Talk:Extermination camp/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Auschwitz I

Why is Auschwitz I excluded? I'd like this seriously explained. It was THE original death camp since the first Zyklon B experiment. --HanzoHattori 19:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you think it should be in there (I agree with you if you do), then please insert it where appropriate. That said, Auschwitz I was not started as an extermination camp, though it did turn into one as time progressed. As far as an explanation goes as to why it’s been “excluded”, I’m afraid I have no explanation; further, I’m not so sure that it was “excluded” (an expression that suggests that you suspect an attempt to obfuscate on the part of other editors) as opposed to merely omitted by oversight. Jim_Lockhart 00:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Aktion T4 should be at least mentioned as the origins. --HanzoHattori 15:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, since Aktion T4 was certainly a precursor. Go ahead and add it, especially if you can attribute it reliable sources. (Without the citation of sources, it doesn’t matter whether what you add is correct or incorrect, accurate or inaccurate—someone will be able to assail it; attribute your additions, though, and that becomes a less tenable prospect.) Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think -ing everything is silly, if all you need is click the wikilink. --HanzoHattori 08:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

It is just a very small detail. The first sentence in the article says the camps where built before and during the war, the second says they were built in a later phase in the conflict.

I've removed the claim that any were built before the war. Good catch, thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Stutthof

I think we should add Stutthof concentration camp as a "small" camp considering the informations in the article. --HanzoHattori 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen it referred to as an extermination camp, as it wasn't used for the large-scale, straight-off-the-train gassings as the others mentioned in the article were. If you know of a historian who says it was one, that could be quoted, but if not it would be a synthesis of your own, ie OR. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia sez:

A crematory and gas chamber were added in 1943, just in time to start mass executions when Stutthof was included in the "Final Solution" in June 1944. Mobile gas wagons were also used to complement the maximum capacity of the gas chamber (150 people per execution) when needed.

Also User:Hvarako said on my talk page:

Please do not remove Jasenovac from the list of places Jews have been killed and list of Holocaust extermination camps. Over 30 000 jews were killed in Jasenovac, together with hundreds of thousands of others. Virtually all local Jews were exterminated in Nazi program there. Jad Vashem and other museums of holocaust feature Jasenovac as one of the main nazi death camps. Also, do not remove Serbs from the list of victims. Serbs were prosecuted as well as Roma and communists, indeed not only by Ustashe but by Germans as well. In Kozara, it was german military that specifically targeted local civilians, mostly Serbs. Serbs had to wear white strips, and were transported to Jasenovac and other nazi camps in Germany and Poland by the German SS. Over 20 thousand children of Kozara were executed in Jasenovac. This is clearly part of Holocaust, and you cant dismiss these facts. They are admited by Yad Vashem, by american museum of Holocaust, Simon Wiesenthal wrote a lot about Jasenovac, a place where most of local Jews were executed, together with Roma, Serbs and communists - see for instance [8] - this is about nazi war criminal Artukovic, and it is clearly in this Jewish source, among many others, that Jasenovac is treated as part of Holocaust.

I don't remember removing "from the list of places Jews have been killed", but I did from here (it's back). --HanzoHattori 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Something doesn't add up...

The claim in the 'number of victims' section that the total deaths from all six camps adds up to five million is clearly wrong - anyone who can add can see that. The true total for the numbers given is closer to half that. However, confusion may have arisen because the total number killed throughout the war - not just in death camps - was indeed over five million. So I'm unsure how to proceed with the edit.

Changed to over 2.5 m. Thanks. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Squiddy, I have been adjusting the numbers to reflect information available from "reputable" sources, I amended the total to reflect these numbers and edited the layout in descending number order to make it easier to read. My only interest is make the page reflect current scholarship, this is a emotive topic and I hope that no offence was caused to any reader. Dean Armond 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reference to soap

Would it be good to remove the reference to soap made from bodies? This did not take place in any extermination camp and so is not relevant to the Extermination camp page. Dean Armond 22:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text about human soap as it is not relevant to this topic and has its own page in Wikipedia.

My entries primarily relate to citations, references and focus. I consider this page a serious but emotive topic, my objective is to confirm factual elements so that any discussion or debate can begin with a good grounding. Dean Armond 02:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The Jewish soap was part of the trial to convict nazi's so why remove it? it is part of the history of the holocaust and death camps. even though it is not true removing because its "emotive" is still bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.15.64 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstand your comment, so please be patient with regard to my response, but is there any accepted reference to "Jewish soap" as part of the trial to convict nazi's?

My reason to ask such a question is that I try to establish factual elements in order to prevent any possible "distortion" relating to the topic of extermination camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dean Armond (talk • contribs) 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Dubious: homosexuals, the handicapped, and Jehovah's Witnesses in extermination camps

Yes, I know that homosexuals (much less only gay men, hence my previous edit) and Jehovah's Witnesses were interred in concentration camps, and that the Nazis had a program for exterminating the handicapped; but I’ve never seen a reliable source claiming that these groups were sent to the extermination camps. If these claims cannot be substantiated within a reasonable time as per WP:ATT, they should be removed. Jim_Lockhart 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Shark Island

Shark Island (Haifisch Island) fits the description of a extermination camp. Over the 3 years the camp was open, 3.000 of people met their deaths. For all intents and purposes, it was considered a 'death camp', as it's sole purpose was to exterminate the Herero and Namaka people from what the Germans called German South West Africa. If interested BBC made a good documentary about it called "Namibia - Genocide and the Second Reich" (Von Epp, Hitler, Goring, etc, talked about during last 15 minutes of the documentary). The heads of the people killed in the camp was sent to the Kaiser Institute just like the heads from extermination camps in Germany. And the same people taking part in the Namibian genocide, later was part of Hitler's crew, and they were part of Nazi Germany. Though I think that an article about "Extermination camp" should be able to contain all kind of extermination camps regardless of if they were Nazi extermination camps or not, else I suggest renaming the article "Nazi extermination camp".(Burman 12:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

No, it does not fit the definition of an extermination camp, though whether description can used to qualify it is probably a matter of opinion. Since I do not have the book you cite, I can’t check it; but the BBC article you cite does not describe or otherwise qualify Shark Island as an extermination camp, either. Does the book? It certainly shouldn’t, since Shark Island was not established for the sole purpose of killing people on an industrial scale, which the extermination camps that this article covers—those set up to carry out the Final Solution—were.

However, the problem here from a Wikipedia perspective is not whether Shark Island was or was not an extermination camp; it is that your source does not substantiate the information you attribute to it. This is not to negate that there was much death at Shark Island, or that the Germans engaged in genocide in Namibia; but rather to address the appropriateness of your addition to the article as per Wikipedia attribution policy, and whether it might be considered original research.

A final complaint I have about your addition is stylistic: It is a sentence fragment and so does not fit in as written. Please incorporate it properly so that it makes sense. I will not fix it for you because I think it does not belong in the first place.

Your suggestion about changing the name of the article to “Nazi extermination camp” is a good one. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i will fix it and add better articles. I agree the BBC article doesn't talk about extermination camps. But the man in charge of the Extermination in Namibia, General Von Epp, was the man who first employed Adolf Hitler in the Nazi party, he continued his racial extermination in Germany and he is often considered the godfather of the Nazi party. To say that the first 'experiment' of these death camps is not valid, just because it did not take part in Germany during the Nazi rule is to deny the history of the Nazi extermination camps that started in Namibia with the same ideology and technique. But I agree, I shall need to find more and better sources, hopefully with the help of the wikipedia community. Also, please excuse my bad English, it is not my first language, but I thought I would still do my best to contribute. Sincerely, (Burman 15:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

You still don’t understand. Please read the Wikipedia policy about original research at WP:NOR. I understand what you are saying about von Epp and the connection between the German actions in Namibia and the Nazi extermination camps, but you must find sources that say precisely this before you can add it to any articles. Not adding something is not “denying [any] history,” it is sticking to what the sources say or do not say. Please note the politicized sources are not valid as Wikipedia sources and remember that activism is fine in its place, but that Wikipedia is not the right place for it (see especially WP:SOAP). Don’t worry too much about language problems in your contributions—someone will fix them for you provided they understand what you mean. And by the way, I found the problem with your BBC link: there was a typo in it. I’ve fixed it in the Herero and Namaqua Genocide and Shark Island, Namibia articles. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You are saying that the book certainly shouldn't describe or otherwise qualify Shark Island as a death camp. But that is not so. The article actually describes the Shark Island death camp as the blueprint of the future Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps. If you can't access the article, but don't wanna take my word for it, maybe you can watch the BBC documentary, "Namibia - Genocide and the Second Reich", where the author of the article, Ben Madley of Yale University, says that "the death camp on Shark Island, very clearly, is linked to the 'vernichtungslager' or annihilation caps of the Nazi regime. In both cases, prisoners were collected from far away locations, and then shipped via rail in cattle cars, called transport in both cases, and then moved to a remote location, beyond the public gaze, where they were systematically destroyed." I will find better souses though, but this is not about activism, it is well known fact, or at least I thought so, that's why I added it without putting a huge effort on finding word-by-word sources. I'll do better next time. Sincerely (Burman 16:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

None of these sources actually describes Shark Island as an Extermination Camp. Describing it as a forerunner of the extermination camps is not the same as saying that it was an extermination camp. Shark Island is described as a concentration camp by all reputable sources - references to it belong on the page dealling with concentration camps. FOARP (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Shark Island (again), Roman Catholics, homosexuals, Jehova’s Witnesses, and other unsourced claims

I have removed dubious material from the introduction for reasons explained below and corrected the numbers of victims that an anonymous user changed the other day after checking the cited source:

Though the first German extermination camp was built 1904 on Shark Island, Namibia, then called German South-West Africa during the Herero and Namaka genocide

This statement is substantiated with the following sources:

• Germany regrets Namibia 'genocide', BBC News, January 12, 2004
• http://ehq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/35/3/429 Madley, Benjamin: “From Africa to Auschwitz: How German South West Africa Incubated Ideas and Methods Adopted and Developed by the Nazis in Eastern Europe” in European History Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 3, 429-464 (2005)
• DOI: 10.1177/0265691405054218 “Namibia - Genocide and the Second Reich”, BBC2 2005,</ref>.

These sources are fine for establishing that 1) there was much avoidable and possibly intentionally caused death at Shark Island, 2) genocide is plausibly applied to the Germans’ actions in Namibia and that the German government recognizes this as valid, and 3) genocide in German South-West Africa can be linked to the genocide in Nazi Germany. However—and this is the crux of my argument—they do not justify qualifying Shark Island as an extermination camp defined as a facility designed and purpose-built for the systematic killing of members of groups that have been expressly targeted for elimination. That many people died, were allowed to die, or were intentionally killed at Shark Island may be undeniable, but that fact nonetheless does not justify characterizing Shark Island as an extermination camp. If sources can be cited that reliably describe Shark Island as having had facilities purpose-built for the systematic murder of a specific group or specific groups, then Shark Island can be justifiably mentioned in this article as an extermination camp. Likewise for the notion that persons involved with the setting up or running of Shark Island and their later involvement in the Nazi party or Nazi camps. But otherwise, these facts do not belong in this article; it would be better to present them elsewhere in Wikipedia, somewhere appropriate (such as more general articles about, say, genocide itself, Shark Island, the victims of killed there, or even German genocidal tendencies).

The references to homosexuals, Catholics (Roman or otherwise), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Polish civic leaders, and Soviet POWs as being targets, as groups, for extermination in the camps need substantiating with reliable sources: The Nazis did target these groups (except for Catholics) for internment in concentration camps (and for working to death through slave labor), but in extensive reading about the extermination camps, I have yet to read of these groups being specifically rounded up to be shipped off to an extermination camps for immediate “liquidation.” This could be a limitation of my reading, but nonetheless these statements need to be attributed to reliable sources. I realize that Soviet POWs and Polish civic leaders were also singled out for liquidation, but they were not, IIRC, shipped to the extermination camps but rather murdered more immediately. And Catholics were not a group targeted for elimination. The murder of individuals who incidentally belonged to a given group does not mean that the group was targeted. These distinctions may be fine, but they are important. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 14:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well... The Poles and the Soviet soldiers were gassed alright. Example from Auschwitz concentration camp: "September 3, 1941 The first gassings of prisoners occur in Auschwitz I. The SS tests Zyklon B gas by killing 600 Soviet prisoners of war and 250 other ill or weak prisoners." All Muslims from the dozens of work subcamps were being shipped back to Auschwitz for gassing actually (and in Dachau some transports were gassed in the nearby old T-4 facality), etc. Also Majdanek and other death camps unrelated directly to Operation Reinhard were all indiscrimante. But it's just on some the Soviet soldiers (some=thousands of them) and "the Muslims", healthy Poles were rather shot or injected with poison (hanged sometimes). Soviets were mostly starved to death (really en masse). Further explaination: the Muslims were from all work groups, including but not limited to Jews. The gays were actually "protected" by law (being there "for treatment") and illegally picked on by the individual guards and kapos (you know the guards were supposed to not be needlessly brutal right?). Jehova Witnesses were a really, really small group (like 2,000 total or something, and I don't mean deaths) and were not exterminated, this story is tiredsome really. --HanzoHattori 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the thing is to not mistake the Operation Reinhard camps (Belzec-Sobibor-Treblinka) and Birkenau - the camps built to kill the Jews (and Gypsies) - with the general purpose camps equiped with gas chambers (like Auschwitz I or Majdanek), where various people were gassed based in great part on their level of hunger disease ("selections" by the camp doctors) and not nationality (there were also the selections of the Jewish new arrivals like famously in Birkenau, as of fit or unfit to work).

Also, people in gas chambers were not merely gased. To quote Auschwitz museum directly:

Crematorium I functioned from August 15, 1940 to July 1943. The largest room in this building was designed as a morgue. In the autumn of 1941, it was adapted as the first provisional gas chamber. In it, the SS used Zyklon B to kill thousands of newly arrived Jews, as well as several groups of Soviet POWs.

Prisoners selected from the infirmary as unlikely to return to work soon were killed in the gas chamber. Poles sentenced to death by the German summary court were shot here.

--HanzoHattori 15:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More on the extermination of the Soviet soldiers in example of Auschiwtz:

From 1941 to 1944, about 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war, from various ethnic groups within what was then the Soviet Union, were brought to Auschwitz. Almost all of them perished there. About 3,000 were killed by being shot or gassed immediately after arriving, and about 12,000 perished from starvation and exhaustion. At the last roll call, only 92 prisoners of war remained in the camp.

http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?language=EN&tryb=stale&id=378 --HanzoHattori 15:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I'd make an article on the Soviet Holocaust (claimed millions of lives). I'll try with title Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany. --HanzoHattori 15:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I essentially agree with what you (HanzoHattori) have written above: the biggest distinction that needs to be made is separation of the gassings that took place as part of Aktion Rheinhardt and the associated camps, and those gassings that took place (more or less) to just get rid of people who were no longer useful or for experiments. The idea of an article on the extermination of Soviet POWs sounds like a good one to me. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I started the article. Btw, the gas chamber shootings were with a handgun with silencer (Soviet-method "control shots" to the back of the head) - after the "theatre" with a firing squads at the "death wall" was dropped. How about the article of "Nazi gas chambers"? To include also the gas vans. --HanzoHattori 19:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jasenovac

This article lacks the Jasenovac concentration camp. --PaxEquilibrium 19:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It has frequently had material on Jasenovac, and just as frequently had it removed, for the simple reason that this article is about Nazi extermination camps (read the opening paragraph), which Jasenovac was not. Perhaps, though, this article is misnamed, since it seems groups other than just the Nazis have operated extermination camps. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How about "Nazi extermination camps"? --HanzoHattori 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll move it if there's no opposition. --HanzoHattori 19:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not opposed. And I suppose a general article on extermination camps (i.e., one not limited in scope to the Nazis’ camps) is also called for. Do you know whether other groups besides the Nazis and the Ustaša operated such camps? Say, the Khmer Rouges under Pol Pot, Idi Amin’s boys, or even the Soviets? Jim_Lockhart 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what we'd define as one. The Soviets for extermination used a mass execution sites in forests, prison basements (like the dungeons under Lyubyanka Square), etc, but their concentration camps were generally forced labour camps (Gulag). Cambodia's S-21 Security Prison was some seriously creepy place, only 7 of about 15,000 prisoners admitted there were not executed after they "confessed" (EVERYONE CONFESSES). Saddam Hussein run some death camps during Operation Anfal, and a bunch of his henchmen was convicted of genocide for this (and, well, they also gassed people). --HanzoHattori (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that Jasenovac should be included in the list of Nazi extermination camps. It was operated in same time, led by German allies who shared the same Nazi ideologies. In addition, significant numbers of victims were Jews. There are indications that the Germans inspected Jasenovac camp several times during the war, and that some of the prisoners were transported from Jasenovac to Auschwitz. Obviously, Jasenovac was part of the same "network" of Nazi camps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.83.176 (talk) 11:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There's never much consistency about whether the killings of the Ustashe count as part of the Holocaust or not. The Jewish victims at Jasenovac are always included amongst the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust, but the regime is usually considered distinct from the Nazis. I think it should be included since thousands of Jews died there in addition to the Serbs and Roma. Epa101 (talk) 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

{{fact}} spam removed

--HanzoHattori (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't usually disagree with your edits, but with this one I do: I believe these tags are warranted. This is not to imply that I don't believe the veracity of the statements, it means I believe they should be substantiated so that they cannot be easily challenged by people with an agenda. Please reconsider. And if you know of sources that substantiate the claims, please add them and then remove the tags. Thanks, and best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust

I used to believe that the holocaust was only the killing of the jews, which were about 6 million people. There were an additional 5 million non-jews killed as well. Are they included in the word Holocaust? If not that the introduction of this article needs to be changed:"which has became known as the Holocaust" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.7.26 (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This does need to be changed. Hitler targeted five or six distinct groups: Mentally Disabled, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Jehovahs' Witnesses as well as the Jews. Collectively this was he holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.142.90 (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

numbers wrong

the treblinka aricle claims the minimum death toll at treblinka was 800000. This article claims 700 000, update this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.7.26 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Treblinka article refers to round 750,000 deaths, whereas I cited a reference stating a minimum of 700,000. The exact number of deaths in the extermination camps is still a matter of debate amongst scholars, for example the Auschwitz-Birkenau memorial was amended to reflect current research. Please accept my apologies if you feel the numbers at Treblinka or the other camps are not sufficiently accurate but I did try to use reputable sources. I have not amended the number as I do not wish into interminable discussions about the "exact" numbers of victims as I do not consider it possible to please all parties on this topic, and so limited myself into quoting sources considered reliable. Dean Armond 03:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Victim numbers

Does anyone know why this section was removed? I have asked user 74.228.176.207 if he could raise the topic on this discussion page. In the meantime I have created a similar section.
--Dean Armond 03:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles about the death camp uprisings?

Sobibor, Treblinka, Birkenau? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect term

before they agreed on that Final Solution would mean extermination of all Jews (and every Jew on the planet Earth), by 1941.

The Germans never said, implied or even intended to kill every Jew on Earth. This statement is absolutely unfounded and completely outside reality. The fact is the "the final solution" as we know it is little more than an interpentation of something that was said, and as someone who had a chance to see many records first hand, one I do not agree with. From my perspective the "the final solution" took place at what was a meeting to determine what to do with so many Jewish captives with German supplies dwindling. It is my belief is that the Germans never intended to kill the jews but to relocate them, and the area of Poland was intentional since it was by the historical degree from Poland, while looking for "banking" experts that led to the mass influx of Jewish people in the region. Of course my opinion does not directly matter.

What does matter is the Germans murdered many Jewish people, no matter the reasons, and for that they were wrong.

That does not however give us, meaning the peoples of this era, the right to assume what their intentions were and call it history. More to the point it does not give the author of this document the right to make his own, fully unsupported assumptions and put them in this article. The unfounded assumption that the Germans intended to exterminate all the Jewish people on Earth should be removed.

Further more the person who wrote that statement needs to review the historical meaning of "Jewish" since the German's used the term as it was historically correct and the modern "Holocaust experts" do not - a fundamental flaw in trying to understand the German motives.

Historically the people practicing the "Jewish" faith are NOT Jews simply because they embrace Judaism. Historically "Jewish" people are descendants of Abraham and that lineage has absolutely nothing to do with faith. Even the Jewish Rabbi agree - often they reference The Talmud as proof of this fact.

This point is important for understanding Nazi Germany's decisions. Hilter was intensively educated in the history of peoples and religion and had a deep understanding of how the "Jewish people" came to the lands in and near the Germanic lands. He also understood how this effected the German state. Combining that knowledge and how the Axis lands were divided following WWI and the only outcome of those decisions Hitler decided to first cripple the "culture" he felt responsible. That does not mean he intended to exterminate the "Jewish people" and in fact evidence proves he considered other options.

The reaction to anything viewed as "anti-Jewish" is exactly what Germany itself was up against. Their decisions on how to act on that, from simply relocating by force, to outright murder were all wrong - but that is the root cause. That fact can not be ignored because when one understands that then it is easier to trace the roots of how the decisions came to be and how to aviod them again.

Statements like the Germans intended to exterminate all Jews simply inflame the subject and distort the truth and deny us the chance to learn from this terrible time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.50 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• Germans can be bit vague depending on the context - for instance, in 1943 at Auschwitz, only about 55% of the SS there were actually ethnic Germans. I would suggest Nazi as the least weasely word. But please note that talk pages are not for such ruminations of your personal understanding, and at any rate, you are flat-out wrong - see Heydrich's comments at the Wannsee conference here for instance, and Hitler's intentions leave nothing to the imagination whatsoever. WilliamH (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Auschwitz was a German camp. The nationality of the guards is unimportant. Even if the German government collected enought US or Dutch Nazis to do the job, the camp would have remained German.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Auschwitz concentration camp does not inform about the nationality of the guards. If you have reliable data, contribute,Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

primarily the Jews of Europe, Eastern Europeans, as well as Roma (Gypsies)

I'm Eastern European and Eastern Europeans weren't exterminated like the Jews. Serbs aren't Eastern Europeans. Soviet POWs weren't generally exterminated in the extermination camps. Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Polish reactions to alleged complicity"

I would like to remove entirely the section "Polish reactions to alleged complicity". Article is about extermination camps and not about misleading usage of the "Polish camps" by some media. Please comment. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• I object. This is pertinent. Removing it is unjustified. Secondly, with this, it appears you just have the wrong end of the stick. Disambiguating that these camps were Nazi/German and not of Polish origin is absolutely paramount. WilliamH (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment WilliamH. I have changed that to something like this[[1]]it should address your concerns.--Jacurek (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• That's not tenable. Aside from the fact it's bad english, it's implicit. I am talking about various Polish authorities/media outlets actively voicing their objection to when other people refer to said camps as of Polish origin, which is clearly wrong. WilliamH (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right but this article is about Camps and not the problem you mentioned above. Let's wait for opinions of others. Mean time, since you are a native speaker, could you improve English there ? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• Of course it is, but it needs a mention, and a link to the main article here. WilliamH (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks William. I added this.[[2]]--Jacurek (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistent?

The lede/lead states "Nazi Germany" and "The Holocaust" as being key elements for 'extermination camp' yet later in the article 'Jasenovac' is mentioned, which was not controlled by Nazi Germany and not usually considered to be part of 'The Holocaust'. I am aware that there has already been much discussion on this topic already, and I am neutral as to whether this article should include this (or other camps), but for this article to be valid, it is essential that it is consistent. Should the lede be changed and the reference to 'Nazi Germany' be removed or not?
Dean Armond (talk) 13:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wider awareness of the concentration camps during the War

This article would benefit from a section describing the level of awareness of the Allied military of concentration camps operated by Germany during the War and how this might have affected their strategies, something about the liberation of the camps after the War, and about awareness within Germany of the camps during and immediately after the War. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.12.92 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

jewish forced labor camps were also death camps, even without gas chambers, etc.

section 2 Definitions, paragraph 4 (forced labor camps - Arbeitslager), is internally inconsistent and reads as follows:

Extermination camps should also be distinguished from forced labor camps (Arbeitslager), which were set up in all German-occupied countries to exploit the labor of prisoners of various kinds, including prisoners of war. Many Jews were worked to death in these camps, but eventually the Jewish labor force, no matter how useful to the German war effort, was destined for extermination. In most Nazi camps (with the exception of POW camps for the non-Soviet soldiers and certain labor camps), there were usually very high death rates as a result of executions, starvation, disease, exhaustion, and extreme brutality; nevertheless, only the extermination camps were intended specifically for mass killing.

emphasis added.

please compare the two emphasized passages: first, in a forced labor camp, the jewish labor force "was destined for extermination".

in the second, forced labor camps are distinguished from extermination camps because only in latter were were intended specifically for mass killing.

this seems inconsistent, unless it is true to say that jewish forced labor camps were always also death camps, as the jewish labor force was always exterminated?

i beleive this could be correct. for example,

• at Mittelwerk, the underground v-2 factory, jewish Mittelbau-Dora forced labor was used, worked to death or executed when no longer useful or to protect secrets.

• at Lager Sylt, alderney concentration camps, the jewish forced laborers built air defense tunnels, along with other inmates from three other camps. when the nazi's abandoned alderney, the evacuated the other three camps, and live buried all surviving jewish inmates of lager sylt in the tunnels.

other examples exist. so, i propose section 2 Definitions, paragraph 4 be rewritten (hopefully more inline with the following), and a consensus should be reached that jewish forced labor camps are also classified as death camps (since the nazi intent was work the jews to death, or execute them when the job was done). ie, for a jew the only difference betweeen those two types of camps is length of stay. the brutality and murder remain.

ciao -  diremarc _(talk) 10:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

extermination by work - that was the common phrase. not only ment for jewish people, but for nearly all slave workers from eastern european countries(incl sov pow´s) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.50.48.252 (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

on the other hand industrial massextermination with no use for the workingpower. as much as possible, as cheap as possible, as quick as possible exclusive for jews.

Obvious contradiction in the section 'Operation of the camps'

The article reads:

He describes how he arrived at Belzec on August 19, 1942 (the camp's gas chambers used carbon monoxide from a gasoline engine) where he was proudly shown the unloading of 45 train cars stuffed with 6,700 Jews, many of whom were already dead, but the rest were marched naked to the gas chambers, where, he said:

Unterscharführer Hackenholt was making great efforts to get the engine running. But it doesn’t go. Captain Wirth comes up. I can see he is afraid because I am present at a disaster. Yes, I see it all and I wait. My stopwatch showed it all, 50 minutes, 70 minutes, and the diesel did not start. The people wait inside the gas chambers. In vain. They can be heard weeping, “like in the synagogue,” says Professor Pfannenstiel, his eyes glued to a window in the wooden door. Furious, Captain Wirth lashes the Ukrainian assisting Hackenholt twelve, thirteen times, in the face. After 2 hours and 49 minutes—the stopwatch recorded it all—the diesel started.

What is the reference for a 'gasoline engine' in Belzec? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.106.225 (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

broadest definition?

why do you put 26mil sov on the death toll? that would include the dead partisans and put the soldiers on a level with industrial exterminated civilians. there´s no real citation, yet(197 - sovjets missed 26 mil people on the 60´s workforce. wtf?!). plx delete 78.50.48.252 (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

'Extermination Camps in Colonial Territories'

Holocaust was horrific and I believe this page is fairly accurate in many regards. We also need to highlight similar acts committed by colonial administrations over natives of colonized territories during the Colonial period.

Any suggestions?

Regards, Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottPAnderson (talk • contribs) 10:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You would need to provide convincing evidence from multiple neutral sources that such establishments really existed and were generally referred to as extermination camps. . . Galloping Moses (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The first thing you need is reliable sources (ie published history books) about the 'similar acts'. Without them, there is no way to get verifiable information for the article.

I believe that you will have difficulty finding such sources, because true extermination camps were really only run by the Nazis. Andersonville, British camps in the Boer War, Indian reservations and the Herero and Namaqua Genocide don't come up to the scale, intentional lethality and industrialised nature of the extermination camps.

(side note - on talk pages (but not article pages) can you finish your contributions with four tildas: ~~~~ please? This appends a signature and timestamp, which makes it easier for everyone to follow the debate. Also, it is customary to add to the bottom of talk pages.) cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all, appreciated. I do have the verifiable source material and I am in the process of collecting more and adding citations.

Glalloping Moses, I disagree that the word "Extermination Camp" has to have been used. The acts, intention and scale should be the primary factors to determine whether extermination was taking place or not.

Nothing compares to what the jews experienced. However we should not use that as a way to contrain the voices of other communities who went though similar artrocities.

One more question: Can I place the material here - or do you prefer is I created a separate page so as not to interfere with your page?

Regards, Scott ScottPAnderson (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

For material you want to add to this article, the place for it is this talk page. If it applies more to other historical events, you might look to see if articles on them already exist, and apply the same process on those articles'

talk pages.

Concerning whether you need to find usage of the term 'extermination camp', it would certainly help your case if you do. As wikipedia editors, we are not supposed to engage in original research or synthesis of existing research - we just report what reliable sources, and thus the academic consensus, say. Sorry to bombard you with policy and guideline pages, but you do need to understand how editing is done here, or you will find it a frustrating process.

Also, I notice you are still both revert warring at the Mau Mau page. Take it to talk. Cheers, Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Squiddy, do i sense a "god" attitude? I am very well aware of the policies and guidelines. Am sure you can state your opinions without being patronising?

If we go by your own argument, then there were no Concentration camps in Germany because Germans never used the words "Extermination Camp". Germans don't speak English. Do you see how your logic is flawed? Genocide is genocide. If you take sides, then you become no better than holocaust deniers.

I know it is an emotive issue. However, please lets be adult about this. Thank you.

ScottPAnderson (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I came across as patronising, but I assumed you were unaware of the various policies I linked to because you were breaking them by your edits. I am glad to see that you are aware of them, and will be gladder if you edit accordingly.

Plenty of academic historians use the term 'extermination camp' (in English language books) and Vernichtungslager (in German ones). That is sufficient for the term to be used here.

NB the terms 'concentration camp' and 'extermination camp' cannot be used interchangeably. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Squiddy. Actually, I am not breaking any rules. That is your personal opinion based on your personal misunderstanding of the rules - which you seem quick to implement unilaterally and unconstructively as a "self-appointed wiki-police".

We need to discuss specific issues in talk pages and arrive at a neutral concensus. ScottPAnderson (talk) 11:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article needs improvements - especially NPOV related aspects

This article does not meet Wikipedia NPOV (neutrality) standard. It contains many unattributed assertions, judgements and opinions.

Kindly add citations etc to improve it.

ScottPAnderson (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Please review it, and note where substantiation might be required.

Regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 01:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is pure propaganda, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.64.102 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed several points from "Selection of sites for the camps" section

I've moved a lot of the points from this section to here, and I've given the reason(s) for removal after each one:

• Being within Nazi-occupied lands, the Allies were less likely to detect them and their activities.
  • WP:OR, or at least uncited. I've never seen this as a reason for siting in the East, anyway.
• The technologically underdeveloped Eastern Europe had fewer means of communications via which the camps’ existence could be communicated beyond Europe.
  • WP:OR, or at least uncited. I've never seen this as a reason for siting in the East, anyway.
• The Wehrmacht’s operations occupied most of the Eastern European railway network, thus exterminations were logistically impossible to effect at the Eastern Front.
  • The Wehrmacht was not the responsible body for the extermination camps, and exterminations were carried out at the eastern front (or just behind it as it advanced - see Einsatzgruppen
• Because most of the warfare was at the Eastern Front, against Russia (USSR), the camps were easily disguised as war-effort production facilities.
  • uncited, and AFAIK the camps weren't disguised as production facilities.
• Poland was the ideal place for the death camps, because, per Nazi ideology, it was a land of Slavic Untermenschen; see: The Nazi Doctors. Yet, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the greatest death camp, was in eastern-most Greater Germany, therefore, in the Reich proper, not in Poland.
  • WP:OR, speculation, non sequitur, self-contradictory.
• The crimes against humanity would not be occurring on historic German soil.
  • uncited, AFAIK this was not a consideration.
• Western Europe was more urbanized, therefore, land was more readily available in eastern Europe — a consideration for camp size and secrecy, being distant from towns and cities was meant to hide the smell of burnt human flesh and the ashes produced by the crematoria.
  • WP:OR, uncited, speculation, contrary to commonsense (there were large rural areas in the west) and historical fact (Majdanek concentration camp was in the outskirts of Lublin).

If anyone can provide reliable sources to show that historians consider any of these points to have been factors in the location of death camps, that would be welcome. As it is, it looks like someone's OR. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of one badly sourced sentence

I removed this sentence, since it was sourced with a Wikipedia link that didn't back the claim up at all, and is probably false:

'Previous to this, smaller death camps did exist but not to the scope of during the war.'

It cites the Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany article as backup, and that article doesn't claim there were extermination camps, the List of Nazi concentration camps doesn't list any dated prior to 1940 (and that was Auschwitz, which wasn't an extermination camp until about 1942. -- 86.131.202.187 (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

'mostly Jews'

In the intro it says that the camps killed 'mostly Jews', but my understanding is that around 6 millions Jews were murdered, and around 5 million Soviets, Poles, Romani, etc. 55% doesn't seem like 'most' to me. I understand articles about the holocaust are sensitive and plagued by POV denialists, so I don't want to go making any changes before seeking comments. Ashmoo (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the extermination camps were used primarily to kill Jews, in terms of total numbers. Roma were also gassed in them, but the total is an order of magnitude smaller. Soviet POWs were mostly left to starve or succumb to disease, and were not gassed in anything like the same numbers as Jews, although huge numbers perished. The same is true of non-Jewish Poles (although I'm less sure about this). This means that by far the largest fraction of extermination camp victims was made up of the Jews, and although the total number of non-Jews killed is about the same (order of 5-6 million, mostly Soviet POWs and Poles), very few of these were killed in the gas chambers of the camps which were set up as killing facilities. The confusion arises because the mortality rate in POW and other camps was very high, although these do not count as extermination camps in the sense of this article. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nazi-German concentration camps

Commonly, the term 'Polish concentration camps' is used, though the responsibility for that is Nazi German. Please, find several links attached:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Poland_controversy http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/27/us-auschwitz-name-idUSL2776311720070627 http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TAD5JTSSBQGU9D4I8

I understand that for you it is clear that Nazi Germans were responsible for Holocaust, but some people do not know European history that well, especially those from outside the continent. This is not because of their ignorance, but rather distance to Europe or the focus of their education systems on other fields of knowledge than history. Also, believe me or not, holocaust is being denied: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4

From the year 2007, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the biggest concentration camp's name is as following: 'Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp'. This is stated by the United Nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31

Do you agree the change from 'Concentration camps' into 'Nazi-German concentration camps' or 'German Nazi concentration camps' is a need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talk • contribs) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:Death & Mil Hist Assessment Commentary

I downgraded the article to C-class for WP:Death and Start-class for WP:Military History. There are several paragraphs scattered throughout the otherwise excellent article that need in-line citations. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"Christians"?

"Contemporary Holocaust debate about the Nazi-German concentration camps concerns the complicity of the local populaces who claimed ignorance of and about the camps and their activities (see: Hitler's Willing Executioners, 1996). Although many Christians saved their Jewish neighbors, other Christians ignored the Nazi persecution and, as collaborators, betrayed the Jews to the authorities."

Is the identifier "christians" appropriate here? We cannot presume the particular religious affiliations of Germans. This looks like somebody trying to have a bit of a poke at Christianity. These killings were ethnic, not religiously motivated. I am an atheist btw so have no axe to grind.82.71.30.178 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think that para had numerous problems - the one you pointed out, also being filled with Easter eggs, also that it wandered off the topic of the section. I have re-written it. The aim was (I assume) to point out that genuine scholarly debates occur in Holocaust studies (contrary to the denier fiction portraying 'court historians' as a monolithic bloc who all agree). To illustrate this the final para now mentions the functionalism vs intentionalism debate as well as the complicity debate, in the text rather than hidden away in a link. Thanks for bringing it here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 21:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the new paragraph is much better and encyclopaedic.82.71.30.178 (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Move

I've reverted the page move from 'Extermination camp' to 'Nazi German extermination camp' for several reasons:

• The move was not discussed and should be the result of consensus, particularly as the article has been at the old title for years
• The proposed new title is cumbersome and not commonly used
• The existing title is not vague or ambiguous

Thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - That user who moved the page has a history of controversial moves, including the Marie Curie page. Ng.j (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
• Do not move The first major problem here is that users were attempting a cut and paste move, which does not keep the article history intact. Secondly, extermination camp seems to be the common name, and these move attempts seem to be a response to a gaffe President Obama made calling them Polish death camps. AniMate 19:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
• Keep/Do not move/Concur: The initial moving editor clearly overstepped bounds by making the move on a high-profile article, about an emotional subject. The editor has persisted in reverting subsequent attempts to move the content back to the original title. The content should be put back to the title "Extermination camp", and then some level of protection should be added.Boneyard90 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Shark Island inclusion

I reverted the deletion of Shark Island Extermination Camp from the See also section, for a couple reasons:

1. The term "extermination camp" is in the title of the Shark Island article. Therefore, whether it was or was not an actual "extermination camp", or whether or not people of the time called it an "extermination camp", it may be of interest to readers. It would very likely be of further interest to readers who are looking for a broader perspective on what may constitute an "extermination camp".
2. After a very brief search, I found that the terms "extermination campaign" and an "Extermination Order" are used liberally in The angel of death has descended violently among them" : concentration camps and prisoners-of-war in Namibia, 1904-08 (2005), by C.W. Erichsen, in connection with Shark Island, stating that conditions were "not conducive to survival". It also is called "Shark Island concentration camp" (p.65).

If there is further problem with equating Shark Island with its extermination label or policies, I suggest that issue be taken up at Talk:Shark Island Extermination Camp. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I deleted since, as discussed above, no-one else actually describes Shark Island as an extermination camp, and it does not fit the description of an extermination camp. Even the linked article was titled Shark Island Concentration Camp until it was moved without discussion as a technical edit. Germany's campaign in South-West Africa against the Herero may well be described as one of extermination - but this does not make Shark Island an extermination camp, any more than Hitler's extermination campaign against the Jewish people makes every camp they were in extermination camps. Notably, as is discussed in this article, and by the other editors above who discussed this subject previous during other attempts to insert references to Shark Island into this article, concentration camps are not the same as extermination camps. Gross Rosen was undoubtedly a place "not conducive to survival" since tens of thousands of innocent people died there, but it was not "designed for quick and efficient industrialized killing" - that is, it was not an extermination camp according to definition listed on this page, and neither was Shark island.

There are many works written referring to Shark Island as a concentration camp, including Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction (Adam Jones, 2010), Border Conflicts in a German Colony: Jakob Morengo and the Untold Tragedy of Edward Presgrave (Peter Curson, 2012), The Devil's Handwriting: Precoloniality and the German Colonial State in Qingdao, Samoa, and Southwest Africa (George Steinmetz, 2007) Germany's Genocide of the Herero: Kaiser Wilhelm II, His General, His Settlers, His Soldiers (Jeremy Sarkin-Hughes, 2011). None I've been able to find or cited anywhere on Wiki refer to it as an extermination camp. Listing it as a relevant subject on this page is therefore incorrect since it is not relevant to subject under discussion. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My issue is not with the history of Shark Island, or the accuracy of the label. In regard to a "See also" section, the main thing that matters is what may be of interest to the reader who may want to read related articles. If there were a heavy metal rock band named "Extermination Camp", I would probably put it in the "See also" section. Such a hypothetical band would clearly not be an actual extermination camp, but the term is there in the title, and thus, may be of cultural interest for the reader, to see how the term is applied. Furthermore, even if the title of the Shark Island article is changed, it may also warrant inclusion, as an "extermination campaign" was carried out there, and it was conducted by Germans, so the parallels to the present subject would suggest it would be of interest to the reader. Even as a "concentration camp", the Shark Island article would still be relevant to the reader. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The subject of concentration camps in general, and why extermination camps are actually not the same thing as concentration camps, is explained in detail on this page in the definitions section, with links to the page on concentration camps where Shark Island is listed alongside dozens of similar camps. There is no need to include a further link to a single example of a concentration camp from a different period in history.

The fact that the Germans undertook an extermination campaign in German South-West Africa does not make the Shark Island camp any more relevant to the subject of extermination camps since it was not an extermination camp. It was a concentration camp and is therefore addressed on the page related to them.

The idea that a rock band might be included on this page in the 'see also' section simply because it was called 'Extermination Camp', rather than on a disambiguation page, is absurd - it would have no relevant connection to the subject at hand. Actually, this isn't even a hypothetical - Joy Division aren't mentioned on the page dealing with German camp brothels in World War II for the very good reason that they have no real relevance to the subject discussed.

Basically, the efforts to include Shark Island as a link on this page appears to be part of the long-running, long-dismissed campaign of a few editors to include Shark Island on this page when it is actually not relevant since it was not an extermination camp per se. The discussion threads from the previous times this has been discussed can be seen above, and convincing show why Shark Island is not relevant to the subject at hand. FOARP (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You may have some justifiable points, but my main point is that this page is not where one makes arguments about the title for Shark Island Extermination Camp. Change that article's title, and then I will be more amenable to relenting to your other arguments. However, I scroll up the page, and I see 3 or 4 registered editors that have been more on my side of the argument going back to 2007. In your last edit summary, you claim support on the SIEC Talk page from "multiple editors", but when I look over there, all I saw was a few drive-by comments from some AnonIP's. I have seen very little evidence that is "convincing... why Shark Island is not relevant to the subject at hand." Add SIEC back to the See also section until such time as you can get that title changed. That is really the best and most justifiable procedure. Boneyard90 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Documentary evidence photo

The document [here] -- the railway consignment form -- has a mysterious date. It is an order for one wagon of prisoners being sent from Treblinka to Sobibor and the date is November 4, 1943. This is after either Treblinka or Sobibor served as extermination camps. This particular document, then, could relate to the program of destroying evidence following the revolts at the two death camps. I don't mean to suggest that the document doesn't relate to this page or to question at all what happened at either of these places. But I did happen to notice that date, and there is something worthy of further investigation, or perhaps further explanation.

Roches (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Nazi vs. German

THe Extermination camps were not established by the Nazi party, but by the legitimate German Government and/or military during the period when the Nazi party was in control. Should the title of this entry not be "German extermination camp", "Nazi-era German extermination camp"?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.28.42 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006.

The current title follows prevailing English-language usage; either of your suggested titles would be a neologism. nd I think the prevailing usage is probably appropriate.

Whether the term is the prevailing usage has no relevance with regard to its correctness. Using the attribute "Nazi-" rather than "German-" estranges the concept from the German government and people. The Nazi party was, as mentioned, the legitimate German government. The party was elected, it did not gain power via a coup d'etat or otherwise. This ambiguity put forth to remove the responsibility from Germany as a whole has recently lead to the Polish plan to rename the German concentration camp of Auschwitz.

I'm sorry how is "German" a neologism? Furthermore, I don't believe Wikipedia has any reason to "remove the responsibility from Germany." Germany declared war- not the Nazis. I cannot think of a single other historical incident wherein the occupying forces were remembered as their party name over their empire. 108.16.41.145 (talk) 00:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Photo title

The title of the photograph of Auschwitz (enlarged on its own 800X600 page) is 'File:Barbered wire near by the entrance of Auschwitz I.jpg'. I believe it should read 'Barbed...' (Please excuse if I am doing this incorrectly.) 0onie (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Shark Island

Was Shark Island an extermination camp? If yes, why isn't it fully described on this page? If no, why is it included as an external link? Seems to me it was discussed some time ago and the conclusion was that it wasn't an extermination camp, so why is it linked to as such? FOARP (talk) 10:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with removing Shark Island from the 'see also' list. Good call. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

General comment

There has obviously been a lot of effort put into this article and a lot of good intent. Its seem in my humble opinion that it could be improved further. I've tried to improve the structure a little. There still appears though to be many comments made without any references to back them up. There are also numerous contradictions (eg the comment of Jasenovac being the only such camp non nazi operated, yet there's other Yugoslav camps listed).

There's also what seems to be some missing info, eg a table that doesn't include all of the camps listed elsewhere in the article.

Best wishes to whoever wants to take on improving this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.211.169 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Stutthof concentration camp

There were a couple of photos in the extermination camp article (I have removed from them). Should this camp be added to those mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.210.116 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)