Category talk:Nazi-era German officials who resisted the Holocaust

Correct title?

I have removed Kreisau Circle and Helmuth James Graf von Moltke from this category because they were not Nazis (although Moltke was drafted into the Abwehr, which made him a German official). I suggest that this category would be better named, "German officials who resisted the Holocaust". Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany

See Category talk:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust#Correct title?. I suggest that a more appropriate title would be something like, "German officials who resisted the Holocaust", to better reflect the stated scope of the category, which is: "This category is for individuals with official positions or official membership in the Nazi Party, the German government, or the German military, who showed resistance to the Holocaust by the National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945." The current title suggests that all fo those who were in government or who were drafted into the military, etc. were Nazis, when many weren't. HopsonRoad (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I hear and respect your point; however, during the era of Nazi Germany, service to the state was equivalent to allegiance and membership in the Nazis. So the phrase "Nazi personnel" simply refers to being a member of the official personnel of Nazi Germany.

As you know, all other parties were prohibited and brutally suppressed by the Nazi regime. Membership in the government or the military did not make one an ardent Nazi; however, it did make one part of the official personnel of the Nazi regime, regardless of one's individual opinions, or political beliefs. since the adjective "Nazi" applies to Germany itself as a whole, i.e. "Nazi Germany," it is useful and valid to refer to any official employees as "Nazi personnel."

that is precisely why the category name uses the phrase "Nazi personnel; " it deliberately suggests a formal relationship, instead of using less-suitable phrasing, such as e.g. "Nazi adherents," "Nazi ideologues," "Nazi organizers," "Nazi leaders," etc etc. I do appreciate your good-faith comments on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Service to the state was not equivalent to "membership in the Nazis", which is party membership. How about "Nazi German officials"? That would make it clearer that they are officials of Nazi Germany, not personnel who were Nazis as in the current name. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both for responding constructively here. There are distinctions to be made. The name of the government at the time was the Deutsches Reich or "German Empire". The name of its combined armed forces was the Wehrmacht. So, while we recognize that all this was under the control of one party—the Nazi Party—it's wrong to imply that individuals living or working under the regime were "Nazis". Additionally, some of the people in the category were industrialists or local officials—not part of the national government.

"Nazi Germany" is our linguistic construct. The German Wikipedia article uses nationalsozialistischer Staat, which means "national socialist state". It's an affront to the actions and legacy of many of those who opposed the Holocaust to associate the name "Nazi" with them, so "Nazi German officials" is an unfortunate turn of phrase. I am looking for a description for the category that dissociates Nazism from individuals who resisted its policies. "German officials who opposed the Nazi Holocaust" or "Officials of the Third Reich who opposed the Holocaust" would achieve this. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• I would be happier if there were a superior category of "Nazi personnel". Without it the meaning is unclear. If its not possible to construct such a parent this needs renaming. Rathfelder (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Rathfelder:; that is a valid point. I have now added a parent category, based on your point and your request. Sm8900 (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I think there are three issues here, and they all have to do with clarifying the intent of the category, in how you define parts of the current wording, which seems vague to me.

1. The first issue concerns the use of the term Nazi. To me, "Nazi _NOUN_" (officials, officers, leaders, etc.) means, _NOUN_s that were members of the NDSAP (Nazi Party), with one exception (noted later). Not everybody in the country was a party member, even those who wholeheartedly supported their aims. So, in titling this category, one first has to ask, who do we want to include: just party members, or others as well? If the intent is to include non-party members, the title should change. In that case, the question becomes, 'To what?' If it's just "Germans who..." then it could be Adenauer, or Kohl, and obviously we're not talking about people from after the war, so how to phrase this? Category names are often lengthy, and for clarity, I don't see anything wrong with "Germans in World War II who..." or "People in World War II Germany who..." if that is what is meant here.
   Note however that the term Nazi Germany is an exception, and does *not* mean only party members, but rather the state itself 1939-1945 (a point which I'm sure is clear to those discussing here, but is it too subtle to use?), so, where "Nazis who oppose..." is restricted to party members for me, the term "People in Nazi Germany who..." includes everybody. (Probably too many, as that term would include concentration camp victims as well.)
2. The second issue for me is the ambiguity of "Nazi personnel", which could mean party members, or based on the exception noted above, could be "personnel of Nazi Germany". If it's just a synonym for "member", then the category name should include "Nazi party members who...". Or does "personnel" mean "any elected official", even the dogcatcher, party member or not? Is the deputy mayor of Nordsudoberniederdorf im Baumwald "personnel"? And if he's opposed to the Holocaust, do we want to include him in the category?
3. The third is "against the Holocaust". This is an anachronism, because that term was not widely used while the war was going on, and certainly not in Germany. "Nazis who were against the Holocaust" sounds vaguely to me like "Ancient Greeks who were against gay activities": even though I think everybody can understand what the second one means, the wording just seems wrong to me because of the anachronism. I'm not sure if there is actually anything in Category guidelines that would invalidate it, but it sounds wrong to me. What about "Final Solution", which was used at the time, at least, following Wannsee? I prefer "Final Solution" because that represents Nazi policy, active decisions by the Nazi hierarchy, that is at least something officials could oppose. "Holocaust" to me, refers collectively to the results of these policies as carried out (and the name of the academic topic that studies it), and viewed from the point of view of the victims, and not the perpetrators. If officials are "opposing" something, it should be the policy, something they could, in theory, oppose.

Combining my assumptions for 1, 2, and 3, would give: Category:High officials of Nazi Germany opposed to the Final Solution (could also swap 'World War II Germany' for 'Nazi Germany'), but if my assumptions are wrong, then so is that title. Mathglot (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes

I support the trend suggested by Mathglot. A few observations, however:

1. I would drop the "High", because that suggests a general staff rank or its civilian equivalent. Many of the cited individuals were mid-level officers in the Wehrmacht.
2. I would suggest "who resisted" instead of "opposed", because "opposed" could just be a private thought, whereas "resisted" suggests overt action or speech.
3. I like the Wannsee Conference point of reference, which anchors the policy and gives it a name of "Final Solution".
4. Some of those currently included were in the private sector.
5. Some of those currently included did nothing overt during the war, but kept diaries or testified after the war—This counts as "opposition", but not as "resistance".

So, my suggestion would be Category:Officials of Nazi Germany who resisted against the Final Solution. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Other than the pleonasm in "resisted against", I support your adjustments to it. How about Category:Officials of Nazi Germany who resisted the Final Solution? Mathglot (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2022

I worried about the pleonasm, as well! I support your amendment, Mathglot. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad:, do you think it's worth discussing with a wider group of editors, maybe adding notices at a couple of the WikiProjects listed at the top, or listing this at WP:Cfd? Or, should we make a WP:BOLD edit and just move it now, and see if anyone complains? Or, maybe just wait a few days, to see if there's further feedback, and if not, do it then? Mathglot (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

These are very good points. Might I suggest Nazi era officials who resisted? I feel that be a sound title. Officials imply someone in a position of authority. Nazi era refers to the period of time under question, and this resolves the problem already noted between those who members of the NSDAP vs those who were not. Officials of Nazi Germany might work, but it is a little cumbersome and as already noted, it is open to abuse. I'm not one of those who accept Albert Speer's bogus claims of repentance and ignorance (which is another matter that I'm not going to get into here), but after his release from Spandau prison in 1969, Speer did make statements along the lines "well, what happened to the Jews was really awful and how I wished I had known about it, because then I would had done something!" Unfortunately, there are a number of editors here who have too much sympathy for Speer as anyone who reads the article on him can arrest to (which is another matter that I'm not going into), so I certain that someone would add Speer to the category. Even if Speer's claims that he did not know about the Holocaust at the time and would had done something to stop it had he known were true (which they are not), putting someone who only saw fit to criticize the Holocaust after 1969 is a bit problematic. I would say go with the category Nazi era officials because that would include people in the period in question. I endorse Mathglot's suggestion to use the term Final Solution. The term Holocaust was only coined in the United States in the 1960s.

This is a little off-topic, but it is relevant, which is what doe one mean by resistance? I don't like articles to get struck on semantics, but in this case as with many other articles, it is important to have some definition of resistance. There has been a tremendous amount of debate about this by historians, and for those looking for more information, please consult the chapter on this topic in Ian Kershaw's 2000 book The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, which details the historical debate about what constitutes resistance in Germany at considerable length. Kershaw argues there are categories, namely dissent, opposition and resistance. A group like the Confessing Church which opposed Nazi policies in regard to Jewish converts to Lutheranism while otherwise supporting the anti-Semitic policies and the Nazi regime in general should definitely not be classified as a resistance group. Kershaw's definition of resistance, which is the one that I suggest we adopt because it seems like the most sensible, is that it an active policy of trying to stop Nazi policies because one rejected the Nazi system in toto. With regard to this category, it should only include those who in some way rejected the policy of genocide.

Note that I'm not saying antisemitism. There is unhelpful tendency both here and in the wider historical community to conflate opposition to genocide with opposition to antisemitism. For an example, Carl Goerderler clearly thought that the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" was taking things way too far, but he did agree that Germany had a "Jewish Question" (the German word Judenfrage literally translates as "Jewish Question", through "Jewish problem" would give one a better sense of what that word means in German). Goerdeler's preferred "solution" to the "Jewish Question" was to deport all of Europe's Jews to the far north of Canada, which would put them very far away from Europe without killing them. I would suggest limiting this category to those who objected to genocide in toto. Someone like General Walter von Reichenau, who may have sheltered a Jewish family in Berlin, but who was definitely very deeply involved in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Jews in Ukraine in 1941-42 should not be included. Whatever sympathy Reichenau may have possessed for this one family is eclipsed by his involvement in hundreds of massacres, of which the best known is the Babi Yar massacre of September 1941. Reichenau's Severity Order of August 1941, where he explains at some length that Operation Barbarossa was all about the "harsh, but just punishment of Jewish subhumanity" as he puts it shows what his feelings were about this issue. Sorry about the length here, but I hope this helps. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I recommend that we wait for others to voice a perspective. An agreement between the two of us doesn't constitute a WP:Consensus. Others have been notified of this discussion. It would be good to hear from Sm8900 on our recommendation. If (s)he is on board, having initiated the page, then I suggest a few days' grace.

I thank A.S. Brown for the ideas expressed above, which I will touch on here:

1. As to the exact wording of the category, both proposals have issues which can be resolved by defining what is meant in the lead to the category. "Nazi-era officials who resisted" is fine, but it opens the category up to non-Germans. However, I suggest that it's overly broad for this category to include Righteous Gentile officials in the Netherlands or other occupied countries during this era.
2. I concur with the in toto criterion. I would exclude those, who felt revulsion or saved a few individuals, but went on to participate in the Final Solution.
3. I appreciate the distinction among "dissent, opposition and resistance" and suggest that this category include only resistance and define what it is in the lead sentence, e.g. "overt and continued action or speech against the Holocaust mass murder of Jews and others".

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't this just Category:Germans who resisted the Holocaust? There were notable Germans like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who were not "high officials" but resisted the Holocaust at the price of their own death. In fact it's what he's known for. Also "Final Solution" is not the most common name; Holocaust is. Bermicourt (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Yours is a valid question, Bermicourt. There is already a category Category:German anti-fascists, to which Dietrich Bonhoeffer belongs. Does that encompass opposition to the mass-murders of Jews and others or is a separate category, as you suggest, warranted? Were there supporters of Nazism, who opposed the mass murder of peoples? The distinction that this category offers is that those included were officials of the Third Reich. I'm open to either option. My sole concern was not painting resisters with the brush of being Nazis. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: In light of the category, Category:German anti-fascists, I don't see the value added of this category and would support its deletion. HopsonRoad (talk) 15:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC) I withdraw my comment. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

There were definitely German fascists who were primarily energized by the goal of defeating communism and establishing the thousand-year Reich, and who thought the Final Solution was a big mistake, mostly because it pulled resources away from the main goal. There were also Germants in every era and in many countries, including over a million in the United States, of which 50,000 were interned in camps, no doubt with many anti-fascists among them. Mathglot (talk) 16:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Your thoughts on Category:Germans who resisted the Holocaust? I don't see value added for limiting the category, thus discussed, to German officialdom. Do you? HopsonRoad (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

HopsonRoad, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Would Nazi era German officials work? I feel that would address your concerns. I suppose that would open the door to Austrians and Sudeten Germans, but given during the period in question, Austria and the Sudetenland were part of Germany, I don't think that is a particularly big problem. That is especially the case is most of the officials in both Austria and the Sudetenland who stayed on in their posts tended to see themselves as Germans rather than Austrians or Czechoslovaks. That definition of resistance seems sound. There is no consensus about what actually is resistance, but Kershaw's definition of spectrum of dissent, opposition and resistance is the one that is most widely accepted, so is as close to a consensus as what is going to get. Unfortunately, there is a lot of baggage to this debate that obscures the issues. Some historians have really broad definitions of resistance because they want to maximize the number of resisters while others have very narrow definitions of resistance that minimizes the number of resisters, but that is another subject. I would have issues with putting some of these people into the category anti-fascists.

For an example, Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenburg was a German policeman who for a time was an enthusiastic Nazi. Schulenburg ultimately came to be disillusioned with the Nazi leaders, but it more for betraying as he saw it the "idealistic" principles of National Socialism as he complained that too many NSDAP leaders were corrupt and self-interested men instead of the idealists that he thought that they should be. Schulenburg was much Goerdeler in that he thought that trying to murder every single Jew in the world was wrong, but he did feel that Germany did have a "Jewish Question" that was in need of solution even if he did not approve of the "Final Solution". The article on Schulenburg is bit misleading-his opposition to the Nazi regime was based on his belief that the Nazi leaders had "botched" their pure ideas. For those interested, please consult Hans Mommsen's 2000 book Alternatives to Hitler, where he talks about Schulenburg as an interesting case of an anti-Nazi Nazi. Putting someone like Schulenburg into the category German anti-fascists would be problematic in my view. Best wishes! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Towards a consensus?

Bermicourt, A.S. Brown, Kusma, Mathglot, Rathfelder, and Sm8900: We have informally been trending towards Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, which is a formal process. My experience is that, if there are too many alternatives proposed, many of which may be broadly acceptable, but none is agreed upon, then the status quo remains, even if it is broadly regarded as undesirable. I suggest that each of us rank the choices presented, so far, that are acceptable to us in order to home in on what might be a consensus choice. Here are the main options, presented so far:

1. Category:Nazi personnel who resisted the Holocaust
2. Category:German officials who resisted the Holocaust
3. Category:Nazi-era German officials who resisted the Holocaust (added "era" to original suggestion)
4. Category:Officials of Nazi Germany who resisted the Final Solution (dropped "High" from original suggestion and substituted "resisted" for "opposed")
5. Category:Germans who resisted the Holocaust

HopsonRoad (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

• HopsonRoad—I find the following choices acceptable in order of preference: 5 (covers any German in any location), 2 (simple, specific to "officials"), 3 (makes era explicit), and 4 (clearly conveys intent in title). I prefer "Holocaust" as a widely understood term recognized to "Final Solution". It appears that we agree on "resisted" over "opposed". HopsonRoad (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• "German officials who resisted the Holocaust" and "Category:Nazi-era German officials who resisted the Holocaust" are both ok for me. "Final Solution" is a euphemism that we should avoid if we can. Dropping the "officials" would make Oskar Schindler fit better; he was a party member but not any kind of government official. Perhaps 5 is best, followed by 3, 2, 1 (status quo), 4 (worse than status quo). —Kusma (talk) 13:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • To call "Final Solution" a euphemism is to misunderstand cause and effect, and history. The "Final Solution" was official German policy which was specified, in writing, by the leaders of Nazi Germany and put into effect. Later, journalists, historians and others used the words "Shoah" and "Holocaust" to try to capture the scope and the horror of the results caused by implementation of the Final Solution. Being "against the Holocaust" is like being "against radiation poisoning at Hiroshima" or "against dead bodies on Mariupol streets" instead of being "against dropping an atomic bomb", or "against murdering Ukrainian civilians". You can't be "against" the results, if you resist something, you resist the policy or the actions. If you're against the results, you're a philosopher, or an ethicist, or a pundit, or the Pope; but not a resister. Mathglot (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    It is Nazi terminology that we should not use. —Kusma (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

    Nonsense. Nazi is Nazi terminology; so is concentration camp, gas chamber, Gestapo, Lebensraum, final solution, and many more. Reliable sources use them, and so do we. Mathglot (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

    "Nazi" isn't really Nazi terminology. "Final solution" isn't exclusive to the Holocaust (as an example we have Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution). —Kusma (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Are all Nazi personnel German? Rathfelder (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe they had to be ethnic Germans - Reichsdeutsche - living in the Reich holding German citizenship. Bermicourt (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I favour 5 first as simple, clear and inclusive of well known Germans who opposed the Nazis but were not officials (only 10% of the population were card-carrying Nazis); then 2, although it would exclude non-officials which might then require a second category. The rest I would placed in the order 3, 1 and 4. Bermicourt (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I prefer #1, and then after that I would rank choice #3, "Nazi-era German officials." --Sm8900 (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• actually I would like to add the following new option: "Nazi-era government personnel who resisted the Holocaust." That way we can include government employees regardless of their level of authority. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the thought, User:Sm8900. That seems like a subtle distinction that could be handled in the lead description of the category. I concur that the category shouldn't exclude lower officials. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Hm well, let's also remember that Nazi officials can be party officials with no actual government role; however since the Nazi party was absolutely the only party allowed during that era, being an official of the party was equivalent to being a government official, in that society. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I would favor 3, through we may want to take up Mathglot's suggestion of Final Solution instead of Holocaust. 5 also seems like a valid category in its own right. Perhaps make 3 a sub-category? Best wishes!--A.S. Brown (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Analysis

Now that everyone has had a chance to participate in this exercise—and I thank you for doing so—here is what I see and recommend:

• Option 3 received the most responses (five of seven participants in this discussion) as an acceptable choice with one first choice, two second choices and two third choices. Choices 1, 2, and 5 tied as runners up with three choosing each of them as an acceptable option.
• Option 3 also scored the highest—if we weight the priorities, assigning first choices a 4 and fifth choices a 0—having scored a 14. The runner-up was Option 5 with a score of 12. (I gave a 4 to the choice presented in the discussion above, on behalf of those who did not prioritize their choices).

So, I propose to rename this category Category:Nazi-era German officials who resisted the Holocaust and will enter it as a WP:CFD in about 24 hours, unless I hear serious objection. The CFD will officially establish whether there is a consensus on this.

Both logic and the exercise above suggest that a parent category of Category:Germans who resisted the Holocaust be created to accommodate such non-officials as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Oskar Schindler.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: actually, the category name above sounds totally fine to me. would it be ok with you if we simply went ahead and implemented that, rather than bringing this to CFD for approval? I think we have a pretty good consensus here, based upon your efforts. I hope that's ok. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sm8900, I won't tell, if you don't! ;-) HopsonRoad (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Lol! perfect! ok. so glad we could reach a positive consensus on this. I appreciate all your efforts on this. and thanks for running this discussion process in a very fair and helpful manner. thanks for all your help overall. cheers!! -Sm8900 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

And I thank you for your patience and constructive participation, as well! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for all your time, help and constructive advice! --A.S. Brown (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Scope?

The scope defining this category now reads, "This category is for individuals with official positions or official membership in the Nazi Party, the German government, or the German military, who showed resistance to the Holocaust by the National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945."

I suggest: "This category is for includes individuals with official positions or official membership in the Nazi Party, the German government, or the German military, who showed resistance to the Holocaust consistently spoke out against or acted against the systematic murder of Jews and others by the National Socialist regime between 1933 and 1945."

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay. actually, I am very glad if the category scope will continue to include individuals within the Nazi Party itself, as well as the German government, and the military. so your statement above sounds like a positive step. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Improperly included in category?

Going through the first few entries on this list, I find:

• Albert Battel resisted deportation of Jews Y
• Ludwig Beck no mention of Jews or holocaust N
• Berthold Beitz saved Jews Y
• Johannes Blaskowitz protested murder of Poles (including Jews), but is not known to have opposed deportation from France N
• Philipp von Boeselager responded indignantly to a remark that Catholics should be next N
• Axel von dem Bussche traumatized by massacre of Jews, part of plot against Hitler (strike N ) Add: YHopsonRoad (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wilhelm Canaris disavowed Abwehr part in extermination saved a number of Jews Y
• Wilhelm Cornides chronicled the Holocaust ?
• Walter Cramer in plot, but article does not mention Jews or Holocaust N

It appears that the criterion for inclusion in this category is unclear and perhaps admits those, who don't belong here. I suggest that those who actually rescued Jews should be included and those who spoke against the policies supporting the Holocaust should be included. Otherwise, not. The article about the individual should support the rescue or speaking against angle to qualify for inclusion of the individual described. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 11:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it is very clear that Axel von dem Bussche should be included. as the article itself makes clear, he was horrified by the killings of Jews, he opposed the Nazi regime, and he joined the plot to execute Hitler. that seems fairly straightforward. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

On closer inspection, I concur! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Continued review of entries

• Heinrich Graf zu Dohna-Schlobitten part of the plot; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Hans von Dohnanyi used his position in the Abwehr to help Jews escape Germany Y
• Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz tipped off the Danes about the Germans' intended deportation of the Jewish population in 1943 and arranged for their reception in Sweden. Y
• Wessel Freytag von Loringhoven part of the plot; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Albrecht Gaiswinkler assisted Maquis and recovered artwork; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Kurt Gerstein attempted to reveal Holocaust to the outside Y
• Carl Friedrich Goerdeler opposed Holocaust, sought alternative outcomes Y
• Albert Göring aided in escapes Y
• Hermann Friedrich Graebe not an official, an engineer and manager for a firm in Ukraine, who testified about the Holocaust ?
• Helmuth Groscurth opposed slaughter of Jewish women and children. What about other Jews? ?
• Nikolaus von Halem part of the plot; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord revealed plans to kill Jews in order to save them Y
• Heinz Heydrich forged identity papers for Jews Y
• Wilm Hosenfeld tried to help Poles, including Jews Y
• Friedrich Kellner diarist ?
• Erich Kordt part of the plot; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Max Liedtke resisted the "liquidation" of the entire Jewish population (including slave labor) of the ghetto in Przemyśl in eastern Poland Y
• Helmuth James von Moltke tried to warn about the peril to Jews in Denmark Y
• Hans Münch tried not to cooperate at Auschwitz Y
• Oster conspiracy not about Jews or Holocaust, although some members opposed. N
• Hans Oster later became motivated to help Jews Y
• Viktor Pestek helped Jews escape Y
• Karl Plagge helped Jews escape by issuing work permits to non-essential workers Y
• Karl Sack part of the plot; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Hjalmar Schacht opposed illegal treatment, proposed alternative ways for Jews to leave the Reich Y
• Fabian von Schlabrendorff no mention of Holocaust or Jews N
• Anton Schmid saved Jews during the Holocaust in Lithuania Y
• Carl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel cooperated with Holocaust N
• Otto von Stülpnagel cooperated with Holocaust N
• Henning von Tresckow complained about the killings of civilians, including Jews in Russia (strike: ?) Y HopsonRoad (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Erwin von Witzleben part of the plot; no mention of Holocaust or Jews N

This completes my recommendations about retaining or deleting the subjects of these articles from this category. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

re Helmuth Groscurth, that is the entire point of this category. with respect, you are being way too microscopic in applying these criteria. Opposing the slaughter of Jewish women and children, is, by every standard, opposition to the Holocaust, since the guiding premise of the Holocaust was killing all Jews as being subhuman, alien, and intrinsically hostile to all so-called Aryan nations. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that inclusion. Do you disagree with any of those that I've marked with N? HopsonRoad (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks for that reply. I will take a little time to think these over. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sm8900, since I see that you've reached Tresckow, can I conclude that you don't disagree with my markings of entries with N in reference to the criterion of the revised lead sentence? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

hi. sorry, but actually, I am not proceeding alphabetically, or in any other particular exact order. I went to Tresckow because since he was a full major-general of active combat forces, he seemed of special significance. So, since I am going in order of significance, obviously that means I will not be proceeding necessarily according to alphabetical order, or other criteria.

If you want, there are a few possible options on how to continue this discussion. Bear in mind that I may not go through all of these very swiftly. So theoretically, you might remove the category from some entries, but I would reserve the right to restore it later, based on further research. I appreciate your willingness to await my replies, but I'm not sure if I will get through all of these on a regular timetable.

Also, since we may wish to continue this discussion for some period of time, you may want to copy and paste this entire discussion section over to the talk page for the new category, which is a revision of this one. I will let you consider which options you might wish to utilize. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

No hurry at this end, Sm8900. We'll see if the Talk comes over to the renamed category. Usually it does. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

hi. actually, I think you are thinking of "Move page". I know how to use the "move" feature to rename a page, thus moving it to the new name, with the talk page along with it. I don't think that that's possible for categories, though. are you sure that it is?? --Sm8900 (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: actually, it turns out that you may be correct. the "Move" feature is indeed displayed as an option for this category talk page. I will implement that in the near future. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It would appear to be too late, since the category now exists! It may have to be a Category redirect. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I just made the rename for this talk page. appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

comments on individuals

Ok, I will look over these individuals over the course of time in the near future. here is my response for one person listed above.

• Otto von Stülpnagel
  • As per the quote below, Otto Stulpnagel viewed deportations of Jews as detracting from the war effort, and completely superfluous and not beneficial to Nazi goals. he also expressed some opposition to theft of Jewish-owned artworks. considering the central role of mass genocide in the primary Nazi agenda, any such resistance, even on practical grounds, constitutes a rare glimmer of basic human reason amidst a gigantic effort of mass murder. the category is not restricted to people who oppose the Holocaust on moral grounds; it can also include Nazi officials who opposed some part of the Holocaust on practical grounds, as well.
  • Quote: "Stülpnagel discouraged all activities that did not advance the German war effort. The latter goal placed him at loggerheads with Nazi party stalwarts who viewed World War II as a struggle against Jews and their alleged Communist allies. Days after German troops occupied Paris, agents of the Reichsleiter Rosenberg Taskforce and German embassy staff began to confiscate the art collections of prominent French Jews. Upset by the apparent seizure of France's artistic patrimony, the French government complained to German diplomats and the MBF. Eager to maintain cordial relations with the Vichy regime, Stülpnagel and his staff condemned the confiscations through a series of protests that eventually reached Hitler's desk, but to no avail. Hitler eventually exempted the Einsatzstab from military control and sanctioned the wholesale theft of Jewish art collections." --Sm8900 (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. I don't regard theft of property or even imprisonment of groups as fitting this description. So, opposing these lesser war crimes doesn't constitute opposition to the Holocaust, in my view.

Before deciding such borderline cases, we should agree on a set of defining parameters, regarding resisting the Holocaust. I proposed: 1) Rescuing Jews and/or 2) speaking or writing publicly in opposition to the genocide. I don't regard private diaries and post-war testimony as worthy of the category. Such people may have opposed the genocide, but did not resist it. Also, speaking out against or writing against maltreatment of civilians in conflict zones doesn't count, when the maltreatment wasn't expressly directed towards Jews; e.g. collective punishment against the occupied population for acts of resistance to the occupation. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Cornides

Ok, here is another one, Wilhelm Cornides (20 July 1920 – 15 July 1966).

• • QUOTE: was a Wehrmacht sergeant in World War II, serving in the General Government territory. He was the author of the Cornides Report, which contains his account of the extermination of Jews at Belzec during the Holocaust.
  • QUOTE: his typewritten pages, Cornides also summarized conversations with other Germans he met during his stopover in the Deutsches Haus at Rawa Ruska, as well as statements he remembered from Chełm upon his arrival there. A policeman in the townhall restaurant at Cholm (Chełm) on 1 September 1942 said: "The policemen who guard the Jewish transports are not allowed inside the camp, only the SS and the Ukrainian Sonderdienst – a police formation consisting of Ukrainian auxiliaries – do so [see Trawniki men for more historical background]. Thereby, they have created a good business. Recently a Ukrainian was here who had a great wad of notes, clocks and gold – everything imaginable. They find all of this when they gather and ship the clothing." In answer to the question: "In which way were the Jews killed?" the policeman answered: "Someone tells them that they must be deloused. Then they undress and enter a room into which at first a heatwave is let in, and thereby they already have received one small dose of gas. It is enough to act as a local anaesthetic. The rest then follows and then they are immediately burned."[2]
• In my opinion, a sergeant in the Wehrmacht, using force for the Nazi military and being indoctrinated to kill the so-called "enemies" of Nazism, who actually can perceive the monstrous nature of the Holocaust, is a valuable compnent of the historical effort to oppose the Holocaust. The point of this category is to compile all those individuals who actually illustrate the nature of and historical dynamics of those who were subject to Nazi indoctrination, and yet could still retain enough humanity to make some small gesture of opposition. so that is how and why I view this person's efforts as being relevant and adequate for inclusion. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment: I questioned inclusion of Wilhelm Cornides in this category because, according to the article, he chronicled the atrocities and may have been revolted by them, but appears to have done nothing to speak out or act against them until the war was over. Absent a display of resistance (vs. opposition), I would exclude him from this category. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

---

von Tresckow

The same logic would apply to Henning von Tresckow:

• He was likewise incensed by the treatment of Russian prisoners of war, and in particular by the mass shootings of Jewish women and children by the Einsatzgruppen behind the lines.[17][18] When Tresckow learned about the massacre of thousands of Jews at Borisov, he appealed passionately to Field Marshal Fedor von Bock: "Never may such a thing happen again! And so we must act now. We have the power in Russia!"[19][need quotation to verify]...Army Group Centre staff included Lieutenant Colonel Georg Schulze-Büttger, Colonel Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, Major Carl-Hans Graf von Hardenberg, Lieutenant Heinrich Graf von Lehndorff-Steinort, Lieutenant Fabian von Schlabrendorff, Lieutenant Philipp Freiherr von Boeselager and his brother Georg Freiherr von Boeselager, Lieutenant Colonel Hans-Alexander von Voss and Lieutenant Colonel Berndt von Kleist among others, many of them from Tresckow's old Infantry Regiment 9. The headquarters of Army Group Centre thus emerged as the new nerve centre of Army resistance.[20]...

• At the end of September 1941, Tresckow sent his special operations officer Schlabrendorff to Berlin to contact opposition groups and declare that the staff of Army Group Centre was "prepared to do anything." This approach, made at the height of German expansion and the nadir of anti-Hitler opposition, represented the first initiative to come from the front and from the Army, as Ulrich von Hassell noted in his diary.[21] Schlabrendorff continued to serve as liaison between Army Group Centre and opposition circle around General Ludwig Beck, Carl Friedrich Goerdeler and Colonel Hans Oster, the deputy head of Abwehr (German military intelligence) who was involved in a 1938 coup attempt against Hitler (Oster Conspiracy). Oster's recruitment of General Friedrich Olbricht, head of the General Army Office headquarters, in 1942 linked this asset to Tresckow's resistance group in Army Group Centre, creating a viable coup apparatus.[22]
• He argued that there must be an overt act of German opposition to Hitler regardless of the consequences. He also told Philipp von Boeselager and Margarete von Oven that 16,000 people were being killed daily not as casualties of war but from being murdered by the Nazis, and Hitler had to be killed just to put an end to it. A few days before the coup attempt, Tresckow confided to a friend that "in all likelihood everything will go wrong". When asked whether the action was necessary nonetheless, he replied, "Yes, even so."[33]

--Sm8900 (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: On closer reading, I concur with the inclusion of Henning von Tresckow. He objected openly to his superiors and followed through with a plan of action to topple Hitler. Thank you for looking at these cases. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sure no problem. okay, I have been finding out quite a lot about about some of these noteworthy individuals. for one thing, it appears that our entries often leave out key details that illustrate the full scope of the resistsers' activities. for example, the article on Fabian von Schlabrendorff doesn't provide the full significance of his activities. he wasn't just a disaffected military officer; he was close with Von Tresckow, and he was deeply committed to the resistance. he actually wrote a full-length book about the German resistance, entitled "The Secret War Against Hitler." Here is the Amazon page for this book. I am going to obtain more details on him, and then relay them here later, but it already appears that there are many deeper layers to some of these individuals historically, which our articles here may not always fully reflect. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  here is another one: Heinrich Graf zu Dohna-Schlobitten. According to this translated article, he was anti-NAzi before Hitler even came to power. he was deeply and fully opposed to the Nazi regime and to Nazism itself. Link: translated article from German website:

  • [translated from German]: One of the most common prejudices about the co-conspirators of July 20th is that they used to be enthusiastic Nazis themselves and were only prepared to resist when the war was already visibly lost. ....[however,] in any case, this does not apply to Heinrich Graf zu Dohna. Together with his wife Maria-Agnes, he was one of Hitler's opponents from the start. That's why he sharpened the judgment of his four children, who were always aware of what their parents thought about the political events of the time - which was, however, a special feature in the group of resistance families. "They wanted to avoid the children falling for 'German-Christian' or National Socialist influences and therefore considered it essential to involve them fully in their own thoughts," Lothar's son would later write.
  • If you look for the reasons for this family's early opposition to Hitler and the Nazi regime, you will find a whole series of biographical strands of justification - but the decisive factor is probably a personality structure of the father that came to light very early on: intellectual independence, ability to sober judgement, a high level of willingness to accept responsibility from the community – and personal modesty.

  --Sm8900 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)