Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Holocaust denial

A simple question: would it be POV to state that the earth is round and not flat?Loomis51 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In my not so humble opinion anyone disbuting the existance of the Holocaust should spend a day at Dachau, Germany, a former nazi concerntration camp now a museum so that "this will never happen again".. walk through the camp, visit the places prisoners lived and then the gas chambers.. then tell me it wasn't real!

I actually did visit Dachau, and saw the gas chambers and the ovens they used to cook and cremate the Jews they gassed. An eerie experience to say the least.Loomis51 02:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

    • Dear Loomis51, Crimes comitted in the name of Germany during World War Two were an utter disgrace but had you paid any attention as you walked around Dachau, you would have seen that few if any were murdered by gassing at Dachau concentration camp. They died mainly of disease and hunger, particularly towards the end of the war. No doubt there was also deaths due to mis-treatment which is equally as appaling but the gas chambers were NOT used as a method of execution at that concentration camp and the same goes for most camps on German soil, Poland is another matter. And you'll find that information at the Dachau tourist information centre.

As for the comments 'this must never happen again' Well, it did. In Russia (before Hitler, during Hitler and after Hitler, and the West allied itself to that utter disgrace called Stalin while he murdered millions of his own people), in China under Mao in the 1950's/60's, in Cambodia under Pol Pot in the 1970's and more recently in Rwanda in 1994....and the world stood by and did nothing. Where are there memorial days, museums, monuments, they have nothing. Millions and millions of people murdered and do they get remembered?. Nobody gives a damn. Unfortunately, most of the world and in particular governments are utter hypocrites and they'll turn a blind eye and allow maniacs to mistreat and abuse people and most people say it's not my problem. They only get interested if it's there own people affected. So let's keep on going on about Auschwitz, Buchenwald and Dachau. On and on and on. In the meantime, while you've been debating that subject, other people are being slaughtered TODAY in the name of religion, land rights and being abused by dictators around the world. But try not to lose too much sleep over it, events of 60 years ago are far more important aren't they??!! User: Detmold. 13:45 23 February 2006

Detmold, sorry to break it to you, but you're a bona fide Holocaust denier. Your revisionist interpretation of the attrocities at Dachau disgusts me, as it surely disgusts all decent people whatever their political orientation. You euphemise the Holocaust as an "utter disgrace". Watergate was an "utter disgrace". The depravity of Dachau is beyond description in the English language. Your arguments (as with all arguments provided by Holocaust deniers) defy logic. I was at Dachau. I paid close attention to each and every aspect.
At Dachau, actually a few steps outside the rectangular compound, was a rather small, unassuming building with a chimney stack. Within it were three rooms. I stood within the first, the gas chamber, a rather small room with cone shaped objects portruding from the ceiling, used as dispensors of Zyklon B, the chemical chosen by the Germans as the most efficient agent to put to death the most people at the lowest cost. The second room was lined with about half a dozen ovens, used to cook the bodies of the Jews who had been gassed in the previous room into a fine powder. The third room seemed to be a storage area where the bodies of the dead, but uncooked Jews were stored until the ovens were prepared for another batch. On the wall of that room was a picture, of that identical room 60 years ago, piled with the corpses of emaciated dead Jews waiting to be cooked in the ovens of he adjacent room. I saw all this. I therefore have no idea what you mean when you say "had you paid any attention as you walked around Dachau, you would have seen that few if any were murdered by gassing at Dachau concentration camp."
To say that most of the deaths at Dachau occured mainly due to "disease and hunger, particularly towards the end of the war" almost sounds as if your blaming the allies for depriving the Germans of vital resources needed to maintain for there Jewish guests the necessities of an otherwise, rather benevolent "Dachau Country Camp." I can imagine how worried the Nazi prison guards must have been -"Oh no! we have no more food and medical supplies for our Jewish Guests! Some of them might die!" Bullshit.
And lets just say, hypothetically, that you're right Detmold, that most of the millions of Jews that were gassed and cremated were killed in Nazi Death Camps in Poland, not Germany. I still don't get your point. Oh, and one other thing, because of your little revisionist rant there, I'd like you to know that I'm freshly inspired to remind people of the Holocaust at each and every possible occasion wherever, whenever and however I can. On and on and on, and on and on. The Holocaust was an incident of incomprehensible depravity the world had never seen and has not seen since. Never Again.Loomis51 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Has not been seen since?? How can you insult millions of victims of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others by writing such offensive nonsense. That's a disgrace and an afront to every one of them. They were people too and you couldn't have insulted them any more if you tried. I've been to Dachau too and as a half-German (and proud of it) I'm appalled at those Germans and other nationalities that helped in those places, that they were part of such a dreadful thing. But you didn't take a bit of notice to what I actually said and then accuse me of being a 'holocaust denier'. My Jewish friends don't think so. I never denied anything, I just suggested another point of view. Usual comment from someone who thinks calling other people names, somehow wins an argument. My mother was in the Hitler Youth, maybe you'd like to abuse her too while you're at it!!? You just label people 'revisionist or deniers' if they don't quite agree with your argument. You say 'Never Again'. Where were you then when people were being butchered by the tens of thousands in Rwanda just a few years ago. Up the pub with your mates and like most people, turning a blind eye. What's this rubbish, 'never again'. Wake up to all the other atrocities since. Millions of people murdered and you insult them all by implying, that their deaths are somehow not as important compared to places like Dachau. They're all equally as bad. Exactly my point, most people, couldn't give a damn about other persecutions!. Mention the Germans and Dachau, and you write essays all night long. People say it was a unique event, more rubbish. It's happened all over the world before the war and since the war. That was my main point. And by the way, Dachau was not just a camp housing Jewish people, so try and remember once in a while those non-Jewish victims. They died too. You make your comments about the Holocaust 'on every possible occasion' if you want, but try and spare a thought for those many more millions of victims the world over 'of incomprehesible depravity' that you seem to ignore. There are a number of countries that have Dachau's today, Russia had hundreds of them up until recently, but hey don't you worry. Just go up the pub and ignore it!! Sadly, we haven't seen the last of Dachau, it happens all the time. Just wish people felt as strong about events today as they do about events all those years ago. Detmold 12:38 24 Feb 2006

Sieg Heil! Detmold! Loomis51 04:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope everybody takes note of the above reply. How sad and pathetic a comment is that?. I'm not sure wether to laugh at you or to pity your ignorance. But I suppose anybody who can retaliate with such a stupid remark as that, at least shows that I won the argument. Bye 'Loomis', or should you change your user name to 'Selfish'?!! Detmold 25 January 2006

Detmold, you're a Holocaust Denier, and, like all Holocaust deniers, you're a Joke, and so I responded in kind with a Joke, just to let you know how silly and twisted I find your statements to be.
I'm under no illusion that I'll convince you otherwise, so you need not read any further. The following is more for the benefit of Wikipedia's greater community, for whom I hold the highest of respect.
Wikipedians, in Detmold we have the perfect specimen of a Holocaust denier. I will explain:
Quoting from the Wikipedia article on Holocaust Denial:
"Holocaust denial, or Holocaust revisionism as it is referred to by its supporters, is the belief that the Holocaust did not occur as it is described by mainstream historiography. Key elements of this belief are the explicit or implicit rejection that, in the Holocaust:
1)The Nazi government had a policy of deliberately targeting the Jews and the Gypsies for extermination as a people;
2)Over five million Jews were systematically killed by the Nazis and their allies.
3)Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were used in extermination camps to kill Jews."
Note that I've italicized implicit rejection.
I took particular notice that Detmold made the statement that: "They [the prisoners at Dachau] died mainly of disease and hunger, particularly towards the end of the war." As I noted above, the phrase towards the end of the war clearly denotes that period of the war when the Allies had turned the tide, and began squeezing Germany by depriving her of vital resources. The implication is clear. The allies, not the Germans, are the true, if only indirect cause of the vast majority of deaths at Dachau.
Almost as an aside, Detmold concedes that "no doubt there was also deaths due to mis-treatment." Again, this is a clear implication that, for the most part, except for a few bad-apples, the prison guards at Dachau dealt with their prisoners/guests as humanely and respectfully as possible.
All this is to say, that, in the case of Detmold, all three elements of classic Holocaust denial are present:
The Jews and Gypsies were:
1) 'Not' targeted for extermination;
2) They were 'not' systematically killed;" and
3) Tools of efficient mass extermination, such as gas chambers, were 'not' used in extermination camps to kill Jews.
Rather, they died "mainly of disease and hunger, particularly towards the end of the war...[and] no doubt, there were also deaths due to mistreatment."
A more euphemistic account of the events at Dachau I cannot imagine.
To be fair, it is true that the gas chamber and ovens at Dachau, being the first, served more as prototypes for their counterparts in Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka etc..., etc.., a model of the unltimate "Tool of efficient mass extermination."
So there you have it, fellow Wikipedians, the perfect model of a Holocaust Denier, our good friend Detmold. On the other hand, should Detmold step forward and clearly and unequivocally accept as fact the three factors outlined above, then perhaps he may not be a Holocaust denier. For this we'll have to wait and see.
Finally, Detmold's biggest mistake, which I haven't adressed until now, is his implication that somehow, by remembering the Holocaust, and discussing it "on and on and on" I am somehow giving short shrift to a host of other attrocities occurring or having occurred throughout the world. Quite the contrary. I hold up the Holocaust as the quintessential model of passive acquiesence in the face of evil. It is through the Holocaust that we, in the free world can learn how to deal with such evils.
Detmold makes reference to Rwanda, Red China, and the former Soviet Union as examples of attrocities that go or went unnoticed by people like me. Somehow he has this image of me up in some pub ignoring the plight of the world's oppressed. Quite the contrary. I have written extensively on the Rwandan genocide, the Tiananmen Square massacre, the tragedy of Maoism, the evil that was the Soviet Union with its Stalinist purges and its Siberian Gulags, the massacres of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Saddam Hussein's mass killings and my undying support of his removal from power, Iran's oppressive regime and the very realistic possibility of a second Holocaust if its mad dictator gets his hands on nuclear weapons that could reach Israel, a country for which he's dedicated toward "wiping off the face of the earth."
Quite the contrary. For me the Holocaust is the ultimate result of complacency and appeasement by the free world of brutal dictatorships and the miseries they create.
To make it clear, I was, and still am, a strong supporter of the Iraq war. Why? Because the alternative to war in Iraq was the appeasement of a genocidal dictator. What's wrong with that? I look at the British policy of appeasing Hitler in the Second World War and I see the Holocaust as its result. I also support, if need be, military action against Iran, should it insist on pursuing its nuclear agenda.
Quite the contrary, the Holocaust OPENS my eyes to what can happen if, in the face of evil, good people do nothing. Never Again. Loomis51 12:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Loomis. I wasn't going to reply but I'm sure our fellow Wikipedeans will be waiting with bated breath to the next instalment, so here goes. 1) As far as your three points are concerned, I did not say any of them if you would have bothered to read what I wrote carefully. 2) Again, you refer to concentration camps on German soil like Belsen and Buchenwald. It is a fact that mass murder in gas chambers was not carried out anywhere other than in Poland, not in Germany despite the deaths there. If you research this, you will find that to be true. 3) The Allied bombing was so severe towards the end of the War that food was incredibly scarce for the German public let alone those poor souls in concentration camps. I merely suggested that it didn't help matters. I'm not blaming the Allies but the bombings by 1944/1945 had to be a factor in the starvation of many. My own mother collapsed in the street from hunger and she was a German citizen!! 4) Once again, you use this silly comment 'Never Again' Well, I'm sorry to disapoint you. It did happen again. 25 million victims of Stalin, many of them after 1945. Another 30 million+ victims of Mao during the Cultural Revolution. And Dear Wikipedeans, our friend Loomis refered to these apalling statistics as an 'atrocity' because how dare anyone compare it the Holocaust? As I said before, it's very selfish! Because, and this was one of my main points, the Holocaust was and is not unique. Sadly. Despite those that want to keep it for themselves and just refer to those victims of other Holocausts as just victims of an 'atrocity'. How offensive is that to all those people? 5) You called the Holocaust the 'ultimate' example. Ultimate means 'the final/the last'. As I just said above, it was not the last by a long, long way. Millions more were to die in Stalin's Holocaust, and Mao's Holocaust and Pol Pot's Holocaust and Rwanda's Holocaust. But there are those that would find even the use of the word Holocaust other than for German crimes of World War Two offensive. Why? Becuase, again, they're all so selfish!! Never Again?. Give over. 6) Lastly, it strikes me as sad that as soon as someone has a slightly different slant or perspective on a subject, people begin calling others names. You call me a Holocaust Denier as if I'm something nasty or dirty. Well I'm not, I merely have a slightly different angle on this than you Loomis. That's all. So you don't need to treat me as if I'm the scum of the Earth. You have your opinion and I have mine. Oh and if the US invades Iran, I hope you'll enlist Loomis and go over their and do your bit but keep your head down. Maybe the pub will be the safer option though!! Ha, ha. Bye for now.

Once again, Detmold, I fail to see the relevance (if true) of the fact that mass exterminations of Jews were committed by the Germans on Polish, rather than German soil. You seem to insist that this has some sort of relevance. Please explain to me why it matters whose national "soil" the blood of Jews was absorbed by. Never Again. Loomis51 00:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I sense that I'm being tossed an Olive Branch. If this is so I will abstain from all further remarks at this point. Never Again Loomis51 06:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Both of you, please be civil. Hbackman 01:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right Loomis. It doesn't really matter, I was just putting facts straight. When learning/studying history, despite varying opinions, it's still important to get as many facts right as possible. There are probably many things on this topic we might not see eye to eye on, but there you go it's called living in a democracy. And hey, let's remember those wonderful words of that great French writer Voltaire, when he said, 'I may not agree with all that you say, but I will always fight for your right to say it'. Never again? I hope you're right. Ta ta Loomis. May see you on the 'Tulips' page and we can debate whether red's are nicer than yellow's!!. It'll be less emotive!! Detmold 28 Feb 2006

The RED tulips are better then the YELLOW, dammit! Nice to see no hard feelings (I hope) Loomis51 13:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

No hard feelings. Detmold 4 March 2006

Thanks guys. :) Hbackman 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also if it didn't happen would the german government keep these museums open just to pretend they did? Germany is still trying to atone for the Nazi Years. The Nation Sate of Dsboy - UN Member

I don't think the accusations against H deniers and only adding sources that confirm them complies with POV. --Vizcarra 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, I am confused by your point -- you seem to be saying that Holocaust denial deserves equal time, is that correct? I also want to point out that you deleted info about the countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, quotes from peer-reviewed journals saying that Holocaust denial was motivated by hate groups and not taken seriously by historians, and you deleted a quote about the difference between denial and revisionism. Are there are reason these three points are bothering you?
Holocaust denial is a lie, really and truly, it is pseudoscience repudiated by basically every historian on the planet, it has been repeatedly found baseless in any court case where it has come up, the people pushing it have been found multiple times to have forged materials and distorted facts, it has been repeatedly linked with anti-Semitism and racism, and is in totally contradiction with mounds of evidence. Truth is not a POV. Claims by hate groups do not get equal weight with the mass of history in Wikipedia. The section on Holocaust denial in the article is a sad necessity, and already longer than the entire section on the extermination camps. I wish that we didn't have to have the section at all, but the fact that some people seem to believe it, or at least promote it, makes it necessary. This is not an issue about POV, it is an issue about stopping lies, it is like saying that the article on the blood libel should devote more time to views that the Jews drink babies blood. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I never mentioned "equal time" but if it must be included it deserves to be described from a neutral point of view. Truth is not a POV but the definition or perception of truth is. I am aware that you have a strong opinion on the topic but that should not prevent you from presenting a unbias account. I think a problem here is that you are describing Holocaust denial with denying the holocaust. The first involves doing the second or claiming that the numbers claimed by historians is wrong. The second one is illegal in many countries, as it claims the Holocaust did not happen. Some Jewish personalities can fall into the first category, so most of the adjectives including before the revert would not make sense. I do not have strong feelings for either, but think that every article in wikipedia should reflect NPOVs. Both sides claim the other side is lying. You have made it clear which side are you on, both article should not be on either side. --Vizcarra 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you stop re-introducing the text while it is under discussion, for starters it is rude. --Vizcarra 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Vizcarra, I am afraid I am going to need you to explain further. What is the first type of Holocaust denial that you are talking about? You say the second is claiming that the Holocaust did not happen, but I don't understand the difference between that and the first type. Who are the "Jewish personalities" that you say are Holocaust deniers under the definition in the article? Which reputable scholars are Holocaust deniers under the definition of the article? Holocaust deniers are a well-known phenomenon, and I am not sure how you can suggest this confusion exists, in fact, one section you deleted discusses how revisionism and denial differs. Please provide sourced information on the "confusion" because you are deleting sources from the article without giving any support for your points.
Besides, you have deleted material that has been in the article for over a year claiming it was new, which it wasn't. And I did not reintroduce any text since your last revert, another editor did, I am not being "rude". --Goodoldpolonius2 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Do not be afraid of asking for explanations it is better than to make assumptions. Read the article Holocaust denial and if you still have any questions as to what positions fall under the umbrella of HD we can analyze them. The article also mentions reputable scholars that are HD under the definition of the article. I do not need any support for my points, but in turn addition of material needs to conform to POV, and at this point it has not. One cannot possibly describe an organization using bias and only citing sources that support such bias. --Vizcarra 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Vizcarra, what reputable scholars are Holocaust deniers? There certainly aren't any in the article on Holocaust denial, in fact the opposite. And you really do need to support your points with some evidence -- you claim that legitimate Jewish scholars are Holocaust deniers, which ones? Again, one does not need to give equal time to a lie, it is not a POV issue. If you can give me some information on the problem you see, or some data on the legitimacy of Holocaust denial research, then we can continue this discussion, but I am still not sure what you are objecting to. Goodoldpolonius2 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
This is the second time that I explain to you that I never mentioned "equal time". Just so you can be sure of what I am objecting to I will repeat it: It is the inclusion of biased material and one-sided sources. HD being a lie is your POV, HD's POV is that their opponents account of the Holocaust is a lie. Neither is absolute truth. And would you please stop twisting my words, because if you keep doing that this discussion will go nowhere. I never mentioned "Jewish scholars" being HD. I mentioned both "scholars" (such as Harry Elmer Barnes, David Irving which you would have found mentioned in Holocaust denial) and "Jewish personalities" (such as Norman Finkelstein). --Vizcarra 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Neither is absolute truth"? Vizcarra, Holocaust denial being a lie is not a POV, it is indeed the absolute truth. Really. 5 to 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler, they were shot at Babi Yar, they were gassed at Auschwitz, they were slaughtered in the Warsaw Ghetto. Do you really think this is "a point of view"? Your three scholars are bit dubious -- Norman Finkelstein does not deny the Holocaust, he thinks it is being exploited. Harry Elmer Barnes's piece on the Holocaust in the 1940s has since been entirely discredited, and he died forty years ago in any case. David Irving was found by the courts of England to have "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence...he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." He is certainly not a "scholar." Not everything is relative. Do you really believe that all of the articles on the Holocaust are just a POV, just as Holocaust denial is legitimate? That is very, very depressing. I really am not trying to twist your words, here, I am just reading what you said about material attacking Holocaust denial being "biased" and "one sided" and the historical account of the Holocaust not being "the absolute truth" compared to Holocaust denial. Goodoldpolonius2 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
They might be dubious (who isn't) but they are indeed reputable. And if two reputable historians are Holocaust denier then "maybe" your POV is not the absolute truth. "Do you really believe that all of the articles on the Holocaust are just a POV, just as Holocaust denial is legitimate? That is very, very depressing" Like I said would you please stop putting words in my mouth. Please, we are not going to go anywhere like that. If a subject is the object of controversy and you project only one side while the other one is supported by reputable scholars, then yes, the addition is biased. --Vizcarra 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How can a scholar be both reputable and dubious? Either their work is discredited, or it isn't. android79 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Harry Elmer Barnes being "dubious" is Goodoldpolonius' POV, however his wikipedia article describes him not only as "reputable" but as a leading historian. --Vizcarra 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't understand how you can call David Irving a reputable historian, the judge at his trial said that he was not, and that he made up evidence, from his trial: "if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then 'Irving is not a historian". That is pretty much the exact opposite. And I challenge you to find any historian who says that Barnes comments from fifty five years ago on the Holocaust were reputable or correct. And yes, you really keep calling the historicity of the Holocaust a point of view, you did it above. Perhaps you should read some of the info on the Irving trial and Nizkor's denial overview. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The article also doesn't describe Barnes' Holocaust revisionism theories. At all. Something tells me it might be lacking in content. If we're going to take Wikipedia as the Gospel truth, Holocaust denial#The case of Harry Elmer Barnes explains that Barnes' work regarding the Holocaust was pretty widely discredited, regardless of the merits of his other, earlier work. android79 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Beyond agreeing fully with Goodoldpolonius here, I'd just like to reaffirm that NPOV is not the same thing as this kind of nihilistic relativism that Vizcarra seems to be pushing here. (Also, why isn't Norman Finkelstein a scholar? According to our article on him, he's a political science professor at DePaul with a Princeton PhD. That makes him more of a scholar than David Irving, although, as GOP has pointed out, Finkelstein doesn't actually deny the holocaust, so he's not a very good example.) As to David Irving, I can assure you that he is most certainly not a reputable historian. I'd say that since the libel trial, most historians would be highly reluctant to even call him a historian at all. Whatever credibility Irving may still have (which is certainly very, very, very little), it is in spite of, rather than because of, his holocaust denial. As to Harry Elmer Barnes, he was certainly a real historian, but even his actual historical work (the classic revisionist stuff on the origins of World War I, and so forth) is generally seen to be wholly discredited, while his later, holocaust denying stuff, is entirely dismissed by any actual scholars. The basic fact is that there are no reputable scholarly studies that say that the Holocaust did not happen, or that the numbers were wildly exaggerated. This is for the same reason that there are no reputable historical studies claiming that the First World War did not happen, or that George Washington was actually a woman - there is no evidence to back up this stuff. Unlike those other absurdities, though, Holocaust denial fits with the political agenda of a particularly odious, but outspoken, group, and thus it gets bandied about as though it has some claim to scholarly validity by certain groups. john k 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not pushing anything, and that's a bad start for a constructive discussion. And you are agreeing on the wrong things here since I never clained Finkelstein was a historian. Again, I am not claiming that the Holocaust not happening deserves any attention, but that there are reputable personalities that think that the accounts of the Holocaust are not accurate. And Holocaust denial would include these. --Vizcarra 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I was confused by the fact that you said that Finkelstein was not a scholar. He is most certainly a scholar. As to reputable personalities thinking that the accounts of the holocaust are not accurate is nonsense. David Irving is simply not reputable; Finkelstein does not think that accounts of the holocaust are not accurate - just that the "holocaust industry" exploits the memory of the holocaust to promote policies he doesn't like. If the best we can do for reputable historians engaging in holocaust denial is the wacky late work of the already dubious Harry Elmer Barnes, then, no, there are not reputable personalities who engage in holocaust denial. john k 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • there are reputable personalities that think that the accounts of the Holocaust are not accurate -- The reputable ones are called "historians" and practice "history". Who do you have in mind? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you implying that only historians have a good reputation? Sounds like you are. Not only historians have an opinion worth considering but also journalists, policymakers, etc. --Vizcarra 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be getting rather pointless, so to recap: Vizcarra originally objected that there is a catagory of "reputable scholars that are [Holocaust deniers] under the definition of the article." The definition in the article is: "...that far fewer than around six million Jews were killed by the Nazis (numbers below one million, most often around 300,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews; and/or that there were not mass killings at the extermination camps." So far, Vizcarra gave three names of people who he said were reputable scholars that are mislabelled as Holocaust deniers: one was not a Holocaust denier, a second was the much repudiated later work of a historian in the 1960s, and the final one was found by courts to be lying about his evidence and was ruled "not a historian." I am not sure where that leaves Vizcarra's objection, or his desire to object. Vizcarra, do you still think the section needs to be changed, and to what? Discussion is great and all, but I am not sure where this is going, and arguing for the sake of it is only worth doing for so long. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Polonius, I agree with you though I wouldn't go so far to say that Irving is "not a historian" or "not a scholar" (even if the court said that). However, Irving certainly is no longer a respectable scholar, thanks to his Holocaust denying works. Of course, that takes nothing away from your overall conclusion. Str1977 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Having reread your earlier quote from the court, I agree with the court that he is not "reputable historian" anymore, with the emphasis on reputable. He was (and might still be) able to perform the historian's craft, but in the books in question, he didn't. And frabricating evidence certainly is the worst of the worst. Str1977 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree that even though he had been a reputable historian before those incidents he cannot be longer be considered one afterwards. --Vizcarra 23:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra has a point, I find it completely POV to label Holocaust Revisionists as anti-semites, that section clearly needs to be re-evaluated seeing as it is POV and completely based on an editor's opinion. This article is based upon the Holocaust and therefore needs to cover all aspects of the event, one which most people might not ordinarly accept or like to deal with is the fact that the number in the Holocaust do not clearly add up thus the reason there are many people who question the Holocaust to this day. Also the fact of the "exploitation" of the event used by many for their own devices to this day. I'm not siding with any particular side but stating the obvious here - there is a discrepancy between the common understanding of what happened in the Holocaust and new concept of Holocaust Revisionism which is not denial of the holocaust but a new study into re-opening the case of the Holocaust altogether to investigate the facts completely. 07:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to inject my experiences (and lack of colon/indents) into an obviously erudite discussion. The semantics and issues of trust and authority are so very important to any online experience. I would however like to offer a comment which is intended to keep the discussion on topic although it seems the opposite.
Hasn't anybody here ever met any of these people who survived the internment? Is no one aware of the life insurance claims that are still being paid? Since I have spoken with some of them, could I be referred to as having first person research experience? I know a gentleman whose name I will not post here, who attended Nazi officers awaiting trial for war crimes. I also met Rabbi Isaac Newman in 1971 at breakfast after his excellent lecture on anti-semitism. As we sat and chatted, I realized that he had the tatoo on his forearm from being in the camp as a young man. I can hardly describe the feeling of meeting my first holocaust survivor. A gentleman, a nice affable fellow who works as a rabbi in Miami, but a man who has surely escaped death's cold hand by a hair's breadth. I met several more survivors over the next twenty years in my professional capacity. I can also tell you that they were not the kind of people who would call your attention to their survivor status. To say that they suffered Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome is an understatement.
<sarcasm>By all means, we should definitely wait until all of them are dead before opening the "New Field" of Holocaust Revisionism. That will surely allow the truth to shine forth.</sarcasm>
These people live among us as surely as those who hate them. Vizcarra gives lip service to the truth and refers to it as if it has some connection to his argument. It does not. You people are constantly being trolled and sit still for it in the name of fairness. Don't feed the trolls. Maybe Jimmy could make it a background div in 54 point type so nobody forgets it. Once again, please note the words, trust and authority. They are not necessarily to be found in a book. They are also not RELATIVE as Vizcarra would assert.
b_calder 17:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Goodoldpolonius2, you're right. Golly-gee-whiz Holocaust deniers, it was a big lie? I guess what makes this big lie even more sinister is how all those victims and witnesses got their stories to match up so well. Massive global conspiracy. Yep. Pfft, I hope you all rot. 22:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Given how little credibility there is to the theory of holocaust denial (for 'little' read 'none'), shouldn't the paragraph on revisionism and denial be shortened to a sentence or two, if anything? It already has an entry for itself after all. The hoax theory for Apollo 11 is covered in about one sentence. The entry for London does not contain a whole paragraph stating that some believe reality to be an illusion and that by that token London might not exist in a physical sense at all.

You can't deny more than 6million deaths you idiot deniers!!!!!!!!!!!!! H-BOMB 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice intellectual post there H-BOMB. Well let me just get to the point. I found this page of a guy and his story of when he took a trip to Auschwitz. Its pretty interesting. Quite long, but definately something to consider. And earlier, some of you mentioned that there were gassings in Dachau? Hah...That has already been disproven. They admitted it in 1960. Here is also a good link to look at. I dont know the exact truth of the Holocaust. Nobody does. But all I know is, that there is something oddly strange about the Holocaust. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18 April 2006 (UTC)

New Cultures of the World stub that summarizes cultures by regional variation

Please contribute if you can.--Culturesoftheworld 19:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It was speedied, probably a good thing too. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edit regarding churches

Not being familiar with this particular aspect of the Holocaust, I didn't revert this edit, but I think what's being talked about here is Jews being baptized in Christian churches; therefore, changing it to "synagogues" is incorrect. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong. android79 00:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's been fixed. android79 00:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Addition to page not "sticking"

I have added an addition to this page regarding a verifiable fact pertaining to the number of victims at Auschwitz, but it doesn't seem to update on the page for more than a few minutes. What am I doing wrong? WillMorgan 07:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It would suffice that the argument that you are making is rubbish. The inflated Auschwitz numbers were never used to calculate the death totals. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 08:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Will, in the hope that you are misinformed, and not knowingly trying to create confusion:
For many years, a memorial plaque placed at the camp by the Soviet authorities and the Polish communist government stated that 4 million people had been murdered at Auschwitz. This number was never taken seriously by Western historians, and was never used in any of the calculations of the death toll at Auschwitz (which have generally remained consistantly around 1-1.5 million for the last sixty years) or for the total deaths in the Holocaust as a whole. After the collapse of the Communist government, the plaque was removed and the official death toll given as 1.1 million. Holocaust deniers have attempted to use this change as propaganda, in the words of Nizkor: "Deniers often use the "Four Million Variant" as a stepping stone to leap from an apparent contradiction to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax, again perpetrated by a conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. If they can't keep their numbers straight, their reasoning goes, how can we say that their evidence for the Holocaust is credible? One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the "Four Million Variant" is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories."[1]
That is from the article on Auschwitz concentration camp, you should now understand the problem with the material you are posting - it is pure propaganda that requires a willful disregard for the facts of how the death tolls of the Holocaust were calculated, as well as lying about the actual content of every historical book on the subject written by Western historians. I really hope that you did not do it deliberately, though having read your attempted insertions, I have my doubts. --Goodoldpolonius2 09:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I had no idea that the 6 million number had been arrived at subsequent to the 1990 reduction at Auschwitz. I seem to remember hearing it as early as the 1960's. Thank you for that information. It still escapes me however, why it is that out of the countless millions of people who perished as a result of WWII, that the only ones we hear about (relentlessly, on an almost daily basis) is that 6 million. Now, you have replied to me with wrongdoings by "deniers". Whenever anyone questions anything about the Holocaust, immediately the topic is changed to "deniers". I posted in that section because it seemed like the appropriate place for a correction (or dispute, if you prefer) of number belonged. The "deniers" are not what I would call "revisionists" (with the exception of the IHR, who also have no reliable sources for numbers). I do happen to agree with Norman Finkelstein regarding the holocaust being promoted and capitalized onby many. I neither support nor concur with those who think the killing of jews did not happen, but like many of them, the simple fact that we are inundated daily with the cries of "6 million" leads me to believe that they are trying to tell us the sky is green. I have been able to find little reliable information, even on holocaust sites, to show that the number even approaches 6 million. If you could direct me to VERIFIABLE numbers that even come close to 6 million, I will shut up (I would even appreciate it, as I have been having this debate with a friend for over twenty years now). The "Population" entry under "Jew" here on Wikipedia states that the world population of Jews was approximately 18 million before the war and that the Holocaust reduced this number to approximately 12 million, but there is no reference for these numbers. (Judaism online) says 17 million in 1939 and 11 million in 1945, also without reference. But, even if I was to accept either of those stats - both reflect a difference of 6 million - that means that in order to believe that nazis killed 6 million Jews, I am expected to believe that every Jew that died from 1939 to 1945 was exterminated in death camps. Other than those killings, Jewish population growth was for all intents and purposes, relatively stagnant for 6 or 7 years. Here's some other numbers I found: 1900 = 11 mil, 1930 = 15 mil (both on Wikipedia). Here's another from 500,000 Jews in Germany when Hitler came to power, 350,000 managed to relocate, 16-17,000 after the war. attributes these numbers to The American Jewish Year Book, nothing on Poland or other surrounding countries, but if I accept these numbers, it's really difficult for me to envision hitler collecting and killing another 5.5 mil from outside germany. Like I said, I've been doing this for the past 20 years, not as a profession, just as a lay person. I guess I'll keep pursuing it, maybe with some assistance from you and others here. I'm so sick of all the whining and hand-wringing over the Holocaust (more than Jews died, lots more - trying to save them, and others who don't appreciate it, from the nazis - yet all we keep hearing to this day is 6 million, 6 million, 6 million...) and anti-semitism (for each and every race, religion, sex and sexual preference, there are bigots who hate them/us - what makes Jews so special that anti-semitism is all we hear about day in and day out?). There are countries in which it is a crime to voice opinions (whether those opinions are right or wrong is not the issue), and with hate crime legislation gaining popularity here, we're not far off. I keep getting told that the Liberty attack is ancient history, so is the Holocaust. WillMorgan 13:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I had no idea that the 6 million number had been arrived at subsequent to the 1990 reduction at Auschwitz. Nobody said it had. Both the inflation and the deflation of the Auschwitz numbers postdate the six million calculation. For this and the rest of your opinions, read Examination of Holocaust denial. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, that only seems to make it more obvious that no one has reliable numbers. It is also yet another example of "deniers" being villified simply for their opposing views, all things considered. It is apparent that neither side has a leg to stand on regarding accurate numbers, which leaves only the promoters of the higher figures with something to lose if they are incorrect. Perhaps that is the desperation heard in every argument for the 6 million number to prevail, along with the notion that the nazis actually did intend to eradicate jews from existence (which I'm not entirely convinced of and become more unconvinced with every shrill insistence that it did happen), for without these and other tragedies (like wacko suicide bombers), real or imagined, the entire economy of the ugly (highly profitable) side of the holocaust crumbles. I continue to seek the truth, without regard for what is obviously propaganda from both sides. I still am at a loss as to why ANYONE who questions ANYTHING in regard to Jews is labeled anti-semite and defamed at every chance. It only lends creedence to some of the ideas put forth by the tin-foil hat wearers. WillMorgan 03:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Whatever. Feel free to debate this somewhere on some chat forum; Wikipedia is not that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Merry Christmas!! 04:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Shoah Merge

I propose Shoah be merged into this article. --Nick Catalano (Talk) 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Shoah article shouldn't be merged into this one, simply because the Holocaust refers to the Nazi genocide program as a whole, while the Shoah is in reference specifically to the Jewish aspect of it. Having them separate can allow the Shoah article to develope on the impact on Jewish life in Europe without burdoning the main Holocaust page. Merging them will do injustice to both.

I don't pay lip service / Numbers speak for themselves!

National Geographic did a great service to humanity, by publishing in it's January, 2006, pages 28 through 35 a recount with factual numbers of the number of people killed in the 20th Century by country and by decade. While I don't downsize the importance of the events that happened during WWII, we only hear constantly about the suffering of the --6 million-- while we certainly see in N.G.'s article that more people were killed in Russia beginning in the 1920s and ending in the 50s (Stalin), and China under Mao, than the rest of the countries or nationalities combined. Yet, no one ever hears of persecutions of Communists or political dissidents, or any other group, so that we may remember them. War is war, people commit crimes, some get killed, some escape to tell the horrors, but most move on with their lives. Nonewithstanding, I am constantly bombarded by the "Jewish holocaust" as if it were more special than the rest. People throughout history have been killed, Jews are no different and the more there is emphasis on their suffering, the less credible it seems when there are others who are suffering at this very minute. Let the dead rest in peace, we are not the generation that committed those crimes, just as we are not the generation that took over the Americas and killed the natives.

Let's focus on what we can do today with the people that are alive and suffering now, not those who are dead. Sudan for example, is on the news, yet where do we stand? No one does anything and the killings continue despite of the phrase let's not forget. Well those who say, let's not forget are the very same who forget that killings have continued and continue to this day.

--Daniel Enrico di Palma Vicompte de León 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to create more articles to deal with today's inequities. But, as long as I am alive, I will honor my granparent's memory remembering their torture at the hands of the Nazi Germany and making sure nobody forgets. I think a lot of us heard about Stalin's persecutions and Mao's persecutions. But this article is not about them. If you feel you can contribute there, you're more than welcome to.
Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Well those who say, let's not forget are the very same who forget that killings have continued and continue to this day. Speak for yourself. Which people who say "let's not forget" are forgetting today's killings? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gellately and Kiernan edited a book in 2003, The Specter of Genocide : Mass Murder in Historical Perspective, that calls attention to Stalin's mass murder; I think robert Conquest wrote a book on this too. Chang and Halliday just came out with a book on Mao that highlights his responsibility for the death of millions and millions, and this book has been widely reviewed (The New Yorker, The New York Times Sunday Book review, The Bew York review of Books and I am sure many other popular publications). The film The Killing Fields received wide acclaim and brought renewed attention to Pol Pot's genocidal policies. The situation in the Sudan has been widely publicized in the news. The Rwandan genocide was the subject of a widely aclaimed Hollywood film. The genocide against Native Americans at the hands of the Spanish conquistadores is well known, as is the genocide of N. American Indians by the U.S. Cavalry (and the subject of popular Hollywood films by John Ford and Arthur Penn). If Daniel Enrico di Palma Vicompte de León doesn't know about these things, that reflects his own ignorance and not the lack of public attention to these awful things. His suggestion that everyone talks about the Jewish Holocaust at the expense of other awful things is just absurd on its face. Would you go to the page on the "US Civil War" and tell people to stop worrying about the Civil War and write about other more current topics? Would you go to the page on Quantum Mechanics and tell people to stop worrying about infinitesimally small particles and write about more current topics? This is an encyclopedia! We have articles on all sorts of topics. I smell a double-standard. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Review of the 6 Million figure?

Has there been any recent attempts to review the number of jewish losses during the war? I think the Holocaust page should at least merit a detailed analysis on how the number was calculated.

On this page: Expulsion of Germans after World War II the number of German losses caused by the ethnic cleansing is said to have been reduced through research from the figures ( 2 million?) stated in the years immediately following the war.

Has any similar analyzis been done for the Jewish losses? If not, can the same calculation methods be applied to both population groups? Stor stark7 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Jewish losses in the Holocaust were indeed about 5.8 million. This figure which was arrived at in 1946 by the Anglo American Committee has never ever been refuted see link [2]--Berndd11222 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Alternate viewpoint: It certainly has been refuted, in the meaning of taking issue with these numbers. The link [2] given, directs you to a website with paragraphs on history & some tables, hardly what i would call 'irrefutable'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Help Needed

Vote To Keep

Budapest Memorial

Regarding this Place: Testimonies from the family Jakobovics in newspapers 1947

It's not about percentage

"Approxmiately 50% of the victims of the Holocaust were Jewish." - This is meaningless at best because of all ethnicities, only the Jews and Gypsies were automatically targeted, while most Poles, Russians, etc. were not. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-- Please read the article. Poles were targeted. The article referances the Armenian Quatation in which Pole men, women, and children are to be exterminated. Thank you for your attention.

Note five million Pole deaths near top of article

The first three paragraphs note 6 million Jewish deaths and about 220,000 Sinti and Roma deaths. The article should note 5 million Poles died somewhere in between. After adding this note I was hit with a charge of vandalism! Some counts put the number of Polish deaths at 6 million. Many of these (approximately half) where not Jewish (as is noted lower in article). The article count of Polish deaths is 5.0-5.5 million. Insert the death toll of Poles in the top paragraphs.

I am disappointed that my revision to top paragraphs, which was an insertion of the death count, and was grammatically correct, was labeled vandalism.

It seems the article is purposely hiding that as many or approximnately as many Poles died as Jews. It does so later by splitting Polish deaths into Gentile Poles and Jewish Poles. An accurate death count shows as many Poles died as Jews with an overlap. To list Jewish deaths in total but Polish deaths split fails to be neutral.

Also, again, I take issue with being labeled a vandal and told that I need to put my changes into this discussion page first. If that is the rule then edit buttons should be removed from the article.

(above comment added by User:

Hi, I'm not sure who called you a vandal, but I am the person reverted your earlier edit. At the time I did the reversion, I'd actually got rather confused and read one of the differences the wrong way round, so thought that you were removing references to Polish deaths, as you'll see from my earlier edit summary. Sorry about that -- my mistake entirely.
But looking again at your version at that stage, I now can see how a misunderstanding may have arisen which caused somebody to wrongly suspect vandalism. You had put the number of Polish deaths into a sentence which began "In addition to the Jews". This means that the figure you quoted could very reasonably have been interpreted to mean the number of gentile Poles, even though you intended it to mean the total number of Poles. Such an interpretation would suggest that you were proposing a dramatically increased victim count, and to so without discussion would indeed be suspicious. However, it is now clear that that was not your intention. Certainly your reasoning in your above comment on this talk page is entirely reasonable, and also the version which you later wrote is perfectly clear. Please do not be offended that someone earlier suspected vandalism; I really think it was likely to have been a misunderstanding.
Regards, TerraGreen 22:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
A further comment: I see that in one of your edits you actually blanked the entire page. This is indeed considered vandalism, and may be what prompted one of the later comments about vandalism on your talk page. If it was a mistake, then no worries, mistakes happen. But at least you'll understand why the comment was made. TerraGreen 22:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed and polite response. I understand. Have a nice day.

(above comment added by User:

I don't want to minimize Polish suffering under the Nazis, but it is inaccurate to say that 2-3 million non-Jewish Poles were targeted and killed in the Holocaust. First, the numbers generally accepted by scholars of non-Jewish Polish civilian deaths are 1.8-1.9 million. Second, those numbers include a wide range of Nazi policies and actions, as stated by the US Holocaust Museum:
Documentation remains fragmentary, but today scholars of independent Poland believe that 1.8 to 1.9 million Polish civilians (non-Jews) were victims of German Occupation policies and the war. This approximate total includes Poles killed in executions or who died in prisons, forced labor, and concentration camps. It also includes an estimated 225,000 civilian victims of the 1944 Warsaw uprising, more than 50,000 civilians who died during the 1939 invasion and siege of Warsaw, and a relatively small but unknown number of civilians killed during the Allies' military campaign of 1944—45 to liberate Poland.
Also, Poles were not specifically targeted for extermination as a people, making it unclear what was part of the Holocaust and what was part of the horrific German occupation. Thus, I have removed the bit in the lead listing the number of Polish deaths (which was too high in any case), stating simply that Poles were victims. The number is then further described in detail in the section on Polish victims and again in the total number of people killed section. Hopefully, this makes sense. --Goodoldpolonius2 05:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Poles were targeted. Please read: . This is also noted deep in the article. Your claim and the presence of this evidence in the article suggests you did not read the article. You also did not read this discussion.
Your justification does not make sense. It does not make sense because to list jewish deaths and then Roma and Sinti deaths hides the large number of Pole deaths.
1.8 or 1.9 million + 3.0 or 3.5 million is approximately 5.0 million.

Anonymous, there is a problem with this approach. By lumping Polish Jews in as Poles, you are implying that they were targeted as Poles, which was not true, they were targeted only because they were Jews. Additionally, the 1.8-1.9 million Polish deaths was all civilian deaths during the occupation, a horrific tragedy, but not the same thing as the Holocaust. Finally, no doubt the Germans hated Poles, but they did not systematically target them as a people in the Holocaust. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Poles were targed per provided evidence. Your reasoning is incorrect. You are defining the Holocaust to exclude these facts. The events which transpired define the Holocaust.
Goodoldpolonius2's revision note of "lumping Polish Jews and non-Jews together is wrong" is not reasoning. Goodoldpolonius2's appears to have bias.
Goodoldpolonius2, here is more info for you: . Given that you don't read the articles I doubt you'll read the contents of the page, but heck maybe you'll turn a new leaf.

Please be civil and please stop your baseless insults. I also think you need to be careful in saying I don't read the articles. What articles are you talking about? You keep inserting "About five million Poles, which was 20% of Poland's population, were killed (approximately three million of Poles killed were jewish)" which is true for the German occupation and war, but the German occupation is not synonymous with the Holocaust, and this article is about the Holocaust. Again, here are the problems:

  1. non-Jewish Poles were not targeted as a people in the Holocaust So what is the evidence of Poles as a people being targeted in the Holocaust for extermination in the Holocaust? The Polish intelligensia, leadership and Polish communists were targeted, certainly, and Hitler hated the Poles, and may indeed have eventually tried to kill all of them. But that did not happen in the Holocaust. There were no mass deportations of the Poles to death camps, as there were with Jews, Roma, etc. I read all of the material you posted, and am totally convinced (as I was already) that the non-Jewish Poles were hated by the Germans, and treated mercilessly, and that 1.8-1.9 million died but again, this article is about the Holocaust, not Generalplan Ost.
Here is a quote of Hitler: "Thus, for the time being only in the east, I put ready my Death's Head units, with the order to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of the Polish race or language. " That's targeting. Here is a quote of Heinrich Himmler: "All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles." That's targeting too. The former is a part of the Aremenian quote which is linked in from The_Holocaust article. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
You say in "The Polish intelligensia, leadership and Polish communists were targeted, certainly". These were sent to concentration camps and labour camps and executed in public. You appear to be making antithetical points. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Number of killed The use of the number is misleading: 1.8-1.9 million civilian non-Jewish Poles died in the course of the war. Not all of them were killed during the Holocaust, you could argue that the 30,000 deaths of the AB Action were part of the Holocaust, along with Poles sent to the death camps (100,000 to Auschwitz, etc), but to consider every civilian Polish death part of the Holocaust just isn't supported by any scholarly analysis I have read.
I agree that all the deaths of World War II are not the same as Holocaust deaths. I do not see any alternate figures proposed from you. I've been informed that 2 million Poles were in labour camps. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Combining the number of Jewish and non-Jewish Poles Yes, the Jewish Poles killed were both Poles and Jews, but we just discussed the number of Jews in the previous paragraph which makes restating the number summed with the non-Jewish Poles awkward. Also, the sentence you inserted clearly implies that the 5-6 million Poles killed were killed because they were Poles. This is not true, 3.5 million were killed because they were Jews, most in extermination camps, a very different reason than for the non-Jewish Polish deaths. So I say again that lumping them together is incorrect.
I very strongly disagree with your statement. It is not akward. One can say how many Jews were killed, how many Poles were killed, and that there was an overlap. You are doing two things: 1) jumping from jews killed to Romas and Sinti, impling a descending order, but skipping over Polish deaths and 2) minimizing Polish deaths by what seems to be a claim that being polish jew means that you are jewish first and polish second to a degree that the polish aspect is irrelevant. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Poles were killed, enslaved, and experimented on. Polish priests were sent to concentration camps. These deaths are part of the Holocaust. As talked about in the first point Poles were targeted. Non-polish jews were killed, it was enough to be Jewish to be considered for extermination. Non-jewish poles were killed, it was enough to be Polish to be considered for extermination. Jewish poles were killed. In this last category your arguments read to me that the polish aspect can be ignored. I disagree. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So, please stop the insults and actually discuss the issues here. And when you provide sources, please tell me WHAT you want me to read from them, so that we avoid any confusion. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing the issues. Your claims of Polish not being targeted are refuted by The Holocaust article under discussion and so I said it appears you did not read the article. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

First, I am not trying to minimize Polish deaths, I am stating that Poles were not targeted in the Holocaust of 1941-1945 for extermination as a people, as were the Roma and the Jews and further that the 1.8-1.9 million non-Jewish Polish deaths includes all civilian deaths during the Nazi occupation of Poland and not deaths in the Holocaust. Just as the Jews were were killed fighting the Nazis int the armies of France, the USSR, and the UK were not considered killed in the Holocaust. These deaths were not the result of a wholesale attempt to destroy every living member of the population, as was the case with Jews and Roma, though some Poles did die in the Holocaust as it is commonly defined.

Howabout a possible solution in which the second paragraph would be changed to read: "The Jews of Europe were the main victims of the Holocaust in what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question". The commonly used figure for the number of Jewish victims is six million, so much so that the phrase "six million" is now almost universally interpreted as referring to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, though mainstream estimates by historians of the exact number range from five million to over six million. Around three million of these were Polish Jews.

Let's get sources on the numbers first. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree to the top portions not listing a specific number until sources are provided. I disagree that Poles were not targeted. I am not sure whether you agree that if a Pole was in a concentration camp and he was not Jewish this death is a Holocaust death? I believe that Polish deaths and the targeting of Poles belongs in the top paragraphs. I agree that to put a number there I need to provide sources. I believe that number was higher than Roma and Sinti deaths. I also believe that Poles were Holocaust targets before Jews were Holocaust targets. 04:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I would settle for the article noting that millions of Poles were killed without listing a specific number, or perhaps a range, then being qualified with the overlap with Jewish deaths. Searching on the internet for Polish deaths in the Holocaust yields a ceiling of 6 million with several internet sources. Each source qulifies that 3 million were Jewish. Do you propose a floor to the range? We can modify the statement from "5 million Poles" to "X - 6.0 million Poles". You fill in the X in a reasonable way that you state here in discussion. 14:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We already discuss the nature of the Nazi persecution of Poles later in the article, but if we are going to provide a number in the lead of Polish deaths during the Holocaust, it is going to need some backup. Can you provide a source giving the number of Poles killed during the Holocaust? I can't find one, and you are the one who keeps inserting a number with both agree is incorrect. We shouldn't use it if it is wrong. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is fair. Onus on me to provide sources for number of Poles killed in extermination camps, labour camps, shot dead inteligencia -- priests, teachers, leaders, etc. We agree that these deaths are part of The Holocaust, right? 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Do I need to provide additional information that Poles were targed to convince you Poles were targed? Frankly, you seem to in part agree that they were. That's how I interpret the content of your first bold point. 04:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Again, Poles were targeted individually and as social groups, but non-Jewish Poles were not subject to a systematic genocide during the period of Nazi occupation.
Incorrect. Non-Jewish Poles were subject to systematic genocide during the period of Nazi occupation. 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
They were not ghetto-ized, they were not sent en masse to extermination camps, and the were not subject to any sort of Final solution.
Incorrect. They were. 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Some elements in Polish society -- the intellegensia, communists, etc. -- were killed using the machinary of the Holocaust, and should be counted as Holocaust victims.
Correct. 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
But the Holocaust was not targeted at the Poles as a people, though they may eventually have been targeted by Hitler in the way he targeted the Jews, given his obvious hatred of the Polish people.
Incorrect. Poles were targeted before Jews. 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
In short: the Nazis hated the Slavs, including the Poles, and brutally killed their leadership and other groups that might resist, but he did not (during World War II) actively seek the genocidal destruction of all Polish people. I do not think this is controversal, and I think the article explains it in the Slavic victims section as is, as well as in articles on the AB Aktion, etc.
I find this information incorrect. I find it inconsistant with work by , Richard Lukas, and a few authors not on the tip of my tongue. 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
As for the other info, yes, those killed in extermination camps or killed by death squads, etc. should be counted as Poles killed in the Holocaust, and I think the number should be included But I suggest that we change the article now, because we both agree that the current phrase is factually incorrect. If you want to propose placeholder language, let me know. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
We do not agree that it is incorrect. We agree that adding sources to this discussion to establish the facts still under dispute is the way to proceed. 13:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt of Norman Davies after discussing 6 million Jewish deaths. "Between 1939 and 1945 -- that is during the war years but for reasons mainly unconnected with the conduct of the war -- occupied Poland became the scene of numerous other campaigns of exterminatory violance." Continuing talking about the groups: "each of whom have reason to view their own particular sufferings as meriting the label of a holocaust". Norman Davies does not provide a number.
Lukas writes "The Poles became the first people in Europe to experience the Holocaust".
Norman Davies writes regarding western scholars: "Holocaust studies in the West, which in the nature of things focused on the Jewish tragedy and hence on Fascist oppression, were giving an oversimplified, dialectical perception of wartime realities." 13:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Lukas writes "German policy in all Polish teritory, whether the annexed areas or the General Government, was the same -- enslavement and extermination." 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe the issue of Poles being targed in general is settled now. I have provided links to Wikipedia articles which claim this fact. I have noted The Holocaust article links to this content. I have referenced a top historian in Normad Davies and referenced other historians. 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
The balance, a self applied charge, is to provide support for the number of non-Jewish Poles exterminated in the Holocaust. 13:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

We are recapitulating a debate in the literature, believe it or not. While, I agree that some of the 1.8-1.9 million non-Jewish Poles died in the Holocaust, Poles were clearly not targeted in the same way Jews and Roma were during the time Poland was occupied, so there is a lot of debate over whether they are included in the Holocaust. Perhaps it would instead be better to give the debate, rather than to insist on absolutes. From the well-regarded Columbia Encyclopedia of the Holocaust:

Because their deaths were much more selective than the Jews, Gypsies, or the handicapped, it is possible to place them in a seperate catagory. Those who exclude them point out that Germany did not intend to kill all the Slavs... Complicating the issue is the difficulty of seperating racially-motivated killings of Poles or Soviet citizens from those that occured during wartime. Those who include Polish civilian losses in the Holocaust include Bodan Wytwycky, Richard Lukas, and Ihor Karmenetsky.

I think that pretty cogently describes the debate. So, do we want to say something like: "Additionally, scholars disagree to the extent that non-Jewish Polish civilian deaths of 1.8-1.8 million people were part of the Holocaust, though there is no doubt of the eventual genocidal intentions of the Nazis towards the Poles." Hopefully, that will work better. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I have put your statement into article. I have removed previous statement. I've also added, very briefly, items of agreement from above discussion.
All the best.
Great, nice to have this resolved, it strengthens the article. I made a few minor tweaks to your addition, let me know if you want to change anything. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust during reign of Henry VIII

I remember reading / watching something that stated that one of the first uses of the word "Holocaust" in relation to a mass extermination of the Jews came from records of Henry VIII's reign. I am not an expert on this topic at all, but I was wondering if this is true? If so - I think it should be added to the article.

I don’t want to defend the character of Henry VIII who was an egoistical bully, but there was no genocide of Jews in his reign for the very simple reason there were no Jews in England during his lifetime. The entire Jewish population of England by Edward I was expelled in 1290 and no Jews were allowed in England officially until 1655. It was Cromwell of all people who allowed Jews to live in England again. Later in the reign of Elizabeth I Marranos from Spain and Portugal were allowed to settle in England as long they continued to profess to practice Catholicism in public, but if there was a secret Jewish community in Henry’s reign, it must have been very small.
Anyhow, since Tudor England officially had no Jews, there could not have been a genocide of Jews in the Tudor period. Some have described the persecution of Catholics during the second half when he was an Anglican as a Holocaust and an smaller number have described the persecution of Protestants during the first half of Henry’s reign when was a Catholic as a Holocaust, but either case, I don’t think it compares. First, in Tudor England, religious dissidents whatever they be Protestants or Catholics could usually save their lives by renouncing their beliefs; by contrast, for the Nazis, Jews were a “race”, that is an separate biological category from the so-called “Aryan race”. For the Nazis, if somebody had “Jewish blood”, that person was an Jew forever regardless if they practiced Judaism as a religion or not and could only stop being an Jew by dying. For this reason, Jewish converts to Christianity, Jews who became atheists and Gentiles who had too much “Jewish blood” were exterminated. Second, Henry never targeted religious dissidents for complete extermination. True, Henry had people killed for their beliefs, but it also true, that religious dissidents were sometimes only fined or mutilated or imprisoned. By contrast, after 1941-42, all Jews living under Nazi rule were targeted for extermination. I hope this answers your question.A.S. Brown 07:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What most Germans knew, and when they knew it?...

I think the coverage of this in the article needs to be expanded.

This it what is says now:

"Debate also continues on how much average Germans knew about the Holocaust. Recent historical work suggests that the majority of Germans knew that Jews were being indescriminately killed and persecuted, even if they did not know of the specifics of the death camps. Robert Gellately, a historian at Oxford University, conducted a widely-respected survey of the German media before and during the war, concluding that there was "substantial consent and active participation of large numbers of ordinary Germans" in aspects of the Holocaust, and documenting that the sight of columns of slave laborers were common, and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known[17]."

It says there's a debate, but it only covers one partisipant in that debate. What have others said before and since? What I generally recall hearing, was that there were rummors and such but that most people didn't believe them, or were in denial, or some combination, and that the truth wasn't widely accepted until after the war...

From what I know, Gellately's work has the advantage of being both very recent and highly regarded by historians, which makes it a good "last word" on the subject. You are right in that there has been a lot of controversy on this topic, but if we want to cover some of the back-and-forth, especially the historical debate on the subject, it might be worth a seperate sub-article at some point. Basically, the old opinion was that the Holocaust was carried out by a small group of Nazis, though there was a lot of research that argued against that view. More recent scholarship has been very convincing that many more Germans knew and/or participated in the Holocaust than previously imagined. Key recent books in shedding light on this have been Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men: Reserve Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland and Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. --Goodoldpolonius2 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done a whole lot of research in this area, but I think the issue should be discussed in more depth on Wikipedia, as its implications are pretty profound. If this results in a spin-off article then why not? And we're not talking ancient history here by any means. If it's true that a majority of Germans at the time were concious and willing partisipants in mass-murder and genocide, then that would mean that the majority of the parents of today's middle-aged Germans and the grandparents of today's younger Germans were. It would mean that the majority of today's still-living Germans in their 70s and older were. And perhaps most importantly, it would mean that a majority of the leaders who set up the and rebuilt the government and business institutions of West Germany in the post-War period were. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 20:18, January 13, 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, write up an NPOV addition to the article. It will be an interesting challenge. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a community project, so it's something that should be worked on as a community. Right now, the challenge is to have complete coverage of this issue. NPOVing isn't much of a challenge once the perspectives of all sides have been presented and cited. Generic69 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Jpgordon means that covering the debate -- Lord Dahrendorf, Historikerstreit, Goldhagen and detractors, the work in the 1970s about the Wehrmacht, etc. -- would be a real challenge and likely to attract a lot of the "well, the whole Waffen SS wasn't involved" kind of discussions that are a sure way to cause insanity. I am happy to add to an article, but I don't have time to research and write something like this. Feel free to get started with a substantive, researched article and I am sure you will find people willing to contribute. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There has been work in Poland by historians for example examining thousands of letters by German soldiers-most of them speak quite openly about mass murder of Jews to their families, and often boast about it. I will find the article. --Molobo 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the coal question was the


basis for a positive view of Germany. Before that it was still in the de-Nazification stage and retribution. Having been in the Army in Germany I was aware of this quite strongly, and particularly the fact that the American forces stumbling on concentration camps and seeing piles of dead bodies, emaciated, starved, felt vindictive and aggressive. I shared this myself having been through Nordhausen in probably late April or early May 1945. Nordhausen was a sight that's hard to forget. At the same time I got in an exchange with Sweezy, Paul Sweezy now a Marxist, then OSS member, saying that I thought that the non-fraternization couldn't last. It was a big thing that the troops should not fraternize. Eisenhower was strong on this. It was easy to understand it. We thought that all Germans were despicable and had been guilty of this crime. I remember very well myself, observing


that in two cases and I think three, the American Army in its infinite outrage took the lord-mayor and his wife of a neighboring town, through the concentration camp and made them see the horror of it. And in these two cases--maybe three, the mayor and his wife went home and committed suicide that night. It made me understand, which I hadn't been aware of, the capacity of the human mind to reject things. I think what happened is in the sub-conscious mind the lord-mayor and his lady had known, the nearby units, but in their conscious mind they had been unwilling to understand and they had put it out of their minds. Only when they could no longer evade this they were overwhelmed by their guilt. I found that very moving as the way the human mind behaves. But the Americans were so damn sanctimonious in this question about Germans. I really began to correspond with Sweezy and


say this non-fraternization is wrong, You don't want to fraternize with them, but you don't want to regard them as less than human beings. We are going to have to treat them as human beings in the long run, and we are all guilty--you know. I was moved by this issue. I still find it moving.

MCKINZIE: Of course, I should explain, one reason that I keep asking you about the positions that your office was taking is that I am aware that you got documents of a kind of conflicting nature. You got the Morgenthau business from the Treasury Department on one hand, and on the other hand there was residue of all of that planning that was done in the State Department by Leo Pasvolsky’s people, which did envision a rather early return of Germany into some sort of European economy. Dean Acheson says in his book that


he didn't realize that Europe without a reconstructed Germany was analogous to a body without a heart. He and other people had felt that perhaps Great Britain could assume the economic role that had been played by Germany previously, and somehow this was all your heritage or the legacy that was dumped into your office. Oral History Interview with Charles P. Kindleberger Economist with the Office of Strategic Services, 1942-44, '45; chief, Division German and Austrian Economic Affairs, Department of State, Washington, 1945-48; and Intelligence Officer, 12th U.S. Army group, 1944-45. July 16, 1973 by Richard D. McKinzie

Stor stark7 23:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism

If I am counting correctly, in less than 24 hours, this page has been vandalized (and reverted) 7 times. The time between reverts has been roughly 2 minutes, with a maximum of five minutes and a minimum of less than a minute. This seems about par for the course (it was vandalized at least nine times on January 11, for example). Thanks to vandal whackers like RexNL, Musical Linguist, and others, the page keeps getting fixed, but this is getting ridiculous. Compared to vandalism and reverts, the number of substantial edits has been relatively low (I have done some overhauls recently, but, aside from that, a lot of it is tweaking). I know that the next software version will allow time-locks before changes show, but that won't solve the vandalism issue. Since most of these vandals are anonymous IP users, is there any option to only allow registered users to edit this page, or is there some other solution to this problem? Should we be more aggressive about protecting the page? Any thoughts from other editors? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out Talk:George W. Bush and Wikipedia talk:Semi-protection policy on ways of dealing with rampant vandalism. There's alot of it, but the basic idea is to restrict editing to registered users, which seems to stop most "drive-by vandalism". The small number of geniune edits to this artice can be seen as a mark of its quality, rather than a consequence of vandalism. --BadSeed 20:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, so how would people feel about semi-protecting this page and seeing what effect that has on the vandalism vs. quality edits ratio? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
If there really have been that many vandalizing edits, a short semi-protection could be useful. However, let's remember this is meant as a temporary fix only. Superm401 | Talk
  • Trust the community. There are a lot of people watching this page. Seven vandalization in 24 hours is nothing, and the repair speed is fast. (Not as fast as GWB. But it's pretty good.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Do not protect article because if protected the article will reflect editors' agenda too much. 11:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How are vandalism incidents counted? Is it by the number of reverts? Reverts are not always because of vandalism. 14:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This is total BS. There is no proof of Blacks or Asians dieing in the Holocaust or living in Germany during this time.

  • Certitude is such a delicious thing. Especially when it's entirely wrong. See the US Holocaust Memorial Museum's discussion of Blacks during the Holocaust. Keep in mind that Germany had African colonies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the upseting impression that by "vandalism" you refer to my attempts to elaborate on indegenous participation in the Holocaust in the occupied Soviet territories, whose scope appears to me scandalously deflated in this article, whether from a desire to appease Baltic or Ukrainian emigre propagandists or the like, whose hostility to excessive truthfulness is incorrugible, or simple ignorance about the matter. still I will most likely, in all tiresomeness, persist in my quixotic efforts despite my contribution's being so genuinely vandalized. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

Over 80k: this article should be split

At over 80k, almost three times the recommended length of a regular Wikipedia article, this article should be split up. One page cannot and should not hold so much information. It needs to point to more links and sub-pages. It should be obvious that many users will have trouble downloading and navigating such a lengthy article. Not everyone has a computer that can handle this. Would anyone mind if I start the downsizing..? Suggestions and comments would be most welcome. IZAK 11:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would object very strongly to dividing this article. This is already a main article with several dozen branches, a navigation template, and subarticles for each section, sometimes multiple ones. Plus this is a topic that is difficult to cover in less than the size already given -- especially given the constant demand for more footnotes and references. The article size guideline is no longer about technical concerns (I don't believe anyone's browser would have difficulty handling 80k of text) and much more about readablity, but I think that the indexing is quite clear right now, with a pretty logical section set-up and flow. Additionally, attempts to remove information, like Holocaust denial or on smaller victim groups, entirely to subarticles has resulted in protests from various users in the past, and the material being re-added. The History of the Jews in Poland was nearly 70k, and it was an FA on the main page. I just don't think there is a neeed to do this. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Goodold: "Two wrongs don't make a right" they say, and it is no justification that the Polish article went over the limit, you broke the (technical) rules there too. So here goes with what I would cut out of this page:

  1. Each of the sub-sections can be CONDENSED into half the space they presently have.
  2. We don't need to be quoting historian after historian in sub-section after sub-section here if there are already entire articles for that sub-section in any case (ever heard of double dipping? that's what's happening here and there's no need for it.)
  3. Cut down on the non-Jews sections, because the numbers don't justify it: Please explain how "100,000 Poles" + "220,000" "Romani" + "50,000" "gays" + "2,000" "Jehovah's Witnesses" + "100,000" "communists" + "200,000–300,000" disabled equals a "Holocaust" ??? Sure mention them or write up yet some other article about The Holocaust and non-Jews but let's not re-write history and add to the very OBVIOUS creeping historical revisionism that ooooooozes sickenly from every pathetic segment of this wretched artificially streeeeeeetched article (as it stands now). Hopefully we can change it for the better very soon.
    1. Plenty of non-jews are Holocaust vicitms. You're ignoring events in an attempt to make the Holocaust stand for jewish victims only. You're the revisionist. Putting 7 o's and 7 e's is not convincing.
    2. "This is a controversial topic," (from top) and "change it for the better very soon. ", where the change is a reduction in content by half, (from IZAK) don't mix right with me. Controversial topics involve disagreeing opinions which take time to be presented. Take time to make changes. 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Making the Polish "victims" of the Holocaust is patent nonsense because a) they were a nation at war with an organized government and army and b) they then co-operated with the Nazi occupation which is NOT what happened to the Jews because:
    1. Poles were sent to concentration camps. 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    2. The deaths considered part of Holocaust are not militry deaths. Executing and exterminatiing teachers, politicians, priests, lawyers, doctors, common civilians etc. is not war deaths. 16:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. The Holocaust is about what happened to the Jews, who a) had no government, b) had no army, c) were targeted for genocide by the Nazis and d) were also subjected to anti-Semitic persecution by the Poles, as just one example (the French and Hungarians were just as evil), which is why by the end of the war there were almost zero Jews left in Poland or France or Hungary (as examples) but the vast majority of Poles, or French, or Hungarians, were still around after the war to keep Poland, France, and Hungary (as examples) running at full steam. So let's cut the "moral equivalence" about a "Polish, French or Hungarian holocaust" shan't we, 'cause we know what they are trying to do, to pretend they were "victims just like the poor Zhids" when they were not much better than the Nazis, sad to say, and there are plenty of historical records to back this up quite nicely, thank you very much (including my mother's testimony).
    1. The reason Poland had the largest Jewish population is because Poles welcome Jews. 20 % of Polish population was killed with a target focus on those that could keep the place running! Large perecentage of doctors, teachers, politicians, lawyers, engineers, priests was exterminated. Your statements are the opposite of actuality. 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    2. "running at full steam"? No. "Poland lost 45 percent of her physicians and dentists, 57 percent of her attorneys, more than 15 percent of her teachers, 40 percent of her professors, 30 percent of her technicians, and 18 percent of her clergy. The majority of her journalists also disappeared." from Forgotten Holocaust page 9
  1. Then, why do we need a lengthy section for rescuers if this is about the HOLOCAUST which is about how people DIED? So that needs to be cut down a lot. A small link to the articles about it is just fine.
  2. Finally, the sections about "Historical interpretations" (why go on and on about Functionalism versus intentionalism when you already have an ENTIRE ARTICLE about it ???) and "Revisionists and deniers" (and we already have a link to Holocaust denial) should not be on this page at this length because they don't deal with the KILLING they are just a venue for "talkingheads" to go on and on and eat up space that is not CENTRAL to the actual events of the Holocaust.
    1. Sticking to the events. Yes this is makes sense. 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

These are some of my initial suggestions, and I intend to act upon them soon, if that's ok with you. I would like to bring some others into this debate as soon as I can. See ya. IZAK 14:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

IZAK, first, I still do not believe this article needs to be split, and I understand that part of this reason why you want this split is that you do not like the direction of the article. As the editor who added the materials on the death camps, killing squads, and much of the other information about fate of the Jews of Europe to an article which was previously lacking them a year ago, I understand where you are coming from. But there are a number of constituencies here, and a fairly strong decision that the article would use the wider definition used by a wide number of scholars including non-Jewish victims as part of the Holocaust. I also disagree about removing quotations from historians -- if you look at the history of Holocaust deniers + ignorant folks coming to these pages, the additions of data from many scholarly sources seems to have made a big difference in the number of people attacking the article in substantive ways. In short, I realize that they edits you are suggesting would substnatially change the nature and focus of the article. Thus, I would suggest two things: 1) That you do this re-write on a temp page, as a proposal and 2) that we get some other people to weigh in on this, as you suggest (Jmabel, jpgordon, etc.). I still do not see any reason to condense this page, as I think it is fine, but I am interested in other opinions. Does that work for you? --Goodoldpolonius2 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Goodold: While you may have added important stuff, it's time to once again stand up for the Jews. The Holocaust is NOT about what happened to anyone who was killed by the Nazis, which would make that no different than what the Germans did to people in other wars such as in World War I (1914-1918) or during the Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871). This is about something entirely different (and you know it), it's about how Hitler carried out the Final Solution against the JEWS as outlined in his crazed book: Mein Kampf (1925). Sure Hitler hated the Slavs and lots of other folks (he was after all a "certified" psychopath and sociopath), but his vicious limitless hatred of the Jews knew no human bounds and his absolute determination to kill them out stood out above and beyond anything he and his Nazi pals and cohorts did to any other nation or group. This article gives way too much ground on that issue and for that reason alone those segments that deal with issues outside of the "Jewish Question" should be cut down to size or spun off permanently. You know, the killing of almost all of Europe's Jews in the Holocaust should not become a modern-day version of Christian Supersessionism whereby Christians claim to be the "New Israel" and we should not allow the Poles or anyone else to become the "New Israel of the Holocaust". Sure the Poles suffered, but the Russians suffered the most, yet at least the Russians do not have the audacity to claim they were victims of a Holocaust because they call a spade a spade, it was a war between Germany and Russia, and just as Germany attacked Poland it attacked Russia, and Russia lost TENS of MILLIONS more people than Poland, but it's called a war between them and not a "Holocaust" by one against the other. This is very logical and was always the case until the recent rash of revisionism reared its ugly head of deliberate diabolical deadly damnable die-hard distortionism. I stand by all my other points, and I do agree that we need to get some others into this discussion, not just POV Poles. I am not disputing that historians can be quoted but there is just too much of the "talking heads" on this page. Footnotes are just as good. To the Holocaust deniers it will make no difference and to the genuinely curious you are making their (technical) lives much harder by having a page that is almost three times the size of all other pages and takes much longer to download. People don't have time to futz around. Why do you think it's ok to tie up people when it is against Wikipedia's own standards? This page is not "sacrosanct" because you wrote stuff on it, you are not the "definitive" historian or judge of the Holocaust. And even worse, you are aiding the dissemination of a distortion. We need some real NPOV input for a change and not squeezed-in comments from all the tangents related to this article. IZAK 15:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, I never said that my edits were definitive, nor that the page is sacrosanct as is -- many editors have worked on this, it is merely a well-developed Wikipedia article, with all that implies. You are proposing a wholesale restructuring of the article, including changing its focus, and I was pointing out that this version has been the result of a large amount of work by many editors, and that the size alone is not a reason to justify radically restructuring it. Indeed the size limits are neither official guideline nor official policy, and the technical constraints that used to force it have been removed. If the content requires a large page, then large pages are preferrable to shoddy articles -- one of the most viewed articles on Wikipedia, World War II, is 86kb long, and Featured Articles have been over 100KB (see Hugo Chavez) without objection. There is no reason the Holocaust should not merit length similar to the Venezualan president. So, I made the reasonable (I think) suggestions that we let other editors weigh in, and that you create the new page you want at a temp location, so that it is clear what you are proposing. Does that work? --Goodoldpolonius2 16:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Goodold: Regardless of the excpetions you cite, when ANY Wikipedia page reaches the over 32K limit, with this article for example, it says at the top of ALL those page when you click "edit": "This page is 81 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." See the Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb. You are relying on major exceptions. IZAK 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

New motive emerges: "it's time to once again stand up for the Jews. The Holocaust is NOT about what happened to anyone who was killed by the Nazis," The original motive "At over 80k, almost three times the recommended length of a regular Wikipedia article, this article should be split up." has disappeared. 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
IZAK, your confusing Polish military deaths (~60,000 in the September Campaign + ~60,000 afterwards) with the ~1,500,000 Poles who died under the Nazi occupation most, (but not all) of whom died in the same death camps as the Jews. --BadSeed 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Bad Seed, that isn't exactly right, most of those Polish deaths did not occur in death camps, though some did occur in concentration and labor camps -- targeting of the Poles in general was much more selective than that of Jews. And IZAK's point about limiting the definition of Holocaust is valid in that there are three main definitions of the Holocaust by scholars and historians: that the Holocaust refers only to the Jewish genocide; that it refers to the Jews, Roma, and handicapped (because only these groups were targeted for genocide during the Holocaust, regardless of the long-term intentions of the Nazis); or that it refers to all victims of Nazi racism, including Poles, Soviet citizens, etc. Most scholars actually go with one of the first two options, this article is currently taking the more liberal third view, which is fine, but should be noted. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
True, it was much more selective, and I guess I over-simplified and over-emphasised with the death camps. I mentioned it because IZAK seemed to classify them all as simply war-deaths. Incidentally I don't have any preferneces on whether the article includes Poles or not in the definition, I mainly wanted to clear up what looked to me like misconceptions. --BadSeed 17:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

On behalf of "the Jews", I would like to say I don't mind "sharing" the Holocaust with other victims one bit. --Chodorkovskiy 17:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Chodor: It's not up to the Jews to decide anything, it's a question of OBJECTIVELY "standing up for the Jews". A big difference. IZAK 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that when Jews comemmorate Yom ha Shoah and say "Never again" many mean not only that we will struggle against any attempt to destroy us as a nation; we also want to ensure that no other people goes through what we went through.

Be that as it may, the question is not whether an editor (I, IZAK, or Goodoldpolonious or anyone else) believes that "the Holocaust" refers only to Jews or to all deathcamp and einsatzgruppen deaths. The question is, what do scholars, journalists, and representatives of states (Germany, Poland, Israel) and religious communities (Jews, others) say? We should report all major views. If most people use "the Holocaust" to refer solely to the Jews, we should say so and provide sources. If some or many people use it more broadly, again, we say so and provide sources. I think this specific dispute can be avoided simply by complying with NPOV and NOR. Now, as to the length of the article, this is a legitimate issue and we ought to think of ways to deal with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above, scholars are divided on the subject of whether the Holocaust includes non-Jewish victims and to what extent, which is why I inserted the first footnote. We can argue it here, if we want, but are unlikely to resolve a long-running debate in the literature, and instead should stick to NPOV and NOR, as you suggest, which would seem to favor the inclusive view, with a note that this is far from universal. On the size issue, the unofficial page (since there is no policy) suggests that notes and footnotes are not included, and that readability is paramount, since even larger articles have been made FAs before. So the question becomes: is the current page readable? If not, that is what we should address, rather than an arbitrary size limit. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
A little bit of both: writes "Poland was subjected to the most rigorous policies of racial planning, and that the genocide of the six million Jews was largely perpetrated there in circumstances rightly described as uniquely evil. The point is these undoubted facts represent less than half the story." He also writes about time when Poland was under Communist occupation: "official communist histography in Poland ignored ethnic complications altogether, using the state censorship to enforce a highly selective view of the wartime occupation where all crimes were attributed to 'Fascism' and all victims were described as 'Polish citizens' or 'people of various nationalities'. There was no specific mention of Jews or Catholics." 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Consider the following: the exterminations happened. You could break it down with a focus on Jewish victims and say there were 2 million non-Jewish Poles killed. You could also say that 5 million Poles were killed and that 3 million were Jewish. I agree that a question of intent does play a role in determining the correct language . I understand that Jews are the primary victims noted in Holocaust accounts. But, for example, Poles were first chronologically, and other victims exist. The Wikipedia article appears to be a blending of the Western view Davies talks about and the Easter view that had "no specific mention of Jews or Catholics." What do you think? 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia limits

In response to Goodold's suggestion please see the reduced version of this article --> The Holocaust/Contracted and add comments here. It's half the size, well under 40K, but the "Notes" needs some fixing still. Thanks. IZAK 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the current article to the proposed replacement. The removed sections: Resistance, Rescuers, Historical interpretations, aftermath, Impact on Culturen, and the section on victims are valueable. NerdyJim 15:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC) How much of space savings is removal of pictures and how much of space savings is removal of text? I do think the pictures are good too though. I don't believe that undoing the values in the article is a good idea. I'll think more about this. Good day. NerdyJim 15:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
NerdyJim: Nothing has happened yet. The debate is wide open and there is room to consider all views. IZAK 07:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes Split it! Split it now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! H-BOMB 19:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


Were muslims amongst those groups who were killed during the Holocaust? Surely Hitler would have found them to be undesirable, as he did the Jews, homosexuals, communists, etc.? Yet I have never heard of any muslims being killed during the war. Davez621 09:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the matter, but as far as I know, the Middle East Muslims were Hitler's allies. Perhaps that is why European Muslims weren not affected by the Holocaust? --Chodorkovskiy 10:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

See Amin al-Husayni, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian). ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that some Muslims may have been killed by the Germans as part of anti-insurgency operations in Albania and Bosnia, but there was nothing, absolutely nothing comparable to the genocide perpetuated against the Jews. The Balkan Muslims killed by the Germans were not killed because they were Muslims, but rather because the Germans suspected they were guerillas. Moreover, a rather large number of Muslims from Bosnia and Albania fought for the Germans and were involved in the round-up and deportation of the local Jewish populations. From what I’ve read, many Nazi leaders were favorably inclined towards Islam; Himmler once stated that “Islam was a idea religion for a soldier”; he certainly won’t never had said that about Judaism. I hope this helps.A.S. Brown 05:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
One more point; and this is truly a important one, in Nazi racial theory, Muslims were just the followers of the religion of Islam. Thus, for the Nazis, Islam was just another religion. By contrast, in Nazi theory, Jews were NOT a religious group, but rather a so-called “racial” group. For the Nazis, what determined if one was Jewish or not was the amount of one’s “Jewish blood”, not the question of whatever practices Judaism as a religion or not. Therefore, Nazi policy towards Islam was more analogous to Nazi policy towards Christianity that it was to Nazi anti-Semitic policies, which were for the mind of the Nazis, part of an existential “racial struggle” between the alleged “Aryan race” and the alleged “Jewish race” that could only end in the complete victory and the corresponding complete destruction of the other. I hope this helps. A.S. Brown 05:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey - I am fed up after reading this artical. Where is the mention of the three million Catholics who were targeted during the holocaust? Why are we, instead, told about the 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses who were killed, and the relatively small scale of homosexuals targeted? I don't want propaganda. I want to read history.

There was no systematic targeting of Catholics as a group during Holocaust. Catholic Poles were indeed targeted, as Poles, not as Catholics, though many religious leaders were among the Poles who were killed: six bishops, 2,030 priests, 127 seminarians, 173 lay brothers and 243 nuns. Who are the three million Catholics were targeted that you are referring to? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to concur with Polonius, we Catholics were not targeted as a group, at least not yet. Hitler saw such a open persecution as disruptive and postponed it until after the "Endsieg". The Clergy that was put in camps and/or murdered are dealt with. I agree however with the anon IP that sometimes not all victims are treated equal. Str1977 (smile back) 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(though some clergy were)

I added this material explicitly to the article, changing the "Jehovah's Witness" section to a religious section. Str1977, I don't have any material on Hitler's long-term anti-Catholic plans, do you have a source for your info I could track down? --Goodoldpolonius2 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen isn't a historian

My change has been reverted back for some reason. The fact is that he isn't a historian, he's a political scientist. According to his page here on Wikipedia: "Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (born 1959) is an American political scientist", if he has a history degree, then that should be mentioned on his page here. What exactly is gained by describing him as something he is not? --Edward Wakelin 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edit so I can't answer your question. You are correct that Goldhagen is a political scientist, not a historian by training, but I think that people refer to Goldhagen as a historian because he was written historical works such as Hitler’s Willing Executioners and A Moral Reckoning. I suppose in a more broader sense of someone who writes books dealing with historical topics, then Goldhagen is a historian, through many historians in the narrower sense don’t consider him to be a proper historian. I hope this helps. A.S. Brown 05:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

From an anonymous reader: If Daniel Goldhagen was a serious historian, he would have titled his book: "Whose willing executioner was Hitler?". If you want to get a clue about this, please refer to the discussion page of the article on Theodor Herzl under Israel and the arab oil. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 1 April 2006 (UTC)

horrifying stuff

There is no histoirical proof to that story whatsover. I think some people can get a little carried away with this. The Nazi's did some dreadful things but shops stocking 'skin gloves'? I don't think so. Detmold 12:51 24 Feb 2006

the nazis also used skins of the jews for gloves and other stuff and was considered luxurious, especially if the skin was marked with the number on it MichaelHa 02:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

While the Holocaust was definitely horrifying stuff, to say the least, I don't think claims about clothing made of human skin are true. There is a Straight Dope article discussing the topic. Superm401 - Talk 18:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There are similarly doubts about the soap thing. It should not figure too prominently in what is supposed to be a general overview article. JFW | T@lk 20:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sad, but true. The Nazis did make soap from human fat. But it stayed in the lab and was never used commercially or distributed Israelbeach 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


I'm not a 'revisionist' or anything, but our opening statement says the phrase "six million" is now almost universally interpreted as referring to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, though estimates by historians using, among other sources, records from the Nazi regime itself, range from five million to seven million. which isn't true, and I'm going to reword. It's true there are Nazi records, meticulous records, but nowhere to the tune of 6 million. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but we are definitely not estimating the number "6 million" based on Nazi records. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 08:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It says: "among other sources". Studies based on various sources, including Nazi records, show that the number 6 million refers to Jews killed. --Chodorkovskiy 12:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Most researchers' methodologies have involved some variation on cross-refrencing Nazi details on train transports, Nazi reports(the Eisantzgruppen reports give about 1.5 million Jews shot in 1941, the Hoefle telegram another 1.7 million killed in three camps in 1942, etc.), material from pre-war census figures, German inventories of looted material from the camps, and assorted testimonies and photographs to arrive at the number, I think that qualifies as "historians using, among other sources, records from the Nazi regime itself." The relevant point is that these numbers were not randomly generated, but used as source material the Nazis own information. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arabic speakers

A recent edit changed the cross-referenced page in the Arabic wikipedia from ar:محرقة to ar:هولوكوست. Could someone have a look and make sure that the newly linked article is the appropriate one? It seems to use some pretty graphic pictures, so please be warned. It might also be helpful to add some of the material and pictures from the English version to the Arabic one, for anyone who is interested in doing so. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Goodoldpolonius2, هولوكوست reads h-u-l-u-c-a-u-s-t in Arabic (litteral transliteration). Regards, gidonb 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They just added an explanation that "holocaust" at ar.wikipedia is the Jewish محرقة, in a more general holocaust article (was محرقة, but now redirected) that connects our holocaust disambiguization (includes Chinese, Ukranian holocaust etc.). I think things are developing there. I donno for example where they put the Roma and other genocides by the Nazis. gidonb 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I must add that my Arabic is rather basic. I would like to see the translation of these words. gidonb 21:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
In my experience "holocust" is the term most commonly used in Arabic for the Shoah, and it's a term borrowed for this purpose. "Muhraqa" means a burnt sacrifice and this corresponds to the original meaning of the English term, I suppose, but I'm not familiar with it in this context. On ar.wikipedia it now redirects to "ibada", which means something like "extermination" or "annihilation" (ibada jinsiyya is the normal term for genocide in Arabic, if I'm not mistaken). This is a disambiguation page which says that the term "ibada" refers to the policy of organized mass killing of particular groups, and that the term "mahruqa" is used in relation to the "ibada al-yahudiyya". It then lists a few different cases, such as the Armenian Genocide, all termed "ibada" in Arabic and most of them given with an English translation using the word Holocaust. Palmiro | Talk 14:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Palmiro, thank you for the explanations. So muchraka is gone and ibada is on. All these seem the regular course of naming and renaming, just like we do here. Regards, gidonb 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Use of word "Nazi"

I apologize if this has been brought up before, but why is the word "Nazi" used so often? The Holocaust was orchestrated by the German people, not the Nazi Party. It wasn't a political platform, it was institutionalized by the SS but also by many other organizations within Germany. Not to mention the thousands of Eastern Europeans who actually committed the mass shootings etc. I don't find "Nazi" to be particularly descriptive or there someplace I can look within the archived talk pages for past discussion of this?Michael Dorosh 06:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to say that although the German people definitely participated, the Nazi Party organized and spurred most of the violence. But I haven't read the article in a while, and I unfortunately don't have time go back over it now, so take my comment with a grain of salt. There might be an overuse of "Nazi" that I don't remember. Hbackman 06:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"Most" of the violence didn't even happen in Germany, though - mass shootings in the occupied territories and the death camps in Poland were where the Holocaust was carried out. I just don't see what that has to do with the Nazi Party. The Party was the apparatus by which Hitler gained power in Germany, but after that, the SS were primarily responsible for the mechanisms by which the 11 million went to their deaths - be it the einsatzgruppen, the Totenkopf, or whomever else. Other agencies certainly did their part too, but it was not a political matter per se; it was the acts of the paramilitary agencies, and foreign volunteers, acting under the direction of so-called "men" like Heydrich, who were acting as members of and under the authority of the SS, not members of the this not so?Michael Dorosh 06:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think not so. Our own Nazi Party article says that by 1939, the party and the government were essentially one and the same. The SS itself was part of the Nazi Party, not anything seperate from it. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The regs here say you can't use Wikipedia itself as a source when discussing editing, so that discounts your entire post. Do you have a creditable source that says the SS was "part of the Nazi Party"? Michael Dorosh 00:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, you don't get to "discount" my entire post because I suggest you look at our own very well researched article. I won't cite Wikipedia within articles, of course, but on a talk page I'll quite happily point you to work we've already done here. Read SS. It has excellent references. Then you might read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Now, if you want to distinguish between actions of the Wehrmacht and those of the Nazi Party, you might have some good argument -- the average foot soldier was not the average SS trooper. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read the sources. From your own article on the SS:

By 1944, the SS had become a vast and complex organization and was considered a "State within a State". The final structure and organization of the SS were as follows:...The most powerful men in the SS were the SS and Police Leaders, divided into three levels being that of Regular Leaders, Higher Leaders, and Supreme Leaders. Such persons normally held the rank of SS-Gruppenfuhrer or above and answered directly to Heinrich Himmler in all matters pertaining to the SS in their area of responsibility.

Or this:

The ultimate authority for the Einsatzgruppen, which answered directly to Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler, were the SS and Police Leaders who oversaw all Einsatzgruppen activities and reports in their given area.

I'm familiar with how complicated the pecking order in the Third Reich's heirarchy was (a deliberate move by Hitler to keep his minions struggling with each other rather than ever being able to threaten him personally). But from these snippets, if the SS senior leadership, and the einsatzgruppen - those responsible for the mass shootings and the concentration camps, in other words, answered directly to Himmler, and Himmler answered directly to Hitler, where exactly does the Party fall into the chain of command? I don't see that it does, but perhaps you can enlighten me. The Party was involved in domestic affairs, and I repeat - the Holocaust took place largely on foreign soil. The articles you mention don't indicate that Party leadership was involved in these activities - perhaps I'm just dense - can you cite me a specific quote that would indicate the Party's involvement? Michael Dorosh 03:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Michael, I am not sure what you are arguing - that it should be German rather than Nazi? In any case, other overviews of the Holocaust also use Nazi Germany or Nazi in the same way. The US Holocaust Museum: The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators...The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were "life unworthy of life." During the era of the Holocaust, the Nazis also targeted other groups... Everybody who orchestrated the Holocaust in Germany was a member of the Nazi party, and most, if not all, of the Nazi leadership was involved in the Final Solution. I am not sure exactly what point you are making, could you clarify? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Everybody who orchestrated the Holocaust in Germany was a member of the Nazi party, and most, if not all, of the Nazi leadership was involved in the Final Solution."
I challenge you to provide credible proof of that statement, I don't think it is remotely true. First of all, the Holocaust wasn't "orchestrated in Germany" as you erroneously typed, it was carried out primarly on foreign soil and was not a domestic German matter (where the Party ruled), and carried out by many foreign volunteers (ie not members of the NSDAP or even national-socialist in outlook) in addition of course to ethnic Germans (who may or may not have been in the Party). Membership in the Nazi Party was not a requirement for the Police Units - which murdered thousands of Jews and oversaw the mass extermination of others - I think Christopher Browning addresses this in "Ordinary Men" (ie number of actual members of the Party in Police Battalion 101). Finally, what do you mean by "Nazi leadership"? Do you mean Bormann and the Gauleiters? Or are you loosely using the phrase to mean all senior German leaders? I would put forth there is a difference. Himmler didn't answer to Bormann and Bormann didn't set policy - Heydrich got the ball rolling, at Himmler's order and, we presume but don't doubt, Hitler's. Michael Dorosh 04:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, here it is in Browning. In Police Battalion 101, among a sample of 174 rank and file policemen, about 25 percent were Party members in 1942. That is 1 in 4. So where does the idea that the perpetrators of the Holocaust (everybody, in your words) were Party members? In Police Battalion 101, it was just 25%. And their orders didn't come from the Party, but their chain of command went through the SS to Himmler - as described above, Himmler answered directly to Hitler, and not the Party. If you aren't aware, Police Battalion 101 was a unit that went into the East and conducted mass shootings. Browning goes on to say that most of these men "...had known political standards and moral norms other than those of the Nazis. Most came from Hamburg, by reputation one of the least nazified cities in Germany, and the majority came from a social class that hand been anti-Nazi in its political culture." What do you make of that? I think the use of the word "Nazi" is POV biased and would suggest "German" as a substitute, or even "Nazi German" (referring to the nation, Nazi Germany, which is accurate and definable, as opposed to the word "Nazi" which can have wider interpretations and is harded to use with accuracy). If we want to claim to be encyclopaedic, I think it is important to nail down definitions, then stick with them. "Nazi" is too loose a word at this point to be used with precision, IMO. I think its use makes the article weak, which would be a shame given the obvious hard work and research that has gone into it - and of course, its importance. Michael Dorosh 04:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, of course there were many Germans involved in carrying out the Holocaust who were not Nazis, and there were plenty of local forces involved as well that were not Nazis, but the Holocaust was, indeed, centrally planned by the Nazi German government. Rather than talking about examples of non-Nazi participation can you (a) point out where you see the term Nazi used where it shouldn't be; and (b) point to other general references on the Holocaust that avoid using the word "Nazi" for the reasons you cite? --Goodoldpolonius2 04:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you were the one who said "everybody" who participated in the Holocaust was a "Nazi" which I took to mean a Party member. Even if you define "Nazi" as meaning simply a German living in Nazi Germany, it is still inaccurate when discussing Holocaust perpetrators as many were not German nationals or ethnic Germans. In any event, a look at Goldhagen and Browning would show that the majority of perpetrators were not Party members. I think many works do suffer for their inaccurate use of the word "Nazi"; it practically has no meaning if you stop and try to pin down a precise definition of the word. For example, when Bartov uses phrases like "Nazi Army" to prove his point about barbarization of warfare. I think Browning avoids the trap thought it has been a while since I've read the book in detail. The difference between Browning and other sources is scale; Browning can avoid it by focusing on a specific unit of a specific organization within the apparatus. It's when covering something on the scale of the Holocaust that it gets stickier. I'd suggest "German" would be more accurate simply by not invoking an emotional response. The word "Nazi" has no postiive connotations, unlike "German" and thus - if Neutral POV is really a desired end - on that basis alone Germany is the superior word simply because "Nazi" can never be a neutral term. Anyway, just my take on the article; if you seriously want a sentence for sentence review, I'd certainly consider doing that for your consideration. Michael Dorosh 05:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Nazi as reference to a period of history

Hmm, here is a posting at a forum I frequent that has convinced me Nazi may be more appropriate after all:

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I thought Bormann was the ultimate control of the Party, and that its political muscle, the SA, continued on to 1945 but without any real power - and certainly no ability to set foreign policy.

Posted by easy-v - It seems to me that calling it the "German Holocaust" would be misleading, tying it to the German nationality and geography, whereas "Nazi Holocaust" is more specific, as it denotes a historical period and identifies those responsible for it. "German" would also, by omission, seem to absolve and distance the rest of the ethnicities that participated in it.
Posted by Michael Dorosh - That's the best answer I've heard yet; if by using "Nazi" one is describing the event in historical context only (ie during the period of Nazi Germany) then it does indeed make sense. Your last point is apt as well. Thanks.
Thanks to all for the discussion, here and elsewhere. Still not convinced the word is a great descriptor but since it has evolved thus in the historical community I suppose we are stuck with it. :) Michael Dorosh 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

3 or 6 million polish jews

In one of the paragraphs someone stated that 90% of the polish jewish population was killed, that being 6 million people. I reverted that. 6 million jew were killed, not only polish, but also jews from all other countries are accounted for in this number. So I changed it back to 3 million, I think the number was before I edited it, and wrote at the end of the paragraph that a total of 6 million jews were killed. It is easy to mix the numbersJordskjelv 02:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

New Section Addition

I believe we either should start a new page or new section for "Children of the Holocaust" and how they were gravley affected.

Improve this

Please improve this article: Non-German cooperation with nazis during World War 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser 747 (talkcontribs)

Removed passage

I was surprised to find this here. If someone wants to try to back this up with some credible sources, I'd welcome reinserting whatever is accurate but I know those purported quotes below are bogus. Infact the quote about "crushing the Chruch like a toad" is attributed not to Hitler but by the Pope in 1942 talking about the Communists (to him) being worse than Hitler's NSDAP: ‘Yes, the communist danger does exist, but at this time the NSDAP danger is the more serious. They want to destroy the church and crush it like a toad.’ Cornwell, p. 261 and can be found here: [3] The quote, which there is a few variations seems to come from Theodor Groppe, Ein Kampf um Recht und Sitte (2.) (Trier, 1959), pp. 10, 56. But, this is mentioned as hearsaywith Hitler supposedly also denying he ever said that when supposedly questioned by the Pope, who was told of the comment. The quote has changed a bit and originaly was "poisonous toad." There is enough well documented quotes by Hitler that we should not have to use these qustionable specious ones.

Infact, virtually all anti-Christian quotes about Hitler come from Martin Bormann's "Hitler's Table Talk", an exclusively hearsay compilation of "private" conversations in which Hitler was supposedly warned beforehand that everything he said would be recorded for posterity, yet he lowered his guard and supposedly revealed his true feelings anyway. Naturally, these feelings contrast violently with other public or private speeches or conversations, and mysteriously enough, no original documents or recordings can be found (see the excellent discussion of this book at [4]). Another over-used source is Hermann Rauschning's "The Voice of Destruction: Hitler Speaks", which was already so heavily quoted by 1945 that it was explicitly mentioned and dismissed in OSS documents because of its unreliable nature. In fact, May 1983, Swiss historian Wolfgang Haenel formally gathered together all of the criticisms of Rauschning's book and resoundingly debunked it at a presentation at the annual conference of the Ingolstadt Contemporary History Research Center, showing (among other things) that Hitler was not physically present at the times and places indicated, and that the financially desperate Rauschning was paid a staggering sum of money to produce the book by French and American sources who wished to use it as propaganda.

Postwar Christian apologists have put perhaps their greatest efforts into creating the myth that Adolf Hitler was not a Christian, or even anti-Christian. An entire cottage industry seems to have sprung up around the desire to perpetuate this myth, and while its motivations are perfectly understandable (who would want to be associated with Hitler in any way?), its dishonesty is unjustifiable. The truth, however uncomfortable, is still the truth.

In death, Hitler has become larger than life. He has become a weapon of sorts, to be used by propagandists as a way of sanctifying themselves while vilifying others. By painting Hitler as something other than he was, these propagandists try to cast doubt on the morality of their opponents, and shore up their own claims of superior morality (all in service to the stubborn and intolerant belief that morality is ultimately decided by religious affiliation rather than individual attitudes). Entire books have been filled with fictitious Hitler quotes (usually attributed to personal conversations) which are still widely disseminated despite having been thoroughly debunked1 (of course, since many of these quotes support the notion that Hitler was anti-Christian, it's no surprise that they are still in such widespread use).

However, without such questionable sources as uncorroborated hearsay accounts of private conversations, we discover a rather interesting phenomenon: the Hitler's seemingly conflicted statements suddenly become very consistent, and that is he was not anti-Christian he only had problems with the role between Church and State, his view of Jesus being an Aryan not a Jew, and having its center in Berlin, not Rome, but a facist Christian-State was very much a part of his Nazi society. The removed, uncited, section, below:

"Plans were designed by the Nazi government to totally exterminate the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and the anti-Nazi Protestant denominations. These plans were however deemed inopportune during the course of the war, and therefore postponed to after the assumed 'Final Victory' of the Axis forces. Hitler clearly spoke out in favour of the destruction of the Roman Catholic Church when he said: "Ich will die Katholische Kirche zertreten wie eine Kröte!" ('I want to crush the Catholic Church like a toad') Goebbels for his part predicted a 'final solution' for Christianity (which was considered "a Jewish doctrine") in the future new order of European society, but stressed this would cause too many problems if brought about during the war.[citation needed]"

Giovanni33 14:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"German Nazis"

User:Tlumaczek wants to change Nazis to German Nazis. Seems to me this is a redundancy, especially in this context. Take a look at this change to see what I mean. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Obstinacy with that You combat word "german" suggests that You think not only about "redundancy". But, ok. "Clearness of language über alles". --Tlumaczek 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

German or not?

I see the word "german" or "Germany" is obstinately combated in this article. My question is why? Has the Holocaust been caused by Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany or not? I do not accept explanations that using word german is pleonasm. In large majority of scientific elaboration pleonasm is used to explain something more clearly or dispel doubts. This as we know is encyclopedia and we can use pleonasm to dispel all doubts here. Or maybe somebody has doubts that Holocaust has been caused by Nazi Germany? Maybe germans are innocent? Maybe Holocaust has been caused frenchmen, czechs, poles or englishmen. Cold anybody explain me this phenomenon?--Tlumaczek 14:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

  • The very first sentence says, The Holocaust is the name applied to the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of the Jews of Europe and North Africa along with other groups during World War II by Nazi Germany and collaborators. Which doubts are you referring to? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
The sentence under the picture of Auschwitz doesn,t say if this part of Holocaust has been made by Nazi Germany or colaborators. Don't You think?--Tlumaczek 15:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't I think what? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆
You disputing that Auschwitz isn't part of the Holocaust or part of Nazi Germany? --Scott Grayban 15:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing about facts but only about what sentences in this article says. The first sentence says, The Holocaust is the name applied to the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of the Jews of Europe and North Africa along with other groups during World War II by Nazi Germany and collaborators. But the sentence under the picture of Auschwitz doesn,t say if this part of Holocaust has been made by Nazi Germany or colaborators. We all know the word "Nazi" relate to Germany. But encyclopedia is usually used by people which do not know something. --Tlumaczek 15:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh I see. Your dispute is that Auschwitz image doesn't have the words Nazi Germany under it. Well I would think that is self-explained from the article don't you think so? --Scott Grayban 15:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)