Talk:The Holocaust

Serb victims

I recently made an attempt to expand the literature regarding the Serb victims of the Holocaust. This was done at both the introduction and victims/death toll section. My addition was reverted by Ealdgyth due to unspecified reasons. The Serbian Genocide of WW2 forms part of the Holocaust, in line with what is stated in the Genocide article. An explanation would be appreciated to confirm why such an addition is contested or, input as to how to reword my contribution ThreatMatrix (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, your addition was first removed here and then you readded it. Only after the readdition, did I revert you. @SlimVirgin: who took the information out first time. From my viewpoint, the information is too detailed and certainly fails WP:NPOV with phrasing such as "the most gruesome of killing methods". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

A section about actions against the Serbs by the Ustashe isn't appropriate in an article about the Holocaust. Threatmatrix, if you're arguing that it does belong, please post here some RS (Holocaust historians) so that we can judge relevance and DUE. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The Serbian Genocide was an attempt by Nazi collaborators during WW2 to exterminate an entire race of people. The Serbian Genocide forms part of the Holocaust, just like the attempted extermination of the Roma, other Slavs etc. If this event is not relevant to the Holocaust then the sections regarding ethnic Poles, Soviet POW's etc would need to be removed. The emphasis on the grotesque nature of the Ustashe crimes is very much emphasized by Edmond (1961). I am able to re post my addition with more neutral language in line with WP:NPOV.Gideon Greif is very active in this field. ThreatMatrix (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

The issue of linking the Serbian Genocide to the Holocaust is not so much due it not being a genocide, but rather since the Ustaše are seen by many as acting on their accord - genociding Serbs as part of their own agenda - the Nazies permitted or were complicit in this, but per many were not the driving force behind this.Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Edmond Paris wasn't a Holocaust historian. According to snippet view, his book uses the term "holocaust" three times, not in the sense of the Holocaust, but "this gigantic holocaust", "a gigantic holocaust" and "a frightful holocaust". What we need to see are mainstream academic historians specializing in the Holocaust who regard the Serbian genocide as part of it. That will give us a sense of whether to include it and how much to say about it, per WP:DUE. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I am strapped for time so I am not at this stage available to conduct a systematic review, however it is on my to do list. However for now I reverted Ealdgyth's removal of my addition. The section of text that states that Serbs could escape death through conversion is not sourced and misrepresents what actually occured. The Glina massacre highlights that the Ustashe did not follow this practice in its entirety and the focus should be on what the Ustashe actually did. The Serbian Genocide overlaps with the Holocaust and given that there was a mention of it prior to my arrival to this page, a replacement of non-referenced material with referenced material was warranted ThreatMatrix (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

it was referenced. The reference at the end of the paragraph covers everything before it. So the Black reference cover that information. You have instead put in a source which is unknown (Baker) and inserted too much detail. You were bold and you were reverted, please don’t edit war by returning the information. Please self revert and wait for consensus to form in favor of your additions..and supply full bibliographical info for it. You might also note that this article has a consistent citation style..conforming to it is considered polite. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Icewhiz, perhaps you wish to weigh back in. I read the consensus from early February as being against this information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If in, in terms of placement this should go in "Victims and death toll". We currently do cover Roma deaths at the hands of the Ustase - and is organized by victim type (e.g. we have ethnic Pole section). A reference from a wide Holocaust work should be preferred over a Yugoslav specific one.Icewhiz (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

ThreatMatrix, please don't restore this again. This article is meant to be about the Holocaust—the genocide of the European Jews—and should be based on the work of mainstream Holocaust historians. To place the history in context, the article covers other atrocities during the Holocaust era, but we can't go into detail about them. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy with the edit by SlimVirgin. No further action will be taken from my end. ThreatMatrix (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

"Too crowded"

@SlimVirgin: What do you mean by "too crowded"? M . M 19:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly what it sounds like ... there are too many images in the section in that editor's view. You added the image, it was reverted, you then discuss (not readd the image and then discuss). Also - readding the Hull and Arendt refs is not helpful - they aren't needed as Crowe covers the information. Nor are either Hull or Arendt listed in the sources section, so adding them without putting in full bibliographical details is not helpful at all. Your addition of the image ALSO broke one sentence from its source - that's not helpful either. I spent a good two months fixing all the references in this article so that everything is sourced and all the sources support the information they are sourced to. It is very unhelpful to come in and be sloppy with references - by adding sources not in the source section and by breaking sentences from the sources supporting them. (As a further aside - sources from 1963 and Arendt's reporting on the Eichman trial are out of date - we should go with recent secondary sources, not sources from 1963.) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

VwM.Mwv, there were too many images in that section, and the short cites didn't link to anything. We should have an image of Eichmann somewhere on the page, and I've been looking to see where best to place it. Wannsee Conference or Holocaust in Hungary are the two obvious places. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why bother starting a discussion on the talk page if you're not going to bother reading what others reply? You returned the image with all the OTHER problems that were mentioned. Please revert yourself and discuss rather than edit war... which is what you're doing right now. You've restored errors that were pointed out to you in both the edit summary AND in the discussion YOU started. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, I don't have a problem with someome removing the sources, I just found them in the Adolf Eichmann article citing the relevant information. As for the picture, I added a smaller one, and made sure that the above link (to the Einsatzgruppen trial) was not disturbed in the revert process. M . M 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Btw, the previous version was shit. It put his death at the wrong month, it didn't have a picture, it inaccurately described his capture as a "kidnapping", and it didn't even contain a link to the Eichmann article. M . M 20:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) No, YOU restored the sources ... so you can remove them and fix the breakup of the sourcing that you did also... this is not a great article for someone new to editing to come in and play bull in the china shop with. You should at least fix your own errors. And .. copying sources from other articles without actually looking at the sources and confirming that they say what they are being added on to as support is a really really really bad idea. You have no idea if those sources you added actually support anything you added them onto, do you? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

As for the death month of Eichman, he was hung on the night of 31 May/1 June, so there's some confusion in the sources about which exact date to give as his death date. We don't need a picture of him in a section on all the trials after the ending of the Holocaust. And he was indeed "kidnapped"... that's been discussed quite often in the past - either captured or kidnapped works. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I never accused you of making claims without checking the sources. But if you didn't, I invite you to look at the actual quotes. They clearly put his death in June. I used "captured" because that's what it says in the main article. I still don't understand how only two small pictures in a section can be regarded as "too many". And as I said, I already restored the break-up long ago. M . M 20:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Did you check the Hull and Arendt sources you added in here to make sure they supported the information that you attached them to? And the sentence "Other trials of Nazis and collaborators took place in Western and Eastern Europe." is still at the end of a paragraph without any citation on it. And the Hull and Arendt sources still do not have full bibliographic details given for them. You've fixed nothing. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant the Einsatzgruppen trial link that was previously broken off. As for the "Other trials" sentence, there was never any citation to it in the first place, and I didn't add it. Though I can add quotes to the sources I added if you want me to. M . M 20:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Please don't add sources here just because you found them in another article. You need to read them, make sure they're appropriate, and add the long citation to the "works cited" section. In general, once you're reverted, please come to talk and don't keep reverting. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec) No, there was a source attached to it. The Crowe source, pages 430-433. It is quite easy to see - as "Other trials of Nazis and collaborators took place in Western and Eastern Europe. In 1960 Israeli Mossad agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Israel to stand trial for war crimes. The trial ended in his conviction in December 1961 and execution in June 1962. Eichmann's trial and death revived interest in war criminals and the Holocaust in general." is then followed by {{sfn|Crowe|2008|pp=430–433}} That means that the Crowe source pp. 430-433 supports ALL the sentences prior to it up until the next previous source. By splitting the paragraph up, you then split the sentence "Other trials of Nazis and collaborators took place in Western and Eastern Europe." from its supporting source. You then inserted a source (Hull 1963 with no page numbers) to the sentences (and changed some things and added a link to "Jewish people" which is already linked in the article before) "In 1960, Israeli Mossad agents captured main Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and brought him to Israel to stand trial on 15 counts including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the Jewish people. The trial ended in his conviction in December 1961, and his execution in June 1962." And then you added an additional source (arendt 1963 p. 252) to the sentence "Eichmann's trial and death revived interest in war criminals and the Holocaust in general.". So you added "main Holocaust organizer" to Eichman ... is that supported by Hull? I don't think we'd go so far as to say Eichman was the main organizer of the Holocaust - that's a bit of a stretch (and is unneeded detail here) and also you added in the details of his charges - which again is probably unneeded detail that just bogs down an overview article on the Holocaust - we don't even detail the exact number of the charges for the first Nuremburg trial in this article. Arendt's book you're linking to is a 1994 reprint of her original 1963 work - we can't possibly use it to source a statement that Eichman's trial "revived interest in war criminals and the Holocaust in general" as it was only a year after the trial that she wrote it ... no long term historical perspective is possible after a year. Hull's work appears to be about his being the spiritual consellor to Eichman - not a secondary scholarly work on Eichman. IT's not the best source to be using for this sort of overview article. And we do not need to repeat all the information about Eichman being captured in the caption of the picture - that's redundant. All this is pretty basic elementary editing skills - this is not an ideal article to learn them all on, because it's so necessary to keep it in good shape and sourced to solid, reliable, and recent secondary sources on the Holocaust. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed kidnap to capture. If anyone disagrees please let me know and we can discuss it. Leviv ich 01:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, and have reverted your change. On such an issue it is better to get consensus first. Your edit summary is quote correct; by saying "capture" we endorse Israel's action in Wikipedia's voice. It was a clandestine act and I think "kidnap" is better. "Abduct"? --MarchOrDie (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

MarchOrDie, ok I'm going to start a new thread for this discussion below. Leviv ich 02:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If you look at any of the older revisions, you'll see that the source you're referring to was broken long before I started editing here. And I don't know how to fix it, so please just deal with it yourselves. Again, feel free remove those two Eichmann sources if you want to. I mostly just care about correcting his month of execution, adding an appropriate picture, and doing small clean-up like adding wikilinks. M . M 21:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain clearly. It was not broken before. There is no need for each sentence to repeat a citation if a group of sentences is all sourced to the same source. When a series of sucessive sentences is all sourced to the same source, that source is placed at the end of the series of sentences. When someone later comes in and breaks a series of such sentences into two paragraphs, if the new first paragraph does not get that source added to it, THEN the sourcing is broken. For example, consider the following paragraph:

This is sentence A. This is sentence B. This is sentence C. This is sentence D.<ref>Ref for sentences A through D.</ref>

. All four sentences are sourced to the one ref. Say an editor comes along and breaks this paragraph into two paragraphs as so

This is sentence A. This is sentence B.
This is sentence C. This is sentence D.<ref>Ref for sentences A through D.</ref>

Now, sentences A & B have become divorced from their sourcing. They are now broken, but they were NOT before. What the editor who broke up the paragraph should do is

This is sentence A. This is sentence B.<ref name=A/>
This is sentence C. This is sentence D.<ref name=A>Ref for sentences A through D.</ref>

which attaches the source to the sentences that have been moved around. This is very important to keep text source integrity in our articles.

And you still haven't answered the question if you read the Hull and Arendt sources before attaching them here from another article. This is also important because you should never add sources without actually consulting them and making sure they support the information that they are appended to. Again, elementary editing that needs to be understood before editing such a high profile article. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• I've now added a copy of the source to the other paragraph. Getting back to the topic of this discussion: The picture. See the #Victims and death toll section, it's much more crowded with pictured than the #Aftermath section is or would be if I only added a small picture of the Eichmann trial. M . M 08:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Eichmann "captured", "kidnapped", "abducted"?

I think the prose should say Eichmann was "captured" or "arrested" or "apprehended", and not "kidnapped" or "abducted". My impression is that "captured" and "arrested" are the words most often used to describe the physical apprehension. I also think those words make sense because Eichmann was a fugitive from justice, a war criminal, who was apprehended in order to be brought to trial by a sovereign state's legal system, etc. etc. In other words, it was a legal physical apprehension for a legal purpose under international law, whereas, "kidnapping" and "abduction" implies illegality. Leviv ich 02:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If it was entirely legal, why didn't they extradite him? What word do the sources use? --MarchOrDie (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The word I've most commonly seen in sources (anecdotally, not having ever rigorously studied the relative commonness of the different words), and which our own article on Eichmann uses repeatedly, is "capture". Dictionaries define "apprehend" as "arrest by legal warrant" or similar, so both that word and "arrest" seem to connote that the capture was done in a more regular/legal way than it was, whereas I agree that "kidnap" may carry unwanted connotations in the other direction. "Capture" is probably the best word. -sche (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hannah Arendt in The New Yorker (1963) uses capture, arrest, and kidnap

The Times (London): capture

New York Times: capture

Washington Post: both capture and kidnap

CBS: capture

Spiegel: arrest

Britannica: both arrest and kidnap

Holocaust Encyclopedia: abduct

New World Encyclopedia: capture, apprehension, kidnap Leviv ich 02:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I can't see a problem with "kidnapped". Hannah Arendt uses it (Eichmann in Jerusalem), as does Bettina Stangneth (Eichmann before Jerusalem), and Deborah Lipstadt (The Eichmann Trial). They use other terms too, including capture. Stangneth refers to the "kidnap team" and Lipstadt to the "abduction team". SarahSV ^(talk) 03:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• Per Levivich I think capture its a best term --Shrike (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If it was entirely legal, why didn't they extradite him? --MarchOrDie (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Capture should be preferred - it is common in the sources. It was possibly not a legal act in Argentina, it was a legal act in Israel (and probably elsewhere). Capture does not imply anything about the legality or illegality of the capture - which was an act of state regardless. Note that we have a WP:BLPCRIME issue vs. the Mossad team - members of whom haven't been charged in Argentina to the best of my knowledge - by using kidnap we are asserting the capture of this war criminal was a crime - in relation to people who haven't been charged/convicted of kidnapping. Icewhiz (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

So you'd be ok if we talked about Nazis capturing Jews? MarchOrDie (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, because Jews, unlike Nazis, were not war criminals. When a Nazi takes physical custody of someone and spirits them away, it's a kidnapping. But when a Nazi is taken into physical custody and spirited away, it's a capturing. Leviv ich 18:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The Nazis in their own minds and by their own statutes were acting legally. I am uneasy about glossing over an illegal act like this. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would use "captured" as the first instance where it comes up, as the more general term. "Abducted" is also fine later in the section, and slightly preferable to "kidnapped" as the latter often implies a ransom demand. He was not arrested nor apprehended, as only the Argentine authorities could have done that. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Was there a UN resolution about this? What did it say? --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: Please see United Nations Security Council Resolution 138. The result was, IIRC, that Israel apologised to Argentina and the matter settled between the two countries. By the way, the related section in Eichmann's article is called "Capture", so I think this is the best way to introduce the topic: Adolf_Eichmann#Capture. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm indebted to you. The Council declared that such acts, if repeated, could endanger international peace and security and requested that Israel make the appropriate reparation in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the rules of international law. So the UN reckoned it was a breach of international law. I'm not sure we can use Wikipedia as a source in this way, and I remain uneasy about using a term like this in Wikipedia's voice. It seems too easily to endorse Israel's breach of international law. --MarchOrDie (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Of course it was a breach of Argentinian & international law. But I don't think anyone actually cares about that, and even if they did, "captured" does not imply legality. As others have previously stated, the Eichmann article used the term "captured", and so should this one. M . M 07:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Captured does not imply legality"; so you'd be ok if we said that Nazis captured Jews? --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't really care. Of course, that's not all they did. "Kidnapped" or "abducted" just seems really biased against Israel in this context. M . M 08:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks then for your opinion. I guess we're heading for an RfC, aren't we? --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A straightforward A/B, A: ...Mossad agents kidnapped Adolf Eichmann..., B: ...Mossad agents captured Adolf Eichmann..., or framed some other way? Leviv ich 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A straightforward A/B is the simplest, I think. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: - you should strike with haste all comparisons of Mossad agents to Nazis. There is one significant difference - the Nazis (the regime as a whole, and a whole multitude of leaders at various levels) were convicted of war crimes. The mossad agents involved, were never convicted of any crime - some of them are quite notable (and known) BLPs - e.g. Rafi Eitan. Any allegation of criminal wrongdoing, absent a conviction or iron clad sourcing - is out of the window per WP:BLPCRIME, which applies to talk pages as well. Icewhiz (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like we have a consensus here for "capture", so no RfC is needed: WP:RfC says "If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Perhaps SarahSV would like to clarify if she's saying "capture" is unacceptable to her, or only that "kidnap" is also acceptable to her, but even if the former, we're still at 75% support for "capture", a large supermajority. -sche (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@-sche: thanks for the ping. I don't mind whether we say "captured" or "kidnapped". I prefer "kidnapped" because it's more descriptive, and it was to some extent because it was a kidnap that it caught the world's attention. Holocaust and law historians regularly use the term "kidnapped" (interchangeably with other terms). More examples: Zad Leavy: "The Eichmann Trial and the Role of Law", American Bar Association Journal, 1962: "Eichmann was kidnapped from another sovereign state ..." JSTOR 25722107 And Raanan Rein, "The Eichmann Kidnapping: Its Effects on Argentine-Israeli Relations and the Local Jewish Community". Jewish Social Studies, 2001. JSTOR 4467612 Raanan Rein is the vice-president of Tel Aviv University. Having said that, for the purposes of this one sentence, I don't think it matters which word we use. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the very thorough answer. Let's think about the best wording for an RfC. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@MarchOrDie: I wouldn't be interested in holding an RfC, but it's up to you. We should be guided by the scholarly sources. I checked a few news sources. Examples: Times of Israel (2018): "Opening this weekend, the film, focused on the kidnapping of Holocaust 'architect' ..."]; Jersualem Post (2018): "'Operation Finale' retells the Eichmann kidnapping for a new generation".

Also, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: "Because Argentina had a history of denying extradition requests, the decision was made to kidnap him. ... Eichmann’s kidnapping provoked an international incident, with Argentina protesting a violation of their sovereign rights to the United Nations Security Council before the dispute was smoothed over."

Briefly looking around legal sources, I found this paper on "Federally Sponsored International Kidnapping: An Acceptable Alternative to Extradition?", although it's from 1986. Washington University Law Review, 64(4), p. 1214, footnote 65: "The best-known United Nations condemnation of kidnapping was a resolution issued on the abduction of Adolph Eichmann, an accused Nazi war criminal. Israel sent 'volunteers' to Argentina to kidnap Eichmann and bring him back to Israel to stand trial for his alleged war crimes. Eichmann was kidnapped, tried, convicted, and hung in Israel. Argentina protested the kidnapping as violative of its sovereignty. The United Nations Security Council condemned kidnapping and said the practice would only create an atmosphere of insecurity and distrust which is incompatible with world peace. See 15 U.N. SCOR (868th mtg.) 1, U.N. Doc. s/p.v. 868 (1960)." SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: The legal source I quoted above is misleading. The UN resolution does not use the word "kidnapping". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

NGRAM. Icewhiz (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you. Different result with this one. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

NGRAM of all 4 (you need to look at the Y scaling on the right). Icewhiz (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Also - verb form - NGRAM - which is a tossup on kidnapped/captured (no abducted though - doesn't show up at all in NGRAM). So this would rule out abducted, and leave us policy arguing over kidnap/capture (I'm still rolling with my WP:CRYBLP of BLPCRIME). Icewhiz (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

>Eichmann,capture_INF=>Eichmann&year_start=1950 NGRAM using inflection and dependency – I think this includes "kidnapping Eichmann", "capture of Eichmann", and other such variations. The red is the kidnapping versions, the blue is the capturing versions. Leviv ich 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Stranded citation perhaps copy/pasted from another WP article

With this edit ThreatMatrix stranded a citation to Baker 2015, p. 18. Info may (?) have been copied over from Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia. Not sure how the history works here, several people editing. But you may wanna be careful about the possibility of too much use of WP as a source. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Who collaborated?

Romania murdered Jews. Did Romania collaborate? The page Collaboration with the Axis Powers doesn't list Romania. Some integration of this Wikipedia is needed.Xx236 (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Romania was one of the Axis powers, and adhered to the Tripartite Pact. You can't collaborate with yourself. Dimadick (talk) 11:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

was a genocide in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators - where are the other Axis powers?Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A page with false definition in the lead is of poor quality. The lead should summarize the content. Germany's allies is hidden, section 5.3 Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Xx236, I'm responding to your note on my talk, namely "The lead definition ignores allies of Germany." I'm not sure what you mean by this. It does say "Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators". Can you elaborate? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's explained above. Romania didn't collaborate but it murdered Jews. So Nazi Germany, its allies and collaborators.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Many English language sources copy the definition. So apparently the Allies of Germans are considered here to be collaborators. But the problem should be explained to the reader. There is a basic difference between a state, a party or organisatoion and terrorised civilians. Now the word collaborators is uded to bash people of Eastern Europe and whitewash the ones from Western Europe.Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

You can read about Romania in Diana Dumitru, The State, Antisemitism, and Collaboration in the Holocaust: The Borderlands of Romania and the Soviet Union. University of Cambridge, 2016.

You're right that the issue of collaboration is a difficult and sensitive one, and we should have a careful explanation in this article, but it would be hard to write it well. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Extermination camp

Hi. Some of the contributors here might want to take a look at the more recent changes at a related page, Extermination camp. It would seem issues which have been discussed here are also issues there… Regards, Robby.is.on (talk)

Robby, thanks for letting us know. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

12 December 1941?

Why would Hitler decide to annihilate Jews on 12 December 1941 if his forces had been killing Jews since 1939 in Poland and elsewhere? The killings in the Soviet Union had begun in the summer of 1941. (86.176.67.118 (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC))

What makes you think a decision (rather than a declaration) was made on that date? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

False information on Holocaust in occupied Croatia

In the section on Holocaust in occupied territories, it says "Croatia's ruling party, the Ustashe, killed the country's Jews, and killed or expelled Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslims.[167]" The inclusion of Muslims here is false. If you read the linked article, Persecution of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia, it says:

"The Ustaše used Starčević's theories to promote the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia and they recognized Croatia as having two major ethnocultural components: Catholic Croats and Muslim Croats,[31] because the Ustaše saw the Islam of the Bosnian-Muslims as a religion which "keeps true the blood of Croats."[31] Source: Butić-Jelić, Fikreta. Ustaše i Nezavisna Država Hrvatska 1941–1945. Liber, 1977.

"The Ustashe viewed religion and nationality as closely linked; while Roman Catholicism and Islam (Bosnian Muslims were viewed as Croats) were recognized as Croatian national religions, Eastern Orthodoxy was deemed inherently incompatible with the Croatian state project.[14]" Source: Ramet, Sabrina P. (2006). The Three Yugoslavias: State-Building and Legitimation, 1918–2005. New York: Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-34656-8. p 118

Wikipedia should not falsify history. Bosniaks were not victims of the Ustase, but collaborators. See the Featured Article 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). This is indisputable.