Talk:Nazi concentration camps

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


Site moved because of below discussion. Segatt (talkcontribs) 01:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nazi-German concentration camps[edit]

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

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:

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:

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 (talkcontribs) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is this entry necessary in addition to List of concentration camps for Poles? Moncrief, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone moved the camps detaining other people then Poles also, to the new entry.
The idea was to split the original list into three obvious pieces: Nazi, Gulag, and unclear. This separation is not dogma. If someone proves that Tomsk camp was set up by Hitler, he is welcome to make corrections. Mikkalai 17:04, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The whole list was copied over from the Polish law. I think the list was created by some historians working for Polish government, to verify retirenment rights of former prisoners. Somebody can claim, i.e. that he was imprisoned in concentration camp Washington DC, but then he can be verified by the list of actually existing camps. Logically derived conclusion says, the list should include all existing camps. Cautious 08:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I digged up some more Polish laws and more explanations. We are lucky is was an earlier version of the list, otherwise we'd had to sift out the detainment sites for members of Solidarity and other more recent dissidents. Mikkalai 09:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Lucky Solidarity leaders were, no to be in hands of Nazis or Soviets in their places of imprisonement. Cautious 09:07, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No objections on Mark's move of this particular page, but I have to notice that is is done formally, without putting the content into accordance with the tille, leaving a possibility for a next best wikipedian to come, read the article, and move it somewhere else. Mikkalai 19:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)? who?


Holocaust denial is not a "phenomenon", it is a propaganda campaign by those who seek another opportunity to commit genocide. Describing it as a phenomenon denies that it is a willful act (which incidentally is recognized as a criminal act in many European countries.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) I am so cool


Does anyone disagree that this page should be merged with Extermination camps in the Holocaust? AdamBiswanger1 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't - the other article has all the hallmarks of a POV fork, using two loaded words (extermination and holocaust) neither of which is appropriate in the title of an encyclopaedia article, however valid they may be in informal speech. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but then again we can't have a PC fest and throw Truth under the bus. "Concentration camps" is the most common usage, but perhaps they were used outside of what we consider the "halocaust"? What do you suggest for the title? (I don't think this one here is bad at all) AdamBiswanger1 12:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nazi concentration camps works well enough for me. They were used for more than extermination and more than just Jews, so it seems to be a reasonably inclusive and unambiguous name.'Bold text Maybe it could be a bit sharper, but the other article is a clear problem. Just zis Guy you know? 12:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
And yet no one involved in that article seems to want to address the idea of merging it. I think we should go ahead and do it, because it's clearly, as you said, a POV fork, and we can carefully merge any info not present in this article, noting the supposed distinction between death camps, labor camps, and concentration camps. AdamBiswanger1 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a problem here. In an article I have just edited, I specifically wanted a WP link to the death/extermination camps. If we merge, then such links may appear to be simply to labour camps and the result may be confusing. I would therefore be very chary about straightforward merging.Smerus 13:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Can we please remove homosexuals from the list of victims. It is true that there were homosexuals in the camps, but they were not there just because they were homosexual, and most homosexuals in Nazi Germany never saw the inside of a prison much less a camp. Many were high ranking nazis. They were as much victims as men standing 5'6.73324" tall. Yes there were men 5'6.73324" tall in the concentration camps. Yes this fact was recorded by camp personel. But there were plenty of men 5'6.73324" tall outside the camp or even acting as guards. 08:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

- This is nonsense, a vile little piece of holocaust denial in its own right. Homosexuals were targeted as a group, like the other group victims of the Nazis, and thus deserve a mention.

--Homosexuality, by the time Hitler (a conservative Christian candidate) was elected, was at the point of being decriminalized, and same-sex marraige was in the works. Hitler was elected on his platform of bringing back the death penalty for homosexuals and abolishing the seperation of church and state. At the time Hitler was elected there were 1,500,000 gay men in Berlin compared to 500,000 Jews in the entire country. Jews suffered a 60 +/- % mortality rate compared with 90+ % for homosexual prisioners. The major role of homosexuals is downplayed because while contemporary Evangelicals and Protestants can no longer justify anti-sematism (as the post war formation of Isreal "confirms" Biblical prophecy) they can easily justify the persection of "immoral" homosexuals. Most Christians believe that a majority Christian country simply "experimented" a little "paganism and socialism" all of the sudden for over a decade and ignore the anti-semetic teachings of Martin Luther, the treatment of Jews during the HRE, and the fact that those targeted by Evangelical NAZIs are those who can be characterized as sinners and people who God didn't love (mentally disabled, different ethncity) and should be punished for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're resurrecting a discussion that's more than four years old. The first post was rebutted and not acted upon. Please keep in mind that this page is for discussing improvements to the article, not the topic itself. Please sign your posts; see Help:Talk for help with both signing and indentation. Rivertorch (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Use of Nazi Camps After the War[edit]

Can anyone add more info on the extended use of many concentration camps by the Soviets after the war? To my knowledge, the deadly regimes of the camps continued for some time, only with German victims and a different totalitarian system in charge. Something like 2 million Germans were murdered in the 18 months following may 1945, and the now-Soviet run concentration camps played their part in this relatively unknown piece of genocide.

See the Wikipedia article Soviet special camps, although there's very little there. They weren't necessarily the concentration camps, by the way. The POW camp (an important distinction) Stalag IV-B, Muhlberg (near Neuburxdorf in what is now southern Brandenburg) was used that way. 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Request for documentation[edit]

The subsection titled: Use of Nazi German concentration camp facilities after the war lacks documentation. Will someone fill in the cites? Skywriter 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

HanzoHattori responded to this request for documentation by inappropriately labeling the request "vandalism" and, surprisingly enough, reverting the request to an earlier version that lacks documentation.

The request for documentation and proper citation stands. Thank you. Skywriter 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Whole article lacks documentation, not this. What's your problem, you don't belive it? Why? --HanzoHattori 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Third Request for Documentation[edit]

My request for documentation was reverted by HanzoHattori who does not seem to grasp the need for and requirement for documentation. The above two requests for documentation is reinstated and I ask this new and apparently inexperienced user to please avoid labeling colleagues as "trolls" or "vandals" as this is both off-putting and can quickly lead to troubles.

I will restate what is needed: Documentation of what transpired at the camps under Soviet control and buttressing of the claims of mass fatalities. These are not trivial claims and can not be included in any encyclopedia without documentation. Please refer to credible websites, journals or books that originally provide this information.

I ask also that HanzoHattori respond on this Talk page to concerns before arbitrarily deleting requests for documentation.

Thank you. Skywriter 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

West Germany special camps?[edit]

Appearently for the former SS and their families (30,000 at Dachau).[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorpio-88 (talkcontribs) 12:27, September 24, 2006

Thanks, Skorpio. The link is helpful. Skywriter 17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The "money" picture[edit]

I'm not 100% sure that the picture of what purports to be "concentration camp" money was actually issued or valid at concentration camps. The large-scale picture is clearly legible and the money is self-identified as POW (kreigsgefangener) money, intended for use at POW camps and issued by the Wehrmacht, instead of the SS. COuld it be that the same currency was used at both, or is the poster of the picture mistaken? Pat Payne 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

After looking over the picture again, it explicitly states that the money was valid only in Prisoner of War camps or in authorized "work commands". Besides, concentration camp prisoners were worked as slaves or murdered outright, so why would the Nazi regime go to the trouble of printing currency for them? I went ahead and deleted the image from the article on that basis. Pat Payne 14:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
There was no money in the concentration camps. Prisoners could let send money from home and that was put on an account. Occasionally it was possible to buy some food (not at the end of the war) or cigarettes from the money on that account. Very often the cigarettes were stolen by the capo's and co-called green-cloths (people carrying a green triangle indicating that they were professional criminals. In most camps the green-cloths were aids of the capo's, except for Buchenwald where the communist prisoners had much power inside the camp. Robvhoorn (added 17 June 2007)
Indeed, there’s no question whether this was used in concentration camps: it says right on the bill that these are coupons for the exclusive use of POWs inside POW camps and work details (“Dieser Gutschein gilt nur als Zahlungsmittel für Kriegsgefangene und darf von ihnen nur innerhalb der Kriegsgefangenenlager oder bei Arbeitskommandos...verausgabt und entgegengenommen werden.”). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 04:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
A POW-camp is not the same as a concentration camp. Indeed, in some concentration camps were sometimes a small number of POW's from western countries. But even then the POW's got in general a much better treatment than than the political prisoners or Jews. The money you refer to was probably only in use in pure POW-camps. You should not compare POW's from the western countries with concentration camp prisoners or Russian POW's, except for a very small number that indeed was treated terribly or even executed in the concentration camps. For the lemma about concentration camps only Jews, POW's of Russian origin, political prisoners, prisoners from Slavic countries and some smaller groups of prisoners are relevant.

African camps[edit]

I do not have the information ready to write a piece, but why is there no mention of the concentration camps that were set up in North Africa? There was a book written about this last year, there was at least one in Tunisia. The author of the book pointed, as a sidenote, to the reference in Casablanca to the concentration camps in Africa. 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because to date no one was aware of them. If you can write the material and source it reliably, please do. Jim_Lockhart 05:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


I am sensing a general feeling of anti-nazi views in this article. Please do your best to get this fixed.

It's hard to make information sound neutral when the facts are not only so horrifying, but have been proven. You won't find any reputible source that doesn't sound anti-Nazi, and for good reason. The article stays the way it is.

original comment-leaver: er. so an encyclopedia should balance things by being a little pro-nazi here and there? um. NO. thankyou. Cramyourspam (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Why are the Japanese camps in Canada and America not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Because the article is on Nazi concentration camps, where several million men, women, and children were murdered. Rivertorch (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


Oh god. What else Nazis ever were? --HanzoHattori 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was a nation-state. Nazis were from Germany. Hence Nazis were Germans, and unlike modern international neo-Nazi fortified camps scattered around the world, "old-Nazi" camps were solely German- to make it simple employing the above syllogisms. "Nazi" is much too ambiguous and of imprecise accuracy, dare I say vague... 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And what else "Nazi" state ever was? It's like "stinky stink". --HanzoHattori 08:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah. This is very unidiomatic, un-English usage. I'll rename it back. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just check the google hits: 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps". 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef (talkcontribs) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses, in or out?[edit]

The article’s intro, where it mentions groups targeted by the Nazis for internment, is not discussing absolute or even relative numbers; the Jehovah’s Witnesses were targeted for internment as a group—as evidenced by the Nazis’ marking them as a specific group inside the camps (they got the green violet triangles, didn’t they?).

In contrast, protestants and Catholic priests who were interned were done so not because of they were protestants or priests, but because the Nazis considered them undesirables for other reasons.

That the Jehovah’s Witnesses were targeted is clear from numerous sources, so there’s no reason for this to be repeatedly deleted—and even less reason for the abusive and uncivil remarks, whether directed at other editors or the JWs themselves. Jim_Lockhart 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The JWs were imprisoned simply because they draft resisters - they don't serve in ANY army ANYWHERE. That's it, all. Nothing really to do with their religion on the side of the Germany (they just wanted them to support the German military), and nothing particulary to do with the Nazi regime in their refusal to serve. All JWs were (and are) draft resisters, but not all resisters were JWs. Additionally, for example, some 100,000 German soldiers were executed for desertion and related offenses like "cowardice" or refusing orders (mostly late war). And what, 2,500 or so JWs singled out because they died because they were notorious draft dodgers, and even when they not executed? --HanzoHattori 15:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, actually only 2,000 died (out of 12,000 imprisoned - "large numbers"? there were more Italian soldiers in the camps).

In May 1933 the Gestapo searched the house of Ewald Vorsteher, who had been disfellowshipped from the society in the 1920s for refusing to accept the new leadership following the crisis sparked by Pastor Russell's death in 1917. The writings found in his home were highly critical of Hitler's regime, and were used as a basis for condemning the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Society reacted by strongly rejecting Ewald Vorsteher and his opinions.

Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses --HanzoHattori 15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
And here, to confim it's their USUAL practice: Beliefs and practices of Jehovah's Witnesses

Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to serve in military organizations, citing the principle they call Christian Neutrality. They understand Jesus' words , "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world," to mean that they should take a neutral stand concerning political and military controversies.[62]

Historically, this refusal to join the military has created serious difficulties for Jehovah's Witnesses, particularly in war time. During World War II, young Witnesses in a number of countries were executed for their conscientious objection to war; even in more democratic countries they were generally refused exemption from conscription and have often been imprisoned. (...) During World War II Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted by the Allies and the Axis powers for refusing to participate in these powers' respective war efforts.
And during the war the Germans were imprisoning any people mostly in the concentration camps. Draft resisters too. That's it, that's all. I understand 2,000 martyrs are important for the JW faithful, but I don't why it's important here. --HanzoHattori 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you’re saying, but none of it changes the history that the Nazis had a policy of interning JWs (Bibelforscher) for no other reason than that they were JWs. They were not interned because of their individual, personal beliefs (i.e., directly because of their refusal to serve in the military); but rather because they were members of a specific group that the Nazis had identified as an enemy. That’s why they got thrown into concentration camps and were assigned a specific identifying mark (the violet triangles: see Nazi concentration camp badges#Table of camp inmate markings). The point about mentioning them here was neither their numbers, nor why they were interned; it is that they were targeted as a group for internment, just as were the other groups specifically mentioned.

As I wrote above, protestants and Catholics (clergy or lay) who were interned, were interned as political and other similarly classified prisoners, not because of their being members of a specific, targeted groups (i.e., because of their being protestants or Catholics); JWs, in contrast, were interned because they were JWs, regardless of their personal political or other beliefs or actions. The number of JW deaths, or even whether they were executed, is irrelevant here (further, the article is not claiming that they were sent to extermination camps nor that they were killed in great numbers—though it might be more relevant to cite what proportion of JWs were killed as opposed to the absolute number: there is no argument about whether they were a small minority). Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing: if what you’re so worked about about is “Large numbers ... of Jehova’s Witnesses”, couldn’t this be easily resolved by changing “Large numbers” to “Varying numbers”? You certainly are correct in objecting to “large numbers” also modifying JWs if their numbers were so relatively small to those of other groups! Jim_Lockhart 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? How about, say, Confessing Church? They were anti-Nazi and underground in principle (VS Nazi Protestant Reich Church). JWs were jailed for specifically for their draft-dodging just like in the Allied countries - no one was ever jailed for not joining NSDAP, it was a volunteery organisation. Wikipedia itself says "because Jehovah's Witnesses would not give allegiance to the Nazi party, and refused to serve in the military" (which is one thing, as the every German soldier would be required to say the oath to Adolf Hitler).
So, the reason was their draft dodging, they did not do much more if anything more than this (as a group) - if not this, they would have no problems with their apoloticism (they were no threat whatsoever). In the countries in which Roman Catholic bishops, and even Roman Catholics themselves had openly protested and attacked Nazi policies, like in the Netherlands and Poland where bishops and priests had protested to the deportations of Jews - on the other hand, mainstream JWs "strongly rejected" mentioned dissident Vorsteher's criticism of the regime. And no, conscription refusal is not "their individual, personal beliefs" - not joining (any) military or politics is one of fundaments of the group's ideology, worldwide.
And if you mention someone in the intro, I think it should be "large numbers" anyway. --HanzoHattori 17:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Your final point, about “large numbers”, is certainly valid; but the rest of your arguments are specious at best. The Jehovah’s Witness’s organization was banned by the Nazis as early as 1933 and they were hated initially because of their alleged connections to the Jews and subversive political movements: Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses#In Nazi Germany (1933-1945). The Confessing Church was not outlawed in this way, and its persecuted members were not persecuted because of their affiliation with the church, but because of their personal political activism. I stand by may arguments about why JWs were persecuted by the Nazis, and by my argument that they are worthy of mention (albeit perhaps without the “large numbers” qualification, and certainly at the end of the enumeration and not in a separate sentence, which would give them too much prominence), and that such mention is historically accurate and accepted by mainstream historians.

On another matter, and although I have no desire to be seen as defending JWs per se, it is factually and sematically inaccurate to describe JWs as “draft dodgers” or “draft resistors”, since these are negatively loaded terms that ignore JWs’ theological justification for their being conscientious objectors.

I strongly suggest you find a way to work mention of the JWs into the introduction as one of the groups singled out by the Nazis for persecution and internment in KZs. How you do it, with all the numbers and such, is up to you; but in the interests of Wikipedia’s credibility, I suggest you do it, since you seem unwilling to allow anyone else to. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that Jehovah's Witnesses should be included as a distinctive group targeted by the Nazis. They should not be described using the term "draft dodger" as this insinuates cowardice and cast them in a negative light. According to Jesus words there is no greater love then to give ones life in behalf of ones friends. Most Witnesses would gladly give their lives so that others may live. They will not however take a human life to support a worldly government siting "We must obey God rather then men." Acts 5:29 Jehovah's Witnesses have made a commitment to take a neutral stance in political matters. By simply denouncing their faith and pledging allegiance to Hitler they could have been released from imprisonment, the vast majority of Witnesses refused and remained captive. It would also be against this neutrality to, as a group, openly scathe, or actively resist any ruling government up to the point of matters where the government's law or actions conflict with God's laws. Witness respect the authorities in their relative positions of power but these authorities are not above God's authority.

As far as numbers are concerned they are relative to the number of Witnesses living in Nazi Germany to those imprisoned or killed in concentration camps. The fact that Witnesses would do their best to not resist and obey their captors up to the point that an order given to the Witnesses conflicted with God's laws may have helped save many of their lives as the guards knew they would not resist or try to escape. Because of this many captive Witnesses where chosen of special work assignments such as housekeeper for German officers.

This is in no way meant to diminish the atrocities inflicted on the Jews or any other group. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do not condone the horrors inflicted by the Nazis or any others upon fellow human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfxcasey (talkcontribs) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Role of Catholic Party 'das Zentrum'[edit]

Look at the articles of Dachau and Zentrumspartei. Dachau was founded at 23 March 1933, the Catholic party das Zentrum was in the government coalition until it dissolved itself at 6 July 1933. It is obvious that das Zentrum was in the government at the moment of foundation of Dachau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talkcontribs) 21:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Death toll[edit]

What's the death toll of Nazi concentration camps? This should be mentioned in lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In the Dachau camp there is a memorial that talks about 6 million deaths. However, this article says much less. - João Jerónimo (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Paramilitary organizations[edit]

This can be found in the text: "The Nazis were the only political party in Germany with paramilitary organizations at its disposal, the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Sturmabteilung (SA), both of which perpetrated surprise attacks on the offices and members of other parties throughout the 1920s."

and is not correct. The SA was not the only paramilitary organization (see: - Rotfrontkämpferbund) - also note that the SS was very small in the 1920 and got only important after 1934. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


What is "14f3"? It is under "Camps during the War". If it is not needed, then somebody please remove/delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is based on the reference number from the Concentration Camp Inspectorate. Conversely, 14f1 were natural deaths; 14f2 was suicide or accidental death; 14f3 was shot while attempting to escape; 14fl was execution; etc. Looks like a 1 is missing, instead of 14f3, 14f13. El_C 00:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional information[edit]

Here is also information about the camps which could be valuable: I don't know if nowaday's mainstream view is correct, the view expressed in the mentioned link, or a mix of both views. Nowowiejski (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nazi prisons in Germany[edit]

I can not find any articles about specific prisons (Gefängnise) and penitentiaries (Zuchthäuse) in Nazi Germany. Though not at the scale of the camps, there were also brutal and also the site of numerous executions, typically by decapitation, hanging, or shooting. Before I start an introductory article, let me know if it's redundant with something else. --Leifern (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jugendkonzentrationslager ("Youth Concentration Camps")[edit]

I couldn't find any info concerning "youth concentration camps" meaning concecntration camps where youths were interned and killed. See [[2]] Johnny2323 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


File:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png Isn't that map better for the job? Also the French Wikipedia is working on an updated SVG of that map in French which can then be translated into English as needed fr:Wikipédia:Atelier_graphique/Cartes#Camps_de_concentration_nazis. gren グレン 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Types of camps[edit]

List of Nazi-German concentration camps has camps labeled as: prisoner and Nacht und Nebel(which may be hostage camps). Internment camp, Collective point and subcamp are also mentioned in the List of Nazi-German concentration camps. It might be good if the two articles listed the same types of camps.Geo8rge (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nazi concentration campsNazi-German concentration camps — Per the opening line. The proper naming of the Nazi-German (rather than Nazi) concentration camps – in terms of their numbers, built mostly in occupied Poland during WWII – was already explained by various international bodies including UNESCO, Yad Vashem, Institute of National Remembrance and two different governments. Please see the reasons given by UNESCO for renaming Auschwitz into "Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)" featured in the "Polish death camp" controversy article (the last two paragraphs). It is to discourage the intentional (or accidental) misuse of the term Nazi. —Poeticbent talk 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. Not usage; the division of repsonsibility between Hitler's Government of Germany, the German occupation authorities, the Wehrmacht, and the Nazi Party (insofar as those were distinct) should be done by the article, not the title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support, per article true subject. The nominator. — Poeticbent talk 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Nobody is calling the Nazi concentration camps, in their entirety, "Polish concentration camps", so there is no need to clarify any misconception there, and we can choose the title according to common usage and brevity.  Cs32en  00:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. In addition to the points made by Septentrionalis and Cs32en, I would also point out that the perpetrators of the crimes at the Nazi concentration camps were not all Germans. Ukrainians, Belarussians, Austrians and Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps.Varsovian (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support, so UNESCO's experts think the proper name should be Nazi-German but of course the wikipedia self-proclaimed experts know better. What we have here is some variation of the "Randy in Boise" phenomenon at its purest.  Dr. Loosmark  13:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong support - at the beginning I didn't care, but 'strongly oppose' argumentation motivated me to vote.Xx236 (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, though I would prefer simply "German concentration camps." They were run by a country, not a party. Nihil novi (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this gets moved, then some articles have to be moved to e.g. "Commie-Polish ...", too. Or how about "Polish criminal Arbeit macht frei sign theft"? And to half of the "Category:World Heritage Sites in Poland", "German" has to be added, as not only Auschwitz, but also Marienburg Castle, the Breslau Centennial Hall, the Churches of Peace in Silesia, the Muskauer Park, the old town of Thorn etc. have been created by Germans. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • No: German concentration camps just as the ones created by British authorities in South Africa were British concentration camps, the ones created by Spanish authorities in Cuba were Spanish concentration camps and so on. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Camps were set up by Nazi German Regime. I think Nazi German Concentration Camps is a proper name for it. (as per UNESCO).-- (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - Per Angus McLellan comments e.g. at Jedwabne it is Poles not Nazi collaborators who carried it out. Support either German concentration camps or Nazi German concentration camps Jniech (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - Per Septentrionalis and Cs32en. By the way, Encyclopædia Britannica also uses "Nazi concentration camp" SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 18:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not usage. --Boson (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please compare the number of hits for "Nazi concentration camps" and the number of hits for "Nazi-German concentration camps" on the Google news archive. I'm quite sure that a closer look at the sources, weighing each source's reliability, reach and notability, will not lead to a fundamentally different result.  Cs32en  22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did you pick google news? Just check the google hits:
  • 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps".
  • 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps"

 Dr. Loosmark  22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not on website counts (see WP:Google). Not all of the websites shown by Google News are reliable sources, but a much greater percentage than on the internet as a whole. The results, for "Nazi concentration camps" and "Nazi-German concentration camps", respectively, are 11600 to 19 (Google News, all times, i.e. 1930-present), 2330 to 3 (Google News, 2007 to 2009), and 6820 to 15 (Google Scholar).  Cs32en  22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"Not all of the websites shown by Google News are reliable sources, but a much greater percentage than on the internet as a whole." Says who?  Dr. Loosmark  15:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I do say this, and you may of course verify it on your own.  Cs32en  15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This is the first time I have come across the peculiar term "Nazi-German" even if a few bodies use it. "Nazi concentration camps" is probably the most common term, we should stick to it. PatGallacher (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose - Centralized debate This is a poorly conducted move. There are a large number of articles that are affected by this debate that are not included. There is also a debate on the same subject being conducted at Talk:List_of_Nazi-German_concentration_camps#Move?. I don’t really have an opinion one way or the other but I do feel that the discussion needs to be centralized to include all affected articles. Is this intended to affect just concentration camps or all Nazi related material? I am not necessary oppose to the new naming system but at least be consistent. Here are some of the names that are possibly affected by this change:--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

German should be added to all the above categories as per UNESCO that adopted the new name for Auschwitz to capture the historical truth and the fact that these places refer to the Nazi regime in Germany. The new names would also have an educational role for the younger generation of readers.--Mamalala 06:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Centralized discussion is good however I'd just point out that I don't agree that all the above cited articles would be necessarily be affected by the move.  Dr. Loosmark  21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposed title ("Nazi-German concentration camps") is either redundant (the Nazis were German) or inaccurate (not all camps were in Germany). — AjaxSmack 04:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Like Ajaxsmack, I think either "Nazi" or "German" is redundant, a bit like "Soviet-Russian". I don't think it is necessary, or possible, or desirable, to word article titles in a way the prevents every possible misconception. That is the reason why it is OK to have articles like American Civil War instead of something US-American Civil War. But I have to admit that I have no idea how common the misconception that the Nazis were Poles is. Yaan (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support: historically correct change--Rowerlali (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - - Both names are correct and personally I see no problem in adding German to the title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose from a classification point of view, this would only make sense if there had been (or were) other (non-German) Nazi concentration camps. I'm not aware of any, so the additional qualification seems redundant. Independently of that, the naming should follow the terminology most common in Wikipedia's target audience (i.e. the general public, not international buerocacies). It is my impression that "Nazi concentration camps" is both often used and well understood. Wefa (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


As far as I am aware UNESCO only use "German Nazi" to describe a camp which was in Germany for its entire operational life. However, it may be that a self-proclaimed doctor knows better. I find it ironic that a particular editor insists that the official name of a single Nazi camp should be used for an article about all Nazi camps but he also insists that the official name of a particular event should not be used for the article about that event (details here [3]).Varsovian (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but somehow I fail to see the connection between the London parade and the Nazi-German concentration camp. Btw I am not a self-proclaimed doctor so I think you should immediately withdraw the ad hominem attack.  Dr. Loosmark  14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
The official name of that event was the "Victory Celebrations", a fact proved by the official programme of the event which was produced by the British government. The parade was just one part of the celebrations. However you changed the title of the article to 'parade' from 'celebrations'. As official names clearly mean little to you, why do you insist that the official name of one particular Nazi camp is used to describe all of them? I am not a self-proclaimed expert (or Randy in Boise) so I think you should immediately withdraw the ad hominem attack. May I ask what is your doctorate in and which university it is from? Or is "Dr." simply your first name? Varsovian (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dr. is an abbreviated form of "Diether", which means "people warrior". Prof. Matthead  Discuß   22:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I have not "changed" the title of the London parade article, I have only reverted your move for which you had no consensus whatsoever. In any event the discussion about the London victory parade is completely unrelated to the Nazi-German concentration camps so I would suggest you debate the London parade on the London parade article. Btw good you have clarified you are not an expert, so I think the opinion of the UNESCO experts should still have precedence over your opinion. And no you can't ask about my doctorate because that's against wikipedia policy, just remember how an admin got angry when Jacurek asked you about a bus line in Warsaw...  Dr. Loosmark  15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
As the link I posted [4] very clearly shows, I did not change the title of that article. I would be grateful if you could be so kind as to apologise for your lying that I did change the article.
I am most grateful for your comments regarding the name of a single camp. Can you perhaps go into detail about the views of UNESCO experts as to the naming of any other camps?
Do please note that I did not ask you about your doctorate. I asked if I could ask you. Varsovian (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok my bad you have not renamed the article, but you have supported the renaming full throttle. Now if we can stop discussing the totally unrelated article that would be nice.  Dr. Loosmark  15:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

...Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps claims Varsovian. How many of more than 20 millon ethnic Poles? A dozen of Polish prizoners transported to Kulm by Germans? Were they obliged to run away through annexed Wartheland without money and documents? Xx236 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps is a disgraceful misquoting of my post. I demand that you withdraw your foul comment immediately. My statement is that persons of various nationalities are all known to have taken part in the running of Nazi camps. That is a well proven historical fact. The number of Poles is very small, but the fact is that some Poles did take part in the running of the camps. Just because you don't like the fact doesn't make it any less true.Varsovian (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I have added ..., is the quote all right now? Would you be so kind to add very small number of terrorized Polish prizoners to your disgusting original statement?Xx236 (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Can you please post some sources stating that the likes of Bronislaw Hajda and Anthony Sawoniuk were "terrorized Polish prisoners"?Varsovian (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Poles with the last name Gajda, like Bronisław, don't use the last name Hajda. Anthony Sawoniuk - please read, discuss later.Xx236 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Interestingly I happen to have made a major contribution to the Sawoniuk article today. He was a Pole: both by birth and by parentage (as an illegitimate child under Polish law of the time he automatically acquired his mother's citizenship) but it's nice to see you making the traditional Polish statement about him. What do you have to say about his fellow member of the 10th Hussar Regiment of the Polish II Corps and fellow war-criminal Szymon Serafinowicz?
As for Hajda [5]. I think that Hajda merits a WP page, he certainly is interesting enough.Varsovian (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 ::: Whether or not some small number of Poles or other people of other nationalities were take part in running the camps is irrelevant. The camps were operated by the Nazi-Germany and that's that.  Dr. Loosmark 
 ::::: Let me put it this way: you could be part of the running of the camp if you were not German. You could not if you did not support Nazi ideology.Varsovian (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 ::::::: Even if that's true what exactly is your point? If a Japanese joins the French Foreign Legion and France sends the legion to fight in some banana republic nobody will claim that the Japanese invided the banana republic. Nobody except from "Randy in Boise" style experts on wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
My point is that they didn't have to be Germans: they had to be Nazis. Nobody (other than idiotic Israeli journalists who make Randy in Boise look like Einstein) is saying that these camps were Polish, and even the idiots don't say it because a (very very limited) number of Poles worked at them. People are saying that it is not appropriate to name these camps ‘German’ just because mostly Germans worked at them: all nationalities were welcome, as long as they were good Nazis.
And then there’s also the point about common usage and brevity for titles…Varsovian (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Ethnic Poles weren't allowed to be Nazi, they had to claim they were German, not Nazi. It's elementary, Watson.Xx236 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"it is not appropriate to name these camps ‘German’ just because mostly Germans worked at them: all nationalities were welcome, as long as they were good Nazis." It's very far from true that all nationalities were welcome, the Germans did use some auxiliary forces composed by people from other countries for tactical reasons however saying that they had the same status as the German Nazis is beyond absurd. In fact to join the Nazi party you even had to be what they called arian (German or Austrian which they considered German anyway.) What counts is that the camps were run by Nazi Germany.  Dr. Loosmark  16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is important to be clear that Nazi concentration camps, where victims of the master race had died in millions, were set up and financed by the Nazi German State. This fact should not be manipulated.-- (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the word Nazi commonly imply Germany, just as Khmer Rouge implies Cambodia? Nazi redirects to Nazism, which begins with:

Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

If it can be assumed (I would so) that the well-educated English-speaking reader knows that the Nazis have been a German political movement, you can omit the word "German".

--Abe Lincoln (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Where is it defined that Wikipedia is for "well-educated English-speaking reader" only? BTW you probaly mean an "Anglo-Saxon reader", many English-speaking people from e.g. Asia don't know European history, why should they?Xx236 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not omit "Nazi" instead, and just keep "German"? Nihil novi (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Because this article doesn't cover the camps run by the German Democratic Republic (as it should not). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see that as a significant obstacle given that this is the current target of German concentration camps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Redirects are not guaranteed to be good titles. In this case, there is no article covering both subjects, and the guess that most people who type it in are interested in this article is not unreasonable. But that doesn't mean it would be a better - or as good a - title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to "Nazi-German concentration camps" would make it appear as if articles on "Nazi-Polish concentration camps", "Nazi-Croatian concentration camps" etc. could be found somewhere on Wikipedia.  Cs32en  23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Billions of people don't know who were "the Nazis". It would be interesting to ask the question to US students.
  • The camps were controlled by the German government, not by a small group of crazy "Nazis" who ocuppied Germany.

Xx236 (talk) 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change to lead section[edit]

Personally I find it this bit confusing.

Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) and extermination camps (described in a separate article), which were camps established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination of the Jews of Europe—the Final Solution, Poles – the Lebensraum, Gypsies and other nations.

Could another editor rewrite it? I suggest concentration camps are explained then extermination camps rather than have extermination in the middle e.g.

Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) used to enslaved Poles, Gypsies and others and extermination camps (described in a separate article), which were camps established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination of the Jews of Europe.

Second can I suggest the following is removed?

Extermination camps included Belzec, Majdanek, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz-Birkenau.

This article is about concentration camps and inside the article the extermination camps are listed. Having it twice seems unnecessaryJniech (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't agree with that. Firstly (and most importantly), the extermination camps were not "camps established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination of the Jews of Europe." Sobibor was the only camp solely for Jews. Secondly, concentration camps were not solely to "enslave". How about
Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) and extermination camps (described in a separate article), which were camps established for the sole purpose of extermination, i.e. killing as quickly and efficiently as possible.
The second proposal, however, is one I would support.Varsovian (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The current version states “which were camps established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination of the Jews of Europe” hence I will simply trying to make it clearer. How about

Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) were Poles, Gypsies and others suffered and extermination camps (described in a separate article), which were camps established for the sole purpose of extermination with mainly Jewish victims. Jniech (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any reason for mentioning in the introduction who went where. Mentioning it very briefly is difficult: apart from anything else, Jews (a minority admitted) also went to concentration camps, Poles who were Jews were most likely of all to go the extermination camps and (despite your proposed wording) Romani people were more likely to go to the extermination camps than concentration camps. By the way 'Gypsies' isn't the best of words to be using.Varsovian (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Again Gypsies is the current wording in the article hence my usage. Provided others support your wording, I have no problem with it. Below is another version for consideration. Does anyone know where the disabled were murdered? My impression is it wasn't in the camps but willing to be told I am wrong. I will step out for now to see what other editors think. Personally the current wording is confusing hence my hope someone will come up with a better version.

Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) were Poles, Soviet POWS and others suffered and extermination camps (described in a separate article), which were camps established for the sole purpose of extermination with mainly Jewish and Romani. Jniech (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Again no. Soviet POWs who were Jews went to the extermination camps, Poles who Jews went mainly to the extermination camps, Jews of all nationalities went to concentration camps, as did Romani people. There is no need to mention who went where but there is a need to mention what each was (as in my version above).Varsovian (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article is in order as it is. Amendments proposed by Varsovian are completely not needed.-- (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, you appear to be slightly confused: I have not proposed any amendments, I suggest changes to amendments proposed by Jniech.
It is most interesting that you state that the article is currently “in order”. Perhaps I could walk you through the introduction step by step: Holocaust scholars draw a distinction between concentration camps (described in this article) and extermination camps (described in a separate article), which were camps That bit is all fine established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination The word established suggests that the camps were only opened: they were not just opened, they ran for the majority of their intended lifespan. Three of the camps were closed only after they had exterminated the vast majority of their intended victims who were within efficient transport distances. of the Jews of Europe—the Final Solution That bit is OK but the “Europe—the” part clearly needs to be fixed. , Poles Do you have any sources to support the position that the extermination camps were established to exterminate non-Polish Jews? I have never seen any such source and so would be most interested to see one. – the Lebensraum, My understanding of Generalplan Ost is that Poles were not to be exterminated in order to make Lebensraum but instead moved (minus its leadership and intelligentsia, they were to be exterminated) and that the race was to be scattered so widely that it would be assimilated by local populations. If you do have any sources which state that the plan was for all Poles to be exterminated in the camps, I would be most interested in reading such sources. Gypsies The term is Romani. and other nations Could you provide some sources regarding the other nations for the extermination of which the camps were established?Varsovian (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Auschwitz camp combined several types of camps, it wasn't an extermination camp only.
From Majdanek: Although conceived as a forced labor camp and not as an extermination camp ...Xx236 (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the contribution. I entirely agree with your comments. My personal view is that only Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec can be considered as extermination camps but most sources don't agree with my view (which is why I'm happy to see the other camps included in the extermination camp article). However, I'm not sure I see your point with regard to this discussion. Do you think that the lead section should be changed, and if so, how should it be changed?Varsovian (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm all against the proposed change. I don't like it when wiki uses the Nazi racial theories in its' articles and decides who is a Jew, who is a homosexual or who is a Pole. From Polish point of view Poland lost ca. 6 million Poles in concentration camps of all types. It were the Nazis to brand them as Jews, politically-dangerous elements, Gypsies, homosexuals and whatever else category they had. From Polish perspective they were just Poles, regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, sexual or political preference. Besides, even in Nazi terms Jews were not the only victims of the extermination camps (even if we limit their number to three or four "factories of death", as someone called them). //Halibutt 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Jasenovac concentration camp under proposed renaming?[edit]

If the proposed move (i.e. to Nazi-German concentration camps) is accepted, we'll need to remove the link to Jasenovac concentration camp and remove that camp from the article about extermination camps (as that too will be renamed Nazi-German extermination camps). That camp was not German run. We'll also have to remove mentions of Stara Gradiška concentration camp and Sisak children's concentration camp, among others. I for one find this prospect less than appealing. Any other thoughts from anybody?Varsovian (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was not German run, then who run it?  Dr. Loosmark  18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read the article, it is quite well explained there.Varsovian (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok I have done so quickly. It appears that the camp was established by "Ustase" which was a Croatian fascist organization. The article is included here because they collaborated full throttle with the Nazis and in all probability the Nazis gave them the know-how to run the camp. Thus if we change the article from Nazi to Nazi-German those camps can remain on the list without any problems. I hope this adreses your fear that if change the name of the article we will have to drop camps from the list. Nothing like that will happen, not on my watch!  Dr. Loosmark  22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Supporting above comment as the Stara Gradiška concentration camp article states the “camp was guarded by Germans” hence name change support its inclusion. Currently it should be removed from this article as there is nothing about Nazi involvement Jniech (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Do we have enough sources to say that it was run along German instruction lines? I think perhaps not: it seems a very 'inefficient' camp, not what the German Nazis did with their big three camps. And even if we do have such sources, do we have enough to say that it was a 'German' camp? I would say not: Nazi, yes; German, no. Apart from anything else, the Germans were far more 'efficient' and 'humane' (to the murderers).
OK, we can call this a German-Nazi camp because for some of the time it was guarded by Germans & without them it would have not existed. But if that is the test, Sobibor must become a Ukrainian-Nazi camp because the majority of guards were Ukrainian & so it would have folded if they'd all run away. However, Sobibor is clearly Nazi, regardless of nationality: all the people responsible were a) Nazis and b) utter bastards. Their nationality is far far less important!Varsovian (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This conversation is taking place at the wrong venue. The only mention of Jasenovac I can see is in the template. There was an extremely long discussion about this at Template_talk:The_Holocaust. If Jasenovac was removed from this article, I'm okay, but it should definitely remain in the template. AniMate 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion was all moot anyway: the proposed move failing to pass has nicely solved the problems raised in this discussion.Varsovian (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fractured sentence[edit]

I can't make sense of this sentence (I included the second sentence in the paragraph for context):

The six largest groups containing prisoners in the camps, both numbering in the millions, were Jews and the Soviet prisoners of war (POWs). Large numbers of Roma (or Gypsies), Poles, left of center political prisoners, homosexuals, people with disabilities, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholic clergy, Eastern European intellectuals, and others—including common criminals.

First, it says "six largest groups", then only lists two groups in that sentence. Also the phrasing "groups containing prisoners in the camps" is not processing for me... I can generally tell what it means but it seems very garbled. Can anyone help here? I am not an expert on this subject and don't really know how the sentence should be worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent change to description of photograph[edit]

Without knowing anything about it, a visual look supports the front two are Jewish and I suspect the first one behind them. The rest there is no way to know. I suggest the wording should be “Roll-call of Jewish prisoners and possible non-Jewish, 20 July 1938”. Jniech (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) The original description says "vermutlich" - "probably". Xx236 (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


The article is quite neutral, only description of Labour camps says: "under inhumane conditions and cruel treatment". At the same time Expulsion of Germans after World War II informs about "sadistic practices" after the war. If "sadistic practices" is a correct description, the words should be used here and in many similar articles, if not - they should be removed from the other article.Xx236 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} There is no mention of Jehovah's Witnesses included in the victims list. I feel they should be noted as a group to honor the memory of those who lost their lives. Most all holocaust museums list Jehovah's Witnesses as victims so I think it would be appropriate here as well. Thanks.

Rfxcasey (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done. This information needs reliable sources to be included. If they can be found, they can be introduced into the article. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 02:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I just caught that you were requesting a change for a template box. That box is not controlled from this article. Any requests should be made at the talk page for that box here: Template_talk:The_Holocaust. I will, however, mention that Jehova's Witness probably aren't included in the box because their numbers of casualty were far lower than the groups listed. We can't just list every single group that had a victim in the concentration camp. It does appear they were once included though so it might be worth it to mention something on the page I linked to.
I will also throw in that the following statement is inappropriate, no matter how sincere it is: "I feel they should be noted as a group to honor the memory of those who lost their lives." That is not the purpose of the box or Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and our goal is to be as unbiased as possible when presenting information, even with topics as emotionally charged and heartbreaking as this. The box (and all of Wikipedia) should contain factual information, not memorial material. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 05:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's already in the box and has been for a very long time. I'm really not sure what you're requesting here. Could you please clarify? ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 05:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nazi-German concentration camps[edit]

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

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:

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:

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 (talkcontribs) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Rivertorch (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding proposed title change see WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SNOW. Google Scholar searches for

Would you like to continue your argument, Rivertorch? I'm afraid that 'no' is not enough. I aappreciate Google, but I do not think it is established enough to decide about an article's title. I would stick to UN, actual names of camps and specific terminology.

To argue more: Nazi camps - 90 k German camps - 75 k Nazi German camps

Common sense is important, but it must not prevail reason. --Rejedef (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No. As RashersTierney points out, 'Nazi German concentration camps' is not the normal way to refer to them. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand it. This is true until 2007. Facing confusion of historical facts, the United Nations agreed to convey new, more precise term. This is understood by scholars from HArvard University: and those editing Merriam-Webster Encyclopaedia: --Rejedef (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nazi German![edit]

Nazi-German relates to the PART of the German society which belonged to the party ruling, supported or led Nazi Germany (or 3rd Reich). Nazi Germans doesn't mean Germans. It means actually NAzi German as a relation to the name of the state: Nazi Germany. Nazi standing itself is confusing see: 'Polish camps' controversy --Rejedef (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

New request for the move[edit]

Requested move 2[edit]

Nazi concentration campsNazi-German concentration camps — Per the opening line. The proper naming of the Nazi-German (rather than Nazi) concentration camps – in terms of their numbers, built mostly in occupied Poland during WWII – was already explained by various international bodies including UNESCO, Yad Vashem, Institute of National Remembrance and two different governments. Please see the reasons given by UNESCO for renaming Auschwitz into "Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)" featured in the "Polish death camp" controversy article (the last two paragraphs). It is to discourage the intentional (or accidental) misuse of the term Nazi. (Rationale as used by User:Poeticbent on 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC), reused by --Rejedef (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

STRONG SUPPORT I find it hilarious that we don't follow new, clearer definitions used by established institutions (I know some people might not like them, but they are authority and they are organisations of PEOPLE, usually supporting their views). I suggest to stick to: United Nations, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz Concentration Camp. If they use the Term: Former Nazi German, we should stick to that, because actually it's a very good term. I believe this is very good way of putting things into words. It shows that: -it is former, so it is no more, -it is Nazi-German, so it's related to the country called Nazi Germany.

Also, it shows that it is not German, but it goes specific: Nazi German to underline it was German Nazis who run concentration camps, not all Germans.

Also, the term prevents from confusing history. --Rejedef (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Before suggesting new titles for articles, please read WP:COMMONNAME - the policy on article titles.
Your proposal is against policy, the English language literature on the subject doesn't refer to these camps as 'Nazi-German'.
And in any case, AFAIK the scope for confusion about whether the camps were established and run by Poles or Germans is pretty minimal. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't really understand what confusion exists. The term Nazi would always refer to the the affairs of the Nazi party? What other suggestions exist? What does the suffix "-German" do? Above, I find the arguments put forward for the move somewhat misleading: with quote marks, the phrase "Nazi concentration camps" is about 8 times more popular than "Nazi-German concentration camps" on ghits; in Google books, it appears to 600 times more popular. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

To me it is absolutely clear but overseas it is not that clear. Facing accuse of Poland and anti-Polish sentiment, the difference is NOT minimal. The responsibility for Holocaust is Nazi-German. Please not Polish concentration. The Nazi-German occurs more often, because it's an abbreviation, usually in articles where Nazi German was used at some point. Nazi German suggests that the responsibility isn't Polish but Nazi-German. People who didn't study much history may come to the conclusion that if concentration camps are in the territory of Poland, they were build by the Polish State. Of course Nazi is an unclear term because it relates to an ideology, rather than a state which paid for their construction, Nazi Germany. The term is new, therefore academic papers still may contain terminology freely chosen by the authors. Please note that many of them call concentration camps German, while responsibility is Nazi-German, actually. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and subscribe to the idea that the change is needed. Just check the google hits: 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps". 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps" --Rejedef (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Wikipedia is not the place to engage in a discussion of who bears full or partial responsibility for the Holocaust. We do not take sides in such disputed matters in our articles, nor do we use talk pages to push our points of view. The current title adheres to policy. Policy can be violated if there is compelling reason, but I am not seeing one anywhere in this discussion or in any of the related earlier threads on this page. Consensus remains strongly against renaming the article, so it's time to give it a rest. Rivertorch (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
And your Google figures are absurd. I just ran it with the exact search terms you used above, with the results 402,000 for the former and 22,000 for the latter. Google hits are not the ultimate arbiter of WP article titles, but naming bogus figures doesn't exactly help your credibility. Please let's drop it now. Rivertorch (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. We are just to make an encyclopaedia up-to-date, therefore we should follow new term 'Nazi-German'. The argument is about that. I want to challenge that consensus because I think too many people want to change it (please see the previous move request). I understand that google hits are not compelling at all but this is the argument of those who are opposing changes.

I support them, because it's the name used by the United nations: Even Britannica underlines Nazi German in its article: The name nazi German is used by several concentration camps, including the most important one, Auschwith-Birkenau: I hope it is enough for your satisfaction. you can subscribe to my argument, if you like. --Rejedef (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: please don't copy other editor's signatures and datestamps, this is confusing. Please follow WP:RM instructions for the proper move. Isn't this move request somewhat of WP:DEADHORSE issue? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC) --Rejedef (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Discovery of concentration camps by the allies[edit]

I find that there is no information about the "history" of the discovery of existence of the nazi concentration camps and their real purpose by the allies. AFAIK, there were even some of the camps that were visited by the Red Cross. - João Jerónimo (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


I've noticed that whipping is not discussed much in the article, yet I'm fairly certain that it was an incessant practice.Hoops gza (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Jasenovac concentration camp[edit]

It is a bit shocking to see missing in the File:Majorcampseurope.gif the Jasenovac concentration camp which was from far the most deadly and brutal camp in former Yugoslavia and entire South Eastern Europe. Everyone can check its importance at the List of Nazi concentration camps. An IP already asked about it at file´s talk page, but seems that here is the proper place. Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Jadovno concentration camp with about 40,000 victims seems a good candidate as well. FkpCascais (talk) 01:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi German instead of Nazi[edit]

Could we move the article to Nazi German concentration camps? --Rejedef (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to point to the previous discussions on this requested move, on this very page:
  • 13 "Nazi-German"?
  • 24 Requested move
  • 32 Nazi-German concentration camps
  • 33 Nazi German!
  • 34 New request for the move
  • 35 Requested move 2
... but then I noticed that you'd taken part in some of them, and must therefore be aware that the majority of editors oppose your suggestion. Please stop flogging a dead horse. The change you propose is cumbersome and is not the normal way to refer to these camps in English. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


I've semiprotected the page due to extensive vandalism - almost every edit for the past month has been vandalism or a reversion. If anyone does need to edit the page and can't, please either leave a comment here including the text:


which will alert an admin to take a look, or let me know on my talk page. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Glossary of terms used at Auschwitz[edit]

Does the "Glossary of terms used at Auschwitz" really belong to this article ? --Lysytalk 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems out-of-place to me as well. I've removed it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 05:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for moving the article[edit] (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

More camps than originally thought[edit]

I am assuming that those of you who regularly edit Holocaust related articles are actually familiar with this recent study, summarized by the New York Times here. And from my understanding of what this particular article is discussing, it's possible that the study won't pertain to this page specifically. But since this is way, way, way outside my wheelhouse around wikipedia and my cursory layman's glances at obviously related articles didn't show evidence that the information had been included yet, I thought I'd drop it here for you guys to work with or take to other pages in your related projects, as appropriate. Cheers. I hope it's helpful. Millahnna (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Milhanna - this issue was touched on here Talk:The_Holocaust#20_million_killed. I made the statement that since the information was preliminary, we should wait for it to be played out before putting any findings on Wiki and the apparently there were no further comments. However, that's not to say that this page couldn't continue the discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Why the redirect?[edit]

Concentration camps in the second para of the intro redirects to... this article. Why? Concentration camps are a broader concept: this article is about one type of them. This BBC article tells how they were invented in Cuba by the Spanish, used by the US in the Phillipines, before being made famous by the Brits in South Africa during the Boer War (usually this latter war is mentioned when blame is apportioned for their invention). So, with such a history of development, why does "concentration camp" redirect here? Malick78 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I suppose that's because we don't have an article called Concentration camps throughout history or History of concentration camps yet. You're welcomed to create it. There is an unreferenced intro to the subject at the Nazi concentration camps#Pre-war camps, grossly insufficient, but with your experience as researcher the plethora of reliable third-party sources can be found. Poeticbent talk 18:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that concentration camp should be developed into an independent article. Note that in the past it has been merged with Internment; see Talk:Concentration_camp/Archive_1#Proposed_Merger_of_Internment.3B_Proposed_Split_of_Concentration_Camp. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2015[edit]

The article misspells an ethnical group name, it is not Romani, but Rromani. Popescu.a.adrian (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Popescu.a.adrian: Both Romani and Rromani are correct. Romani is not incorrect. I don't think this change is necessary. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

KL or KZ?[edit]

Perhaps someone familiar with German or the subject at hand could explain. This page and the German version of the article abbreviate Konzentrationslager as KZ, but I've seen many contemporary sources refer to the system as KL (Konzentrationslager). The Inspektion der Konzentrationslager is referred to as the IKL, and many camps were known by their KL designation (e.g. KL Lublin). Nikolaus Wachsmann's new book is called KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps. Why the use of KZ here? Mahhon (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  • KL and KZ (Konzentrationslager) both mean the same thing and were used interchangeably. In German Wikipedia all concentration camps begin with "KZ". There's a main category there called de:Kategorie:Konzentrationslager containing de:Kategorie:KZ-Stammlager where all camps are located including KZ Auschwitz I, KZ Auschwitz-Birkenau, KZ Auschwitz III Monowitz, KZ Bergen-Belsen, KZ Buchenwald, KZ Dachau, KZ Flossenbürg, KZ Groß-Rosen, and so on, in alphabetical order.
In Polish Wikipedia (mind you, all death camps were located in Poland, which makes this uniquely relevant) the equivalent concentration camp category is called pl:Kategoria:Niemieckie obozy koncentracyjne. It contains the same camps as the German Wikipedia but all abbreviated as "KL" including Dachau (KL),‎ Flossenbürg (KL), Neuengamme (KL), Mauthausen-Gusen (KL), Treblinka (KL), and so on, but not death camps, such as Auschwitz-Birkenau, which belong in their own category called pl:Kategoria:Niemieckie nazistowskie ośrodki zagłady. This is a judgement call. See also for more. Poeticbent talk 23:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Nowadays in Germany the term "KL" isn't used and without any context mostly not understood anymore as an abbreviation for a concentration camp. Instead, "KZ" is always understood, even without any context. It is the common German abbreviation nowadays. The German article about concentration camps says: "Zunächst wurde von nationalsozialistischen Funktionären die Abkürzung KL für Konzentrationslager verwendet. Nach Eugen Kogon (Der SS-Staat) gaben SS-Wachmannschaften dann der Abkürzung KZ wegen ihres härteren Klanges den Vorzug." It means that in the beginning of the usage of concentration camps by the nazis, "KL" was the common abbreviation among the nazi officials (It is the obvious abbreviation in German language, because the German word for concentration camp Konzentrationslager consists of two words Konzentration and Lager. In German language it is mostly common to use the first letters of the single words that are put together to a compound word in order to form an abbreviation.). According to Eugen Kogon in 1946, the German guards then gradually preferred to use the abbreviation "KZ" because of its harder sound in German language in comparison to "KL". That is the origin of "KZ", which gradually almost completely substituted the term of "KL" in German language. I think in the introductory sentence of this article the part (German: Konzentrationslager, KZ or KL) should be specified that "KL" is rarely used nowadays in German Language. Btw, not all German death camps were located in Poland. For example Maly Trostenets extermination camp is in Belarus. Danielt. (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
You are not correct, User:Danielt. (4 edits since: 2008-01-02). First, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, German Wikipedia included. Secondly, abbreviation "KL" is far more popular among the historians of the Holocaust than you would have us believe. Here are the most prominent examples:
  1. Enno Georg (1965) [1963]. Die wirtschaftlichen Unternehmungen der SS. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 151–153. ISBN 3486703765. Monograph in German, using consistently only the "KL" abbreviation. 
  2. Nikolaus Wachsmann (born in Munich) (2015). KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps. The first comprehensive history of the Nazi concentration camps. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. pp. 14–854. ISBN 1429943726. Designation "KL" denoting the entire system of camps, their administration, and prisoners. 
  3. Wolf H. Wagner (1995). Wo die Schmetterlinge starben: Kinder in Auschwitz. Dietz. pp. 126–166. ISBN 3320018671. Monograph in German with "KL" Auschwitz designation used consistently. 
Poeticbent talk 15:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
While both have been used, I have to agree with Poeticbent. Another example, the Concentration Camps Inspectorate (CCI) in German was known as, IKL (Inspektion der Konzentrationslager); not IKZ. Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I may be wrong and it is still in use among German historians today. In the book "Die wirtschaftlichen Unternehmungen der SS" by Enno Georg that you listed above following is said about the abbreviations KL and KZ: "KL war die offizielle Abkürzung. Die im Volksmund entstandene Abkürzung KZ ist erst seit 1945 allgemein üblich geworden." Translation: "KL was the official abbreviation [in the nazi-era]. The abbreviation KZ with its origin in the vernacular got commonly in use after 1945." So I suppose that historians still use KL today, because it used to be the official term before 1945. Nowadays in day-to-day life among people and also in media normally just the term KZ is used and KL is - when used without context - not understood immediately as abbreviation for concentration camp anymore. In an review about the book "KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps" by Nikolaus Wachsmann in the reputable German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung from April 2016 it says:
"Bei deutschen Lesern könnte der Titel des Buches Befremden auslösen. Die gängige Abkürzung für Konzentrationslager lautet KZ. In der nationalsozialistischen Amtssprache hingegen hießen die Lager immer KL, das Kürzel, das auch Eugen Kogon in seinem 1946 erschienenen Bestseller „Der SS-Staat“ verwendet. Wie es zum allmählichen Verschwinden der einen Abkürzung zugunsten der anderen kam, wäre eine eigene Forschungsarbeit; der härtere Klang von „KZ“, in dem die moralische Ächtung mitzusprechen scheint, könnte dafür verantwortlich gewesen sein."
Translation: "The title of the book could cause disconcertment among German readers. The common abbreviation for concentration camp is KZ. Whereas in the official language of the Nazis the camps always had been called KL, the abbreviation that also Eugen Kogon used in his 1946 published bestseller "Der SS-Staat". It would be the subject of a separate research work to explain, how the gradually disappearance of the one abbreviation and the appearance of the other one happened. The harder sound of "KZ", in which the moral condemnation seems to expressed, could be responsible for that."
I suggest to make it clear in the article that KL was the official term used in the nazi-era and KZ is the term that is today common in German language (exceptions in German science of history). --Danielt. (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The corresponding word in the Polish language is kacet (plural: kacety in lower case). Polish Dictionary of Foreign Phrases explains that the phrase kacet is a loanword from German (quote): Etym. - nm. KZ, skr. od Konzentrationslager 'obóz koncentracyjny'. – Interestingly enough, after World War II the Polish phrase "kacet" have entered the English language via testimonies of Holocaust survivors (selected quote): So many months after liberation we are still in camps, still being given 2000–2500 calories, still wearing striped 'Kacet' pyjamas ... because we still have no other clothes.Dan Stone (2015). The Liberation of the Camps: The End of the Holocaust and Its Aftermath. Yale University Press. p. 160. ISBN 0300216033.  Considering the sheer number of Polish nationals (Jews included) imprisoned in the Nazi concentration camps, we could insist that "KZ" means "Kacet". That, however, does not change anything as far as clarity. Poeticbent talk 16:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

November 24, 2016 revert[edit]

User Scholar792 (talk · contribs · count) (today's 4 edits, total) is and SPA created to promote a brand new website teaching and learning resource based on text by Nikolaus Wachsmann, Professor in history at London University’s Birkbeck College, author of recently published KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps (2015, 865 pages).[6] — Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University (paid per view, at Wall Street Journal) describes Wachsmann as a 'revisionist' from "the best of the German and the British schools of grand World War II history."[7] Please keep an eye on it. — Thomas Laqueur wrote that "Wachsmann estimates there were 560 [satelite camps ... meanwhile]; a survey in 1990 based on an earlier report by the Allies has a much higher figure and runs to nearly 700 pages of small type."[8] The numbers don't add up. — Professor Ferenc Laczó of Maastricht University writes that "while pointing to institutional and organizational connections between the KL system and the three Globocnik death camps, Wachsmann discusses the latter sites only briefly ... some of KL’s emphases may also be debatable" such as the insistence on their uniqueness.[9] Poeticbent talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I also reverted recent large scale changes, a number were RS cited when changed. The changes made were based on info from the website above which has not been proven to be a RS cite, especially one which would trump Evans and Wachsmann, for example. Further, such proposed changes must be discussed here first. Kierzek (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Dachau wasn't the first[edit]

Breslau-Dürrgoy concentration camp and probably other small camps were founded before Dachau KZ.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

They were both founded in March 1933, and the camp you link was short-lived; further Dachau was the first well organized camp which became the "prototype and model" for all subsequent Nazi concentration camps as to how they were built and run. Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)