Jump to content

Talk:List of Nazi concentration camps/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Alderney

Perhaps somebody better at Wikipedia syntax than I am could add the following:

  1. Sylt, concentration camp (Konzentrationslager) on Alderney, Channel Islands (British Crown Dependency). Mar 43 - Jun 44
  1. Nordeney, slave labour camp (Arbeitslager) on Alderney.
  1. Borkum and Helgoland perhaps do not come into the category of concentration camps, as they appear not to have been for slave labour?

I expect others will add more information, which I do not have, once the bare entries are added.

See http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/a/alderney/lager_sylt/index.shtml

213.208.107.91 01:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bredtvet

Bredtvet concentration camp should be added, although I have had a hard time finding detailed information on this camp.--nixie 04:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bardufoss concentration camp

Should Bardufoss concentration camp be added? It is currently an orphan article. --W.marsh 23:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

With blinding speed(!) I've added it to the page, as best I could, since I couldn't see any reason it shouldn't be added! --Lox (t,c) 09:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Majdanek concentration camp

Tomasz Kranz, Director of the Research Department of the State Museum at Majdanek, has released revised death numbers for Majdanek totalling 78,000. The list is being updated accordingly.

see http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?tryb=news_big&language=EN&id=879

ef3ca 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

List of German concentration camps → List of Nazi concentration camps

  • Request extension This vote is due to be closed 14 January 2006 (UTC), but with the newly created Option #2, can we please have a couple of days (48 hours from expiry) to allow for any change between options? --Lox (t,c) 09:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

Add # to the option you prefer, followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Option #1: Rename to "List of Nazi concentration camps."

  1. Support. "Nazi" locates the historical peroid. Also, not all camps were in Germnay (depending on the definition) and not all staff were German. LuiKhuntek 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. "Nazi" is more accurate. JonRoma 03:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    The title needs specificity; the camps were in existence during a specific 12-year period in Germany during which Nazi political ideology wielded absolute power. The changed name would also be consistent with that of the accompanying article, Nazi concentration camps, though the use of the words "Nazi Germany" would be better yet. See the discussion for a more detailed expression of my views. — JonRoma 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support: more accurate as per LuiKhuntek. Jonathunder 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support as per LuiKhuntek. Olessi 23:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Molobo, and don't mix political aims up with 'accuracy'. Sciurinæ 15:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Option #2: Rename to "List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany."

  1. Support Per LuiKhuntek: this is not a list of German concentration camps, it is a list of concentration camps in Germany, Poland, Norway etc. And also the google test (so shoot me!) --Lox (t,c) 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Ehr, but I would support List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany as suggested, even more! I guess it's too late for a change to move options... --Lox (t,c) 08:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Moved to the newly created Option #2 --Lox (t,c) 09:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. --Lysytalk 09:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Olessi 13:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Sciurinæ 14:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. This option provides the best specificity in terms of "when" and "by whom". — JonRoma 15:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    (Not sure this is the best option: many of the concentration camps were not in Nazi Germany and many of the staff were not German, but I guess I don't strongly oppose this, either.) Jonathunder 21:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Well, it does not say "camps in Nazi Germany" but "camps of Nazi Germany". I'm sure you know that many of the (forced) staff esp. of the extermination camps were Jewish, but what's your point ? --Lysytalk 21:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Furthermore, regardless of where the camps were geographically, they were all in territory under the administrative control of Nazi Germany at the time. — JonRoma 21:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you, Jon, for responding politely. Jonathunder 21:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Seems best to me. —Nightstallion (?) 07:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Option #3: Do not rename. Leave as "List of German concentration camps."

  1. Support. Nazi is inaccurate, the camps were established by German Reich.Changing the camps to Nazi camps, will obscure responsibility of Germany.--Molobo 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. I know it is politically correct to pretend that Germany was occupied by some abstract Nazi nation during WW2 and was only liberated by the Allies. However I'm not convinced that we need to be that politically correct on wikipedia. I also have no doubts that most of the German or Germanophile editors, which are the majority, will not hesitate to support the rename, therefore I consider this voting a mere formality. Would support List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany, though. --Lysytalk 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. for the same reasons as quoted by Lysy above. Political correctness might be nice, but is not needed in an encyclopedia. The reasons quoted by LuiKhuntek are valid, but do not explain the name change. All of that could be (and in fact is) explained in the article, we don't have to include all of that in the title. Finally, we could similarily add that not all of the camp guards were Nazis and that the existance of most of the camps run only during a part of the Nazi period. Halibutt 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) BTW, it should be added that since my vote was cast, the rules of the voting were changed. Halibutt
    Still, you have obviously decided not to change your vote. --Lysytalk 18:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yup. For me these were concentration camps of Germany that happens to be called Nazi nowadays. I would probably support the List of concentration camps of German Reich though. ~~
  3. Support. It was a country, not a political party, that perpetrated these outrages. If, however, a different title is selected, it should be edited to the more readable "List of Nazi German concentration camps." logologist|Talk 23:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, these camps were indeed the creation of the German state rather than solely the political party. However, the term Nazi Germany has long been used to refer to the German state during the historical period when that nation's democratic constitution had been subverted and replaced by dictatorial rule wielded by adherents of the Nazi Party. — JonRoma 00:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Were there any non-Nazi German concentration camps ? I'm asking seriously. --Lysytalk 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lysy:
See the concentration camp article for more detail, but the concept of a "concentration camp" is not new; the article cites that the concept was known in Assyria several millennia ago. However, the article states that the term didn't become known in the English language until camps were set up by the British in South Africa a century ago. However, most of these were places where people were interned rather than imprisoned, and were definitely not the death camps that many of the Nazi German camps were. Quoting in part from the article:
In the English-speaking world, the term "concentration camp" was first used to describe camps operated by the British in South Africa during the 1899-1902 Second Boer War. Originally conceived as a form of humanitarian aid to the families whose farms had been destroyed in the fighting, the camps were later used to confine and control large numbers of civilians in areas of Boer guerilla activity. Tens of thousands of Boer civilians, and black workers from their farms, died as a result of diseases developed due to overcrowding, inadequate diets and poor sanitation. The term "concentration camp" was coined at this time to signify the "concentration" of a large number of people in one place, and was used to describe both the camps in South Africa (1899-1902) and those established by the Spanish to support a similar anti-insurgency campaign in Cuba (circa 1895-1898 [1]), although at least some Spanish sources disagree with the comparison [2].
While the camps set up by Nazi Germany are probably the most infamous example of "concentration camp", they were a different breed than the others. — JonRoma 17:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I've asked specifically about German non-Nazi camps, not British non-Nazi camps. --Lysytalk 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, your question was ambiguous. You seem to have intended it as {non-Nazi} German (i.e., by Germany outside the Nazi era), while I read it as non-{Nazi German} (i.e., by others than the Nazi German regime from 1933 to 1945). At any rate, the concentration camp article is certainly not specifically about British camps. I cited that in my reply because it was the first use of the term "concentration camp" in the English language. If you take an in-depth look at that article, you'll see that numerous historical examples of concentration camps (in a number of countries and epochs) are listed, however the only camps listed for Germany were those established during the Nazi era. This should answer your question. — JonRoma 17:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Firstly, I'm sorry for being ambiguous, I thought I was not. Anyway I've seen the article already, and have not found anything about German non-Nazi concentration camps there. Otherwise I would not be asking, would I :) ? So, were there no concentration camps in Germany e.g. after WW2 ? In East Germany ? --Lysytalk 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I sounded irritated — I wasn't, but I wasn't sure that you'd seen the article or just the excerpted clip. Regarding the DDR era, I am really not an expert on that period and, while I know that state had a massive secret police apparatus and repression of political opponents, to my knowledge the imprisonment of these enemies had a different form than under the Nazis. Can you add anything to this subject? Regards. — JonRoma 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether it can be generalised from that example, but the KZ Buchenwald became a similar but reversed concentration camp after 1945. Sciurinæ 20:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that detail.Though the camp appears to have been run by the Soviet authorities (rather than by the DDR which did not exist at the time), this seems like a detail that ought to be cited under the concentration camps article. It may well be that there were other such camps, particularly in the east. — JonRoma 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I would expect there might be non-Nazi concentration camps in Germany after WW2 is that I know there were such camps in Hungary, in Poland, Romania, Lithuania and the SU and probably in other countries of the bloc as well. Therefore I would not a priori exclude Germany, even if wikipedia is surprisingly silent about this. Similarly, I've just run into an article claiming (falsely IMO) that there were German concentration camps operating during WW1 as well. I'm asking these questions mostly for I wonder whether renaming the article from "German" to "Nazi" would help in differentiating these issues. So far I'm rather against renaming if it's driven by political correctness solely. --Lysytalk 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Lysy: My motivation for supporting the renaming has nothing to do with political correctness; my motivation is made strictly from a desire for specificity. Though Germany was only unified as a nation since 1871, German history goes back over a millennium. And without qualification, an uninititiated reader may assume that the list is an all-inclusive list of concentration camps that may have existed at various times throughout German history, when in fact the list covers a specific 12-year time period denoted by the term Nazi. I have no interest in obscuring the fact that the Nazi concentration camps were created and administered by Germans and that the atrocities in the camps were largely but not exclusively committed by Germans. However, I feel the article title as it stands today is too broad. The term World War II is too narrow because the camps were set up prior to the outbreak of war. I think the best name for this article would be List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany, because the term "Nazi Germany" neatly defines the period in which the camps were in operation (and, as you can note, doesn't leave Germany out of it). However, better as that name may be, it's not the proposal being voted on. Still, my view is that the proposed name is at least incrementally more specific than that present and thus (IMHO) is a modest improvement. — JonRoma 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Yup, List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany would probably be optimal. Even Molobo's point of view could be satisfied. Sciurinæ 21:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I see. I would probably vote in support of List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany but since, as you said, it's not the proposal being voted on, I'll keep my oppose for the record simply. From you explanation I understand thet this was not your intention, but I opoose to names that might imply the "not us but them" way of thinking: not Germans but Nazis, not Poles but the Commies, not Russians but Soviets etc. If you know what I mean. --Lysytalk 21:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

To avoid any voting confusion regarding the changed options, it might be best to simply rescind this vote and start the vote anew. Olessi 13:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right but I thought we might give it a try and hopefully safe some time as there's hope that option #2 would get wide support. If this cannot be concluded with a clear majority consensus then we could probably vote anew. --Lysytalk 13:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning was that "Nazi" places the camps in a historical period (i.e., Nazi Germany) and was not to absolve Germans or blame only Nazis. Either Option 1 or Option 2 is fine w/ me so I removed my support from all and will let others decide. LuiKhuntek 23:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so now on to renaming the list of Nazi cities, Nazi divisions, Nazi painters and so on. Halibutt 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

"List of Nazi German concentration camps"

I made the suggested title change at the Requested moves page, but, still being new to this particular Wikipedia process, I apologize for not making some contribution to the discussion until now (I forgot to add this article to my watchlist) and at the same time thank everyone who has already provided food for thought. Coming late to the discussion, all the above has helped me clarify my own thoughts, which would be to title the article as above, List of Nazi German concentration camps. For me, it combines the country/nation/time/ideology matters discussed above without producing a title containing two "of"s.

Thanks also to JonRoma who drew my attention to the discussion. Best wishes, David Kernow 03:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

David, sorry it didn't occur to me to draw you back to the discussion sooner, as this process has now become somewhat messy. The most-recently proposed title, List of Nazi German concentration camps presents yet another option to the ones already proposed.
Rather than modify the options yet again, I wonder if it would be far less confusing to rescind the vote, take a day or two to ponder, and then resubmit a modified proposal. The voting seemed to fall into two camps anyway; after the addition of the third option, most of those who had supported List of Nazi concentration camps had moved to the option that included both Nazi and Germany. I favor a title that does not deny that the camps were a German creation but also qualifies the creation as taking place during the Nazi era. So perhaps the choice should simply be on List of Nazi German concentration camps: Support or Oppose.
At any rate, I think calling things off and starting anew in a day or two is the cleanest and least confusing way to resolve this discussion. Since you're the original proposer, I think that call is your prerogative. Regards. — JonRoma 03:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved to option #2. —Nightstallion (?) 07:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess that solves that. Thanks, Nightstallion. — JonRoma 09:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

"List of Nazi concentration camps"

Having renamed the article "List of Nazi German concentration camps", I'm having second (third?) thoughts; almost everywhere else, it seems, these camps are labelled "Nazi concentration camps". I suggest most if not nearly all who hear the phrase "Nazi concentration camps" would correctly identify the nation/time/ideology involved. So perhaps Option 1 above is most appropriate – otherwise is a search-and-rename all relevant instances of "Nazi" to "Nazi German" implied...?

Sigh, David Kernow 14:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the article back to reflect the reached consensus. --Lysytalk 21:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Lysy: I'm fine with the rename (and actually preferred it since the original discussion), but why did you ask David Kernow to explain his move, only to follow three minutes later with your own move. I think that if you asked him the question, it would've been nice to wait for his answer before making a further move. Regards. — JonRoma 21:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I hope you don't take it as an offence, David. Initially I thought I've overlooked something and have asked the question. Then I've examined the history and came to the conclusionthat the move was clearly against the result of this small voting, therefore moved it back (not because I disliked one or the other name, but for the principles). I'm taking my earlier question back of course, as it would not make sense now. --Lysytalk 22:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the content should reflect the title change!!

Jasenovac concentration camp

I would like to draw your attention that Jasenovac concentration camp was not Nazi German, but Ustaše extermination concentration camp. Also, for the number of prisoners and deaths please refer to article Jasenovac concentration camp, not to single unproven external source. --€ro 09:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Jasenovac

Jasenovac concentration camp was not a German-Nazi run nor established camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.102.204 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Although it was not actually run by Germans, it was under Nazi occupied Europe, see Jasenovac concentration camp. Crum375 (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Please, avoid false classification of this camp! It is still not a German-Nazi camp! The article is not about camps under Nazis occupied Europe - it is about the German-Nazi camps!--71.252.102.204 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The article is about Nazi-German concentration camps in Nazi-occupied Europe. Per Yad Vashem:[3]

Located in Croatia 62 miles south of Zagreb, Jasenovac was Croatia’s largest concentration and extermination camp. Jasenovac, was a network of several sub-camps, established in August 1941 and dissolved in April 1945. The Nazis gave control of Jasenovac to the puppet Croatian government, which was run by the fascist Ustasa movement. A large number of Ustasa members served in the camp, most notably Miroslav Filipovic-Majstorovic, who was notorious for killing prisoners with his bare hands. In total, about 600,000 people were murdered at Jasenovac, including Serbs, Jews, Gypsies, and Croats who opposed the Ustasa Government. Of that number, some 25,000 of the victims were Jews - most of whom had been brought to Jasenovac before August 1942. (at which point the Germans began deporting the Jews of Croatia to Auschwitz).

The fact that the Germans let the local Ustasa "puppets" run the camps does not make this non-German. In many other camps, there were local non-German Nazi sympathizers and helpers involved. Crum375 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The above is just a proof that you do not understand the problem. Actually, from the text above is clear that this camp was out of the Nazi-German control. There was actually 13 of them in that time occupied Europe - which are not established nor run by Germans. Six of them were located in the Independent State of Croatia. Please, read carefully references and do not make false categorizations like here. Your own conclusion is against the text you have quoted above.--71.252.102.204 (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Please explain what is unclear about "The Nazis gave control of Jasenovac to the puppet Croatian government". This means that the Croatian government was running the camp for the Nazis. Many of the camps were run or assisted by locals. The article is about camps in Nazi occupied Europe, which includes countries where puppet governments were installed. Crum375 (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not know what the quoted sentence means - in the context of that article. You have to discuss it with the author of that article. The fact is - the Jasenovac concentration camp was established and run by Croatian Ustashi. However, there was a Nazi German military representative who used his power to curb Ustashi bestialities seen here and, in just several occasions, select a number of healthy captives and send them to Germany as workforce. It is far from enough to make conclusion about nature of this camp just on a basis of an unclear sentence. Also there is an excellent book about Independent State of Croatia written by world-renown historians (Horry, Broszat) Der kroatische Ustaschastaat - which gives clear insight into relations between the Ustashi puppet regime and Nazi Germany. I am trying to suggest that you have to support your statements by an effective and broader knowledge of this subject - not by free interpretations of just one sentence.--71.252.102.204 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • The sentence "the Nazis gave control of Jasenovac to the puppet Croatian government, which was run by the fascist Ustasa movement"[4] is unambiguous. It tells us that the Ustasa were running Jaenovac on behalf of the Nazis, which is similar to the help the Nazis got from locals all over Europe. Yad Vashem is a reliable source, and its Jasenovac article leaves no doubt that this was one of the important concentration and extermination camps during WWII, under control of the Nazis, run by locals. Crum375 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The above is just you point of view what this sentence means - Yad Vashem is just a tertiary reference and there is much more information in the references I've already pointed at. You have to educate yourself - all your knowledge is based on a bad interpretation of the text you read.--71.252.101.67 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Yad Vashem is a secondary reference, not tertiary. And if you, or anyone else, have a different way to parse that sentence, feel free to explain. If the source tells us that, as I believe it does, the Ustasa were running Jasenovac on behalf of the Nazis, then the numbers are acceptable on the high end of the range, since Yad Vashem is a reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
These types of arguments are ridiculous. Why name it "nazi German yadda yadda". First they were German, or Polish. The Poles were offended by the geographic reference, insist they were German. PC people don't want to label all Germans so they become "Nazi" German. Wiesenthal himself estimated that 50% of all "Germans" actively involved in the Holocaust were in fact Austrian. Considering the small population of Austria, it would certainly justify completely relabeling the entire Holocaust as an "Austrian" endeavour, rather than German. Shall we do that? Here's an idea. WWII European Concentration Camp. Problem solved. Semantic loving, argumentative, minutiae dissecting types...have at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.66.156 (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac victims

This has been discussed on so many pages....

  • USHMM: 56,000 - 97,000 [5]
  • Jewish Virtual Library: 56,000 - 97,000 [6]
  • Yad Vashem: 600,000 victims of Jasenovac [7] and 500,000 [8] in all Independet State of Croatia. Can somebody please help me understand how is possible to kill more people in 1 extermination camp of all people which has been killed in state. I am really interested in hearing answer  ??

Now I want to hear why USHMM source has been deleted ?--Rjecina (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, feel free to add reliable sources and information, but please don't delete existing ones. Regarding the Yad Vashem numbers, as I read it, the 600,000 figure is total people killed in the Jasenovac camp system, while "over 500,000" Serbs were killed. I don't see an obvious contradiction, since many other ethnic groups were also "cleansed" there. The assumption is that presumably most killings took place in those camps. Crum375 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Let us speak about sources. Jasenovac Research Institute is not NPOV source and it is not site of Jasenovac museum but Serbian POV page. Site of museum is [9]--Rjecina (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Rjecina, there is no such thing as "non-NPOV source." All human authors and sources have a POV. Our goal is to present all reliable sources in a balanced and neutral fashion. In this case, if numbers are an issue, we collect all reliable sources and show the range. Crum375 (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
When you look this data about war victims you are lucky because your birthplace is not Balkan. See diference between 2 numbers and if you think that this is max difference you are wrong. I can find without great problem Croatian data which will say that there has been 26,000 victims and Serbian data which will say that there has been 1,000,000 victims of Jasenovac.
For me is interesting to notice that you are first user which is supporting this Yad Vashem data. On wikipedia this data has been used many time for jokes about how reliable are Yad Vashem numbers. Example: "The Yad Vashem center claims that over 500,000 were killed in the entire NDH [2], including Jasenovac, of which apparently 600,000 in that one camp. "
Now about data:
Yad Vashem about Jasenovac: about 600,000 people were murdered in Jasenovac
Yad Vashem about NDH: More that 500,000 Serbs, 30,000 Jews are killed
Or NDH has killed all enemies in Jasenovac and nobody is killed in fighting or there is serious problem.
If you add to this numbers census data for Bosnia and Herzegovina (which is half of NDH) and you see that number of Serbs has gone up between 1931 (last prewar census) and 1948 you are having problem with Yad Vashem numbers. --Rjecina (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand you. The YVS numbers are 600,000 people in the camp system, and 500,000 total Serbs in Croatia. It is unclear how many of other ethnic groups were killed in the camp. Overall, the YVS is a reasonable high end number (since the even higher numbers seem to come from less reliable sources) and that's what we include in the table. YVS is generally accepted as a reliable source (many of the victim numbers cited in the Holocaust article come from there), although being a human source it is not infallible. Crum375 (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Problem is that YVS are having reliability problems. Serb population of NDH has been 1.847.000 and if believe YVS numbers after killings of 500.000 Serbs number has gone up in Croatia ([10] + Syrmia population) and Bosnia and Herzegovina ????
For more information about number of Yugoslav victims in WWII you can see article Yugoslav Front of World War II
Speaking with simple words YVS is having problem with any respected source (not Croatian or Serbian) which is speaking about victims number in Yugoslavia during WWII--Rjecina (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the problem here. Since these are contentious issues, and events in that period were chaotic, it makes sense that there would be many varying views on the number of casualties, and even population numbers are not certain. The YVS is generally a reliable source, widely accepted world wide for its facts and figures relating to the Holocaust. Its Jasenovac numbers are not even the highest — other, less reliable sources, have claimed even higher casualty figures. So it is just being used, with a reference to the source, to support one end of a numerical range. Crum375 (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Jasenovac!

I am bad at editing on wikipedia but Jasenovac must be added here. Croatian fascists controlled by german nazis killed hundreds of thousands in Jasenovac; jews, gypsies, serbs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.32.99.35 (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Undercount?

Look at this video from national archives. It includes a map: [11] --Filll 05:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is not available anymore. — Sebastian 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Updated numbers

Since The Holocaust is undergoing a major overhaul and there is a table there of the death tolls at the major extermination camps, I decided cross check the numbers between the two articles. I discovered major discrepancies all over - between this list and the numbers in the Holocaust, and here I found missing sources, and varying sources. I discovered that the Yadvashem source appears to be the most reliable and consistent compared to the others, so I started using it to update this list article and add the references. Then I updated the Holocaust numbers also. I invite anyone to please cross-check me or find better i.e. more consistent and/or reliable sources. I do think that procedurally we need to focus on this list article and then copy the numbers to Holocaust. Thanks, Crum375 03:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

the Holocaust

Extermination camps were one type of facility that Nazi Germany built during World War II for the systematic killing of millions of people in what has become known as the Holocaust. I think that 'the Holocaust' term refers specifically to the murder of Jews. Millions of non-Jews were murdered in these camps too (for example Soviet POWs or Poles). So, I think, this definition should include them too.

Marzahn camp?

Is there a reason that the Berlin-Marzahn camp for Roma people is not listed here?[12] [13] - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there's no reason. --Lysytalk 15:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Suggestion

Please list all the camps and casualties. The narration of An Alfred Hitchcock Documentary states 300 camps, unknown which region or time in operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunsetdrunk (talk • contribs) 23:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Extermination camps

This article confuses extermination and concentration camps. And of course it's by far incomplete. Extermination camps are directly related to the Holocaust and should be listed separately. --Lysytalk 15:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Alsace-Lorraine

there is no such a country as Alsace-Lorraine. it is just a part of france. it should be changed cause it is misleading. --Dert45 (talk) 19:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

merci --Dert45 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Nazi_concentration_camps/Archive_1&oldid=826282870"