Talk:"Polish death camp" controversy/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about "Polish death camp" controversy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ESL (English as Second Language)

Term "Polish concentration camps" doesn't necessarily describe concentration camps built and run by Poles. In English language it may mean and probably does - concentration camps in which most persons who were held inside were Poles or of Polish heritage like Polish Jews. Please, correct me if I am wrong. greg park avenue 16:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in Polish it means something else. The direct translation of "polish concentration camp" = "polski obóz koncentracyjny" means that it was built by the state of Poland / by Poles. And as many people, well OK, not many, but I think 15% or so, think that the camps WERE built by Poles, the Polish government tries to do everything to make people know the truth. Poland is a country with a lot of negative press, so they can overreact. You would to. Another example is: in international media Poland is often said to be a dangerous country and Warsaw a dangerous city. But in reality Poland is safer then all Western European countries (apart from Luxembourg) and Warsaw is one of the safest capitals in Europe. Almost all crimes are 2-5 times less like to happen in Poland then in England. But the world thinks something else. I also thought that when my employer made me move from Paris to Warsaw and know after four years here and many night time strolls I would never be bald enough to do in Paris, I understand while Poland gets so angry about it's stereotypical image. So you really should understand the Poles... or maybe, some Poles, because my Polish friends (young people from Warsaw) really don't care, but some especially older people do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.188 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say the Poles are over-reacting at all. If even 15 percent of people think that Poland built the death camps, that's 15 percent too much. Poland had nothing to do with them. Some of them, including Auschwitz, were actually located on territory annexed by the Third Reich. Knowing how much Poland suffered as a result of WW2, I can understand how having the German death camps being attributed in any way to Poland is adding insult to injury. They're German death camps, period. If you need to denote where they're at now, then they're German death camps located on territory that is now in Poland. Jsc1973 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the OP here. The same goes for the German term. "Polnisches Konzentrationslager" in that context means concentration camps in Poland and not necessarily run or built by the Polish government or some other Polish entity. The accusations of "Holocaust denial" that were raised by some media in this context are therefore factually wrong. One might of course argue that these terms are misleading and should therefore be avoided in the future. However this discussion itself is subjective and therefore beyond the scope of Wikipedia. If the anonymous guy above me who only left his IP is correct about the Polish term then this misunderstanding created by a language barrier is probably one of the main reasons for this whole controversy and should definitely be mentioned in the article.

On a side note I have to add that there are some Holocaust deniers, but they represent a small minority and most of them believe that the casualty figures are exaggerated or base their denial on some antisemitic conspiracy theories. I've never heard of anyone who thinks that Poland ran death or concentration camps though. But I don't claim to be all-knowing and so I'm asking where the 15% comes from? Scindix (talk) 00:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

no Polish police were involved in the rounding up of Jews

It depends how we define the Polish police. Maybe some additional explanation is needed?Xx236 (talk) 07:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Policemen were involved. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The Blue Police were not part of any Polish state but part of the General Government.

Even if we call them Polish, the Blue Police were not involved “in the rounding up of Jews” as the article states. They were involved in actions which means they are seen as collaborators e.g. catching Jews outside the Ghettos.

Further the officers were German and as the war went on the Blue police became more and more reliance on non-Poles (especially Ukrainians). Thinks that in Christopher Robert Browning The Origins of the Final Solution but at work hence can not confirm at present. Jniech (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem with "Polish police" and generally "Polish forces" in WWII Poland. For instance Poles like to boast that Poland was the only country without a national SS division. But when you look at history, you see that quite a few Poles did join the SS, but different divisions - as volksdeutsch, not poles. Even some of the names of very high rank officials are Polish. But still, there where no Poles in the SS... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.81.188 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Volksdeutsches denied their Polish etnicity and considered themselves Germans. SS and Wehrmaht officers with Polish origin described themselves as Germans, as well. Well-known example is Bach-Zelewski who commanded German forces against Warsaw Uprising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.160.69.120 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

"Descriptive" vs "Deceptive" in opening paragraph

"Deceptive terms" should be used in the opening paragraph instead of "descriptive terms" as it gives a clearer picture in regards to the term "Polish Death Camps" being incorrect. You're going to tell me that the terms "Polish Death Camp" and "Polish Concentration Camp" are not deceivable??? Deceptive - To cause to believe what is not true; mislead, to give a false impression. This is exactly what these terms do! Poles and Jews both agree! "Descriptive" is exactly exactly what CTV had in mind when the used the term "Polish camp in Treblinka" which was of course incorrect and offensive to both Poles and Jews as both parties have rejected these terms. Beckenbauer1974 (talk)

There's no need for a modifier at all. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

New Examples vs Old Examples vs No Examples

Every since I expanded the list of examples there has been problems with editors adding/removing them. I have removed them but have put a shorter replacement. It is based on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs list of interventions. Hopefully this shorter list will meet the requirements of those wanting examples but meet Wikipedia rules. Assuming we get agreement then I will expand the list using 2007 examples and data held on the various embassy sites. Jniech (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a list of examples is original research and trivia. If you want to include it, you need to find a secondary source that describes them as examples. Letters to the editor by the Polish embassy are primary sources, not secondary sources. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

From the rules: Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

To all editors especially Malik Shabazz: To be clear I am not trying to argue. We seem to be stuck in a loop and I am merely trying to get us out of it.

From rules: Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia

Many of the examples have letters/comments published by the newspaper hence the above appears to allow them or am I missing something?

From rules: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not being used to show that an intervention happened. The primary source is the newspaper (or like) saying something. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (and embassies) are analysing that the newspaper (or like) saying they were wrong to write what they did. Perhaps you could compare it to those people using material by Jan Gross in the Jedwabne Pogrom article. If understand you then surely they can not use his material as he is the primary source.

From rules: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors

The examples from newspapers are not being analysis by Wikipedia editors, the embassy has done that saying they think the newspaper was wrong.

From rules: For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source.

So why can you not cite passages from the newspapers (and like) without any interpretation which is what the old examples did? Jniech (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure of all the answers, so I posted the questions at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#List of examples in Polish death camp controversy. Please add your own comments there, especially if you think my description of the situation is incomplete. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will give it some thought and if I can make useful comments then I will. Jniech (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To Malik Shabazz's concerns, we quote news and other media sources all the time on WP. Maintaining that to do so is WP:OR is incorrect. What would be WP:OR is attribution of motives for the use of the term "Polish death camp" on the part of the news/media source quoted. PetersV       TALK 17:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are meant to be used with common sense. This article looks rather ridiculous without having any examples at all: it reduces the credibility of the claim. Since the claim is about the use of certain words by (typically) well-known news organisations, citing a few examples would be reasonable, omitting all examples would IMHO be unreasonable. With google on "Polish concentration camp", with the quotes, it's hard to find any examples. (I found this ambiguous example: http://jta.org/news/article/2010/03/14/1011082/polish-concentration-camp-memorial-vandalized , archive: http://www.webcitation.org/5uOItKFsVMy It's ambiguous because it can be read either as Polish (concentration camp memorial) or (Polish concentration camp) memorial) My own selection of examples would probably count as OR. i'm only mentioning this as an example of the reaction of a typical reader, not for inclusion in the article. However, the fact that it is difficult to find examples using the most popular search engine makes it hard for the reader to make an elementary "sanity check" of the issue. I agree that attributing motives for a particular example could be OR. In any case, since it seems (i haven't checked) that some of the main groups complaining (Ministry?) have given a list of quotes, it would be reasonable to select whatever that source seems to suggest as a few of the more important ones. E.g. the first 2 or 3. Or the first quote chosen by each of 2 or 3 of the groups involved could be given. Boud (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy redux

I've updated the description of the controversy to clarify it. Putting complaints that at the time only one source was cited, "Polish death camps" is a term I hear all the time whenever attending a seminar on the Holocaust in Eastern Europe and Poland in particular. I've attempted to state the issue and controversy as clearly as possible. PetersV       TALK 17:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, der Spiegel is infamous for (bottom line) deflecting German responsibility for the Holocaust in Eastern Europe on to the Eastern Europeans and for propagating the myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust at every opportunity. PetersV       TALK 17:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is not infamous for propagating any myths. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps saying that Der Spiegel is purposely deflecting German responsibility for the Holocaust is not %100 right but the latest trend in Germany of "painting" out "German less" WW2 atrocities (Nazis this, Nazis that.. etc) and pointing out to the German suffering during and after the war is quite noticeable. Sorry that I am saying that and I think that German civilian suffering must be acknowledged but these are just my observations. Every lost life, Jewish, Polish or German is equal but the facts are as they are. Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler started WW2 and mass murder of people on a scale unheard of before and this must be remembered.--Jacurek (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Perhaps saying that Der Spiegel is purposely deflecting German responsibility for the Holocaust is not %100 right" - it's 100% wrong unless reputable sources can be shown. "the latest trend in Germany of "painting" out "German less" WW2 atrocities (Nazis this, Nazis that.. etc)" - no such trend exists in Germany. "pointing out to the German suffering during and after the war is quite noticeable". This is not under dispute, but what's wrong about it? You may even go as far as saying that in terms of "re-education", German suffering during and after the war must be properly presented in order to teach them the lesson that by inflicting suffering on others they only inflicted suffering on themselves. "Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler started WW2 and mass murder of people on a scale unheard of before and this must be remembered" - obviously, but it's not under dispute by anyone, is it? --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"by inflicting suffering on others they only inflicted suffering on themselves." - This might be true for some, but many/most who suffered did not inflict suffering on anyone before, given you are not applying a collective guilt. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point. In fact, I am not appyling collective guilt to anyone; however, people who blame German media for mentioning German civilian suffering (such as far-out leftists in Germany or parts of mainstream Polish media) usually do apply it. My point is that even if and especially if you're holding "the Germans" collectively responsible for anything, you should welcome the fact that German post-war civilian suffering is receiving more attention than it did in the past. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, the propagation of the myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust" is a myth itself. --Thorsten1 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That would not be according to staged pictures taken by the Nazis of "independently acting" locals which accidentally include the Nazi officers giving them direction, or the "news" reports "smuggled" to Sweden (to Nazi sympathizers who published them as news) regarding the locals killing Jews in eager anticipation of the Nazi's arrival. Nor with official Nazi plans for making the Holocaust in Eastern Europe appear to be a local event. Nor official reports of gleeful local Jew-murdering participation in the official record contradicted by German eyewitness accounts writing it would look very bad if anyone found out it was actually the Germans doing the killing. All in all Nazi propaganda later used by the Soviets to attack nationalists they didn't care for. With all due respect. PetersV       TALK 02:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I should make it clear there were collaborators and in no way am I diminishing the horrors of what happened, my own father-in-law, a teenager then, ran across corpse-strewn fields to warn a family friend when word spread. Too late, he found her beheaded. But the notion that there was widespread Baltic and Eastern European support for killing Jews (especially the "eyewitness" accounts by "horrified" Nazis of their having to "save" Jews from the barbaric locals) can be traced back to planned and executed Nazi propaganda and "reports" of local support--too often taken at face value. PetersV       TALK 07:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but none of what you are saying confirms that there is a "myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust " (observing the occasional involvement of local, non-German collaborators or profiteers does not imply a "Germanless Holocaust"), let alone that Der Spiegel, of all things, was infamous for propagating this alleged "myth". --Thorsten1 (talk) 08:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I think we have an argument here for no reason. You titled this section "Controversy redux" but filled it with lots of stuff which is (a) at best only very remotely in compliance with the article's scope, and (b) controversial and/or vague.

• Spiegel: In the article, Der Spiegel was mentioned as an example for media using the term "Polish death camp". Der Spiegel is thereby not cited directly, but a Polish paper is used to source that Der Spiegel did so. Nothing is mentioned about the context Der Spiegel used the term in. Why do you imply that Der Spiegel used this term ambigously or even that Der Spiegel was "infamous for propagating a Germanless Holocaust? What has this thesis of yours to do with the article?
• Collaboration: This article is not about whether some Pole actuallly collaborated with the Nazis or some other did not. This article is about the fear of most prominently the Polish government that someone might conclude from the term "Polish death camp" that these camps were run by Poles. You don't need to prove here that the camps were indeed not run by Poles, there is no controversy about that here. You neither need to prove that in the article, as this article as well as the respective linked articles clearly state who actually ran the camps. There is no controversy about that in any of these articles, and if there was, this would not be the place to address it.

Let's just dump this discussion, it will not improve the article. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. --Thorsten1 (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for getting side-tracked above. Personally I'd still like a bit more explanation in the note prior to the intro, but definitely worded better now than the prior "... You may be looking for..." which was just not sitting right. PetersV       TALK 12:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Title change

I would like to propose a change of the title from Polish death camp controversy either to "Polish death camp" controversy or to "Polish death camp" mistake

Polish death camps do not exist and have never existed. The title suggests otherwise.--Chumchum7 (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a good point. I think the first one - "Polish death camp" controversy - is better.radek (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Radek. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree.--Jacurek (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Something strange is going on - agreement on a Polish-Jewish subject in Wikipedia ;-) --Chumchum7 (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Polish" death camp controversy is another option. I'll wait for some more votes to come in.--Chumchum7 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone please go ahead and make the change.--Chumchum7 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't use scare quotes in article titles. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) applies. It looks like Wikipedia is making a judgement. Better to find a neutral name. ➜❝Redvers❞ 09:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's appropriate in this case. There is no such thing as a Polish death camp, and there never was. They were German death camps built and operated by Germans (Nazi Germans, but still Germans) on unlawfully occupied Polish territory. The quotes simply denote that the subject is something that is actually nonexistent. Jsc1973 (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)