Talk:The Holocaust

'Hear-Say in subarticle 3.2.3'

In the subarticle 3.2.3 'South and East Slavs' there is hear-say statement of a former Nazi official which is taken as true, or at least trying to imply something for a fact.

Quote: Hitler's high plenipotentiary in South East Europe, Hermann Neubacher, later wrote: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs (including babies, children, women and old men) were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. End quote:

The objective data is at the end of the subsection.

Quote: The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75] End quote:

Instead of the quote from Neubacher I suggest putting a list of WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia of all nationalities not just one.

The following link contains one such list. It is an online version of the paper number 69 in the quote list. Table 5 of the paper has a column named 'victims in camps' which should indicate victims in concentration camps. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mljk (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

World War II persecution of Serbs was NOT part of the Holocaust

• Nazis were not involved (anymore than in anti-partisan opertions elsewhere - and partisans were of all nations).
• Nazis actually had a Serbian puppet state (persecuting Jews, with their own Serbian Waffen-SS formations). Just like the Croats.

And you want to compare the Croat-Serb (notice the lack of German interest in this) ethnic conflict to Shoah? It's ridicalous. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and about this "The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75]" Guys, guys. They just relied what the Yugoslav (Serb dominated, Belgrade-based) government told them! It's like saying that "however" Polish communists said 4 million people died at Auschwitz. It's just not serious. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, only Auschwitz (1.1 million or so) and Treblinka (850,000) had more than 600,000 victims. If you think a bunch of Croat fascists in their ramshack camp would beat the professional Germans and their industrial killing in effeciency, I have no further questions. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and of course the Croats killed many thousands of Jews and Gypsies - THIS was German supported. I hope you can see the difference. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Germans were (directly) involved in hundreds of wholesale village massacres in Belarus and in Ukraine, yet we classify it as simply "German war crimes" here (on Wikipedia), as Generalplan Ost was about something more and this was ad-hoc while trying to eradicte the partisan threat. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Length

This is now 187 kb long, and very hard to load. It needs to be cut back. Please don't add any more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Trimming the Holocaust template

Comments appreciated here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote

We should add a quote. like Eisenhower's: "Boys, now you know why we're fighting." --LandonJaeger (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust side bar - Error

I don't know how it can be edited but the side bar for the Holocaust - has a glaring mistake:

Concentration camps were not death camps and death camps were not Arbeitslager. However the side bar makes no distinction....

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek (initially founded as a concentration camp but a death camp for most of its operation) should have their own section: Extermination Camps (or Centers)

Likewise Mittelbau-Dora and Ebensee concentration camp should be included but noted as work camps.

I think it would remove the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.39 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No section for "CONTROVERSY"?

I find this rather odd, that there is no mention of anything of the sort, like actual numbers especially JEWS killed, and the methods and causes of death. And im not talking about revisionism or "holocaust denial", but of the fact how did people die, cause of criminal neclect and lack of food and medical supplies, lack of sanitation at at the camp, or by "systemtic gassings" etc, also of the not the OFFICIAL JEWISH DEATHTOLL at Aushwitzh has been adjusted down from 6 million down to most recent 1.0 to 1.1 million accepted TODAY.

Also of EINSATZGRUPPEN, this "organisation" was of 4 units of "battalion size" wiki says 600 to 1000 strong (reality 200 too 700?) that these killed another 1,5 million JEWS alone, nevermind all the comminist and such, and the partisans they fought, now if we take an average of 3000 people for the organisation that alone makes 500 jews executed per head, believable?, i do not think so. Just some things that need to be addressed in the article i feel.

Also i have this feeling that they have counted every JEW killed in this war as a "holocaust victim", never mind many of them no doubt, died "in war" like artillery fire on cities, towns, villages, etc, in air raids, of starvation and illness like in Stalingrad, Leningrad etc and in ranks of different armies, like especially US and USSR who's armed forces included both hundreds of thousands of Jews. All in all, people dead in this fassion i think cannot be claimed as victims of a "holocaust", lest you count whole affair of ww2 as one global holocaust which it really was, but on this there really isnt a one responssible and not just a one victim cause even Germany suffered horribly with millions of both civilians and soldiers dead, with many losing their freedom for up to ten years (POW's in UK and USSR) with people dying of sickness and hunger to the 1950's in Soviet camps and Germany proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read this page and this one, for starters. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes what published reliable sources have said about its topics. It is not an online forum where everyone posts what they think, or what they've heard, or what makes sense to them. In other words, if you can find reliable published sources (for this specific article, we prefer high quality mainstream scholarly sources such as historians who specialize in the Holocaust), and you find that they add new information, feel free to add them. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the overwhelming consensus is that the Holocaust is a non-controversial fact. Detractors who take the opposite view are more accurately termed "denialists." Because, by nature, their views are wildly divergent from mainstream understanding of the event, giving denialists a section on the main Holocaust page would be adding disproportionate weight to their claims. This page is about the Holocaust, necessarily not about every stupid thing anyone's ever said about it. Mainstream historians disagree, and that's why there are ranges for things like death tolls, and different notions presented regarding the complicity of German institutions versus extreme acts of villainy among Nazi leaders. You're not going to get anywhere by parsing something like this, and the talk page isn't a soapbox to argue a position not only held by very few, but actually specifically rejected by very many. You're just going to crush your credibility, making it highly unlikely that any edit you ever make to this article will survive revision.69.94.192.147 (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Selection

Is there a reason why the "Selection" image appears twice in the article? Crum375 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Massacre, nazi-genocide or nazi-genocide of Jews?

There appear to be three definitions of 'holocaust':

• any great slaughter or massacre
• specifically the genocide by the nazis
• even more specifically the genocide of the Jews by the nazis

Now I don't really care very much which of the three this article is about, but it should make up its mind. Ideally, there should be a separate article for each. (Which would also be a partial solution to the article being too long.) I don't know if there is enough material for the first definition, although that could contain the (main) discussion about what the word means. But there certainly is for the last two definitions. Also note that Holocaust victims is about the second definition, whereas this article is mostly (but not exclusively!) about the third definition, which adds to the confusion. Actually, that article might be a good starting point for an article in the second definition.
This will lead to the question what the three articles should be called, but that is secondary to which articles there should be. Not being a native English speaker, I don't have the vocabulary in my head, so I'll leave that to others.
Finally ,there is the question of how this should be presented. Should 'holocaust' be a disambiguation page or should it start with one of the three proposed articles? However, that is also secondary to the main question which articles there should be. DirkvdM (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Other note: Given "political activists" are listed. Shouldn't there be a death toll? They were the group that had the highest survival rate in concentration camps but that doesn't say much. I mainly find it strange to list them, but ommit their death toll in the table or make any mention on how many people simply died for having signed up for the wrong party line. When the article is divided this might be addressed as well. 84.154.12.254 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking Eichmann's word for it?

The article states: "The figure most commonly used is the six million cited by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official..." Doesn't this seem a little weird, to take the word of a top Nazi at face value? Especially considering that Rudolf Hoess was blackmailed by the Soviets into signing a false confession about figures at Auschwitz (sorry no reference on-hand at the moment).

Also, do anyone know why there's such a discrepancy in numbers of German Jews who survived (and/or didn't) from Wikipedia to About.com's figures? (http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/bldied.htm) They both claim to cite, among others, Lucy Dawidowicz, but vary *widely*. (The former lists 210,000 out 240,000 killed, the latter 142,000 out of 565,000--does anyone have a copy of it perhaps?) Historian932 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't deny the systematic murder of six million Jews!!! Beganlocal (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of six million was already mentioned by one of the accused as the numbet that was reported. However, they had reason to keep the mentioned number as low as possible. The reported number did not include the unregistered systematic killings of Jews or populations with a high proportion of Jews in the occupied Soviet Union, nor did it include the killings after the last reports to German government. So, one can guess that the number of six million is much too low.