a general phenomena". Most anti-German fighters were not actually German agents. If you want to include something in the article about Jura as an example of collaboration (straight up treason actually) then that's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You can argue all you want with Cooper - he puts it as "a notable example of".

From what I'm seeing, your source uses the word "collaborator" (kolaborant) as well.

So, what do you suggest we do with everything else about NSZ being anti-Semitic and targeting Jews? François Robere (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Zimmerman does not say they were explicitly anti-Jewish — just that NSZ killed some Jews, but that statement follows the earlier text, which bluntly says that NSZ was anti-communist, and killed Poles, Polish peasants, and Jews (basically any individuals who were left-wing). You're just proof texting, and ignoring all the other statements, which say that NSZ was anti-communist above all else, and everyone they suspected of being communist Pole or Jew got killed. Really, they were so anti-Jewish that they liberated a concentration camp and freed Jews who were held captive there. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

From Zimmerman:

Despite its new affiliation with theHome Army, Szymon Rudnicki has found that the part of the NSZ that swore allegiance to the Home Army and Polish government-in-exile retained entirely its antisemitic platform. That position was demonstrated in December 1943 when the NSZ’s organ printed an editorial under the title “Why Join Our Organization?” The reason, it stated, was to conduct a struggle against both the open (Germans) and hidden (Jews) enemies of the Polish people. Eventually, however, the communists came to be defined as the principal enemy.

...

The incorporation of the NSZ into the Home Army alarmed the Jews as well as the Polish Underground’s center and left factions. The London government also expressed concern about the effect this merger would have on the Home Army’s image.

...

Komorowski dispatched a report to London four days later on the state of the Home Army and its standing in Polish society. Here, Komorowski acknowledged that the NSZ’s incorporation had created a stir in underground circles. In particular, he wrote, leaders of the Peasant Party “are expressing reservations about NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists, in the killing of Jews, and in battles against our leftwing underground forces in some cases.”

...

Meanwhile, the Home Army commander received intelligence that the NSZ units had hunted down and murdered Jews... Referring to the area around Kielce, Gen. Komorowski continued in the following manner: “In the areas of Włoszczowa, Pińczów and Stopnica, low-level commanders of the NSZ collaborated with the Germans in the liquidation of Jews. The NSZ continues to mount attacks on the PPR and on leftwing Poles everywhere.”

So it's very clear that they targeted both left-wing and Jewish underground operatives, as well as Jewish civilians. François Robere (talk) 11:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Winstone, which we discussed in another article, also states that the NSZ, like other right-wing parties, "failed to abandon anti-Semitism"; and that they occasionally targeted Jews. François Robere (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

E-960, I've been having much the same questions about the National Armed Forces (NSZ) and the Jews. I have to agree with you: the references to the NSZ and Jews should be removed entirely from this article's "Collaboration and resistance" section.

Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the subject, but allegedly "Aniela Steinsbergowa and Julian Tuwim... z wdzięczności za pomoc podczas okupacji, ratowali życie sądzonym w procesach działaczom NSZ" ("in gratitude for help received during the occupation of Poland, worked to save the lives of NSZ members brought up before Polish courts"). Tuwim lived abroad, so his family helped.

So it was not only Kemnitz... Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Parry says also that 50% of partisans didn't know the ideology of their organisations. Xx236 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Polish right-wing nationalist politician Jan Mosdorf perished at Auschwitz for helping Jews. Aren't you biased, dear editors? Xx236 (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Three or four months ago in this current Poles-and-Jews marathon, we were presented with a complaint that the Home Army had never accepted Jews into its ranks, despite prominent examples to the contrary such as Marek Edelman, the last commander of the 1943 Jewish Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, who later fought as part of the Home Army in the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. Now we are finding Jews in all sorts of Polish underground armies, including the Home Army, the National Armed Forces, and the communist Armia Ludowa.

Can't we accept that life, in war or peace, is complex; and that, during World War II, not all Poles were crypto-Nazis, not all Germans were serial murderers, and not all Jews were perfect examples of innocent rectitude?

May we look forward to an end, within the present century, to this marathon of mutual recriminations leading nowhere?

Please let's try to accelerate this process of mud-dredging and -slinging and white-washing, so that we may get on with our lives. Thanks.

Nihil novi (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What you suggest, Nihil novi, requires that everyone are ready to accept the historical evidence. In this very thread we see editors insisting that we drop 4+ good sources with whom they disagree, for no reason other than the fact they disagree. If every time this happens people react aggressively instead of taking the sources in, that will take much longer than anyone wants. François Robere (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust was designed and implemented in Berlin by higly educated German and Austrian people. Some of the editors of this and similar pages don't contribute to 99% of Holocaust pages. They prefer to re-educate some Polish people - why don't you re-educate German or Austrian people? Are you aware that the majority of Polish criminals you critize were poor and uneducated people, many of them illiterate? Many of them were punished after the war, many German Nazis weren't. Some activists in Poland teach Jewish history including Polish crimes. Errors committed by Gross and Grabowski (200,000) help to continue anti-Semiitic conspiracy theories. Noone is able to claim 200,000 victims without criminal intent, think many.

Recently Dariusz Libionka [10] has rejected the 200,000 story spread here by a highly motivated editor. Libionka quotes a number of crimes committed by ethnic Poles. He is a co-author of "Dalej jest noc". An example - a blue policeman killed a number of Jews. At the same time he hosted a Jew at his home. The history is simple for teenagers playing "World of Tanks".

Yad Vashem had informed during many years that Polish police was active in Lodz. When a Polish politician protested, he was attacked as an anti-Semite. Now the Yad Vashem admitted the error. If every time this happens people react aggressively instead of taking the sources in, that will take much longer than anyone wants. - exactly.

If Jewish survivors criticize Poles, they are reliable. If Polish survivors criticize Jews (I don't mean the Holocaust) they are anti-Semites. A historian who quoted such accounts lost his post.

Xx236 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Zimmerman says Part of the new tendency of historiography is a conscious attempt to stay clear of the old school of condemnation and apologetics. Instead, the new scholarship is committed to dispassionate, scholarly inquiry that stays close to the sources. Are you sure you correecltly understand his book? Or rather you pick cherries to prove that Poles were animals (comparing to whom? - the Danish King wearing a yellow star?). Xx236 (talk) 07:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

At this point I'm seeing that there are several editors who would support the removal of this passage, any more input from folks on this item? --E-960 (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. We have 4+ RS supporting those statements, and I've seen no reason- or policy-based argument presented again their inclusion. François Robere (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Uhmm, at this point there are about 4 editors who in varying degrees agree that this is WP:UNDUE, and RS has nothing to do with that. --E-960 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

None of which actually says why. If you can't explain why those 4+ RS are "undue", then it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. François Robere (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it was clearly explained that the WP:UNDUE weight comes form the fact that the NSZ was anti-communist, not-anti Jewish. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you didn't. We have multiple sources explicitly saying it was anti-Semitic and persecuted Jews, and you have your opinion, and that's not enough for Wikipedia. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Widespread collaboration with the Nazis to hunt Jews and communists... The underlying motivation itself being anti-communist (and antisemitic) matters little for this still being cooeperation with the Nazi regime.Icewhiz (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

More than that: The two aren't mutually exclusive - they're complementary, given contemporaneous stereotypes of Jews. François Robere (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

E-960, GizzyCatBella, Volunteer Marek: Are any of you still of the position that the sources cited/quoted above do not state that the NSZ was anti-Semitic, and that at least on two occasions (Holy Cross brig. and Radom area) collaborated with the Germans? François Robere (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Like the sources that user Icewhiz, provided and I quoted — they outright say that NSZ was anti-communists, and but they do not say that they were explicitly anti-semitic, also, I'm not the only editor who thinks that fighting with AL (and/or Jewish detachments) is not an issue of collaboration, also I think user VM, pointed out that those who collaborated within the NSZ were actual individual collaborates, but not the entire organization. --E-960 (talk) 15:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

"anti-communist" does not preclude "antisemitic". So if a source says they were antisemitic, you need a source explicitly saying they were not. Just not saying anything about it is not a rebuttal.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And what about the sources I provided and quoted, that do state that?

those who collaborated within the NSZ were actual individual collaborates, but not the entire organization. Yet we have two cases of collaboration that involved a commander and his unit, and a brigade. François Robere (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No, NSZ did not aim at "killing Jews." (We are going in circles here people.) GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Most WP:RS on the matter disagree. So do orders from NSZ central command, see for instance: an order from the NSZ central command to district commanders, dated March 25, 1945, recommended certain elements of the population for "swift execution: 1. German and Soviet spies (working for the NKVD); 2. the more capable among those working for the Polish Workers [Communist] Party and PKWN workers who have declared their [party] membership; 3. all Jews and Jewesses; 4. all those who hid Jews during the German occupation...."69 In other words, where only those Poles who had committed certain clearly defined acts were to be attacked, all Jews were to be set upon, no matter what evidence they had given of communist sympathies.. Engel, David. "Patterns of Anti-Jewish Violence in Poland 1944–1946." Yad Vashem Studies 26.1998 (1998): 43-86..Icewhiz (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This page is about Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Poland wasn't German-occupied in March 1945. Please discuss the subject in the NSZ page.Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The alleged NSZ order is probably unknown to any pro- nor anti-NSZ historian. It was published by Jewish Telegraphic Agency Daily News Bulletin. If such order exited some NSZ soldiers would have been executed by the Communists directly quoting it. Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

, August 8, 1945. OK lets make this easy.

Quote for them being antisemitic

Quote one source here saying explicitly they were antisemitic.

1. The radical right rejected this unification, split from NOW, and formed the NSZ* the vehemently anti-semitic wing of the nationalist movement. Poles and Jews: Perceptions and Misperceptions, Antony Polonsky, Wladyslaw T. Bartoszewski.
2. Despite its new affilation with the Home Army, Szymon Rudnicki has found that the part of the NSZ that swore allegiance to the Home Army and Polish government-in-exile retained entirely its antisemitic platform. The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, By Joshua D. Zimmerman, page 371.
3. the nationalist, strongly anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic right-wing NSZ - The Generation: The Rise and Fall of the Jewish Communists of Poland, Jeff Schatz.
4. On the far political right stood the NSZ (Narodowe Sily Zbrojne, or National Armed Forces). Fanatically anti-Communist and often rabidly anti-Semitic, the NSZ numbered perhaps 25,000 men. The History of Poland, By Mieczysław B. Biskupski.

And not a problem to find quite a few more.Icewhiz (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

One would have been enough.Slatersteven (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Even if SOME of the NSZ members held anti-semetic views, how is that connected with collaboration, that's classic SYNTHESIS. Was the NSZ even remotely like the Ukrainian Galician-SS, or some of the units in the Baltics? No, but that does not stop you form trying to label them as open collaborators. --E-960 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

All of the above sources seem to apply the label to the organization as a whole and not just to "some individuals". As such, there is no misinterpretation whatsoever: the sources are plainly saying that "the NSZ was anti-semitic", with 3 of the 4 sources above supporting that statement directly and the fourth qualifying it as "often [but not always?- irrelevant since this is again only 1 out of 4 sources]". Per WP:RS, we are obliged to write that into the article, even if some persons don't like it. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The one with "often" used "rabidly" as a prefix to AS, which is a stronger assertion than just AS.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

And the red herring that "this is about anti-semitism, not collaboration" is utterly refuted, since of course that paragraph is directly talking of the attitude of the group towards Jews (and it's complicity in the murder of some of them). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree this is not a red herring, there are sources that say that NSZ was anitsemitic but there are sources saying that this was NOT a uniformed view or policy, they are in the article and listed above. Also, which one of those sources says that NSZ outright collaborated with Germans to attack Jewish partizans specifically? There are references that they fought with communist partizans and some were Jews, and that's undue weight, pls review previous comments how NSZ attacked other Polish leftwing groups, peasents, etc. This had very little with collaboration, but political fighting. Also, pls see user VolunteerMarek's comments on this, he did a lot to explain what this alleged 'collaboration' really was. E-960 (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Now that we've established that they were antisemitic (per rather strong sourcing), we can also establish, the more relevant issue to this article, that they (part of the time) collaborated with the Germans -

1. the Nazi collaborators who killed escaping Jewish rebels and Holocaust survivors came from the Polish "blue police" and the NSZ.Philo-Semitic and Anti-Jewish Attitudes in Post-Holocaust Poland, Edwin Mellen Press, Marion Mushkat.
2. Jura also got German passes and petrol in order to facilitate the mechanised movement of NSZ forces around the Kielce region. The local Gestapo chief, Paul Fuchs, was a keen advocate of cooperation with NSZ.... The SS Hunter Battalions: The Hidden History of the Nazi Resistance Movement 1944-45, Alexander Perry Biddiscombe.
3. the 850-strong Brigade began, with German approval and under German protection, the trek westward through Silesia to Czechoslovakia. ... The collaboration of the NSZ with the Germans is confirmed by documents kept in German archives. In the Shadow of the Polish Eagle: The Poles, the Holocaust and Beyond, L. Cooper, Palgrave macmillan.
4. The Polish Underground and the Jews, 1939–1945, page 372, Joshua D. Zimmerman
5. A document sent to London by the Polish military underground (AK) in June 1944, stated that, "the lower-ranking commanders of NSZ are collaborating with the Germans in liquidating Jews" (p. 490) and leftists. Unequal victims: Poles and Jews during World War Two, Israel Gutman, Shmuel Krakowski.

Certainly the NSZ did not always collaborate - but at various times and places it did.Icewhiz (talk) 08:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Shmuel Krakowski was a Communist political officer, who participated in political terror against Polish nationalists. It doesn't make him a neutral academician.

That an AK officer wrote something in 1944 it doesn't mean we accept it literally in 2018.

Yes, we know, the terrible brigade which liberated Jewish women from a Nazi camp. Do you mean it was better to be arrested by the Communists in Poland than to liberate the Jews being collaborators? Xx236 (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you strike that comment regarding a blp who is an esteemed historian.Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Communist political officers aren't respected. An example of Krakowski's academy - [11] Gęsiówka inmates liberated themselves. Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Still unclear, only two of those sources make a very short passing reference to Jews, in other words they are rather vague on the circumstances (I mean, what the heck was a 'rebel' Jew?). Also, on several of those sources user VolunteerMarek explained that it was not NSZ collaborating but specific individuals inside. Finally, this is a case of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS since NSZ attacked leftwing organizations (even peasents), somehow I don't see them being presented as anti-peasent, but in this case Jews are singled out and set apart, omiting their political affiliation, this is a classic example of systemic bias.E-960 (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Certainly some editors (and non-editors) have their opinions on this Polish faction. However, WP:RSes are rather clear regarding both their general attitude to Jews and in relation to collaboration, at times, with the Germans (at various times and places).Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Quotes like this are not as clear as editors here want them to be — I think the issue here is one of matching the tone of the article to the sources and most of the sources I have seen have chosen their words like like Mordecai Paldiel here, and I don't think FR's current proposal adequately summarizes the key points discussed in these sources:

There were also various Polish partisan groups (such as the NSZ) who viewed the Jews in the forests as pro-Soviet elements, and therefore they were open to attacks and elimination.

This latter group criticized what it regarded as the excessively conciliatory stance of the Home Army toward the Soviet Union and the Red Army, proclaiming openly the doctrine of “two enemies”—Nazi Germany and the USSR. In the later stages of the war, the NSZ command took the view that the Nazis were less of a danger than the Soviets and supported a strategy of not confronting the Germans and withdrawing their forces westward...

Thus even the ethnic Poles who were members of the Central Committee of the PPR were sometimes portrayed as puppets in the hands of Jews, with no power over decision making.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 08:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

And here is Paldiel labelling the as vioently/fiercely antisemitic: [12][13]. It is a bit of all of the above - there were communist Jews (the antisemitic underground for the most part would not have them, the Jews themselves had little cause to identify with a state/movement that discriminated against them and sought to expel them), the NSZ was anti-communist, the NSZ was also very anti-semitic, and yes - it also collaborated with the Nazis (generally a foe) when conditions were such that it provided a benefit (against the advancing Soviets, or the Germans allowing these units to survivee during occupation so that they would attack communist partisans).Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not planning to edit this article, I accidentally noticed this dispute. I deliberately did not go into details of this dispute, but I have some comments on the choice of sources:

Re: "Shmuel Krakowski was a Communist political officer, who participated in political terror against Polish nationalists. It doesn't make him a neutral academician." I see two problems with this statement. First, that is a blatant misinterpretation of our neutrality policy. Our policy does not require us to use only neutral sources. It tells that Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. In other words, a source does not need to be neutral (actually, no neutral sources exist at all), the source must be reliable and non-fringe. Neutrality is a rule we must obey, not the sources. In connection to that, the question is is Krakowski is reliable and non-fringle.

To answer the question about Krakowski's reliability, look at jstor. By typing Krakowski Unequal victims: Poles and Jews during World War Two, if found an article authored by John Lowell Armstrong (John Lowell Armstrong.The Polish Underground and the Jews: A Reassessment of Home Army Commander Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski's Order 116 against Banditry. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 259-276. Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and East European Studies. Stable URL: [14]), which describes Krakowski as follows: "Krakowski, formerly of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw and presently the director of the Yad Vashem Archives in Jerusalem." Armstrong cites Krakowski's " Unequal Victim..." many times as a reliable and mainstream source. I don't think the opinion published in a journal issued by University College in London is not a mainstream source. If this source cites Krakowski as a reliable source, that means Krarowski IS reliable and non-fringe.

I you to read the Armstrong's article, and you can find that he says that Krakowski, as well as most Jewish historians advocates a viewpoint that AK, and Bor's order 116 authorized execution of Jews, whereas Armstrong himself thinks this order was directed against "bandits" (including NSZ members). Jewish historians reject the claim that Jews were engaging in robbery, although they admit Jewish partisans took supplies from the Polish population without paying for them. Polish historians think Jews were engaged in robbery, and, accordingly, Bor's order affected them. Armstrong explain that many Jews who were hiding in forests did engage in robbery just because they were not provided by any help from local population, so the truth may be somewhere in between.

In summary, Krakowski may be biased, as well as all other sources, but that does not matter: our goal is to represent neutrally what various reliable but intrinsically biased sources say, provided that they are reliable and non-fringe. Krakowsky expresses the views of most Jewish historians, and his opinion must be reflected in this article.

By the way, I didn't find references to Armstrong in articles about Polish resistance, I think it is a good source that should be used.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This OUP source may also be useful:

"In practice active co-operation with Polish underground organizations in the General-gouvernementappears to have been confined to local arrangements with members of the extreme right-wing NSZ (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne—National Armed Forces). In the Radom district they were employed by the Security Police in 1944 to help combat Communist partisans" (Martin Dean, German History, Volume 19, Issue 4, 1 October 2001, Pages 636–638, [15])

Hope that helps.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Friedrich (cited in this paper) says:

" Whereas part of the underground press sternly exhorted its readers not to help the Germans in the persecution, robbery, and murder of the Polish Jews, the right saw no reason to stop its anti-Jewish propaganda." The concept of the 'Jewish enemy" persisted undiminished. In 1943, a paper of the radical right-wing National Armed Forces (NSZ) insistently warned against regarding Jews as "fellow brothers" or consenting to their "return into Poland's political and economic life": "we must not do so! We may condemn the Germans for their bestial methods but we must not for- get that Jewry was always and will remain a destructive element in our state organism. The liquidation of the Jews in the Polish territories is of great importance for future development because it frees us from a million- headed parasite."

In general, the numerous groups illegally editing leaflets or periodicals did not see the catastrophe of Poland's Jews for what it was. Some of them realized with a peculiar lack of understanding that parts of the Jewish community (Order Service, Judenrate) helped the murderers in organizing deportations to the death camps, while Jews in England and North America allegedly concealed the news of the Nazi annihilation project."16 Even papers expressing outrage and compassion otherwise kept to traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes."

Another source (Aleksander Smolar. Jews as a Polish Problem, Daedalus, Vol. 116, No. 2, Past and Present (Spring, 1987), pp. 31-73. Published by: The MIT Press on behalf of American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Stable URL: [16]) says:

"Poland was unique in another respect: resistance against the invader served to unite organizations and parties that before the war had nothing at all in common. Democrats and totalitarians, liberals and socialists, nationalists and communists, freemasons and Chris tians were all engaged in the same struggle. In other German occupied countries, antisemitism was the monopoly of quisling governments and parties. The resistance, as a rule, was anti-fascist, democratic, and anti-antisemitic. Antisemitism, for them, was part of the syndrome of treason. Only in Poland was antisemitism compat ible with patriotism (a correlation considerably strengthened under the Soviet occupation in 19 3 9-1941 ) and also with democracy. The antisemitic National-Democratic Party was represented both in the Polish government in London and in the structures of the under ground within Poland.

Precisely because Polish antisemitism was not tainted by any trace of collaboration with the Germans, it could prosper not only in the street, but also in the underground press, in political parties, and in the armed forces. Indeed, a thriving political and cultural life existed outside the official underground establishment, especially on the right. The "Szaniec" (Rampart) group and the Confederation of Independent Poland were eagerly developing their totalitarian nationalist program, envisaging, among other things, a radical solu tion to the Jewish question. Some Polish poets would have been happy to ostracize poets deemed "alien" to Polish culture precisely because they were Jewish. These "aliens" included men of the distinction of Julian Tuwim, Antoni Slonimski, and Boleslaw Lesmian. There were also powerful military organizations on the extreme right: the National Military Organization (NOW), the Lizard Union (Zwiazek Jaszczurczy), and the National Armed Forces (NSZ). Pobog-Malinowski, a historian, describes the men the NSZ attracted: "hot-headed dynamic youths, mostly town bred, among them many supporters of 'national radicalism,' perhaps not quite a kind of nazism, but not unlike it?brutally uncompromising in striving for power and domination, devoted to hard terrorist methods verging on banditry, utterly chauvinistic"

The patriotic credentials of wartime antisemitism allowed it to penetrate far and wide. Some military units of the radical right, while subject to their own political structures, were also part of the official Home Army linked to the London-based government in exile, and this could only affect the atmosphere in the forces."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is basically correct. The only quibble I have with the text is the characterization of NOW as "extreme right". The part that split off from NOW to form NSZ-ZJ was extreme right but most of NOW was just regular right (which in the time period under consideration, and not just in Poland (and perhaps not just at that time)) could very well have been anti-semitic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Quote for them not being antisemitic

Quote one source here saying explicitly they were not antisemitic.

Lets see what we come up with.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy is over whether they were "generally anti-semitic". At least not as far as I'm concerned. The leadership most certainly was. Out in the field there was some variance (people who wanted to fight Germans often joined whatever group was operating in their area, ideological considerations were secondary). The dispute here is over something else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A source to back that claim would be equally valid.Slatersteven (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but that's a different issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree, two different issues. But, to ansewer the question, pls see Poland's Holocaust by Tadeusz Piotrowski cited in the section already, it says that NSZ did not have an uniformed policy and that they even managed to rescue Jews. E-960 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not say explicitly they were not antisemitic, and it refers to one incident. So I ask again. Is there a source that actually says (rather the an ed interpreting it as saying) they were not antisemitic?Slatersteven (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The source does say explicitly that there was no uniform policy, specifically mentioning "more radical members" who were motivated by racism. The source dated to 1998 says it is too soon for a final judgment on whether NSZ was an anti-semitic organization, referencing some primary source material which had only become recently available. This 2004 book discusses apologism [17] - Chodakiewicz disputes it, though he likely needs attribution as a source. I haven't been following this debate very carefully, but this should be summarized rather than censored - the appearance of censorship is really more damaging to intellectual legitimacy or credibility than just about anything else. Objectively speaking, there is obviously a dispute here.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Page 95 say that there was a strong antisemitic element within its ranks. And it does not really say out right there was no antisemitic policy just that it is "it is still not clear that, apart from its extreme factions, the NZW sought to eliminate Jews" (page 96). It in fact just says there was no uniform (note uniform not official) policy. Thus I am nor sure it does dispute that they were overall antisemitic, just not universally so (much like the NAZI party in fact).Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

So not one source denying the claim. I think either the debate should stop now and the article includes the claim they were antisemitic, or DS sanctions should kick in.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven As per Krystyna Kersten - killing Jews as Jews was not in NSZ program.[18]. However, Jewish communist partisans were killed by NSZ, so Polish communists from Gwardia Ludowa for example.[19] So if NSZ killed both Jewish and Polish communist partisans can we say that NSZ was anti-Semitic and anti-Polish?GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I did ask for a quote, not all of us can read Polish.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This is part of the problem Slatersteven. Don't get me wrong, but I observed slightly limited knowledge of the subject among not Polish speaking editors, mostly because they rely on English language sources that are very few. The majority of sources, however, are in the Polish language, which is expected since the subject matter is about Polish history and mostly Polish historians are committed to this work. I'll translate more as we go along but to summarise it. The NSZ was not "killing Jews" because they were Jewish. They attacked Jewish partisans and killed Jews presumed of being communist collaborators. They did the same to the Polish communists. It did not matter much to them if you were Jewish, Polish, Russian, etc. but if you were supporting communism and its structures. NSZ was anti-communist. [20] GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Quite a bit of the relevant sources (from the Jews who avoided getting killed) are in Hebrew and Yiddish. German is also quite relevant, as is Russian. Polish language material is actually quite limited (and with issues both for the communist and the post-communist era). However, that being said, this is a topic area in which there is extensive writing in English by experts who are aware of the source material and research in different languages.Icewhiz (talk) 18:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The following?

The Polish right-wing National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), widely perceived as anti-Semitic, did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews. It did not admit Jews except in rare cases, and from time to time killed or kidnapped Jewish partisans of other organization. The NSZ operated with the approval and occasional cooperation of the Germans. The "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944. It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp. Some historians, such as Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, dispute the claim the NSZ was anti-Semitic.{{ref}}

François Robere (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with the first two sentences. The rest, no. And in fact that is what the dispute is about. In particular, this claim "The NSZ operated with the approval and occasional cooperation of the Germans" as a general statement is nonsense. Yes, they were generally anti-semitic. No, they did not collaborate with the Germans.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

François Robere, again with this POV pushing, the current paragraph in the article is ok, but you are determined to make 'anti-semitism' the main focus, while the current article list NSZ as primarily 'anti-communist' also there is a reference to them capturing Jewish partizans. I don't agree to your suggested change, and there are several other editors who do not agree as well. Your own sources listed above confirm that NSZ was primarily anti-communists (you want to remove that part) and some members were anti-semitic (but that's the second item on the list, however you want to make it the only one). --E-960 (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some of the quick quotes form above, just to refresh that point:

• "Fanatically anti-Communist."
• "NSZ was directing it's guns not at the Germans, but at the members of the Polish communist underground — the People's Guard (AL)."
• "NSZ units collaborating with the Germans in battles against the communists..."
• "It was an implacable enemy of the AL, as it had decided that it's main enemy were the Russians and the Polish communists."

So user FR want to remove the MAIN point about the NSZ, and just focus on the second point that SOME (not all) members where anti-semitic. --E-960 (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

"Fanatically anti-Communist and often rabidly anti-Semitic". Misses the point. Them being anti-communist does not in any way, shape or form prevent them from being anti-semitic too (actually, as history shows, many groups (including, notably, the Nazis) shared those two hatreds). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: Do E-960's comments above count as "casting aspersions", WP:INCIVILITY or misrepresentation of sources? As you can see from the discussion above, we've thoroughly discussed both the current version and my change, as well as what the various sources say. The last comments before the users's WP:IDONTLIKEIT were summaries by Slatersteven and Seraphim System. François Robere (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I support FR's version in general, however we should either omit Chodakiewicz or state clearly "historian and far-right activist Chodakiewicz". In some of his writings such attribution might not be needed, but in this particular case he is modern day National Movement (Poland) activist and the modern politics are not disconnected from the ww2 politics.[21]Icewhiz (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No, Icewhiz, we're not going to violate BLP just to placate your POV. And you really have some nerve attacking Chodakiewicz AGAIN, after you dishonestly tried to smear him on his own article by misrepresenting sources and using non-reliable anti-semitic far right sources yourself. Back off.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Calling Chodakiewicz a far-right activist - is backed up sources - Newsweek above (and others are available, he's been covered by the SPLC a couple of times - and they are experts in this field), and is not a BLP violation. I do find it peculiar this repeated attempt to inject such decidedly UNDUE fringey views by Chodakiewicz into articles - but if we are to insert his views on past national movement, we should mention relevant context - his activity in the modern day national movement. And no - this is not attack - this is a clearly sourced WP:SPADE situation, and Chodakiewicz himself is quite public about it (speaking in political rallies, political writings) - and using Chodakiewicz's own writings in far right outlets in his article is a different situation - ABOUTSELF. If Chodakiewicz is the only source disagreeing - it is probably UNDUE to even mention this, as much of his work is heavily criticized and not very cited by others - but if we do mention, his modern day political position of "We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!” is required for NPOV, as otherwise we are presenting this as mainstream opposition.[22] Icewhiz (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"using Chodakiewicz's own writings in far right outlets in his article is a different situation - ABOUTSELF". Please. Stop. Lying. That's not what you did. YOU used an anti-semitic far-right publication that was ABOUT Chodakiewicz, not his "own writing". This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, you even acknowledged that you understood this distinction over at WP:AE, hence you are perfectly aware that what you are saying is false, yet you persist in repeatedly making this false statement. That indeed is a BLP violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledged misciting 1 of 4 citations at the end of paragraph, the other 3 being copies of Chodakiewicz's own article (the 4th was mostly a quotefarm of the original, with some commentary which ahould not have been cited). As for use in this article in regards to the NSZ and Chodakiewicz - Chodakiewicz's far right political activity is well sourced and relevant.[23].Icewhiz (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

"I acknowledged misciting 1 of 4 citations " - no, you "miscited" (i.e. falsely misrepresented) 4 out of 4 sources. As was pointed out already, Chodakiewicz's article did not say anything about "American Jews" as you pretended in your edit. That is a "miscitation". So... you're still making false claims about your own actions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

You're pushing it on those civility requirements, Marek. Tone it down. François Robere (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

198.84.253.202, pls notice how FR's version does not have "anti-Communist" in it. Also, below is the current text in the article, notice what's missing form FR's version, he does not just want to add a passage about anti-semitism, he wants to remove a lot of other information. That's why the old issue with FR and POV PUSHING keep coming up.

Current text in article:

The anti-communist National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ) from time to time attacked or took prisoner Jewish partisans who were part of the communist People’s Army (Armia Ludowa, or AL), a Polish partisan militia that included Jewish detachments. A single NSZ unit, the "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade", numbering 800-1,500 fighters, ceased operations against the Germans for a few months in 1944, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German consent, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp,[51] liberating several hundred Jewish women. The NSZ did not have a uniform view about Jews, and though generally considered antisemitic and involved in killing and handing over Jews, it also incorporated Jewish fighters, including ones in higher command positions. Some NSZ members and units rescued Jews and postwar received Righteous Among the Nations awards

Text book example of POV PUSHING remove bunch of other facts about a topic, make the paragraph all about anti-semitism and nothing else. --E-960 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

You're making a whole fuss for just two words (which are already implied, anyway, by "right-wing" - the far-right (in Germany, Italy, etc..) is most often associated with anti-communism). The two words can be added if you really think they're relevant (though again, this could be off topic), but that doesn't discredit the whole statement. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, pls notice how other editors in this prolonged discussion did not agree with François Robere's proposition, such as Volunteer Marek, Xx236 and GizzyCatBella, so I'm not sure how François Robere can claim consensus. --E-960 (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand - what are you objecting to now? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Stating clearly that NSZ was "anti-communist" is only historically factual and accurate, so why do you keep objecting to it so much? The sources call NSZ exactly that, anti-communist, removing the term "anti-communist" is coming across as trying to sanitize the article. Btw, pls refer to the last AE, the admins clearly stated that there needs to be consens at the moment there are several editors who object, not just me. --E-960 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to it - hell, I even said "The two words can be added if you really think they're relevant". Stop thinking of this as a battle, it isn't. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The term "anti-communist" is already there in the current paragraph, we really don't need to add it again. Also, pls notice how user François Robere's version takes out the reference to NSZ liberating Jews from a concentration camp in Slovakia, and that's another problem with François Robere's text. --E-960 (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Might I ask then what " Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp.[6]" implies? 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC) Also, I was clearly referring to the version by FR when talking of "adding 2 words". 198.84.253.202 (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@E-960: Regarding "anti-Communist": Are you objecting to the inclusion of a "Jewish" part, or to the absence of a "communist" part? I've no objection to adding material on the latter. Regarding "consensus": None of [the opposing editors] actually says why [this is undue]. If you can't explain why those 4+ RS are "undue", then it's WP:IDONTLIKEIT. François Robere (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System, Volunteer Marek, and Icewhiz: The following?

The Polish right-wing National Armed Forces (Narodowe Siły Zbrojne, or NSZ), widely perceived as anti-Semitic, did not have a uniform policy regarding Jews. Its approach towards Jews drew on both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism, perceiving Jewish partisans and refugees as both "pro-Soviet elements"{{ref}} and members of an ethnicity foreign to the Polish nation. The NSZ did not admit Jews except in rare cases, and on several occasions killed or kidnapped Jewish partisans of other organization, as well as murdered Jewish refugees.{{ref}} However, some - such as historian and right-wing activist Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - dispute the claim the NSZ was anti-Semitic.{{ref}} At least two units of the NSZ operated with the approval or cooperation of the Germans: The "Holy Cross Mountains Brigade" of the NSZ, numbering 800-1,500 fighters, decided to cooperate with the Germans in late 1944. It ceased hostile operations against the Germans for a few months, accepted logistical help, and—late in the war, with German approval, to avoid capture by the Soviets—withdrew from Poland into Czechoslovakia. Once there, the unit resumed hostilities against the Germans and on 5 May 1945 liberated the Holýšov concentration camp. Another unit known for collaboration Hubert Jura's unit, also known as Tom's Organization, that operated in the Radom district.

François Robere (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

That's an improvement but still not good. The sentence bout "approval or cooperation of the Germans" needs to go. There was one instance of cooperation - basically a mutual cease fire - and that was the HCMB. They "operated" (i.e. withdrew from Poland so as not to get destroyed by the Soviets) with German approval for a brief period, outside that period they fought them. Also Hubert Jura brought his unit into HCMB which is how the contacts between HCMB and the Germans were established. This is really the same instance of cooperation. True, Jura was guilty of other instances of collaboration, but then it needs to be explicit that he was actually a Gestapo agent who infiltrated NSZ and who had a death sentence hanging over him from other underground organizations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

We can't discount Jura, who even your source characterizes as a collaborator. Also, the fact that he joined the brigade with his unit does not mean the two cases are one - other people had to sign off on that agreement. François Robere (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Jura should be treated separately since he was a straight up Gestapo agent (which is something different than a "collaborator"). And the two cases are still the same. Also keep in mind that Jura's group murdered not just Jews, AK members but even NSZ officials.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I take issue with paring this down to two examples - many sources make a generalization of such collaboration occurring on the local level in the NSZ in several locations. We should stick to the generalization, and then provide examples.Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So we're down to arguing on that particular issue (background to, and extent of collaboration). @Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz: Do we more or less agree on everything else? François Robere (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Here is what I agree on. NSZ was an anti-communist organization which was also generally anti-semitic, particularly its leadership (many rank and files soldiers didn't have much ideology beyond "fight the Germans", per sources). There were instances of collaboration between some units of the NSZ, particularly NSZ-ZJ, which Jura's group was a part of. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Okay. How would you rephrase the above? François Robere (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Well? François Robere (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

After reading the revised text I'm still very concerned that it contains WP:UNDUE weight and POV WP:PUSH. Please notice that François Robere still wants to change the focus of the text from the NSZ being 'anti-communist' to 'anti-semitic', all the sources say that first and foremost the NSZ was anti-communist (attacking other Polish left-wing organizations and partizans, and this is where we have some evidence of limited collaboration). However, the sources vary whether NSZ held uniformed anti-semitic views and even to what real extent). What's most troubling is that in this new text François Robere diminishes the 'anti-communist' policy of the NSZ and simply characterizes it as an excuse to attack Jews, as stated here: "Its approach towards Jews drew on both anti-Semitism and anti-Communism." Again, NSZ attacked Polish communist organizations, Polish peasants who supported communist partizans, and Armial Ludowa (Polish communist partizans) - some Polish Jews who shared those political view were part of these groups. To disprove the claims that NSZ went after Jews just because they were Jews only, we have examples of NSZ having Jewish members who also held anti-communist views and NSZ liberating Jews from a German concentration camp in Slovakia. --E-960 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable version, sorry FR GizzyCatBella (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You're both past arguing on the sources, so you've excluded yourselves from the discussion. If you have anything to add, please back it up by a proposition or a source. François Robere (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

François Robere and Icewhiz, listed above, I've re-wrote the quotes form the very sources you presented about NSZ. They say that NSZ was primarily anti-Communist, a fact you want to diminish, and change the text so it's only focused on anti-Semitism. Also user FR, your dismissive and provocative comment which reads: "you've excluded yourselves from the discussion" is a form of WP:INCIVILITY. In other words, you don't like what I suggested and what I had issues with, so you are now trying to simply discredit my and user GizzyCatBella's concerns by using hyperbole. The current text about NSZ in the article is fine, you DO NOT need to completely replace it. However, if you add a sentence about anti-semitism that may be acceptable. But, as it stands now, your suggestion to completely change out the text is unnecessary, and clearly a POV WP:PUSH, which creates WP:UNDUE weight. Don't forget the answer user NeilN provided to your question during the last AE about what consensus is [24]: "François Robere... editors agreeing and one editor disagreeing in a conversation spanning two hours isn't going to be accepted as consensus either." Here you have Icewhiz on your side, user Volunteer Marek in the middle, and myself and GizzyCatBella opposing your suggestions in their current form, yet you write "@Volunteer Marek and Icewhiz: Do we more or less agree on everything else?", as if you gained consensus, by ignoring some editors and their concerns. --E-960 (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I've re-wrote the quotes form the very sources you presented... They say that NSZ was primarily anti-Communist: No, you didn't. What you did was some careless cherry-picking, as the IP user has shown, which itself supports the claim the NSZ collaborated with the Germans.

"you've excluded yourselves from the discussion" is a form of WP:INCIVILITY: No, it's not. It's a courtesy to you and Bella to explain why the discussion shifted and no longer addresses your concerns. Repeatedly accusing others of "pushing a POV" is WP:INCIVILITY.

you write... as if you gained consensus, by ignoring some editors and their concerns: Yes, because those editors cannot be convinced and will not be placated by any means, so why bother? I already know what they'll vote. François Robere (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• François Robere, your behavior toward fellow editors is extremely dismissive and resemble WP:BATTLEGROUND. You're simply dismissing comments that you don't like by using hyperbole, calling it "cherry-picking". Why, just because I tried to highlight the fact that the very sources you provided call NSZ "anti-Communist" FIRST and foremost, and only some raise the issue of anti-semitism. To call that "cherry-picking" is really snide. It would really behove you to take into consideration the two point which I keep raising:

1) The text does not need to be changed out entirely as you propose, just adding a sentence to cover your point is sufficient.

2) All the sources point to the fact that NSZ was anti-Communist first and foremost, and only some say that in some cases NSZ exhibited anti-semitic tendencies, yet your text removes the focus from NSZ being anti-Communist and centers the issue only on anti-Semitism, that's a possible POV WP:PUSH, and definitely creates WP:UNDUE weight.

The last sentence in the current paragraph about NSZ covers the issue of anti-semitism, so I'm not sure why you want to change out the entire paragraph, instead of just tweaking this part to include a bit more information:

The NSZ did not have a uniform view about Jews and, though generally considered antisemitic and though involved in killing and handing over Jews, also incorporated Jewish fighters, including ones in higher command positions. Some NSZ members and units rescued Jews and received postwar Righteous among the Nations recognition.[12]

Again, I hope that this clarifies my position a bit more. --E-960 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It's all been addressed before. I suggest, again, avoiding "casting aspersions". François Robere (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet, you still push for a MASSIVE change to text about NSZ, to switch focus from anti-Communism to anti-Semitism. --E-960 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Here is the 1943 National Armed Forces Manifesto [25] – (translated into English )

• NSZ is the ideological and military formation of the Polish nation.
• NSZ includes in their ranks all Poles, regardless of the political divisions, determined to fight with all the enemies of Polish state and Nation in its due enlarged borders, based on the principles of justice and Christian ethics.
• NSZ, the armed wing of the Polish nation, with the will of its vast majority, put its primary goal, the conquering of the western borders on the Oder and Neisse, as our old frontiers, only and permanently securing the existence and development of Poland. For this purpose, NSZ will seek directly and immediately after the break of Germany and after exile occupiers from the country. Our eastern borders, established by the Riga Treaty, cannot be negotiated.
• NSZ, while guarding the security and order of the reborn of the state, will vigorously oppose attempts to grasp power by the communists and against any elements of anarchy or center of political terror, not allowing to legislate by the Polish nation about its regime or form of governance.
• NSZ as an ideological and military formation is a bundle of the future state Army. Training and educating officers and serials in the spirit of Polish military ideology,
• NSZ prepares its staff, whose task will be to create a modern national Army.At present, NSZ, apart from organizational and training work, conducts a conspiratorial fight with the invader and liquidates the communist sabotage. If the German action would threaten us with the mass destruction, we will direct the collective resistance. The proper time for a nationwide uprising will depend on the collapse of Germany's military might and must be accepted by our allies.
• NSZ strive to merge the military action in the country under orders of the commander of the Armed Forces in the country. The particular objectives included in the NSZ Declaration and the conspiracy considerations justify the preservation of the separate NSZ branches within the Armed Forces in the Country.

I can’t see anything about the Jews (or Żyd in Polish) in the above. However, the manifesto talks about Christian ethics. Does reference to Christianity makes the NSZ anti-Semitic? GizzyCatBella (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it also intriguing that the head physician of supposedly anti-Semitic NSZ was a Jew, Ludger Zarychta. [26]. GizzyCatBella (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Both of these comments are red herrings. The text already says they "had no uniform policy" on the matter, so why quote their manifesto? And what's so "intriguing" about an anti-Semite having a Jewish doctor? Also, this. François Robere (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, why Jewish physician chose to be a head doctor of the antisemitic organization? Simple intriguing question not “red herrings”. GizzyCatBella (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Again can you please stop linking to incomplete google book results and provide quotes? it is impossible to tell form what you are posting context translations are very hard.Slatersteven (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Slatersteven Translation - "The head doctor of the NSZ Holy Cross Mountains Brigade was Jewish dr. Ludger Zakhrych, codename Dr. Żar. Hence the humorous saying in the brigade: "If you want to become a fighter of the Mountains Brigade, you must first go through the hands of a Jew." [27] GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

So not it does not say they were not antisemitic, it says they had a Jewish officer serving in a very specialist capacity (and the joke has some implications about how unwelcome it was, it does not even call him a doctor, but just a Jew). As I point out below it is not unusual for bigots to put their bigotry aside when self interest rear its head. And posting snippet views does not give us context, and this has been an issue here before.Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Bigots you say..., was Stanisław Ostwind-Zuzga a bigot? GizzyCatBella (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Was he in charge of the organisation? Again just because a few Jews served does not mean that overall (or even officially) they were not antisemitic (he was also the top ranking Jewish officer, and only commanded the forces in one small town, not exactly a member of the high command). What you need (do I really have to ask this again?) are sources that explicitly say (not what you infer they are saying) that antisemitism was not an officially (or even wide spread) policy. Not " a not universally enforced policy) if that is the definition we are using then Oscar Schindler can be used to prove the Nazis were not Antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Note that even this token Jew (a poor argument in general) is quite a poor token - as he wasn't quite Jewish - he baptized in 1920, and he concealed his Jewish roots during the war.Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And they would not be alone [[28]]. It is not all that uncommon for self interest to take over from prejudice.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Tokenism, long a trope. Heck Hitler even allowed a token Jew at the 1936 Olympics,[29] Helene Mayer.Icewhiz (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree that any Jews that might have served in the NSZ were really special and exceptional cases, and their presence doesn't really say much regarding the overall ideology of NSZ.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

References