Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

doctors' trial

Where it says:

Twenty-three senior physicians and other medical personnel were charged at Nuremberg, after the war, with crimes against humanity. They included the head of the German Red Cross, tenured professors, clinic directors, and biomedical researchers.

would it perhaps be more meaningful to talk instead about the number who were convicted, rather than all who were charged? (These constituted 15 who were convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Eight were acquitted of those charges, although one of those acquitted was convicted of being an SS member.) Such a change would require not only changing the number and changing "charged with" to "convicted of", but also checking that all the categories listed still apply to those who were convicted, including checking that plurals are used only where there are at least two identifiable people to whom they refer. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

On the targets, they forgot to add Jehovahs witnesses some of the people who were tortured even after the Holocaust 76.183.192.245 (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

source? --—Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

In 2018 the United States Holocaust museum has the number of murdered during the time period of the holocaust at 17 million 6million Jews and 11 million others

I will put it at the end of the first sentence so people know that a place of Academia uses the 17 million for the Six Million Jews and 11 million others that were murdered during the Holocaust time period https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution Jack90s15 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

put the source in it but it went below where it says World War II on the bottom so I put the link next to where I put the estimate if it needs fixing up and go ahead thank you still getting used to Wikipedia editing properlyJack90s15 (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

got the source in the right placeJack90s15 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jack, those details are already in the article. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

just wanted to put this at end of the first sentence or some one else could so people know that a place of Academia uses the 17 million number for the Six Million Jews and 11 million others that were murdered during the Holocaust time period Jack90s15 (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ok!! I added it to the world war 2 deaths and it was approved ok thanks for the input Jack90s15 (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone had better beat it over to the articles on WW2 deaths - those articles mentioned that 300,000 Jews died in WW2. 2601:181:8301:4510:191:5960:F889:3423 (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Break

Please note: "murdered during the Holocaust time period" is not the same as "murdered in the Holocaust". The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which was cited above, provides estimates of "civilians and disarmed soldiers killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." They were the victims of Nazi war crimes, not victims of the Holocaust.

I will also use the USHMM as my source: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators."

The Museum website also says: "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived racial and biological inferiority: Roma (Gypsies), people with disabilities, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others)."

Note the wording. The Holocaust was primarily about the Jews. It also included other groups. But it is not correct to say there were 17 million victims of the Holocaust, including six million Jews. Not only is it not correct, the source cited does not make this claim. The Holocaust was about the Jews first. The academic sources are clear on this, and we should not amplify one academic's interpretation of the Holocaust in the opening of a Wiki article.

Mideastprofessor (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)Mideastprofessor

I agree with Mideastprofessor. Stating this was "Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event" in an unqualified manner in our voice takes a side in an academic debate. There are such voices. And they should be represented - quite possibly in the lede - but it should be qualified to camp that classifies this way.Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually - the statement doesn't say that the larger event is necessarily named the "Holocaust" - the deaths in the Shoah took part in a larger event is without a doubt correct - that larger event is at the very least World War II. Pinging {{user|SlimVirgin]] as she's the one most recently who did wordsmithing here. Whether or not the "larger event" bit stays - the other sourced information that was removed should be restored - the cycle is "Bold-Revert-Discuss" ... not "Bold-Revert-Revert"... For further discussion of this point, it would be helpful if editors read the archives where this discussion has been held before. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I swear to the gods ... @SlimVirgin: (I hate pinging...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Those sentences mean that the Holocaust was a subset of the "larger event": "The Holocaust ... was a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered some six million European Jews ... Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups ..." That seems pretty clear to me. In addition, the section "Definition" explains that the Holocaust is a contested term. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec) It was a large axe - and it should have gone to talk per BRD. However the larger event we are alluding to is not WWII - "Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups, including in particular the Roma and "incurably sick",[8] as well as ethnic Poles and other Slavs, Soviet citizens, Soviet prisoners of war, political opponents, gay men and Jehovah's Witnesses, resulting in up to 17 million deaths overall.[e]". This is not precise in my eyes - some scholars classify these together (as one related event) - some do not (e.g. seeing Soviet POWs as a separate issue - related only via WW2).Icewhiz (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

We do need to add academic historians who include the other groups as part of the Holocaust. At the moment (as I recall), we only have sources saying that, if they were included, it would produce a certain number of victims. The article needs to say which academic historians actually use the most expansive definition. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Niewyk & Nicosia have good coverage of this (in a short chapter) - including naming historians on each side of the genocide divide for most of the different groups here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. For the most expansive definition, they mention Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann, The Racial State: Germany (1945) (p. 46); for Soviet POWs, Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust, and Christian Streit and Jürgen Förster, The Policies of Genocide. For Polish and other Slav citizens: Bohdan Wytwycky, The Other Holocaust; Richard C. Lukas, The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Rule, 1939–1944, and Ihor Kamenetsky, Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe. For gay men, they cite Richard Plant, The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War Against Homosexuals and F. Rector, The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals.

For inclusion of the Roma, they mention (p. 47) Sybil Milton, "Holocaust: The Gypsies", in S. Totten et al., Century of Genocide and Ian Hancock, "Responses to the Parrajmos: The Romani Holocaust", in Alan S. Rosenbaum, ed., Is the Holocaust Unique?, and themselves. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

As may be seen in N&N - acceptance classifying other groups as genocide varies quite a bit - Roma, T4, and gay men have a fairly high acceptance (I'd even go as far as to say this is the mainstream view), Jehovah's Witnesses possibly also. Political opponents (something done by many other totalitarian regimes) and Slavic groups (those not also in one of the prior groups) - are much less accepted as genocidal intent (atrocities are of course generally accepted by most historians - they differ more in interpretation than in numbers and facts). Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The question is whether it's a significant-minority or tiny-minority position to include the wider groups in a description of the Holocaust, as opposed to Nazi oppression. The sources N&N cite should be read to see whether they really do include those groups in their definition of the Holocaust. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It does say The Holocaust, also referred to as the Shoah,[b] was a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered some six million European Jews,[c] around two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe,[d] between 1941 and 1945.[7] Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups, including in particular the Roma and "incurably sick",[8] as well as ethnic Poles and other Slavs, Soviet citizens, Soviet prisoners of war, political opponents, gay men and Jehovah's Witnesses, resulting in up to 17 million deaths overall. so it does make it clear the Jews were the primary target,

the USHMM uses the 17 million figure for people that were murdered during the Holocaust 6 million Jews in the Holocaust 11 million others murdered during the Holocaust time period this wiki page does explain everything https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecutionJack90s15 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

or what if we have it say Jews were targeted for complete extermination, as part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups, since that was the end goal of the Nazis. then it will read.

The Holocaust, also referred to as the Shoah,[b] was a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered some six million European Jews,[c] around two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe,[d] between 1941 and 1945.[7] Jews were targeted for complete extermination as part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups

then that way it will show the Jews were the primary target of the Nazis during the Holocaust time period Jack90s15 (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

it all ready shows that just my input on what op was talking about the wiki page does go in to great detail about the 17 million people murdered during the holocaust Jack90s15 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian Arrow Cross battalions in late 1944

In January 1945, too.Xx236 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Netherlands

Non-Jewish Dutch citizens protested these measures and in February 1941, staged a strike that was quickly crushed - what happened later?Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Referencing format admirably clean, with a couple exceptions

As the header says, I was pleasantly surprised when I looked at the format of the references etc. They are mostly very well done. Kudos. A small number of exceptions, identified with Lingzhi2's source reviewing script and Ucucha's HarvErrors script:

• Yeomans 2013, p. 18. Harv error: link from CITEREFYeomans2013 doesn't point to any citation.
• Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (112 with; 8 without);
• Whitney, William Dwight, ed. (1904). Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
• Hayes 2015, p. xiii–xiv. P/PP error? p. xiii–xiv;
• Longerich 2010, pp. 330. P/PP error? pp. 330.;
• Laqueur 2001, pp. 351. P/PP error? pp. 351.;
• Fleming 2014a, p. 35–36. P/PP error? p. 35–36.;
• Dwork & van Pelt 2003, pp. 256-257. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Black 2016, pp. 108. P/PP error? pp. 108.;
• Cesarani 2016, pp. 181. P/PP error? pp. 181.;
• Cesarani 2016, p. 184, 187. P/PP error? p. 184, 187;
• Friedländer 1997, pp. 224-225. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Longerich 2010, pp. 156-159. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Baker 2015, p. 18. Harv error: link from CITEREFBaker2015 doesn't point to any citation.
• Paris, Edmond (1961). Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941-1945. King's. p. 157. ISBN 1258163462. Pub. too early for ISBN, perhaps needs |orig-year=;
• Mazower 2008, p. 204-205. P/PP error? p. 204-205.; Hyphen in pg. range;
• Evans 2008, pp. 173-174. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Crowe 2008, pp. 430-433. Hyphen in pg. range;
• Noakes, Jeremy; Pridham, Geoffrey (1983). Missing ISBN;
•  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic Polish victims of the Holocaust are ignored, omitted, and marginalized in the article

As we know, Jews constitute the largest number of victims of the Holocaust, that is 6 million people of Jewish background from all across the Europe, murdered by the Germans in German-occupied Poland.

However, it seems that nobody wants to believe, that ethnically Polish people were the second largest group among the Holocaust victims, right after the Jews. Approximately 3 million Polish people (only from Poland itself) were murdered during the Holocaust. The number is accepted by most historians worldwide. Of course it is slightly underestimated by some American and Jewish writers, but still it is over 2.5 million people (much about the half of the number of the Jewish victims from all across the occupied Europe). Some say, that Soviet prisoners of war were at least the same in number of deaths as ethnic Poles, but Soviet POWs were not entirely killed in the Holocaust, large part died in forced labor camps, plus Soviet POWs were of all ethnicities!!! There were Asian Soviet POWs, Russian Soviet POWs, Jewish Soviet POWs. The article depicts Soviet soldiers of various ethnic background as bigger victims than unarmed and etnically homogeneous Polish civilians, mothers and children who, just like Jews, Gypsies and Serbs, were brutally murdered, but in addition, their country, Poland, was totally devastated, like no other country in Europe (see: Planned destruction of Warsaw by Nazi Germany etc).

Now... the most important thing... How come some of you prevent me from adding Polish people among the victims of the Holocaust in the box on the right side of the article? [1]

What is wrong in adding Poles as victims?

And don't tell me that "Poles count as Slavs so you can't talk about them because it's repetition"... Did you ever know that there were Slavs like Croats, Bulgarians and Bosniaks (Muslim Slavs) who were actually accepted by the German Nazis? "Slavs" don't mean a thing in this context, it has to be stated that Polish people were one of the main victims of the Holocaust. Did you ever know that the first victims of the Auschwitz concentration camp until 1942 were ethnic Poles, while during that time, Jews were murdered in Birkenau (called by the Germans as "Auschwitz Zwei")? Did you ever know, that the Nazi German directive No. 1306 by Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda from October 24, 1939 says: "Poles, Jews and Gypsies are on the same inferior level"? Those are just a few facts to let you know how much the memory of Polish victims of the Holocaust is being omitted in this article.

Last thing, why do you emphasize homosexuals and Jehovah's witnesses as the main victims? That's extremely unencyclopedic, as these groups were clearly small in comparison to the Jewish, Polish, and other Slavic numbers of victims, large numbers, each given in millions... and you prevent me from adding Poles among the main victims... Ridiculous. I'm awaiting for your answer and justification of your decisions. Yatzhek (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support adding "ethnic Poles" to the infobox but oppose removing "Slavs" or "Soviet POWs". Ethnic Polish victims are already mentioned in the second sentence of the lead paragraph, and the article has a section on them, plus we have several related articles about this subject, so it seems to me indisputable that Poles are a major group among the various groups of Holocaust victims, and as such deserve to be mentioned in the infobox. ^Leviv_ich 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The OP is an editor who sees everything in terms of Poles and Poland. They've been trying, for instance, to put into Untermensch that the term was meant almost exclusively about Poles, which is contrary to the facts. Yatzhek is, in fact, an ethnic POV editor, whose every edit needs to be watched, for they constantly attempt to skew articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• I suggest that the article be read for who actually are "indisputable" victims of the Holocaust. Not all or even most historians consider Poles to be victims of the Holocaust. It's all there in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Poles are not considered victims separate from the general Slavic population. If the Poles were destined for eventual extermination under a Nazi Europe, so were all other Slavs. In an infobox, we are aiming for simple facts - putting Slavs together makes sense. Not all historians of the Holocaust include Slavs and Poles in the definition of the Holocaust also - we need to see sources that state that many or most of the historians of the Holocaust break the Poles out separate from the Slavs and that most of them include the Slavs/Poles as victims. We don't enumerate all the "others" in the victims list ... because it's a matter of debate amongst historians who besides the Jews were the victims of the Holocaust. The Jews are the only victims that all historians include. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to change how the article fundamentally treats the "scope of the Holocaust" issue, which I think it handles just fine the way it is. But the infobox says: "broader definitions include the Roma, "incurably sick", Slavs, Soviet POWs and others." The lead says: "...ethnic Poles and other Slavs, Soviet citizens, Soviet prisoners of war...". "Ethnic Poles" and "Soviet citizens and POWs" are the two subsections under "Slav". So I think if "Soviet POW" and "ethnic Poles" are important enough to be their own subsections (and they are), and to be specifically named in the lead (and they are), then I'm in favor of saying "ethnic Poles and other Slavs" in the infobox instead of just "Slavs". Just my opinion, but the article already establishes the merit for putting the extra words in the infobox. Alternatively, take "Soviet POWs" out of the infobox and categorize it all as "Slavs". ^Leviv_ich 01:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

  Infoboxes are concise. We don't put everything in the article in the infobox. We don't even put everything in the lead in the infobox. Again - sources. Overview sources that show that this should be included in the infobox (which is a summary of a summary of a summary ....) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Documentation remains fragmentary, but today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war. This approximate total includes Poles killed in executions or who died in prisons, forced labor, and concentration camps. It also includes an estimated 225,000 civilian victims of the 1944 Warsaw uprising, more than 50,000 civilians who died during the 1939 invasion and siege of Warsaw, and a relatively small but unknown number of civilians killed during the Allies' military campaign of 1944—45 to liberate Poland. on the Holocaust victims wiki it does show Polish victims of the Nazis that were murdered during the HolocaustJack90s15 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Holocaust_victims https://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/polish-resistance-and-conclusions

Sources. We need sources that include Poles as a breakout ... and they need to be a lot of them and the overview type like this article - not specialized studies on Poland, which obviously are more likely to include Poles. This is one place where textbooks and encyclopedias are actually helpful. Pointing to other wikipedia articles does not help. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@ User:Beyond My Ken - the only person here who changes the facts is you. You intentionally omit the context to make people believe your fake statements about other editors. I never said that the term Untermensch was "meant almost exclusively about Poles". It's pretty obvious that, apart from the Poles, it was used against Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, Mulattos, mixed-race people, Russians and other Slavs, and all other non-White people with some expecptions. All I wrote was, that during the times of Partitions of Poland (18th century) the term was used by Germans exclusively against ethnic Poles. Now, I see that you cannot tell anything about the topic of this discussion, all you do is denying historical facts, stalking editors, and performing offtopic.

@ User:Ealdgyth - You are wrong. The Nazis did not see all Slavs equally, as I said before. Poles for instance were to be exterminated in nearly 90%, with the remaining 10% to be used as slaves. And even without that, Poles still constitute the largest number of victims among the Slavs. On the other hand, Muslim Slavs such as Bosniaks for instance, were respected by the German Nazis, and treated as friends, similarily to Bulgarians and of course Croats - Slavic nations as well. This is highly unfair towards the Poles to be labeled as random Slavs in this situation. If you want to omit Poles and put them in one jar with other Slavs, so why don't you put Gypsies (Roma) in one jar with "persons of color"? Why don't you put homosexuals and Jehovah's witnesses in one jar with "political opponents"? Why are those marginal groups so highlighted?

@ User:Levivich - I agree with you my friend. This could be a consensus from my side. Yatzhek (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You don't need to ping me. I see replies here because I have the page watchlisted. You need to bring sources. Not your thoughts. Not telling me I'm wrong. You need sources to back up your information and you need not just one - but many of them ... because anyone can put out a theory ... but for something like the infobox we need agreement among scholars studying the Holocaust. We don't need emotive statements like "unfair" or trying to equate the Roma (not Gypsies, but Roma) with persons of color (I don't need to put it in quotes because it's a valid way to refer to people - putting it in scare quotes is just more emotive discussion without any sources backing it up.) The infobox is backed up by the sourced information in the article. Discussion should be based on sources... not what editors think. (Because if it was based on what editors think, if I was in charge, this article would have a different focus, but we follow the sources on Wikipedia, not individual editor's beliefs). The Holocaust#Victims and death toll and The Holocaust#Terminology and scope are useful reads to see what the scholars say. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Yatzkek: Please consider this: editing against consensus is considered to be disruptive editing, and disruptive editing can lead to being blocked from editing. In addition, editing to push a point of view, even civilly, is a violation of our neutral point of view policy, regardless of what that point of view is. Please keep this in mind in your future editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@ Ealdgyth - You say that I "need sources to back up my informaton, and not just one, but many of them"... You mean as many as here? - Nazi crimes against the Polish nation? Are the sources in this article valuable? Or maybe this article is unimportant, built without any sources, and according to you it should not be considered here at all?

You said that "the infobox is backed up by sourced information in the article", ok... Well, from the sources given in the article we get a clear image, that ethnic Poles constitute the largest number of Slavic victims of the Holocaust. Please note, that the Soviet POWs likewise make a large number of deaths (also around 3 million people) but they were not only Slavs, many of them were Soviet Jews and various Asian peoples from the territories of the Soviet Union. Moreover, Soviet POWs were only partially killed in concentration camps or executed in other forms during the Holocaust, but vast majority of them died from bad conditions of imprisonment and forced labor. Even the article itself says that they died "in German custody" not in German death camps. Those facts clearly make ethnic Poles the main Slavic victims of the Holocaust, and at the same time, the main non-Jewish victims.

So, coming back to the requirement of numerous sources about Poles, how come in case of homosexuals and Jehovah's witnesses only one source per each of these groups actually defines their number, which was counted not in millions like in case of ethnic Poles, but in thousands, and still they are fully capable to be included in the infobox on the right side as some of the main victims?

Similarily, Romani victims are not counted in millions, like in case of the Poles, but in a few hundreds of thousands of victims, according to the sources in the article, and you see no contradictions to place them as the main victims of the Holocaust right after Jews. At the same time you try to persistently discourage me from placing ethnic Poles in the infobox.

That's interesting and I hope that the people who will read my words will see the paradox. Yatzhek (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source in the infobox is to a general overview work on the Holocaust - a broad outline textbook-type work designed to give an overview. Exactly the type of source I mentioned that needs to be brought forward. Almost all the sources in the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation specifically relate to Poland (as they should, given the subject of the article), they are not overview sources of the type we need here to deal with the infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The article has two sections under Slavs: "ethnic Poles" and "Soviet citizens and POWs". Both of these are well-sourced. What is the source basis for, in the infobox, saying "Slavs, Soviet POWs, and others" (the current formulation) instead of saying "ethnic Poles, Soviet POWs and others" or saying "Slavs and others"? What is the source basis for highlighting Soviet POWs in the infobox but not highlighting ethnic Poles? Poles and Soviets both fall under "Slav", per the article, don't they? I don't understand why the infobox should give a different formulation than the one in the lead and body of the article. ^Leviv_ich 15:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The source for that is right there in the infobox - "Niewyk & Nicosia 2000, p. 52." .... As for the lead/body text - you'll want to discuss the lead text with @SlimVirgin:, who has been working that over for a while now. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that source says ethnic Poles. So why can't the infobox say ethnic Poles? Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, pp. 45–52. ^Leviv_ich 15:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

N&N p. 49 have a headline of "Poles and Soviet civilians" but the first sentence is "Slavic civilians" ... since the infobox is supposed to be concise... Slavs works as it includes "ordinary citizens of Poland and the Soviet Union"... The lead expands a bit on the infobox, which is by nature ... concise. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the edit that sparked this discussion is here where it's not just adding ethnic Poles, but removes the "Soviet POWs" from the infobox AND removes "Soviet civilians" from the lead... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Right, but what I'm saying–one more time :-)–is why does the infoxbox say (1) Slavs, and (2) Soviets, when the source (and our article following that source) combines Soviets and Poles within the Slav category? Why not say "Soviets, Poles, and other Slavs" OR say just "Slavs" (if space is a priority). There is no basis in the source for the infobox to highlight Soviets and Slavs and mention literally every other group (gays, JWs, etc.) except Poles.

I don't agree with the original edit, but I think the infobox should follow the source. Either say Poles and Soviets, or just Slavs, but not Slavs and Soviets, because that excludes Poles, implies Soviets are a separate category from Slavs, and most importantly, doesn't match the source.

So my suggestion is change it to just "Slavs" or change it to "ethnic Poles, Soviets, and other Slavs" or some other formulation that maintains the parity and consistency with the source and with the rest of the article. ^Leviv_ich 16:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

the info box says “Slavs(comma) Soviet POWs”. It does not combine Slavs and Soviets, it mentions all Slavs as one category, then a comma which separates the two concepts, and then a new category of Soviet POWs. The POWs are separate from the civilians. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Please describe your objection to either adding Poles to that list, or removing Soviets. The reason I want to do one or the other is “per source”. ^Leviv_ich 17:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

there are no plain Soviets there though. There are “Soviet POWs” . You said above that the info box says “ (1) Slavs, and (2) Soviets,” but it doesn’t say that, it says “(1) Slavs and (2) Soviet POWs”. I object to what you seem to want which is either “(1) Poles, Soviets, and other Slavs” and dropping the Soviet POWs, or “(1) Poles, Soviets, and other Slavs (2) Soviet POWs”. Dropping the POWs is not correct and the other defeats the concision aim of an infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I suggest that we remove the "target" field if it's causing a dispute. The infobox offers the number of deaths, with footnotes, so "target" is arguably repetitive.

To be verifiable, this article must follow the views of mainstream, academic Holocaust historians; and their publications should ideally be in English because this is the English-language Wikipedia. So far as I can tell, that group of sources agrees that the Holocaust was the Nazi German genocide of the European Jews. That genocide was accompanied by other Nazi German acts of genocide and persecution, and we include those in this article for context. Any editor wanting to argue that the Holocaust is defined in other ways must provide references to mainstream Holocaust historians who use the definition being proposed—and that means Holocaust historians who actually use other definitions, not who speculate that "if we were to include those other groups, it would mean there were x number of deaths." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The USHMM puts the total number of murdered during the Holocaust at 17 million: 6 million Jews and 11 million others

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. The Nazis came to power in Germany in January 1933.

They believed that Germans were "racially superior." They claimed that Jews were "inferior" and a threat to the so-called German racial community.

During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived racial and biological inferiority. These included Roma (Gypsies), people with disabilities, and others such as Poles, Soviet civilians, and blacks.

so the page does fit what they use what if we say 11 million others during the time period of the Holocaust in the info box?Jack90s15 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/introduction-to-the-holocaust

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

Yes, note "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted ... ". Not as part of the Holocaust, but as part of what we call "a larger event". Your links above say: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." Again, please produce works by mainstream Holocaust historians that actually use an extended definition. And we should prefer academic publications over museum websites. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

for the info book I wanted to put 11 million others During the the Holocaust ? since the common used definition is The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. it would say Around 6 million European Jews;[b] 11 million others During the during the Holocaust can I change it to that?

@SarahSV:Jack90s15 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency

	Jews	Roma	Incurably sick	Poles	Slavs	Soviet citizens	Soviet POWs	political opponents	gay men	Jehova's Witnesses	Persons of color
Article lead
"Victims" section lead
"Victims" subsection headings
Infobox "deaths" field	??	??	??	??	??	??	??	??	??	??	??

The article is inconsistent in the way it handles these groups. For example, Poles are important enough to be mentioned in the article lead, the Victims section lead, and to have their own subsection, but aren't mentioned in the infobox. "Incurably ill" are mentioned in the lead and the infobox, but don't have their own section under "Victims" (Aktion T4 is discussed elsewhere). Soviet POWs are mentioned everywhere, including in both the infobox "target" field and in the infobox footnote [a]. POC have a section but aren't mentioned anywhere else. Things should be brought into alignment. Some options:

1. The infobox could list all of them.
2. The infobox could just say "broader definition includes other groups" with a footnote that lists all of them
3. We can combine some groups in the infobox. Soviet POWs and citizens can be combined into "Soviets". Soviet POWs, Soviet citizens, and Poles into "Slavs".

I don't think the status quo, with that much inconsistency (Soviet POWs getting mentioned twice in the infobox, but Poles, Soviet citizens, and gay men aren't), it sends the message that Soviet POW were more "important" or notable than other categories of German victims, which I'm sure isn't the message we want to send, since the RSes don't say that. ^Leviv_ich 23:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

For the info box what if we put 11 million others During the Holocaust ? since the common used definition is The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. then it would say Around 6 million European Jews;[b] 11 million others During the during the Holocaust?Jack90s15 (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC) @Leviv:

@Jack90s15: The problem is historians disagree about whether the 11 million were killed "during the Holocaust" or whether their murders were not part of "the Holocaust" because "the Holocaust" applies only to the murder of Jews. As I understand it, the majority or mainstream historical opinion is that "the Holocaust" applies only to the murder of Jews, and so it's 6 million killed "during the Holocaust", and 11 million others killed by Germany at the same period of time, but those weren't part of "the Holocaust".

I have my opinions on this but it doesn't matter. There isn't RS support for saying, in Wikipedia's voice, "17 million killed during the Holocaust" or "6 million Jews and 11 million others killed during the Holocaust", because the RSes don't agree on the definition of the Holocaust. So we have to say something like–as the article does now–"6 million Jews killed during the Holocaust; under broader definitions of 'Holocaust', 6 million Jews and 11 million others for 17 million total."

However, there are ways to say it in line with the RS. For example, "Deaths: 6 million Jews; under broader definitions, 11 million others" or something like that. ^Leviv_ich 23:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

(2 x ec) The infobox target field has gone, because we already have "deaths", so you can remove that from the table. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I disagree with the removal of that field from the infobox. ^Leviv_ich 23:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

We can say whatever needs to be said in the "deaths = " field. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh! I no longer disagree with the removal of that field from the infobox. :-) The table and my earlier comment have been updated. What do you think of: Approx. 6 million European Jews; using broadest definition, 11 million others, with a footnote that lists all of the groups in the above table? ^Leviv_ich 00:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Your suggestion is fine, although I think it may be better as it is ("Around 6 million European Jews;[a] using broadest definition, 17 million victims[b]"). The two footnotes cite Holocaust historians. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

that sounds like it can fit Approx, 6 million Jews; using broadest definition, 11 million others.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Leviv: @SarahSV:

Why the Roma and incurably sick people are placed in the sentence right after Jews like if they were the biggest number of nonJewish victims? It seems that, considering the death toll, ethnic Poles in fact make the largest number of deaths in concentration camps, right after the Jews.

I would place them in this sentence in this order: Jews, ethnic Poles, Roma, incurably sick, as well as Serbs, Soviet POWs, Soviet citizens and other Slavs;... (and the rest I would leave like it is). I think it would be the most fair order.

What do you think about my solution? 89.228.160.12 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Most scholars do not see the Slav civilian killings (in Poland and USSR) as a systemic genocide, and do not classify them as part of the Holocaust. There is a good overview of this in N&N - the reasoning is based on the percentage killed (around 10%) and the motivation for the killings being punitive (counter-resistance). So no - that is not a good ordering. Soviet POWs (a different class from Slav civilians, which includes also non-Slav Soviet soldiers) numbers (and percentages) were higher than ethnic Poles - and inclusion of the POws is also disputed by several historians.Icewhiz (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like you did not read the entire thread at all. Things about the unjust scholars and the case of Slavs and the Soviet POWs were mentioned before. 89.228.160.12 (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to change that ordering in the lead. Some of the lead's problems stem from N&N (but I don't have time to change the source at the moment). SarahSV ^(talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Reparations (w/ submarines)

My edit [2] regarding the German subsidies for Israel's purchases of Dolphin-class submarines was reverted because of the perceived lack of relevance to any reparations for the Holocaust. The Jerusalem Post, citing Der Spiegel, explicitly states that "the subsidy was being offered to Israel as part of reparations for the Holocaust." [3] Of course, that's not the only reason, which is why I added more information & more sources. VwM.Mwv (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

it’s too detailed for an overview article on the Holocaust...we don’t need to list every incidence where a sale is made to Israel that might be partly motivated by the need for reparations. It might be relevant in an article on Germany Holocaust reparations, but this isn’t that article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as this article includes reparations of $60 million, I would think this $500+ million matter is significant enough to also be mentioned here. I could cut down the text a bit, if you'd like. VwM.Mwv (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

€135 million. Leviv ich 00:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Stranded citation perhaps copy/pasted from another WP article

With this edit ThreatMatrix stranded a citation to Baker 2015, p. 18. Info may (?) have been copied over from Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. Not sure how the history works here, several people editing. But you may wanna be careful about the possibility of too much use of WP as a source. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Too crowded"

@SlimVirgin: What do you mean by "too crowded"? M . M 19:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what it sounds like ... there are too many images in the section in that editor's view. You added the image, it was reverted, you then discuss (not readd the image and then discuss). Also - readding the Hull and Arendt refs is not helpful - they aren't needed as Crowe covers the information. Nor are either Hull or Arendt listed in the sources section, so adding them without putting in full bibliographical details is not helpful at all. Your addition of the image ALSO broke one sentence from its source - that's not helpful either. I spent a good two months fixing all the references in this article so that everything is sourced and all the sources support the information they are sourced to. It is very unhelpful to come in and be sloppy with references - by adding sources not in the source section and by breaking sentences from the sources supporting them. (As a further aside - sources from 1963 and Arendt's reporting on the Eichman trial are out of date - we should go with recent secondary sources, not sources from 1963.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, there were too many images in that section, and the short cites didn't link to anything. We should have an image of Eichmann somewhere on the page, and I've been looking to see where best to place it. Wannsee Conference or Holocaust in Hungary are the two obvious places. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why bother starting a discussion on the talk page if you're not going to bother reading what others reply? You returned the image with all the OTHER problems that were mentioned. Please revert yourself and discuss rather than edit war... which is what you're doing right now. You've restored errors that were pointed out to you in both the edit summary AND in the discussion YOU started. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a problem with someome removing the sources, I just found them in the Adolf Eichmann article citing the relevant information. As for the picture, I added a smaller one, and made sure that the above link (to the Einsatzgruppen trial) was not disturbed in the revert process. M . M 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Btw, the previous version was shit. It put his death at the wrong month, it didn't have a picture, it inaccurately described his capture as a "kidnapping", and it didn't even contain a link to the Eichmann article. M . M 20:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) No, YOU restored the sources ... so you can remove them and fix the breakup of the sourcing that you did also... this is not a great article for someone new to editing to come in and play bull in the china shop with. You should at least fix your own errors. And .. copying sources from other articles without actually looking at the sources and confirming that they say what they are being added on to as support is a really really really bad idea. You have no idea if those sources you added actually support anything you added them onto, do you? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the death month of Eichman, he was hung on the night of 31 May/1 June, so there's some confusion in the sources about which exact date to give as his death date. We don't need a picture of him in a section on all the trials after the ending of the Holocaust. And he was indeed "kidnapped"... that's been discussed quite often in the past - either captured or kidnapped works. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I never accused you of making claims without checking the sources. But if you didn't, I invite you to look at the actual quotes. They clearly put his death in June. I used "captured" because that's what it says in the main article. I still don't understand how only two small pictures in a section can be regarded as "too many". And as I said, I already restored the break-up long ago. M . M 20:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you check the Hull and Arendt sources you added in here to make sure they supported the information that you attached them to? And the sentence "Other trials of Nazis and collaborators took place in Western and Eastern Europe." is still at the end of a paragraph without any citation on it. And the Hull and Arendt sources still do not have full bibliographic details given for them. You've fixed nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant the Einsatzgruppen trial link that was previously broken off. As for the "Other trials" sentence, there was never any citation to it in the first place, and I didn't add it. Though I can add quotes to the sources I added if you want me to. M . M 20:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add sources here just because you found them in another article. You need to read them, make sure they're appropriate, and add the long citation to the "works cited" section. In general, once you're reverted, please come to talk and don't keep reverting. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) No, there was a source attached to it. The Crowe source, pages 430-433. It is quite easy to see - as "Other trials of Nazis and collaborators took place in Western and Eastern Europe. In 1960 Israeli Mossad agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Israel to stand trial for war crimes. The trial ended in his conviction in December 1961 and execution in June 1962. Eichmann's trial and death revived interest in war criminals and the Holocaust in general." is then followed by {{sfn|Crowe|2008|pp=430–433}} That means that the Crowe source pp. 430-433 supports ALL the sentences prior to it up until the next previous source. By splitting the paragraph up, you then split the sentence "Other trials of Nazis and collaborators took place in Western and Eastern Europe." from its supporting source. You then inserted a source (Hull 1963 with no page numbers) to the sentences (and changed some things and added a link to "Jewish people" which is already linked in the article before) "In 1960, Israeli Mossad agents captured main Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Israel to stand trial on 15 counts including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the Jewish people. The trial ended in his conviction in December 1961, and his execution in June 1962." And then you added an additional source (arendt 1963 p. 252) to the sentence "Eichmann's trial and death revived interest in war criminals and the Holocaust in general.". So you added "main Holocaust organizer" to Eichman ... is that supported by Hull? I don't think we'd go so far as to say Eichman was the main organizer of the Holocaust - that's a bit of a stretch (and is unneeded detail here) and also you added in the details of his charges - which again is probably unneeded detail that just bogs down an overview article on the Holocaust - we don't even detail the exact number of the charges for the first Nuremburg trial in this article. Arendt's book you're linking to is a 1994 reprint of her original 1963 work - we can't possibly use it to source a statement that Eichman's trial "revived interest in war criminals and the Holocaust in general" as it was only a year after the trial that she wrote it ... no long term historical perspective is possible after a year. Hull's work appears to be about his being the spiritual consellor to Eichman - not a secondary scholarly work on Eichman. IT's not the best source to be using for this sort of overview article. And we do not need to repeat all the information about Eichman being captured in the caption of the picture - that's redundant. All this is pretty basic elementary editing skills - this is not an ideal article to learn them all on, because it's so necessary to keep it in good shape and sourced to solid, reliable, and recent secondary sources on the Holocaust. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed kidnap to capture. If anyone disagrees please let me know and we can discuss it. Leviv ich 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and have reverted your change. On such an issue it is better to get consensus first. Your edit summary is quote correct; by saying "capture" we endorse Israel's action in Wikipedia's voice. It was a clandestine act and I think "kidnap" is better. "Abduct"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, ok I'm going to start a new thread for this discussion below. Leviv ich 02:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at any of the older revisions, you'll see that the source you're referring to was broken long before I started editing here. And I don't know how to fix it, so please just deal with it yourselves. Again, feel free remove those two Eichmann sources if you want to. I mostly just care about correcting his month of execution, adding an appropriate picture, and doing small clean-up like adding wikilinks. M . M 21:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain clearly. It was not broken before. There is no need for each sentence to repeat a citation if a group of sentences is all sourced to the same source. When a series of sucessive sentences is all sourced to the same source, that source is placed at the end of the series of sentences. When someone later comes in and breaks a series of such sentences into two paragraphs, if the new first paragraph does not get that source added to it, THEN the sourcing is broken. For example, consider the following paragraph:

This is sentence A. This is sentence B. This is sentence C. This is sentence D.<ref>Ref for sentences A through D.</ref>

. All four sentences are sourced to the one ref. Say an editor comes along and breaks this paragraph into two paragraphs as so

This is sentence A. This is sentence B.
This is sentence C. This is sentence D.<ref>Ref for sentences A through D.</ref>

Now, sentences A & B have become divorced from their sourcing. They are now broken, but they were NOT before. What the editor who broke up the paragraph should do is

This is sentence A. This is sentence B.<ref name=A/>
This is sentence C. This is sentence D.<ref name=A>Ref for sentences A through D.</ref>

which attaches the source to the sentences that have been moved around. This is very important to keep text source integrity in our articles.

And you still haven't answered the question if you read the Hull and Arendt sources before attaching them here from another article. This is also important because you should never add sources without actually consulting them and making sure they support the information that they are appended to. Again, elementary editing that needs to be understood before editing such a high profile article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've now added a copy of the source to the other paragraph. Getting back to the topic of this discussion: The picture. See the #Victims and death toll section, it's much more crowded with pictured than the #Aftermath section is or would be if I only added a small picture of the Eichmann trial. M . M 08:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Eichmann "captured", "kidnapped", "abducted"?

I think the prose should say Eichmann was "captured" or "arrested" or "apprehended", and not "kidnapped" or "abducted". My impression is that "captured" and "arrested" are the words most often used to describe the physical apprehension. I also think those words make sense because Eichmann was a fugitive from justice, a war criminal, who was apprehended in order to be brought to trial by a sovereign state's legal system, etc. etc. In other words, it was a legal physical apprehension for a legal purpose under international law, whereas, "kidnapping" and "abduction" implies illegality. Leviv ich 02:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If it was entirely legal, why didn't they extradite him? What word do the sources use? --MarchOrDie (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The word I've most commonly seen in sources (anecdotally, not having ever rigorously studied the relative commonness of the different words), and which our own article on Eichmann uses repeatedly, is "capture". Dictionaries define "apprehend" as "arrest by legal warrant" or similar, so both that word and "arrest" seem to connote that the capture was done in a more regular/legal way than it was, whereas I agree that "kidnap" may carry unwanted connotations in the other direction. "Capture" is probably the best word. -sche (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt in The New Yorker (1963) uses capture, arrest, and kidnap

The Times (London): capture

New York Times: capture

Washington Post: both capture and kidnap

CBS: capture

Spiegel: arrest

Britannica: both arrest and kidnap

Holocaust Encyclopedia: abduct

New World Encyclopedia: capture, apprehension, kidnap Leviv ich 02:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem with "kidnapped". Hannah Arendt uses it (Eichmann in Jerusalem), as does Bettina Stangneth (Eichmann before Jerusalem), and Deborah Lipstadt (The Eichmann Trial). They use other terms too, including capture. Stangneth refers to the "kidnap team" and Lipstadt to the "abduction team". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Per Levivich I think capture its a best term --Shrike (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If it was entirely legal, why didn't they extradite him? --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Capture should be preferred - it is common in the sources. It was possibly not a legal act in Argentina, it was a legal act in Israel (and probably elsewhere). Capture does not imply anything about the legality or illegality of the capture - which was an act of state regardless. Note that we have a WP:BLPCRIME issue vs. the Mossad team - members of whom haven't been charged in Argentina to the best of my knowledge - by using kidnap we are asserting the capture of this war criminal was a crime - in relation to people who haven't been charged/convicted of kidnapping. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

So you'd be ok if we talked about Nazis capturing Jews? MarchOrDie (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, because Jews, unlike Nazis, were not war criminals. When a Nazi takes physical custody of someone and spirits them away, it's a kidnapping. But when a Nazi is taken into physical custody and spirited away, it's a capturing. Leviv ich 18:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Nazis in their own minds and by their own statutes were acting legally. I am uneasy about glossing over an illegal act like this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would use "captured" as the first instance where it comes up, as the more general term. "Abducted" is also fine later in the section, and slightly preferable to "kidnapped" as the latter often implies a ransom demand. He was not arrested nor apprehended, as only the Argentine authorities could have done that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Was there a UN resolution about this? What did it say? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: Please see United Nations Security Council Resolution 138. The result was, IIRC, that Israel apologised to Argentina and the matter settled between the two countries. By the way, the related section in Eichmann's article is called "Capture", so I think this is the best way to introduce the topic: Adolf_Eichmann#Capture. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm indebted to you. The Council declared that such acts, if repeated, could endanger international peace and security and requested that Israel make the appropriate reparation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law. So the UN reckoned it was a breach of international law. I'm not sure we can use Wikipedia as a source in this way, and I remain uneasy about using a term like this in Wikipedia's voice. It seems too easily to endorse Israel's breach of international law. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Of course it was a breach of Argentinian & international law. But I don't think anyone actually cares about that, and even if they did, "captured" does not imply legality. As others have previously stated, the Eichmann article used the term "captured", and so should this one. M . M 07:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Captured does not imply legality"; so you'd be ok if we said that Nazis captured Jews? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care. Of course, that's not all they did. "Kidnapped" or "abducted" just seems really biased against Israel in this context. M . M 08:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks then for your opinion. I guess we're heading for an RfC, aren't we? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A straightforward A/B, A: ...Mossad agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann..., B: ...Mossad agents captured Adolf Eichmann..., or framed some other way? Leviv ich 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A straightforward A/B is the simplest, I think. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: - you should strike with haste all comparisons of Mossad agents to Nazis. There is one significant difference - the Nazis (the regime as a whole, and a whole multitude of leaders at various levels) were convicted of war crimes. The mossad agents involved, were never convicted of any crime - some of them are quite notable (and known) BLPs - e.g. Rafi Eitan. Any allegation of criminal wrongdoing, absent a conviction or iron clad sourcing - is out of the window per WP:BLPCRIME, which applies to talk pages as well. Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like we have a consensus here for "capture", so no RfC is needed: WP:RfC says "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Perhaps SarahSV would like to clarify if she's saying "capture" is unacceptable to her, or only that "kidnap" is also acceptable to her, but even if the former, we're still at 75% support for "capture", a large supermajority. -sche (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: thanks for the ping. I don't mind whether we say "captured" or "kidnapped". I prefer "kidnapped" because it's more descriptive, and it was to some extent because it was a kidnap that it caught the world's attention. Holocaust and law historians regularly use the term "kidnapped" (interchangeably with other terms). More examples: Zad Leavy: "The Eichmann Trial and the Role of Law", American Bar Association Journal, 1962: "Eichmann was kidnapped from another sovereign state ..." JSTOR 25722107 And Raanan Rein, "The Eichmann Kidnapping: Its Effects on Argentine-Israeli Relations and the Local Jewish Community". Jewish Social Studies, 2001. JSTOR 4467612 Raanan Rein is the vice-president of Tel Aviv University. Having said that, for the purposes of this one sentence, I don't think it matters which word we use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the very thorough answer. Let's think about the best wording for an RfC. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: I wouldn't be interested in holding an RfC, but it's up to you. We should be guided by the scholarly sources. I checked a few news sources. Examples: Times of Israel (2018): "Opening this weekend, the film, focused on the kidnapping of Holocaust 'architect' ..."]; Jersualem Post (2018): "'Operation Finale' retells the Eichmann kidnapping for a new generation".

Also, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Because Argentina had a history of denying extradition requests, the decision was made to kidnap him. ... Eichmann’s kidnapping provoked an international incident, with Argentina protesting a violation of their sovereign rights to the United Nations Security Council before the dispute was smoothed over."

Briefly looking around legal sources, I found this paper on "Federally Sponsored International Kidnapping: An Acceptable Alternative to Extradition?", although it's from 1986. Washington University Law Review, 64(4), p. 1214, footnote 65: "The best-known United Nations condemnation of kidnapping was a resolution issued on the abduction of Adolph Eichmann, an accused Nazi war criminal. Israel sent 'volunteers' to Argentina to kidnap Eichmann and bring him back to Israel to stand trial for his alleged war crimes. Eichmann was kidnapped, tried, convicted, and hung in Israel. Argentina protested the kidnapping as violative of its sovereignty. The United Nations Security Council condemned kidnapping and said the practice would only create an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust which is incompatible with world peace. See 15 U.N. SCOR (868th mtg.) 1, U.N. Doc. s/p.v. 868 (1960)." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: The legal source I quoted above is misleading. The UN resolution does not use the word "kidnapping". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

NGRAM. Icewhiz (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Different result with this one. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

NGRAM of all 4 (you need to look at the Y scaling on the right). Icewhiz (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Also - verb form - NGRAM - which is a tossup on kidnapped/captured (no abducted though - doesn't show up at all in NGRAM). So this would rule out abducted, and leave us policy arguing over kidnap/capture (I'm still rolling with my WP:CRYBLP of BLPCRIME). Icewhiz (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

>Eichmann,capture_INF=>Eichmann&year_start=1950 NGRAM using inflection and dependency – I think this includes "kidnapping Eichmann", "capture of Eichmann", and other such variations. The red is the kidnapping versions, the blue is the capturing versions. Leviv ich 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Serb victims

I recently made an attempt to expand the literature regarding the Serb victims of the Holocaust. This was done at both the introduction and victims/death toll section. My addition was reverted by Ealdgyth due to unspecified reasons. The Serbian Genocide of WW2 forms part of the Holocaust, in line with what is stated in the Genocide article. An explanation would be appreciated to confirm why such an addition is contested or, input as to how to reword my contribution ThreatMatrix (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, your addition was first removed here and then you readded it. Only after the readdition, did I revert you. @SlimVirgin: who took the information out first time. From my viewpoint, the information is too detailed and certainly fails WP:NPOV with phrasing such as "the most gruesome of killing methods". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A section about actions against the Serbs by the Ustashe isn't appropriate in an article about the Holocaust. Threatmatrix, if you're arguing that it does belong, please post here some RS (Holocaust historians) so that we can judge relevance and DUE. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Serbian Genocide was an attempt by Nazi collaborators during WW2 to exterminate an entire race of people. The Serbian Genocide forms part of the Holocaust, just like the attempted extermination of the Roma, other Slavs etc. If this event is not relevant to the Holocaust then the sections regarding ethnic Poles, Soviet POW's etc would need to be removed. The emphasis on the grotesque nature of the Ustashe crimes is very much emphasized by Edmond (1961). I am able to re post my addition with more neutral language in line with WP:NPOV.Gideon Greif is very active in this field. ThreatMatrix (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue of linking the Serbian Genocide to the Holocaust is not so much due it not being a genocide, but rather since the Ustaše are seen by many as acting on their accord - genociding Serbs as part of their own agenda - the Nazies permitted or were complicit in this, but per many were not the driving force behind this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Edmond Paris wasn't a Holocaust historian. According to snippet view, his book uses the term "holocaust" three times, not in the sense of the Holocaust, but "this gigantic holocaust", "a gigantic holocaust" and "a frightful holocaust". What we need to see are mainstream academic historians specializing in the Holocaust who regard the Serbian genocide as part of it. That will give us a sense of whether to include it and how much to say about it, per WP:DUE. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am strapped for time so I am not at this stage available to conduct a systematic review, however it is on my to do list. However for now I reverted Ealdgyth's removal of my addition. The section of text that states that Serbs could escape death through conversion is not sourced and misrepresents what actually occured. The Glina massacre highlights that the Ustashe did not follow this practice in its entirety and the focus should be on what the Ustashe actually did. The Serbian Genocide overlaps with the Holocaust and given that there was a mention of it prior to my arrival to this page, a replacement of non-referenced material with referenced material was warranted ThreatMatrix (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

it was referenced. The reference at the end of the paragraph covers everything before it. So the Black reference cover that information. You have instead put in a source which is unknown (Baker) and inserted too much detail. You were bold and you were reverted, please don’t edit war by returning the information. Please self revert and wait for consensus to form in favor of your additions..and supply full bibliographical info for it. You might also note that this article has a consistent citation style..conforming to it is considered polite. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Icewhiz, perhaps you wish to weigh back in. I read the consensus from early February as being against this information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If in, in terms of placement this should go in "Victims and death toll". We currently do cover Roma deaths at the hands of the Ustase - and is organized by victim type (e.g. we have ethnic Pole section). A reference from a wide Holocaust work should be preferred over a Yugoslav specific one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

ThreatMatrix, please don't restore this again. This article is meant to be about the Holocaust—the genocide of the European Jews—and should be based on the work of mainstream Holocaust historians. To place the history in context, the article covers other atrocities during the Holocaust era, but we can't go into detail about them. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the edit by SlimVirgin. No further action will be taken from my end. ThreatMatrix (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Extermination camp

Hi. Some of the contributors here might want to take a look at the more recent changes at a related page, Extermination camp. It would seem issues which have been discussed here are also issues there… Regards, Robby.is.on (talk)

Robby, thanks for letting us know. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

12 December 1941?

Why would Hitler decide to annihilate Jews on 12 December 1941 if his forces had been killing Jews since 1939 in Poland and elsewhere? The killings in the Soviet Union had begun in the summer of 1941. (86.176.67.118 (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

What makes you think a decision (rather than a declaration) was made on that date? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

False information on Holocaust in occupied Croatia

In the section on Holocaust in occupied territories, it says "Croatia's ruling party, the Ustashe, killed the country's Jews, and killed or expelled Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslims.[167]" The inclusion of Muslims here is false. If you read the linked article, Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, it says:

"The Ustaše used Starčević's theories to promote the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia and they recognized Croatia as having two major ethnocultural components: Catholic Croats and Muslim Croats,[31] because the Ustaše saw the Islam of the Bosnian-Muslims as a religion which "keeps true the blood of Croats."[31] Source: Butić-Jelić, Fikreta. Ustaše i Nezavisna Država Hrvatska 1941–1945. Liber, 1977.

"The Ustashe viewed religion and nationality as closely linked; while Roman Catholicism and Islam (Bosnian Muslims were viewed as Croats) were recognized as Croatian national religions, Eastern Orthodoxy was deemed inherently incompatible with the Croatian state project.[14]" Source: Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. New York: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-34656-8. p 118

Wikipedia should not falsify history. Bosniaks were not victims of the Ustase, but collaborators. See the Featured Article 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). This is indisputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.226.205 (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Who collaborated?

Romania murdered Jews. Did Romania collaborate? The page Collaboration with the Axis Powers doesn't list Romania. Some integration of this Wikipedia is needed.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Romania was one of the Axis powers, and adhered to the Tripartite Pact. You can't collaborate with yourself. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

was a genocide in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators - where are the other Axis powers?Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A page with false definition in the lead is of poor quality. The lead should summarize the content. Germany's allies is hidden, section 5.3 Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xx236, I'm responding to your note on my talk, namely "The lead definition ignores allies of Germany." I'm not sure what you mean by this. It does say "Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators". Can you elaborate? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's explained above. Romania didn't collaborate but it murdered Jews. So Nazi Germany, its allies and collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Many English language sources copy the definition. So apparently the Allies of Germans are considered here to be collaborators. But the problem should be explained to the reader. There is a basic difference between a state, a party or organisatoion and terrorised civilians. Now the word collaborators is uded to bash people of Eastern Europe and whitewash the ones from Western Europe.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You can read about Romania in Diana Dumitru, The State, Antisemitism, and Collaboration in the Holocaust: The Borderlands of Romania and the Soviet Union. University of Cambridge, 2016.

You're right that the issue of collaboration is a difficult and sensitive one, and we should have a careful explanation in this article, but it would be hard to write it well. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Now the lead is unprecize.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Is the position that the concentration camps were unlawful correct?

The part I refer to is: "The Third Reich first used concentration camps as places of unlawful incarceration of political opponents and other "enemies of the state". Large numbers of Jews were not sent there until after Kristallnacht in November 1938.[182]"

Since the goverment suspended most of "due process" around the same time, wouldnt the incarceration be considered lawful (though certainly not moral)? Can anyone refute or confirm this? Multilocus (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

From the the final sentence of introduction:

“By mid-1942, victims were being deported from the ghettos in sealed freight trains to extermination camps where, if they survived the journey, they were killed in gas chambers. The killing continued until the end of World War II in Europe in May 1945.”

To be more factual, shouldn’t the sentence read: “...if they survived the journey, those the Nazi camp authorities deemed physically fit to work were made slave laborers under brutal conditions with little chance of ultimate survival, and those who were not deemed fit to work were summarily killed in gas chambers.”

I don’t think this point is at all disputed or contentious The camp selection processes are well known. My point is that as written the passage is simply historically inaccurate. However, because of the extremely sensitive nature of this subject, I don’t want to make any substantive change without first clearing it with the consensus of other editors. Thank you.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The key point is "extermination camps". The percentage of Jews selected for work in the extermination camps is so minuscule as to be insignificant - which makes the statement perfectly fine for an introduction. The sentence refers to the Operation Reinhard camps - Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec (and Chelmo too) - not the camps that used slave labor such as Auschwitz or Majdanek. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m uncertain about the other camps you refer to, but Sobibor was an extermination camp and part of Operation Reinhard and did use people as slave laborers, though most were gassed upon arrival. There was the well known revolt/escape from it involving six hundred people in the effort. its Wiki article confirms such.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

600 people compared to the hundreds of thousands that were taken to the camp - Treblinka killed around 900,000, but the laborers in the camp never numbered over 2000 at any one time (and that's being generous - it's likely that usual laborers were under a 1000). Same for Belzec - very small percentage of people arriving were selected for labor. Treblinka usually had transports of 6000 or so... there might be 10 or 20 transportees selected for labor, or there might be less or more. But never anything approaching the percentages selected for labor at Auschwitz. It's a lead and it should not be bogged down with details ... especially when it clearly states "extermination camps" instead of "concentration camps". Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, thank you. I never knew that Auschwitz was not considered an extermination camp notwithstanding its infamous gas chambers and crematoria, but, apparently, a concentration camp. Anyway, I probably couldn’t make this change even if I were so inclined due to the article's protection status. It’s a moot point as I also said I would never think of it without a consensus. Perhaps others, if not you, might accept my suggested rewrite if: “—the vast majority—“ were inserted after: “...and those not deemed fit to work…” Best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Auschwitz was a camp complex it was Both (Auschwitz was the largest of the German Nazi concentration camps and extermination centers.) http://auschwitz.org/en/ @HistoryBuff14: Jack90s15 (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. That's all the more reason, in my opinion, to make the change I suggest as editor Ealdgyth notes that the relevant passage refers to extermination camps which, as you just pointed out, Auschwitz was in part.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Auschwitz-Birkenau was the biggest extermination camp with the highest kill rate as well as being the biggest concentration camp.

217.210.93.240 (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

IT's speculation. The 960 000 (Auschwitz) includes non-Jews, so it's very dificult to estimate if Auschwitz was worse than Treblinka if we count only Jeiwsh victims.Xx236 (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

The International Red Cross has since proven with physical evidence that the number of deaths actually caused by Nazi Germany was around the 315,000 mark as a huge amount of the original tally of deaths included those who died of the typhus epidemic that plagued Germany during WW2, the epidemic was made worse by bombing runs on medical supply routes and towns like Dresden.

Evidence of this can be found looking at the 1938 and 1948 Red Cross sensus based on religious views, Jewish numbers increased dramatically over this period which furthermore contradicts the 6 million death totals and goes more in line with the 315,000 deaths. 49.182.47.111 (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

not done. This is typical denialist junk, as the Red Cross has never put forth any such numbers and has in fact refuted this sort of use of their name. Ealdgyth - Talk 09:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

For fuller details - see here Ealdgyth - Talk 13:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Have the Red Cross numbers been released? Where, when? Is there any source giving evidence other than "eyewitness" statements - ie forensic, etc? 2601:181:8301:4510:5008:B8C2:A3EB:786D (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:GOODBIAS, you get the idea... Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Linguistic fallacy in the Death Toll section

"Of Poland's 3.3 million Jews, about 90 percent were killed.[369] Many more died in the ghettos of Poland before they could be deported.[403]"

Since 90 percent is the first reference to the number of Jews killed in Poland, it makes no sense to continue with "many more", since it doesn't contrast against anything. That many more died in the ghettos of Poland before they could be deported than the total number of polish Jews killed is impossible, so I guess it's leftover from an earlier edit referring to Jews killed somewhere else than the ghettos. Just dropping "more" from the sentence would make it correct, although if it referred to some other figure earlier, why isn't that still there? Shouldn't changes made to protected articles be mentioned in the talk page? 217.210.93.240 (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Not sure I follow the "linguistic fallacy" angle, but I do agree that that excerpt you quote from section Death toll has a very muddy organization, as far as chronology is concerned, which makes one backtrack to understand it, and there are also some implied assumptions. And you're right about material having been removed, that did not improve the clarity of this section. If you look at this edit of 20:03, October 3, 2017, you'll see that it used to say

Around one million Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen in the occupied Soviet territories, an approximate figure, since the Einsatzgruppen reports did not always survive the war. Many more died through execution or of disease and malnutrition in the ghettos of Poland before they could be deported.

but was changed to read:

Around one million Jews were killed by the Einsatzgruppen in the occupied Soviet territories. Many more died in the ghettos of Poland before they could be deported. For the death camps, 80–90 percent of the victims are estimated to have been Jews. They accounted for half the total number of Jews killed.

In my opinion, this edit, at least in this part of the change, was not an improvement, and confused the situation. And now the article contains the two sentences you quoted, which is worse.

If you would like to propose new wording here, please do so. Feel free to use wording from old versions of the article (click the History tab to view them) if you think they were better, or to propose new wording of your own. Be aware, that this article has many eagle-eyed watchers, so you have to be very meticulous about sourcing; see WP:Verifiability, reliable sources, and Help:Footnotes if you're not too familiar with those policies. For starters, that means any wording you add, should be a summary of what you find in highly reliable sources on the topic, which must be cited with footnotes. If you propose a change, be very clear of what you are proposing. The best way, is probably Before-and-after excerpts, like you see above. I will notify you on your Talk page about this reply, since WP:Notifications don't work with IP editors. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

217.210.93.240, following your suggestion, I've removed the word "more". Thanks for spotting the problem. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Germans required each ghetto to be run by a Judenrat

The Judenrate were formed at the beginning of the war and used to create the ghettos. Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Bad / possibly malicious links to mazal.org on various pages

Many of the Nuremberg trial pages link to mazal.org for Nuremberg tribunal reports, or link it as a general external reference. I'm not sure what used to be there, but now it's a blank page which shows a CAPTCHA button on the 1st visit claiming it will verify further (but appears to be timing-based to prevent the redirect from being followed) then redirects to getsplendidapps.com and asks for an unsigned extension / addon to be installed (in Firefox 66.0.5). I'm changing these to point to the NMT .pdf copies on the library of congress website when I find them, but I'm posting here so others editing sub-pages can be on the lookout. A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Add "Genocide" at the beginning of the article:

{{Genocide}} 209.232.148.106 (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ehhhhh, there's quite a bit of navbar on the right side as it is. Feel free to establish a consensus for this change. Izno (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The Third Reich was a product of the continent

The Third Reich murdered millions of Slavs, including Poles, but according to some academicians the vicitms produced the Third Reich. Pure revisionism.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"[n]ot one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews."

Polish government in exile did. Some Polish Catholics in terrorized Poland did, see Protest!. If you quote a biased text, you are oblidged to quote other opinions as well.Xx236 (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

200,000 non-Germans were Holocaust perpetrators

A masterpiece of German propaganda. The outside world was responsible, we Germans did nothing, we only performed our orders. Performing orders is part of German culture.

• Who was a perpetrator? Was Eichmann a perpetrator? He didn't kill any Jew.
• How many Germans were perpetrators? Were producers of Zyklon-B and crematory ovens perpetrators? Were administrators of lists of Jews, who never met any Jew, perpetrators?
• Germany didn't punish millions of German Nazis but punished low level collaborators, pushovers.

Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dieter Pohl received his doctorate in 1995 with a thesis on Nazi persecution of Jews in Eastern Galicia 1941-1944, nothing about collaborators. https://ehri-project.eu/dieter-pohl Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Th equoted source Bajohr, Frank; Pohl, Dieter (2008). Massenmord und schlechtes Gewissen: Die deutsche Bevölkerung die NS-Führung und der Holocaust. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. - German population, still nothing about the collaborators. Isn't it cherrypicking, to find collaborators in books about Germans? Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• "Were producers of Zyklon-B" Do you mean the company Degesch which produced the Zyklon-B, or its parent company IG Farben? The IG Farben Trial (1947-1948) did hold them responsible for their involvement. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean the idea of counting perpetrators. They aren't apples. The Holocaust had a hierarchical structure, a small number of top Nazis decided, beaurocrats and officers organized, thousands of executors wmurdered. You don't count Eichmann and a Trawniki man in the sam eway. So a statement 200,000 non-Germna perpetrators is non-academic. Either the text explains the number or it's German nationalistic propaganda.

Yes, there is a difference between Degesch and top managers of IG-Farben, who run the slave work empire.Xx236 (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I have found elsewhere number of German perpetrators 500,000. But it doesn't mean that the Germans were responsible for 5/7 of the Holocaust and non-Germans for 2/7.Xx236 (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Pogroms in pre-war Poland

How many people died in the pogroms? How many of them were Jewish and how many non-Jewish? Poland was a poor country and hunger was endemic in Galicja. There existed social problems in Poland, the pogroms were only a part of confrontations. The pogroms weren't only caused by abstract anti-semitism. There existed historical (corvée), social, economic, religious and nationalistic tensions.

There is no obvious connection betwen illegal pogroms in Poland and the Holocaust. It's your task to prove that such connection is important.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

According to https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/historia/1514074,1,antyzydowskich-pogromow-bylo-w-polsce-lat-30-co-najmniej-kilkadziesiat.read 1300 Jews were wounded, number of deads isn't quoted, so it was probably very low. The text doesn't say how many non-Jews were wounded, at least one was shot in Przytyk. During one straik (Semperit, 1936) 8 people died and tens were wounded. During protests of farmers in 1937 44 people died, 5000 were arrested, 617 imprisoned. Xx236 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources - 1937 newspaper (primary) and "Spiegel" - German biased opinion. It uses an uneducated Ukrainian Iwan Demjanjuk to transfer responsibility from Germany. Germany prefers to accuse non-Germans. German mass criminal Heinz Reinefarth was a respected German politician. Only in 2014 a memorial table remembering Polish victims of Reinfarth was rised.Xx236 (talk) 12:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Germany, aided by local collaborators,

The word collaborators has two meanings - allies of Germany and collaborators in occupied lands. The link in the lead misinforms, you completely ignore in the lead the allies of Nazi Germany, described in Germany's allies subsection. Xx236 (talk) 05:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

in Slovakia, which would later deport its Jews to German concentration and extermination camps. - the information is fuzzy - no numbers, no facts. Xx236 (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Romania - 154,000–170,000 Jews were deported from 1941 to 1943. How many of them survived? History of the Jews in Romania quotes highe rnumbers of victims. Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia is described in Other occupied countries. Xx236 (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Nazi Germany, aided by its allies and local collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Please define the Holocaust in the lead. The lead should summarize the page, now it doesn't. I have informed you about the problem, my text has been archivised, but the problem exists.Xx236 (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The lede very clearly defines the Holocaust; I'm not seeing any issue. Are you concerned that there's some minor fuzziness around collaborator vs. ally as regards Croatia? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Are more than 100 000 victims of Nazi allies a minor problem to be ignored in the lead?

The lead clearly misinforms. Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of the local collaborators were terrorized by the Germans, who implemented a perfect totalitarian system using open terror, propaganda, economy, food. Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there specific changes you wish to make to the article lede? If so, what do you propose, and what part of the article's body will it be summarizing? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Germany's allies subsection should be developed, especially Romanian crimes aren't described proportionally.
• Nazi Germany, aided by its allies and collaborators is much better. local is controversial, Germans transferred collaborators. Xx236 (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

So you think the article required more material about Romania in the "Germany's allies" subsection, and in the lede you would like to change the phrase "aided by local collaborators" to "aided by allies and collaborators"? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes.Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Holocaust Museum defines Collaborators as allies and collaborators in this WIkipedia language. So either we have to correct pages about the collaboration or to add Axis here. Xx236 (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we would have to use the Holocaust Museum's definition, or why it's important that this be reflected in the lede. What would you think of "aided by allies and local collaborators"? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Germans trasported the ccollaborators, so not always local. Many Trawniki weren't local. Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You use Museum's definition, or perhaps there is a common source for Wikipedia and Museum. I'm against the definition.Xx236 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, well, I'm not using any definition, but I don't see any particular reason to change the definition used in this article. Maybe other editors here do. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not using any definition - so how do you edit here if you don't have definitions of basic ideas?

I don't see any particular reason to change the definition used in this article - In another words - why to do something correctly?Xx236 (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't been editing here, and I don't see why your understanding is more correct than the other. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, Romania's death toll is given as 220,000 in this article (the USHMM says at least 270,000, as an aside), while Hungary's death toll was 502,000 (according to us, USHMM says 563,000), the Soviet Union lost over 2 million, as did Poland...I don't think Romania is underrepresented here. Might be useful if there is an article on the Holocaust in Romania to link to it in the section, if folks can find one. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently Holocaust in Romania is a redirect to History of the Jews in Romania#The Holocaust. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean responsibility, not numbers of victims. Romania murdered the Jews, the case of Hungary is more complicated. Jews in Poland were murdered mostly by Germans and Austrians. 270,000 is 5%, at least few lines should be added.Xx236 (talk) 05:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's trash, not a definition. You link Collaboration with the Axis Powers which doesn't include Nazi Allies. The collaborators weren't always local. You don't define collaboration. Hans Lemberg wrote ironically Was Kollaboration ist, weiß jedermann allready in 1972. Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, the section you added was a duplicate of the one just above it. I merged them for you. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Who do you think were non "local" collaborators? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Nonlocal collaborators were nonlocal, transferred hundreds or thousands kilometers.Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How significant were they compared to the local collaborators? Were there hundreds of thousands of them? Tens of thousands? Thousands? Exactly who were they? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It varies by locale. In Belarus, Ukraine, Baltics, and Eastern Poland non-German SS units and aux. police (mainly from the Baltics and Ukraine) were of some significance. Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

YadVashem says Nazi Germany, point. https://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about.html Xx236 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The third sentence says "the Germans and their accomplices". SarahSV ^(talk) 00:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

And everyone knows who the accomplices are, rephrasing Lemberg. An encyclopedia has to carefully define used notions to prevent any misunderstandings.Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The linked section is Collaborators, not Local collaborators. Main includes Nazi allies but the text starts with local collaborators. It sweep's the problem under the carpet. Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Why do you say "everyone knows who the accomplices are"? Who is it that "everyone knows"? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is not neutral

Your definitiuon of the Holocaust is biased. It ignores Nazi allies and accuses local collaborators. If you don't know about non-local ones, read books.

The Collaboration section is unproportionally short, biased pro-German.Xx236 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Copying from other articles

Jack90s15, if you copy text from another WP article, please state in the edit summary that "this edit" copies text from wherever. Your edit summary of 10 June UTC, "content in this article was copied from Einsatzgruppen on June 9th 2019," makes it seem that my edits to Einsatzgruppen on 9 June were copied.

Having said that, it isn't a good idea to copy text from elsewhere on WP, because it could mean that this article inherits the other article's problems, such as relying on old sources. Also, text written to flow well in one article might not work elsewhere. Finally, I don't know whether you checked the sources before copying it over; the sources would have to be checked. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That is why I put (Attribution content in this article was copied from Einsatzgruppen on June 9th 2019.Please see the history of that page for full attribution). And if some one looks at page history they can see that i did that edit. and yes I did check to see if it was matching what was being said on the wiki page with what was in the booksJack90s15 (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

On 6 July 1941 Einsatzkommando 4b of Einsatzgruppe C reported that "Armed forces surprisingly welcome hostility against the Jews".

On 8 September, Einsatzgruppe D reported that relations with the German Army were "excellent

it is on page 301 Book number not the Slide number https://archive.org/details/DestructionOfTheEuropeanJewsRaulHilberg/page/n311

The killings took place with the knowledge and support of the German Army in the east is on page 102

https://books.google.com/books?id=sYCmDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=Marrus,+Michael+The+killings+took+place+with+the+knowledge+and+support+of+the+German+Army+in+the+east&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj-5a-Hmd7iAhVFxVkKHX5lDtw4ChDoAQhNMAY#v=onepage&q=Marrus%2C%20Michael%20The%20killings%20took%20place%20with%20the%20knowledge%20and%20support%20of%20the%20German%20Army%20in%20the%20east&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It is better not to copy text from other articles. In this case, one of the issues is why sources from the 1980s were chosen. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Raul Hilberg was a reputable historian when he was alive and Hillgruber was considered reputable to when he was alive also maybe that is why.

We mourn the passing of Professor Raul Hilberg, world-renowned scholar, founder of the academic field of Holocaust studies, and a key figure in the establishment and development of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.https://www.ushmm.org/information/press/in-memoriam/raul-hilberg-1926-2007

Andreas Hillgruber earned a doctorate at the University of Gottingen in West Germany. His scholarly career included teaching at the universities of Marburg and Freiburg, both in West Germany. He was the author of more than a dozen books, and was praised by Gordon A. Craig, the noted American historian of Germany, for his masterful delineation of Hitler's grand strategical plan.

https://www.nytimes.com/1989/05/25/obituaries/andreas-hillgruber-64-historian-in-west-german-dispute-is-dead.html

Jack90s15 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC) SlimVirgin

There are a couple of problems with the added content. one, there are grammatical errors introduced. Two, some has no sources. Three, the citation format doesn't conform to the style in use in the article (this is one reason why copying between articles is a bad idea). Four, the level of detail, while perhaps correct for the article the information came from, is too detailed for an overview article on the entire Holocaust. We do not need the quotations from specific Group leaders on specific days - that's just way too much detail for an article that's supposed to cover the entirety of the Holocaust. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The one that did not have a source was Einsatzgruppe A wrote that Army Group North had been exemplary in co-operating with the exterminations and that relations with the 4th Panzer Army, commanded by General Erich Hoepner, were "very close, almost cordial" that is from The Destruction of the European Jews on page page 301 in the book page was trying to put that in a SFN cite and the others.

https://archive.org/details/DestructionOfTheEuropeanJewsRaulHilberg/page/n311

I used those to show how they worked Together — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 (talk • contribs)

Ealdgyth, I intend to rewrite that section later today. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I did put them in the proper citations and the page was missing how the Wehrmacht was part of the holocaust thttps://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-german-military-and-the-holocaust It mentioned it briefly in the opening and the einsatzgruppen part of page. That is why I used that Example to show how they worked together that why I used Attribution for the info form the einsatzgruppen page https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Einsatzgruppen#Involvement_of_the_Wehrmacht If you are going to rewrite it or Delete what I put Should I just do it or are going to keep the info and rewrite differently?Jack90s15 (talk) 16:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Przemysław Wielgosz

Przemysław Wielgosz is a radical left activist. He is neither academic nor neutral. He doesn't belong here as a reliable sources. If Wielgosz is quoted, a radical right opinion is needed to preserve neutrality. Xx236 (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

That's not how neutrality works. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 13:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, I haven't heard of him before, but it seems unlikely that the "editor of Le Monde diplomatique’s Polish edition" is a "radical left activist". Is it possible that you view him that way because he has published articles like this, titled "Poland’s nationalists are burying their antisemitic past – this is dangerous"? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that Le Monde diplomatique is reliable, we belong to two worlds.Xx236 (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't commented on the reliability of Le Monde diplomatique. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Austria did participate

Austrians participated in designing and implementing the Holocaust, their share is ignored here. Austria is mentioned because of Mauthausen like Poland because of Auschwitz. There was however no symmetry, Austrians murdered both in Mauthausen and in Auschwitz.Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

We already have an article on Austria under National Socialism. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This page is about the Holocaust. Please do the page better. If you belive that the mentioned page is good, please summarize it here and link the page. It's like Wikipedia works.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Not to forget, such as "Austria" did not exist in this timeline, is was part and already annexed earlier to Germany.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC))

Why the archivization?

A number of June threads were archivized closing unfinished discusisons.

Austria - My answer to KENGIR - Poland didn't exist more than Austria, but you may find in this Wikipedia plenty of accusations regarding Poland and Polish people. Austrian Nazis existed during WWII, they were influential, now forgotten. Local collaborators (sometimes terrorized by Germans) seem to be more resposnible than Vienna academicians?Xx236 (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Threads are archived when they go stale; when no-one responds for more than a week. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Xx236:,

Hi, what is sure I did not accuse with anything Poland and the Polish people; yes, Poland and Austria did not exist then, however in case of any "existence" the General Government was something, but of course it cannot really be considered by any means as a "sovereign Poland". The term "Austrian" in this context really may only refer to the interwar state of Austria, but not an ethnicity, since Austrian national conscience and identity came to existence only after WWII, in fact they are Germans by any means. What is the most important, we cannot pretend if the Austrian state would not be ceased and united with Germany, also we cannot distinguish the Germans of Austria from Germans from Germany, only if relevant to indicate that before (= until 1938) the subject was an Autrian citizen.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC))

The General Government was a structure of German terror against Polish people but you believe it was POlish. Austrians participated in German state structures, including the Holocaust. We cannot pretend that Austrians weren't Nazi and they didn't murder Jews. Did they appear in 1945 as the firs victims of the Nazis? before (= until 1938) the subject was an Autrian citizen' and after 1945.

There is a group of editors who accuse Polish people in hundreds of pages. The editors refuse to coontribute general texts about the Holocaust, so you may not known the problem. Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Kristallnacht describes German, Austria and Sudetenland as separate units.Xx236 (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

If an academic paper describes euthanasia in Austria, why not The Holocaust in Austria? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165987~~

https://www.dw.com/en/austrians-lack-crucial-holocaust-awareness-study-finds/a-48564260 Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Vienna is mentioned only twice in subparagraph Anschluss. What happened there afterwards?Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Functionalism versus intentionalism

The page should be linked. It's a basic question.Xx236 (talk) 10:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslavia and Greece

Is the difference between Serbia and Croatia obvious? Serbia was occupied by Germany (which was governed by a combination of military and police administrators, German ones, which isn't written) and Croatia was nominally independent, which is written.Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Jedwabne

some 1,600 men, women and children, according to Jan T. Gross - it's not according to Gross, because Gross didn't study facts. The number comes from Communist propaganda. The same propaganda estimated numbers of Auschwitz victims to be 4 million.

Exhumantion found at least 340 dead bodies. The 1,600 isn't supported. Xx236 (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Very liberal Gazeta Wyborcza [4] quotes 1940 data:

Jedwabne 562 Jews

Radziłów around 500

Wasosz 154

Wizna (476 Jews) was bombed, so situation there was different.Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin [5] replaced official investigation data with obsolete Gross' thesis of 1,600 victims. What is the reason to replace seroious data with Communist propaganda and to qualify such edit as expansions? What is the reason to accuse pre-war Poland, which was a vicitm of Nazi Germany? Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

There were anti-Jewish pogroms in around 100 towns in Poland between 1935 and 1937

If you don't know the Holocaust was designed and implemented by Germany (and annected Austria), not by Poland. Using German sources against Poland is controversial. Some German politicians and academicians transfer responsibility from Germany and Austria to Poland or local collaborators. Editors of this page participate in the transfer, refusing to discuss their errors and manipulations.

Why don't you write how many Jews were killed during the pogroms and how many non-Jews? Probably the biggest and best knoown Przytyk pogrom had one non-Jewish victim and two Jewish ones. The killing of a Polish peasant by a Jew started the riot and the reasons were econimical rather than racist. Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The pogroms were economical riots caused partially by US crisis and by Nazi German threat. The government of Poland taxed citizens to buy arms. In many areas of Poland Poles were peasants selling their products to Jewish merchants, so an economic conflict may be described here as anti-Semitism to bash the Poles.Xx236 (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Bulgaria introduced anti-Jewish measures in 1940 and 1941 - Hungary did it even before 1939, surprisingly no such information here.Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Nazi Germany, aided by local collaborators, systematically murdered some six million Jews

• Nazi Germany included here Austrians, Sudentengermans and Volksgermans. It's not obvious for some readers.
• Axi states weren't local collaborators. Slovakia is described here as "one of the most loyal of the collaborationist regimes", but The Holocaust in Slovakia describes collaboration only in 1944. Some integration is needed.
• What is the meaning of local here? Are non-local collaborators better than local ones? Here come some non-locals:

I don't read Dutch but the text seems to be useful https://www.historischnieuwsblad.nl/nl/artikel/26355/nederlandse-ss-ers-en-de-holocaust.html

https://www.timesofisrael.com/finnish-volunteers-in-ss-units-took-part-in-wwii-nazi-atrocities-finland-says/

5th SS Panzer Division Wiking#Modern reportsXx236 (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Jasenovac concentration camp is mentioned regarding Roma. But they murdered Jews. didn't they?Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the source of the phrase? It is probably OR, should be corrected or removed.Xx236 (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You raised this previously at Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 35#Nazi Germany, aided by local collaborators,. At that time you were not able to get any other editors to agree that this was an issue; nor were you able to explain what you meant by "everyone knows who the accomplices are". Do you now have an explanation? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Please show me the source of the local collaborators. As far it's OR. Xx236 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

First answer the question above please; I think you're trying to make a point that is not apparent to others, and answering that question will clarify. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Death marches - execution

Yantarny,_Kaliningrad_Oblast#Massacre_of_Palmnicken Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing a change to the article? If so, what change are you proposing, based on which reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:45, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I propose to rewrite the page using reliable sources. Now the page quotes saccidental or biased sources (Der Spiegel as a source of European Holocaust).

Regarding Palmnicken - https://www.zeit.de/2000/45/Endloesung_am_Bernsteinstrand. There is a book, which I don't have Martin Bergau: Todesmarsch zur Bernsteinküste. Das Massaker an Juden im ostpreußischen Palmnicken im Januar 1945. Zeitzeugen erinnern sich. Universitätsverlag Winter, Heidelberg Xx236 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm still finding your comments cryptic at best. Which specific sentences do you wish to change, what do you want to change them to, based on which specific reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

You refuse to cooperate. I'm giving you my expertise which you lack so you answer - do the whole job. Two sources are not enough? How many you demand, fifty?Xx236 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not "refusing" to do anything. You still haven't said exactly what you want to do, and what sources you want to use for it. Please propose a specific change; it's not up to other editors to read your mind about what exactly you think needs to be done. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

de:EndphaseverbrechenXx236 (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Death marches (Holocaust) is a poor basis for the subsection. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-Jewish civilian victims?

In arguing with someone about the total number of people who died in the Holocaust I came across a bit of an interesting problem. Some sources seem to say the Holocaust is a term specific to Jewish victims and others use it to include all (civilian) groups systematically targeted by the Nazis.

Does it make sense to note civilian victims of systematic murder in the Holocaust description sidebar, perhaps called out separately? Inclusion of POWs seems iffy to me, but all others amount for another 8-10 million people.

Per https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Holocaust_victims and it's sources

Victims	Murdered
Jews	5–6 million
Soviet citizens	5.7 million(excl. 1.3 million Jews)
Soviet POWs	2.8–3.3 million
Poles	1.8–3 million
Serbs	300,000–600,000
Disabled	270,000
Romani	130,000–500,000
Freemasons	80,000–200,000
Slovenes	20,000–25,000
Spanish Republicans	7,000
Homosexuals	5,000–15,000
Jehovah's Witnesses	1,250–5,000

Catskul (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You might want to check out the charts in the section The Holocaust#Other victims of Nazi persecution. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I saw that, but the box at the top seems to define the Holocaust as the murder of 6M Jewish victims excluding the others by definition. I'm interested in the definitional issue of the term Holocaust. Does it specifically mean the murder/genocide of Jews, or does the term include the other targeted populations? Or is there even consensus on this?

And I don't mean to say that the entire victims chart be included at the top, but rather it say something like "Description: Genocide of the European Jews and mass murder of other targeted civilians" and "Deaths: Around 6 million Jews and millions of other targeted civilians"

Thoughts?

Catskul (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

The section The Holocaust#Definition should help. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Who were local collaborators

The lead contains undefined notion of local collaborators. I have asked several times why the local ones are accused and the non-local ones ignored. Was Romania a local collaborator? The text doesn't inform about Axis powers and Tripartite Pact. Xx236 (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Aftermath

NYCJosh, the Liberation section has a strong ending with the quote from Dimbleby. The text you want to add would be more appropriate in the Aftermath section:

Newly liberated, many Jewish survivors ended up in displaced persons camps (DP camps), with many American-run DP camps providing horrific conditions, according to the Harrison Report.

With more sources and written differently, it could perhaps have its own sub-section in the Aftermath section. Note that it's discussed in Aftermath of the Holocaust, without sources. Perhaps it would be better to add the sources there. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive criticism. To create a new sub-section in the Aftermath section, what more do you think needs to be added? There are a lot of details and sources available in the Sh'erit ha-Pletah and the Harrison Report articles, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We would need an idea of numbers: how many ended up in these camps, where the camps were, how many were American-run, and where they went from there. The article's already long, so not too much. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Was there any difference between Austria and Poland according to this page?

Austria and Poland were invided and later there were concentration camps in both, one in Austria and plenty in Poland. Xx236 (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

They were invaded, not invited. See main article invasion. Dimadick (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, I see now you answered to me, but I did not notice then, please in the future ping me not to miss them. My answers to you:

"The General Government was a structure of German terror against Polish people but you believe it was POlish." -> No I don't believe or never said such, I said "yes, Poland and Austria did not exist then, however in case of any "existence" the General Government was something, but of course it cannot really be considered by any means as a "sovereign Poland"."

"Austrians participated in German state structures, including the Holocaust." -> I think you failed to understand that such as "Austrians" ceased to exist in 1938 as state/citizenship/adherence to a state, and regarding ethnicity/national conscience did not even exist until the end of WWII. Thus you may refer them just as former Austrians (citizens), nothing more. They were Germans.

"We cannot pretend that Austrians weren't Nazi and they didn't murder Jews." -> The same argumentations as before

"Did they appear in 1945 as the firs victims of the Nazis?" -> Some circles/groups or in cases official post-war representants liked to appear like that, as many gruops, organizations, states tried to explain out themselves and wash their hands or just bended they interest to the new situation. You know the famous story when from Austrian side there was a reluctance of mass repearations of what happened during WWII, they were threatened that everywhere all those footages will be presented how the people in the country and Vienna were happy when Hitler entered and made the Anschsluss, that was reinforced by over 99% vote.

Then the Kristallnacht article is not precise enough (as it is true for many pages), it has to be revised.

Many acedemic papers are not accurate and ignores status quo changes and descibe terirtories and entities projected to the present-day status qou, that is a mistake and ignorance.

"What happened there afterwards?" -> You last question a kindly ask you to specify more, because I don't know at first glance what you might refer of.

P.S.: I noticed since a half year that many WWII and Polish affiliated articles almost daily walls of text, discussion, cases are ongoing regarding the Holocaust and it's Polish affiliations, but I participated very minimally on them, only in cases when I had the necessary knowledge or concept of the details or the proper representations of it. I am not an accuser as you noticed, I am all the time for NPOV and historical accuracy, shall anything to be involved. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC))

Trials

The subsection informs about a few punished leaders. The majority of middle class criminals wasn't punished. West-German policy of pretending de-Nazification deserves to be mentioned here.Xx236 (talk) 06:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

German courts demanded - or at least appreciated - evidence. Except in a few cases of political importance they were unable to drum up any believable "evidence". Seeing as how all the "extermination" of Jews, Gypsies, etc happened in Russian post war controlled territory it is imperative to search Russian archives for "evidence". Good project for a true historian - some ( most? ) evidence that we now have come from a relatively small handfull of "survivors". By the way have the Aroson files been released in their totality? 2601:181:8301:4510:F556:9CE7:C5F9:FBB (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Lose the scare quotes, please. Acroterion (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/genocide/guilt_identity_01.shtml Xx236 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters

User:SlimVirgin, pls refrain from hedging the article text regarding the Lviv pogrom, by removing the clear reference to Ukrainian nationalists and their supporters, changing it to Ukrainian nationalists and local people than hedging the statement by adding 50 percent non-Jewish Poles, 32 percent Jews, and 16 percent Ukrainians. There is ample evidence that the participants of this pogrom were Ukrainains and not anyone else. Including the fact that the culmination of the massacres "Petlura days" refers to Symon Petliura who was the Supreme Commander of the Ukrainian Army in 1918-1921, and statement by the German officers themselves including this one "During the first hours after the departure of the Bolsheviks, the Ukrainian population took praiseworthy action against the Jews." --E-960 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

E-960, both the sources are clear on this point. Local people were involved. Longerich says they initiated it; Himka says not, but that they did take part: Ukrainian and Polish locals. See Himka, pp. 235–237. He ends the paper on that note (p. 243):

"As to the crowd, which is what made the pogrom a pogrom, its interest was in carnival. It relished role reversal, upturning the social hierarchy – Jewish professionals on their hands and knees cleaning streets. Those who were perceived as having been in charge during the Soviet occupation were now humiliated and forced to admit their guilt in ritualistic spectacles. The stinking corpses of murdered political prisoners seemed to justify an apocalyptical revenge against the perceived perpetrators, namely the Jewish population. A particular conjuncture of high politics allowed the urban crowd to act out an uninhibited script of robbery, sexual assault, beating, and murder, demanding these actions and delighting in them."

SarahSV ^(talk) 20:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, Ok, some sources just say "local" and others are more specific that they were Ukrainians. I can find additional info, so pls stop changing the text and allow this dissuasion to move forward, if additional sources need to be provided. Given the historical setting of Ukrainian nationalists carrying out terrorist attacks against Poles before the war (murder of polish minister Tadeusz Hołówko) and sabotage during the September campaign, it seems dishonest to suggest that Poles all of a sudden joined them. But, there is a perpetual bias to blame everything on the Poles. I recall back in the 1990s there was talk about Polish "guards" at the concentration camps until the false allegation had to be squashed (there were no Polish guards, period), when original documents were shown that these were Ukrainians form the auxiliary-police units organized by the German Nazis — just one of many falsehoods about Poles during the war. --E-960 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@E-960: it was you who introduced the new source: Himka, John-Paul (2011). "The Lviv Pogrom of 1941: The Germans, Ukrainian Nationalists, and the Carnival Crowd". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 43 (2/4): 209–243. JSTOR 41708340.

He writes that locals took part (see the title of his paper: the "carnival crowd") and that they consisted of Ukrainians and Poles. For example (p. 236):

"The presence of Polish pogromists in Lviv in 1941 finds reflection in other documentation. As Tamara Branitsky remembered the crowd that tormented her, she said that they looked like Ukrainians to her and her family, but probably Polish people were there too. Rose Moskowitz identified the crowds that attacked Jews in Lviv as Poles. After the Germans took Lviv in July, they let the Polish population do what they pleased, she said; 'and you can imagine what they liked to do' – they were beating up Jewish people on the streets. A member of the Mel'nyk wing of OUN sent a situational report to the leadership that characterized the Lviv pogrom as a demonstration of Polish power: 'Between the departure of the Bolsheviks and the arrival of the Germans, the Poles on their own authority organized a Jewish pogrom in order perhaps to certify the Polishness of Lviv.' Thus, the urban crowd that participated in the pogrom was of mixed nationality."

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the problem with statements like this: "but probably Polish people were there too" this statement is speculative in nature and the use of words such as "probably" is a clear give away. Similarly, incorrect witness accounts were also given about the Lviv Pogrom in 1920, during which Poles rampaged through Ukrainian and Jewish areas (after defeating the Ukrainian forces), but what was said later is that the Haller's Blue Army (BA) participated in the pogrom (BA was a Polish formation created in France and sent to fight in the east). In his book historian Timothy D. Snyder, repeated this claim based on "eye witness" accounts. However, what he failed to realize is that the pogrom occurred in November 1918 and the first units of the BA, did not start to ship out from France to Poland in April 1919 (a fact confirmed by a multitude of French and Polish government papers), so how could the BA take part in the pogrom when they were not even in Poland yet? Given the fact that in 1941 Lwów almost all Ukrainian were also Polish speakers (and vice versa), and the linguistic boundaries were blurred, it's easy to speculate. However, when you look at the political and social dynamic, it's very difficult to conceive that Poles joined together with Ukrainian nationalists and German SS on the streets, both of who hated Poles, and the fear inside the Polish community was that they were next after the Jews. I will look for additional sources — as I mentioned before some of Himka's statements are speculative in nature, however his main point that the Ukrainian nationalists organized the pogrom is agreed on unequivocally. --E-960 (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

SarahSV, here is a source in Polish which also states that during the 1941 Lviv pogrom, Poles were also targeted. The most notable example of this was the Massacre of Lwów professors. First sentence reads: "Od zajęcia miasta rozpoczęły się w nim masowe pogromy Żydów i Polaków" or "After the [German] take over of the city, mass pogroms of Jews and Poles began". --E-960 (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at Himka 2011, pp. 236–237? He is cited a lot in articles about the Lviv pogroms, and according to him, the Polish population was part of the crowd, although he stresses that the crowd was led and guided by Ukrainians.

I suggest we retain "During the Lviv pogroms ... around 6,000 Polish Jews were murdered in the streets by Ukrainian nationalists and local people" and remove "the population consisted of over 50 percent non-Jewish Poles, 32 percent Jews, and 16 percent Ukrainians", in case the latter implies that "local people" refers mostly to Poles. That would replace the sentence that was there before your edit, namely "During the Lviv pogroms ... around 6,000 Polish Jews were murdered in the streets ..." SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, I think as discusses earlier the debated involvement of Poles is a controversial topic especially that to a lesser extent they were also targeted in the pogrom, and this is not the article for an in-depth analysis. --E-960 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to that. I've made the edit. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Did Poles participate in Petlura days?

Nachtigall Battalion participation in the pogrom is controversial. Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The Ukrainians controlled more or less Lviv, together with Germans. Poles didn't. Polish professors, including Bartel (a politician, too), were arrested and murdered. Xx236 (talk) 10:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)