Talk:Holocaust trains

Untitled

• Endorse speedy closure. Tomer^talk 22:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

This article's name violates WP:NAME, if for no other reason, because it begins with the word "the"... Tomer^talk 23:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Then at least suggest an alternate! Holocaust Trains ...or .... Trains of the Holocaust? Having pulled it back from AfD with a major rewrite, I'm pretty much wikied out at present! Rgds, --Trident13 00:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Suggest Holocaust rail transport —dgies^t_c 00:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm trying to come up with a decent name... I'm not sure Holocaust rail transport really captures what this article is about. Tomer^talk 00:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Digging around after doing this gsearch, I propose the very neutral sounding Trains of death or Holocaust trains (I know the latter isn't from the title of the article it links to...but the way it showed up in the gsearch is what gave me the idea.) Cheers, Tomer^talk 00:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I assume you were being sarcastic about Trains of death being neutral-sounding. While we shouldn't sanitize the subject, it's bad to be melodramatic about it. I think "Holocaust" should be the first word since it is more about that than rail transport. In that light, Holocaust trains is a pretty good option. —dgies^t_c 00:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, my tongue hurts from yanking it out of my cheek. It was stuck pretty tight. I agree, "Holocaust trains" is a good title...in fact, far more likely than any of the other options to be used as a "search term". Cheers, Tomer^talk 01:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

    All in favor? All opposed? Yea/Nay? Tomer^talk 01:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Trains of death" is too POV (must be a joke), so if we have to choose a title now then the best so far is Holocaust trains. Rgds, --Trident13 08:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was in jest. I thought I'd already clarified that.  :-\ Tomer^talk 23:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"Holocaust trains" is OK but I prefer Role of trains in the Holocaust per my suggestion below and despite the response from Dgies. --Richard 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Applause!

To Trident for this amazing rewrite, done under significant time pressure! (Oh, might as well weigh in: I prefer a title with "and" as a connector: "Rail transport and the Holocaust" or "Trains and the Holocaust") --Myke Cuthbert 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I ditto your applause on the rewrite. The article's name isn't set in stone. I doubt that the mini:"consensus" of "Holocaust trains" as the best option of those suggested really precludes discussion of a potentially more fitting title, should it be discussed in text large enough to read w/o a microscope. :-) Tomer^talk 23:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Title

I like the article (well, as much as anyone can like a discussion of such an abhorrent episode in human history). I'm glad it was speedy kept; I would have voted to keep.

However, I don't like the title because it strikes me as a neologism. Does anyone outside of Wikipedia use the phrase "Holocaust trains"? If not, maybe we should change the title to "Role of trains in the Holocaust".

--Richard 20:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That seems unnecessarily wordy, and the term is in use. —dgies^t_c 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

351 ghits is something short of impressive. --Richard 21:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

According to google it's 175x more popular: [2] —dgies^t_c 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course most short phrases are usually going to be more common than a longer one. I agree with Richard's concern that "Holocaust trains" sounds like it should be a common term for these trains, and it is not. Even though it is not completely a neologism (there are a few ghits for the expression) nor is it in common use. On the other hand, "Role of trains in the Holocaust" nearly perfectly describes the article's contents. (I think though the term should be "rail transport," because it's about the whole system rather than just the trains). --Myke Cuthbert 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

How about a good proposal for the name, Role of trains in the Holocaust, just to use a "random" (wink wink) example, with "Holocaust trains" as a redirect (which will happen if the article is simply moved to the newly-agreed-upon title)? Tomer^talk 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems too wordy/passive voice. 3 words are pronouns, prepositions or adpositions, and the two opmrative words are at the end. —dgies^t_c 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The current suggestions all seem far too wordy, and not quite right. I have put a request on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history for their input. I'd like to get this resolved, as I am considering developing this article up to Featured Article status. Rgds, --Trident13 11:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I rather like the suggestions by Myke Cuthbert of using "Trains and the Holocaust" or "Rail transport and the Holocaust". This ties the two topics together without creating a neologism, and sounds academic and professional. "Rail transport and the Holocaust" is the kind of phrasing I would fully expect to see as the subtitle of an academic paper. LordAmeth 13:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Payment

This section has no citations sourcing it so I am adding the template for it. If anyone could clear this section up then it may not need to be deleted 210.84.41.177 (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Romania section

It contains various inaccuracies:

• Total estimated number of Jewish people killed by the actions of Romanian Antonescu government is between 280,000 and 380,000 (see International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania). The various sources cited in the "Holocaust train" article are personal "tallies" by people that survived the Holocaust - the documented numbers were reviewed by a large number of experts in the Wiesel commission and an upper and lower limit were established based on verifiable data.
• The large majority of these people were killed in the concentration camps in Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and Transnistria - no Jews or Roma were sent by the Romanian government to Auschwitz nor Belzec (see same source).
• Approximately 7000 Jews were interred and survived in Calarasi concentration camp in southern Romania after failed attempts to drive dozens of of them in the Soviet territories resulted in death.
• reference 33 "Holocaust Controversies: Carlo Mattogno on Belzec Archaeological Research - Part 5 and Conclusion" has nothing to do with Romanian Jews.

In light of these numbers and facts (internationally recognized) I submit the following revised text for the section on Romania:

Romania had the third largest Jewish population in Europe after Russia and Poland, and antisemitic feelings ran high in pre-War Romania, based partly on Christian beliefs as well as modern politics stemming from King Carol II. When he was forced to resign, the Government headed by Ion Antonescu introduced draconian anti-Jewish legislation, which was openly inspired by the Nazi Nuremberg Laws. During 1941 and 1942, thirty-two anti-Semitic laws, thirty-one decree-laws, and seventeen government resolutions were passed and decreed. This resulted in many Jews leaving for Palestine by ship in Autumn 1940.. The Romanian Antonescu regime was responsible for the deaths of between 280,000 and 380,000 Jews. As a result of Romania having to give up territories to the Soviet Union, Hungary and Bulgaria in summer 1940, Jews in the new border regions were rounded up and massacred in concentration camps in Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and Transnistria. Nearly 15,000 Jews were killed in various locations of the Romanian Old Kingdom, most notably during the Iasi pogrom. In addition, 26,000 Roma people were deported to Transnistria concentration camps, where almost 10,000 of them died.

Variations

I've re-arranged the Variations section to include a paragraph on Germany. I was surprised to find there wasn't one already. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in Modern day legacy: France

Hello, to whomever may be watching this page. Although I have introduced myself elsewhere on Wikipedia, primarily on the SNCF page, this is my first message here. My name is Jerry Ray, and I am a consultant to SNCF, the French railway company, in Washington, DC. Last year I began reaching out to editors to help address inaccuracies related to the Holocaust in the SNCF article. Now I would like to bring editors' attention to similar issues within this article.

As editors here will no doubt agree, this is a difficult subject, but one in which it is highly important to get the facts right. My aim here is to provide a revised version of the current "Modern day legacy" section. This new version, with which I have had some assistance in researching and writing, represents an improvement in several ways. First, it presents a clearer overview of what was at stake in the Liepitz case. Second, it describes the US controversy more accurately, which was not limited to California. Third, it better describes how SNCF handled it and other viewpoints in the case, some of which is retained from the current entry. Lastly, there is a short final paragraph describing actions taken by SNCF in the modern era relating to this episode.

Here is what I suggest:

France

===France=== In 2001, a lawsuit was filed against French government-owned rail company SNCF by Georges Lipietz, a Holocaust survivor, who was transported by SNCF to the Drancy internment camp in 1944. Lipietz was held at the internment camp for several months before the camp was liberated. After Lipietz's death the lawsuit was pursued by his family and in 2006 an administrative court in Toulouse ruled in favor of the Lipietz family. SNCF was ordered to pay 61,000 Euros in restitution. SNCF appealed the ruling at an administrative appeals court in Bordeaux, where in March 2007 the original ruling was overturned. According to historian Michael Marrus the court in Bordeaux "declared the railway company had acted under the authority of the Vichy government and the German occupation" and as such could not be held independently liable. Following the Lipietz trial, SNCF's involvement in World War II became the subject of attention in the United States when SNCF explored bids on rail projects in Florida and California, and SNCF's partly-owned subsidiary, Keolis Rail Services America bid on projects in Virginia and Maryland. While bidding on these rail contracts, SNCF was criticized for not formally acknowledging and apologizing for its involvement in World War II. In 2011, SNCF chairman Guillaume Pepy released a formal statement of regrets for the company's actions during World War II. Some historians have expressed the opinion that SNCF has been unfairly targeted in the United States for their involvement in World War II. Human rights attorney Arno Klarsfeld has argued that the negative focus on SNCF was disrespectful to the French railway workers who lost their lives engaging in acts of resistance. Marrus wrote in his 2011 essay that the company has taken responsibility for their actions and it is the company's willingness to open up their archives and acknowledge their involvement in the transportation of Holocaust victims that has led to the recent legal and legislative attention. In 1992, SNCF commissioned a report on its involvement in World War II. The company opened its archives to an independent historian, Christian Bachelier, whose report was released in French in 2000. It was translated to English in 2010. Between 2002 and 2004 SNCF helped fund an exhibit on deportation of Jewish children that was organized by Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld. In 2011, SNCF helped set up a railway station outside of Paris to a Shoah Foundation for the creation of a memorial to honor Holocaust victims. References

I am very interested to hear feedback on this version from editors here. Please make any edits you wish and I will answer any questions I can. Thanks in advance. Jerry M. Ray (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More material on the concerns (overblown or not) raised by the politicians in the US seems necessary. Also, the news stories in the ruling against SNCF being overturned in 2007 state that this was done as the court which made the original ruling didn't have the appropriate jurisdiction - how does this gel with what Marrus wrote? Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thank you for reviewing this draft. First, I've included an excerpt from Marrus' report regarding the 2007 ruling. Marrus explains that the issue of jurisdiction is closely related to the issue of liability. He says that because SNCF cannot be held independently liable, the Appeal Court lacked the jurisdiction to rule one the case.

On March 27, 2007, the plaintiffs suffered a severe setback when, in response to an appeal by the SNCF, the Administrative Appeal Court in Bordeaux reversed the Toulouse decision and declared the railway company had acted under the authority of the Vichy government and the German occupation. The SNCF, the court said in effect, had acted under governmental authority and hence could not be held independently liable. The Appeal Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction in the case. Months later, in December 2007, the matter went to the Conseil d'Etat, which pronounced definitively against the plaintiff's appeal.

Second, I have revised the draft to include more information about concerns raised by U.S. politicians. Please let me know what you think of this draft. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Revised France

===France=== In 2001, a lawsuit was filed against French government-owned rail company SNCF by Georges Lipietz, a Holocaust survivor, who was transported by SNCF to the Drancy internment camp in 1944. Lipietz was held at the internment camp for several months before the camp was liberated. After Lipietz's death the lawsuit was pursued by his family and in 2006 an administrative court in Toulouse ruled in favor of the Lipietz family. SNCF was ordered to pay 61,000 Euros in restitution. SNCF appealed the ruling at an administrative appeals court in Bordeaux, where in March 2007 the original ruling was overturned. According to historian Michael Marrus the court in Bordeaux "declared the railway company had acted under the authority of the Vichy government and the German occupation" and as such could not be held independently liable. Following the Lipietz trial, SNCF's involvement in World War II became the subject of attention in the United States when SNCF explored bids on rail projects in Florida and California, and SNCF's partly-owned subsidiary, Keolis Rail Services America bid on projects in Virginia and Maryland. In 2010, Keolis placed a bid on a contract to operate the Brunswick and Camden lines of the MARC train in Maryland. Following pressure from Holocaust survivors in Maryland, the state passed legislation in 2011 requiring companies bidding on the project to disclose their involvement in the Holocaust. Keolis currently operates the Virginia Railway Express, a contract the company received in 2010. In California, also in 2010, state lawmakers passed the Holocaust Survivor Responsibility Act. The bill, written to require companies to disclose their involvement in World War II, was later vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. While bidding on these rail contracts, SNCF was criticized for not formally acknowledging and apologizing for its involvement in World War II. In 2011, SNCF chairman Guillaume Pepy released a formal statement of regrets for the company's actions during World War II. Some historians have expressed the opinion that SNCF has been unfairly targeted in the United States for their involvement in World War II. Human rights attorney Arno Klarsfeld has argued that the negative focus on SNCF was disrespectful to the French railway workers who lost their lives engaging in acts of resistance. Marrus wrote in his 2011 essay that the company has taken responsibility for their actions and it is the company's willingness to open up their archives and acknowledge their involvement in the transportation of Holocaust victims that has led to the recent legal and legislative attention. In 1992, SNCF commissioned a report on its involvement in World War II. The company opened its archives to an independent historian, Christian Bachelier, whose report was released in French in 2000. It was translated to English in 2010. Between 2002 and 2004 SNCF helped fund an exhibit on deportation of Jewish children that was organized by Nazi hunter Serge Klarsfeld. In 2011, SNCF helped set up a railway station outside of Paris to a Shoah Foundation for the creation of a memorial to honor Holocaust victims. References

• This discussion seems to have gone quiet. The latest text seems to cover the points raised, I think. It also explains things better, and adds a bit of context, I feel. Are there any objections to this text being posted instead of the existing one? Xyl 54 (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • That proposed text looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, done. It slotted in easily, no dud references or anything. Well done all! Xyl 54 (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Belgium and reliability

I've done some fairly radical revisioning of the "Belgium" section of the article. Alas, the topic is not my area of interest, but after moving The Holocaust in Belgium to GA, I feel I know something about this. Unfortunately, the existing paragraph had extremely skewed perspective and numerous (fairly basic) mistakes. This I think is the result of the poor sources which really do not measure up to WP:RS. This is a shame because it is an important topic, and books on it should not be difficult to come across. I do fear, however, that these inaccuracies may extend to the other sections also. Perhaps other editors could double check? Brigade Piron (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to check - there is literally no mention of Robert de Foy and the "Phantom Trains" (a journalist's over-excitable belief in Belgians deporting thousands of Jews with literally no compulsion on spec in September 1940?) in this source Belgium and the Holocaust: Jews, Belgians, Germans and The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 which are both impeccable and comprehensive sources. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Naming (again)

The phrase "Holocaust train" is rarely, if ever, used verbatim in conversation or print. However, the Wikipedia use of the phrase makes for some awkward prose. I propose that this article be renamed Railroad car (The Holocaust) (such as the USHMM puts it).[3] Then it would also be disambiguated from the article Railroad car.- Gilliam (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the most used name online and in literature would be "Holocaust trains" as oppose to Holocaust train (singular). I don't understand why it wasn't plural to begin with. Poeticbent talk 01:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

As its a European based subject, why we would use Americanisms such as "railroad car" in the title? Secondly, the article is not about the trucks, but the trains and their purpose/chronology - so why focus a title on a truck/carriage (they did use both)? From day one there has always been a debate about the title of this article (it was originally the title of someone's thesis paper), and like Poeticbent I'd prefer the plural to the current singular, but at least that points here as a redirect. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Awkward phrasing

Normally I'd just be bold and edit, but I realise this might be a slightly trickier page than most. The page says:

"The longest transport of the war, from Corfu, took 18 days. When the train arrived at the camp and the doors were opened, everyone was already dead. The armed Trawniki guards shot the remaining few trying to run."

The last sentence is not in the source, nor consistent with the previous one. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

BR 52 a typical holocaust locomotive?? - see description of picture

To say that the BR 52 was a TYPICAL holocaust locomotive is a bit stupid to say the least, BECAUSE there was NO TYPICAL locomotive type! It could be any polish, german, French etx locomotive, considering that most death camps were situated in Poland (in fact the only one outside Poland was Auschwitz), a polish locomotive would have been used at the "end of the journey"! BR 52 came only in service in 1943 and when looked at closely, was very quickly removed from "front line" service (if need be I provide a source for this), because they were much to valuable! Peter A. Brenner, @: peterachimbrenner@yahoo.de 151.136.144.155 (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)