Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30

I've noticed that many of the articles that the Holocaust nav box links to do not have the nav box listed on it. In fact, I've noticed this with lots of nav boxes on Wikipedia. Is there a way to have a robot automatically do all of the linking of nav boxes on the articles that it links to? If not, can't Wikipedia create a robot to do stuff like that? This seems like the exact type of task that could be programmed into a bot. It would save a ton of tedious work and time for people.Hoops gza (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Six million?

It would be good if you widened the range of Jewish victims. Some scholars say it was more and some say it was less. Just as the other definition (including non-Jews) states that the total number of victims was 11 to 17 million - and estimates vary about the Jewish victims too.--85.160.147.230 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Article deletion discussion on anti-immigrant sentiment in contemporary Europe

Article is Growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe from the late 2000s, deletion discussion here.--Sum (talk) 14:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm Hottl Misquoted

Footnote 257 is deceptive. It reads: "Wilhelm Höttl, an SS officer and a Doctor of History, testified at the Nuremberg Trials and Eichmann's trial that at a meeting he had with Eichmann in Budapest in late August 1944, "Eichmann ... told me that, according to his information, some 6,000,000"........ However, Hottl testified that Eichmann was drank and suggested that his numbers may not be reliable -- but of course, that part was not quoted in the wikipedia article. So here it goes: ""(Eichmann) expressed his conviction that Germany had lost the war and that he personally had no further chance. He knew that he would be considered one of the main war criminals by the United Nations, since he had millions of Jewish lives on his conscience. I asked him how many that was, to which he answered that although the number was a great Reich secret, he would tell me since I, as a historian too, would be interested and that probably he would not return anyhow from his command in Romania. He had, shortly before that, made a report to Himmler, as the latter wanted to know the exact number of Jews who had been killed. Approximately 4 million Jews had been killed in the various concentration camps, while an additional 2 million met death in other ways, the major part of which were shot by operational squads of the Security Police during the campaign against Russia. Despite the fact that when we were having this conversation Eichmann was in a very bad state mentally, and drank a fair amount of alcohol in a short time, I did not have the impression that the figures Eichmann gave me were the result of something he had suddenly invented, but that he himself was, subjectively speaking, convinced that the figures were correct. In reply to a question as to whether in this context I heard Eichmann use the term 'six million murdered Jews,' I should like to state that this term 'murdered' was one which I used, while, as far as I remember, Eichmann used an expression such as 'exterminated' or 'liquidated' Jews. I have no way of knowing how Eichmann arrived at these figures of the number of Jews murdered, and he also gave me no indications whatsoever about this. I had never heard anything before that about the figures quoted by Eichmann, and there was also nothing along these lines which I could gather from the foreign broadcasts, which were available to me extensively in my official capacity. Later on as well, until the collapse of the Third Reich, I did not receive any information from any source about this, although this question was naturally of very great interest to me. At this time, I was trying very hard to obtain statistical material about the Jews; I found out that at the beginning of the War there had been about fifteen million Jews in the whole world. If six million Jews had been murdered, that would have meant a proportion of forty per cent. During these investigations of mine, it also struck me that the second-largest group of Jews, after those in Europe and Asia, lived in America, so that these would practically never have been within the grasp even of a victorious Germany." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.178.29 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 99.114.91.134, 30 April 2011

i hated the holocost


{{editsemiprotected}} 99.114.91.134 (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Note DoneHardy Heck (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Origins and execution and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni is not mentioned in any way in the origin. I think this person is an important fact of the origin of the holocaust, first it shows that the islam had its presence there and second that he was a palestinian. Otherwise the entire "view" of the Holocaust is based on an untrue origin. --Santiago84 (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen any reliable source saying that he was important in the origin of the Holocaust, and he certainly (IMHO) doesn't merit 3 paras in the middle of a broad overview. To the extent it isn't original research it is irrelevant, I think, so I've removed your addition. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some facts which i think are relevant for the origin of the holocaust and to reflect history correctly. It is a responsibility to know what really happened and not to rely on facts just because we are used to them, but are wrong.

"In 1933, within weeks of Hitler's rise to power in Germany, the German Consul-General in Palestine, the pro-nazi Heinrich Wolff,[1] sent a telegram to Berlin reporting al-Husayni's belief that Palestinian Muslims were enthusiastic about the new regime and looked forward to the spread of Fascism throughout the region. Wolff met al-Husayni and many sheiks again, a month later, at Nabi Musa. They expressed their approval of the anti-Jewish boycott in Germany and asked Wolff not to send any Jews to Palestine.[2]"

"Back in the summer of 1940 and again in February 1941, al-Hussayni submitted to the German government[3] a draft declaration of German-Arab cooperation, containing a clause:

Germany and Italy recognize the right of the Arab countries to solve the question of the Jewish elements, which exist in Palestine and in the other Arab countries, as required by the national and ethnic (völkisch) interests of the Arabs, and as the Jewish question was solved in Germany and Italy.[4]

"

"One of Adolf Eichmann's deputies, Dieter Wisliceny, stated after the war that al-Husayni had actively encouraged the extermination of European Jews, and that he had had an elaborate meeting with Eichmann at his office, during which Eichmann gave him an intensive look at the current state of the “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe” by the Third Reich.[5]"

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni meeting with Adolf Hitler (December 1941).
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni meeting with Heinrich Himmler (1943).

These pictures speak for themself.

And again, this is no original research or irrelevant. The references are also eligible.

"Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg and Lucy Dawidowicz maintained that from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with anti-Semitism and there was a direct link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps of the 1940s" This introduction sentence is original research and wrong. It suggests that the Shoah is based on single medieval pogroms, when jews in other places living in medieval Germany enyojed full rights. Germany itself has a long jewish history. Entire family lines and names, an own language "yiddish" and the intention of the holy roman empire to free jerusalem from the occupation by moslems. All these facts are beeing ignored with the theorie that "the holocaust is based on medieval pogroms". Together with the islamic background of the holocaust the real events are beeing revealed. But i think if persons can not understand the reality of events, then they do not want to see the truth. --Santiago84 (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. "Yehuda Bauer, Raul Hilberg and Lucy Dawidowicz maintained that from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with anti-Semitism and there was a direct link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps of the 1940s" This introduction sentence is original research. How could it possibly be original research? Are you suggesting that Bauer, Hilberg,and Dawidowicz did not say those things? --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No, i ment with it that they research and their conclusion i.e. "from the middle ages onward, german society and culture were suffused with anti-semitism" suggests a wrong picture of real historical events. Why i called it "original research". --Santiago84 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. You need to read our original research policy, I think. You've got it backwards; "original research" in the Wikipedia context means your own analysis and conclusions, not those of reliable sources such as published scholars and historians. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Santiago84, but you are mistaken about your opinions. To say that there was "one" pogrom and that you feel that this should not be used as the basis for the Holocaust is wrong in many ways. 1st - there wasn't just "one". 2nd - history recounts instance after instance where the Jews were allowed to live in peace for a time and later persecuted when the King/Church decided the Jews had something they needed (i.e. money/land). If this NEVER happened in the Germanic countries, it would be the onlyplace in Europe where it didn't. It was quite possibly true that the Germanic realms was MORE tolerant than other countries, but tolerating the Jews doesn't automatically equate to them being treated as equals. 3rd - just because they had their own language has no bearing on how they were treated. The Poles have their own language and they've been subjugated by country after country for centuries. 4th - the Holy Roman Emperor did not offer to free Jerusalem from the Muslims for the Jews (even if you assume that the Crusades were simply about retaking Jerusalem) so this also has no bearing on your point. Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni it is not my research. It is a question of logic. Here is a good short youtube documentation, its on german, but with with english subtitles [[1]]. Maybe to the time when these scholars published their work they did not know of the islamic influence. But it is our responsibility to work the truth out, and not to rely on to what we are used to just because it is comfort. Do you at least understand what i mean, or is our entire disscusion useless? --Santiago84 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be useless. We don't get to use our own logic, and it is by no means our responsibility to "work the truth out". It's our responsibility to present what's been "worked out" by reliable sources. Have you read WP:NOR yet? --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Problem is, Hitler wanted vengance against the Jewish before any influence from this guy occurred, so this seems quite farfetched. You might want to double check the sources, and see where the idea came from before believing it. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I am also in agreement questioning this source. Not sure why someone would want to ret-con the whole Holocaust and blame it on the Muslims in general or al-Husayni in particular. It is FIRMLY established beyond the shadow of a doubt that Hitler had it in for the Jews well before he even became Chancellor. Not only this, but his fellow Germans were more than willing to hop on the bandwagon - were THEY all influenced by al-Husayni too? In my opinion, this had more to do with territory, and keeping the Jews from having more of it (as has been the case over the last 60+ yrs since statehood), than "come over and hear about my wonderful idea about how to kill all the Jews". Ckruschke (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

see the islamophobia here,they are blaming this guy called Husayni,giving citations from unreliable sources that he encouraged holocaust,the hindu brahminists must be silently laughing and enjoying sipping the water as they played a bigger role in bringing about the holocaust than anyone else,it was in their interest to support hitler to destroy both british and jews and after this was done they made themselves look like nice peaceful people who were persecuted unjustly,Jews have lived freely and without any harm in Muslim countries for 1400 years better than in Christian countries,Israel itself is 20 percent Muslim,the Palestine Israel problem is a political problem,not a religious problem,yet many unreliable sources and falsehoods are being manufactured to keep the Muslim Jewish conflict growing while the Hindus enjoy the fun.117.204.134.206 (talk) 09:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Indirect Role OF India's Brahminists

I read a book by a Jewish Historian called Leon Poliakov,the name of the book is Aryan Myth Theory,in the book,Poliakov has said that India's Brahminists(upper caste Hindus) played a major indirect role in bringing about the holocaust by selling the swastika symbol to Hitler and brainwashing Germans with the Aryan myth theory that led to the holocaust,should this be mentioned in the article,I can quote from the book itself if needed,The India's Brahminists tried to get close to the British by calling themselves Aryans while at the same time sending their groomed representatives to Germany like Savitri Devi and indirectly guiding Hitler on how to eliminate Jews and then afterwards making it look like they themselves have been hurt and persecuted by others,manufacturing many false stories of persecution and suffering in order to get close to the Jews,this is what Poliakov has said in his book,should this be mentioned here,it is worth mentioning in the article,Here are the links to the wikipedia articles on both Savitri Devi and Leon Poliakov: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Poliakov http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_devi.117.204.134.206 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no question that certain elements of Nazi mythology were drawn from Indian influences. However, I find the phrase "selling the swastika symbol to Hitler and brainwashing Germans with the Aryan myth theory" very strange. I have not read Poliakov's book, although I'm sure it is fascinating, but I found this review from The Journal of Modern History which I've put online here. According to this review, certain European philosophers were heavily influenced by Indian sources in their attempts to describe the origins of their cultures and to put together a theory of race. The Nazis, in turn, were influenced by these philosophers. This seems like a pretty mainstream viewpoint. I don't see anything in this review that would suggest that Poliakov is saying that Indians "brainwashed" the Germans or that Indian "Brahminists" played an "indirect role" in the Holocaust.. However, even if you were giving an accurate account of what Poliakov is saying, which you don't seem to be, this article really isn't the place to discuss the origins of Nazi theories on race at length. (The article discusses the Völkisch movement and other aspects of the origins of the Holocaust very briefly). This article is already one of the longest on Wikipedia. GabrielF (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have read the book and its there man,Poliakov has mentioned upper caste Hindus and their support for Hitler and role in bringing about the Holocaust,these Brahminists have truly played a major role in bringing about the worst event ever and then made themselves look like nice peaceful people,Savitri Devi personally met Hitler,she was groomed by them for guiding him on eliminating the Jews and it was in their interest at that time to see that both the Jews and British are destroyed,now its in their interest to see that Muslims and Jews fight and both get destroyed while they watch the spectacle from far away,the extremist Muslims are helping them a lot by giving Islam a bad name,and by selling swastika symbol,I meant giving it or transferring it to Germany.117.204.134.206 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe creating an article on Poliakov's book wouldn't be such a bad idea. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I have read the book (and also the biography of Savitri Devi, BTW). It's pretty good solid scholarship, but it is rather old and is locked into the politics of the period it was written. I don't recall anything in it about Brahamanists "selling" the Aryan concept to Nazis. Our articles on the Aryan race and the Nordic race give a reasonably good account of the history of this concept, though both have suffered from nationalist special-pleading from Indian and Iranian edit warriors. More up to date source is Arvidson's Aryan Idols (2006). Indian literature - including the Gita - did influence some Nazis, but so did Luther and Nietzsche and all sorts of other stuff. We can't blame everyone. The concept of Aryan identity does not inevitably lead, by some internal logic, to hating Jews or justifying killing them. It's just an ethno-linguistic model. Paul B (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Please, correct me if I am wrong, but the concept of Aryan race does not imply extermination of any particular nation. In addition, if we decided to blame someone for providing Nazi with ideological symbols let's blame Americans for their Bellamy salute, or Friedrich Nietzsche for his concept of Übermensch. That is ridiculous.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Our IP is evidently a V. T. Rajshekar-style Dravidianist, more interested in Anti-Brahminism than the Holocaust. Paul B (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a supporter of Rajshekar,there are certain things which he says are correct,then there are many farfetched things which he also includes,he has not understood the close relationship between the Abrahamic religions,nor the similarities they share,he also calls Lenin a Jew but then he doesnt realise that Lenin never believed in any religion,he did not just hurt Christians,he hurt Jews with some of his actions against them that forced them to flee Russia and he also destroyed many Muslim places of worship,the editor is also not informed of the fact that all Communist leaders were of a lower class origin and they hated the Czar for his actions and injustices,Lenin hated all religions itself,he speaks a lot of truth and then includes far fetched concepts of conspiracies in his magazines,someone needs to send him a message and inform him of all this.117.204.134.206 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

jewish-centric

why doesn't the article at least mention the other people who died in concentration camps? poles, czechs, russians, magyars, gays, blacks, gypsies?74.14.35.98 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't the person asking this question read the third sentence of the article? --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not enough. Lately there's a silly tendency to make every single victim of any WWII German war crime to be part of the Holocaust. Btw, many fascists or even Nazis (that's right - purged, disgraced, convicted for disciplinary and other crimes) died in the Nazi concentration camps (including being executed there), according to people like you this would make the fascists and Nazis victims of the Holocaust too? Most of the people who were prisoners of concentration camps actually survived,[2] while most of the Jews of Europe were systematically killed and most of them were not even prisoners at all - they were just being sent to the special extermination camps to be killed on arrival. And yes, this makes it special. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous assertion. Just like the Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, and Communists were targeted for transportation to concentration camps and death camps. Like the Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, and Communists were portrayed by the Nazis as the reason for Germany's internal weakness during World War I and its defeat in that war. Like the Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, and Communists were dehumanized by the Nazis in order to legitimate their extermination. In particular, homosexuals were the victims of the Holocaust and even before the implementation of the death camps (for example, homosexuals were the targets of beatings by members of the SA [and later the SS], the Hitler Youth, etc.). Like the Jews, homosexuals were often sent straight to the gas chambers upon arrival. And yes, you are demeaning the tragedy that took place between 1933 and 1945. (Also, unlike the Jews, the persecution of homosexuals continued well into the postwar years.) --Robertbayer (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly a false equivalency, and you know it. Regardless of how people actually ended up in the camps, the result was the same. The article itself states that 60% of homosexual men sent to the camps died,and it can very well be argued that the "crimes" they were convicted of were absolutely ridiculous. Ditto for gypsies, and many of the rest. In my view, camps = holocaust, so no, just because the person dying was Jewish does not make them "special." 65.60.142.2 (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)DB

The term Holocaust is a Jewish one, so the subject is inherently oriented towards Jews. I have no problem with that. However it is important that this event be seen in the context of the killing of many other peoples by Germany - and by Soviet Russi - at the time. Unfortunately the Jewish Holocaust industry has completely overshadowed the many millions of others who also died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnC (talk • contribs) 08:21, 19 February 2011
In fact, the term Holocaust is Greek. The Jews refer to it as the Shoah and other terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.211.171 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
You, sir, are like Hitler! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msom (talk • contribs) 15:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This thing about Jewish deaths is that Germany war never at war with Judaism. The deaths of the other civilians were due to the inevitable hatred from war against nationalities. The action against the Jews was only supported at top command levels. Even the crowds of antisemites predominant in Germany weren't all content with the idea to kill all of them. Hitler could have chosen to spare the Jews and few will be angry. If Hitler spared the others, it would leave Germans with soldier relatives with unfulfilled hatred, despite however innocent the others were. I'm not saying it was OK for him to kill the others, I'm just saying that it's hard to find someone who wouldn't kill, considering all the pressure from hatred. George Bush probably would have. Maybe even Obama. 173.183.79.81 (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand the basis of this discussion and that people often overlook the suffering of other groups during the Holocaust. However, the Jews were the main target of the Holocaust, so it is only logical for the article to dwell the most on their suffering. Using rough estimation, about half the article focuses on the Jewish persecution, which is very roughly equivalent to the proportion of Jewish deaths. While the opening sentences of the article seem a little one-sided, the rest of the article is relatively fair and balanced. Trbone95 (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Trbone95 May 9, 2011


Let's not forget the long forgotten 2nd class Holocaust Victims. i.e "poles, czechs, russians, magyars, gays, blacks, gypsies" Vexorg (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust categories for deletion

Please note the following:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

No that shouldent be deleted, not one page.33rd rec john (talk) 21:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's nice to know, john, but you have to actually go to the discussion page in question and comment there for it to count for anything. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to reduce the size a bit

I've gone through the first half of the article rewording, tidying and removing overly-detailed sections, and I'll carry on tomorrow. Much of what I removed is already on wikipedia in more appropriate places - for example, a quote of a poster ordering the Jews of Kiev to the Babi Yar ravine is already in that article, and doesn't need to be here; similarly, the list of attendees at the Wannsee conference and the organisations they represented is better in that article. Another thing that bothers me (which I'd like other editors' input about) is the first three sections on names of the Holocaust and related stuff - this seems to me to be a lot for readers to wade through before they get to the actual historical details of the events, and I am minded to trim those sections quite radically into a sub-article. Thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has needed editing down for quite some time. I see the first section does have a main article (Names of the Holocaust), so that one could be edited down further for concision. One way the other sections could be trimmed is by moving some of what is stated to footnotes or making new sub-articles as you put forth. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the 'Names' article, I think the 'Historical usage of Holocaust, Shoah and Final Solution' would sensibly fit in there, as it already has sections for each of those terms, and I'm tempted to move the 'Use of the term Holocaust for Jewish and non-Jewish victims' section to be a sub-section of the 'Holocaust' section of the names article. That would also fit well, IMHO, and it would allow us to leave a short summary of the main points in just one 'Etymology and use' section in this article.
If people object to moving this material, an alternative would be to move it further down the article (possibly before the 'Uniqueness of the Nazi Holocaust' section?), which would allow the reader to get to the historical account of events sooner, but obviously wouldn't help reduce the size of the article.
Because this is a significant change to a mature and important article, I'm in no rush to do it, and will wait for further input. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

It makes considerably more sense to have the terminology and etymology of The Holocaust in a separate article, particularly in the interest of abridging this article.Hoops gza (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I've moved almost all of the material from the 'Etymology' section into the Names of the Holocaust article, as I suggested I would above. That article could now probably do with another pair of eyes in case I've missed repetitions, contradictions, poor ordering, etc. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrator Motivation

I notice that this section only references two or three books. The book:

Klee, Ernst, Dressen, Willi, Riess, Volker. The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders. ISBN 1-56852-133-2

contains a chapter full of quotes about perpetrator motivation, from pages 75 to 86. The chapter clearly expresses that the actions of the SS men were carried out willingly and were not compulsory to orders in many cases.

For instance, I believe that this quote should be added somewhere:


Hoops gza (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you give any more detail about the quote? Is it by a first hand witness, what is the date of the quote itself? (Hohum @) 18:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will add it to the article.Hoops gza (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be by a witness as I believe the entire book consists of witness accounts. I read in the forward of "The Good Old Days":
"The particular significance of this book is that in it the facts are recorded not by Jewish survivors but by German witnesses: men who, by chance, or in the course of duty, or out of curiosity, observed the events as they occurred and made a record, sometimes a photographic record, of them." Bus stop (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this gobbet of primary material - it seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing WP:PSTS is recommending against. It contrasts awkwardly with the cited secondary material that follows, and presenting it without any commentary leaves the reader to do the work. There is also no apparent reason to use this particular quote - if the point you are trying to make with it is valid, you will be able to find a secondary source making it. If not, it shouldn't be in the article.
(And as a much less important point, gobbets tend to be much more long-winded ways to illustrate a point than direct statements of fact.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whipping

I've noticed that whipping at the concentration camps is not discussed in the article, yet I'm fairly certain that it was an incessant practice.Hoops gza (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What makes you so certain? Is there a link to some sort of source that could back up this claim? Then it would probably be more likely to make it into the article. 71.192.25.164 (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Goldhagen Paras

I agree with Squiddy. If anyone wants to read about the issue, a good reference is: Bauer, Yehuda (2002). Rethinking the Holocaust. Chapter V.Joel Mc (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology and use of the term: "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is not "euphemistic"

Please replace the term "euphemistic" with the term "ominous" in this article. The phrase "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" is not euphemistic. It is ominous and supremely offensive. I cannot think of a single "Final Solution" of which I would want my race to be a part. Can you? --Isleofbelle (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because in 2011 you perfectly know what has finally been the "final solution" to the Jewish question. But back in 1939-1940-1941, this phrase had been voluntary used because it was vague and very few people knew exactly what it meant. One can therefore state that when created it was euphemistic. Of course, nowadays using this expression when speaking of a race or a people would create a huge turmoil. --Lebob (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Lebob. (Hohum @) 20:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's rather like "ethnic cleansing", a euphemistic phrase originally, but now a very sinister one. Paul B (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Well put, agree it was a "euphemistic" phrase. Kierzek (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the greatest insight on this matter comes from Cs32en who noted on the history page (20:04 22 June 2011) that the Final Solution to the Jewish Question "framed the Holocaust in the context of the Nazis' ideology, it was not chosen to obscure the intent or facts..." In addition to Cs32en's remarks, I am inspired by Joel Mc who said on Hohum's talk page that the “meanings of the term ‘Final Solution’ changed at least from late 1939 when it meant the sending of Jews eastward to reservations.” --Isleofbelle (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I think by on the history page you mean in the edit summary. It's best to give a "diff", like this [3]. The Nazis consistently obscured the facts in their language. Another phrase was "special treatment". It was Goering's letter to Heydrich that called for a 'for a complete solution of the Jewish Question in the German sphere of influence in Europe'. He consistently argued that that meant expulsion rather than mass-murder. It may well have done intitially, but of course as soon as it came to be used as a cover term for murder it functioned as a euphemism and as "plausible deniability". It later became a cover to avoid retribution, as Goering attempted to do. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
We should reflect what reliable sources say. "The final solution" clearly is and was a euphemism according to these: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. I don't think any of those are fringe sources. (Hohum @) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your discussion on this topic. May God help us all when expressions such as "Ethnic Cleansing," "The Last Supper," or "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question" do not alarm us or signal to us that something is amiss until it is too late. --Isleofbelle (talk) 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute to the discussion on whether "the final solution" was used as a well-understood euphemism, was deliberately vague, or something else. I do want to point out that the phrase"the Jewish problem" is itself explicitly offensive. Being Jewish is not a problem, except to anti-Semites or anti-Jews. Whether the solution is murder, conversion, expulsion, or something more benign, calling it a "problem" is explicitly offensive, not vague and not a euphemism.Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussions of forced labor and rape in Holocaust articles

1. I think that in general it needs to be more clearly discussed that there were very clear, intrinsic differences between the forced labor that went on during the Holocaust and what we commonly think of as slavery. It was not the same thing as slavery in the commonly accepted usage of the term, such as American slavery.

They were underfed and worked until death. They were not housed in the way that slaves are. The system was designed to use them and destroy them, not to maintain them as slaves. And slaves have more freedoms than the Holocaust victims & survivors had. People did not pay for the Holocaust victims, survivors (in most cases), which is quite a bit different from most forms of slavery. Therefore I think that the term "slave labor" should be avoided as much as possible here.

I know that there is the article extermination through labor, which is just fine. But that article is not well-linked throughout the Holocaust related articles.

2. There is also very little to nothing in any of the Holocaust-related articles which discusses the rape of women (and girls) during the Holocaust. I have now found three different sources that discuss this topic. It obviously needs to be discussed on the main article as well as perhaps a separate article?Hoops gza (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoops gza , I encourage you to add any information that you believe will enhance this and other articles. Regarding your first and second points, I regard American slavery, Holocaust slavery, adult rape, child rape, and genocide as unspeakable horrors. Although, I acknowledge that each one has clear differences that are discussed in many disciplines.--Isleofbelle (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)R
No doubt women were raped, which is regretably common throughout the history of warfare, when men have guns and nothing to restrain them. But rape was not part of the structured or organised process that we call the Holocaust. We have to be careful not to include all the usual horrors of war under the holocaust label. Working people to death, in contrast, was seen as a part of the process and is documented as such. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also the rape of jewish women was committed by slavic males not german males. German males who had any kind of sexual relations with jewish women would be punished by the nazi authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.131.160 (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

For Wikipedia uniformity

I know that holocaust number of victims is a hard issue to change, but for wikipedia info uniformity wouldn't it better to make the Death toll numbers in the camps uniform? Under the article Extermination camps we have: Auschwitz: 1,1 million (1,4 million here); Treblinka 700-800.000 (870.000 here); Belzec 434,500 (600.000 here); Sobibor 167000 -250.000 (250.000 here); Chelmno: 152.000 (320.000) and Majdanek 78.000 (79.000 - 235.000). I think this number difference is kinda embarrassing for Wikipedia because or this article is way too overrated or the extermination camp (and the individual death camps pages) are way too underrated (the number difference is too big for an encyclopedia standard). Not to mention that the numbers as they are make a good part of the article unreliable. 201.79.44.87 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Hagyan, 31 July 2011

The present footnote 14 which refers to

"The Holocaust: Definition and Preliminary Discussion"[dead link], Yad Vashem. Retrieved June 8, 2005.

should refer to the URL

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/holocaust/resource_center/the_holocaust.asp

I have already modified the same citation on the "Names of the Holocaust" page.

Thanks. Hagyan (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC) Done Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance of getting this featured? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lucidnitram, 6 August 2011

The present estimate of 1.4 million Jewish deaths at Auschwitz (see the 'Extermination Camp/Estimate of number killed' table in section 4.1: 'Jewish', which references source 135 - a dead link as it happens) is incorrect.

The official Auschwitz Museum has the figure at 1 million Jewish deaths and the source is: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=13&limit=1&limitstart=3

Thanks Lucidnitram (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Done Joel Mc (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Troyunverdruss, 11 August 2011

In the section 'Motivation', there is a type "through" should be "though". The typo comes directly after: The majority of the Trawniki men were Ukrainians or Volksdeutche,

Thanks

Done Topher385 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

non-Jewish victims

The introduction refers to the Holocaust as the murder of six million Jews, but shouldn't it also mention the many non-Jewish victims as is done further in the article?--68.225.194.245 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the first paragraphs states that there are two definitions at the end of the paragraph, after wording it like there is only one definition in the beginning. Dimension31 (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I've added to the first paragraph to use the same definition as the Encyclopedia Britannica, the same definition which is already referenced throughout the article. Dimension31 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Uniqueness - adding section about relation with Armenian Genocide and Holodomor

I put these paragraphs but were deleted, just wanted to know what people think about;

Hitler and Armenian Genocide Allegedly, Adolf Hitler mentioned Armenian genocide in his speech to Wehrmacht commanders in 1939, a week before invasion on Poland, saying: "Who still talks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians?". It is known as Armenian quote.

Nazi Hunger Plan and Bolshevik Holodomor of 1932-32 In his book, Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution', British historian Laurence Rees writes how Nazi planners discussed and analyzed Bolshevik actiong during famine (Holodomor) in 1932-32, who targeted peasents, making ethnical Ukrainians primary victims, for their own Hunger Plan, expecting millions of Slavs and Jews will be forced to die in hunger, primary in the cities, during course of war and for the benefit of German people. --Datastat (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 23rd August 2011

Figures of section Holokaust#Jewish based on Lucy Dawidowicz research concerning Jews in Finland are false. During II World War (in Finnish context "Continuation War") Finnish Jews were at front as all drafted Finnish male-persons. 23 Finnish Jews killed in the actions against the Soviet army. These 23 (not 22 as Dawidowicz says) were not killed by Finns or Finnish administration. There were no Holocaust-actions in Finland. Also this wiki-article says that "Germany's allies Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland were pressured to introduce antisemitic measures, but for the most part they did not comply until compelled to do so." There were no anti-semitic Holocaust-laws in Finland and Jews had same civil rights and duties as other Finnish citizens. A report of Central Union of Finnish Jews (Juutalaisten keskusliitto) has said "Suomen juutalaisten vapauksia ja oikeuksia ei millään tavoin loukattu sodan aikana".("The liberties and rights of the Jewish people in Finland were not insulted by any sort of action during the war") Citation: "Kadimah - Suomen juutalaisten historia" (Otava, 1989) by Taimi Torvinen.

Citations concerning those 23 deceased Jewish Finnish war heros http://www.holocaustinfo.org/faq/suomessa/ (In Finnish, written by the professor of Semic languages Tapani Harviainen), http://www.utu.fi/tiedostot/aurora/pdf/5-2000/26.html (In Finnish, academic article in the paper of University of Turku.), http://www.mtv3.fi/uutiset/kotimaa.shtml/2002/04/110852/suomen-juutalaiset-sotaveteraanit-saivat-muistopaaden (In Finnish, A news article of MTV3 about the memorial stone of Jewish war veterans. 23 jews killed in action mentioned.) And another news article [10]. Use the Google translate if there's any problems with the language. --Smörre (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Republicans

Why are the former Spanish Republicans exterminated in Nazi's concentration camps not mentioned in the article? Many of those who went to exile in France after the Spanish Civil War were rounded up by Vichy's government and handled over to the Germans. They even had a different badge for identification (a blue triangle.) Here is an interesting link: http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/SpanishRepublicans.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.19.194 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to Barenbaum's quote of genocidal state

There has been discussion in the past about the quote "genocidal state". It is a striking term which Barenbaum substantiates with vivid examples, parish churches, the post office, universities, German firms etc. Replacing it with the Hilberg quote loses the detail. Barenbaum's quote is reinforced in the following para by Friedlander. The proposed quote from Hilberg does add an emphasis to the fact of the decentralized nature of a process in trying to realize the three "premises" (objectives) drew in a wide variety of people and institutions. Maybe something of that nature could be added. I do believe it is not for us to decide how Barenbaum came up with his quote, i.e. cutting and pasting, he is a respected authority and does add important detail.Joel Mc (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Needlessly confused subject matter - this article as well as the related articles and infoboxes and categories need to be completely rewritten

The Holocaust was just the WWII-era genocide of Jews. Nothing else or more. For the rest, Wikipedia needs to make some other article covering Nazi atrocities in general.

The mainstream definition is very simple:

  • Encyclopædia Britannica: Holocaust, Hebrew Shoʾah, Yiddish and Hebrew Ḥurban (“Destruction”), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. [11]
  • United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.[12]
  • Yad Vashem: The Holocaust was the murder by Nazi Germany of six million Jews.[13]

Now go and clearly separate everything else regarding the era of Holocaust, instead of confusing people. Just look at the Holocaust infobox ("Romani people (Gypsies), Poles, Soviet POWs, Slavs in Eastern Europe, Homosexuals, People with disabilities, Serbs, Freemasons, Jehovah's Witnesses") or the "Non Jewish" section here in this very article - that's all incorrect, according to the mainstream understanding of the Holocaust, and not some fringe theories. Unless someone was mistaken for a Jew, he was not a victim of the Holocaust (to put it bluntly).

Also the real number was rather over 5 million (most probably some 5.4 million) murdered Jews, but the mainstream definition ia "approximately" 6 million so be it.

I only realised the mistake by Wikipedia after noticing how many films in List of Holocaust films were not about the Holocaust. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


OK, I just noticed "and millions of others" in Britannica - but not in the two others. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. Wrote about it months ago: Article is too long etc but no reaction at all.Joel Mc (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a significant task to completely rewrite this article. Have you tried to improve it yourself - and therefore realise the scale of the task and the difficulties involved? (Hohum @) 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I have followed this page for more than four years and have watched a number of editors try to deal with the problems that I raised above and this leads me to be pessimistic about the possibilities of making the necessary changes. The actual editing should not be that hard, the problem is dealing with the competing agendas which in my view do not belong on a page which should deal only with the mass murder of some six million Jews. Plenty of room for another article to deal with the murder of around six million non-Jews by the Nazis.Joel Mc (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article address the arguments of Holocaust denyers?

I know there are a lot of people out there that deny certain aspects of the holocaust. I am not familiar with their arguments but I was looking for them out of curiosity and thought I would find them in WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.155.185 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a fringe topic and doesn't receive much coverage on this page, but we do have an article which covers it in depth. --Daniel 20:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Jewish death toll update

My minor edit entailed moving the third paragraph in the section "Victims and death toll", which deals only with Jews down under the section heading Jewish. I then added a new referenced para which brings the statistics more up to date. Finally, I moved the para about Yiddish to the end of the subsection. I have removed nothing at this stage even though some of the statistics, have been superceded. I would hesitate to remove Hilberg as he was the real pioneer, Gilbert was important, but is now out of date. This is true also for Dawidowicz's estimates of those killed although her estimates of pre-war populations probably still hold. I could try and incorporate Benz's figures in another column of her table, recalculating Percent killed. The Yiddish para also probably belongs some place else. I have tip-toed around the Pandora's box re: the Non-Jewish subsections. I am sure it remains a puzzle to most readers why they are included in an article about the mass-murder of Europe's Jews by the Nazis, particularly when virtually each subsection is linked to a main article on that subject.Joel Mc (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure on your definition. To some, it may be strange to be told that non Jews who were killed, for instance, in a gas chamber alongside Jews, were not victims of the same Holocaust. (Hohum @) 18:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ref. to Gellaty

Clicking on the reference to Gellaty (12) takes one to a newspaper review, not to anything by Robert Gellaty. Moreover, that review merely says that persecution and killings up to the outbreak of World War II were widely known among the ordinary German public. There's nothing remarkable in this statement. However, any claim that systematic extermination (from 1941 onwards) was well known and regularly reported in the German media at the time (1941-45) would indeed be astonishing and would need very reliable, virtually foolproof sources. The matter is complicated by the fact that the lead refers to the conspiracy. Conspiracies are only reported in the media when uncovered. At present the last paragraph give massively undue weight to claims ascribed to Gellaty. Norvo (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Denial?

Another editor has used the current practice at this article of not discussing Holocaust denial in the article, but only having it as a See also link as an exemplar for another article. I am having a hard job finding a consensus in talk for doing it this way. Our style guide on See also sections suggests that as an article develops, links like this should migrate into the article proper. I am interested to know what other editors here think about this. How was this arrived at? Does it enjoy current consensus? What about the future? --John (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the Holocaust, an event which occured in the 1940's during World War II, Holocaust denial is not part of the Holocaust, it's for the most part fringe theories unsupported by facts advanced by people after the historical period in question who tend to be anti-semitic. If people want to read about The Holocaust they'll read this, if they want to read about Holocaust denial they'll read that. 7mike5000 (talk) 05:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Holoskaustos

Holoskaustos does mean wholly (holos) burnt (kaustos), but the Greeks didn't use it that way. They used it as the term for "peace offer" or "peace sacrifice". In case of a normal sacrifice, only a piece of the sacrifice was burnt, the rest was eaten. If one had to make up with the Gods, they burnt everytging. That's why I suggest to change the literally tranlation, as this one might make people believe that the Holocaust means that every victim was burnt, or that the person who came up with this name thought that. This of course, is not true, as many victims were burried and not burnt. Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why did nazis take pictures and record video?

Why did the nazis take pictures and record video of the holocaust? Since historians say that nazis were the first holocaust deniers with application to keeping all messages sent about the holocaust clean of words relating to the killing of jews, why would the nazis take pictures and make video of the holocaust if they were such "nazis" about the use of certain words in their messages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.132.122 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 July 2011

there are always some troops who make photos --even covert ones. whether documenting abuses, celebrating "accomplishments", or just making a personal scrapbook. even today with secret activity: surely commanders would not have wanted the US troops to make so many photos of the abu grahib abuses during the iraq war/occupation, but there those incriminating photos are. you get a big enough group of people (soldiers), SOMEbody will take pictures. in the case of nazi abuses, some photos are by gloating nazis and by municipal authorities. however many of the better known photos seem to be covert photos by members of underground movements or even by camp inmates themselves. some famed images of auschwitz victims were made by a prisoner who --if i remember right-- sneaked a camera out of the sorting area (of luggage and personal effects left by gassed victims) to document some of the scenes for posterity. the images are rare, but they happen. Cramyourspam (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
and just saw a documentary about the einsatzgruppen which showed specimens of nazi personal memento photos. the film also mentioned himmler's eventual order to troops to stop photographing the death pit activity. the same film i think also named a nazi propaganda corps troop who photographed the vast piles of clothing from baba yar massacre victims. these images only showed the victims' clothing and might have been for an official purpose --not for publication but maybe for a report to some high official. i'll try find links to that film later.Cramyourspam (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction seems to downplay non-Jewish victims

The introductory paragraph reads "the genocide of approximately six million European Jews and millions of others." I find this wording offensive and propose that "the genocide of seventeen million people, some six million of whom were European Jews" be substituted as a more neutral wording. While the largest single group to perish in the Holocaust were Jewish, they constituted roughly 35% of all Holocaust victims and to give any one group of victims precedence over any others is quite frankly wrong. Interlaker (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As the article states, the most common definition of the Holocaust is the state-sponsored mass killing or genocide of European Jews by the Nazi regime. A more broad, less common definition of the Holocaust is the state-sponsored mass killing or genocide of various European ethnicities by the Nazi regime. The article notes both definitions, and the relative use of each definition. See The Holocaust#Etymology and use of the term and The Holocaust#Victims and death toll for citations for the reliable sources that comment on the issue.
In any event, this issue has been raised and answered before. Search "definition" in the above search box for this discussion page to review the prior discussions leading to the current consensus. Singularity42 (talk) 23:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"victims" on the right side of the page direct to a somewhat irrlevant link

I clicked on victims to get a list of causality percentages of particular groups and was lead to a page entitled "History of the Jews during World War II", which isn't exactly the information I was looking for. I am going to change the link destination to an article called "Holocaust victims" which I think will be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lerikson (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Births among the Jews of Europe during the Holocaust period?

Estimates of percent of population in 1933 killed in the Holocaust forget to take into account that some of the people killed weren't alive yet in 1933. The act of having babies doesn't stop for genocides of one's people, after all. Does anyone have estimates of the birthrate among Jews during the Holocaust? I wonder if there is any estimate of percent of population that were born during the Holocaust that were also killed during the Holocaust? 198.151.130.48 (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Population change = Births+Immigration - (Deaths+Emigration), after all. 198.151.130.48 (talk) 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hitler quotes

As the article is currently claiming that Hitler didn't outright speak of extermination, a few quotes might be relevant:

  • While a Reichswehr agent, Hitler wrote in a 1919 report to his immediate superior that "Every nationalist agenda requires the total elimination of Jewry itself." (This event is fictionalized in Hitler: The Rise of Evil.)
  • In a letter to Konstantin Hierl dated 3 July 1920, Hitler compared Jewry to "tuberculosis germs", and wrote that "I am justified to exterminate germs to ensure the survival of humanity".
  • In Mein Kampf, Hitler wishes that "12,000 to 15,000 of those Hebrew high traitors should have been put under poison gas during the Great War" because he believed them responsible for German defeat in WWI.
  • Himmler's doctor Felix Kersten wrote after the war that Himmler had told him in early spring of 1941 (and thus long before the military attack on the Soviet Union, at the pinnacle of Hitler and Nazi Germany's power) that "It is the Führer's express will and order that before the end of this war, the Jews are to be exterminated down to the last child."
What he said in private to his confidants is a separate matter. The article is about public and official statements. No-one other than David Irving fans believe that Hitler did not personally order the Holocaust. The "Mein Kampf" comment is about a specific group of supposed "traitors", not the entire ethnicity. Other comments depend on the translation and interpretation of German words to mean "killing". That the Nazis hoped to eliminate - in the sense of remove - all Jews from Germany was never in doubt. Paul B (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The difference between "public" and "private" only makes sense in the context of election results for the NSDAP and the regime's popularity. To the contrary, what these quotes and the article are rather about are the causes of and the responsibility for the Holocaust, with some minor excourse on the intentionalism-functionalism dispute. That's why there's such a large difference between "he never said anything about that he wanted to exterminate them" (or not giving any quotes on that at all) and pointing at smoking guns where he makes it very clear. Furthermore, every article within the scope of this topic should concern itself with the evidence, including first-hand quotes prior to 1945, exactly because of those "David Irving fans", i. e. Holocaust denialists, that you mention.
  • In said reconnaissance report dating from 1919, he didn't write about "the Jews in Germany", he wrote about "die Entfernung der Juden überhaupt", which means "everywhere" (in the quote above, I've translated it as "total" and "Jewry itself", but if you want it more literal, it's "everyhwere", as in "from every country", and not in every country). Entfernung can mean "elimination" as well as "removal", and, as you're correctly suggesting, next to Ausschaltung it is the term which prior to 1933, or particularly prior to 1918 to be sure, was in use by German anti-Semites to signify "removing them from positions of public influence", such as banning them from professions such as politics, law, medicine, the media and arts, or owning businesses. However, Hitler is not using it in the context of "public influence" here, but of deportation, and that's clearly new for 1919! The established terms for deportation in an anti-Semitic context would have been "rausschmeißen", "an die Luft setzen", "des Landes verweisen" instead, maybe even "das Bürgerrecht entziehen", but clearly not "Entfernung"! His line of reasoning in the 1919 report goes, "Q: People are talking about deportation to solve the Jewish problem, so how to properly deport them to solve the Jewish problem once and for all? A: Remove them from every country on earth!" That's what "überhaupt" ("everywhere") means in the quote. How do you "remove" them "everywhere", making them "disappear from every country" *WITHOUT* deporting them into another country, if not by extermination?
  • He didn't think in terms of "some Jews were traitors". His belief was that Jewish genes themselves (Blut, Erbgut, Erbmasse) inevitably gave rise to anti-social or "dangerous" behavior on a social scale large and consistently enough to bring down countries and ultimately destroy the world. That's why he believed that not just "some" but *ALL* Jews were traitors, never to be trusted, fought, and ultimately "removed from every country on earth" because by definition, he thought it biologically impossible that there could be one good, decent Jew on earth. --79.193.23.236 (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Outside canvassing of page ratings

Not sure really if this deserves mention since the page rating feature is "unofficial"(?) But a [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t848513/ a bunch of people who would be quite comfortable editing at Metapedia - warning link contains very offensive language] are actively trying to lower the page ratings of this article since it doesn't state what they believe, i.e. Holocaust Denial. LoveUxoxo (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Humor as a defense mechanism in the Holocaust

Dear Editors! My English is not perfect but I found a study about "Humor as a defense mechanism in the Holocaust"

http://web.macam.ac.il/~ochayo/absractn.html

http://www.thirteen.org/sites/reel13/shorts/short-telling-jokes-in-auschwitz/537/

I ask you to build it in to the right place, because I can't. Thanks Bokorember (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Jews in German society, and the origins of the Holocaust

I laid out the problems with the origins here [14], but very little has been done to fix the problem.

Basically, the problem is that the article completely fails to recognize the fact that Nazis believed that Jews had far too much influence on German society, and that Jews were scheming to establish world domination for themselves with "Bolshevism". I don't endorse these views, but these were the stated reasons the Nazis gave for their actions. Right now, the article implies that Jews were hated due to their perceived inferiority. This is untrue. They were hated due their disproportion influence on German society which I documented in the above link, and also due to the belief of Jewish Bolshevism. Jews led the establishment of the Bavaria Soviet Republic and the Spartacist uprising, and this had a profound effect on Hitler and other Germans. This is completely ignored in the article.

In Mein Kampf Hitler expresses his belief that the Jews were using their disproportionate influence on society to corrupt the nation in order to establish a Bolshevik regime: he says "the Jew gained an increasing influence in all economic undertakings by means of his predominance in the stock-exchange... He kowtowed to the worker, hypocritically pretended to feel pity for him and his lot, and even to be indignant at the misery and poverty which the worker had to endure. That is the way in which the Jew endeavoured to gain the confidence of the working class... Not satisfied with the economic conquest of the world, but also demanding that it must come under his political control, the Jew subdivides the organized Marxist power into two parts... Of religion he makes a mockery. Morality and decency are described as antiquated prejudices and thus a systematic attack is made to undermine those last foundations on which the national being must rest if the nation is to struggle for its existence in this world... Now begins the great and final revolution. As soon as the Jew is in possession of political power he drops the last few veils which have hitherto helped to conceal his features. Out of the democratic Jew, the Jew of the People, arises the 'Jew of the Blood', the tyrant of the peoples. In the course of a few years he endeavours to exterminate all those who represent the national intelligence. And by thus depriving the peoples of their natural intellectual leaders he fits them for their fate as slaves under a lasting despotism... Russia furnishes the most terrible example of such a slavery...."

I give this lengthy quote to illustrate the nature of Hitler's anti-semitism.

For this article to be complete, we would need to acknowledge that the disproportionate influence on society existed and that the Nazis were arguing that the Jews wanted to use this influence to establish a Bolshevik regime in Germany. It would also need to ackknowledge that Jews were among the foremost leaders of Russian (Trotsky), Hungarian (Bela Khun), and German Communists (Luxemburg and others), which fueled the suspicions of Hitler and his followers. 65.31.54.136 (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrating disproportionality is not sufficient for concluding that it was the cause of German antisemitism after WWI. Important studies have been done tracing the historical development over centures of German religious antisemitism into German virulent antisemitism of the 20th century. I know of none that demonstrate that disproportionality was an important cause of such a development even though the Nazis used it as an excuse for banning German Jews from most professions, but if you do, lets see them.Joel Mc (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Gershom Scholem, in "Jews and Germans" (available here), analyzes the problem in some detail. His thesis seems to be that in the century before the Holocaust, many Jews were preaching and praising rapid assimilation into German society. At first permitted by legal emancipation, the Germans eventually reacted with greater and greater shock at the readiness of masses of Jews to completely throw out their connections with Judaism, in order to assimilate and to become purely German. Scholem describes these Jews as seeking a kind of liberation and freedom, by identifying themselves as Germans and assimilating into German society. However, as this assimilation rapidly progressed, the Germans themselves reacted with more and more repulsion and shock. Scholem sees the roots of Nazi antisemitism in these trends, which essentially portray Jews as enthusiastically rejecting their own heritage, in order to assimilate into a German culture that has just been granted to them.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit, though, that it seems to me it was these "assimilated" Jews which more easily avoided the Holocaust because of their international connections, whereas the masses of Jews that really wound up perishing in the Holocaust, were those like Yiddish speakers (i.e. in Poland, Eastern Europe), which wound up not assimilating, but instead trying to establish their own separate Yiddish-Jewish identity within Europe. To me, the Nazis saw these Eastern European hordes of non-assimilated, Yiddish speaking Jews as the huge threat - see The Eternal Jew (1940 film). I think this is the factor that is really ignored when discussing the roots of the Holocaust (and it seems to me that Scholem ignores it too, because he wasn't one of those Yiddish speaking Jews).Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Got any reliable sources, Jim? BTW, it seems to me from having seen a certain amount of Nazi propaganda frome the period, that the Nazis hated assimilated Jews just as much, only in their case they hated them for assimilating and appearing to be "Aryan". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not in disagreement.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to an interesting article, Jim, but it is about assimilation not about the relationship of disproportionality being the cause of virulent antisemitism. Joel Mc (talk) 08:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe that is the case, so the anonymous poster that started this (above) has more work to do.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
In Jimhoward's post above I read of Jews "…trying to establish their own separate Yiddish-Jewish identity within Europe." I doubt the likelihood of that. Jews had for a long time (centuries) an identity in Europe. Yes, the language of Yiddish may have been part of it. But so were many other customs. There may have been continuity, but that is different from "trying to establish." Bus stop (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think there were three significant trends of Ashkenazi Jews that interacted with the Holocaust:
1. Those non-Zionists who knew German and wanted to assimilate into greater German society. These German Jews had a greater chance of escaping the Holocaust, as they could use international connections (for example neutral German-speaking Switzerland) to flee Nazi Germany, and eventually assimilate in another country.
2. Those Zionists, who knew German, and wanted to cooperate (successfully for a while) with German/Nazi authorities to encourage Jews to emigrate to Palestine (Haavara Agreement, Revival of the Hebrew language).
3. Those non-Zionists who knew Yiddish (not German), and were involved with what would have eventually become the recognition of Yiddish as an official European language in countries such as Poland (Yiddish Renaissance, Birobizhan, YIVO). These were the masses of Jews that had no route of escape - neither to another country, nor to Palestine. They lived principally in Eastern European countries, in particular Poland, which is where Nazi Germany immediately attacked in 1939, setting up Auschwitz in order to annihilate the Polish intelligentsia, and ultimately, the Yiddish speaking Jewish population of Poland.
When looking at the problem from the point of view of German versus Yiddish, it seems clear that the principle confrontation of the Holocaust (i.e. murder of 6 million Jews), was between the German non-Jewish (Nazi) culture, and between the Jewish-Yiddish culture that was just about ready to appear in the midst of Germanic Europe, as an official European Germanic language written in Hebrew letters and used solely by Jews.Jimhoward72 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimhoward—When answering or at least addressing the question as to the cause or causes of the holocaust, why does it matter who had a better chance of "escaping?" You say in a previous post:
"I have to admit, though, that it seems to me it was these "assimilated" Jews which more easily avoided the Holocaust because of their international connections…"
And you say in this most recent post:
"These German Jews had a greater chance of escaping the Holocaust, as they could use international connections (for example neutral German-speaking Switzerland) to flee Nazi Germany, and eventually assimilate in another country."
In answering the question as to why the Holocaust occurred, why does it matter who fared better in the holocaust? Why does it matter who who "had a greater chance of escaping"? Bus stop (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking why, I'm trying to describe what. I think the "what" of the Holocaust was that the Nazis/Germans had a mass-psychosis type of desire to rid German language/culture of Jewish/Hebrew/Yiddish - and principally the Yiddish - i.e. the burgeoning Yiddish press of German with Hebrew letters. This mass psychosis was suicidal, and ultimately destroyed German influence, progress, and culture as a whole.Jimhoward72 (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC) Additionally, the Yiddish-Jews were an easy target, as who in Europe (or in the world) cares about Yiddish speakers, language, culture, except for the Jews? No one today tries to go back and read the Yiddish side of the story (I mean, read in Yiddish). No one cares about Yiddish. It's almost like the U.S. killing Native Americans - who cares if some Native American language and culture was destroyed? The only one that cared was just that particular tribe themselves. The Yiddish users in Europe were in the same precarious position, a position which the Nazis could easily exploit. It would have been completely different if they were killing 5 million literate, cultured, German-speaking Jews. But they weren't, they were killing 5 million Yiddish speaking Jews that no other people in the world identified with.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it can be argued that disproportionality had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Anti-Semites constantly complained about disproportionality. Given that Jews were less than 1% of the German population, it seems obvious that anti-semites believed Jewish influence was far out of proportion. The Nazis handed out material to prove this.

But my main point was that the Nazis made a connection between Bolshevism and the Jews. Anti-semitism had a long history in Germany, but this was a unique issue. In the Middle Ages, anti-semitism was more related to religion and alleged economic exploitation by Jews. In this era, anti-semitism was related to the belief that Jews promoted Bolshevism to destroy the German people and to establish a favorable political regime for themselves. 71.65.125.27 (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have valid refs, why don't you just edit the applicable Wikipedia article and put it there? Or add appropriate links. Aren't there already articles on Jewish Bolshevism that discuss your topic? Why talk on the talk page instead of editing an article? (although this article is too big, probably requires a sub-article).Jimhoward72 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We already have an article on the topic, Jewish Bolshevism. Jayjg (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the Nazis blamed Jews for starting WOrld War II by using their influence in enemy nations.

Here's an article by Goebbels in 1943: "Our state’s security requires that we take whatever measures seem necessary to protect the German community from their [Jews] threat. That leads to some difficult decisions, but they are unavoidable if we are to deal with the threat. This war is a racial war. The Jews started it and they direct it. Their goal to destroy and exterminate our people. We are the only force standing between Jewry and world domination. If the Axis powers lose the war in Europe, no power on earth could save Europe from the Jewish-Bolshevist flood. It may seem surprising that such a small minority possesses such great power and is such a deadly danger. But it is so. International Jewry uses certain criminal methods to gain world domination that are not evident to uneducated nations. The same is true in private life. The Jews do not enjoy economic success because they are more intelligent than non-Jews, but rather because they follow a different moral code. They attempt to conceal their methods for as long as possible, until it is too late for the affected nation to defend itself. Then it takes a revolution to dislodge them. We know how difficult and tiresome that is." [15]

Another one: "One must understand the Jewish question in order to understand the present state of the war. How else could one explain the following facts: The Axis powers are fighting for their lives in a world-wide struggle, facing eastern Bolshevism on the one side, the most blatant and most radical expression of international socialism, and western plutocracy on the other side, the most blatant and most radical expression of international capitalism. Bolshevism is attempting to put on a veneer of Western civilization, while plutocracy is putting on the Jacobin hat as needed and speaks in a revolutionary mish-mash that attempts to conceal the remaining distance between it and Bolshevism... One will search in vain for the answer to this riddle if he fails to consider the Jewish problem. However, the answer is clear if one sees the key to world history in the racial question. There is only a superficial difference between the two enemy camps — only the agitating persons in the foreground. If one shines a light on the background, however, one quickly discovers the cause of the whole spiritual and intellectual confusion, the ferment of decomposition of states and peoples: international Jewry. Plutocracy and Bolshevism spring from the same roots of a period of liberal-democratic decline. They may differ in nuance, but in essentials they are the same. What they want may differ, but want they do not want is the same. They do not want order among the peoples of the world. They both depend on disorder, anarchy, and chaos. They seek them because they can only draw their infernal power for evil and destruction from those sources. Jewry has two ways to gain and maintain power over unified peoples: international capitalism and international Bolshevism. The one is the more radical brother of the other." [16]

In 1945: "One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and keep humanity in the dark. It is, so to speak, the mortar that holds the enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class, ideology, and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the nations and keep them in its service... While enemy soldiers fight, bleed, and die at the front, the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press, chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world, giving Jewry absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the nations that deserve freedom... We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every Russian, English, and American soldier is a mercenary of this world conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war, who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front for the national interests of their countries! The nations want a decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of the war would mean the dawning humanity’s knowledge of the unhealthy role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out this war... Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as noble, beautiful, and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews hate us. They despise our culture and learning, which they perceive as towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives. They are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their anarchistic tendencies." [http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb64.htm}

71.65.125.27 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

One issue here is that you're using a primary source to answer a historical question. Wikipedia shouldn't do that - instead we should be using reliable secondary sources that analyze these primary sources. You're quoting the writings of Goebbels but you're making an assumption that Goebbels' words accurately represent Nazi thinking - that there are no deeper motivations that aren't mentioned. This is a dangerous assumption to make in that Nazi propaganda was never particularly honest. For instance you could take the case of Theodore Kaufman, who the Nazis presented as a close ally of Roosevelt when he was, in fact, a guy from New Jersey that nobody had ever heard of. GabrielF (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
To put it briefly, please review WP:SECONDARY. Jayjg (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimhoward—you say "It would have been completely different if they were killing 5 million literate, cultured, German-speaking Jews. But they weren't, they were killing 5 million Yiddish speaking Jews that no other people in the world identified with."
Unless you are providing a source you should not even be using this article's Talk page to promulgate ideas like the above. In my opinion the above notion is completely off-base. The people you are referring to may have spoken Yiddish but were they targeted by Germans because they spoke Yiddish? In my opinion, that would be unlikely. But I am not initiating a discussion here on this Talk page to examine a question as to what role if any the language of Yiddish played in the events leading up to the holocaust. I am merely urging you to provide sources for what I see as highly unlikely ideas. I'm responding to what I see as in my opinion some pretty farfetched ideas being presented without accompaniment of sources. Bus stop (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I am failing to see what you just wrote relates to the quote of mine you just quoted. In fact, I don't think it does. I believe you are merely trying to initiate a discussion here on the Talk page. Instead of doing that: if you want sources for how the Nazis related to Yiddish (and I don't think I discussed "how the Nazis related to Yiddish", anyway - that's a topic you brought up), look at The Eternal Jew (film) (I mean, watch the movie), or search Hitler's/Nazi writings for the word "Yiddish", or search in google for Nazi+Yiddish, or find it however you like.Jimhoward72 (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, you got me curious, so a random search pulled up this, about how the Nazis/Germans related to Yiddish How Nazis related to Yiddish Jimhoward72 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Jimhoward—the source you provided does not support that Yiddish incited antisemitism or was a contributory factor leading to the holocaust.
An "uncanny experience" is not antisemitism and it is not a holocaust.
We read that "The disdain for Yiddish on the part of the Germans was even exploited in the theater for the purpose of reinforcing anti-Semitism." That is already-existing antisemitism. Your source is not saying that Yiddish was the cause of antisemitism or the holocaust.
The source you are providing says "Although many German Jews abandoned the use of Yiddish in the eighteenth century in an effort to complete the process of assimilation into the larger German society, it had never been forgotten by Germans that the Jews were foreign and that their global language was that strange Yiddish.
The above supports the opposite point from the one you are making. The above supports that Jews, a people who spoke Yiddish, were "foreign". Even in the absence of Yiddish being spoken, Germans considered Jews "foreign".
Language is a clear identifier of a people. If antisemitism exists in the first place then Yiddish will serve handily to identify the people to demonize. But is Yiddish the reason this group of people is being singled out for ill-treatment in pre-holocaust Germany? Of course not. The source that you are providing is not saying that. The source that you are providing even says that in the case of those German Jews who abandoned the language of Yiddish in the eighteenth century there was the persistent cognizance that "the Jews were foreign". The antisemitism we are referring to and the consequent holocaust supersedes mere language because as your source points out—antisemitism lingered even in the absence of usage of the language of Yiddish. Bus stop (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
"Yiddish inciting (or not) antisemitism or being (or not) a contributory factor leading to the holocaust", is your topic, not mine. I'm not interested in it, I don't think it's a valid question for a Wikipedia article, and I did not discuss it in my posts. If you are interested in researching such a question further, you can use the Internet search methods I mentioned in my last post, which turned up the random article you seemed to be interested in (below). Or use any other methods you like; or try reading original texts in Yiddish - that might help.Jimhoward72 (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

about the Communists killed by Nazi

According to the book of "My Struggle" which is wrote by Adolf Hitler and also considered as the bible of Nazi, the communists are the No.1enemy of Nazi. Could there be any information in this entry about how many communists are dead because Nazi? Or are some of the Jews are killed because they believe communism since the founder of communism, Karl Marx is also a Jew. Or just because Americans have a history with communists, the fact that communists are the first group people killed in Holocaust will be forget? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raintwoto (talk • contribs) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. The initial motivation of the Nazis was to strike at communism, as it prevented German Nationalism. The Nazis saw Communism and the Soviet Union as the main threat, and this is reflected in the direction their war effort took - towards the Soviet Union. I think the point is that this article is quick to portray Jews and others as victims of the holocaust, while at the same time clearly ignoring the Nazis main thrust, which was to attack communism.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe that recent research puts in question that the "initial motivation...was to strike at commnism". For example, Peter Longerich writes:

What seems to me to be crucial to any analysis of this complex phenomenon is the fact that Judenpolitik was central to the whole National Socialist movement, indeed that the very aims, the distinctiveness, and the uniqueness of National Socialism as a historical phenomenon were determined by its Judenpolitik. (Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews)

This is not meant to detract from the fact that the primary "political targets" during the first months in power of the Nazis were the communists, but it is important to distinguish between "motivation" and "target". Anti-jewish violence was already stirred up and spread in March 1933. After all, for tactical reason, Hitler was ready to sign a non-agression pact with the Soviet Union while at no time was he ready to amend his Judenpolitik in a similar way even when it was counter to "national interest."Joel Mc (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of the word 'euphemism'

'Life unworthy of life' is not a euphemism.

Euphemism means using a mild/indirect term in the place of a blunt or harsh one. Someone needs to clear up this article of mistakes (wilful or otherwise) that describe opinions as euphemisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.191.29 (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That particular one is questionable. The term is overused in the article; I've tightened up that sentence. I'm not sure where "opinions" enter into it, though. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

My permission request involves only the limited editing of the amount of material provided. I wish to highlight certain portions of the material for use in a book I am writing regarding religious wars, in which I note as "UNholy Wars." I request permission as well for use of certain pictures found in this article. My book is serious, historical, informative and meant to continue to provide generations of the autocities that did in fact take place. E-mail; kathyrybolt@yahoo.com NktlobyR (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC) NktlobyR (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC) NktlobyR (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome. You don't need to use the {{edit semi-protected}} template for this purpose. The semi-protection is about preventing IP and new editors from changing the article. You may want to read this policy which covers reusing Wikipedia content. It starts: "There are many reusers of Wikipedia's content, and more are welcome. If you want to use Wikipedia's text materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can do so, but you must comply with one of the licenses that Wikipedia's text is licensed under." Good luck with your book, Celestra (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'political left?'

Grouping Nazism's political enemies by describing them as "the political left" is inaccurate by today's standards, and probably by the standards of 1940. More to the point, it's misleading, I think intentionally so. Left-leaning historians have been busy over the past seventy years or so trying to make "the left" look good by depicting it as the polar opposite of evil Nazism, despite the fact that Nazism had many enemies on the right (including practically every organized church in Europe) and despite the fact that Nazism itself was a leftist philosophy, as the name itself -- National Socialist German Workers' Party -- so loudly proclaims. The "socialists" mentioned in the article as enemies were largely Social Democrats, a group FAR to the right of the Nazis.

Perhaps we could re-head the section with something like "Political Opponents." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbone0106 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's utter baloney. The Nazis identified themselves as defenders of German traditions and opposed to the internationalism of the left. Why do you assume that organised churches are "on the right"? It had opponentrs on the right, for sure. All parties have opponents within thieir own wing. Stalin had opponents on the left. But all their supporters internationally were conservative authoritarian regimes. Calling Social Democrats far to trhe right of ther Nazis is laughable. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

remove Paul Johnson's excerpt 175

I believe that this opinion ignores the fact that the Nazi were able to convince many other to negotiate rather then fight including Josef Stalin and Neville Chamberlain hardly people steeped in a "millennium and a half""negotiate, to pay, to plead, to protest, not to fight."

When the truth of Jewish situation became clear the Jews fought against overwhelming odds. The Nazi murder of the Jews (many their own citizens some their own military ) was total irrational that was the reason that they were able to convince many people that the camps were work camps and that mechanized murder was not taking place.

Slave laborers were taken from every part of Europe many of them able bodied men from conquered armies. They were worked to death or out right killed as were the Jews. Paul Johnson's opinion just perpetuates myths of Jewish passiveness and ignore overwhelming force and deception.

Weldon999 (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right that there is no reason to single out Johnson's views, but they do seem to fit into the context. There is a discussion above of the systematic deception involved, and there was in practice no chance of fighting back except in very localised contexts. Even then the Nazis showed that they'd be utterly vicious in reprisals on innocent people in revenge for any attempts to fight back. I don't think any 'myths' are being perpetuated. Paul B (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Why is "the" in our page title? It's really only appropriate when we'd capitalise "The" in the middle of a sentence, but unlike The Gambia or The Betrothed, we use "the" before "Holocaust" in the middle of a sentence. If I properly understand Names of the Holocaust, the encyclopedias that it cites in the "Use of the term for non-Jewish victims of the Nazis" section entitle their articles "Holocaust", not "The Holocaust". Nyttend backup (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2012

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[6] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban,[7] from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the genocide of approximately twelve million individuals, of which were(Jpwmphrd (talk) 12:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)) six million European Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler, throughout Nazi-occupied territory.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpwmphrd (talk • contribs)

Edit request posted below (for some reason I am unable to post below it)

[Moved to correct location now that formatting error preventing text displaying is fixed]

The requested edit is not acceptable. A lot of discussion over the past years went into drawing up the first paragraph of this article. The para defines the The Holocaust as the genocide of European Jews by the Nazi regime. This definition is used by historians and scholars for a good reason: to distinguish it from other genocides or mass murders carried out by the Nazis. It is the only genocide, at least in the 20th century that set out to exterminate everyone, everywhere who had three or four Jewish grandparents. Nobody who lived under Nazi or Nazi-related regimes was exempt—even if they converted to another religion or assimilated in other ways. This is unique in European history. This does not mean that other mass murders carried out by the Nazi regimes are not recognized or that the suffering of other victims is devalued. Joel Mc (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I wrote already in November 2010 " It is my experience when major European historians use the proper noun "the Holocaust" they refer to the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. This is not a POV, but the experience of somebody who has read widely. It is about classifying not an expression of ownership of a tragedy nor the downplaying of the mass murder of an equal number of non-Jewish civilians by the Nazis. (a recent reaffirmation of this definition can be found in Yale History professor Tim Snyder's latest book, Bloodlands--see section Numbers and Terms or location 7593 in its Kindle edition). Thus such a straight-forward definition should lead for example to sources of such a policy, its development and its implementation. It is true that a few historians still take issue with confining the definition to the mass killing of the Jews and it would be appropriate to mention this in a sentence with references. But reiteration of the debate belongs elswhere."Talk November 2010--Joel Mc (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Begoon talk 01:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)


The entire second paragraph of the lede discusses broader definitions of the term, besides the standard definition. Jayjg (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wannsee conference document

nowhere on this document at all does it refer to ANY deaths being killed or died, just relocation. its absurd this is the so called proof thats up here. also this apperars to be copy 16 out of 30 and according to nazi protocols they would have never created this according to it supposedly being a secret. i will address any questions and i will be putting up a request to delete that whole segment, thanks 24.113.48.56 (talk) 05:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

While it is true that the references to the Wannsee minutes do not support the statements made in the paragraph, the whole WP entry on the Wannsee conference gives a fuller explanation, particularly the reference to Longerich in Interpretation of Wannsee Conference. The "segement" in question needs to be adjusted using references such Longerich, Peter (2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, pp 306-310, rather than deleted. I will try and do this in the next couple of days.--Joel Mc (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacks and the Holocaust

Why are blacks included in "including Romani, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, Blacks, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses and other political and religious opponents, which occurred regardless of whether they were of German or non-German ethnic origin.[8]". The source cited doesn't even mention blacks. There is no evidence of systematic genocide of the Blacks under Nazi rule. If there is, please show me otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.40.31.13 (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no evidence of this, it should definitely be deleted. When I read this I was confused and shocked. There was no systematic murder of blacks in the holocaust. Please show a source that shows that even 100 Blacks were killed in the holocaust. This is not a kumbaya moment, please accurately report history. 130.132.146.118 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum says "The fate of black people from 1933 to 1945 in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied territories ranged from isolation to persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder. However, there was no systematic program for their elimination as there was for Jews and other groups.[9] I shall remove the claim for now although possibly the lead could say something on the subject. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for 20 March 2012: No Blacks were systematically killed in holocaust, please remove reference in introduction or elsewhere!!!

There is no reference that shows that any blacks were systematically killed in holocaust. Maybe 1 or 2, or even more, but there is no source to show that even 100 Blacks (Africans, African-Americans, Carribeans or otherwise) were systematically murdered. Please delete this reference immediately!!!! 130.132.146.118 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Later on it says: The number of black people in Germany when the Nazis came to power is variously estimated at 5,000–25,000.[306][307] It is not clear whether these figures included Asians. According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C., “The fate of black people from 1933 to 1945 in Nazi Germany and in German-occupied territories ranged from isolation to persecution, sterilization, medical experimentation, incarceration, brutality, and murder. However, there was no systematic program for their elimination as there was for Jews and other groups


WHY ARE BLACKS INCLUDED IN INTROUDUCTION WHEN THEY WERE NOT AMONG THOSE SYSTEMATICALLY KILLED? NO EVIDENCE OF IT IN THE SOURCES!!!!! PLEASE REMOVE REFERENCE ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.146.118 (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I have commented above but it would be more civilised if you did not shout. Thincat (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Thincat - can you specify what your comment is. I know nothing on the subject, but the Wiki page that is linked also states that although blacks were subjected to the same discrimination in Nazi Germany as they were in the States, there was no extermination programs against theme and therefore I tend to agree with the anon editor that the whole section should be stripped out. Ckruschke (talk) 14:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
My comment was at Talk:The_Holocaust#Blacks_and_the_Holocaust and I wrote it before seeing the same reference being quoted in this section. (I know nothing on the subject either!). Thincat (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok - then it appears that we are violent agreement that the section be stripped from this page. Concur? Ckruschke (talk) 00:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Better citation for origin of Holocaust, please?

"For hundreds of years, the word "holocaust" was used in English to denote great massacres, but since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer exclusively to the genocide of Jews.[4] "

Note 4 doesn't seem to speak to the earlier English use. It's not clear to me: was there an earlier English use of this term, which has since been overtaken by the one event? What happened? Perhaps checking OED, &c. 

  Best wishes.  ABS (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
One definition of the word in the OED is "Complete consumption by fire, or that which is so consumed; complete destruction, esp. of a large number of persons; a great slaughter or massacre." The OED records Milton using the word in this way in 1671. Earlier writers used the term to mean a sacrifice. I don't have a source for this, but my understanding is that before WWII the term was used most frequently to refer to ship fires. GabrielF (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Grammar

The persecution and genocide were carried out in stages

...was carried out

--62.163.152.44 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Typos

Where the Germany conquered new territory in

A wiki like this should not be error-strewn.

And a decent Wiki editor would just fix the error rather than whining about it. Ckruschke (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
And an experienced Wiki editor would notice that the page is semi-protected, making it necessary to request the change here. It's best not to simultaneously be snarky and wrong. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
If you are the person who asked the original question, I'm 100% right. If you aren't, why do you bother responding...? I've seen dozens of examples of people who put items on Talk simply to complain about the article w/o trying to do anything about it - the above being a case in point. Excuse me for not allocatting the time that you took to dig through the history to figure out the whiner who can't sign his name is an anon editor who is blocked from editing. Much apologies... Ckruschke (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
As I said, it's best not to simultaneously be snarky and wrong; you're two for two here. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The 1st Paragraph

Victims and death toll

In this section it states:

"Other estimates put total casualties of Soviet Union's citizens alone to about 26 million."[10]

But does that total include military casualties of the war? This is very important to clarify.Hoops gza (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Yes that includes military deaths of the SU. (It's also important to clarify that *many* of those dead were not Russian[s], and many also had only become citizens of the SU because their lands had been recently annexed by Stalin.Historian932 (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article utterly fails to explain the actual origins of the Holocaust

Both here [17] and here [18] I gave extensive extensive evidence with sources on how the Nazis and anti-Semites viewed the Jews.

Two years after I first complained, absolutely nothing has been done to explain to readers the Nazis views towards Jews.

The article notes that much of German society was anti-Semitic since the Middle Ages--while utterly failing to explain why.

The article says that anti-Semites believed Jews and Aryans were locked in mortal combat for world domination--and then fails to explain the reasons they gave for such a belief. Nor does it state the exact nature that the struggle was viewed.

The Nazis did not believe, as the article falsely implies, that Jews were intellectually inferior to other Germans. On the contrary, Jews were viewed as very capable and cunning, and anti-semites voiced strong concerns that Jews had too big a role in Germany's economy, culture, and society in general. The anger against Jews was based on their success, not their failure.

None of this has been included in the article. Instead, we seem to have a fantasy version of history. In this fantasy version of history the massively disproportionate influence of Jews (documented in the above links) is completely irrelevant to understanding the Holocaust even though the Nazis stressed it not once or twice, but virtually constantly. Hitler's entire worldview laid down in Mein Kampf and subsequent speeches was based on his belief that Jews had a huge influence in finance, academia, and politics, and they were using the influence to undermine and eventually destroy the Aryan race. Another frequent theme of Hitler and the Nazis was that Jews were behind the Bolshevik Revolution and that Communism was a Jewish creation to enslave gentiles.

Why are these simple facts not included in the article? The fact these themes were stressed by Nazis is in itself quite notable and deserving of inclusion. In other articles about massacres and persecutions the stated motives of the perpetrators are not omitted simply because they are arbitrarily deemed to be false by certain authors. The fact that whites viewed blacks as intellectually and morally inferior is not excluded from articles about race relations just because people disagree with their conclusions. They are included for the simple fact they were stated and thus were of historical note. Similarly, Hitler's false accusation that Poland attacked Germany first is demonstatably untrue, but the fact that the accusation was used to justify the invasion nevertheless makes it notable for inclusion in the relevant articles. The fact that various governments and insurgents have used propaganda does mean that the propaganda itself is completely unworthy of historical note.

Only with the Holocaust are we expected to swallow the nonsense that the publicly and privately stated world views of Nazi leaders are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Only with the Holocaust do we have people declaring that the relative social status of Jews is utterly irrelevant even though varying social stati are key factors in class and racial conflicts. It is downright deceptive and misleading, and frankly should have been fixed a long time ago.

Quite simply we don't need to make up reasons for the Nazi's anti-Semitism. The Nazis stated their own reasons crystal clearly for anyone who has actually bothered to look. KCJ75 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, if you want something done on Wikipedia, or in real life, you gotta do it yourself or find someone else that can and will do it for you. We have plenty of people who write good advice on how to improve articles on the talkpage about that article; and usually their advice is ignored. Sorry for being honest. Arcandam (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
After reading the messages you left earlier I am kind of confused. You seem to have a strong opinion about this. Based on the two messages you left earlier my recommendation would be to focus your attention on things that are not WWII related. Arcandam (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
In both your previous dialogues you failed to gain consensus, and pushed primary sources. I see no change. (Hohum @) 12:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What specific points do you feel are inadequate and are in need of more evidence?

My problem with the article isn't just that it's flawed. It's that it actively conceals real historical facts and in many cases tells the complete opposite of the truth.

For example, the mainstream eugenics movement had absolutely nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Pre-1933 Germany did not see people advocating that Jews be "written off" because they were not biologically fit. And in Nazi Germany, anti-Semetic practices were not justified on the grounds that Jews were "unfit", but rather that they posed a dangerous subversive threat. Moreover, German elites said to favor eugenics movements were actually more supportive of Jewish emancipation than non-elites.

The statement that "mainstream German parties" incorporated anti-Semitism in their platforms prior to 1933 is given with absolutely no evidence or examples provided. There is no evidence whatsoever that the pre-1933 German government engaged in anti-Semitic practices or advocacy. As a matter of fact their is considerable evidence for the opposite. Chancellor Bruning wrote that he suppressed the findings of a banking investigation because he feared it would result in anti-Semitic outbreaks.

Among the facts completely missing from this article:

  • Disproportionate Jewish influence. In my first link above I gave sources for specific statistics showing that Jews were overrepresented among elites. Anti-Semites in Germany used this to argue that Jews had an unfair and privileged position.
  • Explanation of the themes of historical anti-Semitism. The article gives only vague and superficial themes for German anti-Semitism. It does not delve into any specifics, such as that German anti-Semites in the late 19th and early 20th century viewed Jews as a threat because they were said to use their influential positions to undermine a cohesive German society while at the same time overtly or covertly maintaining their own group cohesion.
  • The German Revolution. Nazis like Hitler believed that the 1918 Revolution was Jewish inspired and caused Germany's defeat in World War I. In Heinrich Himmler's famous Posen speech, he states that Jewish subversion would be causing similar issues in World War II if the Nazis hadn't taken action against them.
  • Jewish Bolshevism. The idea that Communism was essential a Jewish creation designed to serve Jewish interests was common among German conservatives of the era. It was a constant theme of the Nazis.
  • Hitler's prophecy speech. In 1939 Hitler said that if "international Jewry" started another World War, Jews would face annihilation. According to Goebbel's diary, the Nazis believed their actions were in fulfillment of that prophecy because influential American Jews were dragging the U.S. into the war. It's notable in this sense that the employment of the gas chambers for mass murder began in the year 1942, and that the Wannsee Conference occured shortly after Pearl Harbor.

I would be more than glad to provide source material for all of this if the source material I gave in previous links is for some reason inadequate. KCJ75 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jews and Germans, by Gershom Scholem I think this is an excellent article that goes into the details of the sentiments among Jews and Germans preceding the Holocaust. He also brings numerous examples, of how German antisemitism of the Nazi type was prevalent already in the 1800s, and how "Jewish emancipation" caused a great rush of masses of German Jews to assimilate and become "pure Germans" - to the extent that they claimed that they were more German than Jewish, and that it was better to die German, no matter what the sacrifice. He also talks about how some of these assimilated Jews became more eloquent antisemites than some of the watered down purely German antisemites. And how this rush of Jews to assimilate and to become "pure Germans" terrified and repulsed the Germans, who only saw in it proof that Judaism was so worthless that its greatest members gladly rejected it to become Germans and/or German Christians.
But what I really think is completely ignored, is the position the huge number of east-European Yiddish speakers (over 10 million) who were becoming emancipated by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union, up to the Nazi period, was actively promoting Yiddish as an official European language for Jews. It was made an official language in the Ukraine and other Soviet Republics, and Yiddish was especially booming in Poland - the Yiddish press, Yiddish education, Yiddish publications. People pay so much attention to the relatively small percentage of European Jews who were "becoming Germans" - and see them as a main factor in the Holocaust. But the masses of Jews that actually died in the Holocaust, were much less of these "assimilated German Jews", but were rather the millions of Yiddish speakers of Eastern Europe, who were benefiting from and supportive of the (communist) Soviet Union's programs to promote Yiddish language and Jewish autonomy. The effective outcome of the Holocaust, was that it completely eliminated any chance of an official Yiddish language in Europe, as well as any chance of a Yiddish/Jewish autonomy in Europe. People focus so much on this inter-German-Jewish debate of a hand-full of German writers, while ignoring what in practicality actually happened to the huge masses of Eastern European Jews.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the idea that German Jews were hated because they assimilated so quickly is nonsense. In fact, it's the complete opposite of reality given how anti-Semites emphasized the utter lack of genuine assimilation among Jews during this period. In Nazi ideology no distinctions were made between Eastern and Western Jews, they were seen as part of the same conspiracy against the Aryan race. KCJ75 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically, numerous years have gone by for this article to improve, yet it never does. It is extremely embarassing that the publicly stated reasons for Nazi anti-Semitism are completely missing from the article. Not simply dismissed, rather completely ignored as if they never occured in the first place.

It's mind-blowing. It's sort of like writing an article about the Oklahoma City bombing without mentioning how McVeigh was motivated by Waco, or writing an article about 9/11 without mentioning how terrorists were motivated by U.S. foreign policy. The article doesn't have to make a judgement about whether or not the claims given by the perpetrators are justifiable or accurate, it is simply a basic part of the historical record to note that the claims were made and that's how they justified their atrocities. KCJ75 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The timing of the Holocaust in the introduction and elsewhere is also left unacceptable vague. The article needs to be clear to distinguish between the various persecutions between 1933-1941 and the escalation toward mass murder that occured in 1941-42 in the context of World War II. Specifically I mean how mass-shootings commenced following the invasion of the Soviet Union and how large-scale gas extermination began after war with the U.S. began. KCJ75 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And there's really no reason for "distinctive features" to be at the top of the page. It makes much more sense to explain the Holocaust to readers, then identify the distinctive features of it later. KCJ75 (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

blue knight

I came across something odd today when updating Carl Flesch the violinist. There are 2 Google Book sources saying that he escaped as he was counted by the Germans as a "blue knight" - I have never heard of this and it evidently has nothing to do with Der Blaue Reiter artists group. If anyone knows anything can they add it to his article? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An estimation of numbers

Here, non-Jews are also listed:

  • Ukrainans: 5.5-7 M
  • Jews: >6 M
  • Russian POWs: >3.3 M
  • Russian civilians: >2 M
  • Poles: >3 M
  • Yugoslavians: >1.5 M
  • Gypsies: 200,000 - 500,000
  • Mentally/Physically Disabled: 70,000- 250,000
  • Homosexuals: Tens of thousands
  • Spanish Republicans: Tens of thousands
  • Jehovah's Witnesses: 2,500 - 5,000
  • Boy and Girl Scouts, Clergy, Communists, Czechs, Deportees, Greeks, Political Prisoners, Other POWs, Resistance Fighters, Serbs, Socialists, Trade Unionists, Others: Unknown

Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Scrapbookpages.com

There is a website is called "Scrapbookpages.com - a web site for tourists and armchair travelers".[19] It is being used in a very large number of articles: [20]

It is run by a guy (not a historian, not notable person, just some guy running a website supposedly "for tourists and armchair travelers" but really for the so-called Holocaust revisionists), who also runs a blog "Scrapbookpages Blog" (as "furtherglory"), in which he writes, for example, things like that:

http://furtherglory.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/aerial-photos-of-auschwitz-were-altered-by-the-cia-to-manufacture-evidence/

where he quotes as Germar Rudolf as "the first highly qualified Holocaust revisionist, by virtue of his education and intelligence" about how "aerial photos of Auschwitz were altered by the CIA to manufacture evidence" of gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

That's just one example. The blog is full of stuff like that. Some more recent examples, also just from last month:

and so on.

The website is more sublimal, but does the same.

And so I say "Scrapbookpages" should be removed from all articles and then blacklisted here. --Niemti (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. (Hohum @) 15:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the website is run by 'so-called Holocaust revisionists' or not, it clearly doesn't meet WP:RS requirements, so shouldn't be used as a source. As for blacklisting, this isn't really the place to discuss this - I suggest you bring this up at WP:RSN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. But could get some bot to work to remove them? It's about 100 articles or so, quite a lot of work to do manually if I had to do it (like I just did with "Holocaust Controversies" forum and blog links, but it was just a dozen or so of them). --Niemti (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur that this source is utterly unreliable for history, per WP:HISTRS and our policies regarding open blogs and wikis. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

definition of the holocaust

Shouldn't the article start with the broad, "universalist" definition of the holocaust rather than assuming, controversially and incorrectly, that the holocaust was a uniquely Jewish event? Mfhiller (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller

There is no "universalist"definition of the holocaust. There is virtually no respected historian of modern Europe who does not use the definition of The Holocaust only for the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis. (The only exceptions I know of are Donald Niewyk and Henry Friedlander, and they only add the Roms) Once again this does not mean that the mass murder by the Nazis of a similar number of non-jews did not happen, is not respected, or has not been recognized, (See Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, for example). Historians just don't use the proper noun, The Holocaust, for those other genocides.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Well said Joel. Ckruschke (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Not so well said at all Joel - you've simply managed to reproduce the right-wing myth-making story told by Wiesel and company. The argument you want to make is deeply anti-semitic and negationist. But I guess you dismiss Norman Finkelstein too. Mfhiller (talk) 04:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller:
Maybe you should try and read Finkelstein (and Snyder, Longerich, Saul Friedlander, Bauer, Browning,Kershaw, etc) before making false accusations.--Joel Mc (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll have to ask you to take that back Joel. You can't presume to know what I've read. I'll take back my comment regarding you being a holocaust-denying anti-semite. I'll take that back too. In any case, surely you would agree that "the Holocaust" is an ideologically inflated term that requires some careful thinking. I recognize POV issues on WP but I think it is fair to say that almost every reliable source on the holocaust at least to some extent problematizes the term "the holocaust," with or without a capital "H". Quite obviously I can see that this is a sensitive, controversial issue - I raised it on the talk page and did not edit the article - and therefore think it is unfair for you to dismiss me sarcastically without any further comment. Indeed please see WP:BULLY and WP:DICK. Mfhiller (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
You cannot admit that you outright called Joel a right-wing anti-semite and then criticize him for being sarcastic with you. He gave you a genuine answer to your question and, frankly, you failed to provide a sufficient argument in return. His "dismissal" of you was a great example of WP:DGAF. He simply was not going to argue with someone who made such an attack on his character and then failed to properly support his/her claim. Happy editing, hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 06:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there a real question in here somewhere? Appears that this is degenerating into name calling after Mfhiller's suggestion was shot down. Ckruschke (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Of course there is a real question. It's been a perennial one on this talk page - is the term "holocaust" to be used exclusively to refer to the eliminationist policy towards Jews, or should it be used in a broader way? I do not personally think there can be a definitive answer to that. There are real problems with the "Jews only" model. It does indeed have a negationist aspect to it, implicitly blanking out the many people who died in the same place by the same means because they happen to have been the wrong ethnicity (oh the irony). However, there are equal problems with the expansionist version. Where do you stop? Some of the people who were put in concentration camps and who died there were criminals who would have been imprisoned in any country. Are we to include members of street gangs as victims of the holocaust? I find it difficult to accept the confident assertion that all serious scholars use the term only to refer to Jews. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree Paul, I think it should be used to describe the actual extermination of people in gas chambers in Nazi Territory, regardless of if they be Jews or Soviets.

The term Genocide is more apt to describe the vast majority of everyone else who were systematically neglected and thus starved to death, who were in labor concentration camps(and not death camps).

The Article suggest that the term Holocaust is used nearly exclusively for all the suffering that the Jewish people suffered since 1960? but what happened in the 1960s to change the meaning to be the description of only Jewish suffering? This is not explained in the article at all. So what happened in the 60s?

If the treatment of Soviet POWs, & Ukrainians was comparable in the extermination & concentration camps, then regarding life equalling life and treatment equalling treatment, is putting a distinction between Jewish persons and non-Jews, justifiable?

or am I incorrent in suggesting that a similar number of non-Jews were systematically exterminated? And finally, if a larger number of Jews were exterminated than all other groups, shouldn't the term 'Holocaust' only then be used to term Jews and non jews actually systematically extermination in death camps. Rather than lumping everyone that died in labor camps, Jews and non Jews alike together with the description of those actually exterminated in gas chambers etc.

I am simply putting this forward to prevent suggesting that what these Soviet POW's experienced was somehow less horrific than what the majority of Jewish victims experienced.

I'm not sure about the Historian Karen Silverstrim, but she seems pretty legitimate.

http://www.ukemonde.com/holocaust/victims.html

Over six million Jewish people were murdered by virtue of their ethnicity and religion, while somewhere between sixteen and twenty million non-Jews were also murdered because they did not fit the homogeneous mold the Nazi regime had selected for the German nation. Consequently, the image of the Holocaust as strictly a Jewish event must be corrected. If not, millions of non-Jews will have died without a record in history, and the Holocaust will never be an accurate portrayal of the actual historical event. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Boundarylayer/Paul B - I agree with the context of your points & arguments - very well stated. Yes, bad things happened to alot of people - no one is dismissing that. I do disagree with the link above (http://www.ukemonde.com/holocaust/victims.html) as simply lumping in all the people that the Germans "might have" killed is pretty imprecise. And how many of those Ukrainians did Stalin actually kill that Ms Silverstrim is lumping in - seems like with 7M killed by Hitler and another 5-10M killed by Stalin during his reign, there would be no one left - so I think some double-counting is going on somewhere either "for" Stalin or Hitler.
However, I go back to Joel Mc's orginal comment and agree with his stance that the term "Holocaust" is roundly considered to be the description of the extermination of the Jews. Maybe Jewish historians/apologists have co-opted the term - I don't know - but that's my opinion. Ckruschke (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Finkelstein, for example, argues just that: right-wing Jewish apologists have co-opted the term "holocaust" to refer to an exclusively Jewish event. It is clear, however, that in fact Nazi genocide began with the extermination of the disabled and only later included Jews, Roma, and others. The first declared enemies of Nazism of course were political dissidents, particularly communists, and it was for them that the first concentration camps such as Dachau were established. However, political dissidents were never by definition the subject of genocide. The disabled, however, were subject to genocide (i.e., systematic extermination). There is no good reason to begin the WP article about the holocaust in a manner that precludes, at least, Nazi genocides other than the genocide of Jews. It is misleading, incorrect, and, as I have tried to point out before, probably anti-semitic in so far as it involves a certain negationism. Mfhiller (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)mfhiller
Finkelstein in his important book, The Holocaust Industry, criticises the American Jewish establishment for exploiting the Holocaust for political and financial reasons. It would be wrong to characterise the AJ establishment as being made up of "right wing apologists". A quick look through my copy of Finkelstein can find no place that he use the term "right wing" to describe the members of the American Jewish establishment.
The most important thing for an encyclopediest is not whether the proper noun "The Holocaust" should or should not refer only to the mass murder of Jews, but how it is actually used by historians and scholars. I have listed above major ones who overwhelmingly use it to describe only the mass murder of the Jews. Not one of thoses listed uses the term to minimized the suffering of victims of the other Nazi mass murders and some of them (i.e. Snyder) have written extensively about other victms of the Nazi mass murderers.Joel Mc (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand Joel Mc, I have just added the reference above to the article lead section, do you have any objections?
I haven't read Finkelstein's book yet, I must pick it up, do you reccommend it?
This is a highly sensitive issue, and I'm glad we could discuss it with dignity.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The paper referred to is a student essay that presents the argument that "misinformation, misrepresentation, and political agendas" are behind the use of the term Holocaust for the Nazi mass murder of Jews. Nowhere does she really attempt to explain why historians and scholars overwhelmingly use the term to distinguish the mass murder of the Jews from other Nazi genocides and mass murders (it is really rather disengenous to imply that historians have chosen the definition because of newspapers and the entertainment media). Thus the article remains a rather one-sided pleading for how the term "The Holocaust" should be, rather than how, it is defined, clearly a POV. Student essays really are not what we would call "reliable sources" from a WP point of view. BTW Finkelstein is definitely worth reading. I believe that you can find a PDF version at: Holocaust IndustryJoel Mc (talk) 11:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I see your point Joel, However she references the following Historians, and I list a few more - Let me know if you have objections to these?

Altman, Linda Jacobs. The Forgotten Victims of the Holocaust. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow, 2003. http://evergreen.palibrary.org/vufind/Record/380863


Grau, Günter. Hidden Holocaust: Gay and Lesbian Persecution in Germany, 1933-45. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, 1995 http://vufind.carli.illinois.edu/vf-npu/Record/npu_172843


Lukas, Richard C. The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under German Occupation 1939-1944. Lexington, Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1986. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/40999/john-c-campbell/the-forgotten-holocaust-the-poles-under-german-occupation-1939-1


Berenbaum, Michael, ed. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. New York/London: New York University Press, 1990. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005149

& Homosexuals. Pamphlet. Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1996. Lipstadt, Deborah E. Beyond Belief: the American Press & the Coming of the Holocaust 1933-1945. New York/London: The Free Press, 1986. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My rule of the thumb is not to include references that I have not consulted. The Linda Altman book is written for children by a children's writer and does not seem to me to be what we usually use for references. Richard Lucas's book is a classic study of how non-Jewish Poles suffered under Nazi occupation. It has since been widely supplemented by more up to date books which were able to use former Soviet archives, i.e. Snyder's the Bloodlands, which were unavailable to Lucas. I haven't had a chance to consult extensively what appears to be an important book by Grau, either in German or English. However, on page 6 he does indicate that Himmler did not intend to exterminate gay men in spite of the public reference to the eradication of hommosexuality. Reference seems to have been to homosexual practice rather than to those who had homosexual tendencies and didn't practice, which is not meant to minimize the persecution that did take place. As I believe I have mentioned before, there is a difference between defining the proper noun: The Holocaust, which the article does, and the definition of the common noun the holocaust. The Grau and the Lukas titles use the common noun form. Neither Grau nor Lukas, to the best of my knowledge, take issue with the definition of the proper noun. It just isn't true that "there are many scholars who continue to take exception to this exclusive use" while most scholars recognize today the many other victims of Nazi mass murders.Joel Mc (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You said it yourself Joel - 'most scholars recognize today the many other victims of Nazi mass murders.' Yet as it stands now the lead of the article suggests as if the 'Holocaust' is a word only used to describe the treatment of Jews, and not all faiths that received the same treatment, yet there are many books, printed after the 60s might I add that continue to use the term to describe non Jewish murder.
As already mentioned, the Nazi's began exterminating those with disabilities first, yet it is beyond me why they, and many others, aren't included under the Holocaust' description?
No group should have a monopoly on the use of the word, as it insults all none Jews who were exterminated in exactly the same manner. To suggest that one group was in the 'Holocaust' whereas the other group were 'mass murdered' throws up the question, was one worse than the other? clearly they were exactly the same, so it's plain discrimination to suggest it is a Jewish only tragedy. Future generations are gong to look back on this and be bewildered and insulted. Boundarylayer (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
The whole idea of exclusive use is clearly morally bankrupt.
At the least, Put the Grau book back in please, and you haven't explained why you took out the reference to the Berenbaum book -


Berenbaum, Michael, ed. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. New York/London: New York University Press, 1990. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005149

I took out the reference to Barenbaum because it is repeated in the following footnote where it belongs. Nowhere in his book does Barenbaum argue for a wider definition which is what the footnote is referring to. Grau is a scholar who has done an excellent study of the persecution and killing by the Nazis of homosexuals. Nowhere, as far as I can tell, does he argue that it should be included in the definition of The Holocaust. He doesn't even consider it as a genocide. His title seems to have been chosen by the publishers. Footnotes require page numbers which none of yours have. You may feel that the definition used mmany historians, scholars, (and I suspect the general public) is "clearly morally bankrupt," but that is a POV about what the definition should be, rather than what it actually is.Joel Mc (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


There's too many points to touch on with this but I'd like to add a couple things to the discussion. Just ignore for a minute what most historians or most people consider to be the definition of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a result of the Nazi idea of Aryan supremacy. All groups affected were somehow seen as "inferior" for whatever reason, whether it be religion, ethnicity, disability, etc. The same belief system worked against all who were killed in the camps, even down to the kapos and other criminals. Nazis considered them all to be lives unworthy of living. Of course this brings up the argument that Barlow cited on 7/19. It's a slippery slope no matter how you look at it. It can't be claimed that only the Jews were affected by the Holocaust. However, it is also a major problem to avoid exclusion altogether, as there are people out there that would consider as victims SS guards, Mengele, other Nazi doctors, etc on up to Himmler and other major perpetrators. Having that said, the second paragraph of the article does articulate that many more non-jews were affected and that the definition had changed in the 60s. What happed in the 60s to change this? New information on the topic or a paradigm change in people's thoughts? If we are to include that the definition changed we must state why. Perhaps the two paragraphs could be merged and cleaned up a bit? My opinion would be to have it say the Holocaust was the "systematic mass murder of X million people as a result of Nazi beliefs and policies." That way, no one group is singled out(for better or worse) to start off the article. UselessToRemain (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


One more thing - I challenge anyone to explain how non-Jewish victims are not victims of the Holocaust. Take for example, political "opponents" to the Nazis or disabled individuals who were gassed some time before the first Jews were. How are they not Holocaust victims? I don't mean to antagonize, I'm just really curious as to how the statement would be rationalized. UselessToRemain (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! I beleive it is only Joel Mc that prefers the current morally bankrupt definition of the Holocaust.

The article itself tries to justify the use it makes of the expression by saying that "since the 1960s, the term ['the holocaust'] has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer exclusively to the genocide of Jews". Now plainly this assertion is wrong. To show this I point to you a few links, respectively from 1. The University of California at Santa Barbara, 2. The University of South Florida, 3. The BBC, and finally (not least), 4. The American Holocaust Memorial Museum: 1. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/projects/holocaust/Research/Proseminar/romaholocast.htm --- 2. http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/people/VictPole.htm ---3. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7844797.stm --- 4. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/media_nm.php?ModuleId=10005143&MediaId=3372 Moreover, naturally you can google for "holocaut roma", etc. --and not close your eyes to what you get. I conclude that there is no reason whatsoever to say that in our day and age the term should only be used to denote the nazi Jewish genocide. Hence the article should be corrected. I suggest that within it, the first and largest section should speak of the attempt to exterminate the Jews, and further sections should deal with the crimes agaimnst the Roma, the Slavs, the communists, etc. JMT 06:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JdeTeresa (talk • contribs)

Agreed JdeTeresa Many different groups of people were persecuted, it is repugnant to suggest that only the Jews were victims of the Holocaust and everyone else (comparable millions) were victims of something somehow less horrific, that prevents them from being included with the Jews, as victims of the Holocaust.
  1. ^ Wolff's wife was Jewish, and he was forced to resign in 1936. Hans Döhle replaced him. See Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1990 p. 676 n. 53
  2. ^ Nicosia (2000) pp. 85-86
  3. ^ Black, Edwin. "Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran." SFGate. 8 January 2006. 27 May 2008.
  4. ^ Lewis (1984), p. 190.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference nizk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ The word is only marginally found in Greek [Classical] literature referring in general to an offering. The adjective ὁλόκαυστος "holókaustos], "wholly burned", more common in the parallel form ὁλόκαυτος [holókautos], is in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible used in Leviticus 6,21–22 in the following context: "[...] the baked pieces of the grain offering you shall offer for a sweet aroma to the Lord. / The priest [...] shall offer it. It is a statute for ever to the Lord. It shall be wholly burned)."
  7. ^ "Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women and children, and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Nazis called this "the final solution to the Jewish question ..."
  8. ^ Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, p.45: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." Also see "The Holocaust", Encyclopædia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women and children, and millions of others, by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II
  9. ^ Blacks during the Holocaust from the US Holocaust Museum's Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
  10. ^ Ian Dear, Michael Richard Daniell Foot (2001). The Oxford companion to World War II. Oxford University Press. p.341. ISBN 0-19-860446-7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_26&oldid=1137235135"