Talk:Collaboration during World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Australia

Japan did not occupy Australia during World War II. My Grandfather, a WWII veteran, and my History Teacher, who grew up in Australia have both said that no Large- Scale Japanese forces ever set foot on Australian soil. See Planned invasion of Australia during World War II.

--Corporal Punishment 05:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

It's talking about outlieing possessions. Japan also didn't occupy a large part of the US, but did take some ALaskan islands without resistence, and the Phillipines, of course. Basejumper 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly the Japanese did invade PNG which were Australian protectorates taking over Madang The Australian forces fought on the Kokoda trail there. The Japanese also bomb Darwin. Netherlands New Guinea and the Australian territories were invaded in 1942 by the Japanese. The Australian territories were put under military administration and were known simply as New Guinea. The highlands, northern and eastern parts of the island became key battlefields in the South West Pacific Theatre of World War II. Papuans often gave vital assistance to the Allies, fighting alongside Australian troops, and carrying equipment and injured men across New Guinea. Following the return to civil administration, the Australian section was known as the Territory of Papua-New Guinea (1945-49) and then as Papua and New Guinea. Although the rest of the Dutch East Indies achieved independence as Indonesia on December 27, 1949, the Netherlands regained control of western New Guinea.--Bandurist 00:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II here

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Collaborationism is the mainstream term used for this. It is not weasel word "cooperation," when Collaborationists have been judged and convicted for treason. Tazmaniacs 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I should add that it is totally unreasonable and POV to separate distinction between Collaboration with Mussolini's Italy and with Hitler's Italy. Both were members of the Axis Powers, and in Europe. Now, when (and if) the section about Collaboration in Asia (I'm sure there's data available) and Collaboration with the USSR (same stuff) gets something else than one-sentence stubs, we can organize the article. But that doesn't change the least that "Cooperation" is a POV term. Tazmaniacs
"Cooperation" talk about a POV/PC term. What happened was Collaborationism, TAZ is right. Both articles should be merged under this articles title, with stub subsections created to deal with the size of the article.Hypnosadist 15:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kastner

Shouldn't the Kastner affair be mentioned? Basejumper 22:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion sprees by User:MartinDK: ignorance or political bias?

I have just posted the following on this user's Talk Page:

The damage you have done on the Collaboration during World War II page has been undone, and it has been noted that although you have been admonished earlier for using insulting language when adressing other members of the WP community, you seem to consider that this is still is the way to proceed when editing the contents of pages you don't agree with. «Crap» is not a valid argument, and «libel left wing propaganda» is sheer nonsense thrown at those who do not know the period's history in Denmark.

Either:

*You are not familiar with Danish history, and you chose to delete them agressively because you do not like them. Besides the articles in Wikipedia in English which are linked to in the sections you have deleted, a profusion of books, articles and research theses, primarily in Danish, have been published that document the period. A number of articles on the period can also be found in the Danish Wikipedia. I cannot tell whether you understand Danish or not, but if you don't I would suggest that you ask someone to read some for you, starting, for example, with the two books in Danish which have been added to the article's References section (and which you seem to have overseen in your deletion spree). I do not recommend that you also try to delete these references.

Or:

*You have an agenda that cannot accept that documented facts which are contrary to the demands of certain ideologies be brought to public attention. While informed Danish opinion is fully aware of the issues discussed, it is rarely the case outside of that country. Certain ideologies would prefer that historical facts do not taint the country's positive image in official propaganda. The phrasing of your "arguments" (?) for deletion leads me to strongly suspect your political biases to be at play. What might confirm my suspicion is the fact that, generally speaking, relatively few of the entries for the different countries are referenced in the article's notes. Yet, you have chosen to vandalize this particular entry on Denmark.

I shall be away from Internet connections for several weeks. If it turns out that you repeat the damage done to the article, I shall have no other choice than to place a request for arbitration on your behaviour.

· Michel 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

  • As far as I'm concerned, since the section doesn't cite any sources, reads like an anonymous political commentary, it can and will be challenged any time by any editor. Since there seems to be a clear disagreement, I'm going to tag the section accordingly for the moment. Please feel free to refer to any sources, "who says so" while making claims as such like the ones over there regarding Denmark. Thanks!--Termer 19:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Termer, as mentioned very clearly, I have posted two books in the Reference section (that's 50% of all references for the whole page), but MDK has chosen to oversee them (and hurl insults instead). Are you also overseeing this? I could find many more references (although I'm not sure at all that posting lists of references in Danish on the English WP is appropriate), but as said I wouldn't have the time before many weeks to do anything about it. I'm not sure I'd feel like wasting my time on that particular either, if anyone with "4000 posts" feels that they're more qualified to tinge the historical integrity of Wikipedia by editing away anything that doesn't fit their political agenda. Generally speaking, I have little time and patience for dealing with this sort of attitude. ·Michel 20:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Michel the Reference section has been broken. I've fixed it by bringing the Refs and "Notes" together. Please reformat the refs you've added to the article according to the way it has been done with the rest. Please note that any controversial claims such as were only too willing to.. etc. should be clearly referred to exact book, exact page and to whom the opinion belongs to. For example was the citation a decision of Nuremberg Trials? I'd avoid such opinionated phrases in an encyclopedia anyway. It's not going to stay here unless it's clearly refed to whose opinion is it. I would stick to the facts only and avoid such political commentary on WP. Please also note that the Danish King, Christian X of Denmark symbolized the "mental resistance" of Denmark and its people against the Nazis and the King was still the official head of the Danish government. Therefore I'd take more care while coming up with opinions like The occupied Danish government cooperated reluctantly with the Nazi regime by various means. Please make sure that he section is written according to WP:NPOV and there shouldn't be any problems with it. Thanks.--Termer 02:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Termer, and thanks for the comments. Sounds more constructive than others ;-) As stated several times, I won't have time before a number of weeks to work on this, as I'll be out of Internet range. I have amended the only too willing part, though. As for Christian X and ...cooperated reluctantly..., those parts were as far as I remember not penned by me at all, and I certainly am no one to go and chop in other peoples' text at whim. What it boils down to is that either by omission or by chosen formulations, the article before I made the additions was a whitewashing of Denmark during WW2, a whitewashing which plenty of research (as I mentioned on the MartinDK talk page) over the past 5-10 years has shed light on, but which "institutional" Denmark is by all means attempting to maintain. Note that MDK the deleter's answer to me was more insults and bad faith, but that he carefully avoided replying to the issue of the referenced books (and decided to drop the subject altogether). That should give you an indication of what is at play... On the other hand, what about all the other countries' entries? Maybe you should place the POV tag on top of the page instead, mentioning that some of the entries etc...? · Michel 08:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Ummm.... bad faith assumptions? Why don't you try to read your comments/manifests and tone down your language a bit. Then you can get back to me. Fortunately I'm also Danish so I know that the so-called research you refer to is only half the story. Please understand that this is not the Danish Wikipedia - we actually have fairly high standards for what we include here. Try reading WP:V and WP:NPOV. Also, your sentiments against Venstre are pretty obvious indicators of your true motive for editing this page but I will try to assume good faith and regard your defense of that section as a misunderstanding of our policies on neutrality. This all boils down to the fact that the ref markup was broken and the text you had inserted along with some of the other text was clearly in violation of WP:NPOV. Also, please do not end your messages with insults against the one guy (Termer) who actually tried to help you. I certainly am no one to go and chop in other peoples' text at whim oh please... read WP:OWN. Oh - and in the future please do not cross post your accusations and threats against me. It is very disruptive when you do that. MartinDK 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Michel, since I won't have time before a number of weeks is not a good enough excuse in my opinion to leave the chapter into "blackwashed" state. I would say it needs to be "whitewashed" in order to remove the tag until you'll find time to return to the subject with clear citations and references. Until then we go with common knowledge that the 4 years of Nazi occupation was the worst tragedy that ever happened to this country. Thanks!--Termer 06:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)--Termer 06:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So it's done. since the old text didn't refer to any sources, it was changes all together according to the text and sources provided in the main article. --Termer 06:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesia

I've removed the section again, because it really is blatant POV pushing.

  1. It uses the word traitor as am epithet, without backing that term up with any reliable source that shows that any competent court ever made such a finding.
  2. The term fawningly echo Japanese propaganda again unsourced.
  3. at an opportunistic time confessed shame for the depth of his involvement yet again, unsourced.

Stick to the facts, and all will be well. Start applying emotive and partisan adjectives and adverbs to push a POV, and people will revert it.

Mayalld (talk) 13:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have a different attitude. Personally, I would edit out the POV, emotive & partisan stuff etc, and discuss it with those involved. SDome have done that with a couple of my contributions in earlier days, and it all came out fine. But having had my share of fights over the past few weeks with deletionists with an agenda, which has resulted in this article being “protected” indefinitely, I will not get into this one. Not saying, note my words, that you have an agenda · Michel (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an agenda :-) This particular paragraph was so loaded with blatant POV pushing, that it became difficult to accept the veracity of the remainder, even stripped of the emotive stuff. Mayalld (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's from a sock of banned troll User:DavidYork71 whose numerous socks have been trolling on the Sukarno and other pages. The trolling is actually aimed at certain editors. Aside from the edits being made by a banned user (see WP:BAN), the case for it being "collaborationism" is extremely weak at POV.

Don't feed the trolls. --Merbabu (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Editors should review WP:DENY and WP:BAN --Merbabu (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

He's back again, with at least one new sock per day re-adding the disputed text. As the edits are coming from socks of a banned user then they can be reverted on sight per WP:BAN. After the last spate, the disputed section was modified to reduce it to the sourced facts, and to remove emotive and judgemental language. I have again reverted it to this version. I make no claim that this is in any way the "right" version, and my reversions are done only on the basis of WP:BAN. If the socks continue to arrive, we may need to refer it to WP:RPP for semi-protection. Mayalld (talk) 11:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Listing by occupying power

Perhaps this list should be arranged by occupying power. Many countries only collaborated because they were occupied by a power sympathetic to the Nazis. Others co-operated as part of the independence movement against the British (who was at war with the Nazis). Many countries listed here were not sovereign states during WWII.Bless sins (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)