Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Holocaust consciousness

On a completely unrelated note, perhaps it is worth mentioning that the term "holocaust" was not accepted and ubiquitous until the 1950s and 60s. Perhaps some talk of "holocaust consciousness" is worth noting as well. The idea that the holocaust is now almost sacred in the sense that it embodies evil, and no historical event or idea can be compared to it. Perhaps this is branching too far, but if it you guys agree that 3-4 sentences on it would be worthwhile i'll gladly throw it into the etymology part. 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact it wasn't even until the late 1970s that this became the most common meaning of the word. Before that "nuclear holocaust" was the most familiar usage. This is discussed in Names of the Holocaust. Paul B 08:04, 7 November 2007

i wasnt referring to the time holocaust=jewish solution but to the time it was first used to even mean that. American dreams and nazi nightmares by Kirsten Fermaglich proposes that the comparisons between american culture and nazi germany in the 50's and 60's were the first signs of a "holocaust consciousness." In 1959 Stanley Elkins wrote "slavery: a problem in american intellectual and institutional life" and refers to it as "the holocaust". The major point of my post was that there is nothing in this article about holocaust consciousness or its sacred place in history. Not sure if it deserves another article or should be put in here or is not relevant. 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)(UTC)

I dont understand what you sare saying. Is Stanley Elkins refering to slavery as 'the holocaust'? That wouldn't be unusual at the time and it's not necessarily related to 'holocaust consciousess', or even to comparisons with the Nazis - at least the use of the word holocaust at that time would not have directly implied that then. Many things were called holocausts. It was a widely used word for large scale disasters and deaths. We'd need more on the context. Paul B 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Elkins compares the two events on various socio-economic and psychological factors. This Fermaglich argues is one of the first instances of the manifestation of a holocaust consciousness. I.e using it in an intellectual field, and using it in part to disparage american history and also to start a discussion of what the holocaust meant/was beyond the facts. By holocaust consciousness i mean how people and intellectuals perceive the holocaust (the final solution). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know the book. I've looked at some reviews, and from what I can gather the main argument is that Jewish intellectuals after the war often used the events of the Nazi holocaust as part of a wider liberal project to link other ethicity-based massacres as a general phenomenon, but that in more recent times some Jewish intellectuals, particularly those on the right, have been trying to emphadsise the uniqueness of the Nazi holocaust with respect to Jews and to deny the comparability of other events. Is that the main claim of the book and are these examples of what Fermaglich calls "holocaust consciousness"? It might be possible to link some of this to the inclusion/exclusion debate. By the way, I seem to have accidentally missed the word "not" out of one of the sentences in my previous post - which inverted my intended meaning.Paul B 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The following Wikpedia statement (1.1 Holocaust article) misleads: "... Holocaust ... was adopted as a translation of "Shoah," which appeared for the first time in 1940 in Jerusalem in a booklet called Sho'at Yehudei Polin ..."

The Hebrew newspaper "Davar" in 1933 had a headline: "In the hour of the shoah of German Jewry." For more examples of pre 1940 "shoa" usage see my footnote 71 in (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Jon Petrie 19 Nov

Is this Mr Petrie author of "The Secular Word Holocaust" writing? I don't doubt you are right, but I'm not sure how that helps. The word simply means "disaster". Since the election of the Nazis in 1933 was certainly a disaster for Jews, it's not surprising that the word was used in a Hebrew language article about the fact - but it can't have been referring to the Shoah/Holocaust, since it hadn't yet happened. This does raise the wider question of when these words were first used as proper nouns, and not simply descrptively. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Slavic War losses-Time For A Reality Check

The facts are simple, there were 8 million Jews in Nazi occupied Europe and 6 million died in the Holocaust a 75% death rate. There were 24 million ethinc Poles and 2 million died, a death rate of 8%, of the 30 million non Jews in the 1939 Ukraine about 3 million civilians died in the war, a death rate of 10%. There were 15 million Yugoslavs of which 600,000 non Jewish civilians were war dead, a 4% death rate. There is no comparison of Jewish and non-Jewish losses. The Christians had the chance to work for the Germans and live, most did survive because they were needed as a labour source for Germany. If Germany had won the war Slavs may have been exterminated. From 1939-45 the German policy was to enslave Slavs not to exterminate them like the Jews. One cannot compare Slavic civilian losses to Jewish Holocaust losses because the Germans had differant polices for both groups. The Jews were to die and the Slavs to work for German masters. Lets put these losses in their proper context.--Woogie10w 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, I looked at a 1939 cencus, and it said that there were a little below 6 million Jews alive that time. 75% of THAT number died. Anyways, Ukraine had between 6.8- 10 million dead, by the way, check earilier posts. Mona23653 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653
Mona, have you understood that this page is not about the total number of people who died in the war? Paul B 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes i know that. It was at least 7 million Ukrainians that died as a result of German genocidal policies. FYI the very first prisoners in Auschwitz were UKrainians, and they constituted the majority of the prisoners up until the final year of the war. For reference, check out witnesses, and the stories by the people who were actually there. Here's a good book, by Petro Kardash, "Zlochyn", aka "Crime", written in Ukrainian. Mona23653 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653
I'm sure it's a great book, but I don't speak Ukrainian and I suspect very few editors here do. The problem is that the Ukrainian prisoners were also Soviet prisoners, and are generally identified as such in the literature. Yes, a case can be made that the whole war in the east was 'genocidal', but it is almost unheard of, in my experience, for the term "the Holocaust" to be applied to this aspect of Nazi policy and the numbers - in terms of population proportions - don't match Jews and Roma. Hitler in the Table Talk does have grandiose schemes for repopulating the Ukraine with the 'Nordic race' ("we will attact to the Ukraine Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes...they will come from Germany, Scandanavia, the West and America") which clearly implies that the original population will be at best displaced, but this was all proposals, and other ideas and claims also circulated. Paul B 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
what about 700,000 Serbs killed in Independent State of Croatia a 40% death rate in that country and 200,000 deported. All of them wold be killed few more years. Vladar86 —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'M FROM MISSOURI, YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW ME.--Woogie10w 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The Serbian researcher Bogoljub Kočović found that total Serbian losses were 487,000 [1] --Woogie10w 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Report by anthropologist Srboljub Živanović [2]. But what ever total figure is, goal was clear extermination of Serbian people --Vladar86 —Preceding comment was added at 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website has an informative section on Jasenovac. They report Although further research may yield more exact figures, current estimates place the number of victims murdered by the Ustaša in Jasenovac during World War II between 56,000 and 97,000[3]--Woogie10w 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it also began to be implemented. If it was a matter of a few more years, the plan was to be accomplished. Mona23653 02:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)mona23653

This page must get its numbers right

Users throw out statistics that are not checked. For example 6.8 million Ukrainians died in the war. This figure includes 1.6 million military dead and about 1.4 million dead that are also counted by Poland. Another error is the statement that 3 million Christian Poles died in the war. Historians in post communist Poland now believe the number is 2 million not the 3 million which is copied in so many worthless sources. Yugoslav losses were given as 1.7 million by the Tito regime for years. The US Census Bureau published a study in 1954 that concluded losses were 1,067,000, including 300,000 military dead. Check and double check any data that you see coming out of Eastern Europe.--Woogie10w 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)--Woogie10w 16:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing was, the minimum estimate of Ukrainians, like the least figyre, sort of like saying, 3 million Jews died. The actual figure was closer to 10 million. By the way, only 2 million of them were military, and Jewish losses.Mona23653 14:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)mona23653

So how do we distinguish the Ukrainians from the Jews. Are we assuming all the Ukranians were non Jews. ? There seems to be more than just a little hair spitting going on here. Getting th numbers right is a guessing game at best. All we can really do is decide which sourses to belive and leave it at that; Albion moonlight 05:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable Sources must back up any numbers posted

The discussion on the non Jewish losses is a disgrace. The claim of 10 million Ukrainian dead is not backed up with verifiable sources. If you include the Ukraine you must get the correct information for non-Jewish civilian losses, this data must be supported with a verifiable source. If the the non-Jewish Ukrainan civilians get a line we must also include non-Jewish Russians, Belerussians, Poles, Serbs and Greeks who also were victims of Nazi genocide. We cannot do our own original research and guess the figures, we must post a verifiable source. That is the rule of the road here at Wikipedia. The discussion on non Jewish losses is degenerating to the level of a late night barroom debate--Woogie10w 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Neither are your sources, which are oo old, and biasedMona23653 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)mona23653

I don't consider the 2002 Population Studies article I quoted from to dated or biased. Population Studies is a well known source of demographic information.--Woogie10w 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian WW2 Casualties, Data from a Contemporary Russian Source

Vadim Erlikman, a Russian an journalist-historian, has published a handbook of statistical data on human losses in the twentieth century. He has a critical eye and does not take for granted that official Soviet era statistical data is the final word on losses of the U.S.S.R. during the war
Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1

This is a summary Erlikman’s data for the Ukraine from 1941-45.

Population 1940:41,340,000 (includes 9 million in territory annexed from Poland & Romania)

Military Dead:
Killed in battle-1,250,000 A./F.
POW Dead- 310,000
Partisan Deaths 55,000 B..
Militia Dead 35,000 B.
Total Military Deaths: 1,650,000

Civilian Dead:
Killed by military activity 250,000
Executed and murdered: 2,400,000 C/D.
Deaths in prisons & camps: 350,000
Deaths in Germany(forced labor) 700,000
Deaths due to famine & disese 1,500,000
Total Civilian Dead: 5,200,00

Refugees: 3,550,000
Emmigration:150,000 E.

Total Ukrainian War Dead- 6,850,000

Erlikman’s notes:
A. Ethnic Ukrainian battle dead for the entire USSR was 1,367,500 15.9% of Soviet battle deaths
B. Erlikman’s estimate
C. “Per the overstated data of the Extraordinary State Commission 3,091,987 civilians in the Ukraine were killed”
D. Averaged deaths were 650,000 Jews, 40,000 Poles and 15,000 Gypsies.
E. According to other data the number who emigrated was 483,000.
F. Military dead includes an estimated 30,000 with German Army. Total in German Army 180,000
--Woogie10w 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
notice, how the source is Russian, which already means that the numbers are lowered.Mona23653 04:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)mona23653

Ukrainian Demographic Population Losses 1939-47, Data from a Contemporary English language Source

Summary detailing the estimated Ukrainian the population deficit 1939-48

A. Excess deaths due to war(1941-45) 6,704,000
B. Excess deaths 1939/40 & 1946/48 376,00
C. Birth Deficit(children not born) 3,517,000
D. Net Emigration 1,993,000
Total demographic loss 12,590,000

Notes: Excess deaths 1939/40 & 1946/48 includes 1947 famine

Net Emigration includes persons displaced to other Soviet Republics as well as Poles repatriated and Dp’s in the west.
A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264
--Woogie10w 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should check out the newly opened KGB and SBU archives, which put the numbers of Ukrainian victims way 01:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Holocaust Deaths in the Ukraine within postwar 1945 borders

Historians of the Holocaust in the west have included losses in Galicia with Poland rather than the U.S.S.R. This territory was formally ceded by Poland to the U.S.S.R. by treaty in August 1945. Soviet and Ukrainian sources however, include war dead from annexed Galicia with Soviet losses. We must take this into account in order to avoid a duplication .

Lucy Dawidowicz in her ‘’ War Against the Jews’’ lists the deaths of 900,000 of the 1,500,000 Jews in the prewar 1939 borders of the Ukraine, not including Galicia and Bukovina.
The Polish government in exile published a Statistical Handbook in London 1941. The number of Jews in occupied Galicia was estimated at 794,000. Since this region was occupied by Germany in June/July 1941 most Jews were trapped there and had no chance to evacuate with Soviet forces. About 90% perished in the war 700,000.

Estimated Jewish Holocaust Victims in Ukraine(postwar borders)
1939 Ukraine- 900,000
Galicia- 700,000
Romanian Bukovina-100,000
Total 1,700,000
Estimated 1939 Jewish population in Ukraine(postwar borders)
1939 Ukraine- 1,500,000
Galicia- 800,000
Romanian Bukovina-100,000
Total 2,400,000
--Woogie10w 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

This doesn't even belong here. There was minimal Ukrainian collaboration, unlike biased sources say. The so-called Petliura days never did happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona23653 (talkcontribs)

This is the text from the main article, I believe that it should remain as is.

Thousands of people in these countries actively collaborated with the Nazis. Ukrainians and Latvians joined SS auxiliary forces in large numbers and did much of the dirty work in Nazi extermination camps--Woogie10w 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian WW2 Losses a Summary

Ukrainian WW2 Losses a Summary
In millions
Population 1940 : 41.3
Ukrainian Jews (2.4)
Military personnel (5)
Ukrainian Civilians (non Jewish) 33.9

Jews 1.7 million of 2.4 million 71%
Military 1.6 million of 5 million 32%
Civilians(non Jewish) 3.6 million of 33.9 million 10%
Total 6.8 million of 41.3 million 16 %

Note well that the total of 6.8 million dead includes 1.4 million also counted with Polish and Romanian losses by most western historians. Population of 1940 includes 9 million in annexed territories
--Woogie10w 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it does. It'z actually 6.8 + 1.4+ the so- called Soviet POW.Mona23653 04:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)mona23653

Blacks/Africans killed by Nazis

A very substantial number of people of African origin were killed as well. Before Hitler, several thousands of them lived for instance in Germany. After the war this community was almost wiped out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Check this out [[4]] --Woogie10w 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No that's not true. Yes, some mixed race Germans were sterilised but there were no murders. Ironically black Germans had a statistically higher chance of survival than white Germans because, as non-Aryans, they were not allowed to serve in the armed forces. The opposite was true in the US armed forces. See African Germans in the Third Reich by Susann Samples Paul B 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Total Ukrainian WW2 Losses-Ukrainian(Soviet era) Sources

Ukrains’ka RSR v velykli vitchyz’nianni viini Vol 3 Kiev 1969 P. 150
Civilians 3,898,457
Military (IncPOW) 1,366,588
Losses Crimea & ZaCarpathia 250,009
Total 5,515,104

V.V. Schherbytskyi Radianska Ukrainia 10/18/1974
Total 6,750,000
--Woogie10w 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As we know Sccherbytskyi was a communist, very active in suppresing everything Ukrainian. You can't possibly trust him, or any other Soviet 02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
True, Soviet era statistics lack credibility.--Woogie10w 02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Victims of the Nazis-The official Soviet Statistic

Per the Istoriya Velikoi Otechestvenoi Voiny, Vol 6 Map 13-
Number killed of killed civilians & POW in the Ukraine- 4,497,000
--Woogie10w 10:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Mind the fact, that it was written in Russian, which already means anti-UKrainian bias. Second of all, look at new documents, not ones from 40 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona23653 (talkcontribs) 15:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lets see the new documents, I am from Missouri, you have got to show me!--Woogie10w 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Polish and Soviet Slav Victims

The post that I just made was extracted from another Wikipedia article.Holocaust victims--Woogie10w 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Civilian Losses in WW2

This is for the doubting Thomas's out there.

Total War Soviet Dead-----26.5 million
Dead Annexed Territories--3.0 million
Military Battle Deaths----7.0 million
Military POW Deaths-------3.0 million
Jewish Holocaust Deaths---1.0 million
Famine Dead interior USSR-3.0 million
Balance civilian deaths--
in German occupied USSR---9.5 million

Total War Dead- Data from 1992 Russian Academy Science Report
Dead Annexed Territories-Already included with Poland, Baltic States & Rumania
Military Battle Deaths-Official Soviet figure
Military POW Deaths- per USHMM
Jewish Holocaust Deaths-(1939 USSR borders) per Martin Gilbert
Famine Dead interior USSR- Excess deaths in USSR not occupied by Germans per Russian Academy Science Report 1995
Balance civilian deaths(Non Jewish) in German occupied USSR(1939 borders)- Soviet citzens that died as a result of the German occupation. Killed in reprisals, anti-partisan operations, forced labor and famine.--Woogie10w 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This article

I'm not getting what is going on here. The lead of the article clearly states, The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II. Yet the article, with what appears to be some POV-warrioring from editors, has just become a huge recounting of Nazi atrocities, with some added crap about what the Soviets have done. There are lots of things I'm beginning to hate about Wikipedia. But this article is disgusting. The Holocaust is simply the murdering of 6 million Jews. As horrible as what the Nazis did to numerous other racial and ethnic groups, they belong in very specific articles about those specific atrocities. What this article has become is just a discussion about what Nazis did to everyone, which is not the Holocaust. That does not follow the academic definition of the Holocaust, and, in fact, I contend can be used by Holocaust Deniers in a whole-hot of unethical ways. Typical of Wikipedia, we discuss a consensus for a couple of days, people go off onto other articles or their real lives, and the consensus never forms. We need to decide, get an ArbCom ruling, or something. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • (a) ArbCom does not determine content. Ever. Hopefully never will. (b) "Simply"? No, not really. The Nazis explicit genocidal plans focused on Jews, but were also practiced against the Roma (at the very least). That the deniers can use something as an argument doesn't mean that thing isn't also a valid fact; since the deniers can and do make up stuff out of whole cloth. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Jpg, I appreciate your take on Arbcom. I didn't really mean that, I'm just concerned we can develop a consensus that makes sense. Basically, most academic articles describe THE Holocaust (capitalization of the H is critical) as the murder of the Jews by the Nazis. Whatever happened to everyone else was A holocaust, just as horrible, but deserve their own articles. If we want this article to be about everyone murdered by the Nazis, then let's rename the article to "Nazi Genocide" or something to that effect. Then spin off an article about THE Holocaust.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a pretty good idea, actually. Or perhaps "The Holocaust" should be a redirect to "Shoah", which would start with a "See also Nazi Genocides or something like that. Avoid the entire issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The facts are very clear here, there were 8 million Jews in Nazi occupied Europe and 6 million died in the Holocaust a 75% death rate. There were 24 million ethinc Poles and 2 million died, a death rate of 8%, of the 30 million non Jews in the 1939 Ukraine about 3 million civilians died in the war, a death rate of 10%. There were 15 million Yugoslavs of which 600,000 non Jewish civilians were war dead, a 4% death rate. There is no comparison of Jewish and non-Jewish losses. The Christians had the chance to work for the Germans and live, most did survive because they were needed as a labour source for Germany. If Germany had won the war Slavs may have been exterminated. From 1939-45 the German policy was to enslave Slavs not to exterminate them like the Jews. One cannot compare Slavic civilian losses to Jewish Holocaust losses because the Germans had differant polices for both groups. The Jews were to die and the Slavs to work for German masters. Lets put these losses in their proper context.--Woogie10w 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The article follows usage by scholars. That usage, as has already been established, is "fuzzy". Sometimes it refers exclusively to the attempted genocide of Jews, at other times it also refers to other systematic killings, usually in the context of concentration/death camps, and in particular of Roma. We should describe these usages, and explain the context about the debate about the extent of the usage. I have never seen the term "The Holocaust" used in scholarly literature - or even journalism - to refer to all civilian deaths. We need to follow established usage. Vague claims that Nazis planned to exterminate Poles or Slavs will not do. What they may or may not have planned is irrelevant. The article focusses on what they in fact did. Paul B 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yea right, this article has the vague claim that 220,000 Freemasons were Holocaust victims with the source being "Freemasonry for Dummies". The 800,000 Soviet civilians who died in Leningrad are not mentioned. Wake up and smell the coffee, the section on non-Jewish victims is a confused mess.--Woogie10w 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I support Orangemarlin/jpgordon proposition because we must have 1 article for Holocaust (or Shoa) and another article for other Nazi genocides/massacres ---Rjecina 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure three people are a consensus, but maybe we're the only ones who care. Shall we be bold, and do as Jpg suggested? I think it would work. Let me make a proposal in a new section. Hopefully, Woogie understands what we're trying to do. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I reverted back to 11-9-07 version

I do not have the time or patience to help fix this article, I will never edit here again--Woogie10w 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Poles and East Slavs

From Wikipedia artice on Racial policy of Nazi Germany The main targets of the Nazi Genocide were the Jews of Europe, of whom approximately six million were killed, including 1.5 million children. Other targets included Roma, mentally ill, homosexuals, political opponents. Generalplan Ost (GPO) was a Nazi plan to realize Hitler's "new order of ethnographical relations" in the territories occupied by Germany in Eastern Europe during World War II. It was prepared in 1941 and confirmed in 1942. The plan was part of Hitler's own Lebensraum plan and a fulfilment of the Drang nach Osten ("Drive towards the East") state ideology.

The final version of Generalplan Ost, essentially a grand plan for ethnic cleansing, was divided into two parts; the Kleine Planung ("Small Plan"), which covered actions which were to be taken during the war, and the Grosse Planung ("Big Plan"), which covered actions to be undertaken after the war was won (to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25-30 years).

The Small Plan was to be put into practice as the Germans conquered the areas to the east of their pre-war borders. The individual stages of this plan would then be worked out in greater detail. In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November, 1939. The plan envisaged differing percentages of the various conquered nations undergoing Germanisation, expulsion into the depths of Russia, and other fates, the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would be Germanized.

In ten years' time, the plan called for the extermination, expulsion, enslavement or Germanisation of most or all Poles and East Slavs living behind the front lines in Europe. Instead, 250 million Germans would live in an extended Lebensraum ("living space") of the 1000-Year Reich (Tausendjähriges Reich). Fifty years after the war, under the Große Planung, Generalplan Ost foresaw the eventual expulsion and extermination of more than 50 million Slavs beyond the Ural Mountains.

Of the Poles, by 1952 only about 3-4 million people were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland, and then only to serve as slaves for German settlers. They were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles (believed by the Nazis to be Untermenschen, that is "sub-people") would cease to exist.

A Russian historian Vadim Erlikman has detailed Soviet losses totaling 26.5 million war related deaths. Military losses of 10.6 million include 7.6 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead, plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses. Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labor; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths. Additional famine deaths which totaled 1 million during 1946-47 are not included here. The official Polish government report of war losses prepared in 1947 reported 6,028,000 war victims out of a population of 27,007,000 ethnic Poles and Jews; this report excluded ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogie10w (talkcontribs) 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the word holocaust has changed over time and will probably change again in future. Some people prefer to use the word holocaust only to the systematic mass murder on Jews, others use the word to all systematic mass murders on whole peoples. So, I guess the article should reflect the different uses of the word by a separation in sections. The holocaust on Jews was the first step of the Nazi regime, because the Jews formed a target in their propaganda during the twenties to come into power. The existence of Roma was for the Nazi's hardly worth to mention; they were just exterminated when there was sufficient acpacity in the murder process. If you look at the treatment of Slavic peoples, especially Poles and Soviet POW's, then there can be no doubt that these Untermenschen also had to be extinguished. Most people write here with wisdom from books, I have spoken many surviving witnesses of the concentration camps and not only survivors of mild camps like Dachau or Buchenwald, but also of very more severe ones. That the percentages of murdered of the Slavic peoples were still low has just to do with the fact that preference was given to the murder on the Jews (and Roma). The intention of Hitler Germay was to empty Eastern Europe and for instance move the Dutch people from The Netherlands to the Ukraine. The murder on the slavic peoples had just started end therefore the percentages are low. And the plans were not vague as someone writes here, but were very clear. The first steps to a colonisation of the Ukraine by Dutch people wre already set (one of the organizers of the colonisation, Cornelis Staf, became after the war a Dutch minister for agriculture for a Christian party). Robvhoorn 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
In fact the plans were vague. There was no fully worked out or systematic masterplan of what to do with populations in the east, and there were widely divergent views among the Nazi hierarchy, as is evidenced by the history of Rosenberg's constant battles and disputes as Reichminister for the Eastern Territories. Also Hitler himself said a variety of things that are difficult to clearly reconcile. We really don't know with any certainty how genocidal their actions would have been after the war and to what extent policies in the 1942-5 period were determined by wartime expediency. It's true that Rosenberg had established links with Dutch and Scandanavian groups as part of his pan-Nordicist vision, and that this was envisaged as part of the future settlement plan for the East, but he was also trying to encourage anti-Russian nationalists in the Ukraine and Baltic states with promises to them at the same time. Lots of irreconcilable plans were circulating. Paul B 11:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is that 9 million Soviet slavs were killed by Nazi ethnic cleansing . The Nazi crimes in the Soviet Union were documnented at Nürnberg. You cannot deny that Slavs were also victims of Nazi genocide--Woogie10w 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Who is "you" and who is denying what exactly? The question of whether Nazi actions in the west were genocidal turns on the definition of the word "genocide". No-one has ever denied the murderousness of Nazi actions in the east. Hitler himself said his policies would produce mass starvation, and he didn't care. Churchill also predicted immediately after the invasion that "poor as are the Russian peasants, workmen and soldiers, he must steal from the them their daily bread. He must steal their harvests. He must rob them of the oil that drives their ploughs and so produce a famine without example in human history." But it's still very difficult to define when murderous war becomes "genocide". Paul B 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the plans were not yet completely worked out, but the colonisation by Dutch farmers started already at the end of 1942. The Dutch company Nederlandse Heide Maatschappij was indicated to organize the large scale colonisation. One of the crops that should be produced was tobacco. Dutch people, with experience in production of tobacco while employing forced labour by local people in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), were sent to the Ukraine. So, you should not have any illusions about the ultimate fate of the Slavic peoples. Only the lack of killing capacity kept most of them alive, but a beginning of the annihilation process was already made as the numbers of victims make clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talkcontribs) 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The colonisation of the area by pro-Nazi "Nordics" and by ethnic Germans was certainly always part of the lebensraum concept. No-one denies that nor have they ever done so. The question concerns the claim that that would be accompanied by what you call an "annihilation process", and I know of no evidence for that which is in any way comparable to the evidence for the Holocaust as such: i.e. systematic murder of a defined population. What you have are general brutality and killings, proposals for population displacement, comments about encouraging famine, whacky theories to encourage homosexuality among non-Germans to reduce their breeding etc etc. Paul B 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
If I see the numbers of murdered non-Jewish people (millions), than I call it a genocide, a holocaust, although it was not yet completed. See the treatment of Slavic people in the concentration camps, they were treated much worse than the other prisoners. It was the lack of burning capacity in the crematoria that kept them alive. The intention was to murder them all. There were 8 to 10 million Jews to be killed, that job was not yet completed at the end of the war. Next would be more than 100 million of Slavic people. It was just lack of capacity (and of course the need of slave manpower for the war industry). Robvhoorn 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
A genocide is an attempt to eliminate a people. This article is not about whether Nazi policy in the East was genocidal. Before the 1970s the term 'a holocaust' was a common word to refer to any terrible destructive event. For example it was used to describe the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima - quite legitimately - long before it became the commobn word for Nazi systematic murders. I think the problem here is the confusion betwen the use of 'holocaust' as a noun and as a proper noun: rather like "terror" and The Terror. The latter refers to a specific event in the French Revolution. Other examples of terror - even during the revolution - are not The Terror. The point is that scholars in English use the term "The Holocaust" in delimited ways. We have to be clear about what they mean by the term and describe the range of ways that they use it. Paul B 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article opens the door to a broader definition of the Holocaust by including Freemasons, Spanish prisoners and Gays. The door is opened to Slav victims when Serbs are included. My hunch is that the editors here have a very poor understaning of the subject of non-Jewish victims of Nazi Germany. This drags the whole article down and reduces is credibility. The best approch would be to include the Slavic losses but to point that the two peoples were " unequal victims" In the war 80% of the Jews perished but only 15% of Soviet Slavs and 5% of the Poles. It's your call, you can inprove it or leave it in it's current mess. By the way the US Holocaust Museum has an informative sections on it's webpage on the Nazi war crimes in the USSR and Poland.--Woogie10w 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Dutch famine of 1944

Dutch famine of 1944 is another example of Nazi policy in occupied Europe. My dad, who was a GI, saw this himeslf when the country was liberated. I remember telling him " This was nothing compared to what Hitler did in Poland and the USSR" --Woogie10w 13:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't. The Dutch were part of the supposed master race. Paul B 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it wasn't, what? Your laundry list of victims incluses Spanish prisoners and Freemasons.--Woogie10w 17:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? It's not my list is it? I have expressed my own view many times - that we should not have a laundry list; we should describe scholarly usage of the term "The Holocaust" which is "fuzzy", but which centres on the systematic murder of Jews has commonly been extended to include Roma, but has also been used for other groups such as homosexuals. Personally, I rather disapprove of the tendency to include homosexuals - who suffered in relatively small numbers and were not part of any "mass murder" plan. Rather, convicted homosexuals were locked up just as they were in many other European countries at the time. However, the fact is that some scholars write about homosexuals in "the Holocaust". Petrie's article The secular word Holocaust is intended to argue that there is no reason to exclude Soviet victims - at least not the prisoners of war who were murdered. In my view we should have no lists and tables of numbers. We should have a section that discusses scholarly debate about the usage of the term the Holocaust. Paul B 17:22, 13

November 2007 (UTC)

There you go, I think you are beginning to see the light. This article should be about only the Jewish victims of Hitler. All others should be briefly mentioned with links to other pages on Wikipedia. The current article reflects a narrow American POV. The Russian Academy of Science published a study in 1995 of WW2 in the USSR that went into the details of losses during the war. Americans seem to be oblivious to the fact that 14 million Soviet civilians died in the war. People here just do not comprehend the terrible toll on the Soviet Union during the war.--Woogie10w 18:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Please don't talk rubbish about my "beginning to see the light" when I've been saying the same thing ever since I first raised this point months ago. In fact I can't even make sense of your argument. No-one is saying that there weren't horrendous Soviet casualties. The only issue is whether or not they should be discussed on this page. You seem to say they should be discussed on another page and then you complain that the current article reflects "a narrow American point of view", presumably because they aren't discussed here. Paul B 18:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article is in bad shape. You list 220,000 Freemasons as victims of the Nazis with your source being Freemasonry for Dummies. The millions that died in Hitler's ethnis cleansing in the USSR are ignored and treated with contempt. The article as it stands now is in major need of revision and cleanup.--Woogie10w 18:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you seem to be contradicting what you said earlier. Should or shouldn't the USSR casualties be discussed on this page in your view? Paul B 18:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You opened the door to non-Jewish losses by including Serbs, Freemasons and Spanish prisoners. Why not include all others?--Woogie10w 18:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So you are refusing to give a straight answer. How strange. And please don't speak of "you" as if there is some group mind at work. Lots of people add stuff and delete stuff. No one opened any "door". It is a fact that usage among historians is fuzzy. In my personal view there should be a discussion of the range of uses of the word and the reasons for debates about it, but no lists. So I've said it yet again. Paul B 18:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

American POV Push

An American POV Push is going on here. This article reflects the narrow American bias regarding the crimes committed by Hitler Germany. The Polish and Soviet victims of Nazi policies are ignored and treated with contempt. For example one sees remarks like "some added crap about what the Soviets have done"--Woogie10w 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Where? The phrase doesn't occur on this page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

These are the words of conempt I refer to "some added crap about what the Soviets have done" That indicates a depraved indifferance to the losses of the Soviet people--Woogie10w 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. What it is that international scholars have defined THE Holocaust as exclusively the extermination of Jews by Nazis. The other "crap" means it doesn't belong in this article. What I contend is that certain editors (how passive aggressive to say it in that manner) are attempting to hijack this article, which defines itself as the genocide against the Jews, to put in other information about other ethnic groups who were murdered by the Nazis and Soviets. As I stated very clearly above, that is as an appalling story as THE Holocaust, and deserves their own articles to discuss how horrible it was. To indicate that I have a depraved indifference to any travesty on any people by any group is lacking good faith in me. Now stop the attacks and try to help. BTW, though I hold American Citizenship, I am also a citizen of an EU country, and lived a larger part of my life in Europe than in the US. Now stop. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not being " passive agressive " in my comments. My comments are an active agressive effort to improve the section on non-Jewish victims. An active and agressive approch is necessary here to inform the editors of the genocidal nature of the German war against the USSR--Woogie10w (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Why do you keep saying that "international scholars have defined THE Holocaust as exclusively the extermination of Jews by Nazis" when you know very well that that's not true - as has been repeatedly pointed out? The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states "It is not known precisely how many Roma were killed in the Holocaust." Paul B 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Because, as with most ideas, there is never 100% academic support. There are some people who think Evolution is wrong. But WE have defined this article as being about the murder of Jews. I think there is a consensus to develop this article as one about Jewish genocide by Nazis, and create an article entitled Nazi Genocides. Moreover, let's dump the Holocaust title, redirect to Shoah, and we can develop two very good articles--one on the Shoah, one on the general atrocities of the Nazis. Then we don't have to spend hours arguing on what ethnic group OWNS the word Holocaust. What's wrong with a compromise? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
No we don't define what the article is. We report on scholarly definitions. And there is no comparison with Evolution. 'Holocaust' is just a word. It is applied to whatever hiostorians choose to apply it. No-one is debating the word evolution. They aren't arguing that the article should also discuss the 'evolution of an idea' or the 'evolution of the computer'. The limits of the word 'evolution' in this context is wholly distinct from the question of whether or not it occurred. The limits of the word holocaust in this context is also wholly separate from the question of whether or not it occurred. Legitimately both the "it never happened" arguments are deemed to be fringe and are excluded from the main article. It's a wholly separate issue. Paul B 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

<RI> I'm not going to argue with your POV. It won't get us anywhere. Jpg has suggested a compromise, which I have formalized. Can we move on? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus proposal

  1. The Holocaust will redirect to Shoah, which will be an article about about the Nazi genocide of the Jews of Europe.
  2. The new article Shoah will have a statement to see Nazi Genocide(s) (not sure if it should be plural), which will contain the broader topic of all of the Nazi Genocides against all of the peoples of Europe, including Jews (although that section should be smaller and have a link to Shoah).
  • Oppose I am afraid that I cannot support the proposal. Re-reading the first two paras I find that they are clear, well-referenced, and not out of step with most other encyclopedias. The definitions do not in my opinion devalue the the loss of life of other Nazi genocides or massacres. The article goes on clarify why The Holocaust can be distinguished from the other atrocities, again there is no value judgement by equating it with The Final Solution. This does not mean that the article should not mention dissenting views about such a designation.--Joel Mc 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree I don't want to derail those readers who are looking for gypsy, homosexual etc. genocide by sending them to Shoah where they'll have to navigate to a new page. I'd rather have this page handle the greater set of genocide readers while Shoah handles the Jewish genocide. Binksternet 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Except those aren't generally known as "The Holocaust".

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

      • Define "generally"... my two Jewish coworkers today have both answered 'all' to the casual, unloaded question about whether "The Holocaust" term refers to all organized genocide at the hands of the Nazis or specifically Jewish deaths. Apparently there are more points of view than you report. Binksternet 22:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, I'm Jewish, so what does my vote count? Come on, we're not here to create original research. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Holocaust should refer to all mass murders by Nazi Germany related to ethnic cleansing. So, it should include Jews, Roma and several Slavic peoples, but it should not refer to political prisoners, freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals (a very small number), POW's etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talkcontribs) 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • "Should", according to whom? Certainly in common parlance "Holocaust" == "Shoah". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Give it a rest, Jpgordon. This a simple poll, not Point/Counterpoint. There aren't any wrong answers in a poll. Binksternet 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And be civil Binksternet. And Rovhoorn, please provide reliable sources to your point. What I read, and I'm not one to assume good faith very often when it comes to Jewish issues, are comments that are vaguely dismissive of the what constitutes the Holocaust. Moreover, no one appears to be reading the proposal carefully. Nazi Genocide is going to be a large article covering all genocide committed by the Nazis. Shoah is going to be a separate article. The Holocaust, which academically (not 100% but in the 90's), refers to the atrocities committed by the Nazis against the Jews, will redirect to the Shoah. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am from the old school, I can remember the time when the word holocaust was not used when referring to the Nazi genocide of the European Jews. In my opinion the term Holocaust should refer only to the genocide of the Jewish people. All other victims of the of the Nazi's should be on a seperate page. Gays and Freemasons do not belong same page as the 5.7 million Jewish martyrs who died in the Holocaust. Like I said I am from the old school--Woogie10w 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course, our personal opinions aren't really relevant. I do think it can be shown that the preponderance of reliable sources restricts the usage "The Holocaust" to deliberate attempts to annihilate entire groups -- Jews and Gypsies certainly are there. (I'm less informed about the fate of homosexuals as a group.) Our job isn't to change, expand, or promote our favored usage; it is to report what is favored usage. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Woogie, you must be from the very old school, since THE Holocaust has referred to the Nazi Genocide of European Jews from about 1942 on. Actually, I think Shoah, a Hebrew word, is much more recent. Please be careful with your facts, it does you a great disservice. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not what the article says. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That's completely untrrue. The term holocaust was not associated specifically with the Nazi murders until the late 1970s. It was a TV series that made the usage dominant, not scholarship. In fact "Shoah" was first used in 1942. The concept of "THE Holocaust" did not exist in 1942. --Paul B 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
This article seems to indicate otherwise. I'm not getting this discussion, and it is frustrating. There are few, very few, reliable sources that consider THE Holocaust as anything but the genocide against the Jews.OrangeMarlin Talk•Contributions 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote from the very article you just linked: In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. So you are supporting the OPPOSE camp with that link. Alatari (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
People with your POV regulary quote and misinterpret this article. The entire paragraph is about the use of the word "Shoah" (which was then a purely descriptive term, not a proper noun). Den Zion Dniur was writing in Hebrew. The word Holocaust was not used by him. It is used by the authors of the article in a sentence about Zion Dinur's meaning to clarify the referent of the term Shoah. The most detailed discussion of the history of the term Holocaust in this context is Petrie. [5]. --Paul B 08:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree (weakly). I admit I'm in two minds about this. The proposal would probably diminish the endless arguments, but it is clearly against WP policy, which states that we must use the most common name in English. The word "Shoah" is relatively rare in English. "Holocaust" is by far the most common term in popular, journalistic and scholarly usage. Making "Holocaust" redirect to "Shoah" is really a way to promote a POV while evading the central problem - that it's problematic, to say the least, to claim that Roma who were held in Auschwitz for no offence other than their ethnicity, and who were murdered by the same people, in the same way, at the same time, as Jews were somehow victims of a different event. That is real historical issue and we shouldn't evade it. Furthermore, it our duty to explain the full range of usages in the current scholarly literature. --Paul B 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The term Holocaust was not widly used in the 1960's. In the old school days people would say "the Nazi genocide of the Jews". The idea of a Gay Holocaaust was unheard of. Mention of Nazi war crimes in the USSR would cause you to labeled a "pinko"--Woogie10w 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't very widely used in the 1960s, but we aren't in the 1960s, so I don't get your point. I also don't understand what you mean when you say that "mention of Nazi war crimes in the USSR would cause you to labeled a 'pinko'". --Paul B 08:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'The Holocaust' is the much better known term describing the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews during WWII than the Hebrew equivalent 'Shoah'. This is the English Wikipedia, and our terminology has to follow the English language, not Hebrew. All major scholarly sources in the English language call it primarily "The Holocaust", and we base our articles on reliable sources, nor our own whims. Crum375 23:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize this point, but can you suggest another solution. This article has become a mish-mash of information about Nazi Genocide in general. I'm going along with Jpg's suggestion, because it is a compromise. My preferred solution would be to move all information about other Nazi atrocities to another article called Nazi Genocide, and leave this article to be about the Shoah (or THE Holocaust). Any ideas? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We cater to the readers here, not to ourselves. I realize we have a problem with the POV magnet non-Jewish victims section, and that has to be addressed. Perhaps a separate Non-Jewish Civilian Victims of WWII could be a separate article, with those issues focused there. But we can't change the fact that 'The Holocaust' is the primary term, and Shoah is secondary redirect — this is what our best sources tell us, and this is how we should write it. Crum375 23:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Trust me, I don't want any redirects. I want this article to refer to THE Holocaust, the Nazi genocide of European Jews, and create the separate article. But after arguing for a month, we're getting nowhere. And actually, I think we cater to verifiable sources of information. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not an issue of trust, it's an issue of the proper name for the proper article. This article by all the best sources should be called 'The Holocaust'. The fact that there are POV pushers fighting over the non-Jewish victim sections is no reason to change the primary name. The correct move is to create a special article for the non-Jewish civilian victims of WWII. Crum375 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the proposal. How can Holocaust redirect to Shoah and then Shoah link back to Shoah? Literally understood, it looks like a proposal to move this article to Shoah. Beit Or 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose The Holocaust should refer only to the Nazi genocide of the 5.7 million Jews. All of the other 15.2 million victims of the Nazis, including the Roma, belong on a separate page. Orange Marlin is moving in the right direction.--Woogie10w 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose The reason I became involved in editing the article was to improve it. You need to clean up the section on the non-Jewish losses and move it to its own home. This article must make sure all of its facts are absolutely correct. If one part of the article is bad, the rest of the article suffers. This is so important because the scumbags who push the Holocaust denial POV will point to one error and claim everything else is incorrect. We can’t afford to have incorrect information that is not properly sourced in an article on a serious topic like Jewish losses in the Holocaust . If POV pushers want to invent numbers of Gay or Freemason victims nobody really cares, don’t let them drag the rest of article down. Time to chill out to XM 82, I am not entirely old school.--Woogie10w 00:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is clearly the right name for this article. (notice the "The"). There do need to be separate articles (plural) for other topics. Jd2718 01:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Undecided. I can see the sense in the proposal. There's no question that most scholarly and other reliable sources use "the Holocaust" to mean the murder of six million Jews. But even as they define it as such, they go on to talk about the Roma and others, just as this article does (indeed, that's why it was written this way — in order to reflect what the reliable sources do). The United States Holocaust Museum does it the other way round. In the introduction to their main book (forget the name; the one by Berenbaum), they say they have decided not to distinguish between the Jewish and other victims when using the word "Holocaust." Then you turn the page and their first chapter (or one of the first) is called The Holocaust and is about the murder of the Jews. So we are in good company by being conflicted. I can therefore see benefits to having a disambig page called "The Holocaust," which contains an explanation of this conflict, and then redirects the reader to Shoah for Jews, Porajmos for the Roma, etc. There will be some sections where we need to speak about more than one group e.g. medical experiments, but on the whole it would work to have different articles. The only thing against it is that it might reduce the readers' sense of the scale of the murder, and it might marginalize the other groups completely, because Shoah will likely be the article people will turn to most. But it would certainly get rid of some of the edit wars we've seen, with people trying to focus more, or focus less, on certain groups. It would reduce the size of this article, which is a major factor. And it would allow us to bring back certain sections that we had to farm off onto other pages because of size e.g. about people who helped Jews at great cost to themselves, and about governments who willingly took part in the killing. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 06:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose, this article is about "The Holocaust". This is a proper name, and title of this article.... to mean the killing of Jews. This does not mean to exclude others of Nazi genocide. Create an off-shot on Nazi genocide, or "Holocaust" with out "The" in front, and leave this as it is. This is a historical subject, and has been and should be known as such...the proper name, "The Holocaust". There are memorials, museums, books, etc., all attributing this as "The Holocaust" to represent the killing of Jews. To compromise, have a subsection of Nazi genocide of others with a link to another article with a different name, with links to this one and vice versa. ~Jeeny (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I agree with what User Jeeny just said. Many of us have buried Holocaust survivors. Somehow changing the name of Holocaust survivors seems disrespectful. I say this knowing full well that no disrespect was intended. It just seems like the wrong way go about things.
Danny W : Albion moonlight 07:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment-I don't know if I should laugh or cry. A few weeks ago, I argued what most of the "opposes" are writing above. That this article is about THE Holocaust, defined mostly (despite the accusation by a certain editor that I'm pushing a POV) as the Nazi genocide of European Jews. The lead says it, and that lead is about the most stable thing in the article. So, we seem to be coming to a consensus that this article should be about THE Holocaust. Other examples, however atrocious (and frankly they are all atrocious), of Nazi Genocide should have their own article or articles. What support would we have to remove the non-Jewish content (that sounds bad, but it's 1 AM here, and I'm beat) to another article? It's time to do this, and focus this article on THE Holocaust. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 09:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
"POV" stands for "point of view". It is clearly your point of view that the page should only discuss Jewish victims, whether it be called Shaoh or The Holocaust. It is WP policy that we should discuss the range of established POVS, and clearly there is a range. As soon as we start adding groups and listing victim numbers willy-nilly we are in danger of getting an absurdly long list of anyone who ever felt persecuted in any way by the Nazis. If we stick to a properly cited discussion of how scholars actually use the term "The Holocaust", and an account of what happened within the limits defined by that we will avoid that difficulty. Paul B 12:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for the following reasons:
1) Like Woogie10w, i am old school, but with a difference: I am 60 years old, my Holocaust-survivor mother, born in Munich, died two years ago aged 90, and i know what she called it -- and it was not "The Holocaust" and not "Shoah." She called it "The Hitler Time" and so did all of her Holocaust survivor friends and every other older member of my family. However...
2) This is not my family's web site. It is the English language Wikipedia, and ...
3) The term used in English is The Holocaust, not Shoah.
4) A google search on <"The Holocaust" "Jews"> turns up 1,380,000 results.
5) A google search on <"Shoah" "Jews"> turns up 814,000 results.
6} A google search on <"The Hitler Time" "Jews"> turns up 1,630 results.
6) Google results tell me which is the most popular term in English when connected with the important modifying word "Jews".
cat Catherineyronwode 09:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Well said Cat and thanks for the research. I have followed this page for a while now and I definitely think that the proposal was and is a good faith proposal. Orangemarlin is a fine editor and wikipedia is lucky to have him. : Danny W. Albion moonlight 10:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment.The section on the non-Jewish victims is incomplete, the 9 million Soviet Slav victims are ignored and treated with utter contempt by the editors here.--Woogie10w 11:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While technically "The Holocaust" may refer to the Shoah, in practice it seems to be used to encompass most of the Nazi atrocities. For example, holocaust memorials, histories, documentaries, etc are often inclusive of victims identified with homosexuality, disabilities, Masons, et al. Unless a very strong argument can be made for why it's "wrong" to have information on the murders of these different groups rolled up on one page, I don't see what this would accomplish. The fact that some people believe that this page isn't inclusive enough of some groups, does not seem to have a whole lot of bearing on the decision to make such a change. Newtman (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article on the Holocaust should cover only the Nazi genocide of the Jews. However, since you have opened the door and included non Jewish victims of the Nazis I believe that you must include the 9 million victims of Nazi ethnic cleansing in the USSR. These losses were documented at Nurnberg and cannot be ignored or denied. These victims were not killed in air raids or crossfire, they were victims of Nazi genocidal policy. The article lists the deaths of 220,000 Freemasons with the source being Freemasonary for Dummies, yet it ignores 9 million Soviet victims. The header on the section on non Jewish losses in the Holocaust points out that the sources and data need to be improved. The section on non Jewish losses is in real sorry shape and drags the rest of the article down. The editors here need to have a better understanding of what really happened in World War 2.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment.I find to be ironic that the arguments used to ignore Soviet victims of Nazi genocide are the same used by the Holocaust deniers. " They were killed in air raids or crossfire", "the communists killed them" "you can't trust Russian statistical data" ,and "that's just commnunist atrocity propaganda, they were just civilian casualties of war".--Woogie10w (talk) 11:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose for this reason which is sufficient: "The executive director of the World Jewish Congress found what he believes may be the first use of the term "Holocaust" to describe the Nazis' persecution and genocide of the Jews. Elan Steinberg said that in the foreword of an out-of-print 1944 book called “Legal Claims Against Germany,” author Morris Cohen wrote: “Millions of surviving victims of the Nazi holocaust, Jews and non-Jews, will stand before us in the years to come." [1] How can we deny the non-Jews in this article when the 1944 usage of the term did not? I'm support a Shoah article which is solely for the Jewish deaths just not the redirect of this article which is a hijacking of some legitimate work. Alatari (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Imformation I collected the google hits for thes prases to see which was the most popular and/or appropriate. The results were as following-

"The Holocaust" "Jews" = 2,131,008.

"Shoah" "Jews" = 839,000.

"The Hitler Time" "Jews" = 2,080,000.

"Genoside" "World War 2" "Jews" = 1,940,000.

"Genocide" "World War 2" "Jews" = 1,960,000.

"Nazi" "Genoside" "Jews" = 1,590,000.

"Nazi" "Genocide" "Jews" = 1,570,000.

"Nazi" "masicare" "Jews" = 922,000.

"Nazi" "massacre" "Jews" = 970,000.

"Nazi" "Genocide" "Yiddish" = 2.

"Nazi" "Genocide" "Yidds" = 1.

"Nazi" "Genocide" "Yiddishers" = 1.

And so "The Holocaust of the Jews" has a narrow, but clear victory over "The Hitler Time of the Jews" and the "World War 2 Genocide of the Jews"!-- (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Support but proposition is defeated ... From this voting it is clear division between users which support thinking that "The Holocaust should refer only to the Nazi genocide of the Jews" and others so it will be maybe best to try vote if this thinking is right or wrong. In my thinking definition which is saying:
"The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators" US Holocaust Museum
is right definition and all other writing is nationalistic fighting. In my thinking any wikipedia editor which think that Holocaust speak about victims of Russian, Gypsy or any other nationality must read again Wikipedia:No original research policy because US Holocaust Museum together with Yad Vashem are must important institutions in this territory. ---Rjecina) 20:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

started article on the extermination of the Soviet POWs

Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany - please expand, it's millions of deaths. --HanzoHattori 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We must also cover the Nazi genocidal policy in the USSR that took the lives of 12 million Soviet civilians within the 1941 borders of the USSR, 9.5 million were non Jews. This is a reality that cannot be ignored.--Woogie10w 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Human Losses Soviet Union

Wikipedia article on the Consequences of German NazismSee Section Effect on the Soviet Union--Woogie10w (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Please don't cut and paste from other articles to this talk page. Simple links suffice; we're all competent to click and follow them. It's also not news to us that the people of the Soviet Union suffered vast casualties at the hands of the Nazis, and, for that matter, at the hands of their own leadership; we don't need to be convinced of that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
You do need to be reminded of the losses of the USSR caused by Nazi Germany's genocidal policy. The persecution of German Homosexuals is written up and not a word about the losses of the civilian population of the USSR. My posting is justified. I am one person you will never be abel to bully.--Woogie10w 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't sense any bullying whatsoever by Jpgordon, however he did make a good point, it *really* clutters up a talk page (and seems somewhat inappropriate) to post the contents of an entire article into a talk page. We're all on the same side, just trying to make Wikipedia a better place, it's important to remember that.Newtman (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

US Holocaust Memorial Museum on Non Jewish Victims

Please read these links, they will help to improve the article
THE GERMAN ARMY AND THE RACIAL NATURE OF THE WAR AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION-"As a result of these racist fantasies, millions of Soviet civilians were deliberately killed, starved, or worked to death." [6]

POLISH VICTIMS-"It is estimated that the Germans killed at least 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War II-" [7]

Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. New York: New York University Press, 1990.

The actual reality with regard to the Freemason victims of the Nazis according to the USHMM “Because many of the Freemasons who were arrested were also Jews and/or members of the political opposition, it is not known how many individuals were placed in Nazi concentration camps and/or were targeted only because they were Freemasons. Some former lodge members, as individuals, participated in or were associated with German resistance circles; and some were arrested and murdered during World War II.” [9]

We can't shine the spotlight on selected victims and ignore others. Our sources must be credible. The For Dummies series is not what should be on this page.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


Where is the support for the figure of 220,000 victims? This figure must have a source. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, no if ands or buts.(hint, take a peek at the table of losses). The USHMM says we don't have a figure.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The numebr of 200,000 or even 80,000 victims among freemasons is completely ridiculous. On a population of 90 million of Germany the number of freemasons should be guessed at less tan 30,000. In other occupied countries the freemason loges were just forbidden and nearly nobody was sent to a concentration camp. In The Netherlands a major member of the Theosophical Society, more or less comparable to the Freemasonry was appointed by the German occupier as head of an intelligence organisation that should penetrate the resistance, while the Theosophical Society became forbidden! This disgusting person, Johan Gottlieb Crabbendam, was responsible for the death of hundreds of people (both from left and right wing resistance organisations) and became after the war head of the Dutch Secret Police.

Soviet Civilian Losses in WW2-The source for the figure of 9 million civilian deaths

Readers have the right to ask the question, where does this guy come up with a figure of 9 million Soviet civilians killed by the Nazis? The source is Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6 A collection of papers published by the Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995. On page 127 they list 13.2 million civilian deaths in the territory occupied by the Germans( 7.4 million executed, 1.7 million forced labor deaths and 4.1 million victims of famine and disease). This figure is for the USSR in 1941 borders, which includes about 3 million victims in the territories annexed in 1939/40. These losses are included with losses of Poland, the Baltic states and Romania by western historians. It also includes 1 million Jews within the 1939 borders of the USSR. If we take the figure of 13.2 million less 3 million in the annexed territories and 1 million Jews, we come up to 9.2 million non Jewish civilian deaths within the 1939 borders of the USSR.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Stanford University Library Research page cites an American source Michael Clodfelter who estimates 7-12 million Soviet civilian deaths at the hands of the Nazis in addition to 6 million Jewish Holocaust dead. [10]--Woogie10w (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Woogie, Hanzo Hatori started a page on Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany, which I have linked here. Why don't you add productively to that article insead of adding statistics to this talk page? Paul B (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe we should be summarize what the sources say and keep our own POV off this page. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the USHMM should be the foundation on what appears on this page.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The page already has a section of Soviet prisoners. It is legitimate to have such a section. Personally I think we should not have lists of groups, but rather a general section on the inclusion/exclusion debate, but having these short sections is one way of maintaining NPOV. The detailed discussion should go in the main articles on those topics. Ultimately, remember, this is about providing information to people who want to know about it. HH's article can be expanded so that all the information you want included is there - just a click way with a link from here. Paul B (talk)

NPOV again

I haven't been here since October 24th and since then the article still isn't Neutral.

  • From above: The article failed it's Good Article Nomination because of: "4. Neutral point of view?: Though in general, the article is an exemplar of neutrality, I do see some obviously troubling spots. The first paragraph of Jewish resistance ... subjects covered. However, the other half of neutrality is giving space for the representation of all significant views. Sadly, the denial of the Holocaust is a significant view in terms of the amount of published news and source material devoted to it. Obviously, there is not enough space in this article to deal with all the quackery associated with this subject, but a small mention of the existence of deniers, and a simple {{mainarticle}} link is necessary in order to represent all views and achieve good neutrality.
  • And since October 24th despite significant evidence of scholars from many sources including the non-Jews the opening paragraphs have gotten even tighter in excluding non-Jews. Even Orange Marlin gave many supporting websites the non-Jew inclusion and the article continues to get increasingly Jewish only POV. I'm about to tag it {{NPOV}} Morris Cohen wrote: “Millions of surviving victims of the Nazi holocaust, Jews and non-Jews, will stand before us in the years to come." in 1944 I can not in good conscience stand by and watch this denial of the non-Jewish carnage in the main definition. Alatari (talk) 07:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not remove the NPOV tag until we can resolve the dispute that there is controversy over the definition to include or not include non-Jews. In this talk page and even at the U.S. Holocaust museum this debate whether to define as Jew only is occurring and the article isn't NPOV if it doesn't reflect this debate. Alatari (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Donald Niewyk in his Columbia Guide to the Holocaust on Page 52 concerning the definition of the Holocaust "this applied to Jews, Gypsies and the handicapped. This section also makes it clear that other definitions are defended by scholars who deserve a respctful hearing" --Woogie10w (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)The N
Alatari, we do explain the dispute in the first section, which I hope you've read. There is no question that scholars "typically" define the Holocaust as the murder of six million Jews. But that doesn't mean that all do. If you want to expand the section on the dispute, by all means do (or better still create a new page for it, for reasons of length), but please don't keep changing this lead, because it is well-sourced and accurate, and there is consensus for it among the editors who regularly work on this article. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the number of sources that include non-jews are as many as those that do not. You still fail to portray the depth of this dispute over the definition. The U.S. Holocaust Museum includes the other groups and is a very reputable source. I am retagging the NPOV because of the above reasons that still are not satisfied. You also removed a long list of valid sources that support the naming controversy. Alatari (talk) 08:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
We have gone over this before. See the archives, and the rest of this talk page. This article is called The Holocaust, a proper name that most attrubute this as the murder of Jews. Yet, in this article it does mentions the non-Jews. I don't see a NPOV problem at all, so I removed the tag. - Jeeny (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it's brought up again and again doesn't point you to the need to describe the controversy over the definition? I've seen Jews and Roma more than any other definition but editors here at Wikipedia insist on forcing the Jews only in the lead-in. Alatari (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Let me be very clear. You can't say typically or you can't say only Jews if all these organizations and others disagree with the Jewish only definition:
  • Merriam-Webster:often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with "the"
  • Cambridge dictionaries:the killing of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis before and during the Second World War
  • MSN Encarta:genocide of European Jews and others: the systematic extermination of millions of European Jews, as well as Roma, Slavs, intellectuals, gay people, and political dissidents, by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. In popular usage, Holocaust refers particularly to the extermination of European Jews.
  • Bartleby American Heritage Dictionary:The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II
  • JewishGen: The Home of Jewish GenealogyQuestion: How many non-Jewish civilians were murdered during World War II? Alatari 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Webster University Purple Triangle:An Untold Story of the Holocaust Alatari 14:20, 24 October
  • The Florida Center for Instructional TechnologyA Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust - very telling of the current movement to expand the definition Alatari 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • United States Holocaust Memorial MuseumThe United States Holocaust Museum search for Jehovah Witnesses Alatari 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You are reaching the point of tendentious editing. Generally, THE Holocaust refers to the mass genocide of Jews by the Nazis. Even your so-called sources above (many of which would be considered tertiary sources that are no better than referring to Wikipedia as a source) don't support your POV. I would suggest you stop and help build an article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually the sources you listed support the inclusion of other groups. Scroll up this talk page to where you listed them. The point of tendentious editing was reached months ago. Your claim on my sources is ludicrous. Merriam-Webster, Cambridge, Encarta, Bartelby, United States Holocaust Museum, and College Curriculum planners are tertiary Wikipedia citing source? Colleges are against using Wikipedia as a citable source for papers. Alatari (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Alatari, if you are knowledgeable about the Holocaust, please start discussing what the scholarly sources are saying that you think we're not emphasizing enough (and name your sources). But you can't in all seriousness expect us to read The Florida Center for Instructional Technology/A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust. Please don't keep changing or tagging the lead. Bring your (good) sources here, and let's discuss them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the most populous states' college curriculum guides is what students will be taught and very much of interest. The U.S. Curriculum guide would be interesting to viewAlatari (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
SV, the source have been brought over and over again, and yet Orange Marlin and yourself keep repeating the same mantra. Even today you have reverted saying that the "sources are in the footnote" exclude non-Jews, even though neither of the sources in the footnote say that the term Holocaust "typically do not include" non-Jews . The EB includes 'millions of others' and the Columbia Encyclopedia is misrepresented, since it has chapters on other victims, as has already been pointed out to you on this talk page at least twice (Woogie quotes the statement that according to the CGH the word "this applied to Jews, Gypsies and the handicapped"). Even if they did say what you claim, isolated statements from two sources are nothing like good evidence that something is "typically" the case. However, the main problem is that the wording is simply needlessly provocative and dismissive in tone. There's no need for such phrasing. Paul B (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "typically" doesn't have to be in any of the sources; otherwise all Wikipedia articles would be nothing but a series of quotations. We read the sources and we see that most scholarly and even tertiary sources, when discussing the Holocaust, discuss the murder of Europe's Jews, and either don't mention other groups, or mention them peripherally. It's hard to know what to say to someone who disputes this, because it's demonstrably true. I also don't see how the phrase "typically" is dismissive in tone. What would you write instead? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course the word typically does not have to be there, but the meaning does. And for heaven's sake, no-one disputes that Jews are always discussed. That's not the issue. Please try to understand what is actually being disputed. And I've already said what I'd write instead. Please read the Talk page. My jaw drops when I read statements like "It's hard to know what to say to someone who disputes this, because it's demonstrably true." It's hard to know what to say to someone who so completely fails to to understand what is at issue. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sources below. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources again

Here are the sources in the article for the sentence: "While there were other groups of people killed by the Nazi regime, scholars typically do not include them in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews ..." Tertiary sources included so we can see what other encyclopedias are saying:

  • Weissman, Gary. Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Attempts to Experience the Holocaust, Cornell University Press, 2004, ISBN 0801442532, p. 94: "Kren illustrates his point with his reference to the Kommissararbefehl. 'Should the (strikingly unreported) systematic mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war be included in the Holocaust?' he asks. Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that 'the Holocaust' should refer strictly to those events involving the systematic killing of the Jews'."
  • "The Holocaust: Definition and Preliminary Discussion", Yad Vashem: "The Holocaust, as presented in this resource center, is defined as the sum total of all anti-Jewish actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945: from stripping the German Jews of their legal and economic status in the 1930s, to segregating and starving Jews in the various occupied countries, to the murder of close to six million Jews in Europe. The Holocaust is part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and murder of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazis."
  • Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, p.45: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II."
  • "Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question" (emphasis added).
  • "Holocaust", Encarta: "Holocaust, the almost complete destruction of Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II (1939-1945). The leadership of Germany’s Nazi Party ordered the extermination of 5.6 million to 5.9 million Jews (see National Socialism). Jews often refer to the Holocaust as Shoah (from the Hebrew word for “catastrophe” or “total destruction”)."
  • Paulson, Steve. "A View of the Holocaust", BBC: "The Holocaust was the Nazis' assault on the Jews between 1933 and 1945. It culminated in what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe', in which six million Jews were murdered."
  • "The Holocaust", "The Holocaust was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War 2."
  • "Holocaust—Definition", Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies: "HOLOCAUST (Heb., sho'ah). In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. The mass extermination of Jews has become the archetype of GENOCIDE, and the terms sho'ah and "holocaust" have become linked to the attempt by the Nazi German state to destroy European Jewry during World War II … One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of 1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world."
  • Also see the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies list of definitions: "Holocaust: A term for the state-sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945."
  • "The Holocaust", Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "(the Holocaust) the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II."
  • The 33rd Annual Scholars' Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches defines the Holocaust as "the Nazi attempt to annihilate European Jewry," cited in Hancock, Ian. "Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview", Stone, Dan. (ed.) The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York 2004, pp. 383-396.
    • Hancock, Ian isn't the author of the above definition he quotes someone else. Within the article his view is clear: "[Regarding] the persecution of Gypsies, it should be noted that their plight equaled that of the Jews." which puts him clearly on the side of including Gypsies in the Holocaust definition. Alatari (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Bauer, Yehuda. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2001, p.10.
  • Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945. Bantam, 1986, p.xxxvii: "'The Holocaust' is the term that Jews themselves have chosen to describe their fate during World War II."

SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 08:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources can easily be traded and have been . Long lists can be produced by both sides and have been. Isolated quotations from the same source saying both "only JewsW" and "others too" can be used and have been (the Columbia Encyclopedia being one). It is simply pointlessly and willfully provocative to stress exclusiveness. Even several of the sources here do not say that this is a majority view - ust that "many" take it. Altari has already linked Ronald Hilton's 2005 statement that "most sources" include non-Jewish victims. There is clearly not justification for dogmatic assertion on this and a balanced statement would be far more appropriate. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The article will never achieve Class A unless it gets balanced it is so very well written otehrwise and so close to Class A Alatari (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What would Ronald Hilton have to do with this?
I think to help settle it, could you please provide, say, three academic sources who are specialists in the Holocaust — that is, university professors (including professors emeritus), whose field of study is the Holocaust — who say what you are saying, with book and page references. Then we can read them, and read the sources who say differently, and make a judgment. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
"What would Ronald Hilton have to do with this?" Perhaps if you read the talk page you will find out. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm asking you to tell me. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes please Paul B I am having trouble keeping up with all of this . Sorry if I am slowing things down . I know who Hilton is but I am not sure how much importance to place on what he has to say. : Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 06:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ronald Hilton is in no way an expert on Holocaust Studies. Holocaust Studies is a huge field, primarily within History, and there are many notable academic historians trained in historiography, Jewish, German, and European 20th century history, who have publishd in peer-reviewed journals and acadmic presses. I think it is more than fair, it is indulgent, for Slim Virgin to ask you to provide only three such experts, who state that the convention is to use the word "Holocuast" to refer to other things besides the genocide against the Jews. Three shouldn't be hard given your claim to have lots and lots of sources. So let's see them. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please investigate the sources I'm listing below. Some scholars prepared the teaching guides to the Holocaust; the one in Florida receives more web hits than the USHMM. Alatari (talk)
Indulgent??? I have provided example after example after example, as have other editors. I am fed up with having to say the same thing repeatedly. It is an absurd demand, since the information is all here on the talk page. See the section Definition of the Holocaust and the section below. Also note how SV cuts off the definition in the Columbia Guide in her list of sources above this one, and compare that with the full passage quoted in the section below this one. You yourself in a previous post said that we should rely on definitions given by Holocaust memorial museums. Well the definitions from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum have been posted here. There is a long list below. As for Ronald Hilton, the article in question was added by Altari, just as I said. I has nothing to do with me. I simply stated that Altari linked to it. It's linked in the section below this one after the list. All you or anyone has to do is type "Hilton" into "find". Why am I expected to retype and then retype again the same information over and over.
It's actually a rather complicated text, since it's difficult to decipher as presented online. It's an email forwarded by Hilton to a Holocaust denier (or "revisionist") who is complaining about ethnocentric definitions. The substance of the message is not written by Hilton but by Cameron Sawyer, and is a digest of definitions of the holocaust - of very varying reliability from a number of sources. One should certainly reject some of them, but it's a long list. Paul B (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I did not read the full interchange between Hilton and the denier but the response had more than 30 source URLs and seemed to be important to check out. It's been timeconsuming and only through a few of them. Alatari (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the definition provicded by the United States Holocause Memorial Museum: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." As you suggest, I am quite happy using this definition. The UNHMM also notes that the Nazis targeted other groups, and I certainly believe that this article should make a similar observation, with links to other articles as appropriate. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The USHMM isn't the only viewpoint and at Wikipedia we have to represent a NPOV even in the opening definition or fail to ever achieve Class A status. Alatari (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The full account given by the USHMM is as follows: ""he Holocaust is the state-sponsored systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary victims -- six million were murdered; Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), people with mental and physical disabilities, and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons." This information was already on the page. I find it very very sad that valued editors will not recognise the simple fact that primary victims does not mean the same as only victims. I think we need a section discussing this debate, not endless argument on the talk page which produces an unnecessarily unpleasant atmosphere, especially when editors crop definitions to suit their point of view, as SV has done. Paul B (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the sources above are misrepresented and I'll add the complete paragraphs. Also I will continue to compile a list of popular and well-sourced sources/websites below. Alatari (talk) 01:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

sources with POV classifications

Some of the list is posted above here by Stephan Schulz and here where this discussion was had before by Dna-Dennis. It was also discussed here and dsgoen points were most poignant.
This list is to determine the various common POV on the definition of the Holocaust and I'm no where near finished.
It should be noted that multiple definitions can be found at the same website in some cases as if this debate is internal or very recent.
From what I've read there are 3000 texts published on this subject now.
I'm finding some of the sources I once thought were Jewish only definitions include others in the first paragraphs.

unclassified - just added

Jewish only

  • Weissman, Gary. Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Attempts to Experience the Holocaust, Cornell University Press, 2004, ISBN 0801442532, p. 94: "Kren illustrates his point with his reference to the Kommissararbefehl. 'Should the (strikingly unreported) systematic mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war be included in the Holocaust?' he asks. Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that 'the Holocaust' should refer strictly to those events involving the systematic killing of the Jews'."
  • "The Holocaust: Definition and Preliminary Discussion", Yad Vashem: "The Holocaust, as presented in this resource center, is defined as the sum total of all anti-Jewish actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945: from stripping the German Jews of their legal and economic status in the 1930s, to segregating and starving Jews in the various occupied countries, to the murder of close to six million Jews in Europe. The Holocaust is part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and murder of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazis."
  • "Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question" (emphasis added).
  • "Holocaust", Encarta: "Holocaust, the almost complete destruction of Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II (1939-1945). The leadership of Germany’s Nazi Party ordered the extermination of 5.6 million to 5.9 million Jews (see National Socialism). Jews often refer to the Holocaust as Shoah (from the Hebrew word for “catastrophe” or “total destruction”)." (others definition is also listed at this website)
  • Museum of Tolerance Online at the The Simon Wiesenthal Center: "The destruction of some 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their followers in Europe between the years 1933-1945. Other individuals and groups were persecuted and suffered grievously during this period, but only the Jews were marked for complete and utter annihilation."(others definition is also listed at this website)
  • "The Holocaust", Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "(the Holocaust) the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II."
  • The 33rd Annual Scholars' Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches defines the Holocaust as "the Nazi attempt to annihilate European Jewry," cited in Hancock, Ian. "Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview", Stone, Dan. (ed.) The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York 2004, pp. 383-396. (others definition is also listed in this article)
  • Bauer, Yehuda. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2001, p.10.
  • Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945. Bantam, 1986, p.xxxvii: "'The Holocaust' is the term that Jews themselves have chosen to describe their fate during World War II."

Jewish and generic others

Jewish and others with blood (genetic) basis

Jewish and others excluding POW's

Jewish and Gypsies

There are ways to show how popular and wide-read these sources are on the definition of the Holocaust and I will add them where I can. Help would be appreciated
Ignoring sources like this in the lead-in and constant article instability seems to be why was quickfailed it for good article nomination by VanTucky. My objection to the word 'typical' is in it's numeric quality. Paul Bs' "Some scholars only discuss the murders of Jews under the term The Holocaust, while others include Roma and other victims" seems the best NPOV opening definition I've ever read and perfect for our uses. This is an attempt to fall in line with VanTucky suggestions to get it to good article status. Anyone feel free to grow this list. Alatari (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a microcosm of Holocaust Politics

Scroll down to Hilton's original message and see how this Wikipedia Holocaust page is a microcosm of what is occurring in academic circles. He hits on the backround politics The Holocaust definition in a detailed manner easily predicting most all the comments and revision attempts currently happening to this article. Wikipedia is by it's nature a battleground for interest groups and we need to realize this. The controversy over the Holocaust definition should be portrayed to keep this article NPOV Alatari (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

mealy mouthed weasel words

From the Wikipedia article on the Holocaust
While there were other groups of people killed by the Nazi regime, scholars typically do not include them in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,
Donald Niewyk in his Columbia Guide to the Holocaust on Page 52 concerning the definition of the Holocaust this applied to Jews, Gypsies and the handicapped This section also makes it clear that other definitions are defended by scholars who deserve a respectful hearing"

I consider “scholars typically do not include them in the definition of the Holocaust” to be mealy mouthed weasel words that misinform the readers. The editors here need to become familiar with the sources that are cited in the article, and use these sources rather than adding their own misinformed POV--Woogie10w (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Please read this Wikipedia link, it will help to improve this article:
Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words--Woogie10w (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is bad. I'd much prefer a neutral phrase:
"Some scholars only discuss the murders of Jews under the term The Holocaust, while others include Roma and other victims" or something like that. "Typically do not include them" is dubious and unnecessarily provocative. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I picked up the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust in the Library yesterday-- Woogie10w (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. How many editors will it take to get the wording more in line with WP:NPOV? Alatari (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally we are beginning to make some progress here. I will be back after my Tae Kwan Do class.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see the consensus against your agenda is overwhelming. : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

My hidden agenda is make this page cover only the Nazi genocide of the European Jews. The Nazi repression of other groups Roma, disabled Germans, Poles, Soviet POWs and Soviet civilians should be covered on separate pages. I realize that my hidden agenda has not even the remotest chance even being adopted by the editors here because it is not politically correct. Since my hidden agenda will probably never be adopted I am trying to the present facts regarding the non Jewish victims of Hitler Germany with credible sources. I am encouraging the editors to familiarize themselves with the sources cited on the page such as the USHMM webpage and the Columbia guide to the Holocaust. I am insisting that the editors here avoid weasel words and cite the sources of their edits. This is my hidden agenda. I am from the old school, I believe the Holocaust refers to the genocide of the Jews. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Albion moonlight. Provide your reliable sources, thanks. - Jeeny (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Woogie, we can't base this article entirely on the USHMM webpage and the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. It would be good if you could bring knowledge of scholarly sources if you want to change the emphasis. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Am I alone in finding Woogie's "hidden agenda" utterly incomprehesible? At the top of this section Woogie quotes the Columbia Encyclopdia saying of the word holocaust that "this applied to Jews, Gypsies and the handicapped" as if we should accept this definition and reject the "typically does not include" one. He then proceeds to insist that the CEH is wrong, or is politically correct, or something and that only Jews should be included. I feel it will be almost impossible to come to any consensus if we don't have a clear sense of what arguments or positions are being debated. Paul B (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No Paul B you are not alone. The words Wikipedia: tendentious editing come to mind but I am reluctant to take the issue to an admin notice board until I am absolutely positve that we are being purposefully gamed I am not sure that Woogie has ever actually edited an article. If he or she has not done so it explains a lot. I will check into that aspect of it when I finish typing this message. Danny Weintraub : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is becoming quite tedious, and I don't think I'm alone in finding his comments rather obtuse, and in getting tired of him behaving in a somewhat condescending manner, acting as though we're a group of dunces that he needs to "educate" and "guide". It's not conducive to a healthy editing environment. Newtman (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Woogies editing history goes back to 2006 but he does not do very much article editing Perhaps we should take a kindly approach and remind him when he does something that we find to be offensive. : Albion moonlight (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, he has contributed a fair amount to WWII related articles and (at least I think) has certainly shown his value as a Wikipedia editor. But yes, I think all of us need to sometimes be reminded when we tread on the toes of others, so to speak. Newtman (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to suggest that his editing history was a problem. I hope the others will go along with the idea that kind reminders are preferable to seeking sanctions. I have seen these things get out of hand. : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Donald Niewyk in his Columbia Guide to the Holocaust on Page 52 concerning the definition of the Holocaust this applied to Jews, Gypsies and the handicapped This section also makes it clear that other definitions are defended by scholars who deserve a respectful hearing" Get the book, read it. It is your lead source, become familiar with it--Woogie10w (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Woogie but you do not get to order us around. You need to provide us with proper citations and at least act as if you think we are your equals. This is not a classroom and you are not our teacher. Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, lets discuss sources. I consider the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the USHMM website to be respected sources that should be the foundation for this page, but not the only sources used.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The list of non-Jewish victims needs to be cleaned up. The "politicals" 1,500,000 has no support at all, the 200,000 Poles is original research by an editor, the 220,000 Freemasons is backed up with "Freemasons for Dummies", 15,000 Spanish prisoners is a nice plug for Spanish speaking victims of fascism. The majority of Polish victims cited by the USHMM are excluded, no mention of Soviet victims is allowed by the editors. They have concluded that the USHMM and the the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust be disregarded even though they mention that some scholars include Poles and Soviet civilians as Holocaust victims. Let the readers decide, we should present the sources as they are and not edit them to agree to our own POV. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously refusing to listen to me and the others. The reality of this situation is that you are being disruptive. I am going to ignore you for the most part. I was really hoping that you would address our concerns. : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"Our concerns"- What may they be?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Our concerns should be that the way the world is going now in the terms of war, we may have another such genocide as the Holocaust on a lesser scale. The fact that the world is more humane now means nothing. There are still people out there who believe that the Holocaust never happened and the world was humane enough then to vote why was it any less structured than the world we live in today? - Carislily

Wikipedia policy of Neutral Point of view

I believe the reason you are ignoring me is the fact that this article is in violation of the Wikipedia policy of Neutral Point of view. Your lead source the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust points out that scholars have different views on the scope of Holocaust victims and that they deserve a respectful hearing. The editors here need to become familiar with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy--Woogie10w (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And you are ignoring some of the fundamental precepts of Wikipedia Etiquette, to seek consensus in a positive manner, and to nurture a positive editing environment. Regardless of your position on this article (which I don't necessarily disagree with), no one is going to take you seriously until you start behaving in a reasonable manner and start treating other editors as you would yourself would like to be treated. Newtman (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Nope, people are ignoring you because you preach at them as if you were a teacher addressing a class of eight-year-olds. I actually think you have a point about the definition of the Holocaust in terms of which groups of victims are 'counted' as part of it, but I'm damned if I can be bothered to help out someone with your aggravating tone. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Aw shucks, I am just the junkyard dog--Woogie10w (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I want the Holocaust article to have a NPV, all I ask is that an senior editor at Wikipedia check the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust which is the lead source listed in the article. The author, Donald Niewyck, presents a professional and balanced exposition of the different opinions of scholars regarding the definition of the Holocaust and the other groups besides the Jews that are defined as victims by scholars. The article needs a balanced presentation of the divergent opinions regarding the non-Jewish Holocaust victims that is backed up with sources. The section on non-Jewish victims does not present a NPV with an balanced presentation of the views of scholars on this topic.---Woogie10w (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)-[[
I have spent the past two weeks trying to get the editors here to present a balanced view of the non-Jewish victims. The posts I have made are links to the USHMM website and the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. The editors of the page need to present the divergent opinions of scholars regarding non Jewish victims and let the readers decide for themselves . Many people, like myself, believe that the Holocaust should include only the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide. There are others who believe that other groups be included with the Holocaust. The scholars who present this POV should have a fair hearing on the page and not be censored by the editors at Wikipedia. For example the following scholars include Roma, Gays , Slavs, Poles ,political prisoners, disabled persons, Freemasons and Jehovah Witnesses as victims while the following scholars do not include them with the Holocaust, for the following reasons. Present the pros and cons for the readers with a NPOV. This is why I am making such a big fuss--Woogie10w (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus. If there is a dispute over content it is settled by consensus. The arbitration is full of "senior editors" but they never go against consensus when it comes to article content. Neutrality is in the eye of the beholder. You need to understand how wiki works and be prepared to be disappointed if it does not go your way. : Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the article should cover only the genocide of the Jews. This is the view held by most people in my generation. I realize that this is not possible because the contemporary definition of the Holocaust now includes other groups, Roma, disabled persons, Gays as well as Poles and Soviet Slavs.
To fix the article I think we should move the case studies of the other victims to the bottom of the page. There should be a clear explanation that many scholars use the term Holocaust to refer only to the Nazi genocide of the Jews, but some scholars include other victims of the Nazis. The Section at the bottom should be labeled “Other Victims of the Nazis” The USHMM website should be used as the main source for the Other Victims section because it has impeccable integrity and is easily accessed by readers. I find it hard to understand why Freemasons and German homosexuals get a special sections even though they suffered only a very tiny percentage of the 17 million deaths caused by Hitler Germany. The Poles and Soviet Slavs suffered 7.5 million dead( according to the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust) due to Nazi ethnic cleansing and forced labor and only rate links to other Wikipedia articles. This needs to be addressed with sections on Poles and Soviet civilians. We must also point out that Slavs were unequal victims , 10% died in Nazi hands compared to 80-90% of the Jews. On the other hand many Poles were anti-Semites who aided the Germans in the Holocaust. One million Soviets were volunteers in the Nazi war machine that participated in the Holocaust. The section on the Freemasons should be corrected, the USHMM website should be our guide with regard to the Freemasons. The little table on the other victims needs to be deleted. The figures are wrong and it causes the entire article to lack credibility. There is a jumbo tag there noting that it should be cleaned up.--Woogie10w (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe at this point, instead of endlessly talking about the changes you feel the rest of us should make, you should try and be an active participant, and start working on areas that you feel need improvement. If they are reasonable changes, chances are you won't run into a bunch of opposition, if they're not, at least we'll be getting somewhere instead of just being stuck in this circle of pointless back and forth chit chat. If you feel you can only make major changes, then I suggest you make a formal request for consensus on said major issue. If you don't feel capable of doing this, either find an editor who is, or maybe your time and energy would be better spent on other articles. Cheers. Newtman (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
And another thing, please please please start using the preview function instead of endlessly correcting your previous posts. It makes it far more difficult to track the history of a page. Newtman (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A personal note, I have read the standard histories of the Holocaust by Reitlinger, Hilberg, Levin,Davidowitz, Gilbert and Bauer. The junkyard dog has real sharp teeth, not just a loud bark. --Woogie10w (talk) 05:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Good for you, but it really has very little bearing on your status in relation to other editors. You seem to be continually interested in trying to assert your authority over the rest of us, but no one is buying it. If you're so informed, then please by all means go ahead and contribute instead of cluttering up the talk page. Newtman (talk) 05:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounded like a threat Woogie. The fact of the matter is that Consensus trumps the individual in every case. Yes you are allowed to make edits. Please do but do not be surprised if they get changed or reverted. Your teeth are no sharper than anyone elses. Please try to be less combative. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on my proposed fix for the article? Are you willing to work with me? --Woogie10w (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You haven't proposed a fix for the article. When you do so, people can work with you. Why not do what I suggested on your talk page: re-write a section yourself, and post it here saying "I think the bit that currently reads 'xxxx' would be better written as 'yyyy'". Do the work yourself and stop badgering other editors. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Read my comments from last night, I proposed a fix.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My loud bark is warn you that the section on non-Jewish victims needs to be cleaned up, my sharp teeth are for the Holocaust deniers, my master is the truth. Magna est veritas et praevalebit. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(EC) No, with all due respect, you said how you would like to see it fixed. Quote:
"There should be a clear explanation that many scholars use the term Holocaust to refer only to the Nazi genocide of the Jews, but some scholars include other victims of the Nazis."
So write a clear explanation yourself. Quote:
"The section on the Freemasons should be corrected, etc"
So write a correct version yourself. Your current MO of telling other editors what should be done is actively unhelpful, as it wastes a lot of time and does nothing for the article. Anyway, I've wasted enough time here myself, and I'm going to dip out of this conversation. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Squiddy this is getting to be very tiresome. : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"On the other hand many Poles were anti-Semites who aided the Germans in the Holocaust."

Excuse me? How does this sentiment become incorporated into a speech that's supposed to be a plea for more neutrality?
Maybe you could find a way to include Dr. Richard C. Lukas in your vast library of Holocaust literature:

“Holocaust denial makes frequent straw-man appearances in the U.S. media. I have never seen this thesis seriously advanced in any reputable venue. Yet, across the spectrum, from left to right, the doctrine of Polish complicity in the Holocaust—a similarly insolent deception—cannot be recognized for what it is. No group of people, gentile or Jew, has a monopoly on goodness or evil."

pixiequix (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Read this,most Poles turned their backs on the Jews---GUTMAN, Y. AND S.KRAKOWSKI: Unequal victims, Poles and Jews during World war II, New York, Holocaust library, 1986--Woogie10w (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is often said about Poles, and I'm saying that it's an insolent deception at best.
And besides, if you wanna talk about people turning their backs, I think Jerzy Kosinski said it best in the book Passing By:

"When angrily asked at a Holocaust conference what the Poles did to save Jews,
Kosinski snapped back: "What did the Jews do to save the Poles?"

Perhaps you can answer his question.

pixiequix (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"What did the Jews do to save the Poles?"
138,700 died fighting in the Soviet Army to liberate Poland.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It was more of a rhetorical question.

You see, my concern is that Jewish and Polish peoples were both considered as good as dead to those who occupied their lands. And Jews and Poles were only two among many others that were considered inferior and scheduled for annihilation. So, why is it that even though Jews and Poles were among the hunted, and their invaders and occupants were the hunters, there's still so much finger pointing going on?... It appears to be primarily rooted in bitterness.

People in the discussions above made ominous suggestions about the possibility of something like another Holocaust occurring in the modern age, and with this type of behavior being the average norm, I'd say that's a definite possibility. Because there's really no better way to keep an entire group of people divided, than to encourage divisiveness amongst themselves.

All of the people who suffered did so at the hands of a dark and calculating force. I feel that it's about time for ALL of the trodden upon to join together and speak out against the intolerance that nearly destroyed them. In other words, Jews and Poles could be doing something constructive together, rather than continuing to engage in this destructive bickering amongst themselves.

pixiequix (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

IBM's and other Big Businesses Role in the Holocaust

In the section on compliance of German institutions it only mentions that Dehomag provided the punch card machines that allowed for the organization of the Holocaust. Dehomag was created by IBM so that it could continue to do business with the Nazis because Roosevelt finally made it illegal after the beginning of WWII for American firms to continue their business with the Nazis. There is also no section talking about the firms that made money by being complicit in the actions of the Holocaust. IBM is just the tip of the iceberg, there should be more information about just what roles businesses played in the holocaust if we are going to provide truly complete information on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Make one then. You seem to know and care about the subject and no-one's objected in over a month.
And please sign your posts. Ecth (talk) 12:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to second paragraph of lede

I would like to raise a concern about the second paragraph of the lede. The original version reads as follows:

While there were other groups of people killed by the Nazi regime, scholars typically do not include them in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,[3] or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll, including non-Jews, is estimated at between 9 and 11 million.[4]

The problems I see here are: this version rather glosses over the death of at the very least, 3 million people. This should be given its own mention, without immediately referring back to the scholarly definition which excludes them. I think the current version does a terrible disservice to the dead. Also, it refers to people in these groups as "non-Jews". I doubt that the Roma, Poles, Slavs, Jehovah's Witnesses, gay men, transsexual people, Socialists, Communists, mentally retarded, mentally ill, and physically disabled people who were killed by the Nazis personally identify as "non-Jews". I do not consider it appropriate for us to define them in terms of their not being Jewish. Obviously, being "not Jewish" did not spare their lives. The current version simply does not give enough mention to these millions who were killed. My suggestions for the second paragraph reads as follows:

Scholars typically define the Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."[3] However, people from many other social groups were targeted and slaughtered under the Nazi regime, and their numbers contribute to the total tally of Holocaust victims. Taking into account all the victims, the death toll is estimated at between 9 and 11 million.[4]

I feel that this is version is an improvement because the meaning is stated far more clearly. First, it is made clear that scholars define the term "the Holocaust" as regards to the Jewish people only. Second, it states that other groups were persecuted and killed under the Nazi regime. Third, it gives an estimate of how many more people in addition to the Jews were killed. Particularly good is the fact that this version conveniently works in the link to the Holocaust victims article, which discusses the greater breadth of the Nazi peril.

Since my attempt to include this version was reverted by Newtman without much explanation, I would appreciate it if ze and others would weigh in on this proposal. I am open to suggestions on the wording or grammatical structure. If you think any elements of the previous version are lost in this version, I am sure they can be reinstated. The elements I find most important are: refraining from defining these groups as "non-Jews", including the link to the Holocaust victims article, and giving a more frank mention of this terrible aspect of the Nazi regime. Please share your thoughts. Thank you. Photouploaded (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, SlimVirgin has now made another edit which expands the second paragraph substantially. This edit it also seems to reinstate many other edits further down in the article, so it may be reverted, however, I do support an expanded version that mentions the specific groups. Photouploaded (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi PU, I went back to the version of the lead from a few months ago that had strong consensus and was stable for some time. In it, we mention the other groups, but we also add that many scholars do not include them in the definition. We then have a long list of sources showing that. It makes the lead demonstrably true, but not in any way dismissive or disrespectful of those groups. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I like what Slim virgin has done, and I also recommend that the internal link added by PU be allowed to stay put. : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with what SV has done. However, typical of this project, we aren't getting anywhere. THE Holocaust, based upon a wealth of scholarly writings, is ONLY about the genocide of Jews by Nazis. I don't get where certain editors, for some odd reason, believe that THE Holocaust includes other ethnic groups, and also believe that the definition implicitly or explicitly demeans or denigrates the horrors that the Nazis did to other ethnic groups. Why isn't this article specifically about THE Holocaust. I don't get it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a "belief". See Holocaust victims; the Nazi regime sought to eradicate many groups they found undesirable or a threat to their power. Certainly we can note the definition of the term "the Holocaust" as given by scholars. However, we must not glaze over the horrors against other groups that were conducted alongside the slaughter of the Jews. Clearly they are significant enough for mention in the lede. I hope you can respond without resorting to the foul language you used at Talk:Pregnancy. Photouploaded (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
It is unbelievable how dense some editors are being. I've listed numbers of reputable sources of scholars who do not include only Jewish peoples and have more coming. Even Holocaust Museums of other countries include the Roma in the fundamental definition yet we still fight over keeping paragraph 2 as is. Some of the sources in footnote 3 are truncated in a way to mislead. User:Orangemarlin are you actually reading the sources yourself or going by what others tell you? Alatari (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
They are not truncated to mislead. For example, the first one says: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." There is no need to continue with the author's opinion about that common definition. What we need to know is whether that is the common definition, and he says it is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Where is that author getting his information? If we don't trust his entire opinion then goto his sources and bypass him. Alatari (talk) 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
He's an expert. He's read the literature. He's therefore in a position to say "most scholars say this or that." We quote him because he's an expert.
Look, neither "side" can have what they want here. One side says "The Holocaust is widely regarded as being only about the murder of the Jews." That is true. But the other side says "But scholars talk about the murders of other groups too!" That is also true. Therefore, at Wikipedia, we say "Most scholars define the Holocaust as the murder of the Jews, but they also mention the murder of other groups, and here's a bit of information about those other groups."
I really can't see the difficulty here. All we are doing is reporting what is out there. We're not inventing it. We're not distorting it. We're not trying to suppress it. We're just saying: here is what the scholars say. Even if what they say is outrageous, in the opinion of some of us, here it is. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
His opinion isn't the only opinion in the literature. All of the teaching sites I've visited have a more expansive definition and many of the museum sites but we are insisting on saying 'typical'. The distortion is not representing the range of opinions. This source: "The 33rd Annual Scholars' Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches defines the Holocaust as "the Nazi attempt to annihilate European Jewry," cited in Hancock, Ian. "Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview", Stone, Dan. (ed.) The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York 2004, pp. 383-396." is being used to support a Jewish only def. yet Ian Hancock's article is an argument for including the Roma.
The current text looks fine. Jewish peoples stressed in the first paragraph and the other groups stressed in the second paragraph with 'many' replacing 'typical'. The fact that the definition seems to be evolving even on long enduring websites seems to be a notable phenomena. Is the Teacher's Guide or some other politically important sites having an impact on the definition? Pressure from Gypsy groups in the mid 1980's till now have got to partly responsible. Alatari (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made edits to the second paragraph, which ended in this version. I made two changes: the first was to slightly expand the list of non-Jewish persecuted groups according to Holocaust victims. The second was to swap the placement of the second and third sentences. I think this order makes more sense: first, we list the other groups; second, we list their total numbers; and third, we explain that scholarly definitions of the term exclude them. This makes more sense to me than the previous version which: mentioned the groups, mentioned that scholars exclude them, and then tallied the total. Thoughts are welcome and please, be calm. Photouploaded (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's too verbose and no definitions I've read don't include the words "others who did not belong to the 'Aryan race'". A simpler all inclusive sentence would be: "Other Holocaust victims were persecuted and killed by the regime, including some Slavic peoples; Soviet POW's; Roma; people considered non-"Aryan race"; the handicapped; non-heterosexuals and political opponents and religious dissidents." a more concise: "Political movements by victims such as the Roma have lead to some scholars widening the definition to include other Holocaust victims. Still many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,[6]" since the Holocaust victims and the rest of this article explain these victims in detail. Alatari (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I also feel this is too wordy, and preferred the previous version. Also, I don't think lesbians were killed. It was gay men who were targeted, as I recall. And we can't just say Poles, because we're citing them over and above the Jews who were killed in Poland. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Reworked it according to suggestions. Have a look. Photouploaded (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The chart in Nazi concentration camp badges seems an excellent guideline to how we organize this 2nd paragraph. Those that were marked for speedy execution listed first, those worked so hard as to only be able to survive weeks or months next then those that had the highest chance of survival last. Attributing numbers and quantities to peoples grief seems extra heartless but what criterion can we adopt to be fair and stabilize this paragraph? Alatari (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I had changed the "many" in the following sentence to "some" because "many" seems to imply "more than half." (Yes, I misused the word consensus in my description of the change) In current scholarship, it is not true that more than half of Holocaust scholars consider it to be a singlularly Jewish Holocaust.

Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,[5] or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question."

My thinking was that the very minor change would simply not mislead people into thinking that "Holocaust" automatically referred to Jewish genocide particularly. (For example -- if they were looking for information about the genocide of Jehovah's Witnesses, they would keep reading) In any case, I thought it was a minor little thing, so if it means that much to you, go ahead and keep it--I made the change because it didn't seem to be a big deal. Grumpy otter (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Jewish resistance

Jewish resistance is claimed to have a POV. I'm not seeing it but it seems to be an obstacle to getting this article to Class A. Any thoughts on a rewrite? Alatari (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should try to get GA for this article. First, it's largely a meaningless designation, because standards vary enormously. Secondly, the article is unlikely ever to be stable enough, because whichever course we chart, others will arrive with strong views in the opposite direction. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Paul, I think Orangemarlin just made a mistake and didn't realize those words were part of the quotes. I almost made the same mistake myself when I first looked at it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly. But OM has shown no sign of actually even listening to the POV he dislikes. Paul B (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the AGF SV; I missed the quotes. But no thanks to PB. But many thanks for the personal fucking attack. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep it civil, or take it elsewhere. Newtman (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It is civil. Don't threaten me. Deal with the personal attacks, not your perception of what may or may not be civil. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
LOL, you think that was a threat? Thanks for putting a smile on my face, needed that ;) Newtman (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
You have a long history of responding to comments on talk pages with bullying, insults and personal abuse. You have also shown that you are totally unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion on this page, since you simply ignore or attempt to suppress evidence that has been repeatedly presented here. It is difficult to assume good faith when the very quotations you were claiming to be OR have been posted and discussed on this page over and over. You should have been familiar with them. Paul B (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I forgot, you're just so perfect. Man, let me bow to your superior intelligence, knowledge, and overall greatness to the project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot. Sarcasm too. Paul B (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II" is the very first sentence in this article. The second sentence is where other groups are defined in most every definition that includes others. This article reflects that trend and the sources are listed verbatim of their first paragraphs again showing the trend to give Jews in the first sentence and others in later sentences. I don't understand how anyone has lost here. If this article gets to Class A status it's message should be able to reach even further than it does now. So how about we work on raising it's status? Alatari (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the big ironies of this discussion is that I first raised this issue because I was worried that the centrality of Jewish victimhood was being swamped by a tendency to add one group after another in a long list of victims. I thought that it would be better to have a section discussing the history of the use of the term and the debates about why and how groups have come to be seen as "included". There is increasing literature on this, and much of it shows a degree at least of wariness about the inclusivity. Two books I read recently were Donald Bloxham's "The Holocaust: critical historical approaches" and Sue Vice's "Representing the Holocaust", both of which are wary of the tendency for memorial events and educational institutions to constantly increase lists of victims by group-identity. Bloxam points out that only a tiny fraction of German homosexuals were sent to the camps, and Vice's book contains a good chapter on the distorting effects of excessive inclusivness (especially a tendency to include black people because of the Rhineland sterilisations). I'd rather see a separate article engaging in a detailed way with this issue (which holocaust victims may become) and drop the whole section in which victims are listed by groups, since this ineviably leads to statements like "why are group X not mentioned? This is antiXism". I think it would be better to describe the unfolding of the process as it occurred. When were decisions made to send various groups to camps - including groups who are never listed as victims such as prostitutes and street-gang members?; how they were treated in the camps?; how were groups were separated and when were decisions were made regarding them? That way it will clear that Jews were always singled out for brutalisation and murder; that experience in Auschwitz and other camps could be quite dramatically different depending on what group you belonged to, and so on. We would get a much clearer sense of the true "texture" of the events than just an "either victim or not" model. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) We may clarify the definition, but we must make it clear that the definition is a matter of academic focus, not a complete explanation. We are talking about 3 to 5 million people, dead. And yes, the others not mentioned who were killed (such as alcoholics and prostitutes) deserve their mention too. I think that there must be some mention of the other groups in the lede. I hope your idea of a timeline actually comes to fruition. We must not just sanitize the mention of these millions from the lede and forget about it. Photouploaded (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe putting the word "Aryan" anywhere in the lede will meet strong opposition from the majority of editors. Even in the non-X form. The current form is nice. Getting every possible victim group into the second sentence will make that sentence unwieldy and this fight will never end. The word 'others' is used most frequently while 'Roma' is mentioned next most often in the above sources. Alatari (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The term Aryan is far too problematic. Firstly Slavs are Aryan, as are Poles and even Gypsies/Roma; secondly the Hungarians - close allies of the Nazis - are not (and that's not even mentioning the Japs!). The term had a meaning to the Nazis, which was derived from 19th century ethnolinguistic theories, but is far from coherent in practice. Paul B (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Victims of the Nazi regime

A possible solution to the dilemma of the other victims of Nazi persecution would be to present a brief outline of the Nazi policy toward each group and the actual losses compared to the total population. The article as it stands now does not clarify these issues

The policy of Hitler Germany was the total annihilation of all European Jews. In the territory under direct German occupation over 90% of all Jews perished in the Holocaust. A tiny percentage survived as forced laborers. Others survived in countries that refused to cooperate with German deportation requests, Romania and Bulgaria Source Raul Hilberg Destruction of the European Jews

30% of the 1,000,000 Roma perished in the war. The Germans targeted the nomadic Roma and spared the sedentary Roma. This policy cannot be compared to the German policy to annihilate all Jews. Source Columbia guide to the Holocaust

Disabled Germans
150,000 disabled Germans were murdered by the Nazis in 1940-41 before the Christian churches interceded on their behalf to end this barbarity. The Christian Churches did not intercede to stop the killing of the Jews Source Columbia Guide to the Holocaust

Gay Men
50,000 of the 1,5 million Gay German men were arrested in the Nazi era. 15,000 were sent to concentration camps where ½ -7,500 perished. That is 1 out of 200 Gay German men, compared to 9 out of 10 Jews killed. The vast majority of Gay Germans kept their sexual orientation a secret and evaded Nazi persecution Source Columbia Guide to the Holocaust

The actual number of Freemasons persecuted by the Nazis is unknown according to the USHMM. In any case they could have renounced their beliefs and avoided persecution. Jews were not given this option. Source USHMM website[11]

Jehovah Witnesses
About 3,000 Jehovah Witnesses perished in the camps. In any case they could have renounced their beliefs and avoided persecution. Jews were not given this option. Source Columbia Guide to the Holocaust

Political Prisoners:
The exact number of Germans who died in the camps for resistance activity is not known. A Russian source, Vadim Erlikman, using data from the Soviet era puts the number at 35,000. In any case they could have renounced their beliefs and avoided persecution. Jews were not given this option.

The Nazi policy toward occupied Poland was to exploit the country as source of slave labor and agricultural produce. The Germans planned to Germanize or annihilate all Poles.Source Gods Playground- A History of Poland by Norman Davies Vol 2 P 445.
2 million(8%) of the 24 million Poles perished in the war. 350,000 due to Soviet repression and 120,000 killed by Ukrainian partisans in 1943-44. The remaining 1.5 million deaths were due to the German occupation. At least 200-300,000 died in the camps, and 200,000 the 1944 Battle in Warsaw where the Nazis massacred tens of thousands of civilians. The remaining 1 million died in Nazi reprisals, forced labor and famine caused by the occupation. Source :Project In Posterum [12](go to note on Polish Casualties by Tadeusz Piotrowski)
Most Poles were hostile to the Jews and did little to help the population in the ghettos. The Polish resistance never made an effort to stop the trains to the death camps. The survivors of the Holocaust were greeted with intense anti-Semitism after the war. There is no comparison of German policy toward Poles and Jews. Source GUTMAN, Y. AND S.KRAKOWSKI: Unequal victims, Poles and Jews during World war II, New York, Holocaust library, 1986
Soviet Civilians
The secret German Plan Ost envisaged the eventual annihilation of the Soviet people and the colonization of the USSR with Germanic peoples. During the war about 13 million out of the 70 million civilians in the German occupied USSR perished, including 2.5 million of the 3 million Jews. Soviet sources claimed 7.4 million were killed in reprisals, 1.8 million in forced labor and 4 million due to famine and disease. Source Russian Academy of Science report 1995. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust cites sources that estimate Soviet civilian dead due to Nazi genocide at 4.5 million 1/4 of all Soviet war dead
During the war about 1 million Soviet citizens served in the German Armed forces and 215,000 were killed in battle. Source G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7

Soviet POW
About 3 million of the 5.7 million Soviet POW died due to German brutality. It should also be noted at many of the 1 million Soviets in the German Armed forces , including the guards in the death camps, were recruited from the POW camps. Source Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002 ISBN 0-7864-1204-6. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The above is WP:OR. Our goal here is to rely on and summarize reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note well Crumb 375 this is not original research, the post is backed up with verifiable sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
It all has multiple conflicting sources. To present it without any, as you did here, is WP:OR. The only way to write that properly is with lots of high caliber sources, representing the entire spectrum of views. Crum375 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion Raul Hilberg, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the USHMM are "high caliber sources"--Woogie10w (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Crum375 that if we went and averaged all the numbers we found from reliable sources that would be considered WP:OR. Listing only one source is WP:POV. So we have to pick the reliable sources and list the lowest and highest number ranges (and possible list a reliable source with the closest median number at the median) for both the deaths and beginning populations. If you need help let me know. Alatari (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A Babi Yar massicare source.

Ukraine marks 66th anniversary of Nazi massacre at Babi Yar ravine.

[[13]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That was an intresting page, it was well worth reading.--Yardskins (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd Consensus question

My proposal is as follows-

1/ That Shoa redirects to the Holocaust, which is to become a Jewish/Yiddish orrientated page.

2/ A new page called "The Nazi genocides of World War 2" (I reckon this one renamed) would cover the issue of Nazi genocide and torture in general, with links going to the variouse sub-pages for all the specalist and indepth topics. Specialist pages already exsist for-

Action T4

Rhineland Bastards

Polish war dead

Pink triangle

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses

Doctors' Trial


Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany

The Shoa/Holocaust would be linked to the 'Nazi genocide' page likewise. --The golden easter party man (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Opposed: Too many scholars and sources include non Jewish victims for this to become a Jewish/Yiddish orientated page. Alatari (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed: It runs against the popular/Google interpritation of 'The Holocaust' —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed. The current situation is generally OK: "The Holocaust" is considered by many scholars to refer primarily to the Jewish genocide (as per 'Final Solution'), while others include the non-Jewish victim groups, as is heavily referenced in the article. I propose that the non-Jewish groups have their own articles, either as one combined, e.g. "Non-Jewish civilian victims of WWII", and/or specific ones for each group. Then we can have a brief description of the other articles in the Jewish version, with links to the detailed versions. This will reduce the size, and move a lot of the ethnic POV issues into the individual articles. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  •  :::Opposed I am generally opposed to any change that might lead a reader to think the deniers or revisionists have a viable case and whole I support the idea that all of the victimized groups deserve their own article I am against this particular proposal.: Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed I have been following this page for almost a year (at least). At times the repetitive points and criticism are a bit discouraging and I need to remind myself that this is inevitable with the inflow and outflow of editors in this participatory process which is after all a small price to pay. However, few of us have the time to wade through archives to see if our point has been made or not, so I hope that I can be excused for repeating points that I know have been made before.
For an encyclopedia, it seems to me, that a definition is better found among the scholars than in similar compilations such as other encyclopedias or dictionaries. Since WWII, scholars tend to use the term, The Holocaust, to refer to the Nazi policy of the "Final Solution" From my reading, this is not the result of pressure from "Jewish organizations, particularly those established to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust." But rather from the desire to distinguish the Final Solution from the other Nazi genocides and massacres because of its peculiar nature: All Jews were to be annihilated because as the embodiment of evil they were a threat. In Friedländer's words: "The Jew was a lethal and active threat to all nations, to the Arian race and to the German Volk." This was different from the genocidal policies about others such as the Slavs and the Roma (Gypsies) who were inferior races to be removed from the Reich, but were not necessarily a lethal threat. Such distinctions are important in trying to understand what drove the executioners. They certainly are not meant to imply that one genocide is more important than another, nor that someone who was murdered at Auschwitz was qualitatively different than the murder of Russian POWs in Flossenbürg. I see nothing which implies that in the article. There is no doubt that there are "forgotten" genocides, but the answer is to write more on them. Thus I would agree with Crum375 that "the current system is generally OK," though I would prefer talking about "victims (or other victims) of Nazi genocides and massacres" than "non-Jewish victims".--Joel Mc (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Opposed deluxe. Alatari sums up my thoughts in one simple and powerful sentence above. Joel Mc:s post above is very thoughtful, and I pretty much agree with him. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No change, case closed!--The golden easter party man (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Catholic victims


I am not a Wikipedia guru so I figured I would raise the subject here before changing anything. The Victims section lists that 3 million Catholics were killed. From my readings, I have discovered that this number is true. However, it seems to me that the context being provided for this number is misleading. Most (if not nearly all) of the Catholics that were killed by the Nazis were Polish.

Following the occupation of Poland, Polish political, religious, and intellectual leaders were killed. Nearly all Polish Jews were deported and killed. The remaining Polish Gentiles were forced into hard labor. It was as a result of this Nazi occupation (and general state of war in Poland) that nearly 3 million Poles died (i.e. were killed) at the hands of the Nazis (and Russians) in Poland. The majority of them were Catholic (about 3/4). A small portion (roughly 10%) of the Polish Gentile population were deported to camps and murdered.

In summary, it is true that roughly 3 million Catholics were killed during the war. However, the bulk of them did not die in concentration camps (as the article states), nor were they killed because of their religious affiliation, but rather due to their nationality, nor was the intention to specifically murder them, but rather to exploit them as forced labor, a reality that subsequently killed them. (Edit: after further reading it appears there were plans for a specific Polish genocide, as described in Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles.) Victims they were indeed, but much more context is necessary to understand why and how they were killed. I would recommend clarifying the piece to focus on the fact that the 3 million victims were Poles who were predominantly Catholic, and who were targeted mainly due to their nationality. The information about the Catholic clergy can be put into its own subheading.

The sources I have come across online to support this context are here:

I thought I'd initiate some discussion before changing anything. -Jon 10:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles is linked in the second paragraph. That might be a good place to start. Photouploaded 12:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that page out. I looked it over and it seems quite comprehensive. I suppose my concern now is the intimation in the main page that the Catholic victims were singled out because of their religious affiliation, rather than their nationality (excepting the clergy). Any thoughts? -Jon 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, Jon. The Catholic qualifier is indeed strange and puzzling. I think it's all a matter of fringe "historians" who want to put a new "original" touch on a big historical subject. The main dimension here is the Polish nationality, not their religion. With statistics, we can do all kind of funny assertions... what about this (my own, just for this occasion): The Nazi regime murdered between 2 and 3 million women in the Holocaust - headlined by Hitler's secret hate towards women. Let's spice it up: 10% left-handed = 0.1*(2-3 million) = 200,000 - 300,000. Aha, Hitler had killed about a quarter of a million left-handed women. Sorry, got carried away there...:) Please Jon, be bold. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Denis. The post claming that Catholics were Holocaust victims is not historically correct. The website of the USHMM and the Columbia Guide to the Holocaust do not list Catholics as victims of the Nazi regime. The post claiming Catholics as Holocaust victims is a blatant POV push backed up with an obscure Catholic religious tract. We should delete this section. Individual Catholics opposed the Nazi regime but the Catholic church did not oppose the Nazi regime. In fact many Catholics were ardent Nazis who were Hitler’s willing executioners.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I feel bold today punks, so I will scrap the Catholic issue completely. For documentation, this is the text I will remove (if anyone else needs to review it/suggest partial readdition or whatever):
At least three million Catholics were systematically killed in concentration camps. As for clergy, in the Priester-Block in Dachau there were 2,600 Catholic priests imprisoned, of whom 2,000 were put to death. Over a quarter of the 10,000 total priests in Poland were executed, as were 500 nuns.
As stated above, the dimension is the Polish nationality and not religion. If anything, the Poles deserves a "Polish" section rather than a "Catholic". As for clergy, priest and nuns... well they could be mentioned, but why them in particular? We don't mention other occupations; how many shopkeepers, musicians or industry workers that were killed. If my removal makes me an anti-catholic HC denier, so be it, sue me. I don't think it merits a place in this article. Anyone opposed? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I oppose. Although the Polish do deserve their own section, just as the others...gays, etc. but it's important to keep the Catholic victims too. As religion was an issue, among other things, of course. Catholics, Jews, gays and blacks are still victims today of the neo-Nazis because of this history. Not just because someone is Polish. Clergy, priest and nuns is not an "occupation" in a sense, as there were many shopkeepers, musicians, etc. that were also Catholic, Polish, German and/or Jews. German Catholics, just like Jews were targeted, not their profession (ie, jobs) - Jeeny (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Holy lord, I got reverted quicker than lightning there:). An act of God? No seriously, you make some sense, Jeeny, but there are quite some troubles with the Catholic issue. First of all, an additional dimension of religion is like mixing apples and peaches into a strange pie which I have trouble digesting: I we list subdimensions of the victims, casual readers may get the impression (for instance) that 3 million Poles AND 3 million Catholics were killed, summing it up to 6 million, and thus adding 3 million to the total Holocaust count. This is problematic. Furthermore, it's alleged (and I agree) that the Catholic dimension is historically incorrect. Do you have any references (besides those currently present, which I actually seriously doubt as serious - the title "Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century" is a little bit smelly to my encyclopedic nose) which can verify the Catholic dimension firmly? Is there any article at all in Wikipedia? Personally, I've read a lot of books on Nazi Germany, and I don't remember anything at all which indicates that the Catholics were especially singled out (no more than intellectuals, politicals etc). Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
lol Sorry, perhaps I was a bit too quick to revert. I admit I haven't read the article in a few weeks, and should not have blindly reverted. "Holy lord", made me laugh, and brought me back to my senses. I know this is serious though. Ah, I'm so used to those who delete content on personal principles and/or opinion and I inappropriately reacted, and assumed bad faith. Holy lord, forgive me. :) Sorry, I was wrong in principle AND opinion. :/ - Jeeny (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
No probs at all, thou have been absolved:) For others who might object, the USHMM link that Woogie10w provided below contains a quite heavy debunking; the start of the section "3. How many Catholics were killed during the Holocaust?" states: Although the Catholic Church was persecuted in the Third Reich, Catholics as a group were not officially targeted by the Nazis merely for practicing the Catholic faith. That statement weighs IMO quite a lot. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. :) Good link there. - Jeeny (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This is a link to the USHMM website that will help to clarify the issue of How many Catholics were killed during the Holocaust?[14]-Woogie10w (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
This quote is fom the USHMM- "SS authorities in the concentration camps did not generally record the religious affiliation of a prisoner, with the exception of the Jehovah's Witnesses. As a result it is difficult, perhaps impossible, to reliably estimate the total number of Catholic victims who were persecuted or killed because of some action or position connected to their Catholic faith." The number you have there of 3 million is soft as s-t and needs to be deleted.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the solution to this conflict would be a section on the Catholic clergy that opposed the Nazis and another section on Polish & Soviet civilians who were targeted as a "race" by the Nazi regime. The USHMM will back us up as a verifiable source. The article as it is now is not historicaly correct because Catholics were not targeted as a group like the Jews.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dennis, Woogie, and Jeeny: Nice discussion here. Dennis, it looks like you beat me to the punch on being bold! Anyway, that find from the USHMM is a good find and basically settles the matter of Catholic victims (as a Nazi policy). You also raise a good point about the double-counting. Victims should only be counted once (i.e. victim headings should be mutually exclusive), organized by the reason for their targeting (although their peripheral affiliations can certainly be noted for further relevance). E.g. Polish Catholics in the Polish section, Polish Jews in the Jewish Section, etc. Dennis, you asked about the mentioning of Catholic victims (clergy or otherwise) in other wikipedia articles. I did find the following in the Holocaust victims page under the section of 'Religious Dissidents': Additionally, some members of the Catholic clergy were killed by the Nazis, many of whom were either of Jewish background (as in the case of Edith Stein) or were killed as part of the Nazis campaign against the Polish intelligentsia. In the countries in which Roman Catholic bishops, and even Roman Catholics themselves had openly protested and attacked Nazi policies, like in the Netherlands and Poland where bishops and priests had protested to the deportations of Jews, the clergy was either threatened with deportation themselves and kept in custody (case of German bishop Clemens von Galen), or directly deported to concentration camps (as in the cases of the Dutch Carmelite priest Titus Brandsma and Polish Fr. Maximilian Kolbe, who was later canonized).This is consistent with my other readings that the RCC in Poland was targeted (perhaps more so than in other countries) as a specific campaign against Polish leadership/intelligentsia (as part of the general strategy of a Polish takeover). Furthermore, it provides detail on why Catholic clergy (in general) may have been targeted. I didn't see a citation, however. Anyway, in summary, I think the removal of the Catholic victims section was justified, although it can still certainly be mentioned in a section on Poles. Furthermore, maybe now we have justification for adding a section on religious dissidents in general (as organized in the Holocaust victims page: JW, RCC, etc.) or just listing them and linking to that page. Thoughts? Thanks for the discussion. -Jon (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Doh! I just tried adding a section on Poles. I won't be able to edit the page "for a while" after creating a wikipedia account due to its semi-protected status. Any takers? :P Basically lifted straight from the Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles page: Some three million non-Jewish Polish citizens perished during the course of the war, over two million of whom were ethnic Poles (the remainder being mainly ethnic minorities of Ukrainians and Belarusians). The vast majority of those killed were civilian, Catholic, and mostly massacred during special-action operations of Nazi Germany. with a citation to here -Jon (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Jon. I agree with you approx. 100%: I was actually about to rewrite the "Catholic" section into a "Polish", probably in a very similar way as you were about, including mentioning the clergy. But I had a lack of inspiration, and just simply removed the IMO inferior Catholic issue. I might have a go at it, if you don't beat me to it. I'd also just like to clarify my "Catholic" position somewhat further (since I might have been applying the KISS principle a little too hard); yes, I know of the persecution of the clergy, and my main problem was in reality the blunt 3 million "Catholic" victims. The probs with mentioning the clergy (which I anyway is all for) is that I think we have to write a section which is more inclusive, in order to not give Catholics undue weight. That is, mentioning the intelligentsia, politicals etc. in a similar way as the section in the article Nazi_crimes_against_ethnic_Poles#Crimes_against_intelligentsia_and_Catholic_clergy does. I'm not sure if you are about or have created a user account, Jon, but it's ridiculously easy - but it's naturally all up to you if you want one or not. If you have any questions or need any help, I can be of assistance; don't hesitate to contact me here on my talk page. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Soviet civilians as well as Poles were persecuted and killed by the Nazis. This link to an article by the USHMM should be considered by the editors. THE GERMAN ARMY AND THE RACIAL NATURE OF THE WAR AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION [15]
Some members of the Protestant clergy in Germany were also persecuted for opposing the Nazis. This should be considered also in the section on clerical resistance. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am adding the information that was in the article here for further inclusion. I understand the many points above. However, I would like to bring up the fact that, despite the many interesting suggestions about how to better introduce the material, it has instead been totally dropped. I agree with the points about how the material could be better used, and some of the problems with how it was presented, but a total exclusion seem a mistake. Ritterschaft (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

At least three million Catholics were systematically killed in concentration camps.(ref)Robert Royal, Catholic Martyrs of the Twentieth Century: A Comprehensive World History (Crossroad, 2000), p. 193.(/ref) As for clergy, in the Priester-Block in Dachau there were 2,600 Catholic priests imprisoned, of whom 2,000 were put to death.(ref>John Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through The Ages (New York: Paulist Press, 2005), p. 329.(/ref) Over a quarter of the 10,000 total priests in Poland were executed, as were 500 nuns.(ref>John Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through The Ages (New York: Paulist Press, 2005), p. 329.(/ref)
I disagree with the claim that 3 million persons were victims of the Nazis because they were Catholics. Between 2 to 3 million victims of the Nazis were Catholics but were persecuted for political or ethnic reasons, not for being practicing Catholics. I do agree that the persecution of individual members of the Catholic clergy should be included as a seperate topic. I also belive that we should point out that some Catholic clery supported the Nazi dictatorsip.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you are missing some elements of this. Just one example, clearly the statistic shows that being Catholic did not gain anyone favours. Indeed, if you want to argue that the exterminations did not have a religious angle, then showing that belonging to a certain religion failed to provide any sort of exemption would be part of that case. Neither do I think one could treat ‘individual clergy’ without mentioned the greater context of what happened to fellow clergy and congregants. Lastly, we need to look at the sources better and see if there is any debate on the matter; if so, we should reflect the debate. Whatever the case, the reason I included the information here is because, if nothing else, it shows that sources mention deaths in a religious context, and the way sources handle the material should be significant for us. Ritterschaft (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Some Cathjolics enthusiastically supported the regime; some supported it with reservations; some were opposed but went along with it; some opposed it actively. In all cases aspects of the religion could be used justify support or opposition. That is true of Protestantism too - and Humanism and Neopaganism. I see no reason to single out Catholics here, and there is very little in the literature that I know of that would justify it. Paul B (talk) 13:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Unhistoric map

The article uses a map which shows the concentrations camps within the borders of today (except Jugoslavia). This is unhistoric and should be replaced quickly by a map which shows the historical facts (borders from 37, annections before the war (Austria etc.), occupied countries during the war, Vichy etc.) —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is somewhat a matter of taste; to choose a suitable year is not clear-cut. For more info, I (and others) have responded to this here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
this is not a matter of taste, but of historic accuracy. (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The new map is far better than the old. Still, it would be a major improvement if it used the 1938 or 1942 borders, either instead of, or through superimposition. The coloring is better, the arrows are better, the choice of data is better. Jd2718 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your post, Jd2718! (I made the map). Since you think historical borders would be better (and you are apparently not the only one), I have decided to try to make another version of it (but keep the old one). But it will take some time, and I have a little trouble deciding how to approach it, that is, which year(s) to use. The probs with '38 is that the Holocaust hadn't started in earnest at that time (and, for instance, Poland, France etc. had not been occupied/split). And there are problems with post '38 borders too, since the borders flow quite a bit between '39 and '45. It's actually a little b*tching headache... But I will have a go at it. If anyone has any suggestions, please contact me on my talk page, I'd be very thankful. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
A map showing historic sites but with modern borders isn't a flawed tool. You can use a map like that to plan a modern visit to such a site. You can make educated guesses about what sorts of people were in the area at the historic time and you can investigate whether the survivors and their descendants were touched with guilt from the killings. Binksternet (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sensationalist, should be altered

I seriously doubt that there's a reference for this commentary:

'Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a genocidal nation."'

No doubt that Michael Berenbaum called Germany "a genocidal nation", but if he said "Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder" then he shouldn't be considered a valid source for wikipedia. That's sensationalism and has no place in a work of fact. It's shameful that such an important topic should be treated so disrespectfully. It doesn't do justice to the millions of innocents who died.

Again, further down in the article:

'Every arm of the country's sophisticated bureaucracy was involved in the killing process.'

More hyperbole and/or supposition.

The only way to represent the truth is with cold hard facts that everyone must accept. Coloring any part of the facts only leads to argument and denial. This isn't the place for emotional rhetoric.

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you; I remember getting a "sour" feeling when reading those lines some time ago, but I did not do anything about it. But thanks to your post, now I will! Those statements are certainly extreme generalizations which I think should be rewritten (or maybe simply removed). It's actually amazing that the reference is from someone associated with USHMM! "A genocidal nation" is sure a strong wording, and that is - to be frank - pure bs. This statement, along with the term "nation" implies that every German participated in the genocide, which we all know is not true (just like every German was not a Nazi, and every Nazi was not a German). There is some truth underneath the wording "Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy" but it is ridiculous to assume it was every; if anyone feels like trying to convince me that for instance bureaucrats that handled school policies, Nazi weddings or whatever, were involved in the logistics of mass murder, good luck doing that. I will give it some thought now, and rewrite that stuff, and hopefully keeping something which is more truthful. --Dna-Dennis (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you restrict "involved in the Holocaust" to working the "logistics of mass murder", you might have a point there. But indeed, the bureaucrats who handled school policies were part of the genocidal machinery, given that school policy was indoctrination into the Nazi policies. Someone who was in primary school in 1933 would have been of the age to be herding Jews into boxcars ten years later. "Genocidal nation" is accurate; yes, there were individuals who could not be called genocidal, but that doesn't mean the nation wasn't, any more than it would be incorrect to call 19th-century Britain imperialist because some Britons might have been opposed to imperialism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The Nazi's certainly mobilized almost all the institutions of the state in pursuit of their goals, including the extermination of the Jews. But I agree that the phrasing in the article was sensationalist. I should disclose that I have had problems with this particular source before. By over-relying on a single source (and not a historian), I am afraid that in places we have allowed that source's voice to color this article. Jd2718 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I rewrote the first one to Germany had a considerable bureaucracy dealing with the logistics of persecution, deportation, and later, mass murder, and the policies were accomplished in stages..., and the second one to A considerable part of the country's sophisticated bureaucracy was involved in the enforcement of the policies against those who were consided as inferior.. I decided to nuke the notion of genocidal nation altogether, since I believe it is sensationalist, and quite a "sour" overstatement. Anyone opposed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dna-webmaster (talkcontribs) 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Edit conflict here! I added my comment before reading Dna-webmaster's. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
You made strong point there, Jpgordon, when you compared with British imperialism - that made me think. But no, I still can't buy the term genocidal nation - "genocidal" is far more accusing than "imperialistic". Here, with "genocide", we mean the planned mass murder, and thus a genocidal nation implies that the German people was planning and committing genocide. This is not true; we know that the Nazis tried to keep as much as possible of their foul doings hidden from the German people, and we know that many of the Germans did not know what the Einsatzgruppen did in the East, or what happened in the extermination camps. Thus, I think it would be too harsh to call Germany a genocidal nation. I could maybe digest the term persecuting nation but not "genocidal". IMO, there is only a thin line between that statement and calling the Germans a genocidal people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dna-webmaster (talkcontribs) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many people including some of my relatives who lost their homes and property and died in camps because they refused to turn over their sons to the Hitler youth and actively spoke out against the administrations policies. Alatari (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this issue needs to be discussed however this is not the time to change the article. The existing wording has been there for many months, changing it within the space of 6 or so hours debate is not justified. Sisalto (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss, so support, to oppose, to suggest changes. But 1) I see no debate here. And 2) anyone can edit here. It would be best not to suggest that there are constraints on when. Jd2718 (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Like Dna-Dennis I've never been happy with this sentence, and I don't think there is any useful analogy with British imperialism. Everyone in Britain knew they were part of a nation that was the head of an empire, whether they approved or not. It is false to imply that every German knew they were part of a genocidal system. A guy in a factory making containors for Zyklon-B is very unlikely to have known what they would be used for. Also, the fact that everyone's work propped up the government in one way or another is no more meaningful than the fact that the work and taxes of Americans helps support Guantanamo bay. It would still be absurd to say that this makes America a "prison camp nation". Paul B (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe we are all in agreement that the statement "genocidal nation" is a provocative one, therefore changing it is not a minor edit; given the sensitive nature of this article it is best that more debate is stimulated before changes are made. Sisalto (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, the language we are discussing was added without discussion, amidst a rapid sea of changes. An editor and a helper boldly rewrote the whole thing. (and the overall effect was quite positive). Over a far longer period of time some of us will notice things about the newer version that are 'off' and may change and discuss them. That's normal. Since you are here, why not try discussing the edit themselves, rather than just the process? Jd2718 (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not my place to discuss whether or not Germany was a "genocidal nation" during WWII, however I think we agree that thought and care went into the original article and so changing major provocative elements of it should at least involve the original editor's input. Sisalto (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It actually is your place to discuss anything you'd like. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Corolary to that is that no one owns an article. We can make changes without consulting an author. In the event, the people who wrote those lines are aware of this discussion; I've asked one of them to add comments. Jd2718 (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree that consulting the original author is important given the circumstances and given that searching for "the holocaust" on google has this wikipedia article as 1st hit. Sisalto (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Consulting the original author might be polite, but it's not otherwise important; as Jd2718 said, no one owns an article, or even a sentence, or even a single word, on Wikipedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
My argument has nothing to do with politeness or ownership of material, only with the illusion of equal speech and the consequences of this when a wikipedia article is the first hit on a search engineSisalto (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "equal speech"? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I am rather sorry that the changes to the "genocidal nation" have gone ahead based on a rather fragile consensus, if there is a consensus at all. This is not the first time it has been discussed and the term has been there for at least 6 months (I haven't had time to look farther back)and I remember that there was a consensus, perhaps an uneasy one. Frankly, I don't care much for the term, but Michael Berenbaum has explained why he uses the term. There is little doubt that the bureaucracy was deeply involved in the implementation of the policy, and the phrase a "considerable part" doesn't do justice to that fact (You only have to read parts of Victor Klemper's diary to get a feel of how pervasive the bureaucracy was.) However, more importantly, the new phrase "enforcement of the policies against those who were consided as inferior." does add confusion. The final solution against the Jews was against those whom the Nazis felt were evil and dangerous. While the genocide policy also targets other groups, there were groups that the Nazis felt were inferior who were not targeted to be exterminated. If the first sentence is to be changed from the longer standing one, then I would suggest something like: "The whole of the country's sophisticated bureaucracy was involved in the implementation of the government's genocidal policies."Joel Mc (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument. This is not about the wholly separate question of whether groups other than Jews in the list of victims, it's about whether the nation as a whole should be implicitly condemned as perpetrators. Likewise, the fact that the bureaucracy was 'pervasive' is unsurprising , but that does not mean that all of it was specifically involved. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted to User talk:SlimVirgin): This edit summary "(this writing was better)" misses something. There is discussion at the talk page to remove the quote. If the result was weaker writing, then please help resolve better wording, taking into account the concerns of other editors. Thank you. Jd2718 (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I prefer Slims edit over Jd's it is nicely concise and seems to be the better of the 2 options thus far.: Danny W : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Dna-webmaster, the editor who rewrote, was trying to avoid the sensationalist language. I agree with him. However, I understand the question about the quality of the prose. Do you have suggestions to reword? Jd2718 (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I do hope that we can stay with Slim Virgin's edit. I am not sure what is meant by: Slim's version is being rejected at talk." It seems fine to meJoel Mc (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The edits to the lead are causing the writing to get worse, not better. What is wrong with the sentence: "Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a genocidal nation." It is accurate and sourced. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Source: Berenbaum The World Must Know, p. 103. "Nazi Germany became a genocidal state. The goal of annihilation called for participation by every arm of government. The policy of extermination involved every level of German society and marshaled the entire apparatus of the German bureaucracy." He then gives three paragraphs of details.
Every other reliable source on the Holocaust says something similar. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Er, that says "genocidal state", not "genocidal nation". They are very different phrases. Paul B (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone is trying to rewrite history here. [16] If Berenbaum says the entire bureaucracy was involved, he doesn't mean a considerable part. If Gilbert says the Final Solution was to be extended to England and Ireland, he doesn't mean Britain and Ireland. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Source request

Would Dna-webmaster or Jd2718 please provide a reliable source that says only a "considerable part" of Germany's bureaucracy was involved, as opposed to all of it, per this edit? [17] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg provides support for the argument that the German bureaucracy was intrumental in carrying out the Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
All the scholarly sources that I've read do. But I'm specifically asking Dna-webmaster or Jd2718 for a source that says only parts of it were involved, as that is their claim, so far unsourced. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The question goes in the right direction, but of course it is not possible to reply to an appeal to ignorance. You're looking for a negative. Let me turn it around, but in a way I believe you will find acceptable. You wrote "Every other reliable source on the Holocaust says something similar." Give us one, and we'll use it. Now, I expect that the language will be less sensational than Berenbaum's, who I don't think should be considered a reliable source (another discussion for another time). But if your other source uses the same language, let's use it. I will back down. Jd2718 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, you were reverting to language that said not all of the bureaucracy was involved. You shouldn't do that unless you have a source yourself.
As for Berenbaum, why would you not consider him reliable? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
“The Germans killed five million Jews. A process of such magnitude does not come from the void; to be brought to a conclusion in such dimensions an administrative undertaking must have meaning to its perpetrators.”
“An administrative process of such a range cannot be carried out by a single agency, even if it is trained and specialized body like the Gestapo or a commissariat for Jewish affairs, for when a process cuts into every phase of human life, it must ultimately feed upon the resources of the entire organized community.”
“The machinery of destruction, then, was structurally no different from organized German society as a whole; the difference was only one of function”
The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg 1961 ed. Pages 639-640--Woogie10w (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
“The annihilation of six million Jews, carried out by the German state under Adolf Hitler” and referring to the final solution "the German dictatorship involved and engaged the entire apparatus of the German state.” The War Against the Jews. Lucy Dawidowicz . Pages xxxv -xxxvii--Woogie10w (talk) 00:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Woogie10w, I stand by my word to accept either one of those. Thank you for providing them. Jd2718 (talk) 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Woah! I spawned quite some discussion here with my previous boldness; well I shouldn't be surprised, should I? No, SlimVirgin, I didn't try to rewrite history. I simply tried to present the matters with less sensational and more (IMO) truthful words. First of all, mind you, I won't tear my eyes out if the statements stand as is, but I sincerely think they hurt the quality of the article. Nevertheless, it's easier for me to digest "genocidal state" than "genocidal nation" since it's further from the dangers of implying that the Germans were/are a "genocidal people". But, still, I think that the particular "genocidal X"-statement is quite unnecessary, actually something like inverse peacocking - why don't let the readers draw their own conclusions from the facts, without us sticking that blunt label right in their face? Something to think about... And I still think that the wording "every arm" could be expressed in a more truthful way. Asking me for sources on this is like asking me for every book that do not claim that Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, and that's quite a few books. Mind you, I very well understand what the source wants to express, and I know that a considerable (and large) part of the bureaucracy was in one way or the other involved, but to take it to such a limit as to say every in the same sentence as mass murder is quite far-fetched (and unsatisfactory) IMO. To sum it up: what it all implies is simply not historically 100% true, so why use this particular source with these particular statements? Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I would support the text of state can denote either 15. of or pertaining to the central civil government or authority. or 7. politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation. whereas nation almost exclusively denotes 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own. the entire people which is not true by many references. State would leave it open to excluding some of the populous in the brutal endeavor. Ack, old news... owell. Alatari (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


I think it'd be interesting to note how scientifically valid the human experiments were, and how well they could be used for future reference, and if that info could be implemented somewhere in the sub-article on the human experimentation, which doesn't seem to be touched upon.

Or am I wrong, is it just for the sake of morality and ethics of how much people suffered that people just don't bother even looking into how the information attained from them can be usefull.Rodrigue (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been extensively debated over the years, especially with regard to the hyperthermia research. The most notable article on this debate is Should the Nazi Research Data Be Cited? by Kristine Moe, The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 14, Dec. 1984. Here is an online discussion of the issues from the Jewish Virtual Library [18]. Paul B (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

for the love of god, are you referring to morality?.Like I just said, people can think what they want about where it came from, but do they in fact have any scientific basis to them?, thats all.

The morality of it is such a trivial issue.the fact is whats done is done, and if some good came from it, then its best to use it. Rodrigue (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an extremely dangerous slippery slope to go down. Anytime you decide to use the results of scientifically and morally dubious research, it's going to possibly encourage similar future behavior. Newtman (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

news articles

can anyone point to any news articles printed in mainstream newspapers in the usa or europe between 1939 and 1945 reporting that large ammounts of innocent people were being gassed in gas chambers by the nazis. i have contacted two holocaust memorials and have not recieved a reply. Ethmegdav (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, let's see. From the NYT archives, we find JEWS IN HUNGARY FEIR ANNIHILATION; Gas-Chamber 'Baths' on Nazi Model Reported Prepared by Puppet Regime, May 10, 1944; NAZIS' CAMP DATA BARE ITS KILLINGS; Witnesses Tell of the Gassing of 80 Screaming Women at Prison in Alsace, January 1, 1945; 3,000,000 JEWS EXECUTED; Book Published in German Prison Camp Tells of Gas Chambers, November 13, 1944, just as a few examples. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

can you paste a link to these stories. i couldnt find them in the nyt archives.Ethmegdav (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I just did paste links to those stories. Click on the dates. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

ah yes. interesting how the article says three million jews were killed, but the wiki article about treblinka only says 750,000 jews were killed there. the author of the wiki article should be put in jail for denying the holocaust.Ethmegdav (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You may need to put Yad Vashem in jail as Holocaust Deniers, as they are the source used for these figures in the Wikipedia article. Crum375 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Himmler in the opening paragraph

I think it is very important that Himmler (being the mastermind of the Holocaust) be included in the opening paragraph. Heinrich was, after Hitler, the most powerful man in Nazi Germany. He was the founder and officer-in-charge of all the Nazi concentration and extermination camps, he was the one that formed the Einsatzgruppen death squads, he was the Supreme Commander of the SS (Reichsführer-SS), Reichsleiter, and he held final command responsibility for annihilating all those that were deemed "subhumans". Since the article is about the Holocaust (which Himmler was the mastermind of), he must definitely be in the opening paragraph. His role in perpetrating the extermination of those thought to be "subhumans" is at least equal to Hitler's, or perhaps even more. I will put it back since Heinrich Himmler was the main perpetrator of the Holocaust (at least equal to Hitler). TheGoodSon 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the problem is that you seem to be promoting a particular position here, namely that Himmler was more powerful than Hitler. I notice you removed at one point that Himmler couldn't be overruled because he had Hitler's support -- you removed the part about Hitler's support. If you want to write an article about the Hitler-Himmler power issue and how it relates to the Holocaust, we could definitely link to it from here, but we can't just add hints of it here and there to the article unsourced, as though it's as plain as day. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
(moved from SV talk) Hallo, your edits to the Holocaust article are unfair. Your reasoning is: "Hitler led the regime" - yes, we know that (especially I, since I am an actual German). But the article is not about the NSDAP (the Nazi Party), it is about the Holocaust. The opening paragraph states that the regime was led by Hitler, but it should also state that Himmler was the mastermind of the Holocaust. In Germany, this is the accepted fact (that Heinrich Himmler was equally guilty of the extermination of the people deemed "subhumans" as Hitler, if not more so some argue). I think it is very important that Himmler (being the mastermind of the Holocaust) be included in the opening paragraph. Heinrich was, after Hitler, the most powerful man in Nazi Germany (this is widely accepted in Germany). He was the founder and officer-in-charge of all the Nazi concentration and extermination camps, he was the one that formed the Einsatzgruppen death squads, he was the Supreme Commander of the SS (Reichsführer-SS), Reichsleiter, and he held final command responsibility for annihilating all those that were deemed "subhumans". Since the article is about the Holocaust (which Himmler was the mastermind of), he must definitely be in the opening paragraph. His role in perpetrating the extermination of those thought to be "subhumans" is at least equal to Hitler's, or perhaps even more (in Germany, many argue that Himmler was even more responsible and thus was more guilty). I will put it back since Heinrich Himmler was the main perpetrator of the Holocaust (at least equal to Hitler). TheGoodSon 1:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlimVirgin (talkcontribs)
Please try to get consensus on talk and don't just keep adding it back. Himmler was not the head of the regime, so your placement of it is inappropriate. There may be some other way to add it to the lead, but personally I don't see the need. The text makes Himmler's role clear enough. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not implying that Himmler was more powerful than Hitler (no one would ever think that), here in Germany (and everywhere else - it is common knowledge that Hitler was the leader of the Party). However, here in Germany and everywhere else in the world, it is widely accepted that Heinrich Himmler was the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany after Hitler. The role he played in perpetrating the Holocaust is at least equal to that of Hitler's. Heinrich was the mastermind, the architect, and the one that went to the greatest lengths to implement the Holocaust. The opening paragraph clearly states that the NSDAP was led by Adolf Hitler (everyone on earth knows that), but the article is about the Holocaust, not the Nazi Party. The fact that Heinrich Himmler was the mastermind and architect of the Holocaust deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. If the wording is a bit off, then maybe you can reword it since you are a native English speaker (I assume). But my point is that Himmler must be mentioned in the opening paragraph as the mastermind behind the Holocaust.TheGoodSon 01:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Other people disagree with you. You can't keep reverting against multiple editors over that one issue. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has expressed any disagreement, only you. What I am writing in the opening paragraph is not fiction, it is the actual fact, so I don't see what is so wrong with that. Himmler was 2nd most powerful man in Nazi Germany and he was the main perpetrator of the Holocaust, so mentioning him in the opening paragraph is of paramount importance. I reworded the sentence by putting Hitler's "right-hand man", making it clear that Hitler was the most powerful figure in Nazi Germany. TheGoodSon 01:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see four editors who've reverted you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we then at least come to a compromise? I believe that mentioning Himmler in the opening paragraph of the Holocaust article is very important for obvious reasons. We could do this without downplaying the fact that Adolf Hitler was the absolute Leader of the NSDAP (that fact is absolutely not debatable). As I have mentioned, Himmler was the founder and officer in charge of the concentration and extermination camps, he formed and headed the Einsatzgruppen death squads, he was Supreme Commander of the SS, he personally visited concentration camps and witnessed hundreds of those deemed "subhumans" being executed via firing squad on a single visit, he also visited Auschwitz himself, he ordered the killings and he held final command responsibility for annihilating those deemed "subhumans". Himmler was also the only Nazi leader that had enough power and influence to ignore or over-rule Hitler's orders without facing punishment from Hitler. The relationship between Hitler and Himmler was extremely well. Himmler was Hitler's most loyal Nazi leader, and Hitler knew it. Hitler also knew that Himmler was the most meticulous, systematic, organized, and efficient member of the entire Nazi leadership - Hitler trusted Himmler more than anything or anyone else. Hitler knew that Himmler was the only one capable of organizing and implementing the Holocaust with great efficiency. Point is, Himmler's power was immense and the fact that he was the mastermind and architect of the Holocaust deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. In fact, where I am from (Germany), many argue that Himmler held more responsibility and power over the Holocaust. TheGoodSon (talk)(contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't really think that a reference to Himmler should be in the first para as it is an intro. However the article doesn't really give adequate identification to Himmler. The first mention seems to be in the last para of the subsection, Origins: "Heinrich Himmler's right-hand man, Reinhard Heydrich...". A good compromise might be to add sentence before that something such as: "Heinrich Himmler, Commander of the SS and one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany has been referred to as the "architect of genocide" (ref Breitman, Richard (2004). Himmler and the Final Solution: The Architect of Genocide. Pimlico, Random House, London. ISBN 1-84413-089-4.) His right-hand man, Reinhard Heydrich, recommended...."Joel Mc (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Good idea, Joel. Any extended discussion of Himmler's role could be added to Responsibility for the Holocaust. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hitler didn't care about the "details" at all. He never even visited any of the concentration camps (not to mention extermination), nor he ever personally ordered creation of any, as far as I know, and so on. Holocaust was the work of Himmler, his personal pet project he supervised. Hitler's work was leading the Nazi regime and the conqest of Europe (and indeed some genocidal orders, like this regarding no criminal responibility for any crime against Poles), but Himmler's responsibility was much greater. On a sidenote, he wasn't that loyal to the end (especialy in 1945). And if we further discuss Hitler, for example the Crystal Night pogrom was present to him - he didn't order this, he didn't know in advance (and no, he didn't condamn it, but Goering did). And so on. Some actually argued Hitler was kept in the dark about the Final Solution and just didn't know (I'm not prepare to discuss this). --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is universally accepted by anyone who isn't a David Irving clone that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. See Rosenbaum's Exlaining Hitler for a discussion of this. Goebbels was more directly reponsible for Kristallnacht, true, but this article isn't about that. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Kristallnacht was the work of some other Party leaders. Goering was actually concerned about the economic impact ("They destroyed every apothecary in Germany!"), or so I was told. Of course he was too a rampant anti-Semite etc. Even if Hitler gave an order, he was not interested in the details. See Operation Anfal and how prominently al-Majid is mentioned every once and often. --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Other than who? You did actually read what I wrote didn't you? I fail to see any relevance to your references to Chemical Ali. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

New Map

Denis, the eastern border of Germany is post war and does reflect the actual stitution in 1942. Sorry to put you to work again!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No probs at all, Woogie, I'm very thankful for every heads-up! After all, I wanna get things straight! I'm copying this note to my talk page under User_talk:Dna-webmaster#New_map_-_some_ideas; if you, or anyone else have more corrections/suggestions, please state them there on my talk page. I'm currently waiting for the new map to "sink in" and be scrutinized some more, and I will probably have a new version ready tomorrow or so. Thanks again, regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I noticed that Luxembourg and Belgian Morsent was not in Germany--Woogie10w (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

New, corrected map uploaded - further corrections and suggestions are happily received (e.g. more camps worth mentioning?). In any case, please respond on my talk page: User_talk:Dna-webmaster#New_map_-_some_ideas. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Operation Harvest Festival

Just to remind you that one of the worst crimes of the Holocaust (and I believe the worst in the terms of killing per day) remains almost completely forgetten, and the article is merely a stub. I just linked it to the template catogorizing under Einsatzgruppen, because technically it was a "special operation" and used the same methods. Here in the article, it's not even mentioned. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Article on German attempts to cover up Holocaust unlinked-Operation 1005

A long time ago I made article on German operation to cover up Holocaust during the war, now I don't have as much time as I used to but I think it could be usefull, and somebody can expand on that in article: Sonderaktion 1005, Also I think it would be good to link in Holocaust template. --Molobo (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Slavic people - majority of the camp victims - not listed in the article table at all !

Slavic people died in the concentration camps following the NAZI Lebensraum plan and racial inferiority theory (please see the corresponding articles. However, the fact of mass elimination is not emphysised when Holocaust mentioned. The number of the Soviet civilian killed in the camps is at least as large as Jewish people and potentially 2-3 times large (please see World War II casualties). So why we ignore this fact, - Slavs are not so important ?
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).