Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Misleading use of "persecution"

The ending of the second paragraph of the introduction currently gives the misleading impression that, essentially, the Nazis only ever killed between 9 and 11 million people. This is because the article uses the term "persecution" in a technical sense, to refer to the victims of systematic Nazi policies of extermination (i.e. the concentration camp system). The average reader, however, is much more likely to read "victims of Nazi persecution" as "victims of the Nazis, period." I know I read it that way on first sight... But that is misleading, because the victims of the camp system are only a fraction of the total number of deaths which may be blamed on the Nazis.

So I suggest changing the phrase "victims of Nazi persecution" to "victims of Holocaust-related activities" or "victims of the Nazi camp system." I also believe a further sentence should be inserted to explicitly mention that "In turn, these are only part of the total number of deaths caused by the Nazis during the Second World War." Finding a source for this statement should be easy. -- Amerul (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The link in the section actually goes to "Holocaust victims" so there is no need to use the word "persecution;" I just rewrote it so that the link now actually says where the link goes to; the result is a shorter, more direct sentence that simply avoids the issues you raise. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is confusion, but the present change just increases the confusion. The article uses the "generally used" definition of the genocide of approximately 6 million Jews (also referred as the Final Solution). This figure is discussed above by Woogie (5.7 million). Niewyk, while admitting that the commonly accepted definition of the Holocaust (p.45) is the genocide of the Jews, opts for a second definition which includes the Gypsies and the handicapped, arriving at the figure of 9-11 million. To the best of my knowledge there are few other experts that use his(their) definition. Thus following the definition "generally used" the article, the term "Holocaust victims" is not the same thing as victims of Nazi persecution, or Nazi murders etc. I will try and give more thought for better wording.--Joel Mc (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find the reference to 9 to 11 million. Perhaps Woogie can correct this.--Joel Mc (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you - but according to some, more people died in the Holocaust than Jews and Gypsies. The problem may be the linked article, victims of the Hulocaust, which fudges the question of whether there was one Holocaust unique to Jews, one big Holocause including everyone, or many different Holocausts. Also, the linked article does not provide an aggregate figure so like you I am confused about where the estimate comes from. If we link to that article, the number we provide (and description of the Holocaust) should be consistent with what it says in the linked article. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to say that the Nazi's genocidal policies affected many groups beyond jews, then these groups should be included in the definition of the Holocaust. This would be consistent with the sources cited in the article (refer to the tally in the Lead Paragraph discussion).Tobit2 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I had thought that the Woogie's last edit had laid this issue to rest. The statement above that "If we are going to say that the Nazi's genocidal policies affected many groups beyond jews, then these groups should be included in the definition of the Holocaust" is a non sequitur as the Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews is just one of those genocidal policies. The fact is that in general, internationally recognized authorities on Nazi genocides explicitly or implicitly define the Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews or the Final Solution. The list is long and weighty and includes, in addition to those in the footnote, Hilberg, Gilbert, Friedländer, Browning, Berenbaum, and Judd. I have already expressed my opinion on the "tally" and Tobit2's exclusions from the footnote of recognized authorities. I grant that Woogie's edit does not resolve all problems: i.e. Slrubenstein's reference to that confusing [and confused] article Holocaust victims. A better title would have been Nazis victims. --Joel Mc (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the flaw in my logic; you are correct on that. Nevertheless, the point I made earlier and in this section remains unadressed: this article is entitled, "The Holocaust," and currently defines the death of only jews to be part of the Holocaust. Consequently, all other peoples subjected to Nazi genocidal policies should be removed from this article or the definition of the Holocaust should be expanded as it was for most of the article's history. Additionally, I agree that a better title of the Holocaust Victims article would be Nazi Victims.Tobit2 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tobit, what are the sources for your POV?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Woogie, what do you want a source for? I hope you don't want a source for a deduction about a Wikipedia article.Tobit2 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Tobit wrote Woogie, what do you want a source for? Tobit plese read this, Wikipedia:Verifiability--Woogie10w (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability of what? Please answer the question.Tobit2 (talk) 04:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

11 million jews were killed in the holocuast. The nazis stole everything they owned and took away all of their rights. Even though the holocaust is thought of about jews many others were discriminated against, such as communists, gypsies, twins, mentaly and physically retarted and many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.237.32.65 (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The Teachers Guide to the Holocaust isthe source of the figure of 11 million.[1]. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Title of this article

Why is this article on "The Holocaust" instead of just "Holocaust"? I can't see any reason why the definite article is used here though most articles don't use it. darkweasel94 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

the best answer i can give (which probably isnt very good) is that a holocaust is a term used for any genocide whereas "the holocaust" refers specifically to ha-shoah (the shoah) - the genocide taking place in europe. im sure youll get a better answer soon. Goalie1998 (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust is a redirect here anyway - I'd understand it if Holocaust were a disambiguation page… darkweasel94 (talk) 08:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a good answer yet, I too don't see why there is a "the" at the beginning. The term is used almost exclusively for this single event, with the terms genocide, ethnic cleansing and so on being used as a general term. Even so, it would not change much by putting "the" at the start if there were others using that term. For example, you have the article "United States" not "The United States" even though there have been eight other countries by that name. Can we stick to WP conventions then?- _J.Logan`^t: 10:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same as The Terror and The Enlightenment, but in those cases the ordinary words "terror" and "enlightenment" are still commonly used in other contexts. That was once true of "holocaust" too, but it now overwhelmingly used for the Nazi mass-murders. But when we speak of The Terror, we mean the killings by the Revolutionary Jacobins, so the phrase redirects to the page on the Reign of Terror, while terror is a disambiguation. In the case of holocaust, the use of the word overwhelmingly refers to The Holocaust, so it redirects here. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

a Greek pagan custom

Calling the ancient Greek Polytheistic religion a "Pagan custom" is a very Christian point of view, as Pagan means a rural practice and Greek religion was an organised religion with millions of followers. I recommend that we change it to something like "Hellenic Polytheism" or ancient Greek religion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.39.55 (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A map of Jews in Europe before the Holocaust

Do we have a map that would show Jewish distribution better then this 1881 map in German? It would be very useful, particularly if we had another map showing Jewish distribution in Europe after the war. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a spelling thing

"Einsatzgruppen" under the sub-heading of Political Activists has been incorrectly spelled as "Einzatsgruppen" Loganswell (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Victims and death toll

The edits I made in the past day were made to give support to the figure of 9-11 million Holocaust deaths which are listed in the introduction. The source for the figures is Niewyck's Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. My goal is to improve the article and give it credibility. Previously the article listed 9-11 million deaths with no clear explanation as to it's breakdown. The source to back up the figures is Donald Niewyck, a recognized scholar of the Holocaust. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust was published by Columbia University. I believe that the article has been improved. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors on my changes to the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew that the jewish death toll was undescribably high,6.8 million.But I never realised that other types of peoples were affected also, the homosexuals,s0w-prisoners.When I looked at the given photos of the people being murdered, a child dying and people just walking by, emaciated bodies and sickly babies.I was disgusted at the sick mindedness of the thinkers of "The Final Solution".Constituting I have my own history of attrocities in my country, South Africa.Though I was not remotely on the existance list.Apartheid in my country left millions of casulties and traumatised generations.The worst I think is :that Hitler could talk a whole country as well as educated people into believing his sick ideal.And now the affected families and cultures have to live with the reminiscent sting of their past generations endurance of these attrocities.

All we can do is know all are equal individuals which have the divine right to existance and life.Nothing gives anyone the right to ever corrupt lives or constrict freedom. Nothing!God made us all and that makes us special!

If the Auschwitz number of dead was 4 million then it was changed to 1.1 million why has that not changed the total number of dead?--Rothschild&co (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Because no responsible scholars ever paid attention to the 4 million claim; it was recognized as inflated. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the number is 9 to 11 million total? Were did that number come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothschild&co (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Read the article, pal--Woogie10w (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The origin of the 4.0 million murdered persons, Jews and Christians, at Oświęcim is a statement by Soviet sources in 1945, this preliminary estimate was repeated in western historical literature for many years. Today scholars in Poland believe that between 2.5 and 3.0 million Jews were murdered in Poland during the war, including 1.0 million Jews at Oświęcim. Since the fall of communism in 1989 historians in Poland have been able to publish research free from government censorship. An analysis of this recent research in Poland can be found in this source. Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at [2]--Woogie10w (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems like there is manipulation going on in this article, I think every major news agency still use 6 million. Now how or why your inflating the number is still not clear. But it is clear that 6 million is the accepted number in main stream media and I think that should be respected.--Rothschild&co (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hm? The "main stream media" isn't what determines inclusion in Wikipedia; rather, we insist on reliable sources, and favor scholarly sources, which is a different matter entirely. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

To be a revisionist which is what your doing by flying in the face of known accepted information, you need extraordinary evidence. Going from 6 million to 11 million is a very big jump. Now I have yet to see the extraordinary evidence which overrides all known and accepted information about the official number. Do you have the overriding information which allows you to support you revisionist claims?--Rothschild&co (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Who are you talking to? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• I believe I was responding to your last statement, sorry if I didn't make that clear, but I would like to have a response on my previous statement I made.--Rothschild&co (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find one reliable, third party source that does not list the total death toll for all Nazi death operations during WW2 as ~11 million. The confusion often arises from the fact that the term "Holocaust" can be used to describe either solely the Nazi campaign against Jews or the wider ethnic cleansing programme. The article has to explain all uses of the word, not merely the use that is most common in the press. The Jewish death toll is generally put at around 6 million, while the non-Jew death toll is put at around 5 million, giving a total of around 11 million, higher or lower depending upon the estimate. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 02:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The wider ethnic cleansing programme encompassed the USSR. According to a Russian Academy of Science Report of 1995 the civilian death toll in the USSR territory occupied by the Germans was 13.7 million, out of the total population of 68 million ( 20.1%). Western scholars need to become aware of the research in post communist Russia on the human losses during the war. For example in the battle of Stalingard the USSR lost 323,856 men. The civilian toll in the Stalingard region was 555,700.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Source of the statictics mentioned above, Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6--Woogie10w (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Woogie, you might be able to source this or correct me, but I've heard that the total Soviet death toll, civilian and military, was over 20 million. However, we need to be clear over exactly under what circumstances we are counting deaths ie, do we count only deaths in death/concentration camps, or all deaths at the hands of the Nazis. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Total deaths in the USSR, including the annexed territories, exceeded the pre war level by 26.6 million from 1941-45, including an increase of 1.3 million in infant mortality, based on a study by the Russian Academy of Science in 1993. A 1992 Russian study gives the official total of military deaths from 1941-1945 as 8,668,400; including 6,330,000 killed in action/died of wounds and 556,000 dead from non-combat causes plus an estimated 500,000 MIA and 1,283,000 POW dead out of 4,059,000 total POW . A 1995 study by the Russian Academy of Science lists deaths in German hands of 13.7 million civilians, including 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in the territory not under German occupation. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR in 1941, including territories annexed in 1939-40. Civilian losses in territories annexed by USSR are also included in totals of the Baltic states(600,000), Poland(2,500,000) , Czechoslovakia(80,000), and Romania(300,000). [3],
Sources :
Andreev, EM, et al, Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922-1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 5-02-013479-1
Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6
G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7
--Woogie10w (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC) This data is also available online at[ http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/1939-1945/KRIWOSHEEW/poteri.txt]--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this is a volatile subject, but my questions are posed in the spirit of historical accuracy and verifyablity. Whenever we hear about the holocaust we are told that c.6,000,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis. Where did the number 6m come from? How accurate is this number? Who counted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.154.42 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok first of all let me make clear that my comments are NOT designed to offend anyone. I would like to raise questions about the sources used in the article. The first paragraph says that the holocaust was the killing of 6 million Jews, but the reference given (reference #2) says that the holocaust is the killing of 5million + jews. it is dangerously controversial to add an extra million people to the death toll if there is not a quantifiable reference.

Later in the "death toll" section of the article 5.9 million jews are listed as victims with the reference coming from another wikipedia page. is this not slighlty absurd?(Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

In terms of Holocaust death toll, that is really not a huge number range. The estimate varies but is usually somewhere around 6 million. What you seem to not be comprehending is quite how difficult it is to have and exact number of deaths for a mass extermination. It is impossible to ever have exact records of how many Jews, or even how many people, were killed during the Holocaust, simply because the Nazis did not keep exact records. Tad Lincoln (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention is made of Black Germans caught in the Holocaust. Although some black Germans and blacks living in Germany avoided the Holocaust, on the whole the arrest of most black germans and them being put into the Holocaust system was carried out. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C.[4]itself has info on this widely known fact. You must add this period of horror for black Germans in your very public page of Holocaust victims.--Joey123xz (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you do it yourself? --RCS (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Title

The title is too general and monopolizes the term to only mean Jews. It should be changed "The holocausts during WWII". Example of other holocausts:

• "The holocaust of American Indians" - by the US Army
• "The holocaust of Vietnamese" - by the US Army
• "The holocaust of Japanese" - by the US Air force, Hiroshima/Nagasaki and bombing of Tokyo
• "The holocaust of Germans" – by British and US Air force - Bombing of Dresden
• "The holocaust of non-Christians" by the Catholic Church

White americans also talked in terms of the "final solution" wrt American indians. --Malin Randstrom (talk) 02:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just read the first sentence of the article and you will easily understand why this title is not too general. By the way, new topics on the discussion page are to be put at the bottom of the page and not at the top. I will make the change accordingly. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny guy, Malin Randstrom. You should add:

• "The holocaust of Berber tribes" - by Arabs
• "The holocaust of Darfouris" - by Arabs
• "The holocaust of Bangladeshis" - by Pakistanis
• "The holocaust of non-muslims" - by muslims
• "The holocaust of shiites" - by sunnis
• "The holocaust of sunnis" - by shiites
• "The holocaust of Bahai" - by Iranians

Unless, of course, this is too touchy a subject for you. --RCS (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And, lest i forget:

• "The holocaust of gays, lesbians and transsexuals" - by nazis and muslims. --RCS (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Length

The sheer length of this rticle is psychotic! It is almost impossible to find a specific peice of info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.12.37 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why (has) Holoca(u)st happened?

I strongly believe anything happens for a reason. Holocaust is not an exception. I's not like Hitler suddenly decides "You know what I hate Jews"!

Reasons and causes don't make something bad/good or wrong/right. However, they help to understand it better. I think there is opportunity to improve this article by exploring and explaining the motives for Holocaust.

This certainly is one of tragic and sad part of human history. Why did it happen? Is it just about Jewish people and their believes? Is it going to happen again in a new form? How to avoid it? How to learn from it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.46.0.94 (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Hitler pretty much did just say "you know what, I hate Jews." The history and events leading up to the Holocaust are far to complicate and span far too much time to be covered in this article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

@216.46.0.94 from Canada : for a start, you should indeed read some biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw's for instance. Then there are some historians, like Saul Friedländer and Götz Aly, who have written extensive answer to the question of "why" you are asking here.--RCS (talk) 07:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Romani Listed First?

Considering 5 million Poles were killed (50% of all European Jews killed were Polish) I strongly feel Poles should be listed first in the following sentence: "Other groups were also persecuted and killed, including the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, ethnic Poles, the disabled, homosexual men and political and religious opponents" instead of Romanians. Also, since 3 million of the Jews who were killed were Polish, the total number of Poles killed was not 2 million but 5 million so this needs to be corrected. Beckenbauer1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC).

The Nazis has a particular hatred for Jews, followed by Romani, and managed to kill a far higher percentage of them than Poles. Regarding the fact that they were Poles too, true, but by nationality, not ethnicity. The Romani were all sorts of nationalities, as we the Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me??? 16.07% of the total Polish population was killed during WWII vs 4.22% of the Romani!!! 3,000,000 Polish Jews were killed in the Holocaust vs 469,000 Romani Jews!!! 2,360,000 Polish civilian deaths vs 64,000 Romani civilian deaths!!! Where do you get your data from??? This is a prime example of why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. It's people like this with no clue what they're talking about that join Wikipedia, edit pages and wage in on discussions even though they have nothing constructive to contribute. Beckenbauer1974 (talk)

Well that's true. Wikipedia has a very bad reputation among all those who want their POV published as being the only acceptable truth. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that this Jayjg character has been an admin of the English Wikipedia for over 4 years! I will definetely be filing a report. People like this have absolutely no business being admins. Beckenbauer1974 (talk)

Actually, as the article points out, "2.0 million (six percent) of the 31.7 million non-Jewish Polish citizens died in German hands". That's a far lower percentage than Jews (67%) or Romani (anywhere between 13% and 50%). Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the confusion between 'Romani' as in Gypsies (I know - controversial term) and Romanians as in inhabitants of Romania? The death toll for Romani as % of pre war pop is between 10% and 20% but the numbers are very inaccurate for reasons listed in the article. This makes it roughly comparable or higher than the death toll for ethnic Poles as % of pop. I don't mind 'Romani' being listed before Poles at all (and think this priority in listing thing is a bit silly).radek (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You must realize that 5 million Poles were killed in total (50% of all Jews killed were Polish). That number is much greater than Romani and Gypsie combined. Where did you get the 10-20% from? Beckenbauer1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Please re-read Jayjg's comment. He wrote about the percentage of Romani and the percentage of ethnic Poles, not the absolute numbers. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re:Beckenbauer1974. Yes I fully realize how many Poles were killed. The 10-20% is in fact in the text (as well as other sources):

Donald Niewyk and Frances Nicosia write that the death toll was at least 130,000 of the nearly one million Roma and Sinti in Nazi-controlled Europe.[81] Michael Berenbaum writes that serious scholarly estimates lie between 90,000 and 220,000.[84] A detailed study by the late Sybil Milton, formerly senior historian at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, calculated a death toll of at least 220,000, and possibly closer to 500,000.[85][86] Ian Hancock, Director of the Program of Romani Studies and the Romani Archives and Documentation Center at the University of Texas at Austin, has argued in favour of a higher figure of between 500,000 and 1,500,000.[87] Hancock writes that, proportionately, the death toll equaled "and almost certainly exceed[ed], that of Jewish victims."[88]

and just to add to that basically the higher death toll figures (500k to 1500k) are generally due to higher estimates of pre war pop but roughly the percentages are between 10-20%, if not higher.radek (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so the "experts" claim from 90,000 to 1,500,000. I'm not exactly sure what these numbers are referring to? Total Romani deaths? Total Romani Jewish deaths? It states that in 1939 the population was 19,934,000. In order for it to be 20% of the population the total number of Romani deaths would have to reach nearly 4 million which it obviously did not. Beckenbauer1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

No - and this is why it seems like you're confusing Romani with Romanians. The total pop of Romani pre war was between 1 and 2 million. The death toll refers to Romani deaths. I'm not sure if there are Romani Jews, at least in large numbers, though I could very well be wrong about this. See also [5].radek (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable figures on the numbers of Roma in Europe before the war. In Poland many Roma people who lived in the cities had Polish names and were Roman Catholics. Their idenity documents listed them as Polish Roman Catholics.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, and that uncertainty is reflected in the range of estimates. But that still doesn't change that from 10% to 20% if not more died.radek (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian's

Bosnians were not targeted as a group like the Jews. The inclusion of Bosnians is original research and just plain wrong. No source in the English speaking world includes Bosnian's as Holocaust victims. There was in fact a Bosnian SS Division formed by the Germans, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)--Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

While all this may be true if 150,000 were killed by the Nazis and the source provided for this is reliable then the info should be included.radek (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosnians were targeted as individuals, not as a group--Woogie10w (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your figure of 150,000 is wrong. See [6] Total Muslim war dead were 86-103,00, including those killed in the military formations--Woogie10w (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my" figure, it's the one in the source provided. The question is whether or not the source is reliable - and honestly I don't know the answer to that.radek (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising

The specific article on the topics explains that according to official Nazi sources, which likely minimized casualty figures for morale purposes, less than 100 Nazi soldiers died due to the uprising. Jewish sources speak of hundreds of ghetto guards that were killed. The Holocaust article however simply says that "hundreds of Germans" were killed. I think "Germans" should be replaced with "Nazis" or "Nazi soldiers" to make it clear that German civilians were not killed. I'm a new user and cannot edit the article, but if an old user wouldn't mind doing this for me, I'm sure others would appreciate it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.218.152 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 February 2009 24.203.218.152

You can edit the article as soon as you get an id. As for use of the word "Nazi", German is usually better. Most people know that Germans and Nazis as you mean them are interchangeable in this context. However, you can get on and edit away yourself. Wallie (talk) 06:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

under the Pole paragraph 1952 is typo, should be 1925 i think

{{editsemiprotected}} see topic

1952 is indeed correct, the ultimate Nazi aim was to Germanize or exterminate the Poles by 1952 according to the source. In other words learn German by 1952 or face death by overwork and starvation.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ive nulled the edit request. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Church and compliance

I think this should be mentioned, especially Einstein's thoughts. Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust The article seems to present a view that the establishment was all for the goings on in Germany. It is probably a little more complicated than that. It is also important to mention that all sorts of people suffered, including Christians as mentioned in this article, but we should never never forget that the main target was the Jewish people. Wallie (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because in this case, Einstein's thoughts (or even his personal experience) is not really relevant to this article--although a case could be made for including it in an article on Einstein. First of all he is not a historian, secondly, he left Germany in 1933 never to return. This well known quote which apparently comes from Julius Rieger: The Silent Church, may be apocryphal (see Helmreich: The German Churches under Hitler p. 345.) Friedlander's statement is about resistance to anti-semitism and comes from one of the foremost scholars of the Holocaust who has also written a book on Pius XII and the Third Reich. Yes all sorts of people suffered, but this article is about a particular genocide.--Joel Mc (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If this article is only about a jewish genocide, why are other groups mentioned?Tobit2 (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll do some more research. It just seems to me that Friedlander's statement seems a little harsh on the Church. The article seems to imply that the Church did nothing to help the Jewish people. This was the prevailing thought in the 1950s, but people realize more now. I was more trying to put Einstein as a Jewish person who was a thinker and had no particular reason to lie. I can see that in the early/mid 30s, things were not as bad as later in Germany - so Einstein's perspective could have changed later. Wallie (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Friedlander's statement "...not one religious community...declared its solidarity with the Jews..." is a factual statement based upon info available when he published in 2007 (he won the Pulitzer Prize for History with that book). Taking into account the other institutions he mentioned, his conclusion continuing in the same para, "Thus Nazi and related anti-Jewish policies could unfold to their most extreme levels without the interference of any major countervailing interests." seems warranted.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. It seems that this issue has been well thought out, and the current text regarding the churches and what Friedlander has said is pretty much correct. It is certainly a damning indictment on the churches. Wallie (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Civilian Deaths in Nazi Hands-Two Reliable Academic Sources

The Russian Academy of Science in 1995 reported the official Soviet era statistics for civilian deaths, including Jews, in German hands totaled 13.7 million, including 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in the territory not under German occupation. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR in 1941 borders, including territories annexed in 1939-40 Source The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6
The deaths of 8.2 million Soviet civilians, including Jews, were documented from 1942-1946 by the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission Source: A Mosaic of Victims- Non Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. Ed. by Michael Berenbaum New York University Press 1990 ISBN 1-85043-251-1--Woogie10w (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Edits to section on East Slavs

The figure that was on the page prior to my edits of 2.3 million war dead in Byelorussia was for the total population loss, including military battle casualties. My edit lists only civilian war dead.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Poorly written article that needs help from a Holocaust writer

Jews escaping from Nazi Europe. This article has some references and text that may be useful in some other article. It desperately needs cleanup or the information and sources moved to a more relevant article. Thanks for your help. Miami33139 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede changed

Edit made, calling all other editors to revert/change/improve it. Ronabop (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 07:37, 7 April 2009.

Your edit appears to carry on some sort of debate about the definition of the word "Holocaust" in the Lede -- i.e., exactly the opposite of what the lede is supposed to be (a summary). That seems like material best suited for a definitional subsection or a footnote. I'm not going to revert it because I don't know the history of the article, but it makes the lede somewhat clunky and less a summary of the article it precedes. In short, I'd agree with a strong revert recommendation to someone more familiar with this article history.

As an aside, thought NOT in this article, I would like the articles addressing the mass Slav and Soviet deaths in German camps (German hands) to be better developed. The scale of death was simply enormous and there appears to be very little on the details other than counting the numbers of dead. I was looking for material -- which I thought would be more plentiful -- on the subject for another article a few weeks ago and found the various war crimes articles on it lacking. There is mention of the Nazi views regarding the Slavs as untermenschen, some of which I added myself from a few books, but not much regarding the details of that considering it likely lead to the murder of millions of people. I know that I should take the initiative and improve such articles myself (I have for few sentences) instead of bitching, but I haven't really read enough about those incidents to take a nice stab at it. Mosedschurte (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

When scholars/academics/lay-people have a universal definition of a term, it's much easier. It seems we have a difficult road, however. Ronabop (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:05, 7 April 2009.

The intro - Ronabop's Bold edit

This is an important edit, and based on the discussions. To my mind, it is pretty much the consensus of people involved in the discussions above - unless I have misunderstood some nuances. The debate's heart is whether the Holocaust apples to Jewish people only, or to Jewish people plus others. I think the edit sums up the situation at the moment very well, and really hope it isn't simply reverted. What do other people here think? Wallie (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronabop's edit has two ranges 9-11 million and 9-17 million. This is contradictory and confusing.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

More importantly, the debate is not for the lede. It's for the article body. Perhaps some subsection discussing the word "Holocaust", with its varying definitions. Absolutely no place in a lede, which should be a short summary of the article body.

Not to pile on too far, but the Lede stinks right now with the debate between "scholars" in it at all (not just Ronabop's part, and maybe he/she was just adding to something that had no business in the lede in the first place). All of this "scholar's discuss" should all be in a subsection somewhere (not just Ronabop's part), and the Lede should summarize the article -- genesis, camps, victims, features, death squads, institutions, etc. (Mosedschurte (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Lede should summarise the article. That's exactly why the debate should be in it. You can't say "the Holocaust is X" in the Lede if there is an unresolved debate. You have to summarise the nature of the dispute. The Lede should be about the whole issue and main content. Why do you put "scholars" in inverted commas? Paul B (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But the notes give readers the various definitions from scholary sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Lede should summarize the main parts of the article. This includes a wide variety of victims THAT ARE IN the article already, so there is no need waste space in the Lede discussing the definition of whether these various ethnicities are included in within the term "Holocaust". They're in the article already. Accordingly, debate about the various killings that should fall within the word "Holocaust" should be reserved for the article itself. Not the Lede. Mosedschurte (talk) 13:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all. Since there is a debate, the debate has to be included. The article discusses these groups because in the context of the fact that there is a debate.

That context is properly summarised upfront. That does not preclude more detailed discussion in the body, which is in fact the case in the etymology and definition sections. Paul B (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul B is right. If there is a difference of views that is significant enough to meet the threshold for inclusion in the body of the article, it needs to be signaled in the introduction. The introduction should not go into the details of the debate but should make it clear that there is a debate. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Barlow is right, readers should be alerted to the fact that there is a debate on this topic. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There are some things everyone agree with, namely that the exterminations of Jews (and Gypsies) was one of the major goals of Holocaust (and under "extermination" we mean total extermination). With regards to other Nazi's victims, there is no consensus (for instance, someone includes the Poles but not other Slavs, someone objects). In other words, providing a narrow, or traditional definition of Holocaust + giving more wide definition + making the reservation that the latter is a subject of debates (that has been done in the present version of the summary) would be the most accurate and optimal way to resolve the issue. The only things unclear for me is why the Poles, in contrast to other Slavs, are mentioned explicitly...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with it not being narrow (include Roma, Slavs, etc.), especially if that's the way the majority of scholars define the word. It should also definitely include the purposeful extermination of millions of Soviet soldiers (in fact, that appears to be largely overlooked in the article as is).

My only problem was dwelling on the debate about the definition of the word "Holocaust" in the Lede -- this should be left for the article body. It's better now that someone edited it. I would still cut the first sentence of the second paragraph. There's already a sentence saying that scholars have extended the term to include all groups. Leave the "scholars debate" sentence for the etymology section in the article.

Actually, on a broader note, I don't think the Lede does an efficient job right now overall of summarizing the article. An easy way to check for this in most Wikipedia articles is to compare the table of contents to the Lede. One could more efficiently summarize the first two paragraphs with, for example,

---

The Holocaust is the term used, in its broadest sense, to describe the deliberately planned Nazi genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II along with the killing of nine to eleven million others, including ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, the disabled, homosexual men and political and religious opponents. The Holocaust comported with Nazi racial ideology casting ethnic groups such as Jews, Slavs and Romani as untermenschen since the the 1920s, resulting in ethnic boycotts, pogroms and imprisonment of targeted groups labor camps.

After World War II began, murders by specialized paramilitary death squads, lethal ethnic ghettos and extermnation camps using gas chambers and body crematoria were employed and organizationally intensified after the Wannsee Conference. Toward the war's end, news regarding the death camps was published in the west and death marches of camp prisoners occurred, followed by the liberation of several death camps by Allied forces.

---

In other words, the WP:Lede should largely cover the broad points of the article, and do so in an efficient manner, hopefully wikilinking to related articles where appropriate.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mosedschurte. Thank you. I think your summary here is excellent. I would also support your statement strongly, as I'm sure most would. It keeps the focus on the Jewish people, and includes other groups too. Nice work! Would anyone object to this going into the intro? Wallie (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Just one point. Does the 9-11 million include the 6 million Jewish people? The way you have put it, the others are in addition to the 6 million, making it 15-17 million in total. Wallie (talk) 10:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Broader definitions include between 220,000 Romani, and the 200,000 disabled and mentally ill who were killed, because these groups were also targeted for eradication. A broader definition still includes political and religious dissenters, two to three million Soviet POWs, and 5,000 to 15,000 gay men, bringing the death toll to nine million. This rises to 11 million if the deaths of 1.8 to 2 million ethnic Poles are included. The broadest definition would include 6 million Soviet civilians, raising the death toll to 17 million--Woogie10w (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Toward the war's end, news regarding the death camps was published in the west This is not correct, in Nov 1942 the existance of the death camps was published in a statement by the allies. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I generally like the Mosedschurte's style. The idea to remove references from the lede is good. The last para (a brief description of Holocaust) is also good. The definition of Holocaust in its broadest sense is also quite correct. I see no contradiction between the proposed lede and the Woogie10w's comment: although the people outside the Reich were aware of the very fact of the death camps' existence, no one realized the real scale of the camp's industry until the liberation of Maidanek.
The only lede's problem is the absence of the definition of Holocaust in narrow sence, namely of the Holocaust as the programm aimed to eradicate, or completely exterminate European Jews and Gypsies. Therefore, I propose to combine the present narrow and the Mosedschurte's broad definitions as follows:

Holocaust (from the Greek [ὁλόκαυστον] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term used to describe the program of complete eradication of European Jewry planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler during World War II. In its broadest sense, the terms is used to describe the deliberately planned Nazi genocide of various European ethnic and social groups: approximately six million Jews, and nine to eleven million others, including ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, the disabled, homosexual men and political and religious opponents.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. This version is even better. I hope everyone else agrees! Wallie (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I like this version a lot, as it navigates the waters of discussion quite well. There's an odd "technicality", in the the Holocaust is not *the* term, but *a* term (There are others, such as "Shoah"), but otherwise, it includes many of the groups who lay claim to the term, with links in the lede, without excluding or narrowing to any specific group. (Oh, and "the terms is used" should be "the term is used").

Speaking to some other editor's comments, and their opinions about common English use of the term, I can say anecdotally (yes, this means nothing, WP:NOR) that my earliest history classes which covered the topic (In Tucson, AZ, USA, back in 1984) did not consider "The Holocaust" to be about the most narrow, or most broad, definitions that are being discussed, but actually spoke to the advocates on many perspectives of the issue. Ronabop (talk)

The article is highly misleading because it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews.-In Poland 90% of Jews perished compared to 6% of Christians. Readers need to know that there is this disparity and why it occured.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Woogie10w, here we discuss the lede, not the article. What concrete comments do you have on the proposed lede? Do you agree, or disagree, and, if disagree, what concrete changes do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivialization of the Holocaust

The following article in the journal Social Education -Holocaust fatigue in teaching today [7] points out the dramatic changes in attitudes and orientations towards the Holocaust. The author of the article has noticed the shift in attitudes of students over the years of teaching about the Holocaust. The inclusion of the other groups persecuted by the Nazi’s with the Jews has lead to a pronounced trivialization of the Holocaust among the younger generation. English Wikipedia reflects this trend. German Wikipedia de:Holocaust on the other hand treats the Holocaust as the genocide of European Jewry alone, excluding other groups. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

To improve this article I recommend the following.
ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner. The article as it stands now implies that the Holocaust occurred with the advent of the Nazis, without a discussion of the deep rooted European Antisemitism. I recommend the editors read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews which has a good overview of the Christian persecutions of the Jews over the centuries. Lucy Dawidowicz In her book The War Against the Jews draws a line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Martin Luther to Hitler, writing that both men were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. This article as it stands now is a whitewash of the problem of European Antisemitism and promotes historical revisionism.
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. The Slavs were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. Also, anti-Semitism in Poland during the war needs be addressed in the article, I recommend that the editors read Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman for a discussion of this sensitive issue. Why does this article ignore the ugly issue of anti-Semitism in Poland during the war that was documented by Israel Gutman in Unequal Victims? I contend that the editors have chosen to ignore this historical reality in order to avoid the noisy denials of anti-Semites who wish to promote historical revisionism.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world. The editors of this page rely mainly on English language sources found on Google books. A Russian language source in print is dark matter to them. There is no question that one should also include non Jewish victims in the USSR if you include Poles as Holocaust victims. In fact the losses in the USSR far exceeded those in Poland. Shining the spotlight on Poles as victims and sidelining East Slavs is a glaring distortion of historical reality that goes way over the heads of the editors of this page.
FOUR- The central problem with the article is that other groups besides Jews are included in the Holocaust. By including the Poles and Roma they have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s. German Wikipedia should be our guide, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page.
Prior to the Holocaust (TV miniseries) in 1978 the term Holocaust was hardly ever used. Since then the genocide of the European Jews has been trivialized and commercialized. The article reflects this sad state of affairs. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with your comparative dynamics, I just looked at the definition of the term "Holocaust" in major English dictionaries (posted above in the Holocaust definition section), and maybe this particular article should focus upon the Nazi campaign against ethnic Jews. The majority of dictionary definitions appear to define it regarding the murder of European Jews, while a minority extend it further.

Although I just drafted a proposed Lede (above) that uses a broad definition (including Roma, Slavs, etc.), perhaps a more narrow definition for this article is in order, and the Nazi attrocities against other groups should be addressed in other particular articles. I don't have particularly strong thoughts on the matter, but if the majority of English dictionaries define "Holocaust" in the World War II context as the murder of European Jews by the Nazis, then maybe this particular article should focus accordingly.Mosedschurte (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie...if you're suggesting the article focus more on the fate of jews than on other groups, I think the lead, as written, and the body of the article already does that. Still, you are talking about some great additions. How to we go about adding them?Tobit2 (talk) 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As it is the case on Wikipedia (de) or Wikipedia (fr) this article should focus on the genocide of the European Jews, simply because this is what commonly referred to when using that word. Now, if we want to adress the issue of the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the nazi regimes because of its racial politic, I believe one need to create a separate article where this issue is handle as a whole (including the holocaust). Beofre doing this, one should also check whether some of these issues are not already included in some other articles. For instance, the fate of the Russian PoWs in hands of the Whermacht is shortly evoked in the article War crimes of the Wehrmacht, but would probably desserve a more extended treatment, as one can only understand this if replaced within the context of the racist policy of the third Reich were Russian were considered as "Untermenschen". --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie.From the US Holocaust Memorial Museum itself: [8]

It says “It is really important and appropriate ... that we remember that the primary victim of the Holocaust was European Jewry.” This acknowledges that others are included.

The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The article you mentioned on trivialization I think is very good. It focuses on the attitude of children nowadays, and the media influences. I cannot see how excluding other groups from the article will improve this situation. As for the Pandora's box, it has been opened, and we need to deal with these issues. I absolutely agree with you about including/expanding sections, like the responsibility/history re the Christians and the USSR. The German article also includes the Roma as part of the Holocaust. Wallie (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The German article refers readers to a seprate article entitled the Roma Holocaustde:Porajmos, The German Wikipedia Holocaust article pertains only to European Jewry. Germans treat the topic far more seriously than in the US. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is good that the subject be treated very seriously. It should be. I doubt there is a more serious subject. As for the Holocaust pertaining only to European Jewry, that is what the debate is about. Some think so, others not. The problem as I see it is that a group that loses, say, 300,000 of its people in a mass murder is very sensitive about this, for example, the Serbs. Anyone can understand this. 300,000 people is a catastrophe. People cannot handle such a large number of people as 6 million. This is equivalent to 20 populations of 300,000! Wallie (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) not listed as Victims, A SHAME

I would like to express my utter disgust that you failed to list 100,000+ Bosnian Muslims who perished during the World War II Nazi terrorism in Yugoslavia. You devoted special category for 40,000+ Serbs that perished in Jasenovac, but you failed to mention 10,000 Bosnian Muslims that were also murdered in Jasenovac. This is just a continuation of denial of Bosnian Muslim suffering and a broad Holocaust politics in academic circles and wikipedia. Shame on yourself, all of you. According to the book, Bosniaks in Jasenovac Concentration Camp ([see here http://interliber.com/catlistdetail.asp?SID=Interliber^9223597-2009-3-18-18-16&ProductID=30790&ml=b] 10,000 Bosniaks (Muslims) were slaughtered in Jasenovac and over 100,000 killed by German and Serbian Nazi Chetniks. Conveniently, you removed that information from your article. Shame on yourself. Wikipedia is run by interest groups, not by academics and facts. Bosniak (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. There are tons of textbook and and online copied entries regarding atrosities commited against Jews, yet there is so much information missing when it comes to other ethnic backgrounds such as Poles, Czechs, Bosnians and many others. This is also very common in the media.Beckenbauer1974 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Hi Bosniak. I think this is one of the great things about Wikipedia. People learn about things like the murder of Bosnian Muslims. If you look at this discussion page, there is actually mention of non-Jewish people like the Poles, Serbs, Gypsies and others. There is actually not much about the Jews! I am trying to look at this from a completely neutral position - I am not Jewish. It has to be all put into perspective. The main trust and focus of the Holocaust was to exterminate the Jewish people, and the main trust of this article should reflect this. This will also mean that the majority of the text will be allocated to the Jewish people, and that is the way it should be. However, other groups that were singled out for mass extermination should be mentioned, and not ignored. If Bosnian Muslims were exterminated because they were Bosians or because they were Muslims, or because they were Bosnian Muslims, they should definitely appear in this article. I for one am definitely interested in what happened to the Bosnian Muslims, as 10,000 people is a large number, and it looks to me like part of the Holocaust. Wallie (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea and it's certainly not fixed yet. Notice how the word "muslim" does not appear anywhere in the main holocaust page. I also find it interesting how whenever you run a google search that includes the word "muslim" and "holocaust" you will invariably find sites about holocaust denial. There's a real skewed perception here, I think, about how the muslim community as a whole views the holocaust, and what role they played in it. I think a lot of resentment is built up and directed at jews for how much political mileage many jewish people appear to have made out of this horrible event. I think the original poster might be on to something by pointing out how widespread the mass murdering was, and if both muslims and jews were killed in this event then perhaps that's something that could bring them together. All I'm saying is that muslims should at least be mentioned in this article, shouldn't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quixoto (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Republican's Holocaust

Do you think this forgotten and hidden part of the Holocaust history could be included in the article? I was about to do it myself by I prefer to ask the regular contributors. Read this:

After the Nazi regime initiated World War II, the number of prisoners arriving in Mauthausen increased dramatically and broadened in diversity. After the fall of France in June 1940, Vichy French authorities turned over to the German SS and police thousands of Spanish refugees, virtually all of whom had fought against General Francisco Franco's rebel troops during the Spanish Civil War, and who had fled to France after Franco overthrew the Spanish Republic in 1939. MAUTHAUSEN

In 1940-1941, 90 percent of all the Spanish prisoners were sent to Mauthausen where the SS rules said in effect, "no escape and no pardon" from this living hell. Anybody sent to Mauthausen with red triangles sewn on their uniforms, mostly for political reasons, were condemned to work until death. Depending on a particular guard's whims, the SS encouraged earlier executions and murders in the granite quarry and in tunnel trails in the Alps. Until mid-1943, the Nazis assumed that the supply of slave labor would be inexhaustible.

According to the Spanish survivors, about 23,400 Spaniards were shipped in box cars to Mauthausen; 16,310 died and 9,200 survived the ordeal of slavery. They died the same way many Jews died at Auschwitz: the SS worked and starved them to death. They also had their gold teeth pulled for foreign exchange. More Spaniards than Jews there died of disease, from spot executions, and from starvation, while fewer Spaniards were thrown live into the crematoria. The smaller Mauthausen crematoria were mostly efficient "garbage disposals" for the piles of the already dead. The first fully functioning gas chambers were introduced to Mauthausen in May 1942 mostly for Jews and Russians. Probably 449 Spaniards were gassed. Of the 20,000 Jews (mostly Dutch and French nationality) sent to Mauthausen, 22 survived the ordeal. One of those still in the camp on 5 May was Simon Wiesenthal. The Spanish Holocaust and the Cover-Up that Lasted a Generation

--Junjan (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

They were not persecuted as Spaniards but because they were anti-Fascists. The Spanish Blue Division fought on the Eastern front alongside the Germans. Francos regime in Spain murdered well over 200,000 opponents from 1939-45.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I meant to include them into the "Political activists" section since it is a well documented (though massively ignored) group... --Junjan (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Lede

This is the Mosedschurte's version of the lede with minor modifications made by me.

The Holocaust (from the Greek [ὁλόκαυστον] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as haShoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן) is the term used to describe the program of complete eradication of European Jewry planned and executed by Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler during World War II. In its broadest sense, the terms is used to describe the deliberately planned Nazi genocide of various European ethnic and social groups: approximately six million Jews, and nine to eleven million others, including ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, the disabled, homosexual men and political and religious opponents.
The Holocaust comported with Nazi racial ideology casting ethnic groups such as Jews, Slavs and Romani as untermenschen since the the 1920s, resulting in ethnic boycotts, pogroms and imprisonment of targeted groups labor camps.
After World War II began, murders by specialized paramilitary death squads, lethal ethnic ghettos and extermnation camps using gas chambers and body crematoria were employed and organizationally intensified after the Wannsee Conference. Toward the war's end, news regarding the death camps was published in the west and death marches of camp prisoners occurred, followed by the liberation of several death camps by Allied forces.

Everyone is welcome to modify the above text directly (just leave the explanation below). I plan to put the text in the article on Monday.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul the above text doesn't explain how this particular Wiki article uses the term Holocaust. In the first sentence, the proposed text says, "The Holocaust is...." and then in the next sentence it describes a broader definition. This back and forth confuses readers. The current version explains the problem, noting the debate, yet still focusing on the jewish genocide. I vote for staying as we are. Tobit2 (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tobit. I think that Paul's suggestion is an improvement on the existing version of Ronabop, which is also great. The main difference is the specific reference to a debate. This debate aspect is certainly implied in Mosedschurte/Paul's version. The usage of the phrase "broadest sense" covers the debate aspect quite nicely. The reference to a debate might confuse people reading the lede. There seemed to be little choice, as there is such a debate. Paul's approach gets around this aspect very well to my mind. The debate can be spelt out in the detail - I think it already is handled well in the "Definition" section. It is certainly a central feature. Wallie (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

First I agree with what Woogie wrote above about Trivialization and the criticism of the English article. We find ourselves in a bind not untypical of WP: If we were writing this article from scratch, we would find consensus that The Holocaust refers to the Nazi genocide of the Jews. We would not find consensus that other genocides and massacres by the Nazis should be included which would mean that we probably would have a para referring that some scholars include other groups with links to separate articles about those other genocides and massacres. Now we need to find a consensus for removing them. By my count a reader has to wade through some 20 paras about other groups before even getting to the discussion of Development and Execution of the Holocaust. If I sound pessimestic about improving the article, I am. In any case, I must move on--I will be traveling the next six week, most of the time behind the "Great Firewall".

Secondly, I agree with Tobit's vote of "staying where we are". (Though I would agree that second lede para about the debate could be left out or moved elsewhere) There are problems with the proposed changes, for example to the best of my knowledge at least the major boycot was with respect to the Jews--I am unaware that there were others re: other groups. The use of the term untermenschen here is confusing: i.e. it is applied differently to the Jews who are seen not just to be inferior but an evil virus (there is often the implication that they were particularly skillful in doing evil) than to the Romani, Slavs or Russians.

--Joel Mc (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Joel wrote: By my count a reader has to wade through some 20 paras about other groups before even getting to the discussion of Development and Execution of the Holocaust I agree because the article has become a soapbox for any and every group persecuted by the Nazis. The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. Other groups persecuted by the Nazis belong at the bottom of the page in three paragraphs at most. Also the historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say there are two different tendencies of trivialization of the Holocaust: (i) to equate the fate of Jews and the fate of the other groups, and (ii) to represent Holocaust as something that affected mostly the Jewish population. Both concepts are deeply flawed.
If we follow the first concept, we come to the realm of Soviet propaganda: probably, the best example of that is the famous film "Common Fascism" made by the brilliant Soviet film director Mikhail Romm (an ethnic Jew, by the way). Romm presents an impressive, and almost correct picture of Nazi's massacres, mass murders, and extermination camps, without using the single word "Jew"! Hitler killed peoples, according to him. However, according to memoirs of Eastern front soldiers, when the Germans took Soviet prisoners of war, the first step was to select Jews and Commissars. After that, they usually were shot on the spot. This example is sufficient to demonstrate how differently the Jews and others were treated by Nazi.
The opposite case is equally silly. If you ask more or less educated Western student about Hitler's crimes the answer will be: "He started WWII and killed six million Jews". However, in absolute numbers Jews were't the most numerous group deliberately killed by Axis military, paramilitary, or civilian authorities: in Europe, the most numerous group were Slavs and only then Jews. And we cannot forget that: the life of one Belorussian is not less precious than the life of one Jew.
Jews and Gypsies were planned to be exterminated completely. Nazi used every opportunity to kill them, and their chances to survive during German occupation were minimal. However, the difference between how Nazi treated non-Jewish population in Western and Eastern Europe was also dramatic, and the fate of non-Jewish (and non-Romani) Eastern European nations must be discussed in the details in the Holocaust article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article cannot be improved because the editors here rely on English language sources and the US school curriculum that sidelines the Hitlerite genocide in the USSR. They will revert your edits. Don't waste your time on the main article. Let’s improve the Generalplan Ost article. In the lead there is a link to Plan Ost. John, Jean and Judy in 10th grade Kansas City are given an assignment to write an essay on the Holocaust. They go to the Wikipedia Holocaust article and click on the link to Plan Ost. What's up doc? They will go to class the next day and ask the teacher “What about all the Slavs that Hitler killed?" The teacher must give a straight answer or lose credibility in the eyes of the students. Paul, the Plan Ost link is our back door to improve the article.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy. In addition, reasonable people (and I believe most WP editors to belong to that category) are perceptive to facts. If at least few people share my vision, it is quite possible to find academic English language sources sufficient to convince the others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried your approach to include the USSR two years ago( check the Archives) and was reverted by folks who use Google books and the History Channel for sources. They will tell you "Stalin killed them", " They were killed in the crossfire", " You can't trust Russian sources". Forget it, this article lacks credibility and will remain so, doesn’t waste your time.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Woggie. To my mind, it is never the best approach to go through the back door. You need to present the case in the mopst honest and direct way. I find I am pleasantly surprised that people contributing to this article think in much the same way. The USSR is certainly covered in this article, and so it should be. Nearly all people, Jewish and non Jewish, would think that what happened there was a very serious issue, and should be at least mentioned in this article. Things may have also improved in the last two years in Wikipedia. I can't imagine that work which improves the article would be reverted in today's climate. In my experience, if your edits ring true, they are supported by references, you are not "too close" to the subject and you believe strongly in the correctness of your position, you will rarely be reverted. Wallie (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Holocaust article reflects the current POV in the English speaking world. The Holocaust is used as a motivation to teach students the consequences racism. Go to the webpage of the USHMM [9] and you will see links to pages on Cambodia and Rwanda. On the lead [10] the USHMM has a link to articles on Poles but not the Russians. The Hitlerite genocide in the USSR gets poor coverage in the English speaking world. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I did go on to the USHMM page, and think their work is great (only my opinion). They do cover the persecution of the Slavs in detail, for example, [11]. I would have thought that it is best to teach students today about what happened in the past, and that the same sorts of things are happening now, meaning the problem hasn't gone away. As for being POV, everyone has their own approach to handling a subject. I think that the USHMM has tried to be even handed. Wallie (talk) 07:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul I just checked the Russian Wikipedia Holocaust article ru:Холокост, they devote the bulk of the article to the genocide of the Jews, other groups are at the bottom of the page. Coverage of Plan Ost, which is actualy quite good, can be found on another page--Woogie10w (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery and the Holocaust

In the USA the topic of Slavery is treated very seriously, this is reflected in the excellant Wikipedia article. Trivialization of Slavery in the USA would be be met with a storm of protest. This is not the case with the Holocaust for some persons in the English speaking world and on Wikipedia. However in Germany the Holocaust is treated very seriously. Trivialization of the Holocaust in German a public source is considered unacceptable behavior. The editors of this article really need to address the fact that this article is a trivialization of the Holocaust and needs to be rewritten.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly urge the editors to read this article in the Journal Social Education -Holocaust fatigue in teaching today [12] --Woogie10w (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

British POWs in the Holocaust

Although the Romanies and Jews were the largest group killed by the Germans, British POWs also were sent to the gas chambers. My aunt's fiance, RAF bomber crew, was sent to Bergen Belsen and killed.

Nicholas1951 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There were no gas chambers in Bergen Belsen. Paul B (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

7,310 of the 142,319 UK POW died in the custody of Germnany & Italy according to a source cited by R. J. Rummel in his book Democide. 23,000 German POW died in UK custody ,out of 3,640,000, according to Rudiger Overmans. The numbers should br treated with caution because these deaths include wounded men who were captured. This does not belong on the Holocaust page. There is a double standard with regard to POW deaths, the fate of Soviet POWs is mentioned but the deaths of Germnan POWs is ignored --Woogie10w (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The Soviet POWs were systematically murdered, which is why they are sometimes included in the holocaust. British POWs were not. Neither were German POWs in British custody. Paul B (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that German POWs were systematically murdered by the Soviets and that this is ignored by politically correct historians. In 1943-45 the Soviets treated German POWs just like they were treated in 1941-42, an eye for an eye.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not ignored by any historians. The heavy death toll of German soldiers in Soviet custody is well known. But Soviet war crimes are not part of "the holocaust". Paul B (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote It's not ignored by any historians-get real, brew up some coffee--Woogie10w (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You get real. The statistics are well known. Nevertheless, it is very dubious to call the deaths of German soldiers systematic murder in a way that's comparable to the gassings and other killings committed by the Nazis. However this is not the relevant article is it? Try adding content to German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs if you have strong opinions on the matter. Paul B (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Check John W Dower's War Without Mercy, 80,000 Japanese POW died in Allied(non Soviet) hands. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the US, UK and France the German POW received decent treatment in most cases, only about 1% died in custody--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When I say politically correct, let me be specific. That means one never ever mentions the deaths of German civilians in allied air raids, the barbarous treatment of civilians during the 1945 Soviet offensive, the famine after the war under Allied occupation and the expulsion of the Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No-one ever mentions the deaths of German civilians in air raids? Oh please. Have you never seen any of the several movies made about Dresden? You are living in a strange world if you think that the rapes commited by Soviet troops are unknown. The famine was a result of the devastation of Europe, not a deliberate act. The Allies more or less successfully minimised its effects. Of course these things are much less well known than the Holocaust, but they are of a different order. Paul B (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is now an obviously an off-topic thread per WP:FORUM. I'm going to ask that the next editor who posts here provide some kind of explanation of what this thread has to do with improving the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an off the topic thread, in fact in Germany today there are persons who refer to a Bombing Holocaust and an Expulsion Holocaust. de:Holocaust (Begriff) Even though you you may find this offensive and disagree, it is still a fact. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is refering to the attack on Dresden, not anything about allied prisoners. As Steven mentioned, this thread is completely outside scope. Wallie (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so, because in Germany there are persons who do in fact equate the genocide of the Jews with German civilian deaths in the war. You may disagree with this POV, however some Germans believe this to be true. I agree that this may be completely outside scope for some persons only in the English speaking world. That is why on German Wikipedia the Holocaust deals only with the genocide of the Jews.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this link on German Wikipedia de:Holocaust (Begriff)--Woogie10w (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbs don't deserve their own section, only Jews were victims of the Holocaust

Neubacher's alleged statement was reported as following: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. On the basis of reports I received, I estimated that three quarters of a million defenceless people were slaughtered." Then, Edmond Paris who quoted this statement in his book inserted the following sentence that is not part of the original statement, quote: "(including babies, children, women and old men)." That's his opinion, not the part of the original statement by Neubacher. First of all, if anybody read Edmond Paris' book would know that he is similar to Edward S. Herman. He is siding with Serbs based on their socialist values. Neubacher's sentencing was in Belgrade. He was tortured and humiliated by Serbs, and no wonder he would sign that statement. But, what Edmond Paris did, he inserted into brackets info about children and babies to make these crimes more glamorous. A shame, pure politics. True, about 50,000 Serbs at most died in Jasenovac, as USHMM reported, plus Muslims, Jews, Croats, and Romas. We were all victims of Jasenovac. Remember, after the war, Serbs in Croatia remained majority on about one third of Croatia's territory. How did that happen if Croats killed at least 600 Serbs? Hmmm... If Croats killed 600,000 of Serbs in WWII in Croatia, then Serbs would certainly not be ethnic majority in areas where they claimed genocide. But, I understand, WWII is based on estimates and politics, not on facts. Only Srebrenica genocide is based on solid facts and DNA forensics. Everything else is politics.Bosniak (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions are completely inappropriate. This is not a place for discussions of opinions (WP:SOAPBOX), and your racist comments will not be tolerated. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Time out, we need to maintain a NPOV on Wikipedia. Please no Waving the bloody shirt on this page. Yugoslavs of every group were victims of Fascism. Read the section Casualties in the attached link, 501,000 from all groups perished in cities and camps, our source is professional demographer who researched population losses in the war. [13]. We cannot tolerate a POV push by a single ethnic group from the former Yugoslavia here on English Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bosniak. There is a debate mentioned in the lede as to whether or not the Holocaust definition applies to Jews only. The fact is that Serbs are mentioned here in this article, meaning that it is certainly included in Holocaust discussions. Everyone recognizes that Serbs were very badly treated in the war. However you describe it, decent people, in particular Jewish scholars, take it very very seriously the fact that so many Serbian people died in this way, especially up to 600,000 of them. It is considered by Jews and non-Jews alike to be a catastrophe. This also applies to other ethnic groups slaughtered for their race or religion, like Muslims or Croats. As far as numbers are concerned, these can also be political, as you say. All we can do is try our best to research based on references to get as close to the facts as we can. Wallie (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust - definition of the term

The text says "Most scholars, however, define the Holocaust as a genocide of European Jewry alone,[4] or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." "

Is this still the case? Is the meaning of the word changing over time? Even some of the references attached in the article indicate otherwise - that other non-Jewish people are included. To me, the Holocaust certainly relates to the defined period around WW2, and that the Jewish people were certainly the main victims as a group. However, should everyone else be excluded? Wallie (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is entitled, "The Holocaust," and its lead paragraph currently defines the death of only jews to be part of the Holocaust. This was not always the case. In fact, for most of this article's history, from the time it was first put up in 2001 until January 2006, the Holocaust was defined as an event that included "various groups," of which jews were one. In an edit dated January 2006, this changed radically; quietly and without debate, the article suddenly excluded from the Holocaust all groups except jews (oddly retaining other groups, in the margins, as somehow affected by the event). We were left with an article that remains inconsistent, at best. To correct the situation, all other peoples subjected to Nazi genocidal policies should be removed from this article or the definition of the Holocaust should be returned to the original as it was for most of the article's history.Tobit2 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been around wikipedia for a bit (check my edit history), and have watched this unfold. In order to understand the magnitude of the problem, it helps to understand that there are a few topics "in play".

1. 'holocaust', or 'burnt offering', meaning the mass destruction of a people.
2. 'Holocaust' as a proper noun, which, depending on the group, was about their destruction.
3. 'The Holocaust', which generally referred to the destruction of people in the 30's and 40's by Nazi regimes in Europe, with people differing on what groups should be counted.

In addition, because of cultural traditions, different groups focus upon, and emphasize, or claim, their culturally related terms. Shoah, Porajmos, (etc.), see Names_of_the_Holocaust

Adding complexity to the question is an issue of "primacy", which is to say the issue of "who was targeted the most", or "who died the most", or "who suffered the most". These are very important issues to people who are emotionally involved in the articles (which number in the millions).

Getting back to your original point, as long as I have watched this article, there have been issues about death tolls, suffering tolls, and who should, and should not be, included in the articles, and the numbers.

So, to summarize, there are a large amount of factors to think about, and those factors constantly change and re-shape the content. The advocates involved are also heavily emotionally involved, and that makes this an especially challenging article to work on. Ronabop (talk)

Many or most scholars, are weasel words that do not belong on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose we should use this introduction:The Holocaust is the state-sponsored systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary victims -- six million were murdered; Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), people with mental and physical disabilities, and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents, also suffered grievous oppression and death under Nazi Germany. Source; The US Holocaust Memorial Museum [14]--Woogie10w (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009

I, also, have been around Wikipedia for a while and have various cycles operating on The Holocaust page. I would be the first to admit that the article is confusing, messy, and even misleading at times. I put this down to editors operating with different points of view about the definition. I have written about this before, but rather than go back and hunt up what I wrote, let me try and sumarize:

We all agree that the Nazis carried out a series of genocides and massacres which include:

• The Final Solution to the Jewsh Question,
• the genocide of the Romani,
• the genocide of the handicapped,
• the massacres of Poles, Russian POWs, and other sub-sets.

Now many of us including those who have edited the article have our own preference for incuding various subsets in the definition. However, for an encyclopdia article, we need to use a common definition which is supported by historians and scholars. There is no doubt that today most historians and scholars use the Final Solution as the definition of The Holocaust. (In this case, "most" is not a weasel word as a list of historians and scholars can be established and counted, proving or disproving the statement. If we took only the references in the footnotes to the article, we would quickly see that most of the referees use either implicitly or explicitly the final solution definition. I suspect that even most holocaust deniers use the word in a similar way.) Several authorities also add the genocides of the Romani and handicapped to the definition--Niewyk and Henry Friedlander (not Saul) are the only ones that come to my mind. The reason for such classification by historians is not a value judgement about who suffered the most nor an attempt to leave out peoples and groups that also suffered, but rather to distinguish the final solution with its own distinctive features (mentioned in the article), which it seems to me makes it easier to learn from the past. I have written before that including all the other groups actually can obscure their own case which would be better highlighted in a separate entry. I would suggest that everybody would benefit by establishing a new page entitled something like Nazi Genocides and Massacres, with individual paragraphs linking to specific entries, i.e. Polish massacres, Russian POWs, The Holocaust, etc. I know that this is probably a controversial suggestion and has a fat chance of floating--we are probably stuck with with unwieldly page which easily confuses the general reader.(UTC)--Joel Mc (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Joel. A Nazi Genocides and Massacres would alleviate the pressure. We could start by renaming the Holocaust Victims article to the title suggested by Joel. Woogie's idea for a new lead paragraph would allow us to distinguish well between the Holocaust article and the Nazi Genocides article too.Tobit2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Strictly speaking, only two ethnic groups can be considered the Holocaust's victims: Jews and Roma. Nazi's policy towards them was simple: they refused to recognize their right of existence, so the ultimate goal was to exterminate them completely. In addition, extermination of Jews and Gypsies was not dictated by any military need.
By contrast, other ethnic groups or nations were more "lucky": according to Nazi plans, they were allowed to exist (although only partially: the plans were to decrease their population to the "reasonable" level, and to transfer them to the areas less suitable for life). Moreover, although I am aware of plans of Germanisation of some fraction of the Poles, I cannot even imagine a possibility of any attempt to germanise Jews. In addition, sometimes military or economic needs affected Nazi's policy towards the ethnic groups belonging to the "outer circle" of Holocaust. For instance, mass murder of Polish or Belorussian population was partially associated with German anti-partisan warfare; Soviet POW were treated much better during the second part of the war, because Germany needed in slave labour force, etc.
Therefore, it seems to me that two definitions of Holocaust are possible: a strict definition (Jews, Gypsy, homosexuals and disabled), and more wide one (+Soviet POWs, the Poles etc). The second definition poses some problems, because it is hard to determine the difference between "ordinary" mass murders and that associated with Holocaust. For instance, why the Poles are included, but the Belorussians (that lost about a quarter of population) are not. Why starvation of Warsaw getto is the example of Holocaust, but starvation of Leningrad citizens (some sourses state that Hitler ordered to starve all Leningrad population to death even if Leningrad made an attempt to surrender) is not? Therefore, the Joel Mc's suggestion (if I understand it correct) seems reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert is correct. The professional Holocaust historians have ignored the fact that the Nazis intended to annihilate the Soviet people. Historians in the English speaking world really need to have a better understanding of Hitlerite genocide in the USSR--Woogie10w (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is just one example of the civilian losses in the USSR. In 1995 the Russian Academy of Science published a report on USSR Human Losses in WW2. On Page 128 they list the civilian dead in the Stalingrad region at 555,700, 30.1 % of the population. They noted that in one single day in August 1942 40,000 were killed in a German air attack on the city. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The same source reported that 4.1 million civilians died from famine in the occupied USSR, the Nazis looted the food to intentionaly reduce the population.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Joels's suggestion has been tried before, on some level: Holocaust_victims, with sub-articles for the different peoples who suffered. Of course, renaming that article to "Victims of Nazi Genocides and massacres" might be met with some resistance, as "ownership" of being part of the Holocaust (with a capital H) set of victims is important to some groups. Both Paul Siebert and Woogie10w, I think, are also accurate in that different scholars, coming from different angles, languages, and cultural norms, consider different aspects to be "part" of the Holocaust. That being said, perhaps we could further tune the opening paragraphs to include this variety of opinions, without giving or denying ownership to/from any specific group. Ronabop (talk)

Has everyone here looked at the sources attached to the sentence, which clearly define The Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews? Have they reviewed the first source in particular, which specifically states "many scholars", thus removing the "weasel word" concerns? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Many" is not "most". Perhaps a minor quibble, or perhaps a cited phrase choice we could use, without getting into a citation match of different scholars and opinions being used? Ronabop (talk)

From the text of the already existing citations: "Not everyone finds this a fully satisfactory definition." "and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II".. Ronabop (talk)

Per Ronabop suggestion for tweaking the led. Here is a possibility:

The Holocaust is the term commonly used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jew’s during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the Nazi Party regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Some scholars extend this definition to include the Nazi's systematic murder of Roma; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; the disabled; homosexual men; and political and religious opponents. Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the total number of victims would be between nine and 11 million.

Scholars continue to debate whether the term Holocaust should be applied to all victims of the Nazi mass murder campaign equally, with some suggesting it be applied solely to Jewish victims.

Thoughts? Tobit2 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Which scholars extend the definition to include "the Nazi's systematic murder of Roma; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; the disabled; homosexual men; and political and religious opponents."? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Group/aggregate sources: "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust", by Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and the OED. Both argue for an expansive view.

On an individual level (those arguing for varying levels of expansion), we have (I pulled these from the text of the Columbia Guide)[15]:

Michael Niewyk, Michael Burleigh & Wolfgang Wippermann, Donald Kenrick, Grattan Puxon, S. Totten, Alan S. Rosenbaum, Ian Hancock, Henry Friedlander, Bohdan Wytwycky, Christian Streit, Jurgen Forster, Richard C. Lukas, Richard Plant, F. Rector.

While the above list of scholars includes different groups, depending on the scholar, no single one flat out says that all groups should be included, so to edit Tobit2's suggested intro:

The Holocaust is a term commonly used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the Nazi Party regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Scholars have variously extended this definition to include the Nazi's systematic murder of other groups, including: Roma, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, ethnic Poles, the disabled, homosexual men, and political and religious opponents. Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the total number of victims would be between nine and 17 million.

Scholars continue to debate whether the term Holocaust should be applied to all victims of the Nazi mass murder campaign equally, with some suggesting it be applied solely to Jewish victims.

I used the 17 million number from Niewyk's most expansive estimate (because the phrase implies a range, depending on levels of expansion), and tried to add wording that indicates that different scholars add different groups. A perhaps more improved revision might not only link to the Columbia Guide, but instead link to the individual texts by each scholar. Ronabop (talk)

I agree with the intro as put forth by Ronabop. Tobit2 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, but Nazi's should Nazis' (apostrophe after the s). Paul B (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess the above confims my fears that it would not be an easy task to clean up this article. The proposal is reasonable in itself, but it doesn't help us move away from this confusing patchwork of an article. A couple of points before I move on:

• Even though he favors a more expansive definition, Niewyk makes the statements: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the mass murder of more than 5 million Jews.." and further on "most people still understand it" as the genocide of the Jews.
• there are scholars as well as others who feel other groups should be added to the definition, but in editing an encyclopedia entry we need to make a distinction between what is, and what should be. What is commonly understood and what most think should carry most weight in making a definition than what some people think should be included.
• Perhaps I was not very clear about my proposal. It was not to rename the article, but rather to establish "a new page entitled something like Nazi Genocides and Massacres, with individual paragraphs linking to specific entries, i.e. Polish massacres, Russian POWs, The Holocaust, etc." The Holocaust entry would remain, but it would refer to the Final Solution while the material on it relating to other genocides, i.e. Romani and massacres would be moved to new pages i.e. entitled something like Nazi genocide of the Romani, etc. --Joel Mc (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't unilaterally decide that "The Holcaust" is synonymous with "The Final Solution" and that other deaths are part of some other "event". We have to report on how the word is used. That is Wikipedia policy. Even academics are inconsistent, nor is there even a clear debate as such, but rather a de facto "fuzzy" usage. Some books use the term interchangably with Final Solution or Shoah. Others use it to refer to the general process of systemetised incarceration, brutality and murder which swept up various groups. All we do is report on the varied usages with proper citation. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there are two differnt POV on the topic we should present both, let the readers decide. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia article:de:Holocaust has an interesting solution to our dilemma, the main article overs only Jewish victims, the second entitled Holocaust-definitions de:Holocaust (Begriff) covers all others persecuted by the Nazis, those who read German should view the articles. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either way personally the specific names of articles in which the description of Nazi atrocities are placed, but this "Holocaust" article on English Wikipedia should probably comport with usage of the term in English. Dictionary definitions limited to the World War II context on various "Holocaust" definitions listed at dictionary.com appear to define it as:

---

Random House Dictionary:

hol·o·caust /'h?l??k?st, 'ho?l?-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-]–noun 3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:

hol·o·caust (hol'?-kôst', ho'l?-) n. 1. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff).

Princeton wordnet.com:

holocaust - noun 2. the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime from 1941 until 1945

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

Holocaust [(hol-uh-kawst, hoh-luh-kawst)]

The killing of some six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II. To the Nazis, the Holocaust was the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem,” and would help them establish a pure German master race. Much of the killing took place in concentration camps, such as Auschwitz and Dachau. (See Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler).

Online etymology dictionary:

holocaust c.1250, "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering," from Gk. holokauston, neut. of holokaustos "burned whole," from holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)) + kaustos, verbal adj. of kaiein "to burn." Originally a Bible word for "burnt offerings," given wider sense of "massacre, destruction of a large number of persons" from 1833. The Holocaust "Nazi genocide of European Jews in World War II," first recorded 1957, earlier known in Heb. as Shoah "catastrophe." The word itself was used in Eng. in ref. to Hitler's Jewish policies from 1942, but not as a proper name for them.

"Auschwitz makes all too clear the principle that the human psyche can create meaning out of anything." [Robert Jay Lifton, "The Nazi Doctors"]

---

Perhaps this "Holocaust" article should focus upon the particular campaign amongst the Jews, and be linked in broader articles about overall Nazi attrocities to all groups.

As mentioned, I don't have strong feelings on it either way. In fact, I drafted a proposed Lede below that has it drafted more broadly, assuming that the definition of the word was generally viewed more broadly. But perhaps it is not, and it instead more generally views the term "Holocaust" as the campaign against ethnic Jews, while a minority view it in broader terms.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article should include a broader definition of the term, including pre-war meanings, and others. As the centre of the world is now shifting from Europe to Asia, we often find references to the 10-30 million Chinese holocaust by Japanese (e.g. [16]. Kentavros (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I read your link, The Chinese Holocaust refers to the Cultural Revolution in the 1960's not WW2--Woogie10w (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash of Anti-Semitism in this Article

Omitting the history of anti-Semitism in teaching about the Holocaust permits mostly Christian's to avoid unpleasant encounters with their religion's history--Woogie10w (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Woogie. Nearly all of us are well aware there are some anti-Semitism with people having the underlying intention to, as you say, trivialize the Holocaust. Nearly everyone here, including you and me, would also immediately jump on any such form of anti-Semitism. I do not agree, however, that to mention that a debate exists on whether or not other groups should be included in the Holocaust is anti-Semitism, or indeed trivialization of what the Jewish people suffered. As far as Christian historical or current guilt is concerned, I am unsure as to which article this should be discussed in. However, you are very welcome to introduce this topic. I would hope that people would want to represent the truth, no matter how unpleasant it is to their own kind. Wallie (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie, isn't the Anti-semitism article, which is already on Wikipedia, the best place to cover the history of this topic? Why not link the Holocaust article to the Anti-semitism one?Tobit2 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Europe laid the foundation for the Holocaust; the Nazis were able to invoke the deep rooted dislike of the Jews. This is discussed in depth by Hilberg and Davidawicz. In the US today this is not taught in the schools in order to avoid offending Christians. Many Americans cannot accept the fact that deep rooted Anti-Semitism was a contributing cause of the Holocaust. Note well my grandfather was baptized in a Lutheran Church in Prussia in 1875. I should know, read my lips.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the article you mentioned and found it insightful in some cases. Although I am not familiar with every variety of educational program in the US, I would still be shocked if a high-schooler failed to see anti-semitism as a root cause of the jewish genocide. Whether this root, however, stems solely from Christianity or even deeper psychological and cultural issues is a difficult question and far from settled.Tobit2 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The history of European Anti Semitism is being swept under the rug in the article, Christian antisemitism ultimately played a dramatic role in the Nazi Third Reich, World War II and the Holocaust. Please see the following Wikipedia articles that support my position-Martin Luther and antisemitism and Christianity and antisemitism.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest linking the Holocaust article to the Christianity and antisemitism article. It is a C-class article since this is a difficult question, full of polemic. Nevertheless, that article remains the proper place to describe any link between the two.Tobit2 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just like I said, you want to sweep anti-semitism under the rug--Woogie10w (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10W I think you are acting in good faith. But to say that linking this article to another is to sweep anti-Semitism under the rug is to misconstrue Wikipedia as a whole. One of the main virtues of an internet encyclopedia, over textual encyclopedias, is hypertext - our ability to use links to show how different topics and fields of knowledge are connected. You seem to think hypertext makes knowledge disconnected. That is absurd. We strie to use hypertext carefully to make precisey the point you wish to make: to show how one thing is connected to another.

Now let me share with you an alternate dilemma to the one you are concerned with. Many people think that an anti-Semite is only someone who advocates genocide e.g. the Holocaust. What this belief does is to make al other forms of anti-Semitism okay, and any criticism of those things is just hyperensitivity. So we have a dual dilemma: to show how the Holocaust is connected to a history of anti-semitism in Europe, AND to make clear that anti-Semitism takes many forms most of which seem innocuous when compared to the Holocaust. Do you understand?

This page is to propose specific improvements to the article. bearing in ind what I just wrote, can you make some specific proposal we can discuss? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read The War Against the Jews by Dawidowicz and the Destruction of the European Jews by Hilberg and then you will understand. There is no dilemna, this page is a whitwash of European Ant-Semitism and needs to be updated--Woogie10w (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I read them. Now, you either did not read what I wrote, or you did not understand it, but I will repeat the main point: propose a specific improvement to the article. f you can't, go away - this page is for serious editors, it is not a chat-room. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not chatting, I want to incorporate the research of Hilberg and Dawidowicz in this article to improve it, I will not go away, you can't bully me. Do you understand? I have made 135 edits to this page, you have only 10 to date.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "anti-Semitism takes many forms most of which seem innocuous when compared to the Holocaust. Tell that to the face of a person who survived the Nazi camps and lost members of their family.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You know nothing about who I am or my family history, and it is none of your business. Now please explain to me how my asking you to propose a specific edit is bullying you. How do you know I will not support your edit? How is asking you to be specific in any way an attempt to drive you away? I only say, and I say again, you should go away if you have no specific proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To improve this article I recommend the following.
ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner. The article as it stands now implies that the Holocaust occurred with the advent of the Nazis, without a discussion of the deep rooted European Antisemitism. I recommend the editors read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews which has a good overview of the Christian persecutions of the Jews over the centuries. Lucy Dawidowicz In her book The War Against the Jews draws a line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Martin Luther to Hitler, writing that both men were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. This article as it stands now is a whitewash of the problem of European Antisemitism and promotes historical revisionism.
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. The Slavs were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. Also, anti-Semitism in Poland during the war needs be addressed in the article, I recommend that the editors read Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman for a discussion of this sensitive issue. Why does this article ignore the ugly issue of anti-Semitism in Poland during the war that was documented by Israel Gutman in Unequal Victims? I contend that the editors have chosen to ignore this historical reality in order to avoid the noisy denials of anti-Semites who wish to promote historical revisionism.
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world. The editors of this page rely mainly on English language sources found on Google books. A Russian language source in print is dark matter to them. There is no question that one should also include non Jewish victims in the USSR if you include Poles as Holocaust victims. In fact the losses in the USSR far exceeded those in Poland. Shining the spotlight on Poles as victims and sidelining East Slavs is a glaring distortion of historical reality that goes way over the heads of the editors of this page.
FOUR- The central problem with the article is that other groups besides Jews are included in the Holocaust. This article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. By including the Poles and Roma they have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s. German Wikipedia should be our guide, de:Holocaust, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page.
Prior to the Holocaust (TV miniseries) in 1978 the term Holocaust was hardly ever used. Since then the genocide of the European Jews has been trivialized and commercialized. The article reflects this sad state of affairs. ----Woogie10w (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific. Lt me point out that you are an editor and if you have already read Dawidowicz and others, you can add information yourself - when you speak to "the editors," you are speaking to yourself as this page is only for editors (like you). I certainly have no problem with adding more inormation about the roots of the Jewish Holocaust in European anti-Semitism as long as it does not violate WP:NOR, by the way I am surprised you do not mention Yehuda Bauer. I believe there is very good English-language literature on the role of non-Germans/non-Nazis in the Jewish Holocaust, but be tht as it may, if there are good Polish or Russian sources (I mean, by Russian and Polish historians, they have to meet our WP:V and WP:RS standards) I am all for adding that, so in general I agree with your suggestions 1 and 3. But to be clear, we cannot add information that is just on European anti-Semitism (that belongs in a linked - i.e. connected article); we have to add information by historians and other scholars who explicitly link European anti-Semitism to the jewish Holocaust. I have to say I am confused about 2 and 4 which seem to be the same point. We have discussed this on this page and I encourage you to check the archived discussion to catch up on what you missed - once you have done that you may wish to reopen the discussion. But we would need to have discussion to make the change you propose. Wikipedia's policy is to accept all significant points of view. If there is a significant POV that there was a Gypsy Holocaust, or Bosnian Holocaust, this article has no choice but to represent that. I fail to see it as a problem. You seem to identify this with anti-Semitism but I do not understand how. If I tell you my sister was raped, wouldn't you agree tht was an awful thing? Now if I told you five other women were raped, would you suddenly think what happened to my sister was alright? I really do not understand what kind of person you must be to think that way. As to the Holocaust not being discussed prior to the 1978 TV series, you are wrong and also being unfair and unjust to Eli Wiesel and Simon Weisenthal and many others who did much to educate people about the holocaust before that TV series. Also, you say that this article commercializes the Holocaust, I fail to see how. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Holocaust was hardly ever used prior to the 1978 TV series,One would refer to the “Final Solution” or “Auschwitz”. The April 1978 broadcast of the TV movie, Holocaust, based on Gerald Green's book of the same name, and the very prominent use of the term in President Carter's creation of the President's Commission on the Holocaust later that same year, cemented its meaning in the English-speaking world. These events, coupled with the development and creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum through the 1980s and 1990s, established the term Holocaust (with a capital H) as the standard referent to the systematic annihilation of European Jewry by Germany's Nazi regime. [17] [18]--Woogie10w (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I and veryone I knew refered to it as the Holocaust. No one I knew ever called it the Final Solution unless one was explicitly quoting the Nazis. Since being a Jew is not a problem, there is no solution. Calling it "the Final Solution" is just what an anti Semite would call it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1978??--Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"the Final Solution" was the title of of an early history of the Holocaust by Gerald Reitlinger, the book was a standard history back in the 1950s and 1960's. In college classes back then (1967-71) I remember Auschwitz being used, never the Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But surely you had heard of the Holocaust before you went to college. The TV people called the series "The Holocaust" because that was the word non-TV people used for it at the time - and before. The AJC published and distributed Yehudah Bauer's They chose life: Jewish resistance in the Holocaust in the early 1970s. I read Frederick Forsyth's popular action novel, The Odessa File when it came out in 1972 and he refers to "the Holocaust" extensively. Leon Uris's novel Exodus (made into a movie with Paul Newman and Eve Marie Saint) came out in 1958 and talks about "the Holocaust." I think if popular novelists like Forsyth and Uris knew to call it the Holocaust it is because that is what it was called back then. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thats water over duh dam. Re: my edit today, what is your opinion? can you reccomend any changes?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Such usage strongly influenced the adoption of holocaust as the primary English-language referent to the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry, but the word's connection to the "Final Solution" did not firmly take hold for another two decades. The April 1978 broadcast of the TV movie, Holocaust, based on Gerald Green's book of the same name, and the very prominent use of the term in President Carter's creation of the President's Commission on the Holocaust later that same year, cemented its meaning in the English-speaking world. These events, coupled with the development and creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum through the 1980s and 1990s, established the term Holocaust (with a capital H) as the standard referent to the systematic annihilation of European Jewry by Germany's Nazi regime.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia articles should include all significant views from reliable sources. I do not believe - in general - it is a good idea to have a view and then hunt for sources that support it so it can be put in. i think it is better to find the major sources, and then put whatever views they hold in (to any article). So - I am not opposed to your adding a Kung quote. I did not revert it. But there is a whole field of Holocaust Studies and professional historians (which Kung is not) studying the data to provide explanations. Frankly, I would like to see a whole section on "Explanations" that surveys all major scholarship, including functionalists and intentionalists. Certainly many of these sources will mention a history of anti-Semitism. But they will also explain why it started in Germany (not the most anti-Semitic of European countries, historically) and why in the 1930s, and these explanations will lead to other factors. I just want an honest encyclopedia article that draws on the major sources, whatever they say. I do not have the time to research this but I wish someone would just google "Holocaust Studies," take the first three or four hits, and print out any bibliographies they provide, and then look for any book and article that is on all the bibliographies, and then tells us what they say. I would not rely at all on the content of websites, which are not written to conform to high academic standards - I would prefer books published by academic presses or articles in peer-reviewed journals (although yad VaShem and the US Holocaust Museum are also important publishers of research). That is how I learn new things. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit was necessary in order that the credibility of Wikipedia be maintained. An adequate exposition of the problem of anti-Semitism in European history is absolutely essential to understanding the Holocaust. Besides Kung, we can cite Hilberg, Dawidowicz and Bauer to support this POV. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

doesn't seem like you are responding to anything I wrote. Fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I read your post, you and I both lack the time to research the topic in depth.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Woogie10w's ONE to FOUR:
ONE - support. Without any doubts, it is absolutely necessary to show that the 1933-1945 events had deep roots coming from medieval times. In addition, it is quite necessary to demonstrate that antisemitism was a phenomenon common for Europe as whole, not for Germany only. I can provide reliable academic sources demonstrating that during the first year of German occupation of western Sovet Union, significant part of Jews were killed by local peoples, not by Nazi paramilitary units.
TWO - support: it is quite necessary to write about persecution of the other groups, to show the real scale of presecution and killing of non-Jewish population, but one cannote equate extermination of Jews and persecution of Slavs.
THREE - absolutely support. However, I don't think the problem is in unavailability of English sources: I believe it is possible to find reliable western sources telling about mass killing committed Stalin's and Hitler's regime. I know at least one reliable source that compares these numbers and states that Hitler's activity fits the definition of mass murder in far greater extent.
FOUR - sorry, it is generally a repetition of TWO. In addition, you cannot equate the fate of the Poles and Roma for at least two reasons: (i) there was no big difference between the fate of the Poles and other Slaws; (ii) not only it is quite possible to equate the fate of Jews and Gypsies, but it is necessary to do: if I am not wrong, Roma, like Jews, were also planned to be exterminated completely. Therefore, no Pandora box is open if we include Roma people, although it definitely will be open if we include the Poles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell my concern is that young readers get the facts, we have a responsibility to be make sure that Wikipedia maintains a NPOV. We should inform not propagandize. Look at the page view statistics, about 180,000 per month. One must assume many are kids doing their homework. First and foremost the issue of anti-Semitism, which is ignored in our schools, needs to be addressed in this article. Secondly, we must not equate the fate of the Jews with other groups persecuted by the Nazis, this is a gross distortion of what actually happened. Thirdly, the Nazi war against the Soviet civilian population needs better coverage by English speaking scholars, and on Wikipedia. The Nazis were responsible for 17 million deaths, 11 million on Soviet territory. The war in the Soviet Union still remains the “Unknown War” for too many in the west and on Wikipedia. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-semitism is ignored in our schools"... where is this? You might want to address this with your local school board, rather than trying to change it in wikipedia, I'm sure that addressing the matter at a school level will reach more people in your area (it's certainly not ignored in schools here). Secondly, equating the varying degrees of persecution is problematic, as is differentiating, which is why there isn't a universal definition. As far as your 11/17 numbers go, I'm wondering where they came from. Ronabop (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1-"Anti-semitism is ignored in our schools"... where is this?-Read this article in the journal Social Education -Holocaust Fatigue in Teaching Today [19]
2-Secondly, equating the varying degrees of persecution is problematic- Not so, Read Unequal Victims by by Israel Gutman . 90% of Polish Jews perished in the war compared to 6% of Polish Catholics
3-Thirdly-As far as your 11/17 numbers go, I'm wondering where they came from. Do the math- 6 million Soviet civilians, 3 million Pow and 2 million Jews Total 11 million.(including eastern Poland, Besserabia and the Baltic states in USSR in 1941)--Woogie10w (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronabop-we cannot compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma. Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 [20] which is a collection photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality. In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians. At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day.
German Homosexuals were persecuted, about 10,000 (1%) of the estimated 1,000,000 German Homosexual population died in the camps, compared to 160,000 of the 165,000 German Jews who were sent to the camps
The handicapped were persecuted by the Nazis, 200,000 were murdered. Let us not forget that the German Protestant churches protested this barbarity and the executions were halted. They did not make similar protests to save the Jews.
The fate of Soviet POW was tragic. About 3 million of the 5.7 million captured perished in German hands. But we must not forget that 800,000 Soviet POW were released from captivity to serve in the German military. 215,000 died in the German uniform and 285,000 were sentenced by Soviet courts after the war for collaboration, another 180,000 of these collaborators found refuge in western countries after the war.
--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)