Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Judenräte

A distinguishing feature of the Holocaust, according to historical analysis and the concensus of the article's editors, and what separates it from other genocides during WW2 (and other genocides in history), was the "efficient" manner of its implementation by the perpetrators (2.1) Yet there is no mention anywhere in the article about the role of the Judenräte in the deportation of the Jews under their watch to the camps. The leaders of the various Judenräte had different approaches to the job of providing slave labor to the Nazi regime -- distributing rations to the occupants of the Ghettos, deciding who would get on the trains, and other tasks -- but it's clear that they played a fundamental role in the organization of the round-ups and deportations. It's also clear that many of them knew that the trains were bound for extermination camps in the end, not just labor camps. Various sources also state the corrupt nature of councils, citing how it was possible, for example, to avoid deportation with a payment or bribe. Resistance was futile, of course, but the cooperation must be noted because it contributed to the "efficiency" of the Final Solution. If we omit this due to sensitivity, or because we read into the accounts that such actions must have been performed reluctantly, we risk damaging the credibility of the article; among the other entries in the "collaborators" section there is no such defense given. Where does this discussion belong: 2.1, 7.1, 7.3, 8.1, 10, and/or 12? I propose 10 and 12 among these because some Zionists argued for a sovereign state precisely because of the compromised role Jews were forced to play, the logic being that as sovereign constituents they would never again be forced to participate in their own destruction. Patrekursson 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(I injected some Umlauts into the preceding paragraph to make it's heading less ambiguous Wefa 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC) )

Archived

Nothing much about the actual article was going on, so I figured it was a good day to archive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, other than personal attacks on me for trying to learn more about the Holocaust so I can debate Revisionists, you're right that archiving it was the right thing to do. Jtpaladin 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

rewording

24.68.157.4 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) "Incineration was at first considered infeasible until it was discovered that furnaces could be kept at a high enough temperature to be sustained by the body fat of the bodies alone."

Might that read better as "Incineration was at first considered infeasible until it was discovered that furnaces could be sustained at a high enough temperature by the body fat of the bodies alone."? It's a bit confusing first time around.

Any record that this was a German idea - self-cremation with the deads' own body fat. A link on this would be good. I thought the idea of body fat cremation developed after the war to explain the lack of fuel that was available to the Germans to cremate the victims. I have never heard of any actual German document even remotely mentioning what would have been akin to cold fusion. Is this a witness testimony idea, if so, from what year? I have never heard of this technolgy being used before or since the 1940s, and in no other place but Poland. Could McDonalds, beef processors, Perdue, etc use this same technique - why don't they - would it work in the US or is this a Poland specific thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 12:56, January 9, 2007

• I dunno about present-day uses. The invention of the multiple muffle incineration furnace was certainly German -- the documentation of the invention and delivery of these is available -- and is a necessary part of such an assembly line operation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the documentation on the capacities of these furnaces available? Link? Dates on the first mention of bodies burning from their own fat? I actually thought the burning with their own fat involved outdoor cremations, but maybe I am mixing up camps. If this technology was so highly advanced in Germany in the 1940, what happened since - no current use? lost knowledge?

• (a) Please sign your posts with ~~~~. (b) Well, there's not a lot of use for high-capacity 24-hour crematoriums. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Topf double-muffle furnace is well documented, it was patented, variations on it were patented, construction diagrams were left in Auschwitz, I have seen reprints of the above in three books just in the past week since this has been "debated". As Jpgordon suggests, the on-site cremation of huge quantities at a time is not something that is profitable at the present time, and building a portable one to ship around to sites of mass disaster doesn't seem feasible. Makes one wonder just what conditions there might have been in the 1940s in Germany which would have made Topf find a good potential market for designing, patenting, and building such devices, hmm? (And why in the world would MacDonalds, Perdue, etc. want to efficiently cremate the animals they slaughter for resale as food????)Gzuckier 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The US Agricultre Dept could use this technology ( or at least have it ready ) when they have to dispose of livestock, disease etc. I am sure there would be found many uses for this technology, to say nothing of the offshoots of it. ( We the scare we are always told about - pandemic flu - millions might die - being able to cremate millions would be necessary. Fuelless cremation would be more than a minor benefit. Finding the documentation would not be a sensless endeavor - maybe someone knows whwere to look, I have far too little expertise in thermaltechnology to find it but some wikipedian must have, or know someone who does. A scientist could be a good first step, maybe someone know a scientist who will vouch for the idea. )Do you have a link as to the scientific basis of this? Link? Whether it is of use or not, it can't be documented ( citation needed unless we have a link to something scientific ) without some link. PS Reading the main article over again I noticed that there are many places that continue to need citations. They appear to be issues that are virtually uncitationable ( a new word? ). What is eventually done when no citation can be produced or the citation is a circular reference? Wiki policy - can the uncitated section continue that way forever? 159.105.80.219 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway all science is worthy of pursuit, particularly scientific events that have multiple witnesses. I have never seen a "scientist" venture forth on this subject or maybe I just haven't seen the link yet. 159.105.80.219 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This would probably be a more fruitful discussion at Talk:Cremation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there appears to be little fruitful discussion at Talk:Cremation. The modern science seems to be centered at a temperature way higher than open air burning or fat can produce - forced air with lots of high BTU fuel seems to be the modern trend. Other methods - India etc - seem to require lots of time and lots of wood and then it appears the job is only partially done, at least for the poor. The modern times are also very slow compared to the German 1940ish technology. Since this technology seems to have only been used in Poland in the 1940s - by the Germans - and is a lynchpin of the extermination camps - it appears to be a Holocaust subject. Is the Topf company still in existence?159.105.80.219 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well -- the purpose of these pages isn't for general discussion about the topic; it's for discussing the content of the pages. Anyway, the Topf company no longer exists, though it did have some post-WWII existence. If you can read German, this is a pretty good history of the company. (The automatic translation is a little silly, as always.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Incineration using human body fat is in the body of the main article. That statement deserves a citation if you have one. The article has created the discussion - particularly when it is such a dubious claim ( unless of course you have a citation - preferably of some scientific weight ).

PS The wiki article "Holocaust denial" after discussing "Censorship" seems to have been closed - wiki does have a sense of humor - abruptly. Any info on why the locking of the discussion page - maybe the watchlist participants got exhausted or ran out of ideas. The "Censorship" section of the page is particularly funny/appalling/???/(can't think of a good term).

RE "the purpose of these pages ....... it's for discussing the content of the pages." I agree completely - however the article seems to keep uncited material, ie cremation using mysteriuos undocumented methods - self burning using your own fat for just one example. If you are going to keep this kind of information in the main article then maybe you should lock the entire article and leave it like it is. If the holocaust survives as an historical event with( or in spite of )this kind/quality of evidence then of what use is it. Your enemies/friends must all be metally ill and/or ( and more likely) retarded. Do this article the same favor/honor you did to holocaust denial - close it.

Your inability to force yourself to exert the vast effort needed to use Google to check the widely available articles on a topic doth not "mysterious undocumented" make it. Gzuckier 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have finally exerted myself and found a near original source - jewishgen.org, a place you probably know and trust. Did you know that according to jewishgen.org ( or the witnesses ) that blood also was found to be a good fuel - new one on me. A strange thing happened with the fat fuel however. Instead of burning up it was found in the pits as a layer at the bottom. The fat fuel seems to have caused the cremation and instead of being consumed like all other fuels it reappears and deposits itself beneath the ashes, not on top after it has done its thing. Of course it deposited itself at the bottom of pits that our old friend Krege couldn't find. Google didn't help much on the patent thing though - any links?

Jewishgen as an organization does not do any research itself, it is more like Wikipedia, it collects information provided by its members. It cannot be cited as a source. Please give us the exact source of the information above, i.e. on what kind of web page it was found (discussion archive? yizkor page?) and what was the original source of information.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Google really does work - H Tauber, F Mueller, R Hoess( camp commandant), wikipedia articles ( Bergen Belsen footnotes I believe lead to a women witness who testified at Nuremberg or one of the other trials), ..... Raul Hilberg quotes Mueller a lot for one impeccable citation ( I hope Hilberg is still on good terms with everyone). Hoess - either at Nuremberg or in later writings ( in pencil ) was persuaded to tell his story, including the fat for fuel version. Tauber seems to be a well qouted eyewitness - too easy to find to need much citation. He's the one who ate his sandwich in the gas cahmber I believe, scooped up fat to feed the fire, etc. - Pressac' Auschwitz. Most of this stuff - testimony - made it to the big time , court transcripts, scholarly books, Vad Vashem, etc.

Cheer up, http://www.cremationassociation.org/html/article-weight.html has some information on cremation and fat content. The self-cremation story it turns out does have a slight scientific basis. If the person to be cremated is morbidly obese then caution has to be used in the initial stages of cremation - the fat BTUs can cause heat ( even self-sustaining cremation can occur for a short period ) that can harm the oven. However, in a prison camp the likelyhood of many 300+lb bodies is probably remote and having enough of them to maintain the whole operation is unlikely. After the initial stage, however, the process requires considerable fuel and time. Not all good news but there is a kernel of truth to the story - I hope that someone with a kernel of knowledge hasn't lead everyone down a path that ends poorly. Fat can't do it but coke/coal/wood/etc could. I believe the problem may be that the availible supplies of fuel are not sufficient to handle the stated victim counts, probably why this straw was grasped at by a non-technical type ( unless of course someone can come up with the patent of the purported technique and demonstate to modern science/crematorium operators how it is done ). PS The BTU in fat, at 17 times tissue BTUs, still only are able to partially consume their(fat) mass.

Really cheer up - coke as is said to be used for the cremations has always been ribbed(ridiculed) because it was stated that only 3.5kg per body was avaiilable is actually a possible fuel. At 12,400 BTUs per lb 3.5 kg of coal coke could consume 95.48+- lbs of animal waste ( rendering plant data - all I could find ). If my arithmetic is okay then, discount the bones and assume most victims were skinny then 3.5kg could work for an average sized man/big woman/couple of children/..., more or less ( if the operation was more or less continuous - no cool down except for repairs/iffy ). Does anyone have the BTUs of fat or flesh ( 17 times more BTUs in fat )? Some witness may have seen the cremation of an unusually large body that ( if the BTU formula works out ) could have consumed or largely consumed itself or at least the flesh. It is however unlikely that fat cremation is a viable overall procedure - but it may work in unusual circumstances. PSPS Can't work - 3500 calories per lb of fat

                                              - 252 calories = 1 BTU, gives 14 BTU/lb fat
                                              - with 1000 BTU needed per lb of flesh
                                              - would need 71 lbs of fat for 1 lb of flesh to
                                                burn yourself
                                              - 98.6% fat is awfully fat.

During Irving's suit vs. Lipstadt and Penguin, which is a delightful repository of well-documented and discussed evidence pro and con, the defense introduced German patent application T58240 for a "Continuous Operation Corpse Incineration Furnace for Intensive Use", applied for by Topf and Sons, and read into the record from an engineering report on the application: "After ... preheating the oven will not need any more fuel due to the heat produced by the corpses. It will be able to maintain its necessary high temperature through selfheating."

Also, try Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp by Israel Gutman, Michael Berenbaum, and Yisrael Gutman, where you can see the historical diagrams of the Topf double-muffle crematory furnace (page 193, photo on page 192), a diagram of Auschwitz crematorium I drawn Dec. 9, 1940 on the basis of Topf blueprint D, Nov. 30, 1940 (page 194), a diagram of the modification to that crematorium drawn Feb. 3, 1941 (page 195), etc. etc.

Auschwitz oven builders scrutinized at new Berlin exhibition

Thursday, July 21, 2005

BERLIN, July 21 - Hartmut Topf has spent a lifetime trying to comprehend why family firm Topf & Soehne agreed 64 years ago to build crematoria for Auschwitz and enable industrialized mass murder.

He knows there can be no satisfactory answer.

A new Berlin exhibition sheds light on Topf, one of countless largely forgotten small firms to provide the technical know-how for the Holocaust. It tries to trace why this eastern German furnace maker became entangled with the Nazis, despite sensing what the ovens were being used for.

Fresh archive evidence shows the brothers who ran Topf, cousins of Hartmut's father, were not fanatic Nazis and faced no personal risk for declining orders for furnaces from Hitler's elite SS guards.

Nor were they in it for the money. Crematoria and ventilation systems for the concentration camps comprised only two percent of their turnover, and the SS paid late.

Rather a picture emerges of a firm of meticulous technocrats, motivated by the "challenge" of perfecting and installing incinerators capable of burning thousands of corpses daily, and blinded by the detail to their moral crime.

"It is unthinkable," says 70-year-old Hartmut Topf.

"It makes me furious that these were my relatives . . . they were no anti-Semites, no evil Nazis. They were normal people, in a completely normal firm, which only makes it harder to understand," he adds.

A fifth of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust were killed at Auschwitz, along with homosexuals, Gypsies, Polish political prisoners and Soviet prisoners of war.

The Nazi death camps employed hundreds of contractors to provide equipment and expertise for the "Final Solution".

While the collaboration of German industrial giants such as IG Farben, which provided deadly Zyklon B for the gas chambers, is well documented, the role of smaller firms and the extent to which they escaped unpunished after World War Two has faded from view.

Loaded name

"I was proud as a child because Topf was a successful, world-renowned firm," Hartmut Topf explains.

This pride evaporated when as an 11-year-old he watched footage of the camps in cinema newsreels, and saw the "Topf" name plaque, borne by all the firm's products, on the crematoria of Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Later Topf determined to establish the details and atone for the past.

"I went to Auschwitz and greeted an old man there, telling him my name was Topf. 'Your name has a bad ring here,' he told me. 'I know. That is why I am here,' I answered."

Topf & Sons was founded by Hartmut's great-grandfather in 1878, in Erfurt, as a customized incinerator and malting equipment manufacturer. The firm was close to the Ettersberg hill, later the site of Buchenwald concentration camp.

With the expansion of cremation in Germany as a burial rite in the 1920s, the firm's ambitious chief engineer Kurt Prüfer pioneered furnaces which complied with strict regulations on preserving the dignity of the body.

Naked flame could not come in contact with the coffin, and cremation was to be smoke and odour free.

Aware of the firm's reputation, the SS approached Prüfer in 1939, with an order for a crematorium for Buchenwald after an epidemic killed hundreds of prisoners.

Prüfer designed crematoria resembling incinerators for animal carcasses, knowing the dead were not to be burned individually or in coffins, nor were ashes to be separated.

The orders came rolling in, as Prüfer strived to create more efficient furnaces. Firm documents in the exhibition prove he visited Auschwitz several times and saw his ovens close to "the bathhouses for special operations".

Rather than feel disgust, Prüfer merely deliberated the practical problems of extermination. Transcripts of his 1948 interrogations by Russian forces show he never felt remorse.

"Prüfer threatened to resign at one point over lack of salary, they (Ernst-Wolfang and Ludwig Topf) should have let him go . . . but they didn't. They continued to show this stupid loyalty to the regime," Topf says.

After the Nazis abandoned Auschwitz in [January] 1945 Prüfer even suggested to the SS they could reassemble parts of the furnaces in Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria.

"It sends shivers down my spine," Topf adds.

Aftermath

Topf name plates on the ovens couldn't have made it easier for the Allies to trace the firm.

The Americans released Prüfer after a few weeks, but once the Soviets arrived in Erfurt he was sentenced to 25 years and died in 1952 in a Russian gulag.

Ludwig Topf killed himself in May 1945, claiming his innocence in a jumble of excuses left in a suicide note.

His brother Ernst-Wolfgang fled to western Germany and was put on trial by the Americans. He talked his way out of the charges, maintaining the ovens were "innocent", and founded a new incinerator business, operating until bankruptcy in 1963.

He even tried unsuccessfully to secure a patent for a "monster four-storey" furnace designed during the war, Hartmut Topf explains.

"There was no historical insight at the time. Only excuses and pleas that people could have done nothing else. It makes me sick."

Today, Topf & Sons former Erfurt premises stand empty and dilapidated. The firm was nationalized by the Communists and survived until 1996. Authorities plan to buy the site and set up a permanent exhibition and memorial.

Gzuckier 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is a bit of confusion on historical argument here. One question is whether human fat as fuel is an efficient fuel or not--this is in part a technical issue, and frankly, of limited interest here. It may be interesting only in conjunction with the analysis of other fuels. But what is important is whether it was believe at the time of the Holocaust that fat could help in the burning of bodies, whether practices consistent with this belief were put in place in the crematoria, and whether the witnesses and documentation corroborate the *existance* of these practices. And, as far as I know, it was, they were, and they do.--Ninarosa 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the patent referenced above was files 8 years after WW2. Most important it doesn't work. If Germans and Jews believed it worked in WW2 and used it and it can't work then we would have a huge pile of unburned bodied. ( What a stupid argument - if they believed it worked.. unless you are saying the eyewitness/es were wrong.) If you want to leave garbage in your article - unreferenced - then be my quest. As a matter of fact it is good to have revisionist arguments buried in the main article - immortalized as it were. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 12:57, January 29, 2007

• Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that patent T58240, filed on November 5, 1942, was filed 8 years after WW2? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain better. For centuries, physicians believe that bleeding patients with leeches would release the "humors" that made them sick. HOw do we know it? well, a number of physicians wrote about the success of the technique. Patients described it. We have drawings of people been treated with leeches. All these descriptions and documents are corroborating evidence of a practice that... didn't really work to heal much. Patients got better for some other means. Some died. But the evidence, from many different sources, tell us that people believed it worked and invested time and resources and technology. That is what I am saying. If body fat helps or does not help in the burning of bodies is a technical question, and must be understood in a larger context, analyzing other fuel sources used in conjunction, and the fuel expenditure made for different periods, as well as the number of new arrivals (it was a technique used mostly when new victims arrived to the camp, not yet emaciated by starvation). But the fact that victims and perpetrators described independently these techniques, corroborates, as I said, *the existence* of these practices--corroborates also the *concern* of the nazis on how to burn huge amounts of corpses with the most efficient use of fuel. It is NOT a denier argument--just the opposite.--Ninarosa 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS.: Anthropologists have long discussed cremating practices in different societies, and adding fat to the pyre is a common technique, observed since 1906. That body fat increases the speed of cremation has also been observed, and not necessarily related to obesity. Reference: H Williams, Death Warmed up: The Agency of Bodies and Bones in Early Anglo-Saxon Cremation Rites, Journal of Material Culture 9 (3): 263. However, reading better your question regarding the sentence, I would also feel more confortable with a good reference that showed that incineration was thought "infeasible" at any point. I understand that Germans were constantly concerned about fuel efficiency, but not that they believed incineration was "infeasible". I may be wrong, of course, but I have just reviewed the article by Zimmerman on body disposal (whre there are references to testimonies on this subject) and did not find anything sustaining this idea (i.e., that "incineration was thought infeasible"). The testimonies on the other hand support the idea that fuel efficiency was an issue, and that the use of body fat was thought to be a solution. See http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/ --Ninarosa 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

T58240 - I thought you were referring to a 1951 Topf patent - more relevant to the fat issue but still far off the mark. By the way do you have a link to the T58240 - my understanding is that it is an improvement on older types but not a quantum leap forward - maybe it is - link? Germans could/can be concerned about fuel efficiency but contradicting laws of nature is even beyond them ( creating matter and more heat out than heat in is unlikely - if it can be done call up Al Gore, global warming and all. The #12 archive has a blurb from the Irving trial where I believe the judge mentions the patent ( I assume T58240 ) but concedes that it has not much to do with the actually in stalled ones - "same principle" was as close as he came, how he knows much about thermodynamics is beyond me but he obviously thinks he does. Prufer - the Topf engineer - in 1946 testified about a "firnace" that had a conveyor belt that carried bodies continuuously. However, I have never heard that it was ever constructed. This particular type of contraption is the only way that cremations on the scale of a holocaust could have happened. The fat burnig myth seems to be one that is going to die a long slow death - My suggestion is to keep it in the article, as I said before an historical memorial to where the issue stood in the early 2000s. PS Please post the T58240 link even if it is irrelevant, it seems to be a document that is rarely mentioned ( this discussion page and 1 other sentence is all I could find, hopefully the entire text is available ) and never quoted.

• (a) Please sign your comments with ~~~~. (b) I don't have the source for the patent itself. However, [1] refers to J.A. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt, Patent Application, "Kontinuierliche arbeitender Leichen-Verbrennungsofen für Massenbetrieb," Archive Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, BW 30/44. Possibly you'll need to do some physical document research (perhaps in Oswiecim) to view the full text; as far as I can tell the German online patent database only goes back to 1967. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have the patent document then I assume everyone who uses it as a source probably doesn't have it and probably never has even seen it. So much for using the patent pro or con ( maybe someone who lives in Germany can obtain it ( I doubt that it is available - just a hunch - and I wouldn't suggest that anyone, without strong proholocaust creds try to get it ). It seems to boil down to what was there couldn't work and what could work wasn't there - the surviving crematoria are not even near Prufer's statement ( four stories tall - unless he was giving a description of the chimney which would have been more than a little disingenuous on his part ). Just down the road were blast furnaces and producer gas but no the story has to stick to a couple of small crematorium and insecticide - who would have guessed.

Assume what you like; it's all a giant conspiracy with fake patent documents, fake blueprints, fake eyewitnesses, fake census data, fake history of Topf and Sons, etc. etc. etc. Get back to us when you've looked for the document and found it absent. Too bad Irving's lawyers when he sued Lipstadt et al didn't have your perspecacity, he might have won.

As for your mysterious disbelief in the flammability of the mixture of diverse flammable hydrocarbons known as the human body, what drives this Chemistry Denial? The human body, like any living body, is composed of lipids (oils and fats), carbohydrates (sugars and starches), and proteins (carbohydrates, with added nitrogen). I assume you don't object to the concept of lipids burning, having seen gasoline, kerosene, etc., which have the same empirical formula. Carbohydrates also burn, having the same empirical formula as cellulose; a piece of spaghetti makes a good fireplace match, for example. Proteins burn since they have the same empirical formula as carbohydrates, except for the stink of the added nitrogen. In fact, if you weren't denying during biology class, you might have learned that your body is fueled by the oxidation of the lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins of the living creatures you place in your orifice. There's plenty of energy available, as any diet book will tell you; 9 kcal/gram for oxidation of lipids, 4 kcal/gram for carbohydrates or protein. Try lighting a potato chip sometime, to see what a mixture of carbohydrates and lipds can do. The only obstacle to ignition of this combination of flammable compounds is the large volume of water in which it is suspended, which prevents reaching the ignition temperature. To remove this water it is sufficient to heat the body; luckily, the heat to do so can be found in a large, continuously operating furnace. What part of this do you consider "what couldn't work"? Do you have anything further to add, above infantile nihilism; "No it isn't!" "Prove it!! "I don't believe you!"? There are many other fora for you to air this gestalt, while Wikipedia has goals to achieve other than your airing your indefatigable Pseudoskepticism. Gzuckier 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gzuckier, without getting to the denial/not denial dilemma, I do think we should focus on the idea of editing the sentence: "Incineration was at first considered infeasible until it was discovered that furnaces could be kept at a high enough temperature to be sustained by the body fat of the bodies alone. With this technicality resolved, the Nazis implemented their plan of mass murder on its full scale."

I am not convinced, without a reference, that "incineration was at first considered infeasible". I am not convinced that the use of body fat was hailed as *the* solution for this problem, although I *am* convinced that the Nazis instituted practices to take advantage of any energy gains that could be derived from the use of body fat. We remember that Nazis tried to bury bodies in Auschwitz, in the beginning, and because of the underground water and fears of contamination, they gave up (in fact, I believe they had to dig out bodies). As far as I understand, the use of body fat might have been developed over time, as they were concerned with energy efficiency. I also would like to have a better quote for the fact that fat sustained the cremation of the bodies alone. That was what the Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber said:

"Conversely the corpses of people gassed on arrival, not being wasted, burned better in the center muffle. During the incineration of such corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat."

Another Sonderkommando Filip Muller, only said that fat bodies were burned together with emaciated bodies and that, "Members of these groups [SS men and civilian visitors to the crematoria] were especially interested in the amount of coke required to burn corpses of any particular category," which supports the idea of experimentation (instead of a previous solution to a certain problem deemed "infeasible"). He confirms Tauber that body fat increased the efficience of the furnaces, when he said:

"Thus it was decreed that the most economical and fuel saving procedure would be to burn the bodies of a well-nourished man and an emaciated woman, or vice versa, together with that of a child, because, as the experiments had established, in this combination, once they had caught fire, the dead would continue to burn without further coke being required."

Hoess only mentioned at Nuremberg "that three bodies would be burned simultaneously and that the bodies of fat people burned faster"--he did not say if coke still had to be used or not, of if "fat alone" could sustain the cremation. (All the testimonies are from the Zimmerman article.)

Basically, there is still much that we DON'T know about the Holocaust. I am not ready to stop asking questions just because deniers love to point these obscure points to cry "Jewish conspiracy". But this is beside the point, and it is NOT the goal of Wikipedia to do original research, if I understand correctly. Our point here is to edit the articles to the best of our capacity and to the best of scientific knowledge. I am just not conviced that this particular wording is good enough, for the reasons pointed above.--Ninarosa 08:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No patent I guess. By the way Hoess said alot of things that were not true - he appears to be telling anything you wanted to hear. He would give any death count you wanted, names of all the camps, even make up names for places that didn't exist. I wouldn't go too far out on the Hoess limb. {unsigned|159.105.80.63}}

So there's no patent because we can't make the original document materialise in front of your eyes via the internet? Have you ever done any historical research? Paul B 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Denialist's Creed:

If informed of something, I shall not believe; if something is pointed to, I shall not follow; if something exists, I shall not look for it; if something is shown to me, I shall not look at it; if forced to look at something, I shall not see it; if forced to see something, I shall refrain from understanding it. For my intellect is greater than that of those who disagree with me, and thus my knowledge of Truth is not susceptible to alteration by the mere existence of evidence.

Gzuckier 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering some of the concerns here, I rewrote that particular paragraph. I am just not sure it now fits well in the text. Please feel free to improve my grammar! --Ninarosa 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't seem to materialize in front of my eyes, your eyes, or the eyes of anyone. If it existed and did it' trick it is doubtful that 60 years of researchers wouldn't use it. The patent summary doesn't seem to be for a fat burning oven - sorry. Maybe the number is wrong? Do you have any other sources for fat being so useful for cremation? Let's either prove this idea or pound it into the ground. I am afraid you lost me in thr "Truth" is not susceptible to alteration by the mere existence of evidence." - does this mean you found the patent, or not? What we need is evidence so we can get the truth - "truth" will follow evidence ( at least in the fat/blood burning neighborhood ). Of course I am even suspicious as to what "truth" and "evidence" may mean on wiki.

Per Ninarosa - no original research. I agree - for deniers the very best holocaust article that wiki could ever produce would highlight this section. Of course any eyewitness testimony would also be appreciated. I feel stupid arguing against a gem like this section - thanks Ninarosa ( in the heat of a debate I shot myself in the foot. ) I forget the purpose is to make this article sound as dumb as possible.

60 minutes

60 minutes said that 17.5 million were killied in the holocaust and since 60 minutes knows what they are talking about it should be changed

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/main2267927.shtml

Rollaround 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the number was 6 million. 60 Minutes is getting off the reservation, no? 159.105.80.219 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The records show 17.5 million people killed in the holocaust and out of those 6 million had some hebro connection that is where the origianl 6 million comes from that is what the nazies own records show that now have beome avalible for all people to read, beofre only people with permision were able to read. Rollaround 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The report says that the documents "hold the records of 17 million victims", including slave labourers, political prisoners etc. Among them, it states, are the people who worked in Schindler's factory. Of course, we know they survived, so the 17 million is not the number of deaths, merely the number of people whose names are recorded in the documents, many of whom survived. Paul B 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the show anyone can see it 17.5 million is the numbers of DEATHS, stop trying to white wash the nazi crimes. Rollaround 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash the Nazi crimes? Excuse me??? "Anyone" can't see from the link you provided that 17.5 million is the number of deaths. I did not see the show, but the site you posted makes it absolutely clear that the number refers to the people who are listed in the documents. In any case, not all deaths in the war were the result of the holocaust. It's also clear from the comments posted on the site that the show was not very accurate in several respects. Paul B 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What some poster writes on the internet page about the show does not matter, all that matters is what they said on 60 minutes which unlike you and any other person has a burden of proof if they were to say a lie then they would be sued and they would lose their license, if you read real history books you can see that the numbers are correct. 60 minuts has real reporters and can dig up real information. The number 17.5 million is of who died in the holocaust. Do not forget that the total civilian losses of Poland was 6 million and the Soviet Union 20 million plus around 10 million military dead so 17.5 million dying in the holocaust is a very correct number Rollaround 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read some books. 60 minutes is not a very authoritative source. Historians take priority over TV journalists. Paul B 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollaround, just be careful. The 6 million figure for Poland does include 3 million Polish Jews. There is some overlapping here. I think the Nikzor Project mentions something around 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews). Most historians believe that this number of 5 milion non-Jews is quite a low estimate (specially considering Russia), so 17 million is not too far from an acceptable figure, regarding orders of magnitude. The problem, however, is to define WHO is a victim of the Holocaust. If it is only civilians, then the soviet soldiers who were gassed in the camps would not be included? Should we include the Russian peasants who starved when the Germans invaded? Or were those only civilian victims of conventional war, as it happened in previous wars? Historians tend to very careful in general estimates for this reason. I think if we can find a written source for a 17.5 number of deaths, it could be included, provided that the text makes clear it is an estimate, and mentions the problems of quoting any figure.Ninarosa 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jews make up 6 million then the Holocaust was primarily a nonJewish operation. I thought - have read - that it was primarily to exterminate Jews - were there other Wannsee type directives to exterminate other groups?

I do not know, due to my ignorance, of existence of any Wannsee Conference type documents, but, off the top of my head, the following groups faced total extermination as well: Roma (gypsies), homosexuals, communists, people with mental deficiencies, etc. Also, a whole family of ethnicities, namely Slavs, were considered "Untermenschen" (sp?) and were often discriminated, conscripted for Slave labor, cleansed, etc. Goliath74 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

among those, however, the Jews were the larger singular group, and the propaganda associated to them makes the Jewish, the Roma and the people with mental deficiencies, very central to the idea of the Holocaust. There are the documents for the T4, with directive to eliminate people with mental deficiencies, and there were documents agains the Roma, as well.Ninarosa 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment above - "historians take priority over". Does science take precedence over historians? If something is shown to be scientifically impossible can it be historically accurate?

Yes, but first you have to show it. You don't. Paul B 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea that science takes precedence over witnesses,etc has been slow in coming to the holocaust debate, progress?

Citations.

Hello all. I've recently checked out a book about the Holocaust and have been using information to cite anything I can find. However, I'd like to ask a question.Please see the Experiments section, the last sentence. It lists a bunch of concentration camps that once were not cited, but I already did. However, in my book, it did not state specifically in the book those camp names, but it did say so in the Index section of the book. Simply, the camps weren't majorly stated (as in their own articles in the books, only in small excerpts, such as timelines). See, let's use Dachau as an example:

Dachau (Germany)

concentration camp 119,

138, 144, 191, 193, 495

555-56, 665, 696

administration tried, 634
bread distributed at, 634
commandant of, 428
Communists sent to, 59
corpses in, 609

.....and it goes on and on. So, what I'm asking is... are those cites okay? Again, they do come out in the index. But they are not stated majorly as in their own pages and stuff, just mentioned in those pages above (for example, page 119 is mentioned in a section about a Jew named Martin Niemöler who was sent to concentration camps like Dachau and Sachenhausen). Thanks in advance. Uh, I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with questions or confused you, I just want to know whether I'm doing the right thing or not. Cheers! --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

--Nikki Fagin 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

color photo of corpses??

in the victims section of this article, there is a photo of a pile of corpses. i was just wondering if color photography was available at the time--STANE 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stane,click on the image. It is not exactly a color photography, but comes from "a historical political poster, button, flier or banner". Probably the color was added later. But I agree that there should be a reference.Ninarosa 07:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Babi Yar photo - I clicked the photo and was surprised to see what I had thought to be a photo of bodies - bad eyesight - was actually what appeared to be sorted piles of clothing. Any info on this photo? The background seemed to be ambiguous. No way to place it by landmarks that I could see.

This photo looks fake to me, added for effect. Only other place I have seen this photo is on encyclopediadramatica. Saintrotter 26 January 2007

The first colour photos were made in France during the 1920's. Both Germany and America were exsperimenting with colour movies in the 1930's. --Strento 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the source of this photo? Where do it say they come from Auschwitz? Where do it say they are Jewish? Where do it say this photo was even made in 1940s? Saintrotter 2 February

It looked like a modern computer grafic to me!--Nikbar Sini 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

More Maths

The 6,000,000 total dead in German-run concentration camps is a combination of Jews, Germans, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. It is not accurate to assume all 6M were Jewish. I think the article should reflect this information. Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be an exact total for the carnage of WWII. Rough estimates will always have to be pulled in and analyzed and a "best guess" prepared. As such, we shouldn't rush to forget the other peoples who died. Please advise before I change the article--Legomancer 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of the article are you proposing to change? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Legomancer, the estimates for the death toll of Jews during the holocaust is between 5 and 7 million--and they are NOT all in concentration camps. See Hillberg or Wolfgang Benz (both are listed in the references), or here http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/deaths.shtml I don't have the numbers for the deaths in the camps (combining Jews, Germans, Poles, Roma & Sinti, communists, etc), but that is not what the commonly quoted figure of 6 millions refers to. --Ninarosa 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I hered on RTE that 6,000,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Gipsys and 50,000 Fremasons were killed in the holocaust! --Longend. 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilberg gives a surviving population of 18,265,601 and a revised death total of 1,003,392. The World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation gives a 1962 population of 17,583,057 and a death total of 1,593,292. Oddly both sources somehow still hold to the 6,000,000 total - this appears to be beyond the realm of debate and research.

(159.105.80.63 please sign you comments ). I am afraid you are wrong. I can consult Hilberg directly if you want, but if I recall correctly, the death toll of little over 1 million deaths is for AUSCHWITZ ALONE. His total death toll is 5,109,822 (which is of course a sum of recorded numbers and estimates). I don't remember Hilberg giving any figure for an estimate of the total surviving Jewish population, and I would thank you if you could give me a concrete reference for that, with page number. But I found this high number to be quite unlikely, since there are not this many Jews today. I would appreciate also to see a reference for the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation with the figures you quote. I would be quite surprised.--Ninarosa 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to see some references on the World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation - or the similarly sounding group that Hilberg mentioned in his testimony at the Zundel trial. Neither group seems to want to stand up and take credit for their research. I will keep searching, join in the search - one lead is the name of the individual who was the head, but he seems likewise incognito.

Aryeh Leon Kubovy - director of WCCJD. Also in 1936 the founder of World Jewish Congress I believe. In 1960 declared that no document ordering the holocaust existed. Any organization he directed should have some surviving historical data. Leon Poliakov was the director of a similar sounding organization ( similar to WCCJD ) that Hilberg seems to have heard of at the Zundel trial.

It did happen!

It is a globaly documented fact, in both film, books, photos and eye-witness accounts; so it can't be dined! The holocaust did happen! --Lilidor 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So is the Loch Ness Monster. Saintrotter 27 January 2007

If you have useful information, queries or proposals, add them. Please don't bore us with asinine remarks. Paul B 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"us" Do you speak for everyone? Something like the Borg of wiki? Do you deny the Loch Ness Monster is globaly documented fact, in both film, books, photos and eye-witness accounts? If you're right I am very sorry for my stupid (asinine) remarks. Saintrotter 27 January 2007

Apology accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out Ironic Jpgordon Saintrotter 27 January 2007

Check out Holocaust (resources), Saintrotter. --GHcool 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know holocaust resources very well, pity I can't post the other side of the coin without being branded (if not already) as a nazi and losing my account. Check out Bias GHcool. Saintrotter 27 January 2007

Check out Historical method, Saintrotter. --GHcool 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also well documented that the Nazis killed off the Gypsys and Disabeled in the Porojomas and Aktion T-4 respectivly. Nazi newsreal and alied footage bare testiomy to this. I have seen the Aushwitz memorial in Poland and beleve it to be true! --Lilidor 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also been there. 15 of the ovens still live on! --Strento 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Even some of the German guards working at the camps have confessed to there exsistance! --Homer slips. 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

He is right, I've bi ther to. --Bobie Alice Flinker 03:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion section is not a general forum, but a place to discuss changes in the article. Goalie1998 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Big Russian could smear on Germany.--Nikbar Sini 04:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Goalie998 is right! --Nikki Fagin 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Uniqueness

I apologize if this has come up before. Currently, the article states "The Nazi Holocaust had several characteristics that, taken together, distinguish it from other genocides in history." Obviously, all genocides have had features that distinguish them from other genocides. The uniqueness of the holocaust is an issue that has been relatively controversial within genocide studies. If we are going to make the claim that the holocaust was especially unique (rather than just describe the attributes that made it unique) it seems that we should reference the fact that this is a controversial claim. Ethan Mitchell 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. If we want to be picky, every historical event is unique. But the claim is not that the Holocaust is "unique". The sentence is preparing to list the characteristics that distinguish THIS genocide from others--in the entry for the Armenians, there will be listed the characteristics that distinguish THAT genocide from others. --Ninarosa 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but the philosophical/political/theological uniqueness of the holocaust is a fairly well-known point of contention within genocide studies, and this sentence easily reads as supporting one POV. Ethan Mitchell 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust was unique in it's blend of eugenical/anti-Semitic/anti-Gipsy/homaphobic psudo-ideals. --Longend. 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The exstermination of the American Indians was worse!

Killing 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 over just 7 years IS faily unique.

Even if the number of 6,000,000 is true (but it is very doubtful), the Russians in the same time have lost about 30 millions, 1/3 of whom were civilians. So what is so unique in Jewish Holocaust except capability of Jewish community to PR this story?--Igor "the Otter" 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

I edited the explanation for the popularity of holocaust denial among Muslim critics of Israel. There is no need to say that "it is a baseless claim" (the whole article makes this point!), but it is important to explain why it has become popular. On the ohter hand, to be fair, it would also be important to say that many Palestinians and many Iranians (mostly Iranians in exile) have disassociated themselves from the "conference" in Iran, and denounced it as the political event it was. But I wonder how much Holocaust denial should be developed here, since there is an article on this topic.--Ninarosa 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

^{Irvin was on target, I read his books about it.}

The holocaust denaial article - wiki - appears to be locked ( even the discussion page ) except for insiders. It appears they were learning too much - their discussions with themselves are noticably softball.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No move.--Húsönd 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust → Holocaust — As per WP:NCD, we should avoid the use of the word "the" if it is not an official name or a title of a work ("the" is usually not capitalized). As well, we should avoid "the" unless it turns what would otherwise be a general term into a specific one. This works for pentagon vs. The Pentagon, and crown vs. The Crown, where the generic terms gain some meaning with "the", but in this case, 99% of Google searches for "Holocaust" (without "the") refer to the World War II Holocaust. The term is also sometimes used without the word "the" (e.g. "Holocaust survivors"). Finally, Holocaust already redirects here. Bssc81 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nom.- Bssc81 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Weak support I can understand where the nom is coming from but after seeing it referred to as The Holocaust, it's hard to give full fledge support. I think a large part of my conflict is that the term holocaust (with a little "h") is one that can be used to describe any mass ethnic killing, not just the 20th cent European one. Part of the usage of The Holocaust is as a signifier of magnitude of this event. But again, I would say that policy is on the nom's side and hence my support. It just doesn't quote feel right. After further consideration, I just can't support this. 205.157.110.11 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. This is a textbook case for WP:NCD. See arguments and examples in discussion section below. —  AjaxSmack  01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. The fact that "Holocaust" already redirects here suggests that there is no debate as to whether there might be confusion between a generic vs. specific use of "Holocaust". This is analogous to Punisher (rather than The Punisher). Yes, "punisher" could be a generic term, but given that 99% of uses refer to the comic hero, there is no need to add "the". The same is happening here (as AjaxSmack points out). If people were worried that "Holocaust" (without "the") might be considered a generic term, then Holocaust would be a disambiguation page, and would not redirect to The Holocaust. The fact that there is a redirect indicates that "the" is superfluous here. 74.100.100.142 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. AjaxSmack examples are very persuasive. Daizus 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes What's the big fuss, it happend 60 years ago and was a big, boaring 'yawn'!}} --Elspeth Monro 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. No. "Holocaust" is a generic term, especially nowadays; it's used for a wide range of horrors. "The Holocaust" means one thing and one thing only. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2. No. In addition to the categorical use of holocaust to refer to other genocides, it's feasible that at some point we'll have an article about the original concept of "holocaust" as a burnt offering, or whatever, and in that case we will be double-parked. Ethan Mitchell 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The definite article makes it clear that we are referring to a specific event (it's comparable to the pentagon example given below). It helps minimise fruitless debate on the Talk page about whether the "X holocaust" and the "Y holocaust" should be included in this article. Paul B 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - "The Holocaust" is a proper noun. That's determined by popular use - official names don't enter into it. --Yath 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - "The Holocaust" is unique in it's size and intent. It is also as, far as I can tell the only genoside that was called a "Holocaust". Also note that "The Anthal" of the Kurds in 1990's Iraq is aparently the only "Anthal" of Kurds. --86.29.249.148 06:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
6. No, it's most definatly one of a kind and unique both in it's political and raceist crarictor.--Strento 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose; we should have an article on holocaust, in general; I don't feel like writing it today. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per jpgordon, Paul B and Yath. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose I've been mulling on this one since I gave my weak support and I agree with Septentrionalis that there should be an article on "holocaust" (little "h") to better distinguish the magnitude of the 20th cent. European Holocaust. It is its own singular event that is separate from the concept of "holocaust". 205.157.110.11 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose — I agree that we are referring to this event in history and only this event in history. Besides, it's rather known as The Holocaust than just Holocaust. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose — The difference between "holocaust" and "The Holocaust" is the difference between "civil war" and "The Civil War" (in American usage). --GHcool 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
12. No We must not foget and succome to to anti-Semitisum again!--86.29.248.52 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose I have never come across in any serious history book any other reference than "the holocaust". Take for example Professor Bauers address to the German Bundestag [2] and remove "the" from the term "the holocaust" to see why making the change is not only confusing but strange. Likewise, I don't remember ever seeing a reference to the "German holocaust" or the "European holocaust".Joel Mc 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Do not agree with the discussion below; "the" is only dropped when the term is being used as an adjective, and this is not an adjective. "A Holocaust survivor" is equivalent to "a survivor of the Holocaust", not "a survivor of Holocaust". Dekimasuが... 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Here are the points laid out in a better format in favor of this move:

• As per WP:NCD, we should avoid the use of the word "the" if it is not an official name or a title of a work ("the" is usually not capitalized).
• As well, we should avoid "the" unless it turns what would otherwise be a general term into a specific one. This works for pentagon vs. The Pentagon, and crown vs. The Crown, where the generic terms gain some meaning with "the".
• But in this case, 99% of Google searches for "Holocaust" (without "the") refer to the World War II Holocaust.
• The term is also sometimes used without the word "the" (e.g. "Holocaust survivors").
• Finally, Holocaust already redirects here.

---

For those who say the "The" is an integral part of the name, please test these:

David Irving is considered a The Holocaust denier.

Many The Holocaust survivors live in Israel.

The name "Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre" should be changed to "The Montreal The Holocaust Memorial Centre."

All othe pages about The Holocaust like Holocaust memorials and Holocaust museum should have their names changed too.

—  AjaxSmack  01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• If people were actually worried that Holocaust would make it a generic term, then as I said above, Holocaust would not already redirect here. Besides, as is the case with major shared names, the most prevalent or "base" case gets the main article. (For example, Casablanca points to the city - it does not need further disambiguation despite other prevalent uses of the word.) 74.100.100.142 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or test these:

• Osama bin Laden is considered a The Pentagon attacker
• Many The Pentagon officials live in Washington
• The list of "Former Pentagon Officials" should be changed to "Former The Pentagon Officials".

Paul B 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just to counter AjaxSmack I have tested a couple of your examples and came up with the following:

David Irving is considered a denier of The Holocaust.

Many of The Holocaust survivors live in Israel.

Not saying i neccesarily disagree with you but i am just playing devils advocate. Deckchair 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe in English you would write "a denier of the Holocaust" and "many of the Holocaust survivors". Daizus 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples distract from the issue. No-one says "I am a The Beatles fan". They say "I am a fan of the Beatles" or "I am a Beatles fan". That does not help us to decide whether their article should be called Beatles or The Beatles. Paul B 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples don't distract from the issue; they merely expose me as incorrigibly opposed to extraneous articles in titles (including Beatles) and there are still other issues that Bssc81 points out, e.g., generic Holocaust without the article already redirects here thus destroying the ambiguity argument. —  AjaxSmack  19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your examples distract because, as I have attempted to show with my Pentagon and Beatles examples, they do not distinguish between legitimate and inappropriate uses of the definite article according to the policies you quote. They simply create the false impression that the use of the definite article is somehow absurd. It's mystification. Paul B 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say this to finish, as it seems there are too many opposed for it to matter. What all the examples prove is that "the" is not mandatory when referring to the Holocaust, and is EXACTLY why it should be removed here (just as it should be in "Beatles". Consider when "the" must stay - when it is officially part of the title. For example, "the" should not be eliminated when discussing The Hague, or The Old Man and the Sea. However, there is no reason that Beatles should be treated any differently than Punisher. Wikipedia created a special rule for situations like Pentagon vs. The Pentagon, because the name without "the (in this case, "pentagon") had its own article. Thus "The Pentagon" is better than Pentagon (U.S. government). Similar issues exist with crown vs. The Crown. This issue does NOT exist here, because Holocaust already redirects here. Had Holocaust been a generic article about what "a" holocaust is, and examples of holocausts, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't. Just like why Punisher is not about generic "punishers" in history, but rather "The Punisher". - Bssc81 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles page in fact retains the definite article in its title because that is the name of the group, just as The Old Man and the Sea is the name of the book. (Beatles is a redirect). It's horses for courses. The group "Queen" did not have a definite article in its name, so to distinguish it from the word "queen" their article is called Queen (band). If I say "I am a fan of Queen" that means something other than "I am a fan of the Queen", which would probably be taken as a reference to Elizabeth II, not to Freddie Mercury. The sentences were demonstrating that even though The Beatles is the name of the group, we drop the definite article in sentences like "I am a Beatles fan". Paul B 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like whenever a term is used as a modifier ("a Pentagon official"), "the" is dropped. Since that is not the role of the article title, however, Paul B's examples don't bear on the current discussion. --Yath 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My examples were intended to counter those given by AjaxSmack precisely to demonstate that they are irrelevant. "The" is retained in The Pentagon to avoid ambiguity. Paul B 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that the use of X is a sentence is the definitive measure of whether or not X should be the title of a wikipedia article. For example, we have an article entitled "Charles, Prince of Wales", but there are many sentence constructions that do not refer to him in that way. Again, I don't think it is germane that "holocaust" redirects here. We could, quite easily, have a stand-alone article about the phrase "holocaust." That we do not is probably an omission. Ethan Mitchell 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I am dumb. --Yath 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We have two, Names of the Holocaust and Holocaust (disambiguation). A case could be made that the latter should not be marked as a disambiguation page, since it is really an article in its own right about the history of the word. Paul B 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Odd sentence

Under "Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses" this sentense appears:

Unlike Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies, who were persecuted for racial, political and social reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted on religious ideological grounds.

Jews are not a racial, political or social group, they are the members of the Jewish religion. This sentense might thus benefit from a rephrasing, since it seems to imply otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercury271 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The word "race" has historically legitimately been used to mean something similar to "extended family". Look it up. Also, try typing "Jewish race" on google and see how many hits you get. More to the point perhaps, Judaism was defined by the Nazis themselves in genealogical terms, not in terms of religious affiliation. Their policy was defined by their conception of race. Paul B 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Barlow. I don't see this problem--Jews were "seen" as a racial group, so much that even secular Jews, or converted Jews, i.e., Jews who had abbandoned their religion, were persecuted. Like with Roma and disabled people, they were persecuted for what *they were*, not because of what they did or believed. What is odd in the sentence is the "homosexuals". They were first arrested in common jails for anti-social crimes, ordinary law--and then often moved to the camps. I am not sure, but I believe that male homosexuals who married women, or Jehovah's witnesses who repudiated their faith, could avoid persecution. Roma, Jews and disabled did not have any choice.

Also, I believe that "racial, political and social reasons" could refer to the Nazi reasons, not whatever was done by Jews, homosexuals or Roma (please let's avoid the word Gypsy.)--Ninarosa 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Races are just whatever people think they are. And while there may be many people who do not think of Jews as a race, there are many (including Jews) who do. More to the point, the Nazis did, so the language is entirely appropriate for this context. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Races are that people are genetically, not they think they are. If black person think s/he is white, it does'nt make him/her white.--Igor "the Otter" 20:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Biblical implications

Did the holocaust have any biblical impact? i.e. was it predicted it would happen? --Rebroad 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gittin 57b. Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a Claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. Saintrotter 3 February 2007

Some obscure Talmud, etc source prophecies that 6 million will dy and then Israel will be reborn. The 6 million is a constantly reoccurring number in history - magical, mentioned in WW1 also.

(please sign your posts). Do you have the reference for these citations of 6 million victims over time? Thanks.--Ninarosa 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they were mentioned after WW1, roundly ignored by the Allies as unfounded. I can look up the article, newspaper - will return. 20 minutes later - It is mentioned several places - The American Hebrew ( old mag I believe ) Oct 31, 1919 : NYT June 11, 1900 Rabbi Stephan Wise ( these talk about 6 million dying or about to die - but they were clear on the 6 million part, not all 6 million plus. Ehrenberg - the Soviet WW2 propaganda master was using the 6 million number before the Soviets even got to Auscwitz, etc. TAZ in Berlin May 24, 1995 on page 12 wrote that Vad Vashem 's holocaust memorial was planned in 1942 - before the holocaust, and guess what number they were already in love with. There are many site - hard to references, not probably available in the respectable sites, but from them you can at least trace the source ( ie you don't have to take codoh's word, check it out outside their files ). Lots of Huns bayoneting babies from WW1 stories mixed in. The Talmud?( it may be one of the other nonBiblical related writings) thing is out there but I don't have the time to find it today. I found a quote from our old friend - Hilberg. Concerning the numbers, " They also matter for a very simple reason - call it religious, if you like." Atlantic Monthly 2000 - there is more than science and history going on in debate I am afraid. The question is can you fool, try to fool, God and still get the prize, or are you just fooling yourself - if the prophecy part is really important to the Zionists. Hilberg's quote is almost scary in th erealm of ratonal political thought, sounds jihadist, if jihadists actually thought like that ( which they don't).

(Please sign you posts). Could you please give the URL of the sites? Some of them I can track easily, for others I need more time and work. And you are right, I found out that members of CODOH often falsify information, such as in the case of the World Almanac, and there are several apocriphal "citations" of the Talmud that circulate in the Internet. That is why it is important to check reliable sources, and not every internet source is given the same weight. Oh, I totally agree there is more than science and history going on in the debate, and that is why I am so interested in comparing different demographic techniques and checking sources--again, checking reliable sources. If you could also give the context of Hilberg's quote, it would help (the volume, issue and page of the Atlantic Monthly would be even better.)--Ninarosa 18:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic Monthly Feb 2000 article "The Holocaust on Trial" by D.D. Guttenplan. Members of Codoh who do get carried away are corrected quickly. I have always been surprised by ther number of times they( I just read it) back off from unproven points - of course they do have some excitable folks there too. I am unfamiliar with the World Almanac deception, unless the population numbers are of concern. They do look bad - if they were based on anything other than deadline pressure. ....... World Almanacs - interesting data. They seem to be used by both sides - hard to tell who is BSing. World Almanac seems to have changed their figures - new data, new pressure? Their biggest holocaust actually was in the 1990s it appears. They either lack a proof reader or they are up to something - it aint accuracy. Some other sources however seem to support their first attempts - our old WCCJD, who I still can't find. Do you think ADL knows where they are?

The World Almanac website lists some of their errors - almost all birth dates that I could see. What deception did you find - is there an archive on the web of old Almanacs. It seems that unless there was an explosive post war birth rate then the numbers of the 1920/30 and the 1950/60s are too close together - unless of course the Almanac is a revisionist mole. Of course the 1980/90/2000 figures could mean that the Almanac isn't very good.

(Please sign your posts). I have the text of the article by Guttenplan in front of me right now. The reference is Holocaust on trial: a controversial British writer, David Irving, has instigated a libel suit against an American historian (for denying the Holocaust). Guttenplan, D.D.. The Atlantic Monthly, Feb 2000 v283 i2 pcover,45-8,50+ The three paragraphs in which you find the quotation for Hilberg are NOT about the sanctity of a mythical *6 million figure* (In fact, if you read the article, you saw that he got a certain amount of heat exactly for NOT using the 6 million figure, but estimating something about 5.1 million). It is about records, and about being faithful to your research, to the data.

Whatever we talked about--Goldhagen, Hitler's guilt, the parallel lives of Soviet and American Jews--we seemed always to come back to numbers. "These numbers do matter," Hilberg said. "They also matter for a very simple reason--call it religious, if you like." At this point he saw my gaze shift from the Teletubbies magnets on his refrigerator to the menorah on top of his television set.

"I'm an atheist," he said. "All these things belong to my wife, not me. I am an atheist. But there is ultimately, if you don't want to surrender to nihilism entirely, the matter of a record. Does the record matter? In my judgment it is not discussable. It is not arguable. It matters because it matters to me--it's my life."

The sanctity of facts. As I left Hilberg, I thought, It's not much. After a lifetime of studying brutality, inhumanity, murder on an industrial scale, after personal tragedy and professional conflict, this is what he has left to hold on to. The sanctity of facts. And yet Hilberg's passion for detail, his police-reporter's faith in getting it down right, stayed with me longer than any of the conflicting sympathies aroused by my inquiries. The sanctity of facts. It isn't much. It may not be enough. But it is all we have.

I am sorry, I don't see anything "jihadist" about it. Again, I am afraid we are turning this Talk page in a forum. If there are "biblical" references to the 6 million number, please let's see the sources--as long as they are authoritative and verifiable. I am not saying taht they don't exist. I am just saying that to include in the article they must come from authoritative sources and be relevant to the article. I have seen numbers, from newspapers during the war, denouncing the death of 2 million, 5 million, or saying that the 9 million European Jews were at risk. This is the big problem with predictions: we can mention several figures, and only remember those which were confirmed by the events. It does not mean that the estimates after the event are less reliables: it just mean that one of the pre-event guesses hit the target.--Ninarosa 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: World Almanac. :: I actually see the books, not the web, for the World Almanac. It is not a question of how good is the World Almanac's data. It is a popular periodic that relies on secondary souces. As with any other source, no data from the Almanac can be accepted at its face value without corroboration from other sources. The real problem is the way deniers have used the Almanac. They quote a figure of 1947 as been very similar to the pre-war figures, "proving" that there was not loss of Jewish population during the war. However, because of the war, between 1939 and 1948, the World Almanac published only the figures of 1939, because it was the last data available. Only in 1949 they updated to post-war data. There is a clear warning on the top of the page in all volumes from 39 to 48 saying that those figures are from the last available data, 1938/39. Holocaust deniers use those figures but ignore the warning. This is not misinterpretation--not even simple BS. It is deliberate falsification of data.--Ninarosa 21:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

However, the deniers( or some of them - the ones I have seen ) use the 1949 figure. Are the 1939 and 1949 figures from the Almanac good? It appears they read the warning too, the careful ones anyway. The population appears very stable over time, except for recent years when the Almanac gets way off the mark for awhile - maybe methodology or mistake. Further followup on this point has several of the more scholarly deniers saying that population figures are not worth much in provong or disproving anything. Bad methodology combined with political agendas appear to have resulted in garbage figures - Almanac included.

(Please sign your posts). 1947 World Almanac for Jew population in Europe (refering to 1938 figures): 8,939,608. 1949 World Amanac for Jew population in Europe (refering to 1947 figures): 3,920,100. The population DOES NOT appear stable over time.--Ninarosa 17:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The New York Times, February 22nd, 1948 placed the number of Jews in the world at a minimum of 15,600,000 and a maximum of 18,700,000. Saintrotter 13 February 2007

Ninarosa - exactly the point - politics seems to have overwhelmed the numbers. The Almanc's numbers appear so drastically out of line - compared to anyone else - that they appeared compromised from the inside. If the Almanac is correct then according to them et al the Jews would have the world's highest birthrate to get back to current numbers - it all seems unlikely.

The reason for this high figure is underlined by Albert Maisal in his article "Our Newest Americans" (Readers Digest, January, 1957), for he reveals that "Soon after World War II, by Presidential decree, 90 per cent of all quota visas for central and eastern Europe were issued to the uprooted." Reprinted on this page is just one extract from hundreds that regularly appear in the obituary columns of Aufbau, the Jewish American weekly published in New York (June 16th, 1972). It shows how Jewish emigrants to the United States subsequently changed their names; their former names when in Europe appear in brackets. For example, as below: Arthur Kingsley (formerly Dr. Königsberger of Frankfurt). Could it be that some or all of these people whose names are 'deceased' were included in the missing six million of Europe? Saintrotter 14 February 2007

Holocaust of Greeks

The Greeks have been using the term 'holocaust' at least since the 19th century to refer to the destruction or extermination of Greek communities. It should be briefly included in the main article as part of the background to the word and the emergence of the concept. Politis 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down friends, no one wants to monoplize ther term holocaust :-)

I agree, we need calm talk here! --86.29.251.164 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep--86.25.50.191 14:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, calm it down on this page. --Nikki Fagin 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust day transformation

I think some elements from this article on the changing of the Holocaust Day in G-B to a Palestinian Genocide day should be talked about. People should be aware of "dhimmitude" capitulation from governing bodies in the West and the rewriting of history by Radical Islam, like portrayed in this article:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015049.phpVincentG 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake, it's a small suburb, not "governing bodies in the West". What do you mean by G-B? Paul B 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Great-Britain and for "heaven's sake", this is a reality so go read what I posted instead of whining. By the way, this is a trend in the West, capitulation against Muslims...If you're socialy blind, that's your problem.VincentG 00:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Go look at the user page of our charming sarcasm-merchant Saintrotter. You we see that in his mental world the holocaust is promoted by liberal-leftists to distract attention from the dastardly deeds of Stalin! So is it the left who promote it it deny it? I don't think the anti left and anti-Muslim rants on jihadwatch constitute reliable evidence. The main story concerns a Spanish suburb. After scrolling down there is one from a reader about a short-lived decision in Bolton to replace a Holocaust memorial day with a Genocide memorial day that would be more inclusive. Whether that decision was right or wrong it certainly does not consitute Holocaust denial in any form. It was just an attempt accomodate demads from various groups that "their" victimhood be included. I'm guessing that by "capitulation against Muslims" you mean "capitulation to Muslims". Tell that to Muslim communities in the UK. 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And what about Morocco's holocaust of W. Saharah since 1975! --86.29.242.132 02:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is page is about The holocaust. Paul B 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I never hered of the mooted change over, I think it was a spoof story run in some tabloids.--Bobie Alice Flinker 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alice.--Nikbar Sini 04:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Alice, it was just a silly press romour tyhat breifly hit the U.K. --Nikki Fagin 08:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nikki's right. --86.25.52.66 09:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Red Links

On the opening picture could editors kindly refrain from linking things that are going to turn out red; perhaps you did it inadvertantly but it looks rather unseemly, thanks. Ahadland 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Is't this thread geting a bit to 'so what about the holocaust'. Are there Holocaust deniers among us?

It's always in nead of these tags. --86.29.240.170 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, some eddits are getting rather one-sided.--86.29.243.163 02:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I noticed it to. --Strento 03:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Do we have any sources for the paragraph:

Millions of other minority members also perished. About 220,000 Sinti and Roma were murdered (some estimates are as high as 800,000) — between a quarter to a half of their European population. Other groups deemed by the Nazis to be "racially inferior" or "undesirable" included Poles (six million killed, of whom three million were Christian, and the rest Jewish), Serbs (estimates vary between 500,000 and 1.2 million killed, mostly by Croat Ustaše), around 500,000 Bosniaks, Soviet military prisoners of war and civilians in occupied territories including Russians and other East Slavs, the mentally or physically disabled, homosexuals, Africans, Jehovah's Witnesses, communists and political dissidents, trade unionists, Freemasons, Eastern Christians, and Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy, were also persecuted and killed.

I would like to see a scholarly source who says that Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy were targeted as racially inferior or undesirable. It's also problematic that we acknowledge most scholars define the Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews, but we then devote most of our lead to discussing other groups. I think we need to find a lead that accurately reflects the scholarship. This lead is suggesting that anyone who was killed in Europe during WWII was a victim of the Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, first, few historians nowadays say that the Holocaust was defined ONLY as the genocide of the Jews. In fact, many complain that not enough emphasis has been given to the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. The killing of the Jews is part of a larger event--Auschwitz could not have happened without the T4, for instance. There was a big discussion about the use of the word Holocaust for non-Jew victims in 1993, between Yehuda Bauer and Sybil Milton (published in Genocide or Holocaust? Gypsies and Jews, The History Teacher, Vol. 26, No. 3. (May, 1993), pp. 385-386. Currently, most of the books you will find include a larger typification of non-Jew victims as part of the genocidal structrute--including Roma, Poles, Slaves and others. Second, it was not Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy who were targeted as racially inferior or undesiderable, but Poles (including Catholics and Protestants), Serbs and Slaves, and the others mentioned. (the paragraph you quoted is clear about it). Christopher Browing, in the Origins of the Final Solution, however, describes how Polish clergy was particularly targeted because they were leaders among the Poles. Once eliminated the leaders, the inferior race would submit more easily to their betters. About the inclusion of other non-Jew victims in the idea of Holocaust, see Holocaust-History (It is not a scholarly source, but they are fairly correct here). A more explicit article would be Mary Johnson; Carol Rittner, Circles of Hell: Jewish and Non-Jewish Victims of the Nazis. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 548, The Holocaust: Remembering for the Future. (Nov., 1996), pp. 123-137.

I am sorry, but I reverted your edits to the previous verstion that reflects better this stage of the historiography. I will be glad to provide other scholarly sources, if you want.--Ninarosa 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ninarosa, a question first: do you accept that our lead must reflect the majority and significant-minority scholarly positions? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgim, scholarly positions are not like voting yes or no. There are several gradations of agreement and consensus. I believe that the lead should reflect the most inclusive and the most accepted definition. As it is now, after you re-revert? (GRRRRR!) No, I am afraid I disagree. You may say that some scholars consider that the term Holocaust applies only for Jews--Yehuda Bauer, as I mentioned earlier, is the one who says that the Roma suffered a genocide, but the Holocaust is a term reserved for the genocide of Jews. This is not the consensus nowadays, not scholarly, and not even political (see recent Holocaust reparations for the Roma, and their inclusion in Holocaust memorials). There are several articles that discuss the centrality of the Jews in the Holocaust, but even those rarely follow Bauer in his concept of exclusivity of the word "Holocaust". Some Holocaust Museums avoid the discussion completely by using the expression "victims of the HOlocaust and Nazi persecution". But historians mostly refer to Roma, and the disable (the more restrict), and then the Poles and the Slaves and others (the more inclusive) and others as victims of the Holocaust. Please revert the article to the original version.--Ninarosa 08:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but you avoided the question. Our policies say that our articles must reflect the majority and significant-minority positions, and the policies particularly apply to the lead section. The previous lead wasn't well written; it was too long; and it seemed determined to define the term "The Holocaust" as loosely as possible, to the point of absurdity in fact; indeed, one of the footnotes confirmed that was the intention. This is what we call "original research" and it's not allowed in Wikipedia. See WP:NOR.

It seems clear to me that the majority scholarly position is that the term "The Holocaust" refers to the Jewish victims; and that a significant minority of scholars use the term more loosely. I stand to be corrected, of course. Can you offer any scholarly sources to back up what you're saying, sticking to Holocaust scholars? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

For example, note that concise.britannica.com's lead reads:

Systematic state-sponsored killing of Jews and others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II

. Whereas britannica.com's lead reads:

The killing of millions of people by Nazi Germany during World War II is referred to as the Holocaust, though the term is most commonly used to describe the fate of Europe's Jews. While Roma (Gypsies), Slavs, homosexuals, and others also were singled out for obliteration, the Nazis' various policies for exterminating the Jews were the most deliberate and calculated, and the primary goal of the Nazi regime was the extermination of all the Jews in Europe. This purpose was nearly fulfilled—out of an estimated 9.5 million Jews living in Europe before the war, about 6 million were killed. In addition, millions of Poles and Russians were also killed.

El_C 08:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Brittanica's lead is:

Hebrew Sho'ah, Yiddish and Hebrew Hurban (“Destruction”) the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this “the final solution to the Jewish question.” The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word 'olah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open fires.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the print edition, I presume? El_C 09:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the lead to the 2007 online version. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

So what do I have up there? El_C 09:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have concise EB; Slim Virgin's version is the opening para of the full EB. I do think the list has got out of hand. Africans? Unless the sterilisation of some of the so-called Rhineland Bastards is considered to be part of the "Holocaust" then this inclusion seems absurd. Paul B 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the 2nd link I provided was a different article than the first... Otherwise, agreed. El_C 13:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. Scholarly consensus has been moving towards the direction of inclusiveness (particularly for the question of the Roma and the disable). In fact, as you go through modern academic literature (the last 20 years), "Holocaust" more and more includes non-Jewish victims. Just an example: Alex Callinicos, from York University, (2001) The Holocaust is--for good reasons I need not rehearse here--generally held to be the most extreme case of human evil. All the different kinds of domination fused together in Auschwitz--racism, directed at Jews, Slavs, and Roma; the economic exploitation of slave labour; the oppression of gays and women; the persecution of dissenting minorities such as Communists and Jehovah's Witnesses. Or Slawomir Kapralski, "Identity Building and the Holocaust: Roma Political Nationalism." I have already mentioned Sybil Milton (who was a senior historian at the Research Institute of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum), and Henry Friedlander, a leading Holocaust historian in the USA, is another important voice. This increasing consensus has had an impact on common language [3], as well on political bodies. See this press release from the UN, for instance. It is not a question of ranking victims--it is the concept of hte holocaust as a racist, mordern project, and the common fate of the victims. The famous pictures of Mengele's twins are of Roma children. The technology and expertise for mass murder was developed for the disable in the T4. The tactics of Eisengruppen were first developed in the invasion of Poland, against Polish leaders. I have seen several good arguments that convinced me of the centrality of Jews in the Holocaust; I have never seen a convincing argument for their exclusivity.

If this is not enough, let me try in another way: by deciding to describe the Holocaust as an 'exclusive' Jewish event, wikipedia is taking sides in a ongoing scholarly debate (I could say on the 'declining' side of an ongoing scholarly debate). this is NOT holocaust denial, with no legitimacy in the academia, and it must receive more than mere lip service in the body of the text or in the footnotes. At very least Wikipedia must admit the existence of debate in the lead--Ninarosa 17:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ops, I have just seen the latest version. I am not completely happy, but I think it may work. Be prepared for tons of debates here from people who will disagree. I would increase, however, the estimates for the death toll of the Roma and Sinti. 200,000 is the lowest end, the US Holocaust Museum point to a range of 200,000 to 500,000, and research has been working toward the highest end. [4] Also, there is a typo in the reference 3, Holcoaust, instead of Holocaust.--Ninarosa 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Any eyewitnesses from these various groups - Gypsies, Africans, etc, etc. Any evidence at all, eyewitness, census, ( I sometimes find it hard to believe that not one European country seems to have had a census worth more than burning )etc.

(please sign your posts). Check [5] or [6] These are two documentary videos with interviews with Roma and Sinti survivors. The subtitles are in Italina, but part of the interviews are in Romani or German. --Ninarosa 02:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Forced prostitution

The sentence "Women were forced into brothels for the SS guards" under cruelty is not supported by the citation, where it discuses the use of prisoner brothels. Is there an alternate source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.88.166 (talk • contribs)

The brothel issue understandably suffers from lack of eyewitness testimony. How a brothel operates in a prison camp - excuse me, a death camp - seems odd. Customers? pay? personnel? Let's forget this one - by the way, the forced part is pure conjecture - we don't even know if they were inmates of the camp.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs)

It's well known that there were women in Auschwitz and elsewhere who were imprisoned for prostitution. They were convicted of it, and then allowed to practice their crime in their prison. I don't know of evidence about forced prostitution. It depends how you define force, but of course instances wouldn't be surprising. Paul B 20:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't usually like to mention that many of the prisoners at the various death camps were actually common criminals - who once their prison sentence was up they left and went home. Like most prisons the criminals probably were your greatest danger. Did any of the large contingent of criminals at Auschwitz etc every observe any gassings? Are there court records that survived the war? More research in view? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs)

Your use of hyperbole does not change the fact that in the cited article, it states that women were forced into prostitution for the prisoners -- not the SS guards. The article should be corrected to reflect this, or this statement removed until a reputable source can be found that supports the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.88.166 (talk • contribs)

If every statement that couldn't be sited with a factual reference was lifted from this wiki article it would be too short.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs)

Ignoring 159.105.80.63's usual inanities, you are right that the citation does not support the statement. The citation itself is also rather questionable. It's written from an explicitly feminist pov which seems to take for granted that the prostitution was "forced" and is "abuse", but provides no real evidence of this. Instead the evidence presented seems to be what is well known. Some women who had been convicted of prostitution were allowed or encouraged to practice their trade in the camp in exchange for a more comfortable lifestyle. Both guards and some privileged prisoners were given access to their services. Paul B 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

"For the prisoners" - how were they paid. Were prisoners given wages - I don't doubt it. Leisure time activities? SS or prisoners - both? Not wanting to change the subject, BUT browsing the web I came across some postWW2 reports on the treatment of German after the war. The numbers of Germans who were straved to death after the war is estimated at 5.7 million - surprising close to the Jewish number. Is this a case of psychological transference ( if I remeber the term correctly from my school days)? Add the soldiers who never reappeared from Russia and you have almost an even 6 million! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs)

Just shut up please. Paul B 16:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The usual believer inanitiy. But actually the core of the defense, good work. The starvation of the Germans postWW2 I guess is a sore subject with some. Transference frequently occurs - Freud et al - when one is overwhelmed by your own behavior - just a possibility.

Inconsistent maths in the source for Romanian Holocaust

I have noticed a weird inconsistence in the source for Romanian Holocaust figures. In the first page of the document, the total numbers are given: However, the Commission concludes that between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews were murdered or died during the Holocaust in Romania and the territories under its control.. On the next page, part of the same section of the text (Determining the Number of Victims), the following numbers are given in a bit more detailed paragraph: Between 45,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed in Bessarabia and Bukovina by Romanian and German troops in 1941. Between 105,000 and 120,000 deported Romanian Jews died as a result of the expulsions to Transnistria. In Transnistria between 115,000 and 180,000 indigenous Jews were killed, especially in Odessa and the counties of Golta and Berezovka. At least 15,000 Jews from the Regat were murdered in the Iasi pogrom and as a result of other anti-Jewish measures..

Now let's do some math.

45,000 - 60,000 = killed in Bessarabia and Bukovina in 1941

105,000 - 120,000 = died as a result of expulsions in Transnistria

115,000 - 180,000 = died in Transnistria

15,000 = died in Regat (Wallachia and Moldavia)

---

280,000 - 360,000

It seems there is still a difference of 0 - 20,000 victims up to the total number of victims concluded by this Commission. This difference looks very weird, as it cannot be a missing estimation (the lower bound of the range is 0!). Most probably it is an error (typing or computing). Whatever the cause, it undermines this source's reliability. I believe it would be nice to use some other reputable sources (e.g. historians like [http://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Romania-Destruction-Antonescu-1940-1944/dp/1566632560 Radu Ioanid]), if anyone has them. Daizus 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the problem is. The lower estimate (45000 + 105000 + 11500 + 15000) adds up to 280000. The upper estimate (60000 + 120000 + 180000 + 15000) adds up to 375000 (not 360000). OK, that's slightly less than 380000, but not by much. It's not significant since the 15000 figure is said to be a minimum ("at least 15000"). I don't see any real inconsistency here, at least not of such significance that a dispute tag is deserved. Paul B 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I have added it here some days ago and noticed no response and that's why I have added the tag in the main page. I'll remove the tag. Daizus 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"World domination"(???) in the "see also" section.

What the bloody hell does that have to do with the Holocaust? I suspect vandalism. --132.69.234.73 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Polish People As a Whole

It would be respectful to acknowledge the drastic number of losses suffered by the Polish people as a whole. An average of one in every five Poles lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis. It's about time the rest of the world becomes aware of the devastating losses incurred by Poland as a nation, within a few years she had lost nearly 10% of her citizenry! The fact that statements about Polish losses are always followed with an estimate of the amount of Jewish citizens that might include is a deeply disrespectful marginalization of the Polish people. If it must be insisted upon to continually specify the percentage of lost lives that were possibly Jewish, it must also be recognized that the hatred of the Nazis was not bound by religion alone, and that a great number of the Polish victims of the holocaust were also Christian and many other denominations of faith .

[7]

--pixiequix 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

SlimVirgin, I hate to say "I told ya", but I told you! Ok, I DON'T hate to say it... Pixiequix, please see above the discussion about the Lead. Without minimizing for a second the violence suffered by Poles, both Jews and Christians, the new lead acknowledges that some historians consider that the name Holocaust refers most particularly to the genocide of Jews. this IS polemic. I wonder if there should be an article on victims of Nazi persecution, not only lumped with "others" or "non-Jews". On the other hand, what do you propose? To include an item in particular on the effects on Poland? There is already something that could be expanded in [[8]]--Ninarosa 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes Ninarosa, I think an article devoted entirely to the effects of Nazi occupation on Poland would be highly appropriate. It's no small amount of lives that were lost, with a growing number being impacted by those losses every day. I was in my 20's when I realized that my life and family had been directly impacted by the genocide carried out during the Holocaust. And I know that there are many others who would also benefit from learning about this period of history without an intrusive media slant. Let the scholars be bogged down in polemics and semantics, the rest of the world doesn't need to be imposed upon by their intellectual gymnastics. If and when a decision is reached it will be shared, I'm sure, so until then it will be safe to stick with what is already known. :)

--pixiequix 23:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Roma and Sinti

Just clarify why I included the word Sinti among the victims: Roma and Sinti are two different Romani groups, and amongst the most affected by the Nazi persecution. They are not the same group, although they are equally identified as "Gypsies". This is particularly important because of the jazz musician Django Reinhardt, who wrote a song about the Porrajmos, and he was Sinti, but not Roma. Mentioning only hte Roma would be like considering that all Slavs are Russian.--Ninarosa 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism from January 7

Hey! Please remove this vandalism: [9]. Thanks --80.219.228.176 04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Hey. I wondered about that when it went in. What was it all about? Trilingual vandalism or something? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust by a Yr9 pupil UK

My view on he holocaust is a view not from that of someone religious, but just another person, although I do feel strongly about it. I feel it was an aweful thing,that anyone could do such a thing to just innocent people. Why would they want to be responsible for all those deaths, for power? I think thatanyone who does something like 'The Holocaust' could not be on this earth, as they are just the wrong type of people for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.193.136 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Ponary massacre

I have split this article from Panerai, expanded and referenced, and adjusted the relevant template to point there. It can still use more editing.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

FA

Shouldnt this be a featured article? Richardkselby 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes it should. Although there are some that feel the article doesn't meet featured article criteria. The article underwent a peer review - an evaluation - to see if it should be featured. This indicates the reasons why it isnt featured. A copy of the peer review can be found here [10]Ahadland 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be featured! cdzrom

Then nominate it for Featured Article status. The last peer review was two years ago, and every concern noted therein seems to have been dealt with. The only other obvious thing to do before achieving FA status is to fix the unreferenced sections and citation/attribution requests. MrZaius^talk 06:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid as the article does little in the way the to deal with ownership of the Holocaust, it would never precede a definitive page on an item such as a professional sports team that is well written, and the meaning of the term agreed upon in more than a 50-50 split. Londo06 13:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:MrZaius, just to keep the thread all in one place/make any critiques available to all interested parties:

I cannot see the Holocaust article getting being FA. Simply because it fails to address the Ownership of the Holocaust issues which sees two mutually exclusive positions, both being accepted standpoints in society. The first being the Jewish tragedy relies on motive and the second thematic would be the mechanics argument which points to the systematic killings and the disparate groups that were killed at the numerous camps. As the article sees the Holocaust as a mainly Jewish event, it would be highly unlikely that it would be featured, else to fly in the face of academics and commonly held social views.

It is not a case of also these groups were killed, it is the thematic of groups targetted, groups killed. Lest we forget the first killed at Auschwitz were not Jewish. The lack of attention paid to what is the prevelant perception in Britain in both the academic field as well as socially held views means that the article really does address a common theme. Ownership. Londo06 13:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

FA removed and moved to B class. Does look like it needs attention on what 'The Holocaust' is because some people see at as Jewish only and others see it as the murders the Nazis carried out in the camps. Londo06 13:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Echoing the concerns of User:Londo06, User:Alexsanderson83 delisted this article from the Good Article list. Edit was reverted by User:IvoShandor. Please note that the article is now listed for a review of its Good Article status here: WP:GA/R#The_Holocaust. Please note that Featured Article status was not removed, as it was never present.

Not to be rude, but it would have been nice to have had a link to the GA/R discussion here and not just in personal talk pages. MrZaius^talk

NPOV Banner

Why is it not on the article page? Aor 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing out it's here; it doesn't belong here either. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

• It dose not need a NPOV banner. --Nikki Fagin 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Origins of the word khurvan - Churban

The word churban is not yiddish it is a hebrew word meaning destruction, from the word cherev (kherev) meaning sword. This artices wrongly claims it is yiddish. 81.86.121.50 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article claims that Khurban is Yiddish, not Churbn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Number of Victims.....

I have question regarding the number of victims in Holocaust? I have heard from different sources that there are 6 million who have been killed, but is this number according to any evident, pole, or it’s just estimation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.45.99 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

It is covered in the article: see The Holocaust#Death Toll and the sources cited therein. The total number of people murdered, including Gypsies and other groups, is well over 6 million. The number of Jews murdered is estimated at five million to six million, based on the evidence; see for example http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/faqs/answers/faq_3.html. --Mathew5000 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sure there are sources which are claiming about that figure. But how did they reach that figure, when there is not that many evidence. Still there are a lot of minorities in the world which there is no accurate estimation of their population. For instance the population of Kurdish people. Even though Kurdish civilians are mostly spread out in 4, countries in the world, sources estimate their population something between 27 to 37 million. Or even about the Jewish population, there is no exact estimate of Jewish population at this time in the beginning of 21st century (something between 13 to 18 million in the world). Where the technology of communication is dominating our estimation differs in millions in those two examples, in this situation how can we claim the estimation of 5.1 or 5.6 or 5.9 million murders, of something which happened more than 60 years ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.45.99 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The article discusses this and notes that the incompleteness of prewar records indicates that the figures are likely to underestimate the actual number (not overestimate it). Your premise that "there is not [much] evidence" is untrue; there is quite a bit of evidence. For more detailed answers to your question about how the estimate of the number killed was derived from the evidence, read one of the books cited in the article such as The War Against the Jews or Atlas of the Holocaust. --Mathew5000 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My statement was there is not enough evidence to estimate the accurate number of victims. Of course I have seen, read many articles, documentaries, photos about this tragedy, and there is no doubt about the fact of that tragedy As reporting this statement I do not mean that the figure has been over estimated or exaggerated, It might be even underestimated as you mentioned. However, I am still not sure how feasible can be to do the estimation referring to the evidences? . Even though I have researched about this topic quite a bit still I will read one of these two books, maybe it will help to perceive the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.45.99 (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

When you see an exact number it usually comes from an original German 1940s source - Red Cross Arolson files, memos, etc. The problem then becomes getting both a good translation ( never trust the first one you see, or the 10th one if from basically the same source/side.) Once you can read it, then is it authentic - you would be surprised how often it isn't. Then you can have fun researching all the interpretations and sources of the sources. The numbers are gradually coming together for the indivdual parts, the total seems unmovable. Good hunting - unless you give up you will be at this for years.159.105.80.63 18:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I suggest using the terminology as given in the cited reference, "between five and six million"

http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/faqs/answers/faq_3.html

While this may seem like nit-picking, their use of a range has important implications -

It acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists as to the exact number due to many factors.

It constrains that uncertainty to a minimum of 5 million; the true figure cannot be reasonably construed to be 4 million, 2 million, 500,000, or zero.

More to the point, we should let the source speak for itself.

CeilingCrash 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disputing the Jewish victim numbers of 4-6 million but do we have any idea as to how many of the victims in these camps died from rampant disease and supplies cut by incessant bombing of German transportation systems? Do we have survivor accounts of this? Also, has there been any discussion as to where so many bodies have been disposed? I just thought that would be good info for the article. Jtpaladin 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I heard that about 4-6 millon Jews and 1-1.5 Gypsys had died in the Holocaust.--F.A. cup players 00:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Blank space

I tried to fix fmting of this page but so far I can't figure out what is wrong: note the amount of blank space and edit buttons below. Any idea? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Who knew about the holocaust

Source 78 states that the average German did NOT know about the holocaust. Did anybody actually read it? I quote: "the only thing many Germans may not have known about was the use of industrial-scale gas chambers because, unusually, no media reports were allowed of this "final solution". I'd say the gas chambers are the singular most important aspect of the Holocaust and not just a little detail as this rather biased newspaper article tries to suggest.

In my opinion the conclusion of this study for Wikipedia can only be that there is no hint that the Germans knew of the mass murder while it happened. I will not change the text as I believe it would be reverted anyway. Nevertheless thank you for the ("widely respected") source which finally clears things up. D Krum , 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I do not think you are correctly reading the source Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew this "argument" would come. :(

If you read my lines carefully you could have easily seen that I am no holocaust denier ("the mass murder while it happened"). I also did not twist anything (as you did) but cited an original quote from the source.

If you think that I am not right, please tell me where I am wrong and use a quote from source 78 or any other respectable non-Nazi source. Thank you so much. D Krum 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

My apologies. I know you are not a holocaust denier. But I do not think you have read the source carefully. It is sometimes hard to tell when someone wants to make sure another point of view, from a verifiable source, should be included in the article, versus when someone is just pushing their own point of view. The way I read your initial comment it seems like you are pushing a point of view. I am glad to know (after more dialogue) that this is not the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is my problem with what you wrote (I apologize if my comments go any further than that, to make claims about who you are or what you believe): You make an empirical claim: a particular newspaper article "states that the average German did NOT know about the holocaust." This is flat-out wrong in two ways. First, the newspaper article does not make this statement. The newspaper states that a particular researcher has made various claims in a separate report. Second, the newspaper article simply does not state that the average German did not know about the Holocaust. It simply doesn't say that. You made it up. You then quote the article, and the quote you provide not only does not say that the average german didn't know about the Holocaust, it says that the researcher believes that the only thinkg Germans may not - n.b. not definitely did not, but maybe did not - know was about the industrial use of gas-chambers. The article states that the research argues that Germans certainly knew about everything else. So what the article does and does not state is very clear, in black-and-what. And what is abundantly clear from your comment is that you just make stuff up - and have the audacity to provide quotes that contradict what you make up. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I contradict myself you can simply say so without making stuff up. I gave a full quote and added my "opinion" about that quote, so that it could be discussed. The question is: Could the mass killings of Jews have been prevented? And for that, it is important to know whether the Germans knew about them or not. Wikipedia implies they did, but doesn't give a source. Fact is you agree that the study doesn't make a definite statement about that. That's all.

I find it unfortunate that the WP definition of Holocaust in the first paragraph does not include the preparations ("genocide ... during World War II"), while further down the term Holocaust is used for the whole NS time in context with Gellately's study. D Krum 18:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

PS. OK, I just checked the German Wikipedia and it supports the view that at least until 1943 the majority of Germans didn't know about the mass murder. I couldn't verify the sources as they just give names but no direct links so it would be useless to translate it.

PPS OK, I found all the information I needed. If somebody is interested in what the Germans knew and why they didn't prevent the killings then buy the book of Peter Longerich who might be considered to be one of the leading experts on this subject. I don't know if it has already been translated.

Peter Longerich: Davon haben wir nichts gewusst! Die Deutschen und die Judenverfolgung 1933-1945. Siedler Verlag, München 2006. ISBN 3886808432, 448 Seiten.

I found the book by visiting the German Wikipedia entry "Davon haben wir nichts gewusst"

For me this topic is closed now; if an editor should find my topic to be inappropriate feel free to delete it. I have no problem with that.

You are just POV pusher who wants to use Wikipedia to spread your own lies. I believe you are still misrepresenting the article and its sources. You say that Wikipedia implies Germans knew about the Holocaust but does not provide a source. Another one of your lies, a double lie. First, Wikipedia implies nothing. It does provide an account of some of those who spoke of mass killings of Jews during the war, and others who have claimed that most Germans knew about the mass killings. These are verifiable facts. Moreover, the article most definitely provides a source: source 78 states: "The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study." You are biased to the point of being delusional if you think the sentence, "The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study" means, as you say above, that "the average German did NOT know about the holocaust." I still think it is funny that you think you can push your own POV and then quote sources that directly prove you wrong - and believe you can get away with it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My original message doesn't even contain these quotes. I give sources and quotes, while you are constantly digressing from the subject and attacking me personally on no grounds. This is getting ridiculous.

About the topic what Germans knew, these works seem to be generally accepted:

1) Robert Gellately: Backing Hitler. Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany, Oxford University Press, 2001 (I still suggest to read the book and not to rely on source 78!)

2) Peter Longerich, Davon haben wir nichts gewusst!, 2006 (see above) which doesn't seem to be available in English yet as I couldn't find it at amazon.com or Randomhouse.

3) David Bankier, The Germans and the Final Solution. Public Opinion under Nazism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and Boston 1992, 206 pp. (this is only an early article which was followed by corrections and additional articles in the following decade. They are considered remarkable by reviewers, but I haven't read them, yet.)

In spite of their length and their difficult subject the first two books are written in a very understandable way. If you don't want to buy them: There are lots of reviews about both books on the internet. Just read for yourself. I really don't need to "push" my "POV" and will not discuss the obsolete newspaper review of 78 any further. D Krum 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

PS: At amazon.co.uk you can find a review of Gellatelys book by Simon J Miller of Sheffield University that describes what I tried to express: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backing-Hitler-Consent-Coercion-Germany/dp/0192802917/ref=sr_1_1/202-7335552-6287847 D Krum 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Suddenly source 78 is obsolete - yet this section opens with you using it as a source to support your own view. Again, it is just laughable! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear about what is at stake here: D.Krum wrote, "the conclusion of this study for Wikipedia can only be that there is no hint that the Germans knew of the mass murder while it happened." This statement reflects an ignorance of or disregard for our WP:NPOV policy as well as our principle, "verifability, not truth" (see WP:ATT). It is possible that D.Krum is synthesizing from a variety of sources, in which case s/he is violating our ATT policy. Or it is possible that D.Krum is not synthesizing but simply presenting one point of view, supported by several sources. In and of itself that is fine, but to suggest that Wikipedia should provide only this point of view, and not other points of view (e.g. the one expressed in source 78), is a clear violation ofour NPOV policy. No one - certainly not I - would object to D. Krum's adding to the article a sentence to the effect that "Several scholars have argued that most Germans did not know about the mass-murders as they were occuring" (along with the citations). S/he cannot, however, add this view as if it were the truth, and exclude or discount other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The subject is rather complex as many factors are involved in what was known when. It is in my view impossible to express this in a single paragraph or even sentence. So, if Slrubenstein's proposed sentence ("Several scholars...") could be added to the paragraph in question along with the citation of Prof. Longerich's and Prof. Gellately's work it would in my opinion represent the ongoing discussion in a more adequate way. D Krum 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on this - it looks like it resolves the conflict? Please go ahead and make the appropriate changes, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Please have a look. D Krum 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Slr, my understanding of the historiography on the subject is that the general sense is that, while German civilians obviously knew about the deportations, knowledge of actual mass murders was fairly limited, if only through willful ignorance. It seems disingenuous to try to argue that most Germans only "might" not have known about the gas chambers - I certainly haven't seen any sources which claim that most did. The vast majority of the murderous work of the Holocaust was done in Poland and the east, and there was a reason for this - the regime wanted to conduct its work outside the view of the German people. That being said, Germans most certainly knew about large parts of the Holocaust. the deportations of Jews to the east, they certainly knew about. And certainly large numbers of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers would have known about, and participated in, atrocities in the east, and in particular likely would have had some idea of the Einsatzgruppen massacres. And one can be sure that rumors of the death camps got back to Germany. I think it would certainly be wrong, though, to imply or suggest that most Germans were aware of the mass murder of Jews, and particularly of the gas chambers. As I suggested before, much of the lack of knowledge was probably willful - Germans had some sense that horrible things were happening to the Jews off in Poland, but they had no desire to know more. The idea that Jews might be starving to death in the ghettos, or what not, probably would not have bothered most Germans, who were more concerned with their own health and well-being in the midst of the war and had been desensitized to persecution of the Jews by years of Nazi propaganda and gradually increasing persecution. As to the content of the article itself, I'm not sure what, exactly, is being proposed by D Krum, so I'm not sure what the argument is, exactly. john k 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article mainly represents the conclusion of Robert Gellately, which would be fine if - in accordance with the ATT policy - it had been accompanied by the citation of his work. Instead, the given source 78 is a book review of the Guardian that starts with "Germans knew of Holocaust horror about death camps" and continues mixing up the camps of 1933 with the death camps ten years later. But the rhetoric volte-face to call "the industrial-scale gas chambers" "the only thing" as if they were a mere trifle compared to the preceding atrocities in my view unnecessarily diminishes the extent of the Holocaust, if not in quality then certainly in quantity. This may be accepted for a newspaper, but in my opinion not as a summary of Gellately's book in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately my anger and disappointment about this being the only source influenced the tone of my initial post in a non-constructive way.

It is not my intention (anymore) to propose an alteration of the text due to the ATT policy, but I think that the book of Peter Longerich should be mentioned somewhere or be added to the notes section.

I also propose to replace source 78 by a citation of Robert Gellately's original work or, if this does not violate any policies, by a link to the book review of Simon Miller or a similar one.

If the Holocaust article should be splitted into several sub-articles, the description of john k might be used for this special sub-section. D Krum 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the text above to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding. Please assume good faith. Thanks. D Krum 08:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with a citation of Professor Gellately's own work. I do ask you keep the view that many Germans knew a lot about the killings of Jews and others, but of course add other views. Personally I think there should be more discussion of Goldenhagen's work - and I do not mean the article should say he is right or he is wrong either, but that he has his view and others have other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Goldhagen's views are not taken very seriously by most Holocaust historians. To the extent that he agrees with other historians, his work generally follows theirs, and to the extent that he disagrees, his work is generally disregarded. I would add that the issues in question are very different. Nobody would dispute that "ordinary Germans" - that is to say, Germans without pre-existing Nazi sympathies or involvements - were deeply involved in carrying out the Holocaust. The question of why they became so involved is in question, and Goldhagen's answer ("eliminationist anti-semitism") is, I think, generally rejected. The question of whether ordinary German civilians knew about the mass killings is an entirely different one. As far as I am aware, the consensus is that they largely did not. john k 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt you. But NPOV requires us to provide diverse points of view if they come from verifiable and reliable sourece. There is no reason not to mention Goldenhagen - and say that most historians reject all or part of his argument with citations. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Logically it seems that Germans - average folks - certainly knew that most of the Jews in town were gone ( I bet they bought their houses etc ). Americans - Californians anyway - certainly knew that their Japanese neighbors went in a hurry ( they did buy their stuff, really cheap). How many Japanese died in their camps, never heard but (pop/70)*4= natural attrition is probably the minimum. Most of the books on the subject seem to be in the realm of wild conjecture - who me?? all the way to evil Germans - all supported with absolutely no evidence either way. 159.105.80.63 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted this before about a year ago, and since it is part of an interview made for the Harry S. Truman Presidential library it is very much a primary source, nevertheless I felt it to be important and relevant. from Oral History Interview with Charles P. Kindleberger Economist with the Office of Strategic Services, 1942-44, '45; chief, Division German and Austrian Economic Affairs, Department of State, Washington, 1945-48; and Intelligence Officer, 12th U.S. Army group, 1944-45. July 16, 1973 by Richard D. McKinzie

...Well, I think the coal question was the basis for a positive view of Germany. Before that it was still in the de-Nazification stage and retribution (My note: see JCS1067 and Eisenhower and German POWs). Having been in the Army in Germany I was aware of this quite strongly, and particularly the fact that the American forces stumbling on concentration camps and seeing piles of dead bodies, emaciated, starved, felt vindictive and aggressive. I shared this myself having been through Nordhausen in probably late April or early May 1945. Nordhausen was a sight that's hard to forget. At the same time I got in an exchange with Sweezy, Paul Sweezy now a Marxist, then OSS member, saying that I thought that the non-fraternization couldn't last. It was a big thing that the troops should not fraternize. Eisenhower was strong on this. It was easy to understand it. We thought that all Germans were despicable and had been guilty of this crime. I remember very well myself, observing that in two cases and I think three, the American Army in its infinite outrage took the lord-mayor and his wife of a neighboring town, through the concentration camp and made them see the horror of it. And in these two cases--maybe three, the mayor and his wife went home and committed suicide that night. It made me understand, which I hadn't been aware of, the capacity of the human mind to reject things. I think what happened is in the sub-conscious mind the lord-mayor and his lady had known, the nearby units, but in their conscious mind they had been unwilling to understand and they had put it out of their minds. Only when they could no longer evade this they were overwhelmed by their guilt. I found that very moving as the way the human mind behaves. But the Americans were so damn sanctimonious in this question about Germans. I really began to correspond with Sweezy and say this non-fraternization is wrong, You don't want to fraternize with them, but you don't want to regard them as less than human beings. We are going to have to treat them as human beings in the long run, and we are all guilty--you know. I was moved by this issue. I still find it moving.

MCKINZIE: Of course, I should explain, one reason that I keep asking you about the positions that your office was taking is that I am aware that you got documents of a kind of conflicting nature. You got the Morgenthau business from the Treasury Department on one hand, and on the other hand there was residue of all of that planning that was done in the State Department by Leo Pasvolsky’s people, which did envision a rather early return of Germany into some sort of European economy. Dean Acheson says in his book that he didn't realize that Europe without a reconstructed Germany was analogous to a body without a heart. He and other people had felt that perhaps Great Britain could assume the economic role that had been played by Germany previously, and somehow this was all your heritage or the legacy that was dumped into your office.

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot contribute to the discussion of the sourceability of this issue. Pardon an editorial aside, it seems unlikely the german population had any opportunity to know about the genocide for certain. The Nazis can be safely assumed to act in what they believed to be their rational self-interest. There is no advantage to making the camps public; many advantages to keeping it secret (avoid further inflaming jewish support of the allies, inflaming germans sympathetic to jews, keeping options open for a cease-fire and retention of german territorial gains, etc.)

Given total control of the media, a massive propaganda network, constant and ruthlessly efficient surveillance by the gestapo and SS, the germans had very little *knowledge* of any facet of the war. The deportation of many german-jews to death camps outside germany further concealed the atrocity.

German radio was reporing glorious victories in the east right up until the soviet artillery rolled across the border. Allied frequencies were jammed.

I am sure they knew of the deportation. I am sure there were rumors, dangerous to repeat. As there were rumors of a german superweapon. But in this era of massive bombing, food shortages, disinformation and paranoia, it's virtually impossible to imagine the average german knew anything else for certain except that his homeland had been lost to madness. CeilingCrash 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given German control of the media, German propaganda, German soldiers taking part in crimes in the East and later travelling with pictures of the victims to the Reich - CellingCrash isn't right.

• Death camps weren't outside - Auschwitz and Kulmhof were IN, in annexed lands. Auschwitz was a big business, visited and used by many German businessmen. Alnmost any German business was using forced workers.

Xx236 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point XX, I'll have to learn about the crossover between the economy and the camps. Thanx. CeilingCrash 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Even experts are still debating the degree of "did they know"? I've changed the wording of the last paragraph a bit and adding up some quotes. The general outline could be that the majority had heard something but most people stood in disbelief and not wanting to know more. So it's a case of interpretation - is "a something" good enough to say "they knew"? Hard to make it to a NPOV especially since most documents of the time are propaganda and the Nazi leaders did not want to make it public either. Guidod 22:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, look at Himlers Posen speech in late 1943. I think this was the first time the topic of "evacuating the jews" was spoken about openly amongst the nazi leadership. But he did it for a specific reason. The article is pretty crappy at the moment, lots lacking. In Gitta Serenys book about Albert Speer it is discussed, and I believe the speech should have been named, "Our bridges are burned, don't you dare think about defecting or surrender, you're complicit in out crime now and the only way out is victory or death!!!" (summary in "flowery" prose). But nevertheless, it is notable that he uses the words. "I also want to refer here very frankly to a very difficult matter. We can now very openly talk about this among ourselves, and yet we will never discuss this publicly."...."nor will we ever speak about it."..."I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, to the extermination of the Jewish people."..."And then they turn up, the brave 80 million Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. It is of course obvious that the others are pigs, but this particular one is a splendid Jew. But of all those who talk this way, none had observed it, none had endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or when 1,000 are lined up. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person — with exceptions due to human weaknesses — had made us tough. This is an honor roll in our history which has never been and never will be put in writing,".--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Posen Speech is an interesting evidence but you should not underestimate the power of rumour and common sense. German Wikipedia in de:Holocaustkenntnis von Zeitzeugen lists some evidence that far more people did know "a something" than even the Nazi leaders did expect them to. It says that the Auschwitz-type industrialized mass murder was probably widely unknown - I guess it was too frightening a concept to be accepted as truth without seeing it - but an estimated 25% to 40% had heard of mass murders on the Eastern Front and everybody should have known that it was well within a rather systematic approach. However, bringing the pieces together into a full picture was not a good idea when living in a Nazi state - even though it would have been easy to do. Guidod 10:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

New proposals for the article

• The article is too long and needs a major revision. This, particularly is a problem in the list of perpetrators section, and the historical and philosophical interpretations sections. I propose that these two sections should have their own article created or be merged into already existing articles.

• The article has a number of rather inappropriate headings. Under the Execution of the Holocaust part there is a persecution section, which should mention pogroms, and laws passed. Thus this section, and others, need rewording.

• The article is, in some respects, factually inept. For example, the execution of the holocaust implies the stages used to kill people, liberation was not one of those stages.

• Appropriate reference is also a major problem throughout the article, if a sentence cannot be referenced, it should be removed.

• Im not sure how popular support will be for this, but i think the holocaust should have an infobox. This should have heading such as number of victims, perpetrators, names, date during which the killings took place, etc. This, will, I believe make the article seem more coherent and summarize it rather succinctly.

Please leave your views on my proposed reforms to the article underneath the appropriate bullet point. Thank you very much 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a 'top-level' article providing an overview of a huge historical event. Many individual paragraphs are quite short, but there are a lot of them. I agree that the perpetrators section is too long, and I think a few longer paras of decent prose would be a better format than the very bitty bunch of tiny sections we currently have. This would involve more than just removing the section headers, BTW.

The 'execution of the Holocaust' subsections seem OK to me as far as structure goes - death marches and liberation should be treated in the same para, as it would be difficult to understand one without the other, surely?

Someone has just replaced the 'abuse' infobox with the 'antisemitism' box (good move), which is a navigation aid. I don't think an infobox trying to sum up the actual historical data would work very well.

I would strongly advise against removing all the sentences which currently do not have cites. Take for example the first two sections of the 'cruelty' para. Anyone who knows about the subject knows that this is true, but it is not clear that the cite later in the para refers to these. A better way to improve the citation would be what usually happens, which is that someone reads something that they didn't know before or that seems to contradict some other source, and puts up a {{cn}} tag or raises it here.

The persecution section should certainly mention the marriage laws, debarrment from various professions, etc. It does describe Kristallnacht, and other pogroms outside Germany.

The Functionalism versus intentionalism section is about as long as the article of the same name - I'd move much of the detail there and leave a shorter argument here. That could be part of a historiography section, which would also be a good place to mention the Historikerstreit. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've slightly trimmed the first couple of paras of the philosophical implications section, removing vague or irrelevant stuff and tightening the language. Shout at me if you hate it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Infobox discussion

• I'm just wondering why your opposed to an infobox?

There is already an infobox which serves as a navigation aid to other, related articles. Summing up the data in a box would be difficult. Considering only the victims, they could be categorised by origin, ethnicity or religious identity, place of death, year of death, cause of death. The numbers for the different camps are not known with 100% precision, so a range of upper and lower calculations would have to be given, and therefore also whose calculations we are taking as a source. You could make a big table, rather than an infobox, but it's a large task. It is made more difficult because you would have to make editorial decisions about what counts as the Holocaust (Kristallnacht? T-4?) which is not the case with text supported by reliable sources. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about an infobox that says the basics:

• Type of Murder: Genocide
• Location: Europe and North Africa
• Main Victims: Jews, gypsies, and others
• Estimated number of people killed: 11 million
• Timespan: 1942-1945 (although estimates vary)
• Outcome: Destruction of approximately ⅔ of European Jewry
• Perpetrators: Nazi Germany and the Axis powers
• Main events: Pogroms, Ghettoisation, Mass shooting, Gassing

I was only thinking of something like this 82.36.182.217 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this illustrates the problem. Most of these bullet points contain vagueness-increasing qualifiers ('and others', 'estimated/estimates', 'approximately'), and some oversimplifications ('Axis powers' includes Italy, but Mussolini's govt actually didn't contribute to the Holocaust in a major way). Nor were pogroms a 'main event' in terms of death toll, but Kristallnacht was important and needs a mention (as it has in the article). All of these points are hard to sum up in the kind of short sentences/fragments suitable for an infobox, and require careful, nuanced, and cited text. I believe that large-scale and complex historical topics do not lend themselves to this kind of summary treatment in the way that, eg, a single battle does. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust
Star of David badge that Jewish people living in German occupied territories were forced to wear
Event name:	Holocaust
Event type:	Genocide
Location:	Europe & North Africa
Main Victims:	Jews, Roma and Sinti, Poles, & others
Timespan:	1942-1945
Casualties:	Total killed: 11,000,000 Jews: between 5 or 6 million, including 3 million Polish Jews Poles: between 1.8 and 1.9 million Roma & Sinti: Between 200,000 and 800,000 Disabled people: Between 200,000 and 300,000 Freemasons:Between 80,000 and 200,000 Communists: 100,000 Homosexual men: Between 10,000 and 25,000 Jehovah's Witnesses: Between 2,500 and 5,000
Outcome:	Destruction of ⅔ European Jewry,Creation of the state of Israel
Perpetrators:	The Nazi regime
Main events:	Pogroms, Ghettoisation,Mass shootings & gassing

• Something perhaps Squiddy, like this:

This hasn't really addressed the points I made above. I still don't think a complex topic like this can be usefully presented as a series of sentence fragments. I'd be interested to know what other editors make of this idea - if it's generally popular, I'll shut up and in it goes, if not it shouldn't. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Does it summarise the events of the Holocaust? 82.36.182.217 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does, no. It oversimplifies and makes editorial judgements, as I explained above. Please don't add it to the article until we've got some sort of consensus here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't oversimplify, it is direct. For people who would like a brief grasp of the Holocaust, they shouldn't have to read such a colossal article, they should be presented with a concise table that gives them the facts, which this does. It tells them who the main victims were, and gives a link to the numerous other victims. It tells them the year the murder was in operation, and it also gives commonly accepted estimates for the number of victims, and information about the perpetrators. How does this oversimplify? Please, if you can suggest any improvements that can be made to the infobox please feel free to discuss them with me and I will ammend it accordingly. It could also be claimed that World War II's infobox makes "editorial judgements" and "oversimplifies" yet it has a n infobox that provides a brief overview of the main events. I've made a revision of the infobox since which makes the death toll more thorough. Ahadland 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll recap the problems which I have stated above and which you have not addressed, in the hope that you will present arguments not assertions.

(1) You make judgements, coming down on the side of one historian or another, which as a wiki-editor, you are not in a position to do. Examples are: the start date of 1942, which is when mass-gassing started, but you could equally argue for 1941, when the Einsatzgruppen were operating, or 1935, when the Nuremberg laws were passed, or 1933, when Jews were expelled from universities, the legal profession, etc. Changing the date to one of these would still be a judgement on your part.

Another judgement you make is that the term 'The Holocaust' applies to groups other than Jews - some historians use the term this way, some do not, as the lead para says. You should not decide this, it needs to be explained in the text.

• I was basing it on commonly accepted definitions

(2) some entries in the list are misleading - saying the perpetrators were 'The Nazi regime and its allies' lumps together the Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Japanese governments with no discernment as to the extent of their respective roles.

• Then lets just say the Nazi regime, i doubt you could argue that they werent the perpetrators

These issues need to be addressed carefully in a way that short sentences are not able to do. They are addressed at length in the article, and for those who want a brief overview, there is the lead paragraph.

• It may provide an overview but a very confusing one, for example, there are far too many names in far to many different languages, and it introduces scholarly opinions in the third paragraph, which to somebody who wants a brief overview isn't very direct.

The point about the WWII infobox doesn't support your case very well either; for example, the combatants section is just to other, more detailed articles. The casualty figures in that box should be cited, IMHO, but I'm not going to go and edit that to make a WP:POINT. The existing Holocaust infobox providing easy links to other related articles is fine, but the kind of quick summary you are hoping to make is not really feasible for the reasons I've been giving. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I dont think the existing thing is an infobox, as in it doesn't provide info, just links. For example, it doesn't say what it actually is? Or how many people were killed. Therefore it can hardly be claimed that it is an infobox, something that presents the basic facts such as victims, perpetrators, timespan and number of people killed. The existing "infobox" doesn't meet these requirements —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 12:10, March 16, 2007

By and large, I find myself in agreement with Squiddy's arguments. However, I do think Ahadland raises one valid issue: there are undoubtedly readers who would like to be able to get a good overview of the subject without having to read the entire article. As it currently stands, the Intro doesn't adequately summarize the full scope of the article. I see two basic options: 1) improve the Intro, probably entailing some expansion; or 2) write a more concise Intro (the etymology should be moved out of the first sentence in any event, IMO), and follow it with a good, comprehensive summary as Section 1. Cgingold 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• But it took me ages to construct that infobox :'(Ahadland 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel like a right bastard now. I'm sorry your effort has not met with approval, and I agree that the lead section should be more detailed, and that the etymology should be moved to a separate section. I've made some changes, what do people think? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ah well, I'm only 16 and I thought it was a good effort. By the way, your new introduction is a lot more direct and very well written. :-) Ahadland 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your comment. (If you want to contribute infoboxes, thare's a category listing pages wanting them here.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of the article

The Beginning of the article says this... "The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II," The other 5 million who were killed should be added to the introductory sentence. I realized they are mentioned later, but I feel it dishonors the other 5 million who died. I myself am Jewish, and feel that adding the other 5 million who were killed in necessary and appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.177.206.71 (talk)

I agree. CeilingCrash 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I've re-ordered the lead section. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, no-one group can claim ownership of the Holocaust, to do so dishonours the memories of those murdered by the Nazi regime. Londo06 02:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

the their had to be more killed

of courese they had to have been more than six million killed in t he holocaust —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.79.51 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC). About 6,000,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Poles, 1,500,000 and 200,000 Roma were killed as far as I can tell.--Nikki Fagin 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably closer to 3 million actually.

14/88

Sadly, Holocaust was not legally established as Genocide

I am very surprised to learn there was not even one single judgment confirming genocide against the Jews during Nuremberg trials,

Here are sentences handed down to 22 accused:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NuremJudgement.htm

This confirms that the Srebrenica Genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe.

Bosniak 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bosniak, What is the specific point you are trying to make about the Holocaust? I know that you are obviously not denying that the Holocaust was a genocide; I'm NOT accussing you of that at all. I'm just very curious (and very puzzled to be honest) as to what point you are trying to get across here in the Holocaust discussion page. Again some important points:

1. The first Nuremberg Trials took place in 1946. The Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, which makes genocide a specific legal crime passed in 1948. It came into effect in 1951. The first conviction was in 1998 in a case dealing with the Rwandan Genocide.

2. The Nuremberg Trial and record makes it clear beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that legally, historically, etc. genocide was perpetrated against the Jewish people in Europe.

3. It was the Holocaust which led to the creation of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. So, the Holocaust established the precedence for the Genocide Convention. It was the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide that Krstic was convicted of violating in Prosecutor v. Krstic.

4. Considering that it is illegal in most European states to deny the Holocaust; that is additional evidence that the Holocaust is legally established as a genocide. Gardenfli 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe popular sentiment - politics - established the holocaust. The Nuremberg Trials, etc pointedly refused to entertain any habeas corpus testimony - did a crime actually exist. Judicial notice was used instead of evidence - neat trick seeing as how creating a prosecution from scratch would have been very hard - under normal legal proceedings. ( Then you torture confessions out of the defendants and you can start the hangings.) 159.105.80.141 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Aktion Reinhard link

The explanation for removing the link (www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm} list is that it is a "discredited site". How about and explanation and references? The site appears to be useful and reference link to it can be found on the British Academy Portal which is usually a very reliable source.Joel Mc 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The team that put together the deathcamps.org site appears to have split acrimoniously. Both factions have been reverting back and forth, adding or removing the hyphen (for several months, across many pages). The person reverting to the old (hyphenless) version explains here:[11], the person adding the new, hyphenated links explains on his blog here [12]. I haven't picked through all the details, and a cursory look at a few pages on both versions of the ARC site didn't turn up any significant differences. It's vaguely irritating to have these reverts going on, but the site did appear to be a useful resource. I'd like reliable info on what is happening if anyone has it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and the link [13]. They certainly could have used a marriage counselor early on. I raised the issue as I would anytime that I see a label "discredited site" with no evidence at all. I can't say that I really understand their little spat, but I find no evidence that discredits the page which is linked, i.e. the list of ghettos: www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm. That seems to me a useful piece of information. Perhaps a compromise would be to revert to the link and put in a footnote which gives the link to the holocaust controversies site indicating that the overall site has come in for criticism. Then users can judge for themselves the bona fides of the site. It doesn't really seem to be our role to make a judgement at least in this case whether a site is discredited or not. Joel Mc 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Researching death camps etc in minute enough detail to create a "good" encyclopedia article is bound to cause friction. A stickler for accuracy,citations, truth, .. is bound to make enemies in the family.159.105.80.141 11:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For a "point by point" (but obviously still rather difficult for some) explanation please look here[14].--Sergey Romanov 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not research - I hope. Listing and quoting eyewitnesses, forensic studies etc is research. There continues to be almost no forensic studies and only witnesses that embarrass everyone. Someday someone ( other than deniers )will start - and finish quickly. 159.105.80.141 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

holocaust

The nazis exsterminated 1/6 of Jews, but they went after homosexuals to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.30.157 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

1/3 of the Jews. Also why would one connect these two phrases with the word "but"? There is no a contradiction whatsoever. Some of the vicitims even shared both identities. gidonb 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence of an attempt to exterminate homosexuals. Paul B 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust refers to the act, rather than the intent. It was the killings of many different groups of peoples, that Jews and Bolsheviks were to be removed from existence as part of a long term goal does not give ownership of the Holocaust to these two groups over the likes of the Slavs, Homosexuals and Gypsies. Londo06 02:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead

I removed some of the detail about how the Final Solution came about, because it did seem too detailed for the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead section now contains no detail at all about how the Holocaust came about, and duplicates some material I moved to the etymology section in the first sentence. This has lead to a less-readable start, and leaves someone who reads only the first section with no clue to the process by which genocide was conducted. I added the detail after some discussion above in which several editors said that this sort of overview was needed, and the resulting lead section was not excessively long. It also had links to key aspects of the genocide embedded in the text. For these reasons I would like to revert to this version. Thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it's too much detail for the lead. Also, the way the other version is written (describing all the victims in the first para, with numbers, and then in the second para starting with "not everyone counts all the other victims) -- it feels a bit disjointed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to tweak it a little, but the problem with it is that it's a little simplistic. I know things have to be simplified for the lead, but this seems to go too far in that direction. I think the lead is better without it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of etymology & other changes

I removed the discussion of etymology, brief as it was, because it seriously overburdened the lede sentence. I'm concerned that the average reader, seeing that passage (with all of its unfamiliar foreign alphabet symbols), could suffer "glazing over of the eyes" before they've even finished reading the intro to the article. I made a point of directing readers to the etymology section, which follows immediately after the intro.

I also made a point of specifying the ethnic groups that comprised the Soviet POWs, since their genocide was in fact ethnic in character, and provided good links for those groups and some other previously unlinked terms in the 2nd paragraph. And I added some crucial details that were missing from the 3rd paragraph.

I think the intro has benefitted immensely from all of the work that has gone into it in the last 2 weeks, and I believe we have successfully addressed the issue that was identified in the course of the earlier discussions regarding User Ahadland's infobox:

"Ahadland raises one valid issue: there are undoubtedly readers who would like to be able to get a good overview of the subject without having to read the entire article."

I don't believe there is any such thing as perfection, so no doubt there will be additional tweaks to improve on what we've accomplished. But I think it's in excellent shape right now. If there was a competition for "three-paragraph Holocaust summaries", this would be a very strong contender, IMO. Cgingold 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek Jew section

Can someone please give citation to the info in the Greek section of the article since none exists. A better article on what happened in Thessalonki to Greek Jews is covered in http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Greece. Jtpaladin 13:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Serbian genocide in Croatia

The following paragraph was removed from the "Death squads" section of the article. This genocidal episode was essentially a Serbian/Croatian affair, growing out of deeply-rooted historic animosity.

Serbs were victims of an extermination policy of Croat NDH since this Nazi puppet state was formed in 1941. The murders took many forms: burning of live Serbs forced into churches; slaughter of Serbs by small death squads, often numbering only three, called "black threes", who rampaged by night through villages in which dogs were first poisoned. The squads filled foiba pits with still-living Serbs, often connected by barbed wire, and practiced extremely cruel methods of torture and execution such as gouging eyes and cutting salted necks. They also nailed guts of slaughtered victims to the roofs. Extermination in Jasenovac camp existed since its onset in 1941, at the time when Germans had not yet started their systematic genocide, and it has appalled even the SS, though soon enough they were organizing systematic extermination in their camps too.

I don't think there's a strong rationale for including it in this article -- though perhaps a one-sentence mention directing readers to the main article would be appropriate. Cgingold 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there already is a one-sentence mention in the "Death toll" section; I added a link to Ustaše#Genocide there & in the "See also" section. Cgingold 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Workload on Children

Rather than go back and forth between Nazis and Germans, i.e.: "workload placed on them by the Nazis and due to the lack of food" why not just say "workload placed on them and due to lack of food" certainly Nazis did it and Germans did it as well as some who were neither Nazis nor Germans...Joel Mc 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No POV Or Bias Is a Wiki Policy, So Let's Implement It

Can we please add the word 'allegedly' to the opening paragraphs, as while a few Jews may have been euthanaised, the number 6,000,000 is the source of much debate. Some encyclopaedias from the immediate post-war era recorded 30,000 while some later recorded 4,000,000. Six million seems to be a rather recent phenomenon. An article like this is always going to be full of bias, in the Jewish favor, and adding a few words like this may help to bring it back into equilibrium. --Hayden5650 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

My oh my. So much nastiness concealed in so many inoffensive-sounding remarks. "euthanaised" [sic]??? "in the Jewish favor"??? Oh, please. "a rather recent phenomenon"?? - Hardly; this figure has been widely used for decades. If you're sincerely concerned about this, please note the use of the word "approximately" in the intro, and the more detailed discussion in the section "Death toll". But given your citation of the very early 30,000 figure, I find it hard to credit your remarks with sincere concern. Sorry pal, but this smacks of Holocaust denial, imo. Cgingold 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• And regarding POV, familiarity with WP:NPOV#Undue weight will help you understand why "allegedly" is unnecessary; holocaust denial such as what you are suggesting is a minuscule fringe opinion and certainly deserves no mention in the lead. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New picture

I have just added a new picture http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Holocaust01.jpg This was taken by my father in law at the end of WWII. Please look at it and use it if appropriate. I'll try to get more information on it later he, is very upset right now he was going through this among other pics and is very emotional right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belizian (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Belizian - thank you so much for posting this photo. I can well understand how your father in law would be very emotional after finding this among his old pics. I've seen scores of similar photos, and yet something about the unadorned authenticity of this one really stunned me. Please let him know that it is much appreciated.

I dont assume your father in law was an American G.I.? Please do your best to get as much info as possible, when he's up to talking about it. That would include an approx. date, the location, a brief summary of what was happening to give it context, anything else he may feel is pertinent. Also, his name (if he's okay with that), his military rank, and if possible, the details of his military unit (as much as he can supply in terms of brigade, battalion, division, etc.) I hope you understand why all of this would be important -- all of those details are what will give the photo rock-solid veracity, which unfortunately is very much required when the planet is crawling with Holocaust deniers.

Cgingold 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Persecution began in 1938?

I was always of the impression that persecution began before the Nazis even came to power. Before Hitler became chancellor, the SA were attacking political opponents and inidividual Jews. I think the date should be changed from 1938 to 1933 --Hadz^Talk 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've retitled that section 'Increasing Persecution (1938-1941). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am writing a paper on the importance of shoes in the Holocaust. So far my research has been very slim, anyone have any suggestions as to what way i should approach this??? April 9th 200774.117.67.3 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC) Manda

Yeah, try Google. Results 1 - 100 of about 1,070,000 for holocaust shoes. Gzuckier 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The heaps of shoes have become a much used and powerful symbol of the Holocaust - the Imperial War Museum used that image for an exhibition poster a few years ago, IIRC. Shoes were also important according to Primo Levi, an Auschwitz survivor, as badly fitting shoes caused blisters, which caused limping, which made an inmate unfit for work, which meant they were gassed. (This is somewhere in his book If this is a man.) HTH. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading on Anne Frank I noticed that her age - having just turned 15 - kept her with her sister ( and supposedly not getting gassed immediately). Was 15 the cut off age for work in Germany ( or just for prisoners)? Many children seemed to have survived the camps. so it appears that immediate gassing was not universal - but maybe being assigned a job if you were over 15 was universal. Any links or documents as to the selection process - 15 years old seems to be one but other than the writer talking about Frank i can't find anything else.159.105.80.141 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was not an extermination camp; no reason to expect she would be gassed there, since nobody was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe she was transferred to Bergen Belsen before she died. She sent some time at Auschitwz I believe. Articles in the 1929 Geneva Convention required the transferr of prisoners out of an imminent war zone, so unfortunately she and others went from a work camp to a sick camp, in retrospect not a good move.159.105.80.141 18:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As its title hints, The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929 did not discuss 15 year old girls or other civilians, (other than "Individuals who follow armed forces without directly belonging thereto ... military support contractors and civilian war correspondents etc."). You are no doubt thinking of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "published on August 12, 1949, at the end of a conference held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949". While your argument that the Nazis inadvertently managed to wipe out the Jews of Europe due to their adherence to the requirements of this treaty of the future is certainly novel, I feel that it is not likely to win widespread acceptance. Gzuckier 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not very concerned with widespread acceptance, as you can guess. From the details of holocaust ( stories, documents, etc ) it appears that camp inmates were either prisoner of war, criminals or civilians inmates that were treated as prisoners of war. ( I assume Japanese in the US were treated the same - interesting detail to look into.) Much of the behavior and memos that have actually been found seem to match the adhering to Convention explanation as easily ( easier maybe ) as adhering to a grand murder scheme. Transferring prisoners matches Convention requirements, etc, etc, etc. 159.105.80.141 18:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial or not?

see Matica slovenská and a reference [15]. Thanks. --Mt7 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting

As I look through the history of the Holocaust article edits, I see a lot of one "term": Holohoax. I tried to see what article would come up if I searched for this on Wikipedia, and I get this article, the Holocaust. Shouldn't it redirect to the article Holocaust denial? --Wassamatta 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Wassamatta

LGBT POV crusade concerns

User:Samsonite07 has been consistently adding LGBT-related links and categories to many articles, often inappropriately, and using misleading edit summaries. I am concerned that his/her edits to this page are part of a POV crusade, and undue weight. There is also the problem that many of his edits seem nonsensical: talking about LGBT in WW2 seems anachronistic, for example, and his edits to the paragraph about Nazi antisemitism have changed the title of the section to be about Nazi antisemitism and homohobia, yet the paragraph body itself remains stolidly about Nazi antisemitism only.

I do not presume to know enough about this topic, therefore I'd like to ask neutral editors of this article to review Samsonite07's edits. Thank you! --Ashenai 11:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the 'Jews and Judaism' template needs to be there when we already have 'antisemitism'. It's lengthy and doesn't touch upon the holocaust except in one regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsonite07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Samsonite07 is a suspected sock of blocked User:DavidYork71. Merbabu 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Porajmos

Hi. Since the Hebrew term, Ha-Shoah, is used in the introduction, the Romani term "Porajmos" (literally "devouring") should also be included.

70.53.193.16 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Banner

I deleted the Project:LGBT Banner, because I think that if there's no indication of this being part of Wikiproject:Judaism (which it is), than Wikiproject:LGBT really has no need for a banner. Feel free to reprimand me. Bentobias 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider yourself reprimanded :) I've put it back, but in the "This article belongs to..." box on the right. Which, by the way, is where the WikiProject Jewish History banner is as well. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be a better place for it, although I don't see it there now -- if it's moved I didn't do it this time. Bentobias 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

The word 'khurbn' is used in Yiddish but it is originally in Hebrew, pronounced in modern Hebrew: khur-ban, the first part being emphasized. There is no need to check in a dictionary, I am a native Hebrew speaker and know some Yiddish as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaplan84 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

What's the function of this passage?

Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including some 220,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Communists and other political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish citizens, and Soviet POWs (Ukrainians, Russians and Byelorussians).[2][3] Many scholars do not include these groups in the scope of the Holocaust[citation needed], defining it as the genocide of European Jewry, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage"). Taking into account all of the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll rises considerably: estimates generally place the total number of victims at 9 to 11 million.[4]

Can we please get rid of this? The Holocaust was a mass extermination of "undesirables" by the Nazi government, carried out against Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, the Handicapped, and anyone else they perceived as inferior, for varying reasons, and that's the position held by pretty much every historian of German history. I feel like this passage implies that the vague "many scholars" have some sort of pro-Jewish bias causing them to ignore the deaths of millions of other human beings at the hands of the Nazis. Alluding to "many scholars" ignoring non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust and giving no specific examples serves only to undermine the facts of the Holocaust and implying that "many" of its scholars do not agree on them, which is not the truth. --Zackgidding 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Zackgidding on this. Bentobias 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pls see my comment in the section 'Holocaust "used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews"', below. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Roma death toll

The Roma death toll cites the most conservative estimate out there. On the Porrajmos page it states that estimates range from 200,000-2 million, can that be added to the introduction of the article? 76.167.178.204 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust "used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews"

Many, many people were killed in the Holocaust, and at least half of the total deaths were non-Jews. I say we rephrase the first paragraph to something about the Holocaust being the systematic extermination of certain groups, or something like that because to say it refers to those six million Jews who were killed is dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.165.74 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Some academics use the term 'the Holocaust' to refer to the destruction of the European Jews. Only. This is not to deny that the Nazis persecuted other groups. One example is Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust. Others argue that the policy of extermination was directed solely at the Jews, and that their treatment was unique (eg Guenter Lewy's The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies). An encyclopedia can't take sides and rule that the persecution of certain groups was, or was not, a part of the Holocaust. We have to report that the term is primarily associated with one group, the Jews, but that the Nazis persecuted other groups as well. That is the balance I and other editors have tried to strike in the lead para. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be true, but I don't think Wikipedia using the term "The Holocaust" to refer to the entire extermination by the Nazis rather than the extermination of the Jews poses a threat to neutral point of view or constitutes "taking a side", and I think adding a statement about a perceived disparity in the use of the term "The Holocaust" in academia does nothing to enrich the article and serves only to attack its credibility, in however small a way. There are historians who conform to both usages of "The Holocaust": As a specifically Jewish catastrophe accompanied by the simultaneous extermination of other Nazi "undesirables" (the latter of which is referred to by another name), and as a catch-all phrase for the entire Nazi extermination of Jews, Roma, Sinti, Communists, and others. I ask, what is the harm in using the latter definition for the sake of simplicity and clarity, when the alternative is to open the door to the further categorization and fracture of an event that, quite frankly, requires no further dissection? --Zackgidding 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Any historian worth his or her salt would not ascribe the Holocaust as a Jewish catastrophe. It is a large element of the Nazi killings, however it is not the sole event, nor the sole aim. To deem it simultaneous implies direction, planning and organisation. All of which we know to be false. The Holocaust WAS and IS the understanding in Britain. It is also the accepted social wording and also follows the historiography, which has shifted even further towards a more shared ownership, especially since the fall of communism in Russia and eastern europe. Londo06 03:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ownership. This offends me greatly. The Holocaust WAS the murder of those the Nazis deemed their enemies; Slavs, Gypsies, Intellectuals, Communists, Homosexuals, etc. Londo06 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

school report

i am doing a school report about the holocause that killed jews. i trying to find refenernces to these 6 million jews that where killed i cant find any thing, only proof i found was from red cross that estimated about 150,000

but 6 million is a very large number, there would need to have been a gas plant right in the place of termination, how could there be 6 million? i know of anne frank but thats only one? help me please!

Please access any number of history books. I recommend Martin Gilbert's book on the Holocaust. It's a hard read due to the subject matter, but it's a good one. What do mean by the rest of your post? References? Gas plant? Darkmind1970 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a Holocaust that the Nazi's carried out against multiple targets, but mainly racially targetting Jewish peoples. The figures banded about are 6 million Jews and 11 million in total. The book on Auschwitz by Laurence Rees gives a very good insight into implementation, selection and the chaotic nature of the murders by the Nazis. Londo06 10:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This article is riddled with errors, it is far form being worthy of good article status. In fact it requires a major overhaul and several experts to bring it up to standards. Londo06 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Do you have any actual suggestions to improve the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• ownership issues are prevalent throughout the article. The Holocaust was not a Jewish event, this warrants attention. Londo06 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, no actual suggestions to improve the article. And, yes, it was. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Could do with the physical implementation of the Holocaust being more prominent. The article could be broken up as it is long. There is alot of prominent Jewish elements throughout the early part of the article. It could do with a clean-up as the Holocaust saw the murders of many disparate groups, not just Jews. Ownership of the Holocaust belittles the deaths of all those who died at the hands of the Nazis. Londo06 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Interested readers should google "ownership of the holocaust" to get an idea where it comes from. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if this is a well-meant suggestion, it's understandable that some Wikipedians might be sensitive after untold accusations of there being a Jewish cabal which controls Wikipedia, has hijacked articles such as The Holocaust for their own ends, etc.; a teapot variant of the same arguments made outside Wikipedia, of course. However, Assume Good Intent, and all that. It's a particularly repugnant axiom of antiSemitism that the Jews "wanted" the Holocaust, so any suggestion that they have somehow stolen it a posteriori will, of course, uncover a sore spot, no matter how innocently intentioned; particulary with use of such phrases as "belittles the deaths of all those who died at the hands of the Nazis".

I also think we are confusing the word with the event. I haven't looked up the origin of the word, even in this article, but it certainly has that Judeo-Christian ring to it that leads me to believe it was originally coined to refer specifically to Nazi antisemitic genocide. Having a term for that is not "belittling the death" of the other victims of persecution any more than the term homophobia belittles the death of victims of racism.

It all boils down to a matter of definition. If you define the Holocaust as the destruction of European Jewry, then that's what it means. If you define it as the Nazis' persecution of various groups, then that's what it means. If you define it as any genocidal event, then that's what it means. And that brings us right back to intent; is the intent to point out that the Nazis were relatively free to slaughter not just Jew, but Gypsy, Jehovah's Witness, homosexual, et all with the quiet collusion of much of the world's population? Or is it to suggest that it's the Jews' fault, for hogging all the genocide? (See also: Antisemitism#Etymology_and_usage) That's the oldest game in the book; pit victims against each other while their oppressors watch.

The object of such historians and their sympathizers is to make it seem that, however tragic and terrible the Holocaust, it certainly was but one of many wartime calamities. The Jewish tragedy becomes more understandable in that context, especially when compared with all the other horrible events of the twentieth century. Why, therefore, is there any need to focus on a single crime? There was, after all, the Armenian annihilation during World War I. There was, after all, the Ukraine famine, and there was the Stalin's terror, both of which claimed millions of lives. There was Vietnam. There was Pol Pot and Cambodia. There is Burundi and Rwanda. There is the Balkans. There are many other places, and, therefore, why is the Holocaust so different when viewed in comparative and relative perspective?

Perhaps I am putting the cart before the horse by raising this subject early on, but the irony of all this is that such arguments tend to pit victim groups against one another and to provoke them to declare, “Oh, no, ours was different. Ours was worse.” [16]

The Holocaust was certainly a Jewish tragedy. But it was not only a Jewish tragedy. It was also a Christian tragedy, a tragedy of the Western civilization, and a tragedy for all humankind. The killing was done by people, to other people, while still other people stood by. The perpetrators, where they were not actually Christians, arose from Christian culture. The bystanders most capable of helping were Christians. The point should have been obvious. Yet comparatively few American non-Jews recognized the plight of the European Jews was their plight too. Most were either unaware, did not care, or saw the European Jewish catastrophe as a Jewish problem, one for Jews to deal with. That explains, in part, why the United States did so little to help.[http://www.amazon.com/Abandonment-Jews-America-Holocaust-1941-1945/dp/1565844157 The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 by David S. Wyman]

Gzuckier 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• In Britain the Holocaust is broadly defined as the results of the systematic killings, as opposed to only the racial hatred of the Jews and the murders of that one group. There is reason to focus on the areas of atrocities perpetrated by the Nazis, because of the vast amount of them and the disparate groups they targeted. However to the British historical community and also in a social context, the Holocaust was perpetrated against all those systematically killed, the Jews being the largest denomination. Londo06 18:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to Gzuckier, the history of the word is covered in Names of the Holocaust. Though the word originally did have a religious meaning, by the early 20th C it was a common word for any great disaster, mass slaughter, or act of obliterative destruction. It could also refer to quite minor acts of destruction well into the 1970s. With regard to current usage, there is real inconsistency, but I don't think there is reason to accept Londo06's claim that "the British historical community" has some specific consensus on this matter. The big problem is defining the difference between deaths in the "holocaust" and general war-crimes, atrocities and even ordinary military deaths. We can reasonably say that the Jews were specifically targetted for annihilation. We can also say that Gypsies were treated similarly, but were not systematically murdered. Other deaths are less easy to characterise. The idea that there was some systematic attempt to murder all homosexuals, for excample, is not not well supported by the evidence. Paul B 15:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There is obviously debate about who the Holocaust belongs to, thats why the word broadly was used. Many Historians in Britain are peeved when the Holocaust is seen in popular opinion as a Jewish event. The masses in Britain see it as the slaughter of the enemies of the Nazi state, those transferred to places such as Auschwitz and Ravensbruck, the latter not starting as a extermination camp, but to deny it as an concentration camp in that context, is to belittle the women who died there. The numbers that see the Holocaust as the systematic murders by the Nazi State far outweigh those who see it as the anti-semitism through to the racial targetting of Jews, and their eventual murders. Many more historians (social, military and otherwise) predicate their arguments on the actions rather than the motive, whilst dispassionately addressing this later. I would say one in four see the Holocaust as a Jewish event, so it certainly not an uncommon stance. Londo06 16:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

When exactly were you granted the right to speak on behalf of the British historical community and even, apparently, of "the masses" in Britain? "To deny it [Auschwitz] as a concentration camp in that context is to belittle the women who died there"? What exactly does this mean? Paul B 16:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

ravensbruck, sorry not the clearest, however auschwitz is the case in point. good book by Laurence Rees, well worth a read. Londo06 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually that was my misreading - you did say "the latter". I don't think it belittles anyone who was a victim of the Nazis to say that they were not specifically victims of "the Holocaust". I don't think Violette Svabo is belittled. I don't think the villagers of Lidice are belittled. It could even be argued that their specific vicimhood would be "belittled" by absorbing them in a catch-all term, and not emphasising the distinctions between different forms of Nazi brutality. The question is really about the extent of this particular term. It can never have an absolutely clear and defined meaning and there is real difference in usage. I have tried to balance the introduction rather more - but I still think we should have a specific section on the question of why there is a debate about who is and is not included (I raised this a while ago). Paul B 17:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There are many who would fall outside the term Holocaust, despite being murdered by the Nazis. The most common form of understanding in Britain today goes with the mechanical killing, ie in the camps. (generalised) The other side is the reason for the killing. ie. a Jewish person killed by a Nazi gun in a ghetto, is that part of the Holocaust, and there so why not a French resistance person at the end of the same gun. Obviously the lines can blur, but most tend to go for the actions, rather than the reason for deaths.

Ownership issues may well warrant a section of its own.Londo06 18:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know whether talking about "ownership" is especially helpful. There are complex issues here, since advocates of various groups are as much keen to be included in the holocaust as - possibly - to exclude others. There may be legitimate and problematic motivations on both sides. The desire for inclusion often seems to be based on an assumption that being targeted for murder by the Nazis is proof of ones virtue, that to be listed as victims of the holocaust creates a kind of sanctity that honours the group in question, and that to exclude them is somehow - as you said yourself to "insult" them. There is the problem of including everyone who died in concentration camps and of distinguishing between people who were incarcerated for offences that are still thought of as criminal today, and those who may no longer be considered criminal. For example Prostitutes were sent to concentration camps. I assume some of them died there, but Prostitutes are not normally listed among victims of the holocaust. Homosexuals often are, despite the fact that both prostitution and homosexuality were either legally restricted or downright illegal in almost all European countries at the time. So there's no logical reason why sending a homosexual to a camp for the crime (as it then was throughout Europe) should be treated as significantly different from sending a prostitute - if were are to take into account the legal norms of Europe at the time. However if we were to discuss these problems in detail we would need citations. Paul B 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ownership is one of the key areas of academic debate. Since the opening up of Soviet files the common position has been to view the Holocaust in one of two mutually divergent and exclusive positions, both being accepted standpoints in society. The first being the Jewish tragedy relies on motive and the second thematic would be the mechanics argument which points to the systematic killings and the disparate groups that were killed at the numerous camps.

It is not a case of also these groups were killed, it is the thematic of groups targetted, groups killed. Lest we forget the first killed at Auschwitz were not Jewish. The lack of attention paid to what is the prevelant perception in Britain in both the academic field as well as socially held views means that the article really does address a common theme. Ownership. Londo06 14:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. As far as Wikipedia is concerned citation is the key. You tend to make sweepting ex cathedra statements about what "the common position" is, or what the "British" view is (as though it has some sort of precedence). Provide examples of discussion in the literature about inclusion/exclusion issues, or about how advocacy groups work regarding this matter. If ownership is "one of the key areas of academic debate" provide examples of publications in which this is debated. Paul B 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Ownership is the biggest thing being debated about the Holocaust, especially with the de-classification of Soviet files that Holocaust deniers are laughed out of the building. I will be working on a page focused upon Ownership, but that will take some time as it involves going back into work I did a couple of years back in helping someone to become a Doctor of History. It may take some time, but the differences between the Final Solution and the Holocaust will be shown, and attributed. Londo06 15:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)