Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 176.227.241.20 (talk) at 16:13, 5 June 2020 (→‎Why is the Holocaust denial propaganda maintained?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Masterpieces of German propaganda

Dieter Pohl

Historian Dieter Pohl has estimated that more than 200,000 non-Germans "prepared, carried out and assisted in acts of murder"; that is about the same number as Germans and Austrians. - it's a case of mixing apples and oranges. Adolf Hitler and terrorized Polish peasant are counted as one. It's irrational, crazy.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Götz Aly

Götz Aly for instance, has come to the conclusion that the Holocaust was in fact a "European project." - he should read his book Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, which describe German plundering of Jews and other nations including Poles.

Was the Generalplan Ost European? It included extermination and expulsion of Poles. Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xx236, are there specific changes you wish to make to this article? Jayjg (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image is PD in US. Re-uploaded to en.wiki with new name, replaced in article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious hatred and racism

  • Religious hatred - connection between Nazism and Christianity is not so obvious. Nazi leaders and SS were atheistic.
  • Racism - there existed German anti-Slavic and anti-Roma racism.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion is different than extermination. The conversion assumes that Jews are human, extermination rejects the humanity.
If you write about Middle Ages -Catharism was annihilated, Judaism wasn't.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavian Jews were deported from the Bulgarian-occupied territories.[

What is deported here - deported or deported and killed?Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Romania

From The Holocaust:

Dan Stone writes that, although the murder of Jews in Romania took place under the umbrella of the Nazis, it was "essentially an independent undertaking".
So listing Romania with Finlandia (and probably Hungary) is erroneous. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obenritter's reverts

@Obenritter:,
I have to emphasize again that your objections are not well founded, and having the fact that you systematically remove all additons including reliable sources, heavily concerns me (as I referred, seems you invent new arguments just to remove all the information.) What makes you really unserious, is your comments by the last revert This is whitewashing history, that is ridiculous, since Tom Lantos or a Jewish-related Newspaper with Jewish authors certainly not "whitewashing history", moreover what you say further seems your POV (did you even read those sources?) Your summary anyway is not in order, I urge you to read all the sources presented, the question is much more complex; it is not about Horthy's or other people's sympathy, is is a fact this move saved the Jewry of Budapest, almost 250 000 people, that is the reason why they survived, the evaluation is another issue (btw. you may have added other sources on Horthy's or other considerations and motives). However, many Jewish families supported Horthy even in exile in Portugal and were acknowledging his efforts (Ferenc Chorin and others). Anyway, the sentence which have been added is nothing else just the statement of a fact neutrally, without any explanation, thus your argumentation fails here.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Whitewashing Horthy

@KIENGIR: There seems to be a concerted effort by an editor to "whitewash" the known anti-Semite, Miklos Horthy, who was considered a Nazi collaborator that signed treaties with both Hitler and Mussolini and whose government instituted anti-Semitic legislation, persecuted Jews, and provided Hungarian troops to aide the Nazis on the Russian front. To this end, the editor is using Hungarian language sources and webpages in lieu of scholarly academic articles or books to support such claims that Horthy helped "save" tens of thousands of Jews at risk, when the reality was...he did this to save his own skin.

  • Straight from the Smithsonian magazine webpage:

    During their rule, Arrow Cross members targeted the Budapest Jews, the only Jews who remained in Hungary near the end of the war. Horthy had spared them in his sweep, but as The Economist writes, the reason for this act wasn’t necessarily born out of compassion. Rather, Horthy had been warned that he was in danger of being tried for war crimes if deportations continued.

    See: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/holocaust-and-hungary-prime-minister-180964139/
  • See the following article regarding the attempt by Hungarians and others to "whitewash" their Holocaust involvement:
Robert Rozett (2019) "Distorting the Holocaust and Whitewashing History: Toward a Typology," Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/23739770.2019.1638076 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23739770.2019.1638076)

For those of you who remain committed to the truth and accurate editing, I encourage you to defend this page against those who attempt to excuse the inexcusable. --Obenritter (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to refuse your impolite name calling, becase I know the issue very well that there are also debated issues regarding it, but I kindly ask you to ract and answer to me above. However, given your point regarding For those of you who remain committed to the truth and accurate editing (considering this is my basic motivation and all of my edits have been lead ever me always) could you tell me in the added sentence which is not a fact or did not happen?
"because the first Armour Division lead by Ferenc Koszorús under Miklós Horthy's orders resisted the Arrow Cross militia and prevented the deportation of the Jews of Budapest" ?
Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
I see you updated your former edit recently...could you tell me who attempted to excuse the inexcusable? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Yes--it may have read a tad impolite.
@KIENGIR: The information should not to be included in the manner you originally wrote it. If you wish to make this statement and include the fact that "Horthy, who many historians assert should have been tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg, only stopped the deportations at the request of the Allies, the Vatican, and because he was threatened with being tried by the Allies."
If you agree to cite respected English language sources and include those additional facts--instead of trying to make it read like Horthy was some hero---then sure, we can include that information. You should also follow the citation format used throughout the rest of the page. --Obenritter (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obenritter:, frankly, excuse me I disagree with you (I have to refuse again this tad impolite assertion, if my undesrtanding is correct, if you wanted tobe somehow sarcastic), I have to treat impolite if someone would suggest I would not be for the truth or accuracy, since everybody who knows me in WP in the past 9 years particularly do it because of these two properties of mine, heavily struggling for them always. You are still insisting imaginary assumptions ("instead of trying to make it read like Horthy was some hero"), although I just asked what is not a fact in the formerly added sentence, which does not tell an opinion about Horthy or whatsoever...if you don't answer this in a satisfying manner, I will involve Wikiproject Hungary, becase it seems you recurrently assert something that seems a continous accusation, and knowing this issue a long time, it arguable if your summarization would be the best description (IMHO, something in the middle with more details that may be substantiated from all the sources presented also by you).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: My suggestion was pretty clear and my explanation more than sufficient. You did not include the requisite information about what prompted Horthy's behavior and it read rather altruistic instead, which anyone who knows the history of the Holocaust is familiar with to the nth degree. You've encountered resistance---first for falsifying sources (when you originally entered this material)---second for not qualifying what prompted Horthy's behavior, which painted an inaccurate picture of him as having "saved" Jews when he in fact only acted to save himself. Third, you are using Hungarian sources on the English Wikipedia, which while not unheard of entirely, is not helpful or verifiable for the vast majority of English-speaking readers. Lastly, you did not adhere to the citation formatting used throughout the page. Add these variables together and you've raised red flags. Now--let me state this again. We can include the information you want to add if you find a reliable English source (RS) and if you qualify it by explaining what motivated Horthy's behavior. If you haven't caught on yet, this page is about "responsibility for the Holocaust" and by omitting Horthy's motivations for "saving" any Jews, makes it read like he was behaving altruistically, which is an equally concerning edit.--Obenritter (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obenritter:, I disagree with your first sentence, you were quite prejudicative towards me, lacking of good faith. I added shortly a sentence without taking sides to any positive or negative POV, that may have been added later, instead I met with continous removals and not a collaborative effort. To your further argumentation:
1st - Yes, by my original entrance I made a mistake, but after realizing I corrected it.
2nd - Nope, I painted NO picture since I listed a short event chain, without any further as explained and indicated more times
3rd - The usage of Hungarian sources is not prohibited in the English WP (and I also added more English language sources)
4th - Sorry, you told this only late after, you did not draw my attention to in time
My Summary: I raised one red flag (1st) by mistake, that I corrected as soon as I noticed. The rest are definetly not a red flag, those may have been solved by a proper collaboration from your side.
Thus, I decided to involve Wikiproject Hungary in order to properly form the proposed additon of the issue, the most neutral way as possible, and the time we all agree on a final version, then we may add it to the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
@KIENGIR: Let's start with the fact that you ONLY corrected it AFTER I found the SOURCE falsification following a delete/removal of the content. It is fine with me if you take this before folks in the Wikiproject Hungary group, but any information you add will be reviewed against the most recent Holocaust scholarship because this page is not about Hungary, but Responsibility for the Holocaust. Perhaps we should include the Wikiproject Israel group as well since they represent the people most impacted by the accuracy of this information. --Obenritter (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KIENGIR, your reverted addition in relation to the events did not state full proper context of said events. In addition, this is English Wikipedia and you have been around long enough to know that English language RS secondary sources are preferred; for one, they can as cited sources be more easily checked accordingly. But, I am glad to see you are willing to work on a version by consensus of all involved, besides just a specific group, herein. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Obenritter:, obviously, how could I do else if I unfortunately did not realize my mistake before?? You may involve anyone you want, just drop any ad hominem argumentation or supposition, as they are not professional, and given the fact this issue is controversial and some details/motivations are debated also among scholars, it cannot be solved properly on emotions or accusations (and please be more serious and don't think I would not know this page is not about Hungary, but the coresponding section is about Hungary). Kierzek, the one who reverted why did not try to develop and expand the addition? The section is relatively short, I was not considering primarily to add overly detailed sentences at first glance, since there was one short remark about the surviving people, mentioning their number, I added as well something short to indicate why this happened. After my addition the context was more complete, than without it, because before nothing was told about the reason - bold editing cannot be condemned by any means, since primarily the process starts with shorter additions and later possibly more additons as all of us having been long here around experienced that - as also do not miss I added English sources that summarized practically the same that I added on Hungarian, so this argumentation of the Hungarian souces I may take just as a formal issue, but not decisive. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Oh please, "bold" editing does not give one indiscriminate license on here. And the fact is, your edit was akin to speaking in Wikipedia's voice as to the truth of the matter asserted, which gave an impression that was not historically correct. And given you wanted to make the "addition", the burden first falls on you to fix it or expand it properly. But, to the real matter to focus on. There is no reason a prudent and impartial statement cannot be written, agreed upon and thereafter, included. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Horthy did nothing about the vast majority of the deportations (and other antisemitic actions), and only took action at the last possible moment to avoid prosecution. Is the point of adding this material to give an example of someone who, when they saw which way the war was going, tried to retroactively absolve themselves of their "Responsibility for the Holocaust"? Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kierzek, who said that a bold edit would give an indiscriminate license? No, there is a huge overreaction on this issue, started with the unprofessional charge of whitewashing and now instead onthe content issue seems like everybody wish to explain why this huge overreaction happened, and trying to justify it...no my edit was definietly not akin as you described (impressions should not be confused with the facts), I don't think I should repeat the 3rd time the short addition did not take any side pro or contra, but was just a chain of events (as you already acknowledged, that your and other's problem was primarily the lack of collateral info behind it, so yes, let's stay on the real matter!). Ok, if the burden is on me to expand it properly, did I have time for that? No, becuase not even a primary stable edit was accepted, and always various reasons have been raised for removal, I tried as many times as possible until it had to come to the talk page. I kindly ask everybody to drop any accusations or fear, because as well when somebody starts to edit in Poland-WWII related matters, immediately the editor is tried to be categorized as Polish-accuser or if not then the opposite, but first glance nobody would consider there are editors who are not commited to any side but assessing the subject from a neutral third point of view (own experince, however I did not edit much there, on daily basis more editors are engaged on sensitive issues, all in all this overreacted suspicion and labeling is not useful also here, regardless it is a sensitive issue, we have to remain professional).
Jayjg, the issue is more complex, than this short summarization, the evaluation of Horthy are controversial, not just among the Hungarian Jews, but the Jews overall, however to assert strictly and only that his actions has been only motivated by this has no scholarly/acedemic consensus, neither may be clearly substantiated from the presented sources from either side. Better to say the old Regent tried to save the country from a bigger disaster, as he always been reluctant to fulfill all the demands of the Germans. The terminology calles it as hintapolitika (swing poitics), that started earlier the reluctance of participating in the invasion of Poland, acceptance of refugees from other countries where the deportations already started, by the time trying to fulfill step by step the demands of the Germans slowly (Jewish laws, etc.), on the other hand try to remain intact as possible, however, it could not be carried out and after the turning point of the front and the unsolved Final Solution in Hungary just intensified the German anger, especially after learning Hungary secretly started negotiating with the Allies. After the German-occupation, Horthy's hand were more tied, while the Germans wanted to keep him to legalize the formal continuity and lawfullness of Hungary and the following events, he become in custody as well later were blackmailed by the fate (kidnapping, etc.) of his family, etc. I fully understand those who argue that he was in power formally and legally when the deportations started, thus he is responsible (as well for the Jewish laws and other persecutions, etc.), however because of the German-occupation this event chain could have started and rendered, so the picture is not black or white. In this situation and the forecast of the current geopolitical events, he had only trustees by the army staff who would remain loyal to him or other politicians with whom he could organize something to avoid a bigger catastrophy, that he tried in October, by the announcement of jumping out of the war an armistice with the allies, that he had to retreat after the Germans forced him to do that and as well to keep the formal and legal continuity, forcing to sign Szálasi's appointment. The one may also argue why he did not resign or started was against the Germans after occupation, he calculated a war would be a total loss and annihilation to Hungary and it's population (including everybody), or by resigning someone else appointed by Germans could have carried out a much more bigger terror, that he could draw back or prevent this with his reduced powers, as he did the subject we argue, when there was the fear as well the Arrow Cross symphatizers along with the Germans may carry out a putch and remove him completely, etc. Given all these facts, we have to be professional enough and careful how we draw that picture, because he currently was NOT a Qusiling or somebody that unconditonally served any German demands, having the fact he calculated the Budapest Jewry is the most easy to prevent as armed forces remaining loyal to him are nearby, encircled etc. What is sure, a good summarization will not succeed in two short sentences, we have to find the most neutral and best summarization (he may have better feared the Germans kill him or any part of his family if any harsh disobedience or higher action, not what will happen in a trial personally with him, etc.) I have no problem mentioning he got warnings from the Allies what consequences him or Hungary may have face in case, but simply not just this was the point on the whole.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing the pogroms in Poland

It is shameful that what's written on this page is the well-known nationalist conspiracy theory of Jedwabne, Radziłów, Kolno, Szczuzcyn, Wąsosz, etc. having been committed by the einsatzgruppen. This has no historical basis, it is not controversial, and it's a stain upon the Wikipedia project that these pages are defaced this way with Holocaust denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.241.22 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Willing Executioners

  • The article should be integrated, now it is not, it describes separately history of Europe and history of Germany by Goldhagen. If you call Goldhagen's thesis 'controversial', responsibilioty of the whole Europe is much less obvious.
  • The book is not listed in the bibliography.
  • History of Europe is a history of religious wars between Christians rather than Christian wars against Jews.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jews of Libya during the Holocaust

I have included this linkt into Italy section. Should Libya or Northern Africa be mentioned separately?Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning

The page should be linked here and Snyder's opinions about origins of the Holocaust quoted.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC) https://ideas.repec.org/a/mve/journl/v32y2006i2p1-8.html Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Holocaust denial propaganda maintained?

Much has been written about the pogroms in Eastern Poland, it's well outlined even in the linked Wikipedia pages. Why are the conspiracy theories about Germans and einsatzgruppen maintained when they're demonstrably false? These are clearly against Wikipedia rules on fringe theories, a neutral point of view, and reliable sources. If it's reverted to the Holocaust denial again I will file a complaint against the editor.

176.227.241.20 (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust&oldid=960915365"