From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Death (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vandal Attacks[edit]

Having just watched Valkyrie last night I was doing some reading today and tried to revert the vandalism caused by Youngster14. I messed up the formatting ... please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chillroy (talkcontribs) 16:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Kwertii, you had written "Nazi Wehrmacht" but the Wehrmacht was never a Nazi organization, unlike the SS. They were the military that obeyed the orders of the supreme commander i.e. Adolf Hitler. Quite a lot of soldiers and officers didn't like Hitler but they just followed orders. Andries 19:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

But prior to Hitler, wasn't it called the Reichswehr, and after Hitler the Bundeswehr, making the term Wehrmacht unique to the Hitler period? orthogonal 08:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well yes, but that would also imply that calling it the "Nazi Wehrmacht" is tautological, so Wehrmacht would still be simpler and just as clear. Historian932 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I made a tiny correction, all sources prove that the SIPO personell were a tiny fraction and were mainly NCOs and officers. The men were in majority soldiers from Waffen-SS and policemen. In Russia by far the biggest group were local volunteers and only a tiny fraction of the shootings were directly from Germans. They used locals for their dirty job as they found it was quite disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We need not be ambiguous in this, the Wehrmacht, Waffen SS, Police, Civilians and the specivity of the Einsatzgruppe murdered Jews wherever they found them. Too simplistic to attempt to move the direct perpetration away from the group solely charged with the 'killing operation.' Patrick Dempsey —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

JasonM, the half million was the total in 1941,1942,1942 Andries 09:18, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

from the village pump

I think it's a major oversight that we don't have a page on Einsatzgruppe. I've added a stub. Please help me to fill out.

Thanks. orthogonal 19:33, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

on Googling Wikipedia for Einsatzgruppe. Better cross-referncing is needed. orthogonal 19:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
On a somewhat arcane technicality, would Einsatzgruppe be the better location, since it's the singular, in keeping with general policy (even though it's not English)? But yes, this demonstrates the usefulness of creating redirects from obvious alternatives, doesn't it. - IMSoP 20:26, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it should definately be moved Dmn 23:25, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it should not be moved because the singular Einsatzgruppe is used only rarely in German and English. The German Wikipedia also uses the plural version (Einsatzgruppen). Source Heinz Hoehne Der Orden unter dem Totenkopf - Die Geschichte der SS. Andries 18:42, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't see Einsatzgruppen because I was using singular, but the plural is far more common in English. orthogonal 07:59, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Wehrmacht were totally Nazified. References as such have been made by Reichenau, Guderian, Manstein and Hoth. The work of the Einsatzgruppe could not have been done without the cooperation of the forces of the Reich, Wehrmacht, Waffen SS, Police and even Civilain helpers.
see Patrick Dempsey's:-
der Einsatzgruppe and the Destruction of European Jewry. ISBN:-1-904115-01-2
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:50, 17 June 2010
To say that everyone in the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) were Nazis is not correct. Now were there commands and troops of the Heer (Army) on the Eastern Front (Ostfront) war involved in the Final Solution, yes. Kierzek (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen and Muslim Bosnians[edit]

According to the line concerning Einsatzgruppen D's composition, it falsely attributes it to being composed of Bosnian Muslims. That is another group altogether, known as the Handschar, as verified in the link as well.

It would be wise if that line was deleted as Einsatzgruppen were not at all involved with Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "large number" seems at best exaggerated, especially as a) the given source does not cite a number of Bosnian and/or Muslim participants at all, describing them and their activities only in vague ominous terms; and b) the source, Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam (ISBN 9781412810777), appears almost egregiously slanted and unworthy for use on Wikipedia. I think it may be valid to include information about Bosnian volunteers and their mobilization by this particular Mufti, but it needs to be sourced from elsewhere and worded more carefully. Having studied the Einsatzgruppen, especially Einsatzgruppe D, more than the average self-educator could begin to consider enduring, and having never before seen this source or this "information" (more of an accusation really), I find the tone of the whole assertion and citation highly problematic. Harfang (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC):
Since no one's jumping rabidly on this, I'm editing the section very slightly, rendering the shady info respected (I personally don't respect it, so that's my way of being objective) but also less presumed to be factual. If anyone has anything to discuss with me, or changes it back -- hopefully concurrently explaining themselves -- I'll be watching this page and the article. Thanks. Harfang (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did the Einsatzgruppen belong to the Gestapo?[edit]

This is the second time that somebody wrote that the Einsatzgruppen were part of the Gestapo. According to my knowledge (based on the well-documented book by Heinz Hoehne) this is not true. Einsatzgruppen fell directly under the head of the RSHA. Please provide references if you want to keep it in the article. Thanks in advance. Andries 17:06, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen were SS, This is well documented.--Anthony.bradbury 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes but not all sub-branches of the SS were synonymous (otherwise they wouldn't have been separate departments). See the article on the RSHA for a schematic breakdown. Historian932 (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The Einsatzgruppe were an SD component, under Heydrich. They were given their 'killing order' by Heydrich and as such were not under Mueller's Gestapo jurisdiction. Under the Himmler umbrella, all SS were competing agencies, and sought out the killing of the Jews to curry favour with Heinrich Himmler, fully charged by Adolf Hitler for 'The Final Solution of the Jewish Question'--die Endlosung der Judenfrage, what became the mass murder of 6,000,000 Jews in 'The Holocaust.' Patrick Dempsey.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:50, 17 June 2010
Well, it is true that the original Einsatzgruppen were under Heydrich as head of the SD (and he was head of the SiPo at the time, as well). Later in 1939, the SiPo and SD were folded into the RSHA under Heydrich. When they were reactivated for the war in the East (1941), the Einsatzgruppen were then controlled by the RSHA, under Heydrich with several of its sub-departments involved. Including: the Gestapo, Kripo and SD. Certain commanders who wanted to "curry favor" were mainly with the SS-Totenkopfverbände; many others were following orders or their sense of duty; many also wanted out to other assignments. Kierzek (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


Execution is the carrying out of a legal death penalty. Since the article makes it clear that the Einsatzgruppen went around killing civilians without even the pretence of legality, it seems to me that "murder" would be a far more appropriate word than "execute". If anyone thinks otherwise, they can change it to "kill", but don't say "execute". That term is surely quite unfitting. Kelisi 19:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is interesting, of course, but I don't know that the answer is obvious. Considering that this went all the way to the top within the government of Germany with clear - if silent - support, one could argue that it was state-sanctioned killing, which is what en execution is. Taking into account the absolute power of the nazi party and thus its power to decide what was the law at an given time, I would say that it was lawful (yes, loathe the law, despise the legal system, but still) and state sanctioned. So the word execute, in my opinion, is as good as any other. (Arild 21:36, 15 Jan (CET))

The purpose of the Einsatzgruppen was to deal with partizans who were attacking and sabatoging German efforts on the eastern front. Since partizans are considered illegal combatants under international law shooting them is not a violation of the rules of war, being a partizan disguised as a civilian is however. --Nazrac 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the main purpose of the Einsatzgruppen was to kill Jewish civilians, with a few gypsies and political types thrown in for leavening. Jayjg (talk) 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately your version of events are not corroborated with the Nuremberg trials. There is no mention during the trial that the Einsatzgruppen was some sort of mobile killing squad or that its specific purpose was to "kill Jewish civilians and Gypsies" and "political types thrown in for levening." The very wording of that silly piece of trite sounds like a POV in and of itself. --Nazrac 19:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not the case. Eibsatzgruppen A, B, C and D were specifically tasked with the eradication of the Jews in the Baltic states, and this was indeed brought out at Nuremberg, although mant of the perpetrators had been killed in the Courland pocket. For example Obersturmbannfuerer Lange, of Einsatzggruppe A, who was pesent at the Wannsee conference, and who was killed in action in 1945.--Anthony.bradbury 23:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confusing the IMT and the NMT here. Case IX of the NMT certainly does mention it. 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Under "Method of Killing" one of the last sentences ends with the word "tale". I agree that most of these probably are "tales" but the tone of the article probably should use a different word - story/account/testimony.... 17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

A common word used by these groups was 'Liquidation', for example a war diary from 1941 stated,

"Before departure 3d Company must carry out the liquidation of Jews"

Perphaps that would be better, it has that sterile Nazi type ring to it that makes a person shudder.Willski72 (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Einsatzgruppe was to cut a swathe through the Jewish populations of the Baltic States, but also, all of Russia, Poland and wherever they were unleashed for their murderous task. Do not get caught up in the fact that Lange was at Wannsee, the Einsatzgruppe were at work since commencement of Barbarossa, and the 4 Einsatzgruppe headed off in various directions to deploy, to find Jews and then to murder them all. An achievement barely comprehensible, but give that over 1,500,000 millions Jews were murdered by them, it is a fact. Patrick Dempsey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


"The Nazis were not satisfied with shooting as a method of mass murder, however. It was costly in ammunition and effort..." I've seen this argument advanced elswhere for mass hangings. But bullets are cheap, (currently pennies in the US, for example), so unless we have a source I'd like to take out the words "ammunition and". In fact I will do, if someone has a source, can they put the words (and source) in. Rich Farmbrough 12:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it had less to do with the cost and more with the availability of munitons

I believe one reason for the commanders to be unsatisfied with the use of shooting as a method of mass murder was the effect of the executions on the men involved as they eventually become mentally unstable. This was mentioned in the BBC TV programme The Wannssee Conference.

This sounds very much like Catch-22. If you do it you are unstable and if you do not, it because you have become unstable.

Another reference, which makes similar point, occurs in the book 'Shindlers Ark', by Thomas Keneally, where it notes that all SS men working at clearing the Ghettos, knew an SS soldier who had committed suicide, due to pressures of service.

I think in just about any military conflict soldiers commit suicide under pressures of duty, this is true even during peace time. Because one SS soldier commits suicide is not relevent in any way to the article. --Nazrac 17:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps but his statement is not in the article, it's on the discussion page (which has much lower standards). Nor do I understand the use of the term "Catch-22", unless the person who wrote it is trying to assert that anyone who joined the SS was by definition mentally unstable (which is a separate argument he or she is free to raise separately). In any case I have read in several different sources (sorry none of them on hand) that numerous SS officers complained to Himmler about having to order their men to perpetrate mass shootings of civilians, I believe they said things like the best men of their generation were being turned into savage beasts (which, despite what might be shown in Hollywood movies, would not have made them more effective soldiers). I also fail to see how the cost of bullets in the U.S. today is relevant. (I know in the concentration camps the SS ran brothels and provided extra rations of hard liquor in what were attempts to counteract the psychologically debilitating nature of the "work" the camp personnel were engaged in.) Historian932 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


I added a whole bunch of misspellings of Einsatzgruppen seeing how I couldn't get the spelling right (albeit I was translating from Hebrew to English).

Misrepresented Image[edit]

Its sad indeed to see how misrepresented the articles on Nazi Germany are in Wikipedia, but this page bar far takes the cake. The ignorance of the author who in his almost stunning lack of knowledge of the subject matter, most of which is taken from holocaust websites and reworded, even makes the mistake of copying images from such websites of alleged Einsatzgruppen soldiers apparently executing a man. Take a close look at the picture on the main page. Those arent German uniforms and that is not a German pistol in the soldier's hand. The soldier in the image is wearing a Soviet M35 uniform and is holding a Tokerev TT33 pistol. The boy right behind the arm of the soldier wielding the pistol (he looks no more than 16-17 years old perhaps younger) is wearing a Soviet M35 airforce uniform. You can distinctly see everything the soldiers are wearing are Soviet issue, and and non corrospond to German uniforms or equipment. For all any of you know, the guy who apparently is about to be shot is a German POW. Perhaps the Soviets thought it would be funny to dress him up and then shoot him, or more likely it is just a staged event in order to send pictures home (the red army was notorious for staging photos for propaganda purposes back home) This makes sense since the bodies in the pit below appear to have been decomposing for a fair period of time and the grave does not appear fresh.

If you want further proof go to the link at the bottom and view this site that sells authentic reproductions of Soviet and other WW2 uniforms and regaelia. Check out the tunics, belts, headwear, pistols ect. They are all identical to the ones being worn by the soldier and onlookers in this misrepresented photo.

Until the author addresses the issue I am disputing the neautrality of the article.

Nazrac π 22:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The image in question is backed by both the US Library of Congress and the Holocaust Memorial Museum. I haven't been able to find any sources making the above criticism, and the whole thing smacks of original research by the above editor. Unless solid criticism can be found, the image should stay. Ergative rlt 16:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This photo is a well known forgery - or it has been used multiple times with various figures added and subtracted. If the uniforms are all Russian and the guns are all Russian then a slight suspicion should start to overwhelm you any second now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for these claims. Ergative rlt 20:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia Reliable source states: "Caution should be used when using company or organization websites as sources. Although the company or organization is a good source of information on itself, it has an obvious bias. The American Association of Widget Manufacturers is interested in promoting widgets, so be careful not to rely on it exclusively if other reliable sources are available, in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Exercise particular care when using such a website as a source if the company or organization is a controversial one."

So a website about the Holocaust cannot really be consider unbiased in its detirmination, nor can they be considered a reliable secondary source, because they almost certainly sourced that photo from the US Library of Congress, which incidentally is home to all sorts of war time propaganda such as the infamous picture of a women crying while giving the straight arm salute, with a caption underneath stating "Austrian women forced to salute the conquering German army." Of course the picture is cropped from the original which has other people in the background cheering and bravely giving a salute as the German soldiers march through Austria. One deep problem with the holocaust is that there is alot of fakery like this still being published on holocaust websites, along with jars containing soap allegedly made out of jewish body fat, and other nonsense. When a story is disproven or becomes too unbeliable for the average person to swallow they simply stop publishing it, or it is quietly burried. Interestingly enough they still surface on some poorly researched holocaust website from time to time, such as the old lampshade fraud. --Nazrac 00:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

When you want to replace your irrelevancies and original research with citations from reliable sources, feel free. Ergative rlt 01:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC) --Nazrac 20:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Not only are these photos of dubious provenance (none of which are the same as that in this article) and the arguments logical fallacies made by a well-known Holocaust denier (see Wikipedia policy on extremists), Walendy's claims also contradict your claim that this is actually a photo of Russians. Try keeping your story straight. Oh, and here's another source: the Florida Center for Instructional Technology Ergative rlt 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You couldn't possibly have read the entire source I posted or you would have noticed Illustration 15, which is the image used on this wikipedia article. Secondly, of course they are of dubious provenance, that is reason the image is being disputed in the first place and why there is such a thing as holocaust revisionism in the first place, because the photographs these Holocaust websites, books and documentaries are trying to sell to the masses aren't quite what they are made out to be. Stating such things about blurry and seemingly doctored photosgraphs being used on Holocaust websites is considered "holocaust denial" but it is ok for the same argument to be used in "refuting" it. Sounds like a double standard to me. The source also does not claim they believe it is an authentic photo, only that it is one photo being passed off as the Einsatzgruppen executing a jew, it does not contradict the fact that the uniform does not appear to match any known German uniform although there are similarities, but appear to be almost indentical to a certain type of Soviet Uniform as I outlined above. It is also interesting no one can agree conclusively what the Einsatzgrupeen uniforms looked like. The boy behind the alleged Einsatzgruppen, as claimed by your second source is a part of the Reich labour service, yet the uniform does not match, and much more closely resembles the Russian airforce uniform. One also has to wonder what a boy no older than 16 would be doing in the Reich labour service, and what would the Reich labour service being doing half way across the Ukraine in the middle of a war when the Germans allegedly had massive amounts of slave labour to do all the hard work? Why also are all the alleged SS soldiers wearing incomplete and seemingly mismatched uniforms, or do not appear to be in uniform at all? Why does the pistol not confirm to any known German pistol but closely resembles a Tokerev TT33 pistol issued to Soviet officers? On all the Holocaust websites I see, there are numerous photos for example of Wehrmacht officers executing partizans, which is not considered illegal under international law, since they are illegal combatants, some of which are claimed to be Einsatzgruppen, despite having the Wehrmacht officer symbol on their visorcap. If these so called experts on the Holocaust get such a simple detail wrong, what else are they mistaken about? That source of yours is also interesting, it seems they go to great lengths preparing course material for Holocaust seminars and courses. I guess they cant have people going off on their own searching for answers, they might do independant or original research and contradict the accepted version of events. Have you ever been to one of these college campus Holocaust seminars? They are organized exactly the same way as these "get rich quick investing" and "earn 50,000 a week working from home" seminars that are advertized on late night television infomercials. Now, if you're going to claim I'm citing Partisan, religious and extremist websites, I suggest you consider what most Holocaust websites are, they certainly do have an agenda, religious and political. --Nazrac 22:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly have read your unreliable source, and photos 15a-15c all differ from the one presented in this article by being, as you put it, "blurry and seemingly doctored", and thus criticism of them is irrelevant to the photo here. Dubious provenance refers to Walendy's working with reproductions of reproductions, not originals (and you are trying to draw conclusions from further reproductions of those). Note also that while Walendy calls this an execution of Polish Jews, the picture is actually that of an execution in Ukraine. And there is still the non sequitur of "This looks funny to me - it (and the Holocaust) must be faked."
You are also continuing your original research concerning uniforms, weapons, and ages, and again forgetting that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and to "Keep on topic" and that "Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues." Ergative rlt 23:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah ok, but correct me if I am wrong, but isn't every image on the internet a copy of a copy of a copy times a million? You are a gigantic hypocrite you know that? The author states the sources of all the images, mostly holocaust books and post war Allied propaganda, again you would know this if you bothered to read the site. So the question is not are the photos doctored, as you now admit they are, but by whom. Are you alleging Wendly doctored those photos himself just to prove his point?

Take a look at the other image on the next page here from the website you are using as a source:

It is captioned:

"Jewish women and children who have already surrendered their belongings form a small group as others in the background are ordered to discard their outer clothing and their possessions prior to execution. Photograph was taken October 16, 1941 in Lubny, the Ukraine."

Right, they don't mention the soldier is in a Soviet uniform. See the link above showing the Soviet WW2 era uniforms. So now we have a website, providing course material about the holocaust in order to educate people, when apparently they cant tell the difference between the red army and the wehrmacht. So that leads me to the next question, if these Holocaust educators can't get the obvious facts straight, how reliable is the so-called eyewitness testimony? --Nazrac 23:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More original research. More logical fallacies. More off topic rambling. And by the way, "jew" [sic] is capitalized—I see you have the problem of always misspelling it here and at Talk:Examination of Holocaust denial. Just thought I'd help. Ergative rlt 00:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not original research, I am simply refuting your assertion that the image is legitimate and have provided a source because you requested one. Whether or not you accept the source as valid is besides the point. Pointing out that images being misrepresented is not original research either as it is plainly obvious to anyone with an understanding of WW2 era uniforms. Anyone can plainly see that is not an Einsatzgruppen uniform (the article does not even establish what an Einsatzgruppen uniform looks like, aside from the dubious image provided) the boy standing behind the shooter is not wearing a Reich labour service uniform (they are not black and wear a hat with a brim unlike the photo depicts) and the picture appears to be doctored and is certainly mis-captioned, as the source I have provided indicates. How exactly is that a logical fallacy? how is it off topic at all? the fact that you have to resort to pointing out spelling and grammar for lack of a better rebuttal is more off topic than anything I have said. It seems to me you are the one in denial. --Nazrac 05:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking through the German article, they have the same image, only it is a higher quality copy. You can see the outline around the eyes that appear to be either glasses, or artifacts from the photo doctoring process. Look very closely closely at the cap the shooter is wearing, it is identical to the one worn by soldiers in the photo below, you can clearly see the Russian star on the cap.

See below:

Another hodge-podge of doctored and misrepresented photgraphs below:

The top image depects men in Sovet uniforms, only this image, he appears to be holding a German pistol. Look closely at the gun, and notice the soldier's thumb appears to be about 7 inches long, an obvious forgery. They also are not wearing standard issue German boots, or any other footwear known to have been used by the Germans and the hats are again Soviet issue with the Russian star plainly visible. Sad that a place calling itself "history place" which is a source cited so often in WWII related articles is trying to pass this fakery off as legitimate. If they don't realize these photos are fakes they should not writing about history. --Nazrac 06:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on and interpretation of these images is irrelevant. Please provide a reliable source for these claims. Otherwise you are engaging in original research. Ergative rlt 07:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not conducting original research as defined by the rules which state "Original research is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to material placed in articles by Wikipedia users that has not been previously published by a reliable source. It includes unpublished material, for example, arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories, or any new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, that would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".

It does not mention images or photographs which fall under the category of a primary source, and the first source I provided can either be considered a primary or secondary source as they are critical of the authenticity of the disputed photo in question. I dont need to push a POV, as I have provided sources to back my claims. It is you who are dismissing them based on your own interpretation. No one has to consider my interpretation of the photos, I'm sure any intelligent unbiased person can come to their own conclusion. I do not believe the image in the article represents what it is being claimed in the wikipedia article and I have provided sources to back those claims, whether or not you choose to interpret them as reliable sources is your own POV and irrelevant. --Nazrac 07:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Your interpretations constitute a "new analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position". If you wish to state they are of Russians, please provide a published source that makes this claim—for example, find a historian stating that the soldiers are wearing Russian uniforms. Ergative rlt 14:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any grounds to believe that these photos are doctored in any way. Jayjg (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Look at the picture above, which is supposedly an Einsatzgruppen unit about to execute 3 people. Notice the first soldier in the picture, apparently holding a lugar pistol. Now look at his thumb, apparently flipping off the safety on the pistol. Notice anything abnormal? Look at your own thumb and ask yourself, is it possible to move in that manner? to extend about an inch up and about 7 inches outward? I would think not, especially without bending the second joint in your thumb. Now perhaps this German Einsatzgruppen unit, incidentally wearing Soviet uniforms complete with boots (those certainly are not leather jackboots) just happened to have found a German lugar pistol and the soldier holding it just happens to have a very long and deformed thumb and all the other strange things in that photo such as the Soviet NKVD standing in the background behind the trees can be explained away. Then again, there is that possibility, maybe, just maybe it actually is an altered photo. --Nazrac 07:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it, but I suppose anything is possible. In any event, what does your theory have to do with this article? Jayjg (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

While I'm no expert on uniforms, as the Einsatzgruppen were SS members, it follows that they would have worn SS uniforms. The source cited by Nazrac seems to be sheer speculation on the photos, though. Instead of advancing hard problems and showing they are "doctored", he speculates that some figures were cut and pasted, things don't seem to match, and then concludes "This is possibly a photomontage at best, but definitely, at least, a forgery with drawn-in sections", without showing this. Further, as pointed out above, this source doesn't corroborate Nazrac's claim that the uniforms are soviet, but rather speculates that the photo is "doctored". I would say that Nazrac's take on the photo has to be considered new analysis. 04:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. However that is not any SS uniform I have ever seen before either. As I stated earlier I have had extreme difficulty finding any standard uniform worn by the Einsatzgruppe units. I see pictures of Soviet Uniforms, pictures of suspicious and undocumented origin, pictures of alleged atrocities being or about to be commited in uniforms that do not corospond to the units or forces that are claimed in the caption and pictures or almost certain fabrication. None of these photos have confirmed dates, origins, locations or victims/perpetrator names. This makes it virtually impossible to do any real research on them, although the definition of research according to many on this talk page is "the Nizkor website says so." If any of you remember or have heard of the Anti-Wehrmacht exibitions in Germany not long ago, they were caught using these same photos that were exposed as Soviet NKVD perpetrators and not German forces. [1](The source is in German, if you can't read it try babelfish) --Nazrac 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. You must have looked very hard, as I found this picture right here on Wikipedia. Looks like an exact match (the grey "battle" style, on the left) to the uniform in the picture, but I'm no expert.
What relevance do the "anti-Wehrmacht" pictures have? Sounds like the old "red herring" here ... _some_ photos are not as they claim, so this casts doubts on _all_ the photos, right?
I'm not sure what the issue you have with Nizkor is. It's a reliable source, and all of the various documentation there has footnotes for full disclosure and research. 00:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

If by "you must have looked very hard" you meant to imply I have not, I suggest you "look harder" at the pencil drawn images shown in the link above that you have provided. The Leibstandarte-SS "Adolf Hitler" is not an Einzatzgruppe unit, therefore that image in itself is invalid and should not be on Wikipedia since it is captioned as being Einsatzgruppe in the image. The side pockets of the uniform in the sketched images do not corospond to those worm by the Leibstandarte-SS "Adolf Hitler" nor does the uniform have any of the standard regalia. The most telling difference is the collar, they do not match nor does the patch on the side (it appears to be red and white, which does not match the photo (black and red; a non-existent regalia patch in the German army or SS) and the cap does not match either. The second image is of an Allgemeine SS uniform, which was an administration and volunteer branch of the SS, they never saw combat. This article is too much Holocaust violin playing and far too little fact. --Nazrac 23:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

No original research here, right? You have tried to advance the theory that this photo lacks authenticity; but all evidence you have pushed forward has been your _own_ conjecture. You have prattled on and on about soviet uniforms -- and when I produce an SS uniform that looks surprisingly like the photo, you drill into which _unit_ and what _patches_ are different? I'm no uniform expert, as I've already stated, but unless you can advance a _reliable_ source that challenges the authenticity, it's all still speculation.
So, if I understand you right, because the picture is genuine, the article is "too much Holocaust violin playing"? 02:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
And of course the drawn image of Leibstandarte-SS "Adolf Hitler" does not claim they were Einsatzgruppen; the image in the Einsatzgruppen article does not claim it is of Leibstandarte-SS "Adolf Hitler" (just Waffen-SS, no specific formation); the Allgemeine SS picture is from a completely different image not linked to above. So there are three more straw men/red herrings shot down. Ergative rlt 14:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You haven't shot anything down. There simply is no proof that the photo on this article is of an Einsatzgruppe unit, the fact that I have pointed out the more obvious flaws and the compete lack of authenticity simply reinforces that. By the way Ergative rlt, you might want to read the entire thread before making comments, otherwise you look foolish for making redundant and obvious statements that are explained further up in the thread. A certain user in the above post who avoids posting his username claims the uniform in the Einsatzgruppen article photo [] "looks surprisingly like the photo" in this article [2]. Yet that hand drawn uniform with obvious historical inaccuracies which I have pointed out is not even an Einsatzgruppe uniform, but rather that of the Leibstandarte-SS "Adolf Hitler" division, and therefore his argument is refuted. That should be completely obvious to anyone who read the entire thread. I speculate it is not obvious to you because you troll every discussion page I post on and try to "refute" everything I say, and rather poorly I might add. What do you do, check my contributions page every day and follow me around from article to article? --Nazrac 17:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • You claimed that you had never seen an SS uniform like that in the image, and a link was provided to an SS uniform that does look like that in the image.
  • The sources for the execution photo provided above state that the crowd includes Waffen-SS, the drawn image is of Waffen-SS.
  • You have provided no evidence for your claims that the drawn image is incorrect, giving only original research.
  • Despite your claims about not being able to find information about Einsatzgruppen uniforms, here are some references that state that the standard dress of Einsatzgruppe A-D was based on SS and SD field wear, as stated ealier. [3] [4] [5] [6]
  • You are not only breaking WP:CIVIL, but you are doing so in a particularly silly way. Do you not know about watchlists? Don't you think people check articles periodically for vandalism and POV pushing? Ergative rlt 18:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Nazrac, if there's any "trolling" going on here, it's certainly not from Ergative rlt. I understand your desire to defend the Nazis, but your speculations have no relation to Wikipedia policy. The picture meets our standards, and your arguments have been disproven. Please move on to something else; perhaps you can get the Adolf Hitler article whitewashed. Oh, wait, I see you're already trying that. Jayjg (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Ergative flt, Nazrac didn't simply claim he had never seen an SS uniform like that. He claimed:
  • "The soldier in the image is wearing a Soviet M35 uniform"
  • A bunch of other unsourced claims are made, then a link to a Soviet Uniform Reproduction is offered.
  • When asked for a source for his Soviet uniform claim, he offers an unreliable source which claimed the photo was _doctored_, not Soviet.
  • Next, "It is also interesting no one can agree conclusively what the Einsatzgrupeen uniforms looked like."
  • Later, "that is not any SS uniform I have ever seen before either."
  • Finally, "Leibstandarte-SS "Adolf Hitler" is not an Einzatzgruppe unit,"
I am the "user who avoids posting [my] username", because I don't have one as of yet. I've tried to stay consistent with my replies, so they could easily identify (and also demarked what I have said).
I disclaimed all of my information about uniforms with "I'm not an expert". Nazrac is the one claiming to be an expert here on uniforms. Yet, it seems like he is having trouble tellilng the difference between _Soviet_ uniforms and _Nazi_ ones. So, to borrow a line used earlier, "If these so called experts on [uniforms] get such a simple detail wrong, what else are they mistaken about?"
However, the fact is his arguements aren't a "small" detail; the dispute he started has morphed from Soviet uniforms, to forged photos, to the wrong insignia being involved.
To Nazrac: Much of your comments have been off topic explorations of other "lies/forgeries", with little sourced information regarding _this_ picture at all. I have tried, in good faith, to show it is an SS-type uniform, despite not being a uniform expert. Your protests about the unit aside, can you concede that the uniform is a Nazi uniform? 19:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify for you, since you are taking my responses out of context, and are responses to the assertions of other users. I have not made any claims that can be "proven" any further than the claims that the image in question on the Einsatzgruppen article can be. If you raise such questions about the arguments I have put forth questioning the authenticity of the photo and the representations being made about it, I find it astonishing that none of you have made even the slightest effort to conduct the same examination of the photo in question to detirmine how accurate it is based on the same criteria you are trying to shoot down the points I have made to dispute it. Rather you have all defended it with priori and attacked my conerns I have about the photograph being A.) possible forged or doctored, and B.) Being miscaptioned and misrepresented.

Now let me state, for the record, since you are trying so hard to obfuscate the arguments I have made, and causing certain users to skip through it and miss key details. It is my opinion (POV) based on the sources that I have provided (although they are far from conclusive) that the uniform is likely that of a Soviet soldier, but not proven. I also have certain difficulties accepting this image is exactly what it is being represented to be on the article due to the inconsistencies in the uniform (if not a Soviet uniform it still does not corospond to what it is being represented as in the photo) and the original captions, origin, photographer, date, location and identities of the shooters and victims have never been properly confirmed any further than I have been able to, as you so keenly point out, anonymous writer. The others in the background appear to be wearing various uniforms, all of which appear (although I could be wrong) to be incomplete, and missing the standard regalia.

Now to address Ergative rlt and the "sources" he provided; source 3 is invalid (and doesn't add anything of value to this discussion) in that it is a website dedicated Jewish geneology, which is not only biased, but primarily based on your religious beliefs.

Source 4 is interesting, here are a couple of relevant excerpts:

"In reality, however, if we want to evaluate the relations of the Wehrmacht and any leading institutions and supreme representatives of the state and party, we must always remain conscious of the fact that the Wehrmacht enjoyed at all times a privileged position which was unique. Only this can explain that the state police, which as such claimed a central position in a comprehensive sphere of activities, was at the beginning of the war excluded from the Wehrmacht and from the occupied territories under the command of the Wehrmacht. (Example: The first groups of the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD (security service) marched into France camouflaged and under a false designation.) It was only before the Russian campaign that an agreement was concluded, after diffleult negotiations, which regulated the tasks of the state police and of the SD outside the sphere of the troops."

"At the end of May 1941, the negotiations took place between the High Command of the Army, and the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD which led to a written agreement which was signed by Quartermaster General, General Wagner, and by the then Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, Heydrich. Schellenberg kept the minutes. The agreement contained the basic order of the Fuehrer, that the security of the fighting troops must be guaranteed by all means and that units of the security police and of the SD must be employed in support of the army units. The Chief of the Security Police and of the SD was given immediate authority to issue pertinent instructions to these units and an independent channel for receiving and transmitting reports which was outside the jurisdiction of the Wehrmacht. These units by no means formed a special "political theater of operations" but they were attached to the army units- this was laid down in the second part of the agreement-and generally had to carry out tasks for the army units within their areas, which had hitherto been handled by the army units themselves. The second part contained an exact regulation of commands and subordinations. "In the front or combat areas the Einsatzkommandos of the Sipo and of the SD were in all tactical and service questions--that is, completely-put under the command of the army." In the operational areas they were under the command of the army as far as service matters were concerned; orders resulting from tactical considerations and precedence over all other orders. If it was required by the military situation, the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos could be used for military tasks regardless of other orders. The third part of the agreement explained the concepts "tactical" and "service"."

So the Einsatzgruppen units were for dealing with Partizans after all according to your own source.

"From this relation of the Einsatzgruppen to the army groups, the defense is going to prove the continuous close cooperation of the army groups with the Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos. Orders of the army commanders to secure objectives, to carry out inspections, etc., and also other military tasks, e.g. investigations concerning anti-partisan measures, recruitment of Tartars for front-line service, will show the close connection between the commanding general and Einsatzgruppe or Kommando."

Anti-partizan measures, not mobile killing squads, according to the Nuremberg Trials, which this source is a transcripts of.

"All wearers of the SS uniform with the SD marking on their left jacket sleeve were also characterized as "SD"."

I don't see any SD patch on their left arms do you? Now Source 5 is interesting because it actually shows images of the alleged uniform in question. Interesting that the uniform tunic is not the standard field gray as described by your other sources. The buttons are also interesting, in that there are 3 different colors. The top pocket buttons have one color, the next 3 have a second color and the bottom has a third. Which if any are the original? They bear a striking resemblance to the Soviet buttons shown in the images cited below, which incidentally are the same buttons found on a Soviet uniform of very similar color. The tunic is also the exact same shape and dimensions down to the last detail as show in 5, except the regalia, which may have been added after the fact which isn't out of the question since the buttons don't appear to be original. [[7]] [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]

Now these are rather a subjective and "original" analysis, but then again so is your interpretation of these sources since they not only contradict each other on a few key points, but show inconsistencies in the material and statements they present. This is confirmed by Source 6 which you have provided, which is another cross examination during the Nuremberg trials, which incidentally this source contradicts your statement further up in the discussion page when you claim the Einsatzgruppen units were not tasked with dealing with Partizans on the Eastern front but were mobile killing squards which specifically targeted Jews, Gypsies and "political types thrown in for leavening." This is corroborated by the following excerpts from your own Source 6:

"Q: Were the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos which were used in the East a part of the SD?"

"A. No, these Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos were establishments of an entirely original kind."

"Q. Was the organization of the domestic SD used for the

activities of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos? That

is something important."

"A. That question, in the way it has been put, must be

answered by No. It is not true that any parts of that organization were transferred to the Einsatzgruppen. If individual members of the SD entered the Einsatzgruppen or Einsatzkommandos, then it is comparable to military induction. Just as a civil servant who is drafted is assigned different tasks, or at least can be assigned them, this was likewise the case with the SD. If the Einsatzgruppen had to perform Security Service tasks, such as making reports, the directives came to the Einsatzgruppen

from Office III (Amt 3)."

"Q. Now, as a matter of fact, the Einsatzgruppen officers

wore SD uniforms in the performance of their tasks, did they


"A. Excuse me. I only understood a few words. The Einsatzgruppen wore these uniforms?"

"Q. The Einsatzgruppen officers wore the uniform of the SD while performing their duties in the East, is that true?"

"A. All members of the Einsatzgruppen wore field-grey

uniforms and wore the SD insignia on the sleeve. That was one of the main reasons for the many misunderstandings which occurred, because members of the Security Police also wore this SD insignia. That was the case with the special SS formation of the SD which was mentioned right at the beginning of today's examination. And because beyond that even those members of the Einsatzgruppen and Einsatzkommandos wore uniforms who were not SS members at all and so who, in peace time, had never worn a uniform in Germany proper. They were sent into special service as so- called uniformed personnel and received a service rank

corresponding to their civil service grade."

Here source 6 contradicts what we see depicted in the images of Source 5, in that the uniform tunic displayed is not field-gray, and may possibly have unoriginal buttons and regalia, including the SD patch, which is also absent in the photo on the Einsatzgruppen article I am disputing.

"Q. In any event, many members of the Einsatzgruppen were

members of the SD and many of those officers wore the uniform of the SD while killing these people in the Eastern

territories; is that not true?"

"A. I do not quite understand the meaning of the question.

There were very few people from the SD detailed to these Einsatzgruppen or Einsatzkommandos, at least from the three branches mentioned, and during their entire period of service these men and leaders wore the uniform with the SD

on the sleeve."

Again, no SD badge on any of the sleeves in the image shown on the main Einsatzgruppen article page. I think these examples are enough proof to invalidate your "sources" which incidentally all show up in the top 30 google results when entering the keyword "Einsatzgruppen".

Now to respond to Jayjg, I expected a little more from you than to start using Reductio ad Hitlerum statements simply because you disagree with what I have to say. I find it disturbing that you so quickly abandon your own principles the moment they become irreconcilable with your POV. --Nazrac 23:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The source on the photo says "Einsatzgruppe D executes Jews at Vinnitsa, Ukraine, 1942. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.", and is a link from the US Holocaust Museum. The Library of Congress has to be regarded as a reliable source, and I would venture a guess that the USHM is also considered a reliable source. So, the inclusion of the photo is on solid ground.
Now Nazrac -- if I understand you correctly, you are saying the photo _might_ be of Soviet troops, or _might_ be Nazi troops, but it also _might_ be forged? I'm sorry if I seem unconvinced by your arguements thus far. So far, the best "theory" you've advanced (and actually provided a source for) _contradicts_ your other two arguements. (If it's a forgery, why wouldn't the forger have used Nazi uniforms?)
For all your appeals about SD patches and which SS unit they belong to, really only an expert on Nazi-era Military type uniforms could render an opinion which was published in a reliable source questioning the authenticity of the photos.
At one point, you state: "So the Einsatzgruppen units were for dealing with Partizans after all according to your own source". For someone who is quick to accuse others of not reading, it seems you skipped the paragraph _just_ following the ones you quoted:

"In spite of the intended official designation of the leaders of these units as "Representative of the Chief of the Security Police and of the SD with the commander of the rear area of army group * * *, Einsatzgruppe * * * ", what happened in practice was that at once, at the beginning of the eastern campaign, whole Einsatzgruppen or the larger part of such groups were attached to armies by order of the army group in question. Einsatzgruppe D was, from the first day and for the entire period which is of importance for this trial, attached only to the 1lth Army, and had no connection with the commander of the rear area of the army."<.blockquote>

Partisan activity would be most effective at the "rear", where they could disrupt supplies routes, lines of communication and various military HQ posts -- so why were the SS attached to the front line units, instead of clustering around what would have been the more logical targets? (Not that this has ANY bearing whatsoever on the authenticity of the photo, of course).
You state that someone (me?) is trying to "obfuscate" your arguements; but you are doing that yourself, by mixing in mostly conjecture with little pot shots about this or that (which have been mostly ignored). What's been asked, over and over and over, is for you to provide a reliable source that questions the authenticity of the photos. The one source you have provided which has analysis of _this_ photo didn't support the arguement _you_ were (and still are?) advancing, which was that the uniforms pictured were Soviet.
I have tried in good faith to establish that the Uniforms are Nazi-era SS uniforms, and you responded by taking issue with first the unit designation, and then some patches which are supposed to be there.
You are trying to paint this as a contest of some kind, but it's not. The photograph can be sourced from multiple reliable sources; against that, we have one (unreliable) source and lots of opinions on your part. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and say you _are_ a uniform expert. So what? Your analysis, unless _published_ in a reliable source is still original research.
Really, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter what Jayjg, Ergative rlt or I _think_ about the photo -- the fact is that it comes from a _reliable source_ and not our opinions. 04:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres a thought, can anyone provide the file record for this image from the original source? (Library of Congress) It seems to me this is not the original image and has been cropped and possible had to contrast/exposure modified. Observe these two other sources for the photo [12][13] Both have addition figures in the photo on the left, but missing a figure on the right. Are these even people or the product of a photo menage? The face of the shooter has changed (notice the glasses) in both photos and appear at a slightly different angle. The faces of the solders on the far left even appear to have been drawn in and do not even look like a real face. Notice the hats on the figures on the left side of the image from the various sources? some of the hats have changed positions. In the article image the seventh figure from the left is wearing a hat, in source 12 and 13 shown above he has no hat. The 5th and 6th figures left from the shooter appear to have the same third leg. There is no clear image of where their legs begin and end. These facts are obvious evidence that the image has been tampered with numerous times. Every source I find for this photo has a different version that has been cropped, resized, contrast/exposure modified and key details appear to have been altered in the photo. The distinct possibility that it is a photo menage explains why some items appear to be Soviet in origin and others German, while several details appear to have been added or modified after the fact. This is hardly evidence and hardly worthy of being called Encyclopedia material. This image also appears on several websites claiming it is the execution of Polish Jews by the Waffen SS. --Nazrac 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you are engaging it a bit more original research here, or is it wild speculation? My sense is that you aren't a photo expert, so you really have no authority to challenge from that direction anyways. All you are doing is entering the realm of "coulda shoulda woulda", and not actually backing up any of your objections with citations or evidence. I can speculate that World War 2 is a hoax too, and without having to back up my claim with evidence, there is no way to dispute it. Do you live in the United States? I'm not sure what the prodecure would be for "getting the file record", but the Library of Congress must have some way to access it's collection. Cantankrus 20:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
For present purposes the objection is moot anyway. The sourcing of the information in the caption satisfies WP:VER, and the principle in play is "Verifiability, not truth". It is cited from a reliable source, namely The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and if you have a problem with the veracity of the caption information, by all means feel free to write them. As for the LOC, the image is in all likelihood sourced from the Prints & Photographs Division, whose main online presence is the LOC Prints & Photographs Reading Room. There is a link for helping locate items in the collection, about half of which have been digitized. Failing that, there's also an "ask a librarian" link for personalized assistance.
--Rrburke 21:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. The image has been cropped and possibly altered in other ways and therefore cannot be considered a as being sourced from the original. It is not original research in pointing out the photo has been cropped compared to the original. --Nazrac 18:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually according to the library of Congress the image was donated by the United States Holocaust Memorial Council. Conversely on the website they cite their source as being from the Library of Congress. Where did the photo originate from? nobody seems to know. Furthermore the listing in the Library of Congress specifically states with regards to collection that this photo is a part of:


Media includes: 7 Posters : offset.

Creator not recorded.

Collection stored onsite. Includes: 1 MCE size container (partial).

Note keep as Lot. Accompanied by a pamphlet explaining the posters.

This record contains unverified data from accession records.

Gift; United States Holocaust Memorial Council.

REPOSITORY: Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA

CARD #: iuc2006004043

So my question is, if there are contradictory claims being made of the original source, if the creator is unknown, and it contains unverified data, why is it being used as as Encyclopedia material? Why do neither of these sources seem to have the full uncropped version of the photo? There doesn't even seem to be one as a matter of fact. Every version I have found is either missing one soldier on right or 4 soldiers on the left. Where is the original? Where did it originate from? Apparently only the United States Holocaust Memorial Council seems to know and are leaving a very confusing and ambiguous paper trail behind. --Nazrac 23:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming that this record relates to the original image (and I'm not convinced it does), I'm not sure how "contradictory claims" come into play. If I donate something to you, it becomes yours. If I subsequently want to use it, I need to ask permission (or give credit).
As Rrburke has pointed out, the image is from a Reliable Source, and your wild and wooly ride of speculation doesn't negate that. Your mission here seems to be to have this photo removed, no matter what arguement you have to use to do it. Cantankrus 03:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As other editors have so aptly pointed out, it doesn't matter what I think, the fact that the original source claims its authenticity cannot be verified violates the Wikipedia rules governing reliable sources and is therefore inadmissible. It specifically states editors can verify the authenticity of a source by checking multiple other sources. Since the image in question seems to have a dozen or so variations, several different captions depending on the source IE "A Jewish man is executed by the Waffen SS in Poland" or a "A member of Einsatzgruppe D is just about to execute a Jewish man kneeling before a filled mass grave in Vinnitsa, Ukraine, in 1942." Since I have evaluated the image and checked it against different sources, it is now confirmed to be unreliable for the reasons I have already given above. The Wikipedia rules also state "Disagreements between the authoritative sources should be indicated in the article." I dont see it noted anywhere in the article so perhaps it should be until this little mess is sorted out. Under the "issues to look out for" section of the Wikipedia reliable sources guideline, it states "Have the secondary sources used multiple independent primary sources? Do they have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" I would say any Holocaust organization attempting to be an authorative source on the Einsatzgruppen has an agenda and a conflict of interest. This article is not the Holocaust article, it is about the Einsatzgruppen, and therefore a Holocaust organization such as the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum should not be considered an authorative source or for that matter a reliable source, aside from the fact that the image in question from the source in which they cite states the content has not been verified. Your argument stating "If I donate something to you, it becomes yours. If I subsequently want to use it, I need to ask permission (or give credit)." is interesting indeed. Sounds like a loophole to get around having to verify such material. Thats like a crime boss using dirty money to start a charity organization as a guise for money laundering, and then him and all his associates donating their legitimate money to the organization to avoid paying taxes on it. No one has varified this image as being legitimate except the USHMM which has an obvious bias on the matter, and the image on this article is not even the same as the one on the USHMM website, it has a different contrast. Further the Wikipedia verifiability rules state reliable secondary sources (images) must have separate editorial oversight and fact-checking processes, have not collaborated; may have taken their own look at the available primary sources and used their own judgment in evaluating them. Apparently the USHMM has not met any of that criteria or they would have noticed the Library of Congress states the authenticity cannot be verified. --Nazrac 16:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

While your missives are always fascinating reading, your arguements don't seem to be well formed. This last attempt is based on the (I believe) false assumption that the LOC record you found is the record relating to this picture.
Your analogy fails on its face, as people don't donate money to avoid paying taxes (it's a deduction, not a way to avoid paying tax) -- and the government has successfully prosecuted mafia leaders for "spending more then they earn" through the IRS.
Your argument that "any Holocaust organization" would be biased in looking into the Einsatzgruppen is laughable. The primary function of the Einsatzgruppen was to carry out one phase of the Holocaust. So, by your logic, since the Federal Government won the Civil War, we shouldn't consider them to be a reliable or authorative source on any information regarding that conflict?
To conclude, you seem to be saying that the USHMM is a dubious source, since they didn't notice an LoC notation on an image that you feel they contributed, just due to your speculation. Other then your appeals to belief, do you have any real evidence about all this? Cantankrus 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The shortest way to the point here is to say simply that the descriptive text in the photo caption derives from a reliable source, the USHMM, and is corroborated by other reliable sources. If you have a problem with the authenticity of the photograph and its description, take it up with the source, the USHMM.
The purported "contradictions" surrounding the photographs are either ones you have tried to invent yourself or ones derived from extremist websites not considered reliable sources. In the first case, you try to create an air of dark dealings around the possibility that the USHMM credits the LoC for the image and the LoC identifies the image as a donation from USHMC, of which the USHMM is part. Who actually provided this photograph? Hmmm... [strokes chin thoughtfully] Is someone trying to hide something? [raises eyebrow]. How about this: the USHMC donated the photograph to the LoC to become part of its collection, so the USHMM credits the LoC when it displays the image.
I get so bored of these exceedingly tiresome attempts at bootstrapping into a conspiracy some trivial anomaly which is only evidence of the conspiracy because you've already decided one exists. How do you know there's a conspiracy? Because of this evidence. How do you conclude this is evidence? Because of the conspiracy. It's particularly silly when a perfect plausible alternative explanation exists, one that doesn't involve fraud.
In the second case, the only time I have ever seen the victim in this photograph identified as a Polish Jew is at Holocaust "revisionist" websites which then go on to debunk the claim. The source in every case is a single paper by the ever-ignorable Udo Walendy, a person of no consequence and less credibility, a voluminous publisher of "popular booklets," but, alas, not recognized as a photographic expert except in his own mind. The problem is that no one besides Walendy claims the victim is presumed to be a Polish Jew: every reliable source I have encountered identifies the place as Vinnitsa, the victim as a Ukrainian Jew and the shooter as a member of Einsatzgruppe D. If debunking a claim no one else has made is Mr. Walendy's idea of a pastime, I'll leave him to it. But the only confusion here is a manufactured one you are trying to amplify.
I note, by the way, that you claim that the shooter's uniform is Soviet is not echoed at Codor or VHO or any of the "revisionist" sites where this photo is "debunked". Funny they'd all have missed that. You'd have to wonder why, of course, if people are going to concoct a fake, they'd use a picture of a fellow wearing a Soviet uniform instead of a Nazi one -- presumably pictures of Nazis pointing guns exist -- but no matter. I'll leave you fellows to hash that out amongst yourselves.
But let's be candid: no explanation is going to satisfy you anyway, because your aim is not to discover the truth about the photograph, but rather to debunk it because it apparently depicts what you have decided a priori never happened. The methods of debunking exhibit a dreary uniformity: ignore the big picture, and see if you can raise enough doubt about individual artifacts to make the big picture disappear. The OJ Simpson defence team tips it collective hat to you and your cohorts.
--Rrburke 21:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The image in question just presented itself on a history channel documentary entitled "The last days of world war II". In that documentary the picture is displayed when describing the retributive slaughter of dutch prisoners after the resistance movement in that country attack a convoy. A senior nazi security policeman survived the attack. I would need to get a copy for specific detail of everthing else shown but this picture what was clearly presented, although for a brief moment, It was clear. If this is the source the victim is in fact dutch and it is not what is represented on the page. If history channel cannot be trusted then what can? In my view nothing can and everything should be disputed by anyone who has any doubt. I don't trust history channel more or less than anty other source but there is a "source" for what it is worth. Perhaps see if any of your arguments fit with what they have presented better than anything else. Good luck at ever finding the truth. To anything!--Ignoranceisbliss 10:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Television is a visual medium, and most productions are under tight time constraints. They sometimes use "stock footage" to convey a message. During "the last days of world war II", it was clear that Germany was going to lose the war, and less likely that photographs would be taken, lest the shooters be put on trial for war crimes. In that case, they might have been unable to find a suitable photo, and made a substitute. Still, no excuse for mislabelling. Do you know what episode it was -- I think this a series.
As far as "truth" goes, since most of history is based on sources prior to our own experience, we have to have some trust in what they say. Cantankrus 02:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is the final word on this photo. I gather from the above that it was taken several times - each with the same main cast and certain extras going offstage or onstage as needed. Props( ie guns ) were exchanged at various times. And finally these are German NAZI SS ( or at least their cousins) who dressed up in Russian uniforms. I think it is all clear to me now. By the way does anyone have the negative/s?

I love this section. Even, I, an amateur can quickly find out that this phot is a fake ( or at least being used fraudently ). Please never remove this photo - this is a classic, a Russian ( at least he is wearing a Russian uniform ) shooting someone we can only guess at, where we haven't the slightest idea, when ( what's the best guess? ), verified by two groups who have no information on it except to say it came from the other guy - this is really a classic. How can any denier fight this? Manna from heaven.... 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. --Rrburke(talk) 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One need only put into context past known examples of photographic forgery by the enemies of Germany which have been used to slander and defame. A perfect example is this shameless little hoax perpetrated by the British and American media which claims to depict Adolf Hitler as a toddler. It was later admitted that the photograph was a forgery, but you can clearly see how it has been tampered with, since the same techniques were used with this so-called Einsatzgruppen photograph. None of the shadows are where they should be, background details appear to be crudely drawn in and numerous other anomalies. Judge for yourself. Time is a natural catalyst whereby the truth is always seperated from the allegatory. --Nazrac 05:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally I was browsing google and happened across a site that user:Ergative rlt uses as one of his sources above to confirm his pettifogoral chicanery. Much to my amusement google has listed it as an unsafe search result and warns users "This site may harm your computer." I guess its lies and falsifications are so toxic and infectious even google must warn people. --Nazrac 02:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If at first you don't succeed ... blame the "enemies of Germany". Nothing like failing to convince, and digging out yet more Original Research about things drawn in and "where the shadows are supposed to be". Anything like evidence from a reliable source?
Naw, of course not, or you'd have included it here. Ah well, have to have some spot to spout unsubstantiated conspiracies, right? Cantankrus 05:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The image speaks for itself. Anyone who examines it very closely, including all of its multiple versions will realize this unhindered by your arrogant blathering. The fact that a small group of Jewish Holocaust organizations work very hard and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to ensure they are the only reliable sources on the question also speaks for itself. --Nazrac 01:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re "your arrogant blathering"
Next time you write something like that, you'll find yourself at Community sanction for disruptive editing and violating WP:NPA. That's a promise. --Rrburke(talk) 01:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't touched the article, therefore I doubt anything said on the talk page can be considered disruptive editing. You go right ahead and report me, I could use the amusement. What you just wrote is the perfect exemplification of "arrogant blather" so I don't foresee any difficulty in justifying that statement. Perhaps I should take this opportunity to suggest you follow the WP:NPA and focus on the content of the article rather than randomly trolling talk pages looking for an argument. Try reading the WP:NPA before you use it as a means to bully other editors. --Nazrac 03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right: you haven't touched the article. In fact, near as I can make out, you haven't touched virtually any article. All you appear to do is to troll talk pages on Holocaust-related subjects in the attempt to draw constructive editors into pointless disputes unrelated to the improvement of the article. On the assumption that if you had anything value to contribute to Wikipedia you'd have done so by now, I'll see you at WP:ANI. --Rrburke(talk) 21:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yawn159.105.80.141 17:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be constructive - hate to ruin a perfectly awful wiki article but what the hell - if you have a real Einsatzgruppen picture of any kind ( which I doubt ) use it in place of this fake. 19:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

They are German uniforms. The reason I know this?
A - No russian uniforms had pockets below the belt until the Telogreika padded winter jacket. Here for instance is the M35 the first person quotes and is (patently) wrong about [14]
B - the next most obvious thing (from a glance) is the piping on the lapels and collars.[15] and of course the presence (on several uniformed persons) the Nazi eagle[16] on the right breast[17] of which (again) there is no Russian match I can think of or have ever seen.
C - The belts are all obviously German issue. No other armed force supplied (on mass) full metal belt buckles[18]. See others here[19] [20]
D - the cloth caps are generic, they could be German M38 but it's impossible to see a true insignia on them apart from the 'target' circle on a few commonly used by a few nations, but few more so than the germans[21][22]. The 'pleat' is a bit of a give away that it isn't the generic Russian cap however.
E - third from the left is an obvious German trooper with shoulder pauldrons. I can't remember what they signified, but no other army issued anything like them.
F as for the pistol - The Germans produced a number of pistols, including imitation Brownings. It could well be a Tokarev, but pistols were not issued to foot troops as standard so any hand gun like that would be unofficial unless granted to them by an officer. There are signs he is wearing a holster, but nothing conclusive to even prove it is his own sidearm.
Any argument otherwise regarding the entire force here is misleading really. Unable to of course prove the exact regiment, but hey ho.--Koncorde (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Came across this page whilst researching something else, and just wanted to add my two ha'pporth to the discussion and correct some apparent errors. Essentially I concur with Koncorde's views but wish to add more detail.

EINSATZGRUPPE: It means a 'task force' (Collins German Dictionary). However, it seems best to retain the use of the German term as these were special task forces, tasked with rounding up all the kinds of people the Nazis habitually persecuted.

This <a href="">Wiki article</a> shows that the Einsatzgruppen consisted of Gestapo and Kripo personnel, together forming the SIPO.

There are no Waffen-SS personnel in this photograph. There are SS personnel, but that is not the same thing. In fact, this photograph shows a mixed bag of troops, all but one wearing German uniforms. The Heer (army) aka Wehrmacht soldiers can be identified by the Hoheitsabzeichen (breast eagle) above the right breast pocket and the Litzen on their collars. The young lad in the black uniform behind the NCO with the pistol is Heer tank or armoured vehicle crew: breast eagle, black uniform, panzer wrapper jacket, short boots. The SS troops, including the man with the pistol, are most likely SD, as their <a href="">collar patches</a> are blank. The man with the pistol is a NCO because his collar braid is so wide. He wears blank SS collar patches, therefore he most likely belongs to the SD. The pistol looks like a Walther P-38 to me, but it may also be Russian. Rear-area troops were often issued with any weapons available, which would include captured and semi-obsolete weapons, so the make of pistol actually says very little. Also, the belt buckles are definitely German, so all in all I would say that all this discussion about the uniforms being Russian is misinformed.

The breast eagle visible under the pistol-wielding NCO's right armpit might be a Luftwaffe breast eagle due to its curve/dip in the middle.

The man to the right of the motion-blurred figure is interesting because he appears to have an SS Totenkopf on his side cap, an indistinguishable belt buckle, possibly Heer Litzen on his collars, but too many buttons on the front of his tunic (like the M38 dress tunic, but this had no breast pockets and his tunic does). It may be very early issue, but most German tunics have the third button roughly in line with the bottom of the breast pocket flaps. So this man is something of an enigma, and the blurriness of his collar insignia might suggest some kind of tampering with the photo. However, this may have been censorship to conceal his division as some SS units had very distinctive insignia, and this would identify his unit as being in that area. He also seems to be wearing officers breeches, but he could also be a mounted non-commissioned infantryman.

The men here are mostly enlisted men. Pistol man is a NCO, the man second from the left might be an NCO, the man sixth from the left is unknown because he is wearing just a sweater and no tunic, and the blurred man in motion, I have just noticed, is an officer, because he has a leather shell pistol holster on his front right hip and because he is wearing officers riding breeches that flare out from the thighs. It looks like he also has a blank SS collar patch.

Date: Looking at the headgear, these men are almost all wearing older-style Schiffchen side caps. Look to the left of the young tank crewman and the partly hidden man might just be wearing a M41 (camouflage, soft cotton duck, issued 1941) or maybe a M43 forage cap (same as the M41 but in woollen uniform material, issued 1943). So this picture is almost certainly pre-1943, possibly post-1941, and the side caps look like the M38 model, which were issued until the M41 and M43 Bergmützen were issued in 1941 and 1943 respectively but continued to be used thereafter. Also, the jackboots they are almost all wearing are the high M39 (issued 1939) type, rather than the slightly shorter ones issued later due to material shortages, and before the M42 ankle boot came in. But again, rear area troops would get lower priority on new issue equipment, so this photo could well be from 1942 or even a little later, but most likely not beyond 1943. Conversely, it could just as well be 1940 or 1941, but not before, as the armoured crewman in black is wearing a M40 side cap rather than the earlier beret style used bfore 1940.

The insignia on the upper tunic sleeves of the man third from the left are called 'Swallows Nests', and they signify that he is a band musician.

Now, this photograph raises some interesting questions. First, we have a mixed bag of SS/SD, Heer/Army, and armoured troops, with a possible Luftwaffe soldier as well. Why? Obviously the pit of bodies indicates some kind of mass execution/killing, so have they all been requested to attend, and have they been there all along whilst the other victims were shot? There are no vehicles visible in the background, so it's not like they stopped off by the road and jumped out to have a look.

Second, only the man directly behind the victim is wearing ammunition pouches on his belt (and that's a maybe), and apart from the officer and NCO with their pistols, there is one other weapon in evidence, which is the rifle slung over the shoulder of the man at the right-hand edge of the photo. Moreover, there is not a single steel helmet in evidence, either on anyone's head or slung on their belts, and there do not appear to be any backpacks or other gear. There were stringent rules for wearing a steel helmet at all times in a combat zone, so this appears to be a rear area where the troops are on non-combat duties. The man without a tunic has no shirt on either, just a sweater or undershirt of some kind, which suggests he either came there in a hurry or the dress regulations are quite relaxed, again indicating a rear area. So if this is an Einsatzgruppe rounding people up, then where are their weapons?

Third, there is a distinct lack of any kind of medals or medal ribbons, cuff titles, sleeve awards, which would suggest a non-combat unit, an argument in favour of the Einsatzgruppe theory. Or they are just a bunch of rear area clerks and cooks with a couple of combat troops (the tank crew and the soldier with the slung rifle) mixed in.

Fourth, look at the facial expressions of the observers. Nobody seems to be egging on the NCO with the pistol, some look a little curious, some look concerned or grim, but equally, nobody is trying to prevent the act. Apart, perhaps, from the blurred officer, who is either stepping up on the mound for a better look or moving towards the NCO. To stop him? To remonstrate? To encouarge him?

Fifth, no-one is smoking. If they had been there a while, watching executions, especially with no officer present, chances are they would all have lit up cigarettes, as smoking was very common amongst WWII soldiers and they would generally smoke at any available opportunity. But then, some of the stances suggest they have been there a while - folded arms, hands in pockets, weight on one rather than both legs. Or maybe permission had not been granted for them to smoke.

Sixth, look at the bodies in the pit. Look at the long boots on some of them, and the kind of khaki colour of their clothing, could some of the victims be Russian soldiers? Or even Dutch? Look how thin the face of the man about to be shot is. Is that an armband on his right sleeve? If so, this could be a marking to show that he is civilian militia (as defined in the Geneva Convention)? So is he perhaps being shot as a partisan (in breach of the Geneva Convention)? Or maybe he is a gypsy, in which case this could be Poland or anywhere east or south-east of Germany. Or he maybe Jewish.

Seventh, are these guys the work detail assigned to shovel in the quicklime once the last victim is executed? If so, why aren't they holding their shovels at the ready with their tunics off for the sweaty work? Maybe the shovels are out of shot where the victims were told to place them before being lined up and shot.

In light of all these questions, there is a chance that the original caption is actually, surprisingly, correct. The German authority knows it has the last batch of Jews and so, what with the whole Final Solution deal going well in 1940-1942, they see a chance for a photo opportunity. They call in whoever happens to be around, to show the might of the German master race, hence the unarmed mixed bag of troops, line the poor guy up, and take the photo. Maybe the officer is running in because he wants to be in the shot showing off his medals? But, unless there are other soldiers, with weapons, out of shot, covering the executions in case a waiting victim decides to make a run for it, the lack of weapons still seems very odd. And, given the circumstance - 'the last Jew in Vinnitsa' - wouldn't these guys be cheering or applauding or looking a bit happier?

I think, in light of all these discrepancies and oddities, that the caption may be half-right. It probably is Vinnitsa, maybe it's the same pit where the last Jew in Vinnitsa was executed, maybe he was the last Jew and they found out later and added the caption. A possible alternative interpretation is that this is either a reprisal shooting for some kind of partisan attack, or an actual execution of a mixed unit of partisans and enemy troops (because of the possible uniforms worn by the victims in the pit). Reprisal shootings usually worked on a 10 to 1 basis - 10 locals for evey German soldier killed, hence the looks on the faces of the observers: they are getting a kind of revenge for their dead comrades, but they know these probably aren't the people who were responsible. Or, they captured a mixed unit, shot the lot of them the next day (hence no weapons and the time to arrange a cameraman), and the observers are thinking of their fallen comrades. Or maybe, the NCO just started executing people in a rear area, a crowd gathers, drawn by the shots, and an officer eventually rushes in (around the same time as someone with a camera) to find out what is going on.

In the end, it is an interesting (and sad) photo. All we will really know from it, as it stands and without eye-witness evidence in support, is that a man in civilian clothing was about to be executed by a man in German uniform, watched by other men in German uniform, with a rough idea of when and where. (talk) 15:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)GA

Revisiting the few lines of writing at the top that set off this rather sizeable discussion - the claim is just outrageous in itself. Describing the one uniform in the picture that's hardest to make out because of the colour, the only distinct detail being what does very much look like the Hoheitsabzeichen on the chest? Soviet M35 airforce? That's going to take some explanation. Might as well be a guy wearing black everyday clothes if not for the cap and the chest insignia. Most disturbing though, is the immediate identification of the Tokarev pistol. It's obvious that it's not a Pistole 08, but that's about all. I'd describe it as a generic semiautomatic pistol-like object at best, apart from noting it does look quite short for the TT-30/33 sidearm. The Germans, on the other hand, had several short sidearms in service. TerminusEst (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Without having read every line of this "discussion" (although I did try, at least briefly :-) I would add that there was a travelling exhibition put together by the Hamburg Institute for Social Research in the 1990's to document the war crimes of German Army (as opposed to the SS) during World War II, however, its tour was cut short in part because many of the photos in it turned out to be of Soviet personnel. There is a Wikipedia page at Wehrmachtsausstellung, although it doesn't specifically mention the misidentified photos (which I believe were pointed out mainly by Poles and Hungarians, the page merely states that some of the exhibit's documentation had "inaccuracies"). So at the very least, the notion of a photograph being falsely used to depict German soldiers committing mass murder is hardly far-fetched (but also not an automatic reason to describe every photo as bogus, let alone any kind of Holocaust denial.) Historian932 (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The term of "Einsatzgruppe"[edit]

From the explanation in this article about the units' beginnings it clearly shows that "Einsatzgruppe" means a unit that is formed ad hoc and dissolved after its mission. It's a mission task force. In German, the use of Einsatz can have several meanings. One is mission, sortie, another one is something in-between; from "einsetzen" to put in. For instance, an extra street car was called "Einsatzwagen", a car that reinforces normally scheduled cars.

Therefore, I think, "Einsatzgruppen" might be translated 'Special Units'. The previous translation with deployment sounds quite queer.

Ft93110 15:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It was "deployment groups or occupation groups" in one previous incantation. Really, the exact translation from German doesn't need to be perfect -- all of these convey the fact that these groups had a "task" they were formed for. Cantankrus 19:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

EINSATZGRUPPE means a 'task force' (Collins German Dictionary). However, it seems best to retain the use of the German term as these were special task forces, tasked with rounding up all the kinds of people the Nazis habitually persecuted, and the term provides a very precise historical reference.

I note above the translation as 'Special Units', but there is already a word for this, namely Sonderkommando. (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)GA

How many troops in the Einsatzgruppen? I have seen the number 3,000. The article seems very sparse as to citations. One reference and maybe 3 books - is this an article from another source? 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

3000 men responsible for the mass shooting and disposal of 1.4 million people in the span of 4 years across vast swathes of territory.... They really must have been supermen. Literally they must have been shooting people and moving about from place to place 24 hours a day for an entire 4 years without sleep, rest, or food. The fact that their trigger fingers didn't swell up and develop arthritis from such prolonged and frequent over-use is equally amazing. Maybe they traveled about in some secret Nazi flying disc from place to place, spraying the local Jews and Gypsies with bullets from the air, dispatching special teams of remote controlled robots to burry and burn the hundreds of thousands of corpses and then briskly flying off to the next conquered region. --Nazrac 04:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Probably this gives away Nazracs POV more than any other - in effect making fun of the whole thing - so never minmd all the stuff about uniforms - according to him it never happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing what crap one can spew when one utterly disregards any reading of the historical record. Good thing that history isn't written by conspiracy theorists who believe in Aliens, eh? Well, guess the movement needs someone to take up the story while Ernst sits in jail.
Next time, maybe try reading a bit of history before coming up with your own Original Research. Cantankrus 05:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
This article does not make this very clear right now at the present, but the bulk of the killing done in connection with the Einsatzgruppe was actually done by East European auxiliaries raised by the Germans. So in regard to the above comments about the alleged impossiblity of so few Germans killing so many millions of Jews, please note that the majority of the shooting was done by local people recruited by the Germans. At present, this article does not reflect this very well, but when I get so more time, I'll give this article a overhaul. --A.S. Brown 00:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing like the ommision of key facts to lead readers to false conclusions. Ernst Zundel is in jail because he is actually good at getting "eyewitnesses" to reverse or contradict their own statements in court. Apparently this man that believes in UFO's and denies certain Holocaust activities occured is such a threat he was actually labeled as a threat to national security in Canada. This of course has nothing to do with the article, perhaps you should avoid invoking the whole Holocaust denial/anti-semite routine, its getting very old. --Nazrac 01:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Limit your comments to constructive proposals for improving the article. See How to use article talk pages: keep on topic. --Rrburke(talk) 02:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
"Ommission of key facts" -> "Zundel is in jail because he [gets witnesses to "reverse" themselves]" Wow, maybe you can point us to where he was charged? What German statute did he violate when doing this? I had thought he was charged for mailing his neo-Nazi rubbish from Canada to Germany, in violation of German law. And the law applied because he remained throughout his stay in both the US and Canada a German Citizen.
"Actually labelled a threat to national security in Canada" -> Yeah, this doesn't have anything to do with his long association with violent Neo Nazis.
But the irony of "omitting key facts" seems to slip by you. But feel free to omit any facts that seem hard to explain -- it's the hallmark of denial. Cantankrus 04:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to the read the entire thread before regurgitating more mindless blather responding you might have noticed what I wrote was in response to A.S. Brown's comment above, particularly the part about:

"This article does not make this very clear right now at the present, but the bulk of the killing done in connection with the Einsatzgruppe was actually done by East European auxiliaries"

Why you keep ranting about Ernst Zundel and Holocaust denial I have no idea.--Nazrac 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It is you, Nazrac, who keeps "ranting about Ernst Zundel and Holocaust denial" - perhaps a quick look just a few lines above on this very page may refresh your memory. I suggest you take a good look at WP:NOT and do your trolling someplace else. Don't bother to respond. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This is your first post in this particular thread. Since you are not part of the discussion up until this point, it is you who are trolling. --Nazrac 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP where every page is open to the public. Your "contributions" are for all to see. So far nothing but trolling and cocking Nazi apologia. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I cannot object enough to the elementary mistranslation(s) of "Einsatgruppen" found in this article. My German is fairly good, along with my study of the Holocaust, and the term "death squads" has absolutely no connection whatsoever with Einsatzgruppen. Besides the woeful anachronism, where is the word "death" found? The straightforward translation of this simple German term is "Special Units." If I were to use a somewhat less literal translation, I would use "Special Ops Units." Some of the comments above are really without foundation, or display lack of historical and/or lexicographical knowledge. "Sonderkommando," someone wrote, is the word for the same thing, and argued for his translation. Now "sonder" (special) and "einsatz" ("unique") are, like "kommando" and "gruppe," ("group") clearly two different words, besides which the term "Sonderkommando" was employed almost strictly for the extermination-camp prisoners who managed the conveyance of the gassed bodies from the gas chambers, and placed them into the crematoria. The word "einsatz" is not a unique or technical term at all. It is the ordinary German word meaning "special" (lit., "one-thing"). Now, if anyone wants to get into the intricacies of defining "commando," "squad," "unit," etc., I'll leave that up to him. But bear in mind, these may be particular technical military terms, which may mean one thing in one country, and something else in another. I believe that "Einsatzgruppe" is not a technical military term, because, obviously, the Einsatzgruppen operated as part of the SS, not under the direction of the Wehrmacht (German Armed Forces). As a matter of fact, in the early weeks of Barbarossa--the German invasion of the USSR--the High Command in Berlin received numerous complaints from Officers in the field about the actions of these units, since they clearly violated the German military code of honor, by gunning down and indiscriminately murdering innocent civilians. The "Collins German Dictionary" is no authority of final determination, and its definitions are not dispositive. Anyways--the word should be given its clear meaning--simply "Special Groups," or "Units" or "Commandos." There is nothing mysterious or complex here; it is straightforward German. (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Allen Roth
Perhaps this is rather late in the day, but with all due respect, Nazrac is misconstruing my point. I did not say this article had false information, just merely that it did not give and does not give sufficient allowance to the significant role played by East European auxiliaries in the massacres. The article is misleading, not intentionally in that gives the impression that most of these murders were done by the Germans, when in fact they had very significant local help. Which brings us back to Nazrac's point in that because the Einsatzgruppen were only a few thousand men, they could not had murdered 2.2 million people in 1941-42. What this has to do with Ernst Zundel, whose position is that none of these massacres ever took place is beyond me.--A.S. Brown (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The straightforward translation of this simple German term [Einsatzgruppen] is "Special Units." No, just no. That would be an acceptable translation of "Sonderkommando" which is something completely different.

The word "einsatz" is not a unique or technical term at all. It is the ordinary German word meaning "special" (lit., "one-thing"). Again, no. First of all, you cannot decompose a word and interprete its parts independantly (à la ein=one, satz=thing). Besides, "Satz" can never mean "thing", anyway. Secondly, "Einsatz" just means task/assignment/operation or something along those lines and has nothing to do with "special" (which would be "Sonder-" or, of course, "Spezial-"). Think of Polizeieinsatz (police operation).

There is nothing mysterious or complex here; it is straightforward German. You got that one right. (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The object(s) of the {{Citecheck}} tag?[edit]

Where are the "inappropriate or misinterpreted citations"? Which "references may not verify the text"? --Rrburke 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Lack of references[edit]

This article is severely lacking in sources to back up claims. These are required for a factual account of the actions of the Einsatzgruppen. 01:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't realise I wasn't logged in. The above comment was mine. Magicana 01:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In the "Final Solution" section, and throughout this article, a good source is "Ordinary Men" by Christopher Browning. A later Browning book is cited, but "Ordinary Men" is his very closely and carefully researched history of a non-Nazi part-time police group that was required to carry out executions of Jews by firearms. He offers details to back up the claim that one-on-one executions by firearms were corrosive to the morale of the executioners. I haven't the time to set this into the article properly, but those of you monitoring this article will surely appreciate the research report by Browning in this book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Browning's book Ordinary Men is excellent, but the Order Police battalion 101 it deals with that operated in Poland in 1942 was not part of the Einsatzgruppen, which might present some problems. I suppose one could argue that the battalion 101 was very similar in composition and doing much of the same sort of work as the Einsatzgruppen, but that might smack of original research. Does anyone have any ideas?--A.S. Brown (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Should be more integrated with Einsatzkommando[edit]

--RamboKadyrov (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


A large series of apparently valid edits has been summarily reverted [23]. Why? Explain please.Biophys (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Asian subhumans[edit]

No idea if this is really relevant to the text, but on a meeting in May/June 1941, Heydrich seems to have said that eliminating asiatic subhumans ("asiatisch-minderwertige") was also to be one of the tasks of the Einsatzgruppen. Source is Joachim Fest, Hitler-Eine Biographie (don't remember place and year, but it's a paperblack edition with black cover), p.918. Yaan (talk) 11:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Significance of Wannsee[edit]

At the Wannsee Conference, the SS and various other officials met to find a more efficient way of killing their victims; this ultimately led to the establishment of Vernichtungslagern or extermination camps containing gas-chambers. Under this and other plans, an estimated six million Jews and five million non-Jews would ultimately lose their lives.

This seems like an inaccurate description of what the significance of Wannsee was. Nobody decided anything at Wannsee. It became clear to the participants that Heydrich and his office had already determined what to do - Wannsee was just about giving marching orders to all the various branches of the German government to carry it out efficiently. It's certainly not true that the creation of extermination camps was a result of Wannsee - Chelmno had already been operating for over a month before the conference even occurred. Thoughts on how to reword? john k (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not just say that because Himmler and the other SS leaders found mass shooting a messy way to commit mass murder that led them to chose gassing as their preferred method of killing (outside of the Soviet Union of course, where shooting continued to the main method of mass murder)? I write this from memory, but I believe that the first gas vans started to operate in early December 1941 followed shortly by the opening of Chelmno. Wannsee was the culmination of that progress. That might be getting slightly off-topic, but I suppose that a case could be made for bringing in a wider discussion of the role of the Einsatzgruppen as casual agents of the Shoah. It might be better to start a historiography section given the rather intense historical disagreements about these matters, which will probably never be totally settled owing to the fragmentary nature of the surviving historical evidence.--A.S. Brown (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Middle East?[edit]

500 000 jews in Palestine before end of the ww2? This revisionism at the best, actually im surpriced the "biblical rights to the land" werent mentined. Factual numeber of pre-"Israel" jews in Palestine is circa 30 000, well legal ones anyways. CORRECT IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

You might not be including those that left Germany in the 30s to get away from Hitler. Though 500,000 does sound quite high. Willski72 (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

error: gas van[edit]

This Van is clearly a Magirus. Nothing is known about gas vans from "Magirus". It should be removed because gas vans are known from the companies Saurer, [[Diamond T], Opel and Renault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Maierhofer (talkcontribs) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

see Link: --Holgerjan (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And could someone fix the typo "gans vans". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to the Holodomor[edit]

The article should perhaps look into the disputed historical notion that the Einsatzgruppen were acting in a kind of retaliation for the Holodomor, which many antisemites at the time perceived as a Jewish genocide against Christians. There certainly needs to be more work done on the relationship between these two terrible mass killings. ADM (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

what a bs, disingenous remark, ADM. I should not dignify it by response; in fact, that is all I'll say, jerk.--Jrm2007 (talk) 04:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
There's an element of truth to ADM's suggestion in that many Ukrainian nationalists who often were very extreme anti-Semitics did see themselves as avenging what they claimed to be Jewish atrocities against Ukrainians. The (false) Nazi notion of "Judeo-Bolshevism" was not just a German peculiarity. But this needs to be treated with a great deal of care and caution. If one is not careful, one can get end up in the company of Ernst Nolte who does advance a set of theories, which strongly imply that the Jews got what they had coming to them in the form of the Shoah because of Communist crimes. I'll suppose that this can be included as part of the self-justification of the killers, both German and Ukrainian, but we need to be very adamant in remembering that this was a self-jutification for genocide and nothing more--A.S. Brown (talk) 17:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, ADM made a VERY reasonable and polite suggestion. He/she did not deserve to be called a jerk by JRM2007, nor even to be accused by Brown of bordering on anti-semitism. Those were completely inappropriate responses. (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, I did not say that ADA's suggestion was "bordering on anti-semitism", and that is a malicious interpretation to put it midly. What I did say is that this is a subject that requires careful handling. There is a big difference between explaining a point of view and excusing a point of view, and Wikipedia too often gets the two confused. If somebody wants to bring in something relating to how the killlers rationalized their actions, that is fine, but has to to careful to stress that this was a rationalization, not a reason. That was the point I was making, and anyhow, I think this article more or less covers that subject at present, even if does not mention the Holodomor. If you have anything useful to contribute, please do so. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen vs Wehrmacht[edit]

I believe there is at least instance of Wehrmacht troups interfering with either Einsatzgrupp actions or "local" pogroms. I think this would be interesting section here if it is the former case.--Jrm2007 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There were a few protests and might have been a case of the odd Wehrmacht officer trying to stop a massacre, but overall, the Wehrmacht co-operated overwhelmingly with the Einsatzgruppen in 1941-42, so I can't help but think that might give a misleading impression. For that long, the Wehrmacht and its apologists have able to shug off all responsibility for their very considerable role in the murder of 2.2 million people by blaming it all on the SS with the Wehrmacht either ignorant or opposed to the massacres. I don't mean this as a personal attack, but adding such a section might be a retrogression to the now firmly discredited line very popular in Germany after the war about the "good" Wehrmacht fighting a good war on the front while the "evil" SS waged genocide in the rear. If we add such a section, let's make it clear that actions were the very much the exceptions, not the rule.--A.S. Brown (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. The protests at Beleya Tserkov seems to be the only case where somebody in the Wehrmacht actually tried to stop the killings. Added a section about that. --A.S. Brown (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Large numbers?[edit]

The lower ranking members who returned to Germany or to other countries were not formally charged (due to their large numbers) and simply returned to civilian life.. Can anybody please clarify why the large numbers were the obstacle to making justice? Did they do armed resistance? Why much greater number of Jews was not an obstacle in their killing? --MathFacts (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

"Einsatzgruppen" in German[edit]

From lead:

Einsatzgruppen (German: "special-operations units") ...

That's not the literal translation is it? -- œ 04:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is not. The literal translation is "task group" although "task force" also fits (and, IMO, sounds better). "Special Operations forces" would be something distinctly different, like Sondereinsatzgruppen or Sondereinsatzkräfte. I'm going to correct it. --DarthBinky (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I cannot object enough to the elementary mistranslation(s) of "Einsatzgruppen" found in this article. My German is fairly good, along with my study of the Holocaust, and the term "death squads" has absolutely no connection whatsoever with Einsatzgruppen. Besides the woeful anachronism, where is the word "death" found? The straightforward translation of this simple German term is "Special Units." If I were to use a somewhat less literal translation, I would use "Special Ops Units." Some of the comments above are really without foundation, or display lack of historical and/or lexicographical knowledge. "Sonderkommando," someone wrote, is the word for the same thing, and argued for his translation. Now "sonder" (special) and "einsatz" ("unique") are, like "kommando" and "gruppe," ("group") clearly two different words, besides which the term "Sonderkommando" was employed almost strictly for the extermination-camp prisoners who managed the conveyance of the gassed bodies from the gas chambers, and placed them into the crematoria. The word "einsatz" is not a unique or technical term at all. It is the ordinary German word meaning "special" (lit., "one-thing"). The comment immediately above suggests "task force" as "literal." Absolutely incorrect, even as to a non-literal, freer, translation. A "task force" is part of a regular army; these terms had to be created in Berlin precisely because they were not part of the regular armed forces, and their real meaning had to be concealed, like all the other terms referring to annihilation or genocide. "Sonderbehandlung," "special handling," or "special treatment." Actually one finds in the literature even the word "Sondereinsatzkommando," and other such Teutonicisms, where word is simply added onto another, to create a new word. Now, if anyone wants to get into the intricacies of defining "commando," "squad," "unit," etc., I'll leave that up to him. But bear in mind, these may be particular technical military terms, which may mean one thing in one country, and something else in another. I believe that "Einsatzgruppe" is not a technical military term, because, obviously, the Einsatzgruppen operated as part of the SS, not under the direction of the Wehrmacht (German Armed Forces). As a matter of fact, in the early weeks of Barbarossa--the German invasion of the USSR--the High Command in Berlin received numerous complaints from Officers in the field about the actions of these units, since they clearly violated the German military code of honor, by gunning down and indiscriminately murdering innocent civilians. The "Collins German Dictionary" is no authority of final determination, and its definitions are not dispositive. Anyways--the word should be given its clear meaning--simply "Special Groups," or "Units" or "Commandos." There is nothing mysterious or complex here; it is straightforward German. (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Allen Roth —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Omission in state definition[edit]

I would like to point out the omission under the "Personell" section. It is stated that "were a large number of Muslim volunteers from Albania and Serbo-Croatia". Serbo-Croatian may be used as a term to define language, but not as state, such a state didn't exist at the time. The "Hanđar" division volunteers come from the nazi satellite state of NDH, as is stated in it's respective wiki. Best regards to all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katalili (talkcontribs) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Re Disestablishment and Post-War[edit]

I think it is important to point out that Treblinka and Sobibor were not 'permanent killing centers'. Unlike Auschwitz, they were constructed, along with the camp at Belzec and the site at Chelmno, to be used in Aktion Reinhard. The Aktion Reinhard camps were temporary and all were dismantled after they had fulfilled their purpose of killing the Jewish population in their respective areas. Of course, Auschwitz-Birkenau was most definitely a permanent killing centre. Please think carefully when you write on any matter relating to the Holocaust or the mass-killing of civilians during the Second World War. Carefully think of every sentence before you write and remember that the deniers will use every mistake, error or inconsistency to undermine the truth of events of that period. (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Ian Peebles

Bild Gaswagen[edit]

There ist a mistake: See below error gas van.

Das Foto zeigt keinen Gaswagen. Es handelt sich bei diesem Fahrzeug offensichtlich um einen Magirus-Deutz. Nach allen Veröffentlichungen wurden nur Wagen der vier Firmen Diamond, Renault, Sauer und Opel umgebaut.

Vergleiche dazu folgenden Link: http: // deathcamps:

Der Fall des Vernichtungslagers Chelmno wurde durch die "Hauptkommission für die Untersuchung von Verbrechen der Deutschen in Polen" ab Mai 1945 untersucht (dies war der Name der Kommission zu Beginn ihrer Existenz). Die Kommission erhielt die Information, dass in der ehemaligen Ostrowski-Fabrik in der Stadt Kolo (ca. 12 km von Chelmno entfernt) ein Gaswagen steht, der laut Zeugenaussagen im Vernichtungslager Chelmno eingesetzt worden war. Der Wagen wurde gefunden, fotografiert und untersucht. Die damals aufgenommenen Fotos sind verwahrt im Archiv der Hauptkommission in Warschau (Signaturen: 47398, 47396, 47397, 47399, am besten ist Nr. 47398). Die Titel dieser Fotografien lauten auch heute noch: "ein Wagen zum Töten von Menschen durch Auspuffgase, in Chelmno". Eines dieser Fotos wurde abgebildet in Flemings Buch "Hitler and the Final Solution", mit der Information, dass es das Foto eines "Gaswagens" sei, der in Chelmno benutzt worden war. -- (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC) (de.Wikipedia Benutzer:Holgerjan)

external links[edit]

I dont understand the relevance of the tag about Wiki guidelines applied to the external links of this article. What's the problem ? --Alexandre Rongellion (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the tag, but external links should comply with WP:ELNO - I can see one is a forum, which I will remove. (Hohum @) 15:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Too many lengthy quotations[edit]

I believe the article has too many quotations, many of them are also lengthy. This is distracting to the main text. It would be far more appropriate and more easily accessible for our readers if only the most essential quotations were kept, and the rest pared down or removed, or summarised with a reference - which could hold some of the quotation.

The article is also getting too involved in details of specific incidents, instead of mentioning the incidents as part of an overall picture. (Hohum @) 01:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree it could use edits for concision. Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel the original quotations are important for evidentiary reasons, but I agree that they're awfully long. As part of an overall copy editing process, I've broken up the quotations into smaller paragraphs. This has improved readability while a decision is being reached about cutting back the quotes. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 01:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Chelmno Gas Van.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing undertaken: structure, clarity, narrative and grammar (June 2012)[edit]

This article contains plenty of excellent information, documented research, etc, but when I found it in June 2012 it struggled to be readable. I am presently copy-editing the article.

These edits are generally limited to re-phrasing or re-structuring information. I have preserved the existing sections. Generally I haven't added or removed information, or made any value judgements about information; my aim here is to clarify what's being said, not question the content itself.

As such, if any of these changes have made a sentence less accurate, I strongly encourage you to change that sentence back.

(talk to) Caroline Sanford 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

While I will not say the article was that bad at this juncture, I do agree it was in need of ce work. Glad you had the time; you have done some good work herein. If you decide you might want to take on some others of a similar vein that need ce work, I would suggest: Wehrmacht and Nazi Party. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I am substantially finished copy-editing (I think; there's always one last typo). Any amendments to make this article more factual will be keenly welcomed. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 10:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The source material for the "Einsatzgrupppe Ägypten" on this article more than borders on comedic. Can't you at least cite two books by non-historians?


Between 1941 and 1944, almost 1.5 million Jews were massacred when Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union. In two and half years, the Nazis killed nearly every Jew in the region. The mass murder was part of the Holocaust, Hitler’s genocide of the Jewish people. Until recently, this chapter of Holocaust history was relatively unknown.source:

Clearly it must be more than Raul Hilberg claimed. Even Heinrich Himmler thought it was more than what he was told.

Deutsche wiki says that there were 2.5 million Jews within the regions of the USSR conquered by the Wehrmacht. SO if most of them were killed, then it must be more than what Hilberg claimed. Valleyspring (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

trans from German: Einsatzgruppen "Rise of the Einsatzgruppen in the war against the Soviet Union (1941)The four Einsatzgruppen gathered early June 1941 in bad Düben to follow the Eastern army from there after the start of the war against the Soviet Union to perform its mission: "3000 men hunted Russia's 5 million Jews."[31] In it lived four million in the Russian territories conquered by the German army. Another 1.5 million have evaded the access of the Einsatzgruppen escape, so

  • 2.5 million in the sphere of influence of Heydrich units fell.The mass of Soviet Jews were totally surprised by the well-organised destruction actions of the Einsatzgruppen. Especially the cities, where 90% of the Jewish population lived, were to be trapped."

Also, it must be noted that the auxiliaries of the population which aided the nazis helped speed up this mass murder rate.!Valleyspring (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Herbert Fischer[edit]

I have come across a mention on the Dr Herbert Fischer page on the .de wiki that states he may have not have been the leader of Einsatzgruppe III. That he has been mistaken for a Dr Hans Fischer. How would this be represented in this article? Pinnerguest (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Their quoted source is in German and is not available via Google Books, so I am not able to check it out very thoroughly. The list of commanders presently in the article came from Weale, Adrian (2010). Army of Evil: A History of the SS. New York; Toronto: Penguin Group. ISBN 978-0-451-23791-0. --Diannaa (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


The picture which was captured with "A woman is attempting to protect a child with her own body just before they are fired on with rifles at close range." does not depict what the capture claims. It is a known forgery. Please select a correct picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the image page on commons, it has been called a fake, but the extensive referencing on that page seems to indicate that it isn't. (Hohum @) 19:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Formation and Aktion T4[edit]

While the section on the formation of the Einsatzgruppen is accurate, the follow on paragraph attempting to detail the relationship between the Einsatzgruppen and "Aktion T4" is wildly misleading. Aktion T4 was started and run by medical doctors for purported medical reasons. It was termed "euthanasia" (although that's a euphemism) and was, more or less, administratively limited to German state borders (not contested territory like Poland, etc) and officially ended in 1941. And while Aktion T4 can validly be seen as a precursor to the near wanton killing of the Einsatzgruppen I don't think that, either administratively or any less directly, there is as clear a link as the paragraph makes out.

I don't think delineating Aktion T4 as context is a problem. I do think there are issues with making the clear assertion that Einsatzgruppen were deliberately and definitively carrying out procedures of the Aktion T4 directorate. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This information is sourced to Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280436-5 , pages 138 to 141. This is a highly reliable source, as Longerich is one of the foremost experts on this topic. The book is viewable online (at least in my area). At the top of page 138, Longerich says that the Einsatzgruppen shot thousands of mental patients in Danzig-West Prussia.-- Diannaa (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Doing the same work that Aktion T4 might have sanctioned is alignment. It is not the same as participating in the administration of of the program or actually having Einsatzgruppen derived from it as the paragraph misleads. This is not the case. I'm not saying that the paragraph is wrong. I'm saying that it is misleading, and wildly so. by the logic of paragraph, and by the logic you proffer, since Einsatzgruppen members shot people whom the Gestapo might also wish to shoot, then Einsatzgruppen were administratively tied to the Gestapo. It ought to be re-written to be more clear. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The below testimony comes directly from the horse's mounth. The Einsatzgruppen reported to RSHA that, by using gas vans inspected by euthanasia specialists, they were able to "process" 97,000 captives in less than six months between December 1941 and June 1942 in the East. See: Ernst Klee (1991), The gas-vans: A new and better method of killing had to be found. The Good Old Days: The Holocaust As Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders. Konecky Konecky. pp. 69–71. ISBN 1568521332. — Poeticbent talk 07:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If the distinction, both in administration and purpose, between the Wehrmacht and the Einsatzgruppen is important, and I believe it is, then a similar distinction is to be made between Einsatzgruppen and those who administered and ran the Aktion T4 program. That is to say, having mobile gas vans inspected by 'euthanasia specialists' may be no different than the occasional swapping of rifles and bullets between Einsatzgruppen members and Wehrmacht regulars. I am not saying that no link exists between the Aktion T4 directorate and the Einsatzgruppen. I am saying that the paragraph in question, especially under a subheading of "formation and Aktion T4", is wildly misleading.TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)