Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oświęcim which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017[edit]

The transfer of 10000 soviet prisoners to Birkinau was supposed to provide a labour force for building the camp and also the labour force for the IG garden plant.

Himmler had convinced IG Farben he could supply a workforce before Operation Barabossa although he did not indicate how amor where . The Planning of Birkinau camp by Earl made one latrine for 700 inmates and one one wash room for 7800. In camp BA1 Gissala Perl reported "there was one latrine for 32000 women and we had to stand in line knee deep in excrement.The Latrine was a deep ditch with a plank and we all had dysentary. we Squatted on the planks so close we soiled each other".

Hoss was aware of the catastrophic situation as the death rate climbed from such conditions. He reported same on 3 December. The latrines and wash rooms were far from the hastily constructed dwellings . Sick prisoners had to walk a long distance and with such poor hygiene and lack of food, the death rate would be expected to be high. IN the Month October 1255 prisoners had died. This news was not welcome in SS Headquarters in Berlin where these formerly fit young men were considered a labour asset.

By January 8000 of the 10000 prisoners had perished from the filthy insanitary conditions. [1] ANDREW GIBSON (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Auschwitz Page 271, 272 Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt.ISBN 0-393-31684-x pbk
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Occupied Poland...[edit]

See The Holocaust Encyclopedia, Walter Laqueur editor (ISBN 0-300-08432-3) p. 32, Auschwitz entry beginning "Auschwitz was founded as a German concentration camp in southwestern occupied Poland...". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

However, that does not contradict the fact that Auschwitz was in the annexed part of Poland. The change that you made put could be misinterpreted as putting Auschwitz in the "General Government" (outside the annexed area) which would not be historically correct. See, e.g. [1]. It's not controversial or in dispute that the area was in the annexed area. So while Lacquer was certainly correct that the area was occupied by the Germans, that does not contradict that it was indeed part of the annexed portion, as stated in the various articles on the subject, including the one on Oświęcim. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

:I edited my remarks as I misread the previous edit as incorrectly linking to an article on the General Government (the non-annexed occupied area). However, it was linked instead to a more broad article on the overall occupation. However, I think we need to be precise. I understand why this is a controversial issue so let's discuss rather than edit-war, pls. Coretheapple (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Coretheapple, that editor (a little-used account) has been removing "occupied Poland" and all mention of Poland from the lead since 2009. [2] Now the lead doesn't say it was in Poland until the last paragraph. SarahSV (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I was just focusing on the "annexed" element in the infobox. We certainly want Poland in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I self-reverted as frankly I hadn't noticed the change in the lead. But changing the infobox to "annexed" Poland is not a terrible idea. Thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for reverting again. If we want to explain about occupied versus annexed, the best place might be the third paragraph of the "Background" section, but I'm not sure what difference it would make in the context of this article. SarahSV (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As long as we're linking to the correct article (I had misunderstood that originally), saying "German-occupied" in the infobox is fine. The annexed areas were also occupied, after all. I've struck out above so as to not confuse matters. Evidently this has become a sticking point due to that new Polish law, so I understand the sensitivity. If editors wish to change the infobox we need to come to a talk page consensus first per BRD, as the stable version of the article says "German-occupied." Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
We have Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany which states a location for Auschwitz. There may be some sensitivity to Poland where it makes a difference as to whether the local government was run directly by Nazi Germany as an annex or through Polish proxies in occupied areas (Auschwitz itself was obviously run directly by Nazi Germany). There's a lot of nuances regarding ethnicity that I'm not familiar with so if there are editors familiar with controversies and sensitivities regarding Poland and the Holocaust, I'd be inclined to follow those sensitivities as long as they are accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
If there's consensus to change occupied to annexed, I don't mind. The problem with Dert45's edits was that he was removing "Poland" entirely from the first paragraph. Instead of "operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II", he was writing "operated in Nazi Germany in areas annexed during World War II", [3] or "operated in Nazi Germany in Gau Silesia in areas annexed during World War II". [4] SarahSV (talk) 16:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There's some relevant discussion in Geneviève Zubrzycki (2009). The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland. University of Chicago Press, pp. 119–120.
She discusses how the Auschwitz Museum changed its name in 1998 to remove the reference to the camp's locations, Oświęcim (Auschwitz) and Brzezinka (Birkenau). (Our article doesn't mention that Auschwitz II was in Brzezinka, and Birkenau redirects back here.) The museum did this in part to establish the camp's "Germanness", according to the museum, and to establish that the camps were not "Polish camps". In 2005 the American Jewish Committee issued a statement emphasizing that the camps were "located in German-occupied Poland", and were not Polish camps.
Zubrzycki writes that "many Poles also oppose the designation 'Nazi camps in Poland'", because the area was annexed. They objected when the European Union issued a resolution referring to Auschwitz as a "death camp in Poland".
Now we have Poland's new law, Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance: "[Anyone who] ascribes to the Polish Nation or to the Polish State, responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich ... is subject to a fine or [to] imprisonment for up to 3 years." See Guardian. SarahSV (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
That's helpful, thanks. I don't see people going around Wikipedia changing these articles to refer to them as 'Polish camps," which would be inaccurate and POV pushing. Instead I see a concerted effort to indicate that these camps weren't in Poland at all. I don't get that. Apart from being inaccurate and POV, it implicitly gives the German occupation legitimacy. Hell, the Germans occupied that territory briefly, and then got pushed out. During the time it was occupied it was still Poland. The fact that extermination camps were installed there, by the Germans, doesn't detract from the fact that it was still Poland. These articles make fairly clear that those parts of Poland were under German and not Polish control. So I am not getting the political philosophy that appears to underline the case that these camps weren't in Poland at all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Me neither. And if the principle were accepted, we would have to make the same changes at Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp ("present-day Austria"), Fort Breendonk ("present-day Belgium"), Drancy internment camp ("present-day France"), etc. SarahSV (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
An even more analogous situation involves the Theresienstadt concentration camp, which was situated in the Sudetenland, which not only occupied by the Nazis but was annexed into the Reich. Yet we accurately refer to that camp as being situated in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, and there has been no controversy over that whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Location in Poland?[edit]

Why in infobox is location Poland? The camp build and excisted in 1940-1945 in Nazi Germany.If this template is about the Camp, location is wrong.

Anyway, Auschwitz not excist anymore, and today in Poland is Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum.

Also the UNESCO object is Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum and not Auschwitz concentration camp. Auschwitz concentration camp never was in Poland.

In this infobox is wrong keep info about UNESCO. UNESCO object is Former Auschwitz concentration camp as un exposition in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum.

So for historical object if we put curriend localisation, it should be note (add). --Swd (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swd: It says "German-occupied Poland", which is correct. If you have reliable sources which put it elsewhere, please cite those. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I seem to remember that the legality of the claim of Nazi Germany over Poland was kind of disputed a little bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Look Friends it have sense if there are two conected infoboxes. I can not do it because I don't know how but in this way it have sense. In fact, there should be two conected infobox there - one for the camp 1940-1945 - and the other for museum and UNESCO.
So if the infobox is about The Camp, should be data and location from the time of its activity. Look how we did it in the polish Wikipedia after speak with group of historian. Infobox about the Camp is with former data, and its conected with infobox about Museum and UNESCO with actual data. All can be corect better, because if in the Inforbox I read that Nazi German Camp is (was?) in Poland, it's somthing what is not logic. Remember also that, camp dosent excist in the years 1945-1947 then The site of the former Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz together with all the buildings and installations standing there is to be kept forever as a 'Monument to the Martyrology of the Polish Nation and other Nations. So now it's not Auschwitz like in 1945 but it's Monument. I hope you will be understand me better now. --Swd (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Yea infobox is about the camp: Infobox concentration camp, so location in Poland is wrong. In Poland is Museum and Former concentration camp (since 1947), and Auschwitz as the camp excist bettwen 1940 and 1945. In my opinion should be two infobox (conected?) - one for concentration camp and other for UNESCO or Museum. Maybe someone can help in this. --Swd (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think en.wiki generally has one article, with one single infobox, for historical sites such as thus, You are welcome to open an RfC to propose two separate infoboxes, but I don't think that will gather much support. As I've also suggested above, many folks think that Poland was still a country regardless of it's illegal occupation by Nazi Germany. This is beginning to look a bit like WP:IDHT. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Uh, I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand what is being argued here. Is it really trying to say that Nazi Germany's annexation of the land around Auschwitz was legal and recognized by the Polish government after the war? Because ... if we say that the location of the camp while it was in operation was in Nazi Germany, that's what we're implying... that the annexation was legal. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the argument is that the Polish government-in-exile was in London, so that "the area previously known as Poland" was no longer Poland, but something else: Nazi Germany or "areas annexed during World War II". This is like calling Kuwait "Iraq" after the invasion of Saddam Hussein. SarahSV (talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the main purpose of the locator map is to provide the reader with an idea of where the site is located, not to make a political statement. For example, changing it to read "Location" from its current "Location in Poland" would provide information only to those people who can recognise the outline of Poland on a map. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit more than just location within the current geographical borders of Poland. A better example than Kuwait would be a decision to name the location of Japanese Detention camps as being on specific Indian Reservations. While techically accurate, I could see how naming the location as included within the reservation would upset those that had no control or association with the camps while implicitly linking the Indian reservation to the detention camps. For Poland, annexed areas were purged of Poles and governed by a different structure than the occupied areas. There was no Polish involvement in the area during the Holocaust and I believe the objection is to placing the location of Auschwitz in an area where Poles neither lived nor worked. Poles lived and worked in the occupied areas but not annexed areas and associating Poland with the Holocaust is controversial. The German governor for occupied areas was different than the German governor for annexed areas and the differences are being minimized here. I don't see how describing it as the "annexed" region vs. the "occupied" region hurts the article in any way and seems to be less offensive to Poles. "Least harm" seems to support changing it. We do have articles on annexed and occupied Poland and the differences. --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
But what you're describing happened throughout all the territories occupied by the Axis. Manchuria, for instance, under the Japanese-installed puppet regime, was the site of grisly experiments on POWs and the local population that to this day are not fully known or appreciated. In Burma a large part of the population was enslaved. It went on and on like that. China, ditto. Our job here I think is to reflect the reality of the activity in these territories, and while I entered into this discussion with some sympathy re "annexed" vs. "occupied," my sympathy has declined as I see some of the POV pushing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes its going again and again, because most of people who read it (for exap. young people) don't uderstand why location of Camp (not Museum but Camp) is in Poland? If infobox informed us about Camp (past), should be in the map location from past or any. Of corse in the part of Museum or "UNESCO object" can be polish currient location. This infobox is not about Museum or UNESCO but about the Dead Camp, so if you put location "In Poland" need be note "Actuall", "Todays", "current location" - anything like that. Serving in the template - Infobox concentration camp - polish location without it, it's just falsification of history. The Camp does not exist and never existed in Poland. There is a monument in Poland: The site of the former Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz together with all the buildings and installations standing there is to be kept forever as a 'Monument to the Martyrology of the Polish Nation and other Nations[1]. User talk:Diannaa she gave a reasonable suggestion. You can delete the description "In Poland" or use a word that determines that the location is actual and not historical. Maintaining the present form, with the ignorance that prevails in the world, is falsification of history and insulting Poles who dead in the camp. I also lost a one of my familly in this camp, murdered by Germans. In this period of time it was not Poland, and there was dead many Poles. We forgave the Germans, but we Poles can not agree to falsification of history. Especially with lack of knowledge in the world - such false additions cause "Polish death camp" controversy. I want you to be sensitive for it, especially since the article has the "status of silver". My suggestion is also to remove the map at all. In the battlefields which, like the camp, were no longer there - no current maps are added. Similarly it can be here. The map is only needed for the UNESCO object and Museum, but this INFOBOX is about Camp. Museum (Monument) and Camp are two different things. Thank you for your answers and help.--Swd (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ KL Auschwitz. Documentary photographs, Warsaw 1980, p. 250

The map is useful for tourists. I'd suggest changing the label to 'location in present-day Poland', if someone is very cautious. Nobody in Poland would object to saying that the camp is located in Poland, in present tense. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've implemented this suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Diannaa: I disagree with that edit. The implication is that much of what seemed to be happening outside Germany was really happening within it, just as Hitler believed. So we ought to refer to "present-day Belgium" (see USHHM and Areas annexed by Nazi Germany) when referring to what happened there during the Holocaust. Similarly, we ought to rename Holocaust in Belgium, and indeed parts of Holocaust in Poland and all the other annexed areas, so that Wikipedia's European map reflects Hitler's.
If someone wants to explain about annexation versus occupation, the place to do that (briefly) is the third paragraph of the Background section. SarahSV (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that "present-day" is not optimal, as it was Poland then too, but under occupation. Such usage opens a Pandora's Box. Do we say "present-day Czech Republic" when recounting what happened in German-annexed Czechoslovakia during the war? These were transitory wartime occupations that came to an end as soon as the Allied armies arrived. Also, let's keep the stable version and not change until there is a consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a similar effort underway at Treblinka: "Location of Treblinka in present-day Poland". [5] SarahSV (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Well whatever we're going to add or remove or change needs to be done after achieving consensus on the talk page. I started this discussion because of my sympathy for an effort to change the infobox to indicate that this camp was in the annexed part of Poland. I still think that's not a terrible idea that should be discussed. But whatever is done has to be discussed not edit-warred, as these are stable articles reflecting preexisting consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
      • That the same change has been made there suggests that this has nothing to do with annexation, because Treblinka was not in the annexed area. Is the argument that none of occupied Poland was really Poland? SarahSV (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The implications for contemporary Poland are overwhelming. The Polish Jews brought to Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec did not come from Ukraine and Belarus, but from occupied Poland (including Poland's provincial capitals). Poeticbent talk 22:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • But that's neither here nor there. These camps were in Poland. Efforts to downplay or omit that fact are POV pushing. Full stop. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • One other point: I actually think that your edit in the Treblinka article might have some merit. But again, it's a question of process as much as anything. If there is edit-warring or overreaching the outcome will be different than discussing the subject on the talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • What "POV pushing" are you talking about, Coretheapple? What "efforts to downplay or omit" what "fact"? People are trying to help you here – including myself – so please pay more attention. We all know that death camps were build by the SS on the territory of occupied Second Republic, half of which was overrun by the Soviets in 1939. All death camps (!) were built by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland (following Barbarossa). Treblinka was never a part of this thread, but similar to Diannaa, I thought of implementing this suggestion before SlimVirgin made me realize that the phrase "present-day Poland" was inappropriate. But why did you revert my last edit to Treblinka,[6] with a helpful piece of information for the young reader? Poland's borders changed dramatically, and yet, there's no map of prewar Poland in this article. SlimVirgin and I were not edit-warring at Treblinka per WP:BRD rule, but you were (apparently by using the Wikipedia:I just don't like it argument there). Poeticbent talk 05:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
in the Treblinka article you were adding text that was far too lengthy for a caption and also unnecessary. as you replicated what was in the infobox directly below. Funny how there are no such hair-splitting and constant edit-warring and "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"" tactics concerning the location of Nazi camps---except for the articles on camps situated in Poland. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly on this. For the last time, the camps were in Poland. Any effort to find a euphemism for that is contrary to WP:FRINGE and is POV-pushing.
As I previously opined on the talk page of "Polish death camp" controversy, the same principles apply to use of the term "Polish death camps" as to whether that is a misnomer. It is, and therefore it acceptable to say that definitively and clearly in the lead of the "controversy" article, in my opinion. But WP:FRINGE cuts both ways. Just as referring to these camps as "Polish" is fringe-theory POV pushing, so too are some of the edits and positions I've seen concerning this article, so as to not state definitively and clearly that this camp was in Poland. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Where was Auschwitz[edit]

10:23, 15 February 2018‎ Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,550 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (no - it was not "IN Nazi Germany"...) (undo |
Please explain your revert war. Auschwitz was in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany administratively in Germany, Province of Upper Silesia, Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz, Landkreis Bielitz, as the article says. Is the article wrong? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Read above for the consensus. The Germans were occupying all of Poland, basically. Let's not sugar-coat the brutality of the occupation by claiming legality for the annexation. Nor should we say that the camp was "built and operated in Nazi Germany"... it should be "built and operated BY Nazi Germany". I slightly prefer the link to the occupation of Poland article rather than the annexed areas of Poland article - because the annexation was never agreed to by the Poles - and merely by linking to it here it might give the idea that the Poles weren't rather nastily occupied during WWII. Annexed is so much more "clean" sounding. But we should never say remove the fact that the camps were operated by Nazi Germany ... at any time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I think the ‘legality for the annexation’ is a misinterpretation by Ealdgyth. The area in question had been annexed by the Nazis. The Poles didn’t like it. But for you to now say that they can’t describe that it was annexed because they didn’t like it is a non-sequitur, and this insertion of legality is just creating a straw man argument. It had been annexed, by force, and it was eventually de-annexed, also by force. Legality had nothing to with it in either direction. What is the problem with annexed?
Gravuritas (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC
The question is not whether Poland "liked" the annexation, the question is whether the world at large (meaning countries not allied or controlled by the Nazis) recognized it, and they most certainly did not. The distinction, then, between the "annexed" areas and the "occupied" area of Poland is one without a difference -- both were, factually, conquered and occupied by the Nazis. When the Nazis were defeated, this situation was immediately rectified. History is, after all, written by the victors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I'm not clear what edits are at issue here. Please post diffs. There are two distinct and different reverts involved. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
If I was an editor, or a reader of en.wiki, living in modern day Poland, I'm sure I would be equally keen to resist even the slightest suggestion that Poland, as a country, was in any way responsible for any part of the Holocaust. As Ealdgyth suggests above, the key fact it seems to me is that it was all perpetrated BY Nazi Germany. wherever it best suited them. There must be some way of preserving historical accuracy, while respecting modern sincerely held national sensibilities? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps, but any change needs to be discussed, not enacted by edit-warring. Right now I'm not even sure what reverts are at issue as nobody has bothered to post diffs, even when requested. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
This is the first revert I did, where I restored "built and operated by Nazi Germany in" and removed the Gau Silesia inserted right before. It was reverted and changed to here, where the "by" remained but the gau edit was restored along with adding back in the "annexed areas of occupied Poland" bit. Next edit is mine, again removing the Gau and annexed bits (which see above) and changing the piped link target Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany to Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), which is a better link in my opinion, as it doesn't sugar-coat the brutality of the occupation. I'll note that the edits I reverted were by someone who only seems to edit to insert this sort of stuff. They've been reverted by a number of different editors for these edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Given that this is controversial and disputed, the status quo (which is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) should remain pending discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Just to add that I agree with your edit and BMK's point above. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I also agree; that is, I prefer "was a network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II, with the link for "occupied Poland" leading to Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). First, the world did not recognize the annexation; Poland remained Poland despite Hitler, just as Kuwait remained Kuwait despite Saddam Hussein. Second, readers are more likely to understand "occupied", and they will infer from it that Poland did not control the camp. But they may not be so familiar with "annexed". Editors who want to use "annexed" in the interests of Poland may be shooting themselves in the foot. SarahSV (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Given Core’s poInt, the article should be reverted to the link to Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany until the discussion and consensus has occurred. ‘World recognition’, like the earlier ‘legality’ is just another red herring. The analogy with Kuwait and Saddam is a false analogy: look at the various maps of ‘Poland’ before, during, and after the war: Poland did NOT remain Poland despite Hitler (or Stalin). I suggest, given that there is no dispute as to the fact of annexation, that some sensitivity is appropriate.
Gravuritas (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but no, it's no red herring, it's a fact. These are Nazi camps located in occupied Poland, but not "Polish" camps in any real sense of the word. They were not established by Poles, they were not run by Poles, they had Polish inmates, and were located in what had been Polish territory until the Nazis occupied it. That makes them Nazi camps located in occupied Poland. Any attempt to call them "Polish camps" will be removed as unfactual and distorting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point. I absolutely am not referring to these as Polish camps. Or maybe I’ve misunderstood something. I thought the request from apparently a Pole, was to refer to the camp as being in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, which happens to be true, and I was supporting that request. ‘Occupied Poland’ is also true, but conflates at least two categories ( or more, depending on your timeline)- one of which-Soviet occupied Poland- is irrelevant to this article. I don’t understand why the factual and precise term PaaNG is being argued against in favour of the woollier terms using ‘Occupied’. The ‘legality’ and ‘world recognition’ concepts are indeed red herrings. And it is of concern that statements are being made like ‘Poland remained Poland...’ and ‘The Germans were occupying all of Poland’ which suggests a lack of historical context.
Gravuritas (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The original edits were here changing "operated by Nazi Germany" to "operated in Nazi Germany", does it again (and changes occupied to annexed), changed "by" to "in" again, again with "by" to "in" and changing occupied to annexed, does the same thing again, and again, and again. That's seven changes of "by Nazi Germany" to "in Nazi Germany" in the last two weeks or so. Personally, I don't think this is a Pole ... I'm not sure what is with the changing of "by Nazi German" to "in Nazi Germany" but the effect is to diminish the responsiblity of Nazi Germany for the operation of the camp. I'm not quite to the point of calling it denialism but it's getting close. (Quite frankly, I'd be fine if the article said "operated by Germans" instead of "Nazi Germany" but that's the vindictive side of me that's studied the Holocaust a bit too much and wishes the perpetrators to the farthest depths of Dīs Pater's realm for their crimes.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
At the risk of alienating everyone, may I put forward ....”operated by Nazi Germany in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany” for consideration? Gravuritas (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
No. "Annexation" was a Nazi wartime artifice. This was Poland. I'm surprised that people from Poland would want to make that point, given that it was Poland and that the Nazis stuck their goddamn camps there. Honestly! Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Annexation in this instance refers to real-world changes that make ‘artifice’ completely inappropriate. The desire to put as much distance as possible-linguistically for the purposes of this discussion- between Poland and that outcrop of hell is perfectly understandable and should not cause you surprise. Gravuritas (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, these so-called "real world" changes were not recognized by the real world, only by the Nazi-controlled or Nazi-allied world. As far as the real real world was concerned, the territory the Nazis considered to be "annexed" was Polish territory, period. The camps are therefore best described as being in "Nazi-occupied Poland" - it's totally irrelevant whether that occupation took place in Polish territory that the Nazis said "this is now ours" or in Polish territory they threw into the dust bin and said "this is now the General Government." Occupied is occupied, no matter what fig leaf you apply to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The real world I was referring to was the world of who got shot for failing to bow to whom, not an at-the-time irrelevancy of what someone with a law degree a long way away opined. If anyone is actually interested in what the situation was, on the ground, when these camps were operating, then Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany seems to describe the situation, whereas Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) has extraneous stuff, and yourterm of Nazi-occupied Poland does not exist as a WP article. Do you not think it might be of interest to a fraction of readers of this article to understand the background in which the camps were operating?
Gravuritas (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gravuritas: Wikipedia can't single out one country for different treatment, so any change in naming conventions would have to apply to the camps in all the annexed areas, such as Belgium. Then we would have to argue why annexation requires the change in how we name countries, but occupation doesn't, and why annexation by Nazi Germany during WWII is special, or whether all countries annexed or occupied should be described differently if bad things happened within their borders during that period. SarahSV (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
One aspect which you and others are missing is hidden in the references to ‘Poland’ as if it were one and indivisible. Geographically, there are at least 3 Polands during the era in question: the part of pre-war Poland removed by the Soviets after the war; the areas of Poland included in both the 1939and the 1945 borders; and the western areas of post-45 Poland added by the Soviets. Population-wise, there were similar massive changes, some due to slaughter and some to re-settlement, enforced or otherwise. And the regime differences within the various subtypes of Occupation were rather more significant than, say, between occupied France and Vichy. As mentioned above, I think the key in this case is the existence of an extensive WP article on PaaNG which does precisely apply, and imho this is more useful than non-analogies with other countries in other circumstances. As mentioned before, ‘OccupiedPoland’ has very specific non-parallels with other occupied countries as the Soviets were also ‘Occupiers’.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this flurry of interest related to the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance? The Polish government has been widely criticized for it, and it's not something that Wikipedia should try to reflect. SarahSV (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
The only part of it we should respect is to not call the camps "Polish concentration camps", "Polish extermination camps", or "Polish death camps", but not because of the law, because of the ambiguity as to what "Polish" means in those phrases. It can mean either "located in Poland" or "camps made by the Poles", and since that is the case, we should strive to avoid any ambiguity by being certain that they are referred to as "Nazi death camps in occupied Poland" or similar phrases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with that. SarahSV (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. As far as location is concerned, we go with what the preponderance of sources say, and they are overwhelmingly that it was German-occupied Poland. While the points made by Gravuritas are serious ones and I certainly respect the sensititivities, nevertheless we have the obligation to go with "occupied" as opposed to "annexed." Remember that occupied is not inaccurate, but is simply the common usage. Given the high visibility of this article I think it is incumbent upon us to exercise great care. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Further data-points, take them for what they are worth - but our articles on Nazi concentration camps and List of Nazi concentration camps use either "German-occupied" or "German-controlled" for the entire system of camps, whether in annexed areas or not. Our article German camps in occupied Poland during World War II gives camps in both the annexed areas as well as the General Government. File:MajorConcentrationCamps.png, which illustrates the main concentration camp article, has no differentation between Greater-Germany and the just occupied areas. Further examples from our articles are relatively easy to find - most Holocaust articles related to Poland do not make much distinction between the formally annexed areas and the occupied areas - both are lumped under "German-occupied" in the scope of articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That's because the entire system was all over the Europe, which was all occupied, but of parts directly annexed to Germany out of my ignorant head I can remember only Anschluss of Austria and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany (pieces of France and Czechoslovakia maybe?) We freely speak of annexation of Austria all the time, which was illegal per Treaty of Versailles. What's wrong with speaking about Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, for a more precise description of Auschwitz? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
To be blunt - there are 300 million Americans (or somewhere around there) who will read "annexed" and think it was a bloodless legal move and not bother to click through to the article to see how oppressive it was. The only annexation most Americans will have heard of is when a city annexes some surrounding unincorporated land and figure that there isn't anything bad or nasty about being annexed. Americans, as a general rule, are historical ignoramuses. And those few that will recall some of their school-history will think about various annexations in US history, which again were relatively bloodless. If we're really lucky, they might remember Texas annexation which was preceded by a war, but ended up as a "good thing". Other areas "annexed" in US history include Hawaii and West Florida. To Americans, annexation is not a bad thing and they will likely subconsciously think of "annexed areas of Poland" as being analogous to Texas' annexation. Sad to say, but I no longer think that my fellow Americans are at all historically literate. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- and by the same argument, ‘Occupation’ to the same people means a student sit-in. So what’s your point?
Gravuritas (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It isn't only Americans; most readers won't know what annexation is. Occupation is almost certainly more widely understood. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Come off it, guys. A couple of four-syllable words and we’re speculating on which semi-literates will understand which word, least? Let’s collectively raise our game.
Gravuritas (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not only semi-literates. Almost no one will understand annexation, except perhaps that it has something to do with occupation. Most people will understand occupation (someone invaded and in some sense took over). If you want to explain more, it can be done in the Background section. SarahSV (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Better tell our fruity friend. S/he has used the a...x word several times below. And it’s sprinkled elsewhere in WP articles. Should we root it out? Any other polysyllables that the proles should be defended from?
Gravuritas (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • by claiming legality for the annexation I fail to see where the heck the article declares legality of annexation. What is more, as our article "annexation" says " to the forcible transition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act." I.e. "annexation" is even worse than "occupation": occupied may still have a token of autonomy (even if puppet). Annexation excludes even these false pretenses. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
As I mentioned previously, our article on Theresienstadt concentration camp indicates that it was in "German-occupied Czechoslovakia" and it was situated in the Sudetenland which was annexed by Germany in 1938 and was primarily German-speaking. That is standard Wikipedia usage, to describe such locales in camp articles (when outside Germany proper) as being in occupied territory, as that is how the sources describe them. Indeed, all of Austria was annexed into the Reich. Big deal. It was Austria. Historians acknowledge the annexations etc. but describe the situation in terms of actual reality, which was German occupation, and we do so as well. The Theresienstadt article is not at issue, but we're having this discussion purely because of political issues that should not be allowed to influence Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Re my mention of Austria above, see Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. Note where we describe it. Austria. Austria was German-speaking and was annexed (with the consent of most Austrians I believe) before World War II. There is a map of Austria to illustrate where it was located. Yet for a good many years before 1945 there was no distinction between Austria and Germany. But again, we describe it as being in Austria because historians, while recognizing the annexation, don't give a damn. That camp was in Austria, not Germany. However, again, there isn't some big political issue in Austria over that, so we don't have Austrian editors trying to change the language of that article the way is being done here, Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I think you’re fighting too hard against an imaginary foe. I see no political difference between the terms ‘Nazi-occupied Poland’ and PaaNG, and a priori, both are equally acceptable imho. The difference, again imho, is that we don’t have a WP article on Nazi- occupied Poland but we have a good one on PaaNG, so as a practical question of which makes WP a better encyclopedia, there’s no contest. But I’vehad enough of arguing against false analogies and patronising views on how the great unwashed will misinterpret a fairly simple word.
Gravuritas (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I of course would be happy for this whole issue to go away, but it hasn't. I don't know what "PaaNG" stands for. Coretheapple (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Pennsylvania Air National Guard, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany
Gravuritas (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the acronym clarification. Actually, as to your point, we do have an article on both the General Government as well as the annexed area, and a broader article on the overall occupation Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). Given that choice of hyperlinks for the lead, it seems to me that either the broader or the annexed article would do, but I think the overall one is more informative for an article on a camp, for readers seeking more information on the occupation. Within the body of the article we can and should make a reference to the fact that Auschwitz was in the annexed area, with appropriate hyperlink. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Clearly linking to the General Government would be incorrect. If the broader article were on Nazi-occupied Poland then you would be making a reasonable point. But Poland’s occupation by two aggressors means that half the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is completely irrelevant, and then to find the specifics it’s necessary to start winnowing another 25% wheat from chaff, i.e. annexed vs GG, etc. Given that the broader article contains so much extraneous stuff, please support your contention that ‘the overall one is more informative’ with some specifics. It needs to be considerably more informative to overcome the burden of being 75% irrelevant.
Gravuritas (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh please. None of the article is irrelevant, and the majority of the text is given to the German occupation. It is a larger more comprehensive article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense. How is the Soviet occupation of parts of Poland relevant to Auschwitz?
Gravuritas (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
I've already addressed that. "Status of German minority" is present in the the annexation article and is similarly not directly relevant to Auschwitz. We need to look at the whole article and its relevance to background on the camp. Admittedly not a do-or-die question, and not one that necessitates excessive angst I hope. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you haven’t addressed it, you’ve just made a ludicrous claim, of the broader article, that “None of the article is irrelevant”. So in the interest of angst-reduction, I suggest you avoid making such claims.
Meantime, yes, referring to the two possible linkages, the point that I have been repeatedly trying to make through the background noise and ludicrosities is precisely their “relevance to background on the camp”. I’m glad you’ve got there, but not confident given the forgoing that you’ll take a balanced view.
Gravuritas (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
@Gravuritas: This is a warning: discuss edits and ideas, not editors. "...not confident ... that you'll take a balanced view" is not an acceptable comment given that the discussion has been on-point and (for the most part) civil. People disagree, and consensus can only be reached if everyone is open to the possibility that they are mistaken and their opponents are right, at least in some respects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
”None of the article is irrelevant”. Discuss.
Gravuritas (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)