Talk:The Holocaust in Lithuania

Title

I don't see a need to move the article from Holocaust in Lithuania to Holocaust in Nazi occupied Lithuania. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) suggest using as simple a name as possible unless there is a possibility of a confusion. Since there was no other Holocaust in Lithuania, most publications use the simpler title (compare: "Holocaust in Lithuania" in print: 117 hits to "Holocaust in Nazi occupied Lithuania" in print: 1 hit).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Current title is perfectly logical. We wetness numerical events then google hints was not considered into account then naming articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M.K (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You could make a perfectly logical title ten times as long. So is the previous, shorter title which is much more popular and fits our policies.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, the title is to certain extent misleading: in Lithuania, it could be argued, the Holocaust started before the Germans arrived and took firm control (and thus occupied the country). Ex: "In Lithuania, before the Nazis arrived, there were at least 40 pogroms in as many Jewish communities. These pogroms were perpetrated by the local populace against the Jews. Col. J. Bobelis of the Lithuanian army issued a statement that condemned the Jews as the enemies of both the Germans and the Lithuanians. At his instigation gangs sought out Jews to murder and torture." True, that was just a small prelude, but as various sources cited noted, at that time power was seized by the Lithuanian Nazi extremists, who tried to 'look good' before the Germans arrived (hoping for their support for restoration of Lithuanian independence) and who started anti-Jewish riots before Germans took firm control; those actions are considered a part of the Holocaust (ex. Porat wrote: "After the first stage of indiscriminate murder by the Lithuanians in July 1941, the Germans established the police battalions and planned a second stage"). Also, the Holocaust started before Generalbezirk Litauen was estabilished by Germans almost a month after the invasion, and when tens of thousands of Jews had already died.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There are clear indications that Klimaitis (his son is also known as a KGB agent, so you might get idea of what person it was) group as such was organized and sponsored from Tilsit. I can find references for that - I think Bubnys has good documented article(s) on this. As an indirect evidence is that this only group of armed men were allowed to move around nazi controlled teritories freely. Another questionwould you confirm existance of Lithuanian army in 1941, like in your citation: "Col. J. Bobelis of the Lithuanian army" - these are the facts, that just not go through reality check.

And as a sidenote - it is really strange enough compare Jedwabne pogrom and this article rhetoric. Should we go into details?--Lokyz (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would not be suprised if Klimaitis had been indeed an agent of one or two of those powers; feel free to expand his article and related ones with relevant information. The Lithuanian Army in 1941 is an interesting issue; the article doesn't go into many details - it may refer to some partisan formation, or former officers of the army. If we could find more info on this J. Bobelis this might shed more light into the situation. In any case, I agree those were rather marginal events; nonetheless marginal or not the original title was less confusing - and the current one forces a discussion of those marginal ones.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not eager to agree with your latest statements. --Lokyz (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the merit by each side in the title discussion, there are ways to deal with moves. Sometimes a move can be overturned without the formal RM but cut and paste moves, like done by Molobo, is a disaster since they create history forks. --Irpen 21:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes an article can be moved from original title without RM after a debate with its creator and consensus. Moving it outright and preventing restoration by creating redirects that prohibit return to original title seems inappropriate.--Molobo (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever else, cut and paste moves are a separate count of disruption that cannot be tolerated. There are way to deal with disagreeable moves. Cut'n'paste is not among such tools. --Irpen 21:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the title "Holocaust in Nazi occupied Lithuania". The problem is that some foreigners forget the Nazi role. They foolishly believe that Poles were somehow behind the Polish Camp Auschwitz. BBC reported once "However, Polish officials have become unsettled by media references to Auschwitz as a "Polish concentration camp"". --Doopdoop (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Nazis used Auschwitz first to imprison Poles, it was only later made into a camp for Jews. Makes views of Auschwitz as "Polish" all the more ironic. As for "largely cooperated" (below) I can't speak in detail to Lithuania, I haven't studied it; but that very same claim relative to Latvians has been shown lacking by Ezergailis (whose work, BTW, was supported by the U.S. Holocaust Museum, so not some nationalist apologist). —PētersV (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

False comparision. Lithuanians largely cooperated with Nazis, while Poles largely resisted Nazis. The amount of cooperation by Lithuanian forces makes the title misleading. The proper one should perhaps be Holocaust of Jews in Lithuania by Nazi and Lithuanian forces.--Molobo (talk) 21:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus has written in the article "It should be noted that not all of the Lithuanian populace supported the killings. Out of Lithuanian population of close to three millions (80% of it ethnic Lithuanians only a small part - a few tens of thousands took active part in the killings". Your proposed title "Holocaust of Jews in Lithuania by Nazi and Lithuanian forces" juxtaposes extremist political organization and nationality. Would you like a title "Holocaust of Jews in Poland by German forces" for the Holocaust in Poland article? --Doopdoop (talk) 21:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As you see below I asked Piotrus for the source of the poll in which Lithuanians expressed their support or opposition to extermination of Jews. Similar polls were made on German population. As to the claim that Lithuanian organisations collaborationist forces were 'extremist' and not represented the overall political convictions of large part of the population-what is the source ? --Molobo (talk) 22:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The title should be "The Holocaust in Lithuania". The Holocaust refers to events in WW2 organised by thre Nazis, which precludes the need for prolix additions like "in Nazi occupied". We should not preempt in the title issues about whether or not Lithuanians were or were not participants. We should just have the simplest and clearest title. Other sister articles could be equally called 'The Holocause in France' or 'The Holocaust in the Netherlands' etc Paul B (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Well title do not indicate who was responsible for Holocaust, who was not. In fact there was different nationalities Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Germans etc. However if you like you can tag this article with {{Disputed title}}. M.K. (talk) 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)P.S. tagged the article by myself, hope it will attract more users

Exactly. Title is not the place to discuss the details, that's what we have articles for. Polish concentration camps are a different case and even have their own article. Holocaust in Lithuania is just as non-confusing as Holocaust in Poland; both were Nazi related but this is so obvious it doesn't need to be discussed in the article title (there was no separate non-Nazi related Holocaust, or a Holocaust in Nazi-independent Poland or Lithuania).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Obvious to you and me but not for many others. I think the whole history is no longer compulsory in the UK schools (pupils can select period of history they like to study). --Doopdoop (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Even so, I'd repeat my points above that article's names, per our policies, serve not to educate but to facilitate finding them. The readers may be confused about many other things, including time period or number of victims, but we are not adding those to the title, are we? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Copy paste

Why this article is almost completely copy pasted like from: [1] [2].? M.K. (talk) 11:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Small relevant parts of those articles were quite relevant to this topic.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible original research

Apart of fact request, I like to see exact quotes of those areas there is mark or, because i did not found any confirmation with provided sources and the text in the article. M.K. (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added more citations and to support the 'Holocaust begun in Lithuania' two quotes. If there is any statement in particular that you feel is inadequately referenced or written, please cite it here. Do note that virtually all refs are in English and thus should not pose much problem to verifiability due to their language.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that proper move should be made after Request for Move voting and clear consensus

Please remember that proper move should be made after Request for Move voting and clear consensus. We don't need move-warring, let's do this in proper wikipedia procedural way. Also the degree of involvment of Lithuanian forces makes the title a bit misleading. Perhaps Holocaust of Lithuanian Jews by Nazi and Lithuanian forces ?--Molobo (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Exact numbers ?

"It should be noted that not all of the Lithuanian populace supported the killings." What are then the exact numbers that made this claim ? Of course it is needless to say no population has the exact same views. I know for example polls in which 37 % of Germans in American occupation zone supported extermination of Poles and Jews. Does this statement come out of similar poll, and what was the percentage of Lithuanians that supported extermination of Jews then ?--Molobo (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You keep referring to these poles. Do you have any reliable sources for them (not just some website)? I very much doubt the reliability of claims that 37% of the German population after the war openly stated that Jews and Poles should be exterminated. Also, I know of no literature on the Holocaust that refers to any such statistic. Paul B (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

They are in * Judt, Tony (2005). Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945. Penguin Press. ISBN 1-59420-065-3. We have an article about Tony Judt: Tony Judt (born 1948, London, England) is a British historian, author and professor. He specializes in European history and is the Erich Maria Remarque Professor in European Studies at New York University and Director of NYU's Erich Maria Remarque Institute. He is a frequent contributor to the New York Review of Books. Seems quite reliable when regarding history. --Molobo (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Polls are not intrinsically reliable information. The specific question and its context (that is, all the other questions of the poll, and how the poll was described, what were the choices of answers in the cases of "multiple choice",...) must be available. You can't simply state X% of Y favored "Z". You can only state "When asked [fill in specific question], X% chose answer A, Y% chose answer B, and Z% chose answer C"--and you need to state whether that choice of answers A, B, C was provided as part of the question. —PētersV (talk) 02:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust started in Lithuania?

I know some sources have been provided for this assertion, but other sources state otherwise. For example, according to André Mineau's book "The Making of the Holocaust: Ideology and Ethics in the Systems" [3] the Holocaust essentially started in September 1939, when the Einsatzgruppen first came into contact with Polish Jewry. Martintg (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it depends on the definition. As Mineau's writes on this and the next page you cite (and as sourced I cited in the article - ex. Porat and MacQueen note), Operation Barbarossa represented a new level, a new magnitude in Jewish extermination. There are scholars who state that the Holocaust begun as early as 1938 (Kristallnacht ex. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ). Perhaps a better formulation would be 'Summer of 1941 in Lithuania is one of the several dates commonly used for start of the Holocaust' (or something along those lines). Still, most sources I look at tend to speak of 1941 as the line dividing 'perparations for the Holocaust'/'early stages' from the 'proper Holocaust'/'main stage' (etc.). I will try to incorporate this into the article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library reckons 30 January 1933 as the starting date of the Holocaust, when Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany. The way it was phrased in the text gives the impression that it originated in Lithuania. Given the wide range of dates, I revised the text to suit. Martintg (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Almost every country had a different date then Holocaust started in it. but it does not mean that Lithuania was a country in which the general Holocaust started. Trying to push such opine is mere OR. M.K. (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

See note b. It's not OR when we have reliable sources claiming so.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been claimed in sources the Holocaust started in Latvia (by eager Latvians) before the Nazis arrived. That information has been shown to be false--coming from falsified Nazi field reports back to Berlin. If anyone wishes to make the extraordinary claim that the Holocaust in Lithuania was not Nazi-originated and Nazi-managed--which appears to be the implication?--then that claim needs extraordinary proof, not just mention of some sources. Not all sources are reliable when it comes to the degree of local support or chronology in the Baltics. —PētersV (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be false to say that Holocaust would begun in Lithuania if not for the German involvement, just as it is true to say that Lithuanians were unable to prevent it. That said, there are sources that note a FACIST MINORITY (possibly infiltrated and directed by the Germans?) started killing Jews in the short period after the Soviets evacuated and before the Germans arrived - although I agree it is stretching to state that Holocaust proper started in Lithuanian before the Germans arrived, and I would not support such a statement (unless indeed extraordinary proof was provided). However there are quite a few sources stating that "Holocaust begun in Lithuania"; in addition to the several I cited above, here are others: [9], [10] and quite a few others. As I have shown in the article, there are other dates given for that; it is nonetheless a fact that some reliable sources consider this time and place the beginning of the Holocaust.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point is that in Lithuania there was no pogroms, contrary to other countries like Poland, prior 1941. Plus I would like to see exactly that is referenced with Bubnys in:"1500-5000 Jews perished over the next few days in Kaunas and nearby settlements in what became the first pogrom in Nazi-occupied Lithuania." Plus the sentence is a share synthesis. Therefore hardly this article meats bacis standards of neutrality as well.M.K. (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"in Lithuania there was no pogroms". I guess Kaunas pogrom happened while the town of Kaunas was temporarily dimension-shifted from Lithuania to somewhere else, right? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This discussion would not be derailed by simply misquoting me. I repeat my self if you have nothing constructive to add, dont. I am sure that other more wiling contributors will do. In any case I still waiting for explanation of source usage as requested above. M.K. (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

As Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, succinctly put it, "Indeed, it depends on the definition." How can one argue with that? Maybe by who's interpreting the definition? Dr. Dan (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Kaunas synthesis

This is nothing but dubious synthesis:

"1500[source1]-5000[source2] Jews perished over the next few days in Kaunuas"

One source says 1500, another says "3800 and 1200 in nearby smaller towns" So, one combines it as "1500-5000"? Piotrus perhaps forgot the similar discussion about the number of victims during the Khmelnytsky uprising. I am marking this as synthesis. --Irpen 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Clarified, per your comments.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I try to receive an answer on these issues several times, but in vain, including which ideas of Arūnas Bubnys is cited. M.K. (talk) 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, if you would have authored any works published in real world, you would know that if one source say Number1 and the other source says Number2, one cannot combine them into something like "Number1-Number2 perished". I would again refer you to the last year's discussion about the number of victims from Khmelnytsky Uprising for details.

You can say: "according to [1] the number of victims is A, while according to [2] the number of victims is B". But the number being presented as A-B is synthesis. --Irpen 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why we have footnotes, Irpen, directly after each number. It's the Wiki equivalent of saying 'number A (Smith 2005) - number B (Johnson 2001)'. I think it's quite clear.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not clear. It's misleading. Sorry for the typo in my entry above. Corrected now. --Irpen 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, Irpen, maybe this time is a simple style/grammar issue. Could you just rewrite the sentence, keeping the (referenced) data, as to avoid the confusion/synthesis issue that makes you so unhappy? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not just the style grammar issue. This is an issue of not taking time to write properly in order to rush this article in the drive that suddenly turned urgent for whatever reasons. Writing on historic topic takes time and care. Writing on controversial ones requires even more of the same. One should not be in rush to produce "something", especially on the topics like that, through pasting pieces from articles and cutting corners to save time and produce the seemingly referenced but distorted version of events to meet the deadline.

Same happened with the lead and the estimated number of the victims where you put in the number from the academic book and from the web-site more of the publicist nature right next to each other giving them equal weight even though it "looked" referenced to the careless observer. This writing history through google-booking is prone to produce more of such.

You may want to check the Holodomor article to see how the numbers are presented there, both in the lead and the death toll estimate section. It took me long to come up with the proper way to put that together and I still see the deficiencies that I am still thinking on how to improve. --Irpen 06:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

On my part I can make following that such extremely critical topics should be written with care and not as hasty response to a constructive critique on a different subject [11]. Furious copy paste technique leads to major misunderstandings and contradictions, as Kaunas and all numerical estimations synthesis inserted in the article perfectly illustrates. Furthermor Bubnys source, used alongside, seems to contradict to rest. While I would gladly help by modifying sentence, but I can't because I do not know what exactly this source is implied to have shown, as contributor who add it not responding to my pleas and proper tags are hasty being removed. Looking back I also like to note how this article was nominated to DYK; not only was the article undeveloped properly to do so, but also initial hook prove to be a speculative POV. Moreover my attempts to inform parties on problems, resulted almost an accusation of some sort of deliberate jeopardy, including the allegations that I moved this article name, while in fact I never did this, my move log shows it clearly; my applied tags there with rationale, some of them repeated several times. These are just few issues to think about M.K. (talk) 09:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For mention of Kaunas and how accounts propagated at the time, read here. I do recall in my readings somewhere the Nazi accounting of Kaunas victims, but I will have to look for that. —PētersV (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Holocaust?

This is actually incredible"

The intensity of The Holocaust increased after the Nazis occupied Lithuania at the commencement of Operation Barbarossa.[source1][source2][note]

What "lower intensity Holocaust" "before the commencement of Operation Barbarrosa"? Mass extermination of Lithuanian Jews by Red Army or what? Marking. --Irpen 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

?? The Holocaust spanned most of Europe that came under Nazi occupation. According to André Mineau's book "The Making of the Holocaust: Ideology and Ethics in the Systems" [12] the Holocaust essentially started in September 1939, when the Einsatzgruppen first came into contact with Polish Jewry. Other authors state it started with Kristalnacht. So while there is some debate about when and where it started, it is clear is that the intensity of the Holocaust increased after Barbarossa. Martintg (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read what the article actually says. It implies that the Holocaust in Lithuania intensified after the German arrival. If this was meant to refer to the Holocaust overall, this should be stated explicitly and, again, not in the lead section of the article about the Lithuanian events, but in the proper section of the text body. On topics like this it is even more important to familiarize oneself with the problem before commenting. --Irpen 00:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if you were familiar with the issue, you would know that the original text stated that the Holocaust began in Lithuania, but many sources have been provided that indicated that the Holocaust began earlier, either in Poland or Germany. Why don't you be bold change the text yourself, rather than endless discussion on talk, surely it would save time. Martintg (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Martintg, you see any attempt to change this info, would be swiftly reverted. M.K. (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, sources, used even in this article, describe the similar atrocities that took place in the very same time in Western Ukraine and Belarus. --Irpen 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How early in the Holocaust in general these events are?

Discussion on whether the Lithuanian events started the Holocaust or it started earlier belongs not to The destruction of Lithuanian Jewry section which is about the course of events. It may be in the comprehension section in the end but not where it is. Further, once the sources casting doubt that this was indeed the start has been brought in, the rest of whether the start took place in 1938, 1939 or 1933 does not affect the conclusion as far as this article is concerned that this was not the start but the continuation. So, bringing this up in this section about what actually took place is off-topic and further elaboration on where the starting point of Holocaust is is even further off-topic. --Irpen 00:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Final Solution (see article) is simply inapplicable to what took place in June, 1941 unless spoken of as something in the future. I tried to make some improvements or tag what is unsalvageable but I am worn out by my edits' being reverted by Piotrus. I am tagging this as contradicting other material onwiki. These horrific events need to be covered properly and accurately without the urge to use improper "scientifically sounding" terms or other tricks. --Irpen 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

FS article is missing many citations and is poorly written; I suggest you tag and try to improve that article - this one and the claims here are well-referenced.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, in the context of Summer 1941 FS is simply an anachronism. Hitler came up with the term and its implementation in 1942 and first diary notes referring to this "solution" not yet called such, refer to December, 1941. References are here as well as in FS article. You do a disservice to the article and its readers by trying to use the scientifically sounding words inappropriately. --Irpen 18:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion, I trust that scholars such as Porat (whose cited work is quite widely cited in relevant literature) or Kweit knew what they were writing about when they mentioned that Final Solution began in Lithuania in 1941 (see note b).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Piotrus, I don't want you to trust "my opinion". Just check the sources for yourself and see that the very term "Final Solution" was never used at the time as it was invented later. --Irpen 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to present a source to back up your claims. I have presented quite a few that back up mine. If you don't present any sources for yours - that's the end of this discussion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "Final solution" as used in this article means the physical murder of all Jewish people. The source, Browning, "The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942" is already in the article. Before demanding sources check the existing ones. P. 253 states that in June 1941, the "solution" envision by Nazi leadership was forced resettlement even though the mass murders were undisputably taking place, and not just in Lithuania, like your version suggested.

You will find on p. 318 that in the end of October the "solution" was seen through "expulsion accompanied by no small amount of outright killing and attrition". "If before August 1941 the Jewish question was to be solved 'one way or another', after October it was to be solved in one way - through death of all Jews".

P. 321 states that as of August 1941, "the onslaught against Soviet Jewery as part of "war of destruction" on the one hand and the Final Solution of the Jewsih question in Europe on the other were as yet two separate programs or at least two distinct phases... They did not merge into a single enterprise until later". And so on.

You should study this book to see when the term "Final Solution" gained its most horrific meaning we know today.

The memory of the murdered people is best served by presenting facts as they were and using the correct terms rather than using any words you might have heard on related topics indiscriminately just to make it all look "scientific" or trying to present the events that took place in Lithuania as being anything different from what was going on elsewhere at the same time. --Irpen 06:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys. I know how you two love each other so much, and though I don't like to involve myself in your love-making, wouldn't you both agree that the controversy involved in defining the Final Solution, of which you are both aware, would be enough to refine the statements somewhere between plain fact and anachronism? I think I spoke along thees lines on the DYK objection. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry; chalk it up to me not being a native English speaker but I don't follow your point. Let me repeat mine: 1) we have sources that note that the Holocaust and the FS begun after OBarb. 2) we have a Wikipedia article on FS who gives other dates for FS but doesn't seem to have (as far as I can tell) inline cites to back up its claim. Hence 3) I believe that if the articles are contradictory it is the poorly referenced Wikipedia article on FS that needs revision first BEFORE this much better referenced article.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll try to keep it clear and avoid long sentences. In historical usage the Final Solution means either 1) the destruction of the European Jews by the Germans; or 2) the plan to "solve" the "problem" of the European Jews. The latter is really the more precise definition. The date when the German government decided to carry out 2) as policy is debated (this date is potentially different from when it began to tolerate or encourage ground-level genocide). The statement here contradicts some views about 2). Thus statements, such as the one debated here, are controversial. Note that discussion of the Madagascar Plan was still ongoing after the beginning of OB and the Wannsee Conference likewise post-dates it. It is the wrong approach to find one or two references, as this does not solve the problem. It is the right approach to recognize the ambiguity and avoid repeating the assertions of these two writers in a way that could mislead a more general audience that doesn't understand the historiographical background. Hence why you and Irpen have a middle line available here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; hence I added the information about Holocaust having started earlier. Since nobody provided (so far) any refs about FS starting later (and I didn't have time and will to search for it myself), I did not adjust the note with that information. If any editor is willing to find such refs, I hope they edit the article with them for clarification; but until they do so I think the article should stay true to the current refs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 04:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It's just a historical debate. Easiest thing in the world to find refs for later. E.g. here, here, here, etc. You could find it earlier too, as you have. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Great; could you format them and add to the relevant articles? This should put an end to that confusion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, the middle ground is omission when the information is loosely relevant to the topic and cannot be presented briefly, just like it was in the Defense of Brest Fortress article. The meaning of the term Final Solution evolved with time and this evolution belongs to the Final Solution article rather than here. Scholars agree that the Nazi policies evolved to the even greater cruelty upon the Soviet invasion. Lithuania was among the first hit by the invaders, but so were Ukraine and Belarus. Immediate destruction of the Jewish communities started in all these places and, like everywhere, the local collaborators played a crucial role. Explaining it to the reader requires an elaboration that cannot be written in rush. Time needs to be taken to do that properly. As for the place these events took in the implementation of the Nazi's Final Solution, clearly it is a separate question that cannot be answered in one sentence, like you attempted, or even in one paragraph. Trying to present so complex things in a sentence or two can produce nothing but a sloppy or even misleading presentation. This is why we have dedicated articles. --Irpen 06:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

KGB originated materials

I see David Cesarani is used as a source. Critical review of his "Justice Delayed" shows that he has accepted much of what was written by the KGB regarding the Baltics and the Holocaust (specifically the anti-Latvian propaganda tome "Daugavas Vanagi--Who Are They?")--despite his reputation as a careful researcher. When dealing with the Baltics in particular, I don't believe the general editing community here fully appreciates the dynamics of the interplay of Nazi and Soviet propagandas and how entrenched both have become in ostensibly reputable scholarship.

From Ezergailis...

The Soviets of the 1960s when writing the pamphlets built on the Nazi stratagem of deception. It was the Germans who at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa devised a contorted plot to distance themselves from the killing actions. As the Nazis were plotting the murder of Europe’s Jews, they also knew that it was an international crime and that the rest of the world would deem it as such. To deceive the outside world, the initial phase of the Holocaust was timed with the beginning of the onslaught on the USSR. While plotting their war propaganda, the Nazi public relations offices simultaneously endeavored to distance the Germans from the crime they were slated to commit. Their gimmick was to portray the Eastern Europeans, whom they called “natives" [Einheimische], as vengeful and primitive monsters who assaulted the Jews before the Germans got to them. Amazingly, this Nazi chicanery, as the recent controversy over Jan Gross’s book Neighbors shows, worked. The Nazis contrived a tale of revenge and hatred and projected their own attitudes upon the people of the East. They proclaimed that Eastern Europeans were like the Nazis, only more so.* This Nazi “historical reality” was taken over by the Soviets, who repackaged it and presented it to the world again. By 1960 the Nazi stratagem was buried under the ruins of the war. The skeptics of the West, however, found the Soviet resurrected variant irresistible. What explains the West’s gullibility? There was a broader historical context that worked for the Soviet/Nazi tandem. ...

*The Nazi version of the Holocaust began to emerge as the killings were happening. In Sweden the Nazi version of the Holocaust was planted by a pro-German Swedish journalist, Fritz Lönnegren. As early as 14 August 1941. Lönnegren published in pro-Nazi newspaper Aftonobladet, basically a Nazi version of the Holocaust in Lithuania. As cited in Stephane Bruchfeld and Paul A. Levine, Tell ye Your Children…: A Book About the Holocaust in Europe, 1933-1945. See also Ingvar Svenberg and Mattias Tyden, Sverige och Förintelsen: Debatt och Dokument om Europas Judar, 1939-1945, Stockholm: Bokförlaget Arena, 1997, pp. 222-224.

Let's not cobble together stuff contending the Holocaust was anything but Nazi. —PētersV (talk) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Execellent post. You are correct. "Cobble" is truly the operative word in this discussion. Dr. Dan (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly would support adding a criticism of his arguments to the relevant places; of course the question is how widespread is this criticism - is Cesarani work an exception, making strange claims and being widely criticized, or is Ezergailis the one who wrote an interesting but not widely recognized critique? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

On Kaunas

From Ezergailis' review of Andrej Angrick and Peter Klein, Die “Endlösung” in Riga: Ausbeutung und Vernichtung 1941-1944, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2007.

Although the Latvians and Lithuanian by now have accumulated a sizable research literature about the Holocaust, looking through their footnotes and bibliography, Angrick and Klein make very little use of it. One especially egregious omission appears in their treatment of the June 27, 1941 “pogrom” in the Lietukis garage in Kaunus, Lithuania. By now Lithuanian historians (among them Alfonsas Eidintas) have made a thorough study of this event (a whole conference was convened to discuss that topic) but our authors would have no truck with them. Instead they relied on a version that the Nazis mocked up in 1941. It is true that the version Angrick and Klein used is part of the Holocaust folklore, especially beloved in Germany. Whatever actually happened in the garage, a historian in 2006 should not stick uncritically with a version was based on the testimony of a Nazi photographer who was likely a member of Stahlecker’s retinue.

Stahlecker ran the Nazi killing programs in the Baltics and, among other responsibilities, was in charge of portraying the Nazi line that the Holocaust in the Baltics was Germanless. Hence Lithuanians and Latvians so vicious that the German "eye witnesses" were appalled and "rescued" Jews from them.
   I would suggest Kaunas in particular be dealt with based on Eidintas. I would also suggest that the article be purged of Germans reporting Lithuanians as more vicious than the Nazis. That was the picture, documented prior to the invasion, which the Nazis planned to create. Such "observations" must be placed into that context. —PētersV (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a referenced line from Bubnys

The statement - "and before the Germans arrived" is not right. Please read the text, and you'll find perfectly referenced material that pogroms in Kaunas were instigated by SS Brigadeführer Franz Walter Stahlecker HIMSELF, who did arrive in Kaunas on July 25th (i.e. the the day BEFORE pogroms started). And he does clearly state in his report that he personally agitated Lithuanian Security Police to attack Jews, but Police did not agree to do that. Then he made another speech in the city, and, as hedid report on October 15th, - "despite that it was hard to convince local population, some people agreed" (Klimaitis rougue sqad). He also did write, that he succeeded covering his actions and instigations, to look like local initiative. It's all documented in German (ordnung) manner. Also, please note, that it is unlikely that SS Brigadenfueher travels alone into territory controlled by nobody knows who. So he did arrive with Vorkommando. So Germans were already in Kaunas, and not any reconnaissance unit, but SS Brigadenfuhrer himself. I had put the information, and proper links in the article, but they were removed without any proper reasoning, and you might find them on CVS, a.k.a history page.--Lokyz (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no "Germanless" Holocaust. Stahlecker was responsible for the rollout of the Holocaust across the Baltics. —PētersV (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but it is incontrovertibly documented that it was a fairly small unit of all Germans, not Lithuanians, that went through the countryside eradicating Jews.

   MacQueen, as the head of the OSI (reading the "the Lithuanians did it" journal summary), represents an organization that accepted all Soviet-provided evidence at face value. A shame it included accusing people of Holocaust crimes who were only 5 years old at the time. The whole "local populace" participating section is a sorry mix of fact and myth. —PētersV (talk) 04:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire western scholarship is in error, than. But to reflect that in our article we need reliable sources that make that point. I certainly agree that Germans tried to create an impression of support from local populace, but MacQueen and others do not deny that, they only note that in Lithuania - unlike in most places - the Germans were extraordinary successful, as the local populace had a very high fraction (compared to other societies) that decided to collaborate with the Nazis in the Holocaust.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Cesarani's

Re: p. 162 of Cesarani's "The Final Solution: Origins and Implementation": "The reports of Einsatzgruppe A testify to the eagerness the Lithuanians demonstrated."
   Those reports were designed to create the myth of the Germanless Holocaust: locally created, locally organized, locally executed. Those reports were then immediately sent abroad by the Nazis (via a sympathetic journalist to Sweden and in Hitler's own pronouncements) so as to insure implicating the local populace (far more than the collaborators the Nazis did find)--while they clamped down and let no other news escape. Re: Lokyz's latest addition, it is documented if you read the proper Nazi sources that the local populace resisted participation. Also, as I mentioned, that it was Germans that killed Jews in the countryside, again, if you read the proper Nazi sources. Let's indict the guilty, not an entire people based on myth. —PētersV (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course when using Nazi sources we have to clearly label them as such; I don't suggest we give them much prominence in our article - and certainly none without a clear attribution. That said, if respect scholars deem such reports reliable, per WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:NOR, we have to accept their judgment.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

From the Baltics to the Ukraine to Poland (Jan Gross's book a prime example, one he has become rich on), the premise is that the Nazis (and later Soviets) lied about everything--except about Eastern European populace exacting the Germanless Holocaust upon the Jews. We are to believe that all across Nazi-occupied territory, the Nazis themselves were blameless (except for the occasional whisper in the ear) and that such atavistic and primal hatred of Jews was let loose that Estonians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Poles, Ukrainians... denied themselves German rifles, preferring to bludgeon their Jewish neighbors to death with the bluntest instruments possible in a manner so savage and subhuman as to be incomprehensible to the civilized mind. No one would accuse anyone in Western Europe of such savagery, not even the Nazis. (Is no editor curious why it's only in Eastern Europe that Germans are purported to "rescue" Jews from the local savages? Considering the centuries and centuries of amicable relations between Jews and Eastern Europeans, what is more likely? That Eastern Europeans are actually sub-humans or that the Nazis lied?). But apparently it's quite normal and expected for Eastern Europeans to be painted as the basest of living creatures. Today, here, in this article, it's the Lithuanians. But it's no different anywhere across Eastern Europe where the Nazis inflicted the Holocaust.
   (edit conflict) To Piotrus' point, the most "reputable" scholarship is not reputable if it takes Nazi (or later Soviet) statements at face value. That scholars stop at that point is precisely the problem. The Holocaust is so incomprehensible that the only possible rationalization for it is reasoning that is even more incomprehensible, that is, Piotrus, that any stories of amicable Jewish-Polish or Jewish-Latvian relations that we have told by our families or relatives are all a lie and that we are genetic sub-humans capable of bludgeoning people to death while humming our respective national anthems while stepping over their still-warm corpses. —PētersV (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased Lithuanian sources

It should be noted - as was in the article - that Lithuanian historiography is still lagging behind with relation to this event. See also [13],[14]. So we should be careful when using Lithuanian sources in giving due weight and attribution, as they may - even unintentionally - be too interested in whitewashing the issue (this is of course common to all national historiographies, Lithuanian is simply no exception to the general rule, as shown by the sources we cite). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)