Talk:Collaborationism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Netherlands Anton Mussert Companies like Philips and Van Doorne's Automobiel Fabriek (DAF) in the Netherlands continued their business with the Germans as usual, though the Phillips company for one tried to be as unproductive as they could get away with!

This sentence implies that the Philips bosses collaborated, while the workers resisted. This is contracdicted by the main Wikipedia article on Philips, which states that the company moved its headquarters overseas, but that their NED facilities were misused by Germany. Two conflicting POV's? Who accused Philips of collaborationism in the first place?

Contents 1 Collaboration with Allies 2 Jonas KLIMAITIS 3 Merge Quisling into here 4 Two paragraphs 5 Collaboration and Collaborationism

[edit] Collaboration with Allies

This article does not make much sense.

Why concentrate on collaboration with Axis? What about collaboration with Allies? Sigitas 17:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jonas KLIMAITIS

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)

[edit] Merge Quisling into here

Same subject. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tazmaniacs 14:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose merger.--Mike18xx 03:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

Greetings. I am no editor of Wiki and would not know how, otherwise I would completely rewrite this page: It is utterly wrong. It does not define the clear distinction between 'collaboration' (active or passive general assistance to an occupying power) and 'Collaborationism', a different meaning entirely, describing the extremes of active collaboration such as Frenchmen who joined the SS or the Gestapo. The term was created to deal specifically with Occupied France, where collaboration was too broad a term running the gambit from vendors selling food to paying Germans, to active partiucipation in the German war machine. Collaborationism was a term created to separate the extreme active collusion (usually ideological as opposed to practical) from more mundane varieties. http://www.sunderland.ac.uk/~os0tmc/occupied/collabo.htm Nordenfeldt 17:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two paragraphs

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)

Since noone objected, I'm going to delete those paragraphs. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration and Collaborationism

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)

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)

The first reference you cite talks about Collaboration, and not Collaborationism, which per the google book searches I have referenced above, seem to imply different things, and the latter is far more accusatory than the other. For the implicit negative connotations, see again the google book search on collaborationism I have listed above. If you wish to look further on this here's a link to Bertram Gordon's article in The Journal of European Studies (Vol. 23, No. 89-90, 1-25 (1993)). You have my apologies for jumping to conclusions on your good faith, however, I think there is a confusion between Collaboration as cooperation between individuals (which is perfectly benign), and the term collaborationism, especially in the sense in which it is applied to WWII, which is what all the references I have listed will indicate to, and also shows that this is the most widespread use of the word Collaboration or collaborationism in the context of the war. I am not claiming at all that the French invented it's use or has copyright on its use. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Sure it is a reference work and not a dictionary. The references I provided prove that what I am talking about is what is being referred to as the concept. You on the other hand are using dictionary entries (OED) to describe words. The application of the word and concept of "collaborationism" (as the references I provide say, and these are peer reviewed journal articles per WP:RS) is in "traitorous collaboration", as opposed to the dictionary definiton of "collaboration" -of two people beningnly and happily creating wonders by joyful cooperation- that you provide. If you have any references that say "collaborationism" is what you have written (your references defines "collaboration" as a verb in distinction to plagiarism, and that too in scholarly work), then I will be happy to reconsider my position. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC) PS:Collaborating is different from collaborationism, per the second entry in OED mentioned in the same page of your own first reference, and the works in history I have cited. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 10:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

I am quoting one author as an example. The search results has more than author listed. The reason I am rasing this is because I feel the intro you rewrote has actually made a confusion between what the concept and the verb. I will wait till you feel you have completed your edits before I make any changes. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 11:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)