Talk:Pursuit of Nazi collaborators/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proper title

from WfD:


Originally, I created the entry under the name: World War II traitors hunt. I felt that we do not have an entry about the persecutions of the German collaborators, Volksdeutsche and so on, after WW2. However, somebody has moved it under the name. I think the name is now misleading, since we wanted to deal with somethink similar, but slihtly different: people that allegedly committed high treason during WW2. Could you please help me to find the best solution? Cautious 12:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose deletion. Vfd is not to settle political disputes. Discuss naming of the page on the article's talk page. — Jor (Talk) 17:01, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose deletion. Agree with Jor. Nico 17:07, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose deletion, as the subject is a valid one. I am moving the article to a POV-neutral title, Persecution of alleged Nazi collaborators. Mkweise 20:20, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • I do not agree that the new title is NPOV. "Nazi collaborator" is simply stalinist propaganda and very offensive to the victims. Furthermore, it has nothing with reality todo. Nico 21:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • ...and that is why I used the word "alleged" (German: "angeblich", in case you didn't know). Mkweise 22:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
        • The "alleged" is not enough to change my impression that this title is mainly referring stalinist propaganda, not the factual events. Hence, I think "Organised persecution of ethnic Germans" is better, more NPOV and more precise. You won't find the Holocaust article under "Persecution of alleged Bolshevik Jews" either. Nico 22:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
          • This branch of discussion is moot since the scope of the article is not discussed yet. Please, let's go in proper order. Don't make the tail wag the dog. Mikkalai

I agree with User:Cautious that the new title is too wide. We are not filing patent application here. At the same time the old title was too informal and too wide in another respect.

Please, let us define the scope of the article:

  1. Will it be related to post-WWII events?
  2. Will it be related to Germans only?
  3. Will it be related to ethnic Germans -- residents of countries other than Germany?
  4. The Norvegian Lebensborn: a borderline case, since it involves discrimination of mixed-nation-born children, but basing on the behavour of their mothers.

Let's talk before moving the page from title to title (what should have been done before the first move in the first place). Mikkalai 18:10, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once more: DON'T MOVE without DISCUSSION! It is not polite! Mikkalai 21:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd suggest somethig like "Treatment of ethnic Germans in the context of WWII". Reasons:

  1. In Soviet Union their persecution started before the Nazi invasion, allegedly for preventive purposes.
  2. We must cleary separate hate issues and official issues.
  3. It makes sense to cover the present-day issues as well, but in context of the memories of WWII.

Otherwise the article will be rugged, with chaotic context and content. Mikkalai 22:47, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Is this article intended to distinguish between falsely alleged collaberators and actual Nazi collaberators. No offense is intended by the term, despite any aparent Stalinist background. I'm trying to refer to people who actually did did collaberate with the Nazi's, genuine true treason. The article text reads as an article about descrimination of people falsely accused of collaberating with the Nazis, particularly the bit about the Norwegian children, which is a very different thing to treason. If that is the intention of the article I agree that it should be clearer in the title. McClade

Let's consider how this article ties in with the World War II evacuation and expulsion article Bwood 22:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have boldly renamed World War II traitors hunt to Pursuit of Nazi collaborators. The word "persecution" should not be used in titles, as it endorses one side's POV that the treatment was unjustifiable. Wikipedia can't take sides. --Uncle Ed 17:33, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Guys, you started tug-of-war with titles again, without discussing it here. One more undiscussed move, and I am afraid the page will be protected. The current title is as bad as others. The article evidently speaks about ethnic Germans only. There were plenty of other Nazi collaborators, hardly intended to be discussed here. Once more, let's talk here first! Mikkalai 17:53, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the page to Pursuit of ethnic Germans, hopefully a little more npov than "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators". Nico

I protected the page since the last action of Nico broke off the Talk page. Cool down, guys. Mikkalai 17:59, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like aslo to say that I don't like the title either. I could have started moving it as well. Mikkalai 18:01, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  1. "Persecution" is POV
  2. Collaborators are natives who cooperated with the regime, not ethnic Germans.
  3. Norway and France were never Soviet "puppets"
  4. Danny 18:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The problem with differentiation of ethnic Germans and Nazi collaborators in Poland was, that the Nazi system in Poland was kind of apartheid. Ethnic Germans were forced to became Volksdeutsche and treated as a pillar of Nazi authority. It is also questionable, who was and who wasn't ethnic German. According to some sources, many people, who became Volksdeutsche, were in matter of fact ethnic Poles. Out of 2.8 milion of Volksdeutsche in Poland, most were verified as Poles after WW2. Not easy to resolve. Cautious 09:57, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quite right. A while above I proposed the very neutral title, although a bit clumsy: Treatment of ethnic Germans in the context of WWII. See also my arguments on it. Mikkalai 18:06, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)


"Nazi collaborators" is Soviet propaganda. As Jor pointed out before, persecution was of ALL Germans, not just nazis. Also, I find Mikkalai's reversion/protection action completely unacceptable. Such an action is not allowed at Wikipedia, and may lead to desysopping.

And if "persecution" is POV and not an appropriate description of persecution, some work has to be done with the Holocaust article as well ("extermination" and so forth). Probably it should be moved to "Pursuit of Bolshevik collaborators" as well, huh? 

Nico 18:12, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Nico, do you read before writing? It is your action that broke the page, not mine. Also, I am almost in an agreement with you. You are barking the wrong tree. Let's discuss the proper title, not to blame each other and others. Mikkalai 18:16, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While the term "persecution" describes what happened fairly well, some actions, such as resettlement of Germans is not so straightforward. Being a German, would you really enjoy to live in post-WWII Poland, where everyone hates you? Mikkalai 18:23, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I admit, I feel pretty awkward with the current title. I suggest I move the article to a not perfect, but IMO exact and fairly neutral title I suggested above and unprotect the page, since it needs editing. Any better suggestions? Mikkalai 18:29, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the current title sucks. Only a few of the people affected were actual collaborators. The majority were persecuted for alleged war crimes they had nothing to do with in reality. I tire of this move circus and am not going to move it again, but I stand by my suggestion Persecution of alleged Nazi collaborators.
Three first words are OK, but like I've already written the last two are too wide: we are speaking about Germans here, not any other numerous collaborators, aren't we? Mikkalai 19:54, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Anyone perceived to have any connection to Germany was fair game. For the most part, AFAIK, they were Soviet citizens of German descent. Mkweise 20:30, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In Western Prussia and Poland? You are kiddin... Mikkalai 20:48, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, of course not - Soviets in the USSR, Poles in Poland, etc. Mkweise 20:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The problem was, that Nazis forced all ethnic Germans, Polish citizens to became Volksdeutsche, kind of German citizen. Some were offered a choice between Auschwitz and Volksliste, some others bet on German winning the war. If Germany won the war, ethnic Poles Volksdeutsche would have been the only group of Poles to live in welfare. From the point of view of Polish law, the adapting enemy state citizenship constituted a high treason. However, there were lots of speciall circumstances, so most of people were verified as "forced" Volksdeutsche. Some of them claimed German citizenship, when West Germany started Wunderekonomie. Cautious 10:08, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I see, that is quite different from what happened to ethnic Germans in the Soviet Union (or to Japanese Americans in the U.S., for that matter.) Perhaps it would be best to deal with the events in each country separately. Mkweise 15:03, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Title proposals

So far, this unlucky article had the following title attempts.

  • Persecutions of Nazi collaborators
Contra:
(1) The idea of the article is to cover unjust treatment.
(2) It seems that the article is intended to be about ethnic Germans, not just any collaborators

The article should cover both. Cautious 10:12, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • World War II traitors hunt
Contra:
Too general, see {2}
  • Persecution of ethnic Germans
Contra:
See (1)
  • Pursuit of ethnic Germans
Contra:
See (1)
  • Organised persecution of ethnic Germans
Contra:
See (1)
  • Persecution of alleged Nazi collaborators
Contra:
See {2}
Pro:
Unjust treatment is to be discussed, i.e., (1) is void
Pro: Neutral title; narrows the context, "masks" the issue of "unjust" vs. "just". Unjustness may be covered in the body, by drawing clear distinction between just and legal prosecution and indiscriminate, hate-based one.
Contra: Not ethnic Germans, but Volksdeutsche. Ethnic Germans that refused to sign Volksliste, were treated as Poles. i.e. Grohmann, Habsburg (This doesn't mean that communist state let them keep their property: it was nationalised along with the property of traitors, Germans and rich people) Cautious 10:12, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't see why not to mention it in the article. The fate of these Germans also deserves memory. By large it doesn't matter who persecuted them: Russians, Poles or brothers Germans. Mikkalai 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • That title would include Germans who fled to exile in the US during the Nazi rise to power; was that your intention? Mkweise
    • I don't see why not metion this, as well as the fate of Germans in UK. They were not sent to gulag, but hardly English were nice with them. Mikkalai 15:49, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

More opinions, please. Mikkalai 03:55, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The current introduction is: "Several organizations have hunted for and pursued people they suspected to be Nazi collaborators, alleging complicity in Nazi war crimes. Controversy surrounds this matter, with some advocates labeling these hunts as "persecutions". Other advocates call the hunts just vengeance for the Holocaust.

As you here want an article dealing with a completely different topic, I've restored the original article Organised persecution of ethnic Germans. Nico 06:32, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nico, my title proposal, Treatment of ethnic Germans in the context of WWII is exactly about what you want, only more neutral and IMO more precise: it will cover not only organized, but still harsh treatment of Germans, and it exclude, say, Middle Ages, while yours does not. Please give a little leeway top your position. I am aware of your opinion that a spade must be called a spade (persecution is persecution), but unfortunately, unlike Holocaust there is no commonly used short title for this topic (a proposed "Prussian Holocaust" term can be read as persecution of Jews in Prussia.) Please read my arguments in favor of my proposal. Mikkalai 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I've just read you last post more carefully and I understand better how you want to narrow down the topic. In this case I would propose to name your text something like Organised persecution of alleged Nazi collaborators, to match the intro, and to refer it from the current article (provided it is named "Treatment of...") with a summary, and with dupicates removed. Mikkalai 15:56, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, I think "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" is still the best title. Such an article can discuss two kinds of pursuit:

  1. notorious individuals widely believed by historians to be Nazis or to have helped them commit genocide, war crimes, etc.
  2. individuals and groups wrongly pursued -- for the reason (or excuse) that the pursuers considered them Nazi collaborators

Any other scheme legitimizes the POV that ALL pursuit of Nazi collaborators constitutes "persecution". --Uncle Ed 15:08, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The whole point of the original uathor that he does NOT want to discuss the first item: nuremberg trial, etc., since there is enough about it said. He wants a SEPARATE article on the second item, in his full rights IMO. Mikkalai 16:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
IMO on the example of Czechoslovakia is clear, that it is impossible to seperate both issues. E.g., members of NSDAP were en mass prosecuted/persecuted. Was it just or unjust? And what about members of SS, SdP, leaders of Hitler's Youths? Nazi regime verbal supporters? Those who employed forsed/slave labourers? Also Cautios remark about "ethnic Germans" is true, in Third Reich Germans were people of superior cathegory, so beeing German was related not only to ethinicity. There were ethnic Bohemian Germans who signed they're Czech (expressing opposition to Nazi rule) and Bohemian Czechs who signed they're Germans (utilitarianism, fear,...). After war, Czechoslowakian law awarded the first case.
Current title is IMO ok. In first sentences it is explained. Wikimol 20:34, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

As my contribution to Czechoslovakia section is based on reading several articles from Czech historicians and reading the text of actual decrees, it may not reflect German expellees POV. I'd really appreciate, if edits expressing German expellees POV would be first discussed on Talk page, than sumarrized what is fact everybody agrees, and what POVs. Wikimol 20:15, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The expulsion of ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia was a general phenomeon, not based on specific allegations of collaboration with the Nazis. So the report does not fit with the article's title. Get-back-world-respect 21:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
IMO relatively frequent opinion (even among expelled people) is it was collective punishment for colaboration/WWII/... I dont believe the concept of collective guilt is just, but that's no reason why its existence should be hidden on Wikipedia. Please note: in this article is expulsion only noted and main article about expulsions is Expulsion of Germans after World War II, where are also other opinions on reasons of expulsion. Some of them connect expulsions with colaboration, others do not. --Wikimol 22:21, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Collective guilt is not a concept that should determine wikipedia article titles, and it does not match with "Pursuit of Nazi collaborators" either. It matches with "Pursuit of Germans". Get-back-world-respect 23:28, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've made one corection in this part - they weren't punished the members of NSDAP or SdP, but the officials or extra-active members; the SdP was legal and respected party in Czechoslovakia until september 1938. More, I added what shortcut "FS" in decrees means.(217.197.144.98),

Neutrality

The introductory sentence is not neutral. Persecutions and vengeance are no contradiction. "Just vengeance" is a joke, is it? Get-back-world-respect 01:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Persecution implies it was unjust. "Just venegance" implies it was just. Both POVs are represented, where do you see the NPOV problem? --Wikimol 09:04, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Vengeance has a connotation of revenge, retaliation. You know the slogan "justice not revenge"? Vengeance and justice are often incompatible. A lynching can be vengeance. Furthermore, "just vengeance" can be interpreted as "only vengeance". An encyclopedia should not leave open the question whether persectutions are someting minor. My proposal: "Some see it as a legitimate punishment". Get-back-world-respect 23:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Introduction was completely changed. Is the neutrality still disputed? If it is, it should be specified more precisly what is disputed as non-neutral. --Wikimol 20:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The title. Sam [Spade] 21:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see a title change to something like "Pursuit of suspected and actual Nazi's and Nazi Collaborators and Criminals after World War 2" if people want, but its awfully cumbersome. I dont think the title itself will make people feel it was all 100% perfect, and the 1st sentence or so expl;ains in full. I dont see the need. I dont see any neutral wiki user reading more than 10 lines of that article and coming away thinking "Well, the title says collaborators so they must all have been". Disagee. Keep present title unless people who read the article will seriously be mislead by it to a point of view. FT2 05:51, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Titles cant be completely NPOV (as seen in city names editwars). Or you may argue some titles impose something exists, ant to achieve NPOV, for example title of Evolution should somehow honor creationists POV. Wikipedia has also other conventions for names, and one of them is to use what would be expected by majority of english speakers. IMO current title is good compromise between NPOV, understendability and common use. Can you give some example of some mainstream sources using completely different terms? --Wikimol 15:10, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The creationist analogy does not work as long as the title does not match the content. Creationism and evolution are two concepts that contradict each other. Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and expulsion of ethnic Germans both existed, it is however not neutral to cover the latter under a title alluding they were all Nazis. Get-back-world-respect 22:47, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Precisely. Sam [Spade] 23:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Point of creationist argument is titles cant be completely NPOV, because there are other constraints. Title "Evolution, or alleged evolution by..., or blah blah" would be more NPOV. It was not an analogy. If you want an analogy, article title Holocaust denial would go. It does not include holocaust deniers POV they are revisionists. And in first sentence it openly admits some holocaust deniers do not actualy deny holocaust, but only dispute mainstream historical version.--Wikimol 22:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The existence of an article whose title may have questionable neutrality does not prove that no article can have a neutral title. It is legitimate to cover issues closely related to the articles main topic if they are not worth their own article, e.g. holocaust deniers who do not deny the whole holocaust. However, the large scale expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe under the label of "Nazi collaborators" is just sick. Get-back-world-respect 23:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Page moved

I moved the page to one less offensive and intrinsicly POV. I hope thats ok w everyone. cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. First, title of this page is controversial topic, it's better to discuss before doing such radical change. Second, current title is at least as POVed as the previous, only the opposite way. Do you thing victims of alleged collaborators who were allegedly murdered e.g. in so called "concentration camps" would find this way of writing less offensive? "Alleged" may be understood "not proved". --Wikimol 08:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Right, this page was never intended to discuss the legal treatment of convicted war criminals. We already have War criminal. This is about vengence against suspected or actual war colaborators, a completely different subject. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 22:24, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Less offensive"? Are you offended by the pursuit of Nazi collaborators? If so, why? I've moved the page back until there is consensus on this matter. --Viriditas 22:41, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course I am, and I am offended by this page title and the assumptions it makes. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 00:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please qualify your statement. Why are you offended by the pursuit of Nazi collaborators? --Viriditas 00:06, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pursuit isn't accurate for this subject, the article isn't about some sort of chase, its about the vengence that was meted out. "Nazi collaborators" is also POV, essentially none of these people were given the benefit of a fair trail. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 00:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pursuit appears to be more neutral than other terms. As for vengeance, that is a POV term, while others might phrase it as "justice". Regarding Nazi collaborators, that seems to be an accurate term for the description of people who worked with the Nazis. As for whether or not these people were given a fair trial, you seem to be imposing your own historical and cultural revisionism on the topic. Fair trials were hardly possible for Nazi collaborators, or anyone else in that region at the time. So in this context, your appeal to a right to a fair trial is an anachronism; fair trials weren't even endorsed by the UN until 1948, and to this day they are not internationally enforced. While I think you have a valid point that deserves to be discussed in the article, I don't see how this effects the title in any way. --Viriditas 07:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just glanced at the article. But it appears that very little of it is about "pursuit;" most of it seems to be about "punishment." Maurreen 06:33, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fron the article:"Several organizations have hunted for and pursued people...The hunt for Nazi collaborators, according to some advocates...Immediately after liberation of Czechoslovakia by Soviet and American armies, in atmosphere of chaos, wild chase started." Obviously, purusit may result in capture, and punishment. --Viriditas 07:24, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm looking at this article and thinking that Wiki NPOV is most useful here. It's possible to be neutral on a controversial topic, and thats whats needed here. Can someone summarise what exactly the key problem is seen as? FT2 07:18, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

The key problem

The key problem is a bias in favor of the the persecution / ethnic cleansing having been justified, and of the victims having been guilty. That is of course unnacceptable. Also the "pursuit" title is a joke, see comments above. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 13:14, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I have reviewed the article for bias (for and against) of the kind described. It wasn't massively biased, but it certainly didnt feel as neutral as I felt comfortable, so to that extent I do agree reading it, there was a definite POV issue. Often the background is not laid out fully, key motives or other factual information isn't summarised plainly, or the text isn't broken up into sections where it would be helpful, so I've had a go at addressing these. FT2 16:51, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)
Its the title I am most concerned about. [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 18:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Aloha. Brief question for you: can you provide a few reputable references that lend credence to your view? If you can, that would help me understand your position. Otherwise, I see this concern with the title as somewhat disingenuous. --Viriditas 02:36, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I dont see that as an NPOV problem.

  • There were beyond doubt a large number of nazis and Nazi collaborators.
  • An article discussing their pursuit is therefore perfectly reasonable.

So the article is not inherently with a POV title.

What is important is that the article must also make it quite clear for NPOV (which it does very early on) that as well as collaborators, there were also many who were pursued although only suspected, or who may have been innocent, and that the pursuit often included vigilanteism and witchhunts against groups. FT2 18:50, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Table of Contents

Can we please put the TOC beneath an introductory paragraph? --Viriditas 09:44, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Small edit to the intro sentence, try that :) FT2 12:25, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Nice job! --Viriditas 05:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

South America

This new section has information worth to be expanded on, however, as long as nothing is written about the actual pursuit of the Nazis that went to South America it does not belong here. 12:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Apologies, I know enough to know that S.america was a key area of pursuit, and belongs here, but other than medel and eichmann, I dont know enough to write an NPOV assessment of the pursuit there. if you or others can, that'd be good, my limit is to say "it needs inclusion but I dont know what content to put in".
Maybe a post on some wiki page, for a request for help? FT2 13:41, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Page move

I reviewed the talk, and the concensus thruout has been, and is still, that the page title is/was unnacceptable. I moved the page accordingly. Sam [Spade] 16:24, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That simply isnt true. Reverting. I´d like to try next stept in peaceful conflict resolution and conduct a survey. (Wikipedia:Survey guidelines). Would you participate? Propsal of survey is bellow. --Wikimol 22:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll propsal

This is a proposal, not actual poll. Please comment on proposal, do not vote (yet).

...actual poll moved to separate section...

--Wikimol 22:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good proposal if you assume we cannot find a solution by regular discussion. Why do you think so? Get-back-world-respect 23:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, Sam keeps moving the page, for one. --Viriditas 20:24, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't figure out where everything is any more. Jayjg 20:29, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade allready casted RfC on this. Propably as a result new users engadeg, particulary FT2 much improved the article. IMO, prevailing opinion on title is it is ok as long as there is NPOV explanation of alleged/actual/just/unjust/... in article body. Sam's opinion is there is consensus on moving. Some "more objective" measure of consensus can resolve this. --Wikimol 21:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If enough people feel there is an issue to discuss, then a vote is a sensible way to discuss it. FT2 00:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Yes keep the name, No why do you need a "poll"? Is that the question? I haven't been involved with this article. Pursuit of Nazi collaborators definitely seems an accurate name for the article. IZAK 06:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NO Page is an offensive disgrace to the wikipedia, and the title constitutes hate speech (if one is to accept such a term). Sam [Spade] 16:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conclusion - nobody complained about poll formulation, so lets vote. I'm not sure if it would be correct to move IZAKs and Sam Spade comments to votes section. If your intention was to vote, please move your comments yourself. thanks. --17:47, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll

Question: Do you think this article should keep the title, Pursuit of Nazi collaborators? Possible answers are Yes and No. It is possible, and in case of No votes desirable, propose other titles.

Outcome: First outcome would be measurement of consensus whether new title has to be found. Second outcome will be, if there will be consensus on No, measure of support to other proposals.

Time for voting - util 17 Nov 2004 0 UTC

Votes

Yes

  1. Yes, keep. Title together with explanation in article is ok. --Wikimol 17:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ditto, Space Cadet 20:10, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. Yes FT2 00:29, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
  4. Yes--Viriditas 02:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  5. Yes, definitely keep it. Only Holocaust-deniars don't like it. IZAK 02:52, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Yes - it is perhaps the most suitable title. The only change I could see justifiable would be the addition of "allegged"--Josiah 03:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  7. Yes. Jayjg 18:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  8. Yes jguk 21:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  9. Yes Jewbacca 10:58, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • End of proposed poll (17.11.2004). Add later votes under this notice.

No

  1. NO Page is an offensive disgrace to the wikipedia, and the title constitutes hate speech (if one is to accept such a term). Sam [Spade] 19:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. NO Get-back-world-respect 13:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC))
  • End of proposed poll (17.11.2004). Add later votes under this notice.

Comments

If the term "Nazi collaborator" is offensive and POV, then how would you call a person collaborating with the Nazi regime? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:16, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I'd call them a Nazi collaborator, but thats not what this article is about. This article is about the Prussian Holocaust. Sam [Spade] 21:43, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Doesnt look like it. Maybe what this says is you should be working on the separate article with that title, if thats the subject that matters to you. FT2 00:29, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Of course I am, they aught to be merged, along w a 1/2 dozen other articles of the same type. Sam [Spade] 00:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the article covers just what the title says I am ok with it. As it currently does not, e.g. by treating the expulsion of ethnic Germans regardless od accusations of personal collaboration with the Nazis from Czechoslovakia, I am not ok. I am glad that Prussian Holocaust redirects to a neutral title. Get-back-world-respect 12:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quoting Ed Poor, IMO the article should discuss two kinds of pursuit:
1. notorious individuals widely believed by historians to be Nazis or to have helped them commit genocide, war crimes, etc.
2. individuals and groups wrongly pursued -- for the reason (or excuse) that the pursuers considered them Nazi collaborators
--Wikimol 14:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The title and the introduction together are a bad combination. The introduction basically negates the title, and it becomes impossible to tell what the page is about. Perhaps split it in two? Gady 19:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you referring to a merge with organised persecution of ethnic Germans? --Viriditas 20:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conclusion

9:2 in favour of keeping. --Wikimol 11:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would call that a successful campaign, and an example of wikipedian demographics. I would also call it an abject failure of the wiki process. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whole area

While I don't agree with moving this article, I do agree current structure of Wikipedia contents in this field (Nazi rule on occupied teriotories during the WWII, collaboration of locals, German evacution at the end of war, post-war treatment of Germans and collaborators, populations transfers,...) isn't satisfactory. --Wikimol 11:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Pursuit of Nazi collaborators

From my talk page

As you have removed all mentions of actual Nazis from the article, the background and means of pursuit sections are now mainly wrong, in that those means were used against Nazis, not collaborators. Also do we have an article on the pursuit of Nazis after the war that that information could go in (or is already in)? Rmhermen 21:47, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I do not know if there is an article on the pursuit of Nazis. If there is not one then there ought to be one. But this article is on "pursuit Nazi collaborators" and it ought to be an article on Nazi collaborators not Nazis.

An area which needs expanding is what happened to those in France in the French Vichy government who were not "assassinated". What did the Americans and the First French Army do with the police force of Vichy France when they landed in southern France in 1944 for example? What happened to other puppet government collaborators like the Norwigen Quisling.

Before I changed it, the article mentioned the persecution of inocent Norwegian children who were in no way collaborators (Children of the Nazi era) and still does not mention Quisling, which was an odd thing to do in an article about the persuit Nazi collaborators.

I've read in the past that a more Dutch died in the SS than at the hands of the SS. If so what happend to those Dutch SS members?

What about the governments of the other Axis powers were they Nazi collaborators or Nazi allies? Philip Baird Shearer 22:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Poland section is a mess. A clear line needs to be drawn between expuslions of Germans from fomer German lands in the Third Reich (Historical Eastern Germany) which were placed under the duristriction of other countries at the end of world war II and those who lived in pre-war Poland who collaborated with the Nazis. The former should be removed from this article because it has nothing to do with the persuit of Nazi collaborators.

Yes there is still a lot wrong with this article, but I hope that I have re-focused it onto the pursuit of Nazi collaborators and not on the pursuit of citizens of Third Reich who would not usually be called collaborators. Philip Baird Shearer 22:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nazi material

I had to remove all this (most of the text from the article) to conform to Philip's collaborators

The main motives for the apprehension of suspected collaborators were:

not about collaborators
What where the British Free Corps if not collaborators ?
  • Revenge for those killed, especilaly those killed on ethnic grounds in the Holocaust (principally amongst Jews and Russians)
Some of the Guards were not German Citizens before 1939
  • A desire after a bitter war, to see those responsible face justice, and be characterised as criminals under a court of law (See Nuremburg Trials).
not about collaborators
Some of the Guards were not German Citizens before 1939
  • To ensure that the acts done were brought to light and placed on formal record, with evidence, so that they could never be denied (some of the acts being so unthinkable that denial was plausible).
probably not about collaborators
Some acts were puputrated by collaborators.
  • A widespread sense that wanton annihilation of whole communities and cultures on such a scale was intolerable and must not be left unpursued even despite the inadequacy of existing laws.
probably not about collaborators
collaborators aided and abetted in this for example some Poles betrayed Jews to the Nazis.

Other motives included:

  • Fear that a "Nazi underground" of some kind existed, such as the ODESSA, which would allow the enemy to somehow regroup for their proclaimed 4th Reich.
not about collaborators
some collaborators aided or were aided by the "Nazi underground"
  • Political gain, in the turbulent policits of the last 1940's and the commencement of the Cold War.

Millions had died, and neither side was minded to give quarter. In the minds of many survivors (on both sides) it was "to the death", and sometimes became very harsh. In some cases this was quite likely misdirected or led to "an eye for an eye", and in many cases there was no formal source of legal authority for actions undertaken by individuals. In many cases the end result of pursuit was a file being compiled and submitted to a suitable authority for formal action.

only partly about collaborators

There were two other factors which fuelled the hunt to a wider scale. First, there was a very large number of people who had been involved in what were defined as war crimes at the post-war Nuremburg Trials.

not about collaborators
Very much about some of the collaborators eg deportations from France. Philip Baird Shearer 01:00, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Second, the allied authorities rapidly turned their attention elsewhere and there was not the will to prosecute all cases legally, it was felt they would probably "turn tail" to be rid of it, and allow the majority to escape without punishment for the sake of legal and political expediency.

Means of Pursuit

This pursuit takes many forms, both individual and organised. Several organizations hunt for and pursue individuals they believe complicit in Nazi war crimes.

not about collaborators
Yes it is the odd old Ukranian collaborators has been found this way in Britiain in the past 10 years.

Others were due to after-war spontaneous retaliation commited by populations within occupied countries.

Some of the main ways this pursuit took place were:

  • Individuals who reported they saw someone that they recognised, who had now assumed an identity and were slipping back into civilian life undetected.
not about collaborators
Yes it is.
  • Specific individuals named and sought by groups or governments for their activities in the war.
  • "Witchhunt" in some areas for those suspected of having been collaborators.
  • Government action - investigation and interrogation of people suspected to be such. Example: U.S. DOJ Office of Special Investigations
not about collaborators
Dont know about "U.S. DOJ Office of Special Investigations" but British sent a lot of collaborators back to the USSR after investigation and interrogation of people.
not about collaborators
The look anyone who collaborated in the killings not just Germans. Philip Baird Shearer 01:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Infiltration of Nazi support and escape organisations and those believed to be aiding and abetting them.
probably not about collaborators
  • Vigilanteism and "summary justice", often without trial.

This affected not only individuals, but whole groups percieved as collaborators. Another part was legal action and laws punishing cooperation with Nazis, implemented by provisional authorities.

Rmhermen 00:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

I am restoring most of the stuff you deleted because I think that it does involve collaborators Philip Baird Shearer 01:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:TitleNPOV

I have removed Template:TitleNPOV, as far as I can tell this article does not contain the text which gave rise to the POV complaint. If anyone feels strongly enough to restore it please give the specific reasons for doing so. Philip Baird Shearer 15:46, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pursuit_of_Nazi_collaborators/Archive_1&oldid=863688411"