Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed move[edit]

This should be at something like Responsibility for the Holocaust because the current title, The Holocaust (responsibility) implies that this is a different thing from the The Holocaust. Any objections or other suggestions? howcheng {chat} 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, this move is now done. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


Sooner or later some crusader will come here asking why there is no Poland in the list. I advise creating some fair section in advance. Szopen 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be one sooner or later... but I say - just wait for him. These nonsense accusations have been tried before but they are easy to rebut.--Jacurek (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say the Poles were responsible for the holocaust, but certainly some Poles seem to have had a dislike for their Jewish compatriots, to the point of after the war continuing the process of expelling the holocaust survivors from the territory under Polish control, killing a few in the process.
By the way, I think the sentence above was a bit sexist Jacurek, it should be him/her or "the user" etc.
hope the info above helps. --Stor stark7 Talk 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All your links are nothing new, all Jan T. Gross... here is just a few for you.... I hope the info will help :)--Jacurek (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [[11]]

I think we need to add something about Poland. I'm suggesting the following (first draft):

When the Nazis entered Soviet-occupied Poland in 1941, a series of Polish-on-Jewish massacres took place at villages such as Jedwabne, Radzilow, and Kolna. The extent of German coordination behind these massacres is a controversial issue. Also, there were multiple incidents of individual or groups of Poles turning in or blackmailing Jews; such people were condemned as collaborators and sentenced to be executed by the Polish resistance. According to Raul Hilberg [Perpetrators, Victims, and Bystanders, pp 92-93] "Of all the native police forces in occupied Eastern Europe, those of Poland were least involved in anti-Jewish actions.... They [the Polish Blue Police]…could not join the Germans in major operations against Jews or Polish resistors, lest they be considered traitors by virtually every Polish onlooker." The Poles never surrendered to the Germans so there was no collaboration on a national governmental level as took place elsewhere in occupied Europe. Nechama Tec writes that she has never heard of a Polish concentration camp guard [When Light Pierced the Darkness]. In general the machinery of the Holocaust ran with little to no Polish collaboration.

Any comments? Velleities (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Velleities

  • The article is about "states" but some states existed, like Vichy France, some were destroied like Poland. Poland wasn't "occupied", it was erased.
  • Jews were beaten and murdered by Germans in September 1939, later many starved in the ghettos. Great Synagogue, Białystok was burned June 27, 1941, some 2000 people inside [12] .Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


There may be some people who are surprised to find Switzerland listed here. However, it was extremely imporant that the Swiss parliament set up the International Commission of Experts which came to the conclusion that official Swiss action sent Jews to the extermination camps. This does beg the question about other countries who refused Jewish asylum seekers permission to land, i.e. the SS St. Louis, resulting in the deaths of many of them. But the Swiss border guards did physically hand Jewish refugees to the Germans, well aware that they would be shipped to an extermination camp. Joel Mc 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rosenstrasse protest[edit]

I have tried to modify some of the claims made about this courageous protest. There is clearly more work to be done on the Rosenstrasse protest article itself which remains one-sided in its claims. Joel Mc 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 18 really confuses the issue. The men were returned from a death camp where supposedly "everyone" knew "what was going on". A real soft spot in the holocaust story. Thanks for the information on an episode I had never heard about.

Fair use rationale for Image:Brussels, Belgium, May 1943.JPG[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Brussels, Belgium, May 1943.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit on collective guilt should be added[edit]

Efforts to instill a sense of "collective guilt"

"In 1945 there was an Allied consensus—which no longer exists—on the doctrine of collective guilt, that all Germans shared the blame not only for the war but for Nazi atrocities as well."[13]

The British and The Americans considered the Germans to be guilty, using the terms "collective guilt", and "collective responsibility"[14]

The British instructed their officers in control of German media to instill a sense of collective guilt in the population[15]

In the early months of the occupation the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) undertook a psychological propaganda campaign for the purpose of developing a German sense of collective responsibility.[16] Using the German press (which were all under Allied control) and posters and pamphlets a program acquainting ordinary Germans with what had take place in the concentration camps was conducted.

"During the summer of 1945 pictures of Bergen-Belsen were hung as posters all over Germany with 'You Are Guilty' on them."[17]

Later the U.S. army came to draw a distinction between those legally guilty and the rest of the population which was then merely considered morally guilty.[18]

A number of films showing the concentration camps were made and screened to the German public. For example "Die Todesmuhlen", released in the U.S. zone in January 1946, "Welt im Film" No. 5 (June, 1945). A film that was never finished due partly to delays and the existence of the other films was "Memory of the Camps". "...the object [of the film] was to shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people -- and not just the Nazis and SS -- bore responsibility."[19]

Immediately upon the liberation of the concentration-camps many German civilians were forced to see the conditions in the camps, bury rotting corpses and exhume mass-graves.[20] On threat of death or withdrawal of food civilians were forced to provide their belongings to former concentration camp inmates[21]

--Stor stark7 Talk 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the statistics from the post war polls[edit]

We need someone to actually read the book the statistics come from, who can say what the U.S. interpretation of the numbers was.

Personally I think that perhaps with 3 million[22] Germans dead from the post-war ethnic cleansing the Allies and Poles had staged/were staging, and the millions of Germans in allied slave labor camps, many former nazi concentration camps in Poland used to slowly kill German civilians[23] the Allied dismantling of German industry that lasted until 1950, the mass-rapes by Russian and Polish soldiers, the "democratisation"[24], and the "collective guilt" propaganda campaign perhaps the Germans were not in a mood to give the "liberators" the answers they wanted? --Stor stark7 Talk 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent revert[edit]

Joel Mc (talk · contribs), regarding this revert of yours, please state what it is you feel that needs to be discussed.--Stor stark7 Speak 15:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had planned to explain my revert here, but was pulled away. The removal of the image and reference to the poll(s) needs explanation and discussion. I think that I understand your opinion about the polls, and the references were a bit messy. I have changed this, making the direct reference to Tony Judt. Given his status as a historian, his use of this info certainly gives added weight to it. Your references to German victims of the Nazi regime are certainly important but don't seem very relevant to this article: The important work of Peter Hoffman is not contradictory to the results of the polls. Your idea of linking to the Denazification article is a good one although I needed to correct my reference to polls. Goldhagen's study has been discredited by a wider range of historians than indicated, i.e. Yehuda Bauer: Rethinking the Holocaust. Haven, Yale University, 2001.--Joel Mc (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have some issues with this. First, you've put the reference to Denazification in the footnotes, which means that essentially no-one will be able to see it and investigate furhter - and therefore will accept the opinion poll that is provided without any context as gospel. This is very bad, since the referenced data certainly needs context, for example showing that the cited question was very badly phrased.
Second: My reference to the German victims are very relevant here, since they were victimized because they were opponents to the regime. As it is the article currently wikilinks to the Greek resistance, the French resistance and to the Norwegian resistance, but incredibly no link is provided to the German resistance!
  • You removed the image of the "anti-Nazi German women in the concentration camp ovens"
There is a sentence in the text that currently implicates the Germans by stating: "and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known." That is sheer idiocy, of course the workings of the camps were known since many ordinary Germans had been forced to spend time there. This is the text you removed.
Almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps, as early as 1935 there were jingles warning:
"Dear God, make me dumb, that I may not to Dachau come."[25]
"Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons"[1]
Tens of thousands of Germans were killed for their resistance; 12,000 were killed by Special Courts, while 40,000 were killed by "regular courts".[2] In addition 25,000 German soldiers were killed after court martial.[3] (see German resistance)
Please state specifically why you do not wish to see that text in the article.--Stor stark7 Speak 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I put the internal link to Denazification in the footnote as this is standard practice for making such a reference. I have no problem if you want to put it in the body.
  • You have an interesting point of view about the historical context in which the polls were carried out and the nature of the question referred to. I have seen no reference to a scholarly discussion of this viewpoint. That doesn't mean it does not exist, but until there is a reference, it remains a personal point of view. The standard studies made of the polls can be found in: Merritt, Richard L.; Merritt, Anna J. (1970). Public opinion in occupied Germany: the OMGUS surveys, 1945-1949. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-00077-3.  and Merritt, Richard L.; Merritt, Anna J. (1970). Public opinion in occupied Germany: the OMGUS surveys, 1945-1949. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-00077-3.  .
  • I removed the text and the picture because they were copied and pasted directly from the WP article German resistance, which seems to me where they belong. I agree with your point that there ought to be an internal link to German resistance.Joel Mc (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I will re-insert Denazification into the body then, and expect you not to remove it again.
  • "Interesting point of view regarding the polls". You just proved that you never bothered to read the Denazification article, which is where the polls are discussed. It is not a "personal point of view" This makes your revert of my original edit suspicious. You did not revert the user who included the polls withou context in the first place[26], and edit that he by the way seems to have plastered all over Wikipedia. I once again suggest that we either delete the data and direct the reader to the relevant article, either that, or copy the full discussion into this article.
  • Regarding the deleted information, how come you did not choose to leave the link to German resistance in that case? --Stor stark7 Speak 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not only read the Denazification article but Sarah Gordon as well. She has never implied given the historical context of denazification that: "the Germans were not in a mood to give the "liberators" the answers they wanted?" (Your words and personal point of view above.)In fact she has written with respect to some of the process, "The interviewees may have been particularly reluctant to give 'unfavorable' answers to Americans." (p. 199) She does raise some important points about the wording of the OMGUS surveys, but of course there were other surveys, and the 1950 and 1952 stix come from elsewhere. I also note that you have copied again chunk of text from Denazification and pasted it into the Responsibility for the Holocaust article. I don't know if there is a WP policy on this, but I certainly have never seen it done in any other encyclopedia. I have tried to keep my interventions here civil and don't really think they warrant your aggressive reaction. I have other things to do and will move on.--Joel Mc (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Point regarding my own quote taken. I note however that I made that edit more than 4 months ago, so I really don't see why you involved it into this discussion as if that was the topic being discussed, you should have been more clear as to what you were referring to. As to copy-pasting chunks, the original part that you had no problems with was being copy pasted all over the place, such as here, but you did not seem to have any issues with that then. Second on copy pasting, I only copy pasted the context section since you had previously allowed the raw data without context remain after my attempt to replace it with a notification about the polls and a pointer for the reader to the correct article for a discussion on the polls. Copying the context here was then simply the second best alternative. As to my judgment regarding German attitudes to the occupying forces affecting the polls they are admittedly as far as I know my own, but then I haven't been looking at the polls very much. But anyone who does some thinking will realize that oppressive conquerors may not receive truthful answers in opinion polls. Which way the polls go is of course another question.
Some sources on the Joys of occupation:
If Id been a German living in the western occupation zones then I might have had some particular feelings about the good old GI's, the American occupation activities and to their survey takers.
Again I apologize if you feelt offended, but I think you should take part of the blame for any miss communication.--Stor stark7 Speak 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Your views on Allied liberation of Europe from German Nazi occupation Stor stark are not relevant to this discussion. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum.
--Molobo (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting me Molobo, I will seek to follow the good example you set in the future. And may I welcome you back to Wikipedia, for a while there I though we had lost you to the permanent banning.--Stor stark7 Speak 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

3 milion Germans ?[edit]

"Regarding German knowledge of the workings of the ordinary concentration camps, it should be noted that as many as 3 million Germans had been sent to the camps or prison for political reasons"

Not clear. Ethnic Germans or citizens of German that for example were classified as untermenschen, that is for instance Jewish minority in Germany or Polish one. I will change it accordingly.--Molobo (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hilberg1.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Hilberg1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Government responsibility[edit]

There is a libertarian school of thought that blames governments and the ideology of statism or collectivism for the killings, while maintaining that the masses were merely being manipulated. (cf [27]). It would be good to know who are the major proponents of this thesis and its receptions in contemporary scholarship. (talk)

Otto Ohlendorf (Ollendorf)[edit]

Can the author/authors verify if "Otto Ollendorf" is the same as "Otto Ohlendorf" ([28]) and if not, where can I find his trial testimony ? Some generalizations are affirmed in the article based on this Ollendorf testimony (with no reference given). Otto Ohlendorf's testimony (see for example link above) has no mentioning of the Romanian troops behavior vis-a-vis "an orgy of rape and plunder".

I am not denying events such as Bogdanovka, just wanted to clarify the specific point of existence of Mr. Ollendorf and his testimony, as they are cited in the article.

Edit (after further reading):

I also submit the following paragraph for deletion:

"Probably the most conspicuous collaborators in the Holocaust were the Romanians, whose army killed about 400,000 Jews during their occupation of Bessarabia (Moldova), Bukovina and parts of western Ukraine, including Odessa. Otto Ollendorf testified at his trial that the behaviour of the Romanians assisting the Einsatzgruppen in Ukraine disgusted even the SS: they engaged in an orgy of rape and plunder, and killed most of their victims by herding them into barns and burning them alive."


  • the information can and is already included under the heading "Romania", I see no need to single out.
  • "the most conspicuous" is a personal characterization unless we go ahead and make some sort of macabre top-ten - other states were also documented to have been actively worked towards Jewish extermination (Belgium, Croatia and Hungary for example), some with the same or larger magnitude.
  • the reason for the "Ollendorf" paragraph is explained above and I submitted it separately for reference correction purposes.

Kyry101 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


I would like to submit to discussion the following paragraph to be added to the entry on Romania:

However, as in the case of other nations, collaboration was not the whole story. The protests of various public, political and religious figures (e.g. Queen Elena of Romania and Prince Constantin Karadja) against the deportation of the Jews from the Romanian Kingdom contributed to the change of policy toward the Jews starting with October 1942 (Wiesel Commission, "Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania" (in English at Yad Vashem) [29]). The result of this change of policy and that of the actions of a relatively small number of individuals (Righteous Among the Nations - per Country & Ethnic Origin January 1, 2008 [30]) was that at least 290,000 Romanian Jews survived (Wiesel Commission and ROMANIA FACING ITS PAST - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [31]).

reason: an attempt to provide the entire story as is the case with the entries for Belgium, Croatia, Serbia, Slovakia. Not intended to exculpate the regime, feel free to suggest changes if meaning is not clear that way.

Kyry101 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and islam[edit]

I only make additions for what i have sources or references, so it is not a theorie. If the islam and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni appears, then it is our responsibility to reveal the truth, and not to ignore them because it would be uncomfort. Just because informations are new they arent wrong. --Santiago84 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how the Mufti was responsible for the Holocaust? That is, after all, the subject of this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. He made direct suggestions to Hitler. During world war 2 he was at Hitlers Side. He was part of planing the Holocaust. He recruited Muslims to several german squads, signed contracts for a shared final solution to jews for the arab world and europe.[4][5][6][7][8]

Your first source is a copy of a Wikipedia article. I don't have access to, nor could I read, your second source. The third is a link to a Wikipedia article. The fourth says the Mufti supported the Nazis, not that he was responsible for the Holocaust. The fifth is a personal essay, not a reliable source. How about a mainstream historian who says that the Mufti was responsible for the Holocaust? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The first source is not a copy of a wikipedia article, it is an entire compilation of the Grand mufti beeing involved in the holocaust, the second is a book and a valid proof. the third is a link of the jerusalem post!. the fourth and fith are revealations of this informations of major newspapers! Just read the sources and article of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talkcontribs) 04:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction of Longerich conclusion[edit]

Longerich actually came to the opposite conclusion and I have corrected the sentence. His conclusion is reproduced in German with an English translation in I have removed unreferenced statements as well as the reference to Moltke's letter as he was not an expert or a reliable source, besides the letter is a primary document and constitutes OR.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph starting "The death camps were discussed ..."[edit]

I am not sure how much of this paragraph is accurate:

The death camps were discussed between American and British leaders at the Bermuda Conference in April 1943. The large camps near Auschwitz were finally surveyed by plane in April 1944, many months after the German air force ceased to be a serious danger. While all important German cities and production centers were bombed by Allied forces until the end of the war, no attempt was made to collapse the system of mass annihilation by destroying pertinent structures or train tracks, even though Churchill was a proponent of bombing parts of the Auschwitz complex. Throughout the war, Britain also pressed European leaders to prevent "illegal" Jewish immigration and sent ships to block the sea-route to Palestine (from which Britain withdrew in 1948), turning back many refugees.

From the Battle of Berlin (air)

Night of 30/31 March 1944 Nuremberg, the main target was attacked by 572 Lancasters, 214 Halifaxes and nine Mosquitos (795 aircraft). The Germans correctly identified that Nuremberg was the target. The first fighters appeared just before the bombers reached the Belgian border and over the next hour 82 bombers were lost on the approaches to Nuremberg. Another 13 bombers were shot down by the Germans on the return flight. In all, the RAF lost 11.9% of the force dispatched. It was the biggest RAF Bomber Command loss of the war and ended the Battle of Berlin.

The RAF lost more men on the night 30/31 March than they lost during the Battle of Britain. Clearly "April 1944" was not "many months after the German air force ceased to be a serious danger".

Most of the bombing of cities was done not just to destroy manufacturing capabilities but also to destroy road and rail communications (as cities are the nodal points of transport communications) among other things. As Bomber Harris said of Dresden: "Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."

"Throughout the war" implies from day one until the surrender of Germany. Which European leaders were pressed and what pressure could Britain place on European leaders during the war to stop "illegal" Jewish immigration? It seems to me that having Royal Navy ships on patrol within bombing distance of Crete while in German hands would have been extremely hazardous, not to mention a complete wast of resources when Britain was heavily engaged in military operations which until Operation Torch started where not so one sided that "ships to block the sea-route to Palestine" would have been a priority. How many ships with Jewish refugees were interdicted on their way to Palestine after the fall of Greece and before the end of the European conflict? That would answer the question about how serious the British took such a blockade and how necessary it was to fulfil Britain's policy of prevention. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Spain section "the Gauleiter Frankel of Warsaw." I think it means Hans Frank.Valleyspring (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitler- Responsibility for the Holocaust[edit]

The section Responsibility for the Holocaust#Hitler understate Hitler personal involvement. There are documents that indicates his personal involvement in setting dates and locations:

  • Richard Evans reviewing "Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin" by Timothy Snyder : "Initially, Snyder argues, they were killed as useless consumers of much needed foodstuffs. But once Barbarossa got into difficulties a month after the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, Hitler began to see the mass murder of the Jews as an end in itself, an act of revenge against an imagined Jewish world conspiracy. At this point, Himmler’s SS task forces began shooting Jewish women and children as well as Jewish men; and as German forces suffered their first serious reverses in the East in December, Hitler went over to an unrestrained policy of annihilation, resulting in the creation of the death camps and the murder of virtually the entire Jewish population of the ‘bloodlands’."
  • For example, in Breslau (Wroclaw). the capital of Silesia, the Jews were first evicted from their apartments in the summer of 1941 and at that time sent to remote corners of the Reich,(26) for Hitler had still not agreed to banish them altogether[9].
  • On 18 Dec 1941: A note handwritten by Himmler referring to a meeting just held with Hitler says: 'Jewish question - exterminate as partisans.(the Guardian)
  • On Dec 1941 Hitler addressed a meeting of Gauleiters. Goebbels wrote in his diary afterward: With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it.[10]
  • "Hitler would sometimes slow down that radicalisation of the anti-Jewish policy which he himself had decisively accelerated; he did this when it came into conflict with other elements of his policy. Thus in the fall of 1939 he stopped the Nisko project and in the spring of 1941 he stopped the further deportations into the Generalgouvernement because they interfered with military campaigns. However, these measures to halt the persecutions were invariably introduced as tactical manoeuvres and were of a provisional nature; they must be seen in the general context of the policy of extermination which was decisively determined by Hitler. " Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial
  • on 24 July 1942 "Hitler's statements ... to deceive his listeners; for example, his remarks at his dinner table on 24 July 1942, when he tried to make his listeners ... believe that the "Führer" had nothing to do with the rumoured murder of the Jews:

    After the end of the war, he will rigorously take the standpoint that he will smash to pieces city after city if the dirty Jews don't come out and emigrate to Madagascar or another Jewish national state. [...] When it was reported to him that Lithuania was also free of Jews, that was therefore significant.169

    18.10In fact, the plan to deport Jews to Madagascar (occupied by British troops in May), had been officially abandoned in February 1942; according to the files of the Foreign Office, it was Hitler who had taken this decision.170 The fact that Hitler referred in the same statement to the fact that Lithuania had been made "free of Jews" (in fact the vast majority had been murdered, only those forced to work for the Germans had been spared171) gives us a clear idea what the term "emigrate" represented. Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial

  • "What should be done with the Jews, who constituted a substantial portion of the skilled work force of the armament industry in both the Generalgouvernement and the Reich proper? ...Hitler’s decision on the matter was. “The Führer accepts Sauckel’s suggestion that for the present the skilled Jewish workers should remain in the Generalgouvernement. but he stresses the importance of removing the Jews from the armament industry in the Reich.[11]
  • On 17 April 1943 telling Horthy to send the the Hungarian Jews to camps in Poland,[12][13]
  • On September 23, 1943 Ribbentrop submitted to the Fuehrer a memo concerning the danish Jews with question:"Does the Fuehrer want the action against the Jews to be carried out now? ". Ribbentrop handwritten remark: "Must be implemented as ordered"
  • on 1943 "Hitler's decision that the Danish and Italian Jews be deported" [14]
  • On Oct 1943, concerning the deportation of Rome's jews "The senior figures in Rome, Moelihausen, Kesselring, and probably also Kappler, had effectively formed a triumvirate to block deportation. Any prospect of a ‘clean’ round-up was fading fast in this entanglement. Hitler’s order cut decisively through the mess and made clear in no uncertain terms that the Jews of Rome were still to be deported and not to be kept in Italy on fortification work"[15].


  1. ^ Henry Maitles NEVER AGAIN!: A review of David Goldhagen, Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust", further referenced to G Almond, "The German Resistance Movement", Current History 10 (1946), pp409-527.
  2. ^ Peter Hoffmann "The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945"p.xiii
  3. ^ Peter Hoffmann "The History of the German Resistance, 1933-1945"p.xiii
  4. ^
  5. ^ Buchergruppe (2010). Täter des Holocausts. Germany: Books LIc. p. 1008. ISBN 1158868545. 
  6. ^
  7. ^
  8. ^
  9. ^ Leni Yahil (1991). The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945. Oxford University Press. p. 295. ISBN 978-0-19-504523-9. For example, in Breslau (Wroclaw). the capital of Silesia, the Jews were first evicted from their apartments in the summer of 1941 and at that time sent to remote corners of the Reich,(26) for Hitler had still not agreed to banish them altogether 
  10. ^ Peter Longerich (15 April 2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford University Press. p. 306. ISBN 978-0-19-161347-0. Goebbels's diaries...: With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it 
  11. ^ Leni Yahil (1991). The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945. Oxford University Press. p. 388. ISBN 978-0-19-504523-9. Following the Wannsee Conference, at which the Final Solution became official state policy, the question arose: What should be done with the Jews, who constituted a substantial portion of the skilled work force of the armament industry in both the Generalgouvernement and the Reich proper? This question was discussed, among other issues, by Speer and Sauckel at meetings with 11111cr on September 20 to 22, 1942. According to the minutes of these talks. Hitler’s decision on the matter was. “The Führer accepts Sauckel’s suggestion that for the present the skilled Jewish workers should remain in the Generalgouvernement. but he stresses the importance of removing the Jews from the armament industry in the Reich.” Thus in the conflict between the principle of extermination and the need to exploit the work force, Hitler decided to continue using Jewish labor in the Generalgouvernement for the time being but to step up the deportation of the Jewish workers from Greater Germany. The second part of this decision was carried out in the spring of 1943  
  12. ^ Richard J. Evans (2002). Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial. Verso. p. 100. ISBN 978-1-85984-417-5. 
  13. ^ Peter Longerich (15 April 2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford University Press. p. 405. ISBN 978-0-19-161347-0. "Hitler...Horhy 
  14. ^ Peter Longerich (15 April 2010). Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford University Press. p. 398. ISBN 978-0-19-161347-0. on 1943 "Hitler's decision that the Danish and Italian Jews be deported 
  15. ^ Richard J. Evans (2002). Telling Lies about Hitler: The Holocaust, History and the David Irving Trial. Verso. p. 114. ISBN 978-1-85984-417-5. The use of the term ‘Holocaust’ was ultimately a secondary issue. However it was labelled, there was wide agreement among historians that there was a systematic attempt undertaken by the Nazi regime in Germany between 1941 and 1945 to kill all the Jews of Europe, and that it succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million of them in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps specially constructed for the purpose"  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Evans2002p114" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).


Would anyone mind if I trim down the article in order to get the unsourced parts out? Five and a half years of not sourcing is quite long, I must say. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would discourage trimming. It is true that the article was tagged in June 2007. However since then, a number of references have been added. It is true there are still unreferenced paras and other statements, however, many of them are not unimportant to the discussion and the necessary references do exist. I will try and see what I can come up with during the coming time.Joel Mc (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I just added the needed sources and removed the tag. -Yambaram (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for doing such a great job!Jeff5102 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


There is nothing mentioned about the Japanese and the degree of their collaboration of handling the Jews in Shanghai under German pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


"Smoking gun" is an idiom which isn't allowed WP:IDIOM. It should be changed. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hitler's language[edit]

Ultimately, I think the issue is insoluble and massively unbalanced weight given to the attitudinally authoritarian "anti-Revisionist" camp inclines me to the opposite against my conscious will, almost by reflexive subconscious intuition... I think people need to realize reality might not be all simple and this article is not Wikipedia's best, LOL - but has made one person think, its Soviet-esque methodology failing in blowback...

Hitler described numerous times his plans for the radical cultural and socio-religious reconstruction of Europe - the quotations highlighting brutal literal homicidal mentality on Hitler's part are not consensually agreed upon as authentic, are presented void of any meaningful contextual depth, and make things appear they only reflect his bipolar-schizotypic world-view and temperament more than anything else - an emotionally explosive antisocial peasant with visionary dreams chiliastic and his perception of the world.

I was stimulated in reading this article into reflecting it is indeed historically bizarre NOT ONE IOTA of actual sourced, written judicially-court-defensible communication exists conveying Hitler's murderousness, if existent - if Hitler indeed was the primary agent, his shrewdness was demonically intelligent. I was never prompted to consider this fact until the ADL and Wikipedia helped me -

In all honesty, what I see is a pattern of alcohol, Pervertin-addled youthful fringe-SS gangs going wild in the East consciously suppressing their activity from Hitler... That is what the actual papers show: implicit acknowledgements again and again, when Hitler was aware of massacres, immediately he violently ordered stopping them, if only for pragmatic reasons...

The Nazi files show Goebbels and others probably more causally involved in the infamy, I believe (tentatively) - I am not lionizing Hitler by speculating he seems to have been genuinely unaware of things especially in the anti-guerrilla Eastern Front campaign...

Hitler was not stupid, I think we can all agree, as we all agree he was evil in whatever sense we choose evil to mean morally. But not stupid. Out of sheer pragmatism, Hitler showed a career pattern of clamping down on underlings' actions initiated without his knowledge Hitler knew to be bad for his agenda: immediately after the savage "Crystal Night", Goebbels-engineered, Hitler frothed at the mouth at Goebbels for encouraging such things and the next day across Germany was issued a stark top command "from the highest authority" signed by the now-prostrate Goebbels, declaring emergency State-wide prohibition in every sense in the strongest terms any criminal, organized action against Jews inside Germany...

Hitler was involved in the eugenic deaths, but that is not quite the same thing, truly. Plato was eugenic. Not that I agree with either...

I honestly see gangs of youthful SS under the influence of booze and meth reverting into savagery - and various Nazi officials are variably "tolerant", e.g. Himmler less tolerant than Goebbels, etc. - and Hitler as "Prime Mover" not the only reasonable possibility.

The words about destroying Judaism are so mendaciously presented, do I even need to point it out...? Do people remember METAPHORIC FIGURAL language exists? Hitler was a brutal peasant, but his neo-Blavatskyian ideology was real, his sense of spirituality was real if super-perverted, and not every pronouncement concerning Judaism's disappearance is to be construed as mass homicide. If Hitler says hatefully, "We should have gassed more traitorous Jews" in relation to WW1 in an emotional hysteria, that has a certain context; context is removed from each statement here, silently... All of these litanies of words are grossly presented without responsible context. Acknowledging Hitler has murder in mind at least psychologically in several of his expressions here cited - but then there is EMOTIVE feeling and ACT, and things are not simple, I dare to state...

When in front of the German Congress, Hitler said, "Jews destroyed instead of us this time if they act up", why did not any contemporary newspapers go ballistic at the time etc.?

Ultimately, I don't know... I do know demonizing Germans en masse is just as wicked as anti-Semitism, however -

Intelligence branches of the conquering party, it is well known, are the script-writers of "history". I imagine masses of material of Nazi government mechanics, were set ablaze for all-too-human reasons on the part of the Allies...I mean I know this fact personally, in other words...

I really would feel more comfortable in assessing this article and subject if every single party to the scholastic brawl was not an extremist ideologue and/or employee of extremist, ideology-fanaticism-based organizations of self-interest.

ADL et al really shoot themselves in the foot in over-the-top, overkill frenzy. I don't even know the name of one "Revisionist" and the ADL world-view of hypervigilant militancy, and volcanic impassioned mind-state, in combating these people seen as so dangerous, so numerically laughable, just alienates, scrambling attempt to analyze, I almost pity them for being bullied...

I think there is sufficient evidence to put on here, in the article, Goebbels and others seemed to have been powerful actors if the unannotated words of Hitler are left on the page so stupidly: the whole myopic singling out of Hitler and just totally pretending his Theosophically-oriented mind and statements, every last one, implied LITERAL DIRECT CORPOREAL KILLING, it just is not going to fly...

Hitler was a complexly mentally-ill semi-schizoid addicted to methamphetamine and then some, with a bit of genius, and, as all testify, totally ultra-Bohemian in terms of everyday "work ethic" - such a person could very easily become detached from events if others were strategizing to do so...

Schopenhauer often discussed the extinction of Judaism from the planet as a joyous occasion etc. Voltaire was nasty here, many others - did they all really have in mind murdering physically hordes of human beings, so simple-minded...?

The German word for what is interpreted as extermination here is similar to English "uprooting" or "rooting out" - logically, the possibility of non-literalistic language is not necessarily negated, minimally...

Ultimately, I don't know concerning the wider tragic subject; but this article is a parody due to the ADL and similar organizations, fuelled on self-matyrizing belligerency and in obsessive tone of warlike fury I have seen little elsewhere, going nuts in rhetorical mega-death, making all opaque...

Murder should be reacted to in horror, of course, but this is parody, just parody, not the right way to handle things if one has arguments and more importantly, if arguments hold water...

The ADL staff hack ideologue-nerds need to take some sedatives before expounding these theses of total war and blood-red pulsatile vehemence...

REITERATING: Hitler was evil I repeat an evil tyrannical criminal in office and nothing I say is inspired by political tenets.

I was totally closed off mentally to considering so-called "Revisionist" counter-points until the very instance I perused this piece, Wikipedia. Intelligent people detect funky stuff in the air. Something is funky, a tad bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:79FA:252E:197F:4F18 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, apparently some crypto-editor is f'ing around with my words, making repeat sentences etc. in (?) attempt to make me seem like a lunatic, I suppose. Good for you Wikipedia, top stuff. I'm done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:79FA:252E:197F:4F18 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How many staff did the Holocaust employ ?[edit]

It might be informative to know a rough estimate of how many staff (or how few) it took to carry out the task outlined by Eichmann. I would hypothesize that, compared to other tasks carried out by states (civil engineering projects, immunization programs, the space race), the numbers would be quite (worryingly) small. Has an audit ever been attempted to answer this question ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Responsibility via refusal to accept Jewish refugees – comparable to the Nazis’ or not?[edit]

Ever since I read Lance Selfa’s article ‘Zionism: False Messiah’ from International Socialist Review (issue 4, spring 1998; online here) it has been clear to me that considerable if not equal responsibility for the Holocaust must be born by those “remote” (i.e. inaccessible by land from Nazi Germany) nations who turned away huge numbers of Jewish refugees, or who tightened restrictions upon Jewish immigration upon the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

In William R. Perl’s The Holocaust Conspiracy: An International Policy of Genocide and Theodore S. Hamerow’s Why we watched: Europe, America, and the Holocaust, it is illustrated the not only would no nation accept anything like the necessary number of Jewish refugees to prevent the Holocaust, but for a variety of reasons every potential “refuge nation” tightened laws against Jewish immigration upon the Nazis’ rise to power, and never considered loosening the restrictions. As a worst-case example, Canada had accepted 50,000 Jewish immigrants between 1931 and 1933, but its restrictions upon Jewish immigration became so severe that no more than 5,000 Jews could enter Canada between 1933 and the fall of the Third Reich.

Trotskyist groups like Socialist Alternative – who as Selfa notes in ‘Zionism: False Messiah’ were the only organisations anywhere pushing during the 1930s for an immediate and complete removal of restrictions on Jewish immigration – argue that not merely the Holocaust but also Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians (see Tess Lee Ack’s ‘Uprising in Palestine’; online here) would have been avoided had someone devised a plan of mass Jewish evacuation from Nazi-controlled Europe.

To me this constitutes further evidence that the refusal by every independent nation outside mainland Europe to accept Jewish refugees en masse makes their governments guilty of helping cause the Holocaust. To what extent these governments (Canada being certainly the worst culprit, but other nations outside Eurasia were little better) are guilty re the Holocaust is a difficult question which as far as I know is seldom discussed in more scholarly papers, but certainly should be. Luokehao, 5:24 (UTC), 1 December 2015

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Rauff, Rommel, Africa=[edit]

The first Weinberg link, pdf, also once post in Einsatzgruppen article does mention Rommel, but nowhere does it mention that he knew or agreed with the mission

The second Weinberg link does question his hero status, but is from a reader/audience of Weiberg, meaning third hand, also does not explain clearly Weinberg's position on the matter, let alone saying anything like: "American historian Gerhard Weinberg commented that Rommel's willingness to work with the SS in killing the Jews of Egypt and Palestine suggested that he was as every bit committed to the "Final Solution" as his counterparts on the Eastern Front, and that his reputation as a chivalrous officer opposed to Nazi crimes is undeserved." So the only first hand Weinberg account we have here is the first, which incidently while discussing Rommel and the Einsatzgruppen doesn't bother mentioning that he supported the mission, and its opinion has been warped by the editor who had put the thing here. Edit: checked this second Weinberg link again, so apparently the one it reviews is the first one, namely the pdf, which totally does provide anything like what was posted on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talkcontribs) 14:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides, we have Mallmann and Cueppers, pg.117 pg.103 (most famous historians who have worked on the subject) who report that Rommel did not even meet Rauff because he was 500km away directing the second El Alamein.

And Caron who has collaborated closely with these two and explicitly mentions that the findings of three of them lean to the direction that Rommel did not know or would have supported the mission. Deamonpen (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: The first Weinberg says "Erwin Rommel... was to supervise the killing of all Jews in Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere in the Middle East under the control and with the participation of the murder commando attached to his headquarters." Now I'm not an expert but the guy appears to be a historian and the source reliable enough. Is completely removing it the best course of action? Shouldn't he be included as a minority view, perhaps in a similar way to Caron right now? That "(although A.B, C.D. and E.F. say this and that ) X.Y. claims the opposite"? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Obviously all historians agree that Rauff was ordered to report to Rommel and that the Nazis would try to order Rommel to do this, so technically it can be said it was part of his "responsibilities" in Africa (see all links above). But as I see it, no historian, including Weinberg, is explicitly saying that he knew, let alone agreeing with the mission and had willingly supported Rauff, like the previous version of this page say. Here Cuepper also says that Rommel escaped direct responsibility for Holocaust, including the confrontation with this terrible mission, only by accident, and that if he had won the battles, the way to Palestine would have been paved, and then even if he wanted, it was unlikely that he had ways to prevent the SS carrying out the mission. Even Maurice Remy (Rommel's most important modern defender) and this Israeli newspaper which seems to be very sympathetic agree
The myth of Desert Fox continues to flourish around the world. But, as the author of this fascinating book reminds us, if Rommel had conquered Palestine, Adolf Eichmann would have been right behind.
This is part of the modern general portrayal of Rommel, especially in Germany, that whether he knew about atrocities or not, whether he did it for his fame or for his country or even for impressing Hitler (like a guy trying to impress a girl, instead of a son trying to impress a father - yes, some authors now seriously push it that way), he was politically irresponsible in allowing his military achievements to be exploited mercilessly. So yes if you want to write that "He... was to supervise...", I don't think it should be interpreted that Weinberg explicitly protests other authors' opinions here. Especially because Weinberg seems not to have directly worked on the subject but relied on Mallman and Cüppers
The material in the relevant article and book by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers is now available in English in Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews Deamonpen (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh no, the previous version indeed does not entirely match the source. What I meant was whether outright removal (of the ref & its info rather than strictly the previous wording) was the best way to go about it. Seeing as it is a RS and its viewpoint seems to me sufficiently different to warrant a note. Not that R. agreed with it (indeed, no such info there) or that W. explicitly attempts to disprove the other writers (again, not any sort of polemic in the text), but that it was to be a part of R.'s mission in the MENA theater (this, however, is what W. says). Especially as in a subsequent sentence Caron is cited with a partially opposing view. Although maybe it would be too much detail for this particular article, the more important/relevant Erwin Rommel#Views on the conduct of war already says as much. In fact, come to think of it, --CCCVCCCC (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh yeah one more thing, right now/after the latest edits the "The German Army" section comes out wrong, the part ending in "... protesting about SS atrocities in Poland." and the following "On 20 July 1942, Walther Rauff, who was responsible for the unit..." don't match. One of the edits removed the introduction of the Einsatzgruppe so it doesn't make much sense. We should probably just end the paragraph after "Poland", start a new one and replace "the unit" with the now removed description/mission of the EG or something to that effect. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
It's OK if you want to add that source (the PDF; the second one from the reader of Weiberg's work is inappropriate I think). I generally don't quote authors (even RS) who don't provide new info but admit/imply that they take it from other without modifying, and don't even protest the opinion of the person they take the info from. But if others want sources that at least come from a real historian or notable in some way, I don't protest. Feel free to make the edits you like:) Deamonpen (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I haven't included it after all, like I said that would probably be too much detail for this article and the Rommel one already talks about it. What I have done was shuffle around the entire section a bit. Like I said before, the paragraph after the latest edit didn't initially mention Rauff's unit but then suddenly referred to it – and when I went to fix that I thought the whole section could use some more order so that the individual paragraphs wouldn't mention guilty/untouched generals willy nilly. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, if this article (which seems to try to direct the blame as much as possible towards Rommel, using the same authors whose direct accounts I've quoted above) is true regarding this particular fact, Rauff's mission seems to have been introduced as ::Rauff and his men were empowered to "take executive measures against the civilian population", Nazi jargon for robbery, murder and enslavement.

If this was the description sent to Rommel it was no wonder a direct thinking guy would have thought extermination rumours to be false propaganda from the Allies (he was usually on the front and thus out of contact with his staff and the civilian officials) and historians wonder whether he realized the whole thing even at the end of his life. Deamonpen (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)