Talk:Wartime collaboration

message: Who is Jonas KLIMAITIS? I cannot find fis name in any documents.
:See this reference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algirdas_Klimaitis
—Thefife 18:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonas KLIMAITIS 

message: Same subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tazmaniacs 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly oppose merger.--Mike18xx 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the merger, also strongly.  The merger would water down the Quisling content.  Quisling should be allowed to stand out as the quintessential traitor/collaborator.—Thefife 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Quisling]] into here 

message: Are the paragraphs "21 suspected..." and "In Greece..." really necessary here? No sources are given for them and they also seem to be unconnected with the rest of the article. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since noone objected, I'm going to delete those paragraphs. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two paragraphs 

message: The article lead has been changed, as has much of the content in the last 48 hours, notably it would appear after this conflict and this discussion in the page on Tokyo Boys. Notably however, the re-editing (most notably to remove the word pejorative) has actually led to the word being defined (with a reference) as the same as "collaboration", but has ignored the secondary definiton on the same page of the same book which point out that it has a criminal implication. Moreover, the term described in the reference is collaboration, not collaborationism, which is what I believe the secondary definiton is indicating to. See for example Bertram M. Gordon's "Collaborationism in France During the Second World War.", or particularly this google book search and compare with this search on Collaboration.
I am not sure these edits were made in good faith, since it would appear that a deliberate confusion is being made between Collaboration, which is a legal term, and collaborationism, which carries the negative connotation of cooperation with the enemy, especially in and around World War II (ie Nazi Collaborators). rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, my good faith extends only so far as your good sources. You provide well referenced sources, and we'll be just fine. I'm not finished with this article yet. Also removing the {not in citation given} template to first reference because that source explicitly talks about several individuals collaborating on something. Despite what you think, collaborationism was not invented by the French and is not used exclusively in the sense of treasonous behaviour, and subsequently it is not a pejorative term, although a traitor is of course because treason has a far more restricted meaning and use then collaboration. In any case, if you can find a source that says collaborationism "carries the negative connotation of cooperation with the enemy" rather then the negative consequences of being branded a traitor as a result of collaboration, please cite it.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: rueben_lys, this is a reference work and not a dictionary. The article deals with the concept of collaborating, which is collaborationism, in its every application and not solely in the one application you want to apply it in.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not finished with the article. I note you keep quoting the same author who's work I have no access to at this stage. if you have it, feel free to quote and reference the page.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration and Collaborationism

message: lol at whoever put a blank Israel section, that's hilarious! I mean tragic, but still kinda hilarious in a way. 173.24.166.95 (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Israel

message: In France, the word is always shorten in "collabo". None says "collaborateur" but everyone says "collabo".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:490C:D1E:F9F2:1CCF (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collabo is the word 

message: There is an well-sourced history available describing attempts to prosecute former fascist officials in Italy after WW2, which were mostly unsuccessful for some rather interesting reasons. I was doing some research for [], stumbled upon a few things, and was surprised there was nothing on this page about it. Perhaps it is included on another article. If I find the time I might put in a little blurb about it. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 02:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Postwar Italian collaborationism

message: The article doesn't make clear what constitutes collaboration. Most citizens who don't actively take up arms against the occupying forces but merely attempt to live their daily lives in a normal fashion (or as close to normal as possible under the circumstances) could be termed collaborators particularly if their occupation involves working in the police or most government jobs. Is a shopkeeper who knowingly serves collaborators also a collaborator ?  In some instances the line between collaboration and resistance can be fuzzy. Many wartime resistance movements relied heavily on help from civil servants, police officers and others for things like producing fake documents, helping prisoners escape, supplying information etc. Some resistance fighters took day jobs working for the occupiers to provide cover for their activities or to obtain curfew passes etc some civil servants harbored Jewish families or resistance fighters hiding them from the Nazi's. 86.146.222.182 (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of what constitutes collaboration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Collaborationism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425191738/http://www.movienewz.nl/rudicarrell/?sub=extern to http://www.movienewz.nl/rudicarrell/?sub=extern&waid=36728
*Added  tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244371075506&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Is a unit of conscripted policemen collaborationist? Objectors were punished by comcentration camp terms. According to your classification it was involuntary.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscripted collaborationism? 

message: ,
could you tell where are Vietnamese POWs interned today (which camps?)?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnamese soldiers interned as POWs 

message: There have been thousands of invasions in history. Why are only European countries during world war ii included here?
Should be included: Asians who collaborated with the Japanese during WWII, Collaborators with the British in the Indian subcontinent (such as Mir Jafar), the [[Razkars(Pakistan)] , etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.204.148.160 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias torwards the Europe Axis in WWII 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per consensus.  —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Collaborationism →  – This article should be renamed Wartime collaboration (which currently ) to match the content of the article and its defining sentence. The content of the article matches this definition, although it is heavily biased towards World War II. Collaborationism has a very restricted meaning and is something entirely different. The current title should be redirected to Vichy France#Collaborationnistes.
There is a clear mismatch between the title of this article, and the content. The dead giveaway is the WP:LEADSENTENCE, which says: "" But that is a definition of wartime collaboration and is absolutely not a definition of collaborationism, which has a far more restricted meaning. 
The latter term was created in 1974 by historian Stanley Hoffman to refer to a specific category of collaborators in Vichy France who wished for Germany's victory in World War II. Section Vichy France#Collaborationnistes does a good job of explaining the meaning of this term. In this sense, collaborationism is not equivalent to "French collaborators in Vichy France", it's more restricted even than that, which is partly why Hoffman  invented the term in the first place. For example, women who slept with the enemy (and were publicly shamed by getting their heads shaved after Liberation) were collaborators but not necessarily collaborationists.
There is a hierarchy of scope in the use of the word collaboration in war. "Collaboration in wartime" is the broadest, and is a huge topic, spanning millenia and covering the globe through endless wars. Collaboration with the Axis Powers is still a large topic, extending to dozens of countries, but limited to one war in the 1940s.  There isn't currently one article on French collaboration in World War II (that  Vichy France), but the topic covers one country in one war, and is partly treated in sections of various articles. The narrow topic of "Collaborationism" is covered accurately in section Vichy France#Collaborationnistes, but there is no article that currently covers this topic (although it is without question WP:Notable, and deserves one).
The current state of the article is confused; the lead sentence says one thing, but the current content appears to cover mostly the topic of wartime collaboration in World War II, with a sprinkling of a couple of Middle Eastern conflicts. Adding to the confusion, the article actually does mention Hoffman in the second paragraph, without however mentioning that he is talking strictly about a subset of collaborators in Vichy France. I support a move to Wartime collaboration as a match to the current content: the lead sentence, and the original choice of a one-word title (even if wrong), and the inclusion of the Middle East conflicts suggests that the intended scope of the article is all collaboration with the enemy in any war. "Collaborationism" would ideally have its own article some day, but should be redirected to Vichy France#Collaborationnistes ("with possibilities") while waiting for that to happen.
Finally, as far as a choice of wording for the new title, I initially preferred the term collaboration in wartime as a descriptive title, but I found that wartime collaboration is much more frequently used, so that settled it for me. A possible alternative would be Collaboration (war), but "Wartime collaboration" seems more direct and intuitive. Mathglot (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 7 November 2021 

message: Following the move to Wartime collaboration, I've adjusted terminology in the lead and the rest of the article to suit.  With the topic thus clarified, I was able to carry out a re-org of the section structure, and beef up the lead and portions of the body to tighten up the article around the clarified topic of "Wartime collaboration". I've added new matrial from Hirschfeld, which sources some of the pre-existing, unsourced content, Certainly the article could and should be further improved, but I think we have a reasonable and clear framework now, upon which we can build. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the move, the article was moved again to Collaborationism without discussion, and the lead was subsequently altered to change the definition to that of collaborationism. However, that is a different topic, related to this one but narrower, which deserves its own page. I returned the page to its consensus title, and beefed up the #Definition section to better describe the differences, borrowing from Vichy France#Collaborationnistes, and I redid the lead to better summarize it and to provide a better description of both the general term, and also a mention of the distinction between it and the related term. The terms are confusingly similar in spelling and meaning, and I think the article could benefit from a hatnote. Mathglot (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move follow-up 

message: Regarding this --> 
Wrong, the GG was run by Germany as a separate administrative unit without any Polish participation. I removed that error. GizzyCatBella🍁 14:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland section, General Goverment 

message: Not sure if we want to keep this section, but if we do, a prime example would be Coco Chanel. Mathglot (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing a celebrities section? Not necessarily against having one, though I would prefer a different title Elinruby (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrities 

message: Relationship between this and related articles:
wartime collaboration
*collaboration with the Ottoman Porte =>Main
**--Main => sections
***---sections=>Main (if applicable)
*collaboration with Imperial Japan =>main
**--Main => sections
***---sections=>Main
****subsections=>Main (if applicable)
*Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy =>main
**--Main => sections
***---sections =>Main
****subsections => Main (if applicable)
*Collaboration with the Soviet Union (?) => main
***---sections => Main (if applicable)
****subsections => Main (if applicable)
-etc 
Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Elinruby (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  In case you are interested Elinruby (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Elinruby (talk) 23:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed tree 

message: English usage follows the French, but isn't identical to it. All definitions and etymologies from CNRTL:
* fr:collaboration (1753) – 
* fr:collaborateur (1755) – 
* fr:collaborer (1830) – 
* fr:collaborationniste – 
Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , , ,  I got recommendations for three books from  in a talk page comment that seemed to get lost at Talk:Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. I managed to get hold of them, two of them are ebooks and one is on archive.org. Together they define an excellent series of definitions for collaboration,  that is fairly up to date. I can forward the ebooks if anybody wants to read them. The archive.org entry is at . I think together and what can picked up from the Gbooks will be enough to define collaboration correctly with a fairly modern, latest 2004 definitions of the different types of colloboration and how they relate to each other.  scope_creepTalk 14:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  please do forward. Email is enabled on my account. Elinruby (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: This article (to be written) was mentioned a bit above. The problem is the fuzziness of concepts; here - wartime. For example, significant and controversial cooperation with the Soviet Union occurred in the years 1939-1941 in Polish territories annexed by the Soviet Union, following the Soviet invasion of Poland. But technically, outside that short-lived military conflict, there never was an official state of war between Poland and USSR. So, was this "wartime" collaboration? (This ls likely related to the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states in the same period, which AFAIK occurred with even less "war"). PS. The article mentions Lublin government from 1944, but at that time, technically, Poland and USSR were "allies", despite Poland having two government, the in-exile one was on non-speaking terms with USSR, but still, no war was declared - this example likewise is not very "wartime", unless we consider the WWII context in the background. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a problem. I think it would have to have a defined scope in time, first of all, or we need to be ready to write a whole lot about Crimea and Luhansk, for example, not to mention the Cold War and who knows what else. I assume that's a given and the working title above is just a convenience handle. That's all I have just now. Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: so if I am understanding you correctly then if collaboration with the Soviet Union were to be a child article of Wartime collaboration it would need to be specifically about 1939-1941? Elinruby (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would need to to a lit review to answer this. And my motivation wanes as there is the specter of the ultra-controversial topic of żydokomuna related to this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear that. Let it simmer a while. There's a needed article in there somewhere. Finland if noplace else. Come help me out with business collaboration. Surely there was a black market outside of France? Elinruby (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Collaboration with the Soviet Union]] 

message: A good article on pro-Russian residents of Kherson and nearby areas of eastern Ukraine collaborating with the Russians is in the New York Times magazine article Some Ukrainians Helped the Russians. Their Neighbors Sought Revenge. Mathglot (talk) 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration in Ukraine