Talk:International response to the Holocaust

Untitled

It would be nice to see some good links or references. Thanks. --Splitpeasoup 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Laundry List

Can we get this article to lose its laundry list form by integrating the sections into a larger body of explanatory text which links the central points and ideas together in a way that's more substantive? This is really the only form in which I believe the article should be kept. In it's current form I feel that it's rather pointless and should be deleted. --Strothra 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Language issue: camp _inmates_ (not _prisoners_)

In writing about individuals in concentration camps, POW camps, and their ilk, I recommend using the term inmates rather than prisoners. The latter carries a criminal connotation, associate as it necessarily is with the word "prison", while the former is more neutral as to the reasons for their internment.

I'll particularly note that in writing texts for Web resources, I evaluate English usage in light of the needs of the large reader population whose English is non-native. For the sake of these readers' optimal comprehension, words with unwanted connotations are best avoided if a clearly suitable alternative is available. Deborahjay 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Auschwitz Throughout the whole course of the war, the Allied Powers never tried bombing the death camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau or the train tracks leading there. The Allies said that their planes couldn't reach the death camp from their airbase and that an airstrike would not be precise enough to ensure the safety of the inmates [3]. It is known that American planes have flown farther distances, such as from northern Italian airbases to Warsaw and back. Regarding the latter, many accusers state that bombing Auschwitz, even if they would have killed all the Jewish inmates, would all together save many more Jews, since the Nazis kept gassing Jews for a long time. [4] It is believed that if Auschwitz had been bombed, the Nazis would have reverted to other methods of mass killing their victims, such as open air shootings, although it would have taken precious time, as was the case in the dismantling of the Sobibor death camp. [5]

I'm not sure the references in this section actually relate all that well to the body of the text. The link [3] doesn't have the allies saying they couldn't reach Auschwitz, link [4] doesn't say that American planes could fly further distances (although link [3] points out that the British photographed Auschwitz from the air), and it doesn't quote anyone talking about how more lives would have been saved by a bombing. And I'm not too sure what the relevance of link [5] is. --Coroebus 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree but it seems that if you try to debate it or make changes to the article which reflect that then individuals want to enter into an edit war over it. I'm glad I have someone agreeing with me on this issue. Feel free to make changes to the article but you're very likely to get into an edit war. I stopped because I refuse to let other bring me to that bickering level. --Strothra 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, which had been receiving reports from refugees who had escaped to Britain about the nature of the camps, sometime mid-war asked the RAF to bomb the concentration camps but Harris refused, well aware of the political repercussions that would accrue, some vociferous and influential British Jews at the time pressing for a homeland in Palestine, in addition, the bombing of the camps by Britain would have been a heaven-sent international propaganda coup for the Nazi propaganda machine, viz. the British 'Murdering Jews'. Then there's the moral aspect, few aircrew would have willingly bombed defenceless prisoners with the likelihood of killing large numbers of them. Many aircrew if aware of the intention of the raid would have likely refused to fly. It was only with the liberation of Bergen-Belsen in April 1945 that the Allies had concrete proof of the conditions in which the prisoners were kept, before then the Allies couldn't be sure the reports they were receiving on the horrific nature of the camps were accurate and true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.157 (talk) 08:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge

The other page is an article; it is not a list, redirect, category or service page. gidonb 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in my AfD of this article, it should be redirected instead of being just a laundry list. I completely support this merge. --Strothra 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I am a little confused by the procedure. There was no initialization of the discussion or even a tag in the other article. It was only claimed that the international response to the Holocaust is not an article. Although there may be advantages to a merger, this does not seem to be correct.
2. I do not know why this article should be merged or not. Was it created because the Holocaust article was getting too long? Such information would be helpful when a merge procedure is started. Without a proper start of the merge discussion we may never know. gidonb 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

OK the tags look good now. gidonb 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

im him 2404:4408:7735:E800:CC2B:4070:F006:A278 (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge - The Holocaust

This merge header appears to have been around since 17th June 2006 according to the history of the article International response to the Holocaust. It needs to be addressed by editors of this and the other article. Gnangarra

• I cant see any reason to merge the two articles The Holocaust is already 106k, this article really needs to broken into smaller articles. Gnangarra 05:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, and split The Holocaust on other grounds. There are no criteria as to whether a section should be here. (I did vote delete in the AfD, because I believed that all the information was or should have been contained in the respective main articles for each section.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

International Response?

I do not think that this article contains sufficient references to the international response of the Holocaust. If it did, it would release statements issued by world powers, response of the international Jewish community and references to books that go into the subject in more detail. Hence, when the aforementioned items are included, then and only then will it be sufficiently detailed to be regarded as an article relating to the international response to the Holocaust. Discuss Ahadland 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Too Biased

I nominated this article. There are so many sentences that need citations and seem one sided. One example:

In particular, the Allied Powers were accused to be negligent in saving Jews.

It is believed that if Auschwitz had been bombed, the Nazis would have reverted to other methods of mass killing their victims, such as open air shootings, although it would have taken precious time, as was the case in the dismantling of the Sobibor death camp.

Factual inaccuracy over bombing of Auschwitz

Linked to the point above; Primo Levi's personal account ( If This Is a Man ) mentions bombing raids, the construction of shelters and the destruction of the train line branch to Auschwitz during the closing year of the war in europe - if only related to his little patch of Auschwitz. This conicides in his account with the advancing Red Army and so it could be assumed that Auschwitz was either deliberately or accedentally bombed by the Russians, who either knew its purpose or simply wanted to take out communication lines and what would appear from the air to be a military base. This ommision seems to show either an anglo-centric view of what "the Allies" means in the entry or perhap a need for it's points to be re-written to show that although Auschwitz was bombed as the front line advanced towards it, it was never specifically targeted for bombing during the rest of the war - showing the Allies ignorence or inactivity in helping Auschwitz's victims.

If anyone at all bombed Auschwitz, it would first have to be mentioned here, then we can link to it and mention it. As of now, that article says no one did. If you have good sources saying otherwise, please help fix that article. Thanks, Crum375 23:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Non-compliant

I didn't put the tag at the top of the article in the first place, but I think it should stay there. Here are some reasons why:

1. No mention is made of international action during the Holocaust. As the lede mentions, at least three countries protected their Jews from the occupying Nazis. Other countries took as many Jewish refugees as they could.
2. Most of the article is made up of criticism of the Allies for their inaction. No explanation is provided for the actions they took (or rather didn't take).
3. Except for the footnotes in the lede (which I wrote), the article is virtually unsourced.

I don't think that WP:NPOV requires that an article like this justify the world's failure to act to stop the Holocaust, but I think that it should include reasonable opposing views (like those I wrote about in the lede).

As I wrote, I didn't put the tag there in the first place, but these are some of the reasons I think it should stay there. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spain

Would the information of Spain in the Second World War be useful? --Error (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC) This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

Controversy over Pius and Catholic Church

The following tag has been inserted:

This section contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (March 2008)

The tone of the section that immediately follows this tag is fair and mild. The section closes with a reference. Hence, I challenge the appropriatenss of this tag. Dogru144 (talk)

Pope Pius did not have an admirable record on the Church and the Holocaust, e.g., he was silent on the atrocities. See this section of his biography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#The_Holocaust Dogru144 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is actually not so. The article was poorly sourced as it was when you linked to it. Xandar 16:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Vatican has a long history of anti-semitism, though it prefers the term anti-judaism. To support this, I would recommend "The Popes against the jews" by David Kertzer. In the decades preceding WWII, there is no change in the attitude of the Vatican towards the Jews. Pius XII was an extreme germanophile. He admired Hitler and hoped Hitler would restore the power of the Church in Russia. When, at the beginning of the war. Poland was invaded and Polish bishops, priests and Jews were slaughtered by the nazi's, the Pope refused to condemn the nazi's, but spoke of the fate of the Polish people as hit by a natural disaster. This can be found o.a. in "Pabste der 20. Jahrhundert" by Karlheinz Deschner. Pius XII was informed about the situation in Germany. The diplomatic machinery of the Vatican was probably the most powerful one during the war. It had representations in nearly all countries involved in the conflict. In Yugoslavia the Vatican was well informed about the mass-conversions and executions of Serbian Orthodox and Jews by the catholic Ustashi. Pius XII received the leader of the Ustashi, Pavelic, while the slaughter was going on. See e.g. "Unholy Trinity" by Mark Aarons and John Loftus. It is true that Pius XII has intervened in favor of Jews. In most cases however, this was for Jews who had converted to catholicism, or were married with catholics. Even when the German army had already left Rome, he still refused to intervene for Jews waiting for the death transports. Above all, and notwithstanding individual cases, Pius XII, who always had a judgment ready on the most various subjects, has failed as a moral leader. He has never expressed himself against nazism during the war. Had he done so in e.g. 1943, when many saw alreay the outcome of the war, he certainly would have had an influence on the 30% German catholics in the Wehrmacht and the 85% catholic Austrians. He has condemned and banned communism, but "Mein Kampf" by Adolf Hitler has never been on the Index Librorum. Even after the war, the Vatican has used the Red Cross and its own organisations to help mass murderers (like Pavelic and most of his mass murdering government) escape to Australia and Latin America. (see: "The Ratlines" by Mark Aarons and John Loftus. John Loftus was a prosecutor in the US nazi hunting unit. Poldebol (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Three Countries

The article says "In three cases, entire countries resisted the deportation of their Jewish population during the Holocaust." Which three countries? --Shanedidona (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Bermuda Conference

There should be a link to the Bermuda Conference of April 1943. Short: UK and USA meet at secluded place to discuss what to do with people detained in concentration camps. The conference ended without resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poldebol (talk • contribs) 06:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Japan and the Jews during the holocaust

I reverted the edit re: Japan because it is not possible to check the references given. Japan's treatement of Jews during the Holocaust definitely deserves mention, but I am not sure that this rather poor article is the place to do this. There are good references in English, particularly the work of David Kranzler. Both government policy and the activities of individuals such as Chiune Sugihara should be treated.Joel Mc (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Axis Powers response to the Holocaust?

While Allied and International responses are discussed, where is the discussion of other Axis powers response to the Hitler/Nazi Holocaust undertaking? Is this mentioned anywhere? Vatican and Japan are mentioned, but as a whole, how did each of the Axis influenced countries react? For example, Italy and Vatican, Christian Europeans under Hitler's sphere of influence, may have reacted one way, while Japan, a very distant, non-European Axis partner, reacted a different way. Hungary, Greece, etc, each reacted in their own way. The article should somehow depict the various Axis reactions. Jimhoward72 (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Switzerland section

ColaXtra has done a good job reformatting references here and elsewhere (although I still need to be convinced that two clicks are better than one for a reference that is not repeated (but maybe I don't understand). However, it takes time to teach an old dog new tricks so I have put my refs in an old format which will need to be changed.--Joel Mc (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ColaXtra, I do need to learn it myself.--Joel Mc (talk) 10:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Joel! With my {{sfn}}ing, I started copying what they seem to have done in other articles, like the Albert Speer one. My guess, like your own, I'm sure, was that they do it this way so it looks "pretty". I can't see any other reason. Maybe a bit tidier, so easier to read? God knows. Well, I do think it looks prettier, hence I persist with it. Making the Holocaust article pretty took me AGES!!! Ah, well. I'm desperate to get rid of those Japanese-language cites, going to see if I can find replacements for them now!! ColaXtra (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Content was identified as copied verbatim from How Pius the XII Protected Jews. Removed text must not be restored. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International response to the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929083652/http://www.mjhnyc.org/documents/sosua2.pdf to http://www.mjhnyc.org/documents/sosua2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040513133343/http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-04-bermuda.php to http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-04-bermuda.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Protest-inc-w-ghetcie-warszawskim-za-murem-odcinajacym-od-swiata-kilkaset-tysiecy-0.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The use of the phrase UN Member Nations before there was a UN?

I see repeated references to UN Member Nations in 1942. This cannot really be correct as there was no UN at the time (it was formed in 1945 after WW2). Perhaps it is better to refer to the Allies? Of course, they all became UN members later and the Holocaust was one of the motivations behind the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. HughK (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It's wrong to say it had no contemporary usage; see Declaration by United Nations. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Split

I have added a split tag suggesting that some of the material covering American policy during the Holocaust be split off into a new article entitled United States and the Holocaust. Strictly, it should also be noted that the "Ickes plan for Alaska" pre-dates the Holocaust. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Brigade Piron, I support the proposed split. (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)