well, what does it mean to be white? and, what does it mean to be white in the context of eastern european history, rather than the context of american history? an american may want to talk about some kind of white privilege in the context of a racialized labour hierarchy, and not be able to put the discussion of asian migration into eastern europe into any context. an eastern european would have completely different concepts of what race is and frame the discussion completely differently.
to an american, a slav is obviously white. to a nazi, a slav is not white, but an inferior race to be conquered and enslaved. so, how can one be a slav and a nazi at the same time? how can one think they are superior and inferior at the same time? one cannot - this is a contradiction in terms.
the reality is that the nazis thought that the slavs - poles, russians , ukrainians and other slavic speakers - were an inferior race, because they had been corrupted by mongolian blood. the germans sought to exterminate the slavs, just like the jews, for this reason. they called them 'useless eaters' and promised to expel them from eastern europe, to open up _liebensraum_ - living space for the superior german peoples.
so, do you explain the existence of these people in poland that aided the nazis, however miniscule a part of the population that they actually were? how do you explain people that would align with a group that seeks to enslave them?
the first thing to point out is that being a slavic nationalist, or a white supremacist, is not the same thing as being a nazi, and the nazis' perception of slavs - who most americans would consider white - is a prime example of that. this is probably the point that is confusing people like sharmini, because they're ignorant of the european perspective on race, and only able to see it through more liberal american filters. so, there's no particular contradiction in the phenomenon of white nationalist poles attacking jews, while defending themselves against nazis, at the same time. you can present arguments in terms of self-preservation. they could have been focusing on the jews to distract from themselves. but, this is probably an example of the madness of war more than anything else...
the other thing to point out is that the majority of the people that the germans worked with in eastern europe were actually ethnic germans. this is another thing that an american may not understand about europe. when somebody moves to america, they become an american. but, when a european moves from one country to another, they maintain their tribal allegiances and do not adopt the nationality of the country they're living in. a german living in poland would identify as a german first and probably not as a pole, at all.
in fact, the histories of the topic are usually very careful to point this out: they speak not of polish or french collaboration, but of the german occupation. this may seem like a minor point to americans that simply don't understand the tribalism of europe. but, they need to better understand that tribalism before they start making accusations, like this.
the way that i understand the law is that it is attempting to discourage linking the crimes that occurred on polish soil to the acts of polish nationals, and i actually think this is a historically correct position. one really should _not_ talk of polish camps, but of german camps on polish soil.
to force that in law is extreme. but, the position is technically correct.