Talk:Abraham Gancwajch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Abraham Gancwajch is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history.

If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do:
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
A fact from Abraham Gancwajch appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 February 2008.
Wikipedia
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 30, 2008. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator.

Contents


[edit] Rabbi or not ?

According to Jonas Turkow "C´etait ainsi. 1939-1943 la vie dans le ghetto de Varsovie", Gancwajch "had a rabbi diploma". Does it make him a rabbi ? --Lysytalk 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess we can just say that he had this diploma. This should be sufficient. Not sure if he can be added to Category:Rabbis; was he "practicing" and would he need to in order to be added to this cat? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What is a "rabbi diploma"? The source, Jonas Turkow, is a personal memoir, not a historian. Can you please find better sourcing? Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
That was exactly my question. --Lysytalk 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Question: if the memoir has been quoted elsewhere in scholarly sources, does that mean it is acceptable in this instance? Relata refero (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable as what? Semicha is one thing, a non-rabbinic reference to something called a "diploma" is completely different. So not only is the reference not helpful, what it refers to is completely ambiguous as well. -- Avi (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the ambiguity, but that in itself is a matter unrelated to the reliability of the source. Relata refero (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You can bring up the general question at WT:TS, but that piece of information is at best ambiguous, and aty worst incorrect, and doesn't belong in the article. -- Avi (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:TS?
I'm just pointing out that the memoir seems notable as a reference, since it is used elsewhere. Given that, a mention of this strange "diploma" seems relevant, particularly given what happened to the rabbinate in the WG and the secularisation of some of its functions. Relata refero (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant WT:RS. Any link between the Warsaw Ghetto rabbinate and Gancwajch based on a phantom diploma mentioned in a personal memoir would be original research, would it not? -- Avi (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. We cant write any text that would directly imply any such thing. I was the one speculating as to why it would be of interest, and a possible reason for the strange phrasing. Relata refero (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

The article is actually getting fixed nicely. However, sites such as http://www.jewishtribalreview.org and http://www.lastsuperpower.net are unacceptable. If you can replace those with reliable citations or remove the unsourced sentences, I will consider withdrawing the nomination, as the other cites are seemingly acceptable. -- Avi (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn; thank y'all. -- Avi (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

The Category:Holocaust perpetrators is reserved for Nazis. The proper category here is Category:Polish Nazi collaborators. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Per my post below, I dispute the "Polish" part.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Polish or Jewish

He was from Poland, lived in Warsaw and Lodz, and all the sources you brought confirm this. Wikipedia is not censored. -- Avi (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He came to Poland in 1936 from Austria at the age of at least 20-something. At that point he was certainly an Austrian Jew. I don't think 3 years in Poland made him into a Polish Jew; there is no proof he ever got Polish citizenship (or discarded his Austrian one), no proof he even spoke Polish (through I'd expect he learned it by 1940s). PS. He was also not 'a person from Warsaw'. He came there as a refugee in 1939/1940; the sources stress his connections to Łódź - and even those are pretty thin. If you can find out where he was born (presumably in Austria) he can be called from that place; people from... categories are for people born in or highly connected with that place; Gancwajch had few connections to Warsaw. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Piotrus, the definitions of the Polish categories make no mention of the need for citizenship. The proof that this man was Polish are the same sources that prove he was Jewish, so Polish is necessary just as much as Jewish is. For example, compage Gancwajch with Pascal Brodnicki, Maria Orska, and Igor Śmiałowski, none of whom were born in Poland, none of whom have evidence of Polish citizenship; which is unnecessary, because they all livd notable portions of their life in Poland. Even more egregious are Ed Wojna, Ivo Pedro Krenczynski Welter, and [Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky]], none of which it seemed even ever lived in Poland. So, citizenship is unquestionably unnecessary. Add any Austrian category you like as well, but this man's notability is indivisibly tied to Warsaw and Poland--that is where all your sources that prove that this article deserves to be in Wikipedia are based. -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As I pointed out above, Gancwajch spend only a few years of his much longer life in Poland. If a person goes to a foreign country and becomes notable for something done that, that doesn't necessarily mean they are from that country of that city.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators is missing. It's not clear if he was Polish or not, but he certainly was a Jew, so maybe this would solve it ? --Lysytalk 14:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed that category is missing.We should create one for historic organisations and people, who engaged in such activity--Molobo (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Lysy, current wikipedia philosophy is that "Jewish" is a contentious intersection with occupations, as per the AfD's such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 14#Category:Jewish mathematicians so why should Jewish collaborators or Jewish criminals be different? The current consensus is that of nationality; and he was undoubtedly Polish. -- Avi (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Avil, for "wikipedia philosophy" check out e.g. the subcategories of Category:Jews by occupation. --Lysytalk 16:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Jews by occupation has dozens of counterexamples, which apparently are doing quite fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is certain that he was a Jewish person, I do not think he is classified as ethnic Pole, nor as Polish citizen. Maybe he had a citizenship of Second Polish Republic but it doesn't seem its important in any way, as his notability concerns his actions as a member of Jewish people in relation to German occupation.--Molobo (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Molobo. --Lysytalk 17:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. There can be no denying his primary ethnicity/nationality/culture was Jewish. Whether Polish was second or third to Austrian, it's hard to tell.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Avi, using your logic, there were no Jews before creation of the State of Israel and the Germans during the Holocaust killed Poles, Hungarians, Ukrainians etc, but not Jews. Or perhaps I am wrong (citing your words The current consensus is that of nationality; and he was undoubtedly Polish) Tymek (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing the cats and the article, I am fine with the current wording (as of Piotrus's correction) of Polish Jewish as well as both sets of cats; so we should all be in agreement. -- Avi (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The only missing thing ATM is Category:Jewish criminals as a counterpart for Category:Polish criminals.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That was deleted back in August. I believe becasue we only carry criminals by nationality and not ethnicity or religion. There is Category:Israeli criminals for example but not Category:Caucasian criminals or Category:Latino criminals or Category:Christian criminals. Nazi collaborators is an exception due to the special place Jews have in the holocaust, I belive. -- Avi (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be racist to have Category:Jewish criminals. Category:Polish criminals and Category:Israeli criminals are pretty the same useless imho, but at least they are more PC. --Lysytalk 19:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Same website shows he is Polish and not Austrian

According to the Warsaw ghetto database, he came from Czestochowa and then Spent many years in Vienna, supposedly as a journalist, expelled from Vienna, he came back to Poland, so according to your own logic, he can not be considered Austrian but must be considered Polish. Personally, I think that as he spent a number of years in Vienna, he may be considered both. -- Avi (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes and text have been sourced to the appropriate Warsaw Ghetto Database records. -- Avi (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, he came from Częstochowa according to Israel Gutman, Professor of History at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, chairman of the Scientific Council of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial Institute in Jerusalem, and deputy chairman of the International Auschwitz Council. Therefore a Polish Jew. --Lysytalk 18:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly Gutman states? The sources are confusing as they are; we might well be dealing with out of context statement that he spend only some of his life in Czestochowa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
"Pochodził z Częstochowy, był w młodości syjonistą, potem mieszkał w różnych krajach Europy, w chwili wybuchu wojny znajdował się w Łodzi, stał na czele siatki agentów otwarcie powiązanych z SD, służbą bezpieczeństwa i wywiadu SS w Warszawie" [1] --Lysytalk 19:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Those notes are somewhat confusing. This one clearly states "came to Poland from Austria in 1936" which would indicate he was originally from Austria. While this one notes he "came back to Poland from Vienna" it does not necessarily mean he was not originally from Vienna (he could have went to Poland once, returned to Austria, gone to Poland again). This one states he was from Łódź. This one gives some background on his time in Vienna, he went to Poland after Anschluss (which occured in 1938; this contradicts the note claiming he came to Poland in 1936). While this one states: "came from Czestochowa", this one only notes that "At the beginning of the war, he was in Czestochowa". All in all it's a mess, it's not clear whether he was Austrian or Polish by birth, where did he live, how was he connected to Czestochowa or Łódź. Claims that he were can be treated as OR, I strongly suggest removing them, noting the confusing sources in a note, and sticking to only verifiable claim: he was a Jew.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion as to where Gancwajch was born, with conflicting records indicating either Częstochowa or Łódź, both in Poland. Incorrect. We have sources stating he came from those places; that doesn't mean he was actually born there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Four or five records (brought in the footnote) bring the birthplace as Częstochowa. It's pretty clear, so I have fixed the text. -- Avi (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, now I see the 'born in' part of the notes is in the headings above the main text. I agree, that series of notes makes it pretty clear he was most likely born in Częstochowa.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I find this discussion rather amusing even though lacking common sense. For obvious reasons nobody wants to be associated with such a disreputable character. Things change completely when it as a famous artist or scientist; see for instance the discussion in Talk:Irène Joliot-Curie; she was much less Polish than Gancwajch but lots of Poles want to recognize her as French-Polish or Polish-French. As far as this case is concerned, the most important facts are: (1) he was a Polish Jew (besides several other arguments, Gancwajch is obviously a Polish spelling), and (2) he was a Jewish Nazi collaborator. A separate category for Jewish Nazi collaborators is certainly the best solution. Tsf (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. As for Irène Joliot-Curie, I don't see how she could be Polish. Of Polish descent, yes, if that matters. --Lysytalk 13:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blacklisted hyperlink

www.holocaustresearchproject.org appears to be a blacklisted hyperlink for the spam filter. Investigating... --MPerel 17:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is why it is blacklisted. Also, a "whois" reveals this is just an anonymous private website, and therefore fails as a reliable source. I will remove it from the article. --MPerel 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a shame. The site seemed professional. --Lysytalk 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It seemed to me also at first glance, though real organizations don't usually set up anonymous websites whose ownership can't be verified. --MPerel 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I have asked for it to be unblacklisted ([2]). Feel free to comment there.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The only problem is that if the ownership of the site can't be verified (see the whois link above), it can't be used as a reliable source. Without verification, it has similar status to a blog and is unacceptable as a source as far as policy is concerned, regardless of how good the information might seem. --MPerel 18:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While I agree that the site looks suspicious now (even if I liked it at the first sight, I couldn't clearly see who is the author of the text they publish when I examined it later), I think that your interpretation of whois records is over-generalization of what WP:RS says. --Lysytalk 18:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your interpretation? If we can't verify who is behind the source, I don't see how they qualify as a reliable source, do you? I'm with you, I don't really have any problem thus far with the information on the site, but who is saying it? We don't really know. Do you see anything in the policy pages that allows the use of an anonymous (or unverified) source as a reliable source? --MPerel 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We agree on this. My remark was only of a more general nature, regarding the whois database. Not the right place to discuss it here, though, I think. --Lysytalk 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha! In general terms, just briefly, the website registration is probably the most reliable way to identify who a website belongs to, though I'm sure there are other means to verify that would be acceptable. --MPerel 19:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm always dubious when ownership and in particular copyright status is not unambiguously identified. Whoever registers a site, any credible organisation will have an About page and a copyright statement and - crucially - will not host any content without a clear statement of who owns the copyright and by what permission it is hosted if it was not originally theirs. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
http://www.holocaustresearchproject{dot}org/aboutus.html lists the founders and owner of the holocaustresearchproject website.

They also list the author of the pages and credit sources on all the pages. The site is also partnered with the Universities in the UK, the US; they have appeared on BBC broadcasts, and given interviews on US news programs. This website is legitimate and highly credible. However I wrote to team there and they stated they prefer not to be linked on Wiki, due to the fact that they have been targeted by Neo-Nazi groups, hate bloggers and other unprincipled groups who use the Internet as a vehicle to cause discontent and perpetrate otherwise negative activity. I think they would prefer not to have any connection to Wiki one way or the other, but not by being blacklisted or needlessly maligned. I rather enjoy their website and the information it contains, the way it’s presented and the overall look and feel.68.160.28.55 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:People from Warsaw

Where does Category:People from Warsaw require birth in the city? If he was a member of the Warsaw criminal scene, that surely makes him from Warsaw, no? -- Avi (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He was 'passing by'. I have asked some time ago what are the specific rules governing those categories (Category talk:People by city#From or related to? but I have received no reply. Based on how I have seen this category used it is applicable to people 1) born in a given city or 2) who are extremely strongly related to a given place, with the second use being somewhat controversial and not well defined. I don't think Gancwajch classifies as a 'Warsovian', but if there is consensus that he does I will not object. Perhaps we could ask on Talk:Warsaw for more comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Avi, the categories are there to help organizing information, not to confude people. Please do not add absurd categories to the article. --Lysytalk 18:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As we have documentation that he was from both Lodz and Częstochowa, I am sure you support those categories. After all, no on is arguing that the Warsaw Ghetto Database is not a reliable source, are they? I have references all the necessary texts to the appropriate notes and records. -- Avi (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
We do not know if he was born in Lodz. I think the attempts to attribute his nationality based on whether he spent some years here or there border on OR and are unnecessary, as they don't bring much value to the article, other than possible confusion. --Lysytalk 18:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, I think that the "People from..." categories are clear that they do not refer to birth, and this man spent years in Lodz, Vienna, and Częstochowa, but I am open to other comments. -- Avi (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So should we add 'people from' Częstochowa, Łodź, Vienna and Warsaw to him? Sound a bit too much.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the Warsaw Ghetto Database has four or five records saying he was born in Częstochowa, so that is pretty clear. What bothers you if he is also listed in Lodz, Vienna, or Warsaw? -- Avi (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should use those categories other than Częstochowa (place of his birth) in the article. He worked for a few years in those places. So what? I don't think any American presidents are noted as 'people from Washington, D.C.' even through they spend the most famous part of their lives in that city. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Piotrus. Now, we know that he was a Polish Jew. The fact that he travelled to Austria, or even spend some years there does not make him an Austrian Jew. I think the "Austrian" categories should be removed and the "Jewish" categories added instead. --Lysytalk 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish Nazi Collaborators

I noticed that they are several articles that fit in that category, including this one. I believe one should be made to avoid imprecise descriptions. --Molobo (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If he's a "Polish" Jew, which the sources seem to indicate, then he also belongs to the specific cat Category:Polish Nazi collaborators. He can't be a Polish Jew and not be Polish. --MPerel 20:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Likewise he can't be a Polish Jew without being Jewish. His role in collaboration is marked by his Jewish identity not by Polish citizenship made irrelevant by German occupation. Likewise we have Polish Germans but it would be strange to label Selbstschutz as Polish Nazi Collaborators. What about Jewish Ghetto Police-we are going to apply templates of Polish, Lithuanian, Belarussian Nazi Collaborators to them ? That would be absurd and imprecise. Their relation and significance to collaboration is marked by their Jewish identity not Polish, Lithuanian citizenship. A simple Jewish Nazi Collaborators will do. If they are Polish Nazi Collaborators related to Polish collaborats then they can be also be Jewish Nazi Collaborators.--Molobo (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
He would belong to both, I agree with your argument about precise descriptions, add him to both. --MPerel 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm creating the Category:Jewish Nazi collaborators for this purpose. In fact I was surprised when I found there was none. --Lysytalk 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The cat probably didn't exist because it didn't occur very often. Scrolling down to the bottom of page 146, Trzynastka (Group 13) is described as "the only known case of a Jewish group, small though it may have been, trying to accommodate the germans on an ideological basis" so it does seem appropriate for this article. --MPerel 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record (and because it will be handy during CfD discussion that we will see sooner or later), it was not as rare as we would expect or hope. See chapter "Warsaw's Multi-Ethnic Criminals, the Polish Right, and Other Matters" in this academic review. Lysy has just created an article on Hotel Polski; several Jewish collaborators were prominent in setting up this terrible schema (see [3] for example).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Allow me for an unnecessary comment here. In every nation there are "good" people and "bad" people. The Jews are no exception here. Neither are Poles nor Germans. Luckily or not, the Jews did not have so many opportunities to collaborate as other nations. Let's face it, it were the Nazis who were choosing their collaborating nations, not the other way round. I've heard some Poles being proud of that Poles never had "their" SS unit. But would the Germans propose to make one ? As for the Jewish-Nazi collaboration, we have to remember the scale of the Holocaust. Even if several ten thousand Jews collaborated, this would still be only a small fraction. On the other hand, the collaboration was much more frequent than you'd probably be prepared to accept now. One problem is that it is not really well researched. Most serious historians would not touch this. As you know I've had problems finding good sources, as the reasonable English language sources on Jewish-Nazi collaboration are very scarce. And this is well expectable. E.g. most of the sources that write about Abraham Gancwajch are some obscure Polish nationalistic booklets, that are published in order to fulfill their anti-semitic agenda. Luckily there are also some accounts of the survivors. Finally, the definition of "collaboration" is very vague. Were Polish or Jewish szmalcowniks Nazi collaborators ? How about Sonderkommandos ? Anyway, this is certainly a very difficult issue, and anyone trying to expand this in a balanced way on wikipedia is sure to be stigmatized both anti-Polish and anti-Semite. --Lysytalk 23:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Then we would have problem with UPA and Lithuanian collaboration -by this way of thinking UPA and Lithuanian movements on former territory of Second Polish Republic should all fall under Polish Nazi Collaborators, since they had Polish citizenship before the war. I don't think this is wise.--Molobo (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
There's no doubt that many Ukrainians had Polish citizenship. This was internationally recognized, see e.g. the case of SS Galicia. They were not deported to Soviet Union after the war only because they were Polish citizens. --Lysytalk 21:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not doubt they had Polish citizenship. But using this as argument to labal them as Polish collaborators seems not precise and misleading. Should UPA be given that category by this logic ?--Molobo (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, there is a problem of ethnicity versus nationality. It looks different from American and European perspective. Some nations do not have their country at all but this does not mean they do not exist. I really hate these discussions on ethnic origin - they are so hopelessly unproductive. Discussing citizenship is even worse. :-( --Lysytalk 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Lysy. In this case Gancwajch is identified ethnicly as Jewish and ethnically/nationally as Polish so it is proper to assign him to both cats. --MPerel 21:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Would that mean that we should assign Polish Nazi Collaborators cat to UPA and Lithuanian members with Polish citizenship also ? And if not-why ?--Molobo (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Nazi collaborators is as valid a category as Polish Nazi collaborators, just as Category:Jews and its various subcategories are valid equivalents of Category:Polish people. He should be assigned to both cats, and if they don't exist, they should be created.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Question-will we assign Polish Nazi Collaborators to UPA and Lithuanian members with Polish citizenship also ? And if not-why ?--Molobo (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know but I doubt it. Why don't you discuss this in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article ? Seriously, though, you have a valid point. What about Polish Volksdeutsche ? Did they collaborate with the Nazis ? Each case was different and there is no single fit-all solution. --Lysytalk 22:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Since then Polish citizenship is not enough to apply this cat to UPA, or Lithuanian collaborators-why is it ok to apply to Jewish collaborators with Polish citizenship ?--Molobo (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)