This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
It is perfectly clear that some editors of this article (and I can't be bothered even determining who they are) don't give a fig about the quality of sources provided they have the desired content. This is a subject for which a considerable number of very high quality sources exist and there is no excuse for using war-time propaganda (Time Magazine, 1941), rubbish from unreliable religious groups (Aish HaTorah), books by "conversative radio show hosts" (Chuck Morse), and newspaper op-eds that add nothing except distorted overviews. Zero talk 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The relevance of the paragraph on the Farhud needs to be established. Just writing "pro-Nazi" in front of every Arab name isn't enough. Zero talk 10:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Time Magazine is not reliable for what it wrote about enemy personnel during WWII. It was fighting the war like every other mainstream US organization. Besides that it was common practice for the intelligence agencies to plant stories in the media (often with the media cooperating). This particular story is full of bizarre claims, that Grobba was really named Borg (obviously chosen to be a Jewish name), that he converted to Islam, that he married an underage Arab girl, all of them complete nonsense. Yet it doesn't seem to know of Grobba's actual diplomatic career. Zero talk 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Frankreich / Besetztes Gebiet 165.000 Unbesetztes Gebiet 700.000
The claims about Grobba that appeared in Time Magazine were taken from a previous article in the NYT by the German activist and journalist Heinz Pol. Soon afterwards British diplomat Archibald McDougall, who was in Iraq and knew Grobba well, wrote to the NYT denying almost all the key points of Pol's story. A well-known historian who has written extensively on Grobba confirmed all this but I'm still waiting for the citable article he promised to write, so my hands are somewhat tied at the moment. Meanwhile we shouldn't repeat claims from wartime biographies of enemy personnel on either side as they are thoroughly unreliable. There are fine biographies of Grobba by Wolfgang Schwanitz and others that can be used for reliable information. Stefan Wild wrote an entire article on the Iraqi edition of Mein Kampf and Grobba's role in it. Zero talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As for the Nations Associates publication, why are you claiming to quote from it if you don't have it? Are you unfamiliar with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? You are not allowed to copy citations from intermediate sources. I suspect you are doing that; please delete all material you did not get yourself from the place you cite it to. Anyway the Nation Associates compilation is not allowed here. It was compiled by a political action committee for explicitly propagandistic purposes—exactly the sort of thing that WP:RS tells us to avoid. Zero talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose this is *not* an exclusionary standard, since the subject matter is 'Nazi Germany and the Arab world' -- and therefore subject matter expertise on WWII and Nazi Germany counts more (or at least as much) as generalized knowledge of the Middle East. The 1947 Nation Associates editors, reporters, and their Advisory Council were certainly loaded with qualified subject matter experts on WWII and Nazi Germany. Just check out the list of Wikipedia articles on each one (most of them have entries) to convince yourself of their qualification to investigate and bear witness to the events of WWII. So I don't think we need discuss their qualifications or relevance. A more interesting point is Zero0000's long-standing and well-argued POV that this kind of document should not be considered a legitimate source. That's a much more important issue, IMHO. Zero0000 repeatedly points out that the Nation Associates editorial position was pro-Zionist. Let's stipulate this, and also point out that they decided to document anti-Jewish hatred as a motivating and unifying factor in WWII Arab-Nazi&Fascist alliances, and that the residual policies involving anti-Jewish hatred (with possible genocidal implications) were still active in the politics of the Arab Higher Committee and other factions who claimed legitimate standing at the UN. Furthermore, let's tentatively stipulate (at least for argument's sake) that their motivation was to use this information to influence the UN to deny legitimacy to former collaborators of Nazis at the UN, and to point out the dangers of allowing Arab politicians with pro-Nazi histories to become political masters of the Jewish population of Mandatory Palestine. In 'The Nation' magazine (published by Nation Associates) the potential danger of anti-Jewish pogroms by German-trained Arabs is repeatedly reported during this time. As history unfolded, these predictions proved correct (two of the Generals of the five Arab armies that fought in 1948 were German-trained; the former SS troops who'd served in Yugoslavia reportedly took part in the raping and killing of Jews, eg Gush Ezion). Zero0000: Which sources would you recommend for documenting the participation of Nazi-collaborators during the 1948 War? Perhaps not for this article. though such information should be available to the public in the proper venue. In any case, the history shows that Nation Associates publications (including 'The Nation') reported the facts and also accurately predicted (in 1947) events that unfolded in 1948. In other words, they organized the available information in a way that usefully enabled them to predict future events. Not exactly the common definition of 'propaganda.' Does the Nation Associates' tactic of using facts and objectively reported history to discredit Nazi-collaborators really 'propaganda' or is it actually better characterized as 'investigative journalism'? Again, my intention is too use the 'zillions' of secondary sources of higher academic quality to footnote each quote and entry. It is also permissible, however, to add the Nation Associates source as one of the references, since it was one of the first publications to report this information, and this pub. may have had historical effects on subsequent events (eg the 1947--1948 UN Partition votes), and also because -- 65 years after publication -- these issues are still being discussed. Ronreisman ( talk) 01:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Last week I added a section on Palestine, and expected the usual give and take review on this talk page.
Zero000 & Nish: What do you think? I'm seriously interested in your opinions and looking forward to your feedback so that we can continue to improve the quality of this article.
Also: My family is about to embark on a six-week vacation and if any of you are located in Britain or Israel/Palestine or Greece or Italy or France, it may be fun to get together, preferably over a meal or coffee (or whatever is your favorite beverage) for some spirited discussion. Feel free to email me at ronreisman@gmail.com is y'all have any time or inclination for a get-together. Ronreisman ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked Gilbert Achcar to review the Palestine section, since I'd quoted him extensively and want to make sure he approved of the context as a respectful courtesy. His email reply contained the following comments: "I read the wikipedia article and approve your use of quotes from my book, of course. What I disapprove is some of what is said in other sections of the article, but I presume that you didn't deal with the whole piece and are not responsible for these. In the section on Iraq, for instance, the totally unwarranted figure of 600 Jewish victims is still given, after Bernard Lewis who misquoted the total number of victims as the number of Jewish victims, whereas the overwhelming majority were killed by the British-led repression of the attackers/looters -- as I explained in my book."
His point is well-taken, so I made the appropriate changes in the article. Ronreisman ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I strongly recommend the use of Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers scholarly work "Nazi Palestine-The plans for the extermination of the Jews in Palestine" Despite provocative title this academic book summarize modern scholarship and most recent findings about this murky historic period. This book is available [ [4]]-- Tritomex ( talk) 18:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Zero recently deleted the mention of Gen. Felmy's war crimes and the supporting reference, claiming that it was an 'obvious violation of WP:SYNTH' This charge cannot be defended, and I've reinstated most of the words Zero deleted and then put extensive quotes in the Ref to make it clear that the reinserted text is supported by a single reference, eg the official report on the War Crimes trial. The supporting quotes which establish the details of Felmy's culpability and make it clear that there's no original synthesis nor original research are: ^ Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. VIII, (Pub. for The United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty's Stationary Office, London; 1949); pp 35-36 describes the first two counts: "1. That defendants were principals or accessories to the murder of hundreds of thousands of persons from the civilian population of Greece, Yugoslavia and Albania by troops of the German Armed Forces ; that attacks by lawfully constituted enemy military forces and attacks by unknown persons, against German troops and installations, were followed by executions of large numbers of the civilian population by hanging or shooting without benefit of investigation or trial ; that thousands of non-combatants, arbitrarily designated as ‘ partisans,’ ‘ Communists,’ ‘ Communist suspects,’ ‘ bandit suspects ’ were terrorised, tortured and murdered in retaliation for such attacks by lawfully constituted enemy military forces and attacks by unknown persons ; and that defendants issued, distributed and executed orders for the execution of 100 ‘ hostages ’ in retaliation for each German soldier killed and fifty ‘ hostages.’ in retaliation for each German soldier wounded. 2. That defendants were principals or accessories to the plundering and looting of public and private property, the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, frequently together with the murder of the inhabitants thereof, and the commission of other acts of devastation not warranted by military necessity, in the occupied territories of Greece: Yugoslavia, Albania and Norway, by troops of the German Armed Forces acting at the direction and order of these defendants ; that defendants ordered troops under their command to burn, level and destroy entire villages and towns and thereby making thousands of peaceful non-combatants homeless and destitute, thereby causing untold suffering, misery and death to large numbers of innocent civilians without any recognised military necessity for so doing."; p. 47 describes some of the evidence against Felmy: "The defendant admitted having ordered reprisal measures but denied that they were unlawful. Many other reprisal actions on the part of his troops were brought to his notice in reports made to him. The evidence showed that the accused received and passed on an order of General Loehr, Commander-in-Chief Southeast, dated 10th August, 1943, which stated in part : 'In territories infested by the bandits, in which surprise attacks have been carried out, the arrest of hostages from all strata of the population remains a successful means of intimidation. Furthermore, it may be necessary, to seize the entire male population, in so far as it does not have to be shot or hung on account of participation in or support of the bandits, and in so far as it is incapable of work, and bring it to the prisoner collecting points for further transport into the Reich. Surprise attacks on German soldiers, damage to German property must be retaliated in every case with shooting or hanging of hostages, destruction of the surrounding localities, etc. Only then will the population announce to the German offices the collections of the bandits, in order to remain protected from reprisal measures.' ... The evidence showed many separate reprisal actions by troops subordinate to this defendant. In many instances there was no connection between the inhabitants shot and the offence committed. Reprisals were taken against special groups, such as 'Communists' and 'bandit suspects' without any relationship to the offence being established. Reprisal prisoners were taken from hostage camps generally and at points distant from the place where the offences occurred. It was also shown that in many reprisal actions destruction of property accompanied the mass shootings."; p. 76 states that Felmy was found guilty of "Counts One and Two..." Ronreisman ( talk) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
'What SYNTH is not' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not), which includes: "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone...." Ronreisman ( talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I just reorganized some of the text so that certain passages are now under more appropriate headings. Although I didn't add any new info, I did recombine some sentences into new paragraphs. I also deleted the parenthetical mention that one of the German Generals associated with the Arabic alliances was also a convicted war criminal. Since the entire question of the relevance of 'criminality' is now under discussion on this TALK page, I thought it best to be consistent and remove any use of such language until we reach a consensus. Ronreisman ( talk) 23:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: improving the quality of this article: Some of Achcar's contributions to this topic is to both reject the 'holocaust-revisionist' attempts to deny that there was significant collaboration between some Arab politicians (e.g. Mufti, Ali Rashid, etc.) and Nazi Germany, and also to point out the unfair characterization of *all* Arab polities as 'pro-Nazi' that is often the focus of pro-Zionist authors. Achcar points out that though most attention is often focused on German relations with Arabic Nationalists and Reactionary and/or Fundamentalist Pan-Islamists, the role of other polities, such as Arabic Marxists and Liberal Westernizers. are neglected, misunderstood, misrepresented, or a combination of all-of-the-above. Accordingly, I think we should recognize the non-cooperative and 'relationships' that some Arab polities had in *opposition* to Naziism and Fascism during the Third-Reich times. We should, IMHO, add context to our current article by documenting the attitudes and actions of these Western Liberalizers and Marxists. Unfortunately, my Arabic is utilitarian-primitive (a charitable assessment, at best), and so I'm probably not as qualified to build these sections as other editors who may have more familiarity with the material. Anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning is invited to start contributing new material. If no one does, and there are no objections voiced on this talk page, I'll probably start adding info sourced from Achcar, Said, and others this weekend. Again: if anyone objects to this line of reasoning, please speak up. As Zero has pointed out, we should try for as much consensus as possible before adding controversial material to the article. Ronreisman ( talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ronreisman ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I just added some new subtopics, principally to introduce some of the contextual material proposed by Achcar (see above). The 'Opposition' topic precedes the 'Cooperation' topic. I've put a precis of some of Achcar's theses in this sub-topic. It will obviously require more details to balance the much longer 'Cooperation' section which follows. Again: those with a greater appreciation of Arabic progressive political history than me are invited to help fill in the details and provide more diverse sourcing. I've also introduced two of Achcar's political-faction terms ('Nationaism' and 'Fundamentalist Pan-Islamists' under the topic 'Arab incorporation and emulation of fascism.' Suggestions and discussions? Ronreisman ( talk) 03:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Plot Spoiler and Pekffeintheda
I just saw that you are claiming the text I submitted fails RS, and you have summarily deleted the text without any discussion, and against the wishes of other editors (Sepsis II and Besieged).
Since I 'm the editor who originally submitted this text please let me assure you that I took care to make sure it was both properly sourced and also accurate and relevant to the article. Please address your concerns and questions to me and I'll gladly discuss the issues with you. Until we reach consensus -- or at least discuss the merits of different positions -- please do not delete the text, since this will cause needless strife and inefficiency.
Regarding the merits: the text presents Achcar's point of view. It does not claim that all his theories and claims are correct and undisputed. The supporting documentation for Achcar's work are contained in his references and citations (eg footnotes & endnotes). The question here is: Does this interview accurately report what Achcar said in context and without editorializing or distortion? Another relevant question: does this summation sentence and quote accurately represent Achcar's positions, as more fully laid out in his book?
The answer is affirmative to all these questions. If you have any doubts, I'd be willing to email Dr. Achcar and ask him to review the questionable text himself. I have no doubt that I understand the positions he explained in his book very clearly.
Just for the record: although I greatly respect Dr. Achcar and appreciate his very significant contributions to this particular topic, I also disagree with many of his conclusions and question many of his assumptions. While reading his book, however, I eagerly fact-checked his citations and references, and am very impressed by the quality of his sources and the depth and breadth of knowledge that he brings to this material. Of course, there are some glaring exceptions (Achcar's treatment of Benny Morris is not worth bringing up, for instance). On the whole, however, he has risen to be one of the challenging scholars in this area. He is not a holocaust denier or a 'throw the jews in the sea' extremist. He's an accomplished and professional defender of post-Enlightenment scholarship values and peer-review standards of intellectual responsibility. He is unapologetically and zealously anti-Zionist, though not as extreme as Chomsky (his sometimes collaborator) or myriads of other Western academics. He's better than most in guarding his scholarship from blatantly anti-Zionism propaganda. His approach must be recognized for it's intrinsic merit and relevance to the article's topic. Ronreisman ( talk) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I still don't get Pekffeinthedal's objection. I could understand if he disregarded an 'electronic intifada' attack on Zionist or Jews that shows prejudice or questionable facts. This is not that. This is just an interview with an anti-Zionist scholar who is presenting his particular point of view. There's no claim that Achcar is correct. As noted above, I don't personally agree with all his points, I just feel his expression is cogent, eloquent, and certainly significant to any serious discussion of this topic. I chose this quote because it sums up the positions in the book very nicely. There's no debate that this is -- in fact -- Achcar's well-considered opinion. So is Pekffeinthedal demanding that we source some other ref, and then putting in the info is OK? Although he may be a 'sockpuppet' it would still be useful to hear his logic. If he's just intent (as accused above) at vandalizing articles in complete disregard of NPOV, then thank-you 'Besieged' for helping to maintain Wikipedia's integrity, and shame on you Pekffeinthedal for not having the courage of your convictions and speaking up for your own views. Ronreisman ( talk) 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The unexpected edit war over this is a distraction, so I'll try to re-write the info by using references to Achcar's book or some other media, rather than his own summary statement that was printed in Electonic Intifada. Incidentally, I really don't think it's reasonable to exclude *everything* from a source like Electronic Intifada, any more than I think 'The Nation' should be excluded. Nevertheless, if this nit is going to be repeatedly picked by some editors, then we might as well remove the controversy by quoting media that are more politically neutral. After all, it's not as if any of the actual information will change. The facts will remain, whether they are backed by sources like Achcar's own elegant summary statement, or the (probably more wordy) summary that I'll cobble together from different pages in 'Holocaust and the Arabs' -- in either case, the issue of the historiography and competing narratives (Zionist vs. Arab) is still relevant to the topic and should be represented in this article. Ronreisman ( talk) 23:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just stumbled upon this article and when I came upon the mention of al-Husseini in the Arab perceptions section, I felt that it was missing a lot about his involvement with Nazism and spent the last few hours editing its last paragraphs to incorporate lots of facts from his own article. Then when I was just about to hit enter, I bothered to read the rest of the article and found that most of my information is already found in a more scattered and what I feel is a less concise and elegant form. So I'm putting what I had here, as a suggestion for putting it in somewhat like this:
Plus, I'm proposing to change the section
into
-- 87.180.197.207 ( talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I've read through Mein Kampf and Arabs are not described as an inferior race. I have taken out the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.229.4 ( talk) 03:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The overall sense I am getting both from this article and from others is that there was a rather noticeable difference between how the Arabs of the Maghreb perceived the war and how those of the Mashriq did. Would that be fair? It would appear that the former leaned towards the allied side and that the latter leaned towards the Axis side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.11.49 ( talk) 17:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought you might like to see the source that Patterson gives for the claim that Hitler was called Abu Ali in Syria and Mohammad Haidar in Egypt. It is a hate site, see here and look down for the heading "The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection". That's what Patterson gives as his only source; a web article full of ignorance and blatant lies (eg. that the Handschar "slaughtered 90% of Bosnia's Jews"). As I noted somewhere else, Mohammad Haidar was the name of the Egyptian Defence Minister. Zero talk 01:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You can't use your original research to discredit an academic source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten ( talk) 15:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I have removed
</Among eastern religions, Hitler described religious leaders such as Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad as providers of spiritual "sustenance". citation neededblockquote>
As any google search would show, this can be sourced, but the sources all cite for it Michel Angebert's Hitler et la tradition cathare, Paris, Robert Laffont 1971 p.172. That is a book arguing for the esoteric side of Hitler and Nazism's worldview, and is not reliable. Anglebert was a pseudonym for the writer Michel Bertrand. There are very good sources for this aspect of Nazism, and this is not one of them. If one wants to edit difficult articles, it is not sufficient to plunk down stuff from tertiary sources, which are then disguised, citing blinding secondary sources, to have it then tagged with a cn request for months or years. Nazism is thoroughly documented in reliable academic books and they must form the basis for any edit. Nishidani ( talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
در خبرها و نظرهای چند روز گذشته اشارهای به این نکته که آلمان نازی به حاجی درجهٔ "آریایی افتخاری" داد ندیدهام. برخی اهل تحقیق که نوشتهاند این بهرغم تحقیر "نژاد پست سامی" از سوی نازیها بود شاید توجه ندارند فلسطینی، از نظر قومشناسی، عرب و سامی محسوب نمیشود. عربهای دبش از بالا به ساکنان فلسطین نگاه میکنند و آنها را از خودشان نمیدانند ـــــ تحقیری که ادوارد سعید، مسیحی فلسطینی، را میآزرد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.50.156 ( talk) 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Abuse of WP:RS
This article repeatedly cites the Nazi general Felmy as a reliable source. It is perfectly obvious that that isn't within a light-year of the rules. Parts of it that aren't removed altogether will have to be rephrased as Felmy's claims. Zero talk 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The fake "Arab Nazis" pictures
I deleted the image that pretended to show Arab Nazis. Actually there are tons of good reasons for doubting this description. (1) The uniforms of the men in the back row are British. (2) Why would Arabs write "Palestine" in German rather than Arabic? But, sources, sources, I am reliably informed that this picture appears on page 71 of "The German colony and Emek Rephaim" (Hebrew) by David Koryanker, who identifies it as a photo of Jews displaying trophies they found in the German houses when Israeli forces occupied the German Colony in 1948. Nothing to do with Arabs. Zero talk 15:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Arabisches Freiheitkorps
There are several mentions of the Arab Legion composed of Arab volunteers from among those fled from Middle East and North Africa to Nazi-occupied Europe. It was established by Amin al-Hussayni, but the information is now very limited. How significant was the unit and what was its role? GreyShark ( dibra) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Medoff says (without source): "For example, in 1942, Husseini helped organize (from among Arab students in Germany and North African emigres) the 'Arabisches Freiheitkorps,' an Arab Legion in the German Army that hunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front". Achar (The Arabs and the Holocaust, p141) says "the Wehrmacht's Arab unit counted a mere 130 men" -- if that's the same unit it is trivia. Zero talk 08:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
July 2020 edits
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: " Albert Speer is an unreliable witness; undue". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- A related diff; my rationale was: "Former Wehrmact general ( Hellmuth Felmy) is unsuitable as a source; excessive intricate detail about a single soldier". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parnian shiraz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing issues, bad faith editing
I think I made a valuable contribution by following up on something on this page. Finding that the provided reference re: a 1938 memorandum concerning internal debate among Nazis concerning German-Jewish emigration to Palestine was non-existent, I found an historical document which seems to be the basis of this inaccurate quote, but which substantially corroborates the quote, and so I updated the reference. The reference I provided is a U.S. govt (State Dept) publication, so it's not a "primary source" and its "impact on German policy" well... I guess you can take that up with the the State Dept since they're the ones who found it worthwhile to translate & curate & publish in 1953. So, I don't understand the thinking behind --not just the reversal of my edit-- but the removal of this information entirely. 2601:644:8E7F:1F30:4424:633:9C6B:C939 ( talk) 06:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You found an (interesting) document of Referat Deutschland which is provided in support of the text "In 1938, the German policy toward the Jewish homeland in Palestine appears to have substantially changed". However, the document does not support the text. There is no change of policy indicated here at all. Instead, the document urges a change of policy ("For more than a year Referat Deutschland...has been trying to obtain the termination of the Agreement", which shows that RD did not have the power to change the policy on its own). There is nothing in the document to say that policy actually changed as a result. For that we need a source saying that the policy was changed. It is perfectly ordinary for government departments to urge some change but in vain. Also, we can't ever write "appears to have substantially changed" in Wikipedia voice without a source that contains a statement of that nature; i.e, we aren't allowed to conclude what "appears" to be the case from a source that doesn't say that it appears to be the case. Zero talk 06:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler.
The sentence "Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler." is the start of the 3rd paragraph of the "Arab perceptions of Hitler and Nazism" section. Is it implying that Hitler was widely popular in the Arab world ? I can't see where that had been stated previously in the article. I can see references to the mufti and that Arab views of the Nazis were complex and Nazi propaganda attempt in the Arab world but nothing explicit stating Hitler was popular. Apologies if I missed something. 82.11.163.59 ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I see now the suggestions that Hitler was popular among Arabs and that Rommel nearly as popular comes from the de Spiegal link refernce 23. Maybe, like de Spiegel, the article needs to include the line "Hitler was celebrated in large parts of the Arab world, and some newspapers even likened him to the Prophet." before the Rommel claim - at least then it would have a logical flow. 82.11.163.59 ( talk) 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Post-war nazi emigres
Johann von leers, Otto Ernst Remer, and Alois Brunner are all good examples of Nazis who travelled to the Middle East after the war simmilar to how many Nazis went to Argentina. StrongALPHA ( talk) 10:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
subject on recent edits
I don’t think political opposition such as newspapers should be combined with military opposition such as wars, and instead placed as they were prior in there own tabs Bobisland ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- a lot of entrees also seem poorly organized among opposition and can be given a summary with a attached link to the topic instead of repeating such large volumes of other wiki pages into this one Bobisland ( talk) 22:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which entrees do you think should be changed. I wrote a large part of the opposition section (plus the Egypt in WWII article).
- Personally, I'd rather see it broken down country by country and have both sides (opposition and support) be written for each country Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just think there’s too much being put from the news wiki page onto this one and that the information could be more easily summarized, there’s almost as much news information as there is government and military information Bobisland ( talk) 16:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the press information shows how comtemporary Arabs actually viewed Hitler and Nazism, contrary to the idea that Arab commentators never spoke out against Nazism. Arabs militaries largerly did not participate in the war and the official government position was more muted (technically Egypt did not declare war until 1945 and Iraq never even formally joined the Axis). Newspapers are good source to see what Arabs actually thought about fascism, but I could summerize it more, later Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I know but the word I should’ve said is balanced, also there is already main topic pages for this information so why not add a further reading or main article link above it so readers can read more about it compared to copy and pasting large amounts of the other wiki page and repeating the information Bobisland ( talk) 21:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I see what you mean. Tommoroww if I have time I will clean it up. Also, I was thinking of adding a section of Nazi exhiles to Arab countries, but I don't know if that counts Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 04:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- i think there’s already a Nazi exile to Arab world wiki page that covers this also another example with actions themselves is Helmy getting his own section but the lead to the former opposition tab already had the “Arabs defied Nazi laws by rescuing Jews during the Holocaust.” link which showed him, meaning readers who clicked the link will now be re-reading information they read on that wiki page, maybe the news coverage of the Arab world of nazi stuff should have its own wiki page or be put in its own tab here because there’s so much of it and it’s dominating all the other information, the way it’s currently written seems it would make people loose interest in reading the article over a lack of summaries I know I’m not wording myself well but there’s a wiki editing guideline which talked about not putting every little detail and when wiki pages have similar topics thus similar entrees they should be summarized and linked to the other as to not make the page too long and specific to a point where it’s disliked, maybe the opposition actions should be separated from the opposition news i don’t know it’s up to you I just know the way it’s currently worded is a lot less interesting to read Bobisland ( talk) 15:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- What's the name of the Nazi exiles to Arab world wiki page? I couldn't find it. I know Otto Skorzeny, Otto Ernst Remer, Johann von Leers and Aribert Heim went to Egypt and Alois Brunner and Walter Rauff went to Syria.
- I just added a short thing on Helmy before. Technically he was living in Berlin at the time, so I guess that doesn't count, so I removed the mention of him.
- I just re-edited the Egyptian section so now its just a paragraph on newspapers, a paragraph on cartoons and KEM, and a paragraph on al-Aqqad's book "Hitler in the Balance". I will also add a section about Egyptian in the coopartion section to talk about Aziz al Misri's failed flight to Syria to join the Iraqis and Anwar Sadat's attempt to collaborate with the Nazis. I found some reliable sources on that.
- I'll work on the Palestine opposition section later. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think it’s just Europe but here’s one Ratlines (World War II) of Europe only, maybe you can build on it if the phrasing doesn’t just mean specific escape routes excluding the Middle East but i don’t know, here’s a good source from Wikipedia called “ Category:Exiles from Nazi Germany” if your looking to add them here, what your editing is up to you I’m just giving feedback Bobisland ( talk) 17:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Electronic Intifada
EI is a blog, but it is being used here as a reliable source, I suggest removing quotes from EI and any material relying on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacker1968 ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- According to WP:RSP El
- Intifiada is not a reliable sources and can't be used to support wikipedia articles ("There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction"). Please remove anything that is based on it. Sunshine SRA ( talk) 11:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's an interview, so it can be used to directly quote Achcar. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- ^ The Higher Arab Committee: Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes; The Documentary Record submitted to the United Nations, May, 1947, by the Nation Associates, (NY: The Nation Associates; 1947)
- ^ Pearlman 1963, p. 596
- ^ Collins & Lapierre, pp. 49, 50 : "Fully aware of the Final Solution, he had done his best to see that none of the intended victims were diverted to Palestine on their way to Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler's gas chambers."
- ^ Schwanitz 2008 citing Abd al-Karim al-Umar (ed.), Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, Damascus, 1999, p.126.
- ^ Achcar & 2010 (a), pp. 151–2 .
- ^ Elpeleg 2007, p. 73
- ^ Mattar, Philip (1992). The Mufti of Jerusalem: Haj Amin al-Husseini and the Palestinian National Movement. Columbia University Press. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-231-06463-7.
- ^ Schwanitz 2008, p. ? citation needed citing Abd al-Karim al-Umar (ed.), Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, Damascus, 1999, p.126.
- ^ Shaul Shay, Islamic Terror and the Balkans, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzilya Project (2007)Transaction Publishers, 2009 p.33
- ^ Sachar 1961, p. 231
- ^ Pearlman 1947, p. 51
- ^ Stillman 2000, p. 143
- ^ "Farhud, Black", p. 347
- ^ Achcar 2009, p. 154
- ^ Achcar 2009, p. 154
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 |
It is perfectly clear that some editors of this article (and I can't be bothered even determining who they are) don't give a fig about the quality of sources provided they have the desired content. This is a subject for which a considerable number of very high quality sources exist and there is no excuse for using war-time propaganda (Time Magazine, 1941), rubbish from unreliable religious groups (Aish HaTorah), books by "conversative radio show hosts" (Chuck Morse), and newspaper op-eds that add nothing except distorted overviews. Zero talk 09:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The relevance of the paragraph on the Farhud needs to be established. Just writing "pro-Nazi" in front of every Arab name isn't enough. Zero talk 10:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Time Magazine is not reliable for what it wrote about enemy personnel during WWII. It was fighting the war like every other mainstream US organization. Besides that it was common practice for the intelligence agencies to plant stories in the media (often with the media cooperating). This particular story is full of bizarre claims, that Grobba was really named Borg (obviously chosen to be a Jewish name), that he converted to Islam, that he married an underage Arab girl, all of them complete nonsense. Yet it doesn't seem to know of Grobba's actual diplomatic career. Zero talk 23:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Frankreich / Besetztes Gebiet 165.000 Unbesetztes Gebiet 700.000
The claims about Grobba that appeared in Time Magazine were taken from a previous article in the NYT by the German activist and journalist Heinz Pol. Soon afterwards British diplomat Archibald McDougall, who was in Iraq and knew Grobba well, wrote to the NYT denying almost all the key points of Pol's story. A well-known historian who has written extensively on Grobba confirmed all this but I'm still waiting for the citable article he promised to write, so my hands are somewhat tied at the moment. Meanwhile we shouldn't repeat claims from wartime biographies of enemy personnel on either side as they are thoroughly unreliable. There are fine biographies of Grobba by Wolfgang Schwanitz and others that can be used for reliable information. Stefan Wild wrote an entire article on the Iraqi edition of Mein Kampf and Grobba's role in it. Zero talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
As for the Nations Associates publication, why are you claiming to quote from it if you don't have it? Are you unfamiliar with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? You are not allowed to copy citations from intermediate sources. I suspect you are doing that; please delete all material you did not get yourself from the place you cite it to. Anyway the Nation Associates compilation is not allowed here. It was compiled by a political action committee for explicitly propagandistic purposes—exactly the sort of thing that WP:RS tells us to avoid. Zero talk 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I propose this is *not* an exclusionary standard, since the subject matter is 'Nazi Germany and the Arab world' -- and therefore subject matter expertise on WWII and Nazi Germany counts more (or at least as much) as generalized knowledge of the Middle East. The 1947 Nation Associates editors, reporters, and their Advisory Council were certainly loaded with qualified subject matter experts on WWII and Nazi Germany. Just check out the list of Wikipedia articles on each one (most of them have entries) to convince yourself of their qualification to investigate and bear witness to the events of WWII. So I don't think we need discuss their qualifications or relevance. A more interesting point is Zero0000's long-standing and well-argued POV that this kind of document should not be considered a legitimate source. That's a much more important issue, IMHO. Zero0000 repeatedly points out that the Nation Associates editorial position was pro-Zionist. Let's stipulate this, and also point out that they decided to document anti-Jewish hatred as a motivating and unifying factor in WWII Arab-Nazi&Fascist alliances, and that the residual policies involving anti-Jewish hatred (with possible genocidal implications) were still active in the politics of the Arab Higher Committee and other factions who claimed legitimate standing at the UN. Furthermore, let's tentatively stipulate (at least for argument's sake) that their motivation was to use this information to influence the UN to deny legitimacy to former collaborators of Nazis at the UN, and to point out the dangers of allowing Arab politicians with pro-Nazi histories to become political masters of the Jewish population of Mandatory Palestine. In 'The Nation' magazine (published by Nation Associates) the potential danger of anti-Jewish pogroms by German-trained Arabs is repeatedly reported during this time. As history unfolded, these predictions proved correct (two of the Generals of the five Arab armies that fought in 1948 were German-trained; the former SS troops who'd served in Yugoslavia reportedly took part in the raping and killing of Jews, eg Gush Ezion). Zero0000: Which sources would you recommend for documenting the participation of Nazi-collaborators during the 1948 War? Perhaps not for this article. though such information should be available to the public in the proper venue. In any case, the history shows that Nation Associates publications (including 'The Nation') reported the facts and also accurately predicted (in 1947) events that unfolded in 1948. In other words, they organized the available information in a way that usefully enabled them to predict future events. Not exactly the common definition of 'propaganda.' Does the Nation Associates' tactic of using facts and objectively reported history to discredit Nazi-collaborators really 'propaganda' or is it actually better characterized as 'investigative journalism'? Again, my intention is too use the 'zillions' of secondary sources of higher academic quality to footnote each quote and entry. It is also permissible, however, to add the Nation Associates source as one of the references, since it was one of the first publications to report this information, and this pub. may have had historical effects on subsequent events (eg the 1947--1948 UN Partition votes), and also because -- 65 years after publication -- these issues are still being discussed. Ronreisman ( talk) 01:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Last week I added a section on Palestine, and expected the usual give and take review on this talk page.
Zero000 & Nish: What do you think? I'm seriously interested in your opinions and looking forward to your feedback so that we can continue to improve the quality of this article.
Also: My family is about to embark on a six-week vacation and if any of you are located in Britain or Israel/Palestine or Greece or Italy or France, it may be fun to get together, preferably over a meal or coffee (or whatever is your favorite beverage) for some spirited discussion. Feel free to email me at ronreisman@gmail.com is y'all have any time or inclination for a get-together. Ronreisman ( talk) 01:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I asked Gilbert Achcar to review the Palestine section, since I'd quoted him extensively and want to make sure he approved of the context as a respectful courtesy. His email reply contained the following comments: "I read the wikipedia article and approve your use of quotes from my book, of course. What I disapprove is some of what is said in other sections of the article, but I presume that you didn't deal with the whole piece and are not responsible for these. In the section on Iraq, for instance, the totally unwarranted figure of 600 Jewish victims is still given, after Bernard Lewis who misquoted the total number of victims as the number of Jewish victims, whereas the overwhelming majority were killed by the British-led repression of the attackers/looters -- as I explained in my book."
His point is well-taken, so I made the appropriate changes in the article. Ronreisman ( talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I strongly recommend the use of Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers scholarly work "Nazi Palestine-The plans for the extermination of the Jews in Palestine" Despite provocative title this academic book summarize modern scholarship and most recent findings about this murky historic period. This book is available [ [4]]-- Tritomex ( talk) 18:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Zero recently deleted the mention of Gen. Felmy's war crimes and the supporting reference, claiming that it was an 'obvious violation of WP:SYNTH' This charge cannot be defended, and I've reinstated most of the words Zero deleted and then put extensive quotes in the Ref to make it clear that the reinserted text is supported by a single reference, eg the official report on the War Crimes trial. The supporting quotes which establish the details of Felmy's culpability and make it clear that there's no original synthesis nor original research are: ^ Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, The United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. VIII, (Pub. for The United Nations War Crimes Commission by His Majesty's Stationary Office, London; 1949); pp 35-36 describes the first two counts: "1. That defendants were principals or accessories to the murder of hundreds of thousands of persons from the civilian population of Greece, Yugoslavia and Albania by troops of the German Armed Forces ; that attacks by lawfully constituted enemy military forces and attacks by unknown persons, against German troops and installations, were followed by executions of large numbers of the civilian population by hanging or shooting without benefit of investigation or trial ; that thousands of non-combatants, arbitrarily designated as ‘ partisans,’ ‘ Communists,’ ‘ Communist suspects,’ ‘ bandit suspects ’ were terrorised, tortured and murdered in retaliation for such attacks by lawfully constituted enemy military forces and attacks by unknown persons ; and that defendants issued, distributed and executed orders for the execution of 100 ‘ hostages ’ in retaliation for each German soldier killed and fifty ‘ hostages.’ in retaliation for each German soldier wounded. 2. That defendants were principals or accessories to the plundering and looting of public and private property, the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, frequently together with the murder of the inhabitants thereof, and the commission of other acts of devastation not warranted by military necessity, in the occupied territories of Greece: Yugoslavia, Albania and Norway, by troops of the German Armed Forces acting at the direction and order of these defendants ; that defendants ordered troops under their command to burn, level and destroy entire villages and towns and thereby making thousands of peaceful non-combatants homeless and destitute, thereby causing untold suffering, misery and death to large numbers of innocent civilians without any recognised military necessity for so doing."; p. 47 describes some of the evidence against Felmy: "The defendant admitted having ordered reprisal measures but denied that they were unlawful. Many other reprisal actions on the part of his troops were brought to his notice in reports made to him. The evidence showed that the accused received and passed on an order of General Loehr, Commander-in-Chief Southeast, dated 10th August, 1943, which stated in part : 'In territories infested by the bandits, in which surprise attacks have been carried out, the arrest of hostages from all strata of the population remains a successful means of intimidation. Furthermore, it may be necessary, to seize the entire male population, in so far as it does not have to be shot or hung on account of participation in or support of the bandits, and in so far as it is incapable of work, and bring it to the prisoner collecting points for further transport into the Reich. Surprise attacks on German soldiers, damage to German property must be retaliated in every case with shooting or hanging of hostages, destruction of the surrounding localities, etc. Only then will the population announce to the German offices the collections of the bandits, in order to remain protected from reprisal measures.' ... The evidence showed many separate reprisal actions by troops subordinate to this defendant. In many instances there was no connection between the inhabitants shot and the offence committed. Reprisals were taken against special groups, such as 'Communists' and 'bandit suspects' without any relationship to the offence being established. Reprisal prisoners were taken from hostage camps generally and at points distant from the place where the offences occurred. It was also shown that in many reprisal actions destruction of property accompanied the mass shootings."; p. 76 states that Felmy was found guilty of "Counts One and Two..." Ronreisman ( talk) 01:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
'What SYNTH is not' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not), which includes: "SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition. SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Given just about any two juxtaposed statements, one can imagine that something might be insinuated by the juxtaposition. Don't. If the juxtaposition really does constitute SYNTH, the insinuation will be obvious to everyone...." Ronreisman ( talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I just reorganized some of the text so that certain passages are now under more appropriate headings. Although I didn't add any new info, I did recombine some sentences into new paragraphs. I also deleted the parenthetical mention that one of the German Generals associated with the Arabic alliances was also a convicted war criminal. Since the entire question of the relevance of 'criminality' is now under discussion on this TALK page, I thought it best to be consistent and remove any use of such language until we reach a consensus. Ronreisman ( talk) 23:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Re: improving the quality of this article: Some of Achcar's contributions to this topic is to both reject the 'holocaust-revisionist' attempts to deny that there was significant collaboration between some Arab politicians (e.g. Mufti, Ali Rashid, etc.) and Nazi Germany, and also to point out the unfair characterization of *all* Arab polities as 'pro-Nazi' that is often the focus of pro-Zionist authors. Achcar points out that though most attention is often focused on German relations with Arabic Nationalists and Reactionary and/or Fundamentalist Pan-Islamists, the role of other polities, such as Arabic Marxists and Liberal Westernizers. are neglected, misunderstood, misrepresented, or a combination of all-of-the-above. Accordingly, I think we should recognize the non-cooperative and 'relationships' that some Arab polities had in *opposition* to Naziism and Fascism during the Third-Reich times. We should, IMHO, add context to our current article by documenting the attitudes and actions of these Western Liberalizers and Marxists. Unfortunately, my Arabic is utilitarian-primitive (a charitable assessment, at best), and so I'm probably not as qualified to build these sections as other editors who may have more familiarity with the material. Anyone who agrees with this line of reasoning is invited to start contributing new material. If no one does, and there are no objections voiced on this talk page, I'll probably start adding info sourced from Achcar, Said, and others this weekend. Again: if anyone objects to this line of reasoning, please speak up. As Zero has pointed out, we should try for as much consensus as possible before adding controversial material to the article. Ronreisman ( talk) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Ronreisman ( talk) 18:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I just added some new subtopics, principally to introduce some of the contextual material proposed by Achcar (see above). The 'Opposition' topic precedes the 'Cooperation' topic. I've put a precis of some of Achcar's theses in this sub-topic. It will obviously require more details to balance the much longer 'Cooperation' section which follows. Again: those with a greater appreciation of Arabic progressive political history than me are invited to help fill in the details and provide more diverse sourcing. I've also introduced two of Achcar's political-faction terms ('Nationaism' and 'Fundamentalist Pan-Islamists' under the topic 'Arab incorporation and emulation of fascism.' Suggestions and discussions? Ronreisman ( talk) 03:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello Plot Spoiler and Pekffeintheda
I just saw that you are claiming the text I submitted fails RS, and you have summarily deleted the text without any discussion, and against the wishes of other editors (Sepsis II and Besieged).
Since I 'm the editor who originally submitted this text please let me assure you that I took care to make sure it was both properly sourced and also accurate and relevant to the article. Please address your concerns and questions to me and I'll gladly discuss the issues with you. Until we reach consensus -- or at least discuss the merits of different positions -- please do not delete the text, since this will cause needless strife and inefficiency.
Regarding the merits: the text presents Achcar's point of view. It does not claim that all his theories and claims are correct and undisputed. The supporting documentation for Achcar's work are contained in his references and citations (eg footnotes & endnotes). The question here is: Does this interview accurately report what Achcar said in context and without editorializing or distortion? Another relevant question: does this summation sentence and quote accurately represent Achcar's positions, as more fully laid out in his book?
The answer is affirmative to all these questions. If you have any doubts, I'd be willing to email Dr. Achcar and ask him to review the questionable text himself. I have no doubt that I understand the positions he explained in his book very clearly.
Just for the record: although I greatly respect Dr. Achcar and appreciate his very significant contributions to this particular topic, I also disagree with many of his conclusions and question many of his assumptions. While reading his book, however, I eagerly fact-checked his citations and references, and am very impressed by the quality of his sources and the depth and breadth of knowledge that he brings to this material. Of course, there are some glaring exceptions (Achcar's treatment of Benny Morris is not worth bringing up, for instance). On the whole, however, he has risen to be one of the challenging scholars in this area. He is not a holocaust denier or a 'throw the jews in the sea' extremist. He's an accomplished and professional defender of post-Enlightenment scholarship values and peer-review standards of intellectual responsibility. He is unapologetically and zealously anti-Zionist, though not as extreme as Chomsky (his sometimes collaborator) or myriads of other Western academics. He's better than most in guarding his scholarship from blatantly anti-Zionism propaganda. His approach must be recognized for it's intrinsic merit and relevance to the article's topic. Ronreisman ( talk) 02:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I still don't get Pekffeinthedal's objection. I could understand if he disregarded an 'electronic intifada' attack on Zionist or Jews that shows prejudice or questionable facts. This is not that. This is just an interview with an anti-Zionist scholar who is presenting his particular point of view. There's no claim that Achcar is correct. As noted above, I don't personally agree with all his points, I just feel his expression is cogent, eloquent, and certainly significant to any serious discussion of this topic. I chose this quote because it sums up the positions in the book very nicely. There's no debate that this is -- in fact -- Achcar's well-considered opinion. So is Pekffeinthedal demanding that we source some other ref, and then putting in the info is OK? Although he may be a 'sockpuppet' it would still be useful to hear his logic. If he's just intent (as accused above) at vandalizing articles in complete disregard of NPOV, then thank-you 'Besieged' for helping to maintain Wikipedia's integrity, and shame on you Pekffeinthedal for not having the courage of your convictions and speaking up for your own views. Ronreisman ( talk) 23:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The unexpected edit war over this is a distraction, so I'll try to re-write the info by using references to Achcar's book or some other media, rather than his own summary statement that was printed in Electonic Intifada. Incidentally, I really don't think it's reasonable to exclude *everything* from a source like Electronic Intifada, any more than I think 'The Nation' should be excluded. Nevertheless, if this nit is going to be repeatedly picked by some editors, then we might as well remove the controversy by quoting media that are more politically neutral. After all, it's not as if any of the actual information will change. The facts will remain, whether they are backed by sources like Achcar's own elegant summary statement, or the (probably more wordy) summary that I'll cobble together from different pages in 'Holocaust and the Arabs' -- in either case, the issue of the historiography and competing narratives (Zionist vs. Arab) is still relevant to the topic and should be represented in this article. Ronreisman ( talk) 23:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just stumbled upon this article and when I came upon the mention of al-Husseini in the Arab perceptions section, I felt that it was missing a lot about his involvement with Nazism and spent the last few hours editing its last paragraphs to incorporate lots of facts from his own article. Then when I was just about to hit enter, I bothered to read the rest of the article and found that most of my information is already found in a more scattered and what I feel is a less concise and elegant form. So I'm putting what I had here, as a suggestion for putting it in somewhat like this:
Plus, I'm proposing to change the section
into
-- 87.180.197.207 ( talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I've read through Mein Kampf and Arabs are not described as an inferior race. I have taken out the sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.229.4 ( talk) 03:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The overall sense I am getting both from this article and from others is that there was a rather noticeable difference between how the Arabs of the Maghreb perceived the war and how those of the Mashriq did. Would that be fair? It would appear that the former leaned towards the allied side and that the latter leaned towards the Axis side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.11.49 ( talk) 17:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought you might like to see the source that Patterson gives for the claim that Hitler was called Abu Ali in Syria and Mohammad Haidar in Egypt. It is a hate site, see here and look down for the heading "The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection". That's what Patterson gives as his only source; a web article full of ignorance and blatant lies (eg. that the Handschar "slaughtered 90% of Bosnia's Jews"). As I noted somewhere else, Mohammad Haidar was the name of the Egyptian Defence Minister. Zero talk 01:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
You can't use your original research to discredit an academic source. When Other Legends Are Forgotten ( talk) 15:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I have removed
</Among eastern religions, Hitler described religious leaders such as Confucius, Buddha, and Muhammad as providers of spiritual "sustenance". citation neededblockquote>
As any google search would show, this can be sourced, but the sources all cite for it Michel Angebert's Hitler et la tradition cathare, Paris, Robert Laffont 1971 p.172. That is a book arguing for the esoteric side of Hitler and Nazism's worldview, and is not reliable. Anglebert was a pseudonym for the writer Michel Bertrand. There are very good sources for this aspect of Nazism, and this is not one of them. If one wants to edit difficult articles, it is not sufficient to plunk down stuff from tertiary sources, which are then disguised, citing blinding secondary sources, to have it then tagged with a cn request for months or years. Nazism is thoroughly documented in reliable academic books and they must form the basis for any edit. Nishidani ( talk) 11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
در خبرها و نظرهای چند روز گذشته اشارهای به این نکته که آلمان نازی به حاجی درجهٔ "آریایی افتخاری" داد ندیدهام. برخی اهل تحقیق که نوشتهاند این بهرغم تحقیر "نژاد پست سامی" از سوی نازیها بود شاید توجه ندارند فلسطینی، از نظر قومشناسی، عرب و سامی محسوب نمیشود. عربهای دبش از بالا به ساکنان فلسطین نگاه میکنند و آنها را از خودشان نمیدانند ـــــ تحقیری که ادوارد سعید، مسیحی فلسطینی، را میآزرد. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.77.50.156 ( talk) 09:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Abuse of WP:RS
This article repeatedly cites the Nazi general Felmy as a reliable source. It is perfectly obvious that that isn't within a light-year of the rules. Parts of it that aren't removed altogether will have to be rephrased as Felmy's claims. Zero talk 11:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The fake "Arab Nazis" pictures
I deleted the image that pretended to show Arab Nazis. Actually there are tons of good reasons for doubting this description. (1) The uniforms of the men in the back row are British. (2) Why would Arabs write "Palestine" in German rather than Arabic? But, sources, sources, I am reliably informed that this picture appears on page 71 of "The German colony and Emek Rephaim" (Hebrew) by David Koryanker, who identifies it as a photo of Jews displaying trophies they found in the German houses when Israeli forces occupied the German Colony in 1948. Nothing to do with Arabs. Zero talk 15:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Arabisches Freiheitkorps
There are several mentions of the Arab Legion composed of Arab volunteers from among those fled from Middle East and North Africa to Nazi-occupied Europe. It was established by Amin al-Hussayni, but the information is now very limited. How significant was the unit and what was its role? GreyShark ( dibra) 07:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Medoff says (without source): "For example, in 1942, Husseini helped organize (from among Arab students in Germany and North African emigres) the 'Arabisches Freiheitkorps,' an Arab Legion in the German Army that hunted down Allied parachutists in the Balkans and fought on the Russian front". Achar (The Arabs and the Holocaust, p141) says "the Wehrmacht's Arab unit counted a mere 130 men" -- if that's the same unit it is trivia. Zero talk 08:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
July 2020 edits
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: " Albert Speer is an unreliable witness; undue". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
- A related diff; my rationale was: "Former Wehrmact general ( Hellmuth Felmy) is unsuitable as a source; excessive intricate detail about a single soldier". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 07:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Parnian shiraz.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Sourcing issues, bad faith editing
I think I made a valuable contribution by following up on something on this page. Finding that the provided reference re: a 1938 memorandum concerning internal debate among Nazis concerning German-Jewish emigration to Palestine was non-existent, I found an historical document which seems to be the basis of this inaccurate quote, but which substantially corroborates the quote, and so I updated the reference. The reference I provided is a U.S. govt (State Dept) publication, so it's not a "primary source" and its "impact on German policy" well... I guess you can take that up with the the State Dept since they're the ones who found it worthwhile to translate & curate & publish in 1953. So, I don't understand the thinking behind --not just the reversal of my edit-- but the removal of this information entirely. 2601:644:8E7F:1F30:4424:633:9C6B:C939 ( talk) 06:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
- You found an (interesting) document of Referat Deutschland which is provided in support of the text "In 1938, the German policy toward the Jewish homeland in Palestine appears to have substantially changed". However, the document does not support the text. There is no change of policy indicated here at all. Instead, the document urges a change of policy ("For more than a year Referat Deutschland...has been trying to obtain the termination of the Agreement", which shows that RD did not have the power to change the policy on its own). There is nothing in the document to say that policy actually changed as a result. For that we need a source saying that the policy was changed. It is perfectly ordinary for government departments to urge some change but in vain. Also, we can't ever write "appears to have substantially changed" in Wikipedia voice without a source that contains a statement of that nature; i.e, we aren't allowed to conclude what "appears" to be the case from a source that doesn't say that it appears to be the case. Zero talk 06:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler.
The sentence "Erwin Rommel was almost as popular as Hitler." is the start of the 3rd paragraph of the "Arab perceptions of Hitler and Nazism" section. Is it implying that Hitler was widely popular in the Arab world ? I can't see where that had been stated previously in the article. I can see references to the mufti and that Arab views of the Nazis were complex and Nazi propaganda attempt in the Arab world but nothing explicit stating Hitler was popular. Apologies if I missed something. 82.11.163.59 ( talk) 19:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- I see now the suggestions that Hitler was popular among Arabs and that Rommel nearly as popular comes from the de Spiegal link refernce 23. Maybe, like de Spiegel, the article needs to include the line "Hitler was celebrated in large parts of the Arab world, and some newspapers even likened him to the Prophet." before the Rommel claim - at least then it would have a logical flow. 82.11.163.59 ( talk) 18:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Post-war nazi emigres
Johann von leers, Otto Ernst Remer, and Alois Brunner are all good examples of Nazis who travelled to the Middle East after the war simmilar to how many Nazis went to Argentina. StrongALPHA ( talk) 10:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
subject on recent edits
I don’t think political opposition such as newspapers should be combined with military opposition such as wars, and instead placed as they were prior in there own tabs Bobisland ( talk) 22:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- a lot of entrees also seem poorly organized among opposition and can be given a summary with a attached link to the topic instead of repeating such large volumes of other wiki pages into this one Bobisland ( talk) 22:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- Which entrees do you think should be changed. I wrote a large part of the opposition section (plus the Egypt in WWII article).
- Personally, I'd rather see it broken down country by country and have both sides (opposition and support) be written for each country Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 03:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just think there’s too much being put from the news wiki page onto this one and that the information could be more easily summarized, there’s almost as much news information as there is government and military information Bobisland ( talk) 16:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- I think the press information shows how comtemporary Arabs actually viewed Hitler and Nazism, contrary to the idea that Arab commentators never spoke out against Nazism. Arabs militaries largerly did not participate in the war and the official government position was more muted (technically Egypt did not declare war until 1945 and Iraq never even formally joined the Axis). Newspapers are good source to see what Arabs actually thought about fascism, but I could summerize it more, later Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes I know but the word I should’ve said is balanced, also there is already main topic pages for this information so why not add a further reading or main article link above it so readers can read more about it compared to copy and pasting large amounts of the other wiki page and repeating the information Bobisland ( talk) 21:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah I see what you mean. Tommoroww if I have time I will clean it up. Also, I was thinking of adding a section of Nazi exhiles to Arab countries, but I don't know if that counts Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 04:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- i think there’s already a Nazi exile to Arab world wiki page that covers this also another example with actions themselves is Helmy getting his own section but the lead to the former opposition tab already had the “Arabs defied Nazi laws by rescuing Jews during the Holocaust.” link which showed him, meaning readers who clicked the link will now be re-reading information they read on that wiki page, maybe the news coverage of the Arab world of nazi stuff should have its own wiki page or be put in its own tab here because there’s so much of it and it’s dominating all the other information, the way it’s currently written seems it would make people loose interest in reading the article over a lack of summaries I know I’m not wording myself well but there’s a wiki editing guideline which talked about not putting every little detail and when wiki pages have similar topics thus similar entrees they should be summarized and linked to the other as to not make the page too long and specific to a point where it’s disliked, maybe the opposition actions should be separated from the opposition news i don’t know it’s up to you I just know the way it’s currently worded is a lot less interesting to read Bobisland ( talk) 15:48, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- What's the name of the Nazi exiles to Arab world wiki page? I couldn't find it. I know Otto Skorzeny, Otto Ernst Remer, Johann von Leers and Aribert Heim went to Egypt and Alois Brunner and Walter Rauff went to Syria.
- I just added a short thing on Helmy before. Technically he was living in Berlin at the time, so I guess that doesn't count, so I removed the mention of him.
- I just re-edited the Egyptian section so now its just a paragraph on newspapers, a paragraph on cartoons and KEM, and a paragraph on al-Aqqad's book "Hitler in the Balance". I will also add a section about Egyptian in the coopartion section to talk about Aziz al Misri's failed flight to Syria to join the Iraqis and Anwar Sadat's attempt to collaborate with the Nazis. I found some reliable sources on that.
- I'll work on the Palestine opposition section later. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 16:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I think it’s just Europe but here’s one Ratlines (World War II) of Europe only, maybe you can build on it if the phrasing doesn’t just mean specific escape routes excluding the Middle East but i don’t know, here’s a good source from Wikipedia called “ Category:Exiles from Nazi Germany” if your looking to add them here, what your editing is up to you I’m just giving feedback Bobisland ( talk) 17:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Electronic Intifada
EI is a blog, but it is being used here as a reliable source, I suggest removing quotes from EI and any material relying on it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacker1968 ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- According to WP:RSP El
- Intifiada is not a reliable sources and can't be used to support wikipedia articles ("There is consensus that The Electronic Intifada is generally unreliable with respect to its reputation for accuracy, fact-checking, and error-correction"). Please remove anything that is based on it. Sunshine SRA ( talk) 11:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's an interview, so it can be used to directly quote Achcar. Drsmartypants(Smarty M.D) ( talk) 09:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
- ^ The Higher Arab Committee: Its Origins, Personnel and Purposes; The Documentary Record submitted to the United Nations, May, 1947, by the Nation Associates, (NY: The Nation Associates; 1947)
- ^ Pearlman 1963, p. 596
- ^ Collins & Lapierre, pp. 49, 50 : "Fully aware of the Final Solution, he had done his best to see that none of the intended victims were diverted to Palestine on their way to Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler's gas chambers."
- ^ Schwanitz 2008 citing Abd al-Karim al-Umar (ed.), Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, Damascus, 1999, p.126.
- ^ Achcar & 2010 (a), pp. 151–2 .
- ^ Elpeleg 2007, p. 73
- ^ Mattar, Philip (1992). The Mufti of Jerusalem: Haj Amin al-Husseini and the Palestinian National Movement. Columbia University Press. p. 100. ISBN 978-0-231-06463-7.
- ^ Schwanitz 2008, p. ? citation needed citing Abd al-Karim al-Umar (ed.), Memoirs of the Grand Mufti, Damascus, 1999, p.126.
- ^ Shaul Shay, Islamic Terror and the Balkans, The Interdisciplinary Center Herzilya Project (2007)Transaction Publishers, 2009 p.33
- ^ Sachar 1961, p. 231
- ^ Pearlman 1947, p. 51
- ^ Stillman 2000, p. 143
- ^ "Farhud, Black", p. 347
- ^ Achcar 2009, p. 154
- ^ Achcar 2009, p. 154