Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Why

If they are so confident about the holocaust, why is it illegal to deny it? In European countries, you face jail for simply denying the holocaust? That is dictatorial and un-democratic to the fullest. If you take time to do extensive reasearch in University Libraries as I have, and go through old newspapers, you will realise Zionist lobbyists passed the laws through for the banning of holocaust denial and Mein Kampf.

There are clear reasons for this happening which is often denied by professors and educated ones. Recently an English journalist was jailed for 3 years in Austria simply for denying the holocaust. The best way to find some answers is to read Mein Kampf which justifies to an extent anti-semitism, but never called for the death of the jews. By the way Mein Kampf is banned aswell. It seems the history regarding this matter has been locked by higher authorities in fear of some truth leaking out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.95.29 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)


I didn't find anything about what was the cause...

I was just thinking that as I was reading the article. In college I took a class on the Holocaust, and over half of the semester was spent discussing the many causes of WWII, and, specifically, the Holocaust. I came to the talk page to suggest a causes section, but find someone else has already pointed out its absence. I may add a causes section later, but there are some problems with that. The article is already quite long, too long I think, and a lengthy discussion of the causes would not help it any. Moreover, I think there is a lot of stuff in the article that could be added, removed, or changed, to make this a much better article and that including a causes section is only one part of the massive amount of work that I see this article needing. Finally, to be quite frank and honest, it's a depressing subject and I'm not sure I want to put enough thought and effort into something so depressing as to really do a good job at it at this time in my life. However, this article is really not complete at all without SOME discussion of the causes. ONUnicorn 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever come up with a true cause for any war other than the fact that it is somehow part of our nature, a nature that is often at odds with itself. "So many layers of evolution" is the best descriptor I have heard of the human condition. BTW, What is the status of the Holocaust article? Why is it not available for editing? Muttley-Media 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apt two-line poem by Robert Frost:


FROM IRON

Nature within her inmost self divides

To trouble men with having to take sides.

Muttley-Media 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So why is this article protected? Or is it? 69.109.180.114 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Now I see above it is "currently disabled". 69.109.187.228 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Communist victims

About 100,000 communists were killed. There had been earlier attempts at sterilizing them using X-rays.

Please give a reliable source for this statement and an explanation, a) when, b) where, c) who exactly was killed d) by whom, e) where the sterilizing took place etc. To whom is the figure related to: prosecution of German communists before the war? Mass killing of soviet partisans, prisoners of war supposed to be communists after 1939? In both cases the figure seems wrong to me. Jesusfreund 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Scary how the run up to WWII in Germany is so eerily similar to the last few years here in the US. Patriot act anyone?

Yeah, because I mean I can definitely see the US employing concentration camps real soon. --Kellenwright 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this entire discussion is getting rather off topic. Can we steer this back to discussing the Holocaust? Kasreyn 06:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial

This statement, "In short, the Holocaust deniers are hucksters that want to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" may be true, but I'm wondering if it isn't NPOV. As I said, I agree with the statement, but it doesn't seem to fit in with the overall academic tone of the rest of the article. --Danahuff 01:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hbackman 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. The sentence is a colloquialism (and a hackneyed one at that). It has no place in academic writing. Blastfromthepast 04:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Strong agreed. This is definitely unencyclopedic at best and does not need to be said in Wikipedia pages. Many Wikipedia pages suffer from conversational writing, as opposed to informational writing. The word "hucksters" is obviously not an accurate word in any situation. Miquonranger03

Date?

til recently, Germany refused to allow access to massive Holocaust-related archives located in Bad Arolsen due to, among other factors, privacy concerns. However, in May 2006 a 20-year effort by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum led to the announcement that 30-50 million pages would be made.... It is currently April 26th 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.88.54 (talk • contribs • WHOIS)

Good point. Can someone look up this date and fix it? Danahuff 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

World war two....?

I am aware of the timeframe it occured in, and that it was carried out by the Nazis, but the Holocaust, as I understand it, is not otherwise related to World War 2. For example, would the Pentagon causualties in the 9/11 attacks be considered part of the WTC bombing casualties? Of course not! So I doubt wether it should be part of the world war 2 series.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.157.70 (talk • contribs) .

I would disagree. The Holocaust is often one of the first things that comes to mind when one thinks of WWII. I would also argue that though the causes of the war were complex and not solely related to the atrocities of the Holocaust, it is surely a major part of the war. I think it needs to remain a part of the WWII series. Danahuff 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree as well. The Holocaust is absolutely integral to WWII. The removal/elimination of the Jews was a central component of Hitler's war aims. Blastfromthepast 05:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Most of the victims of the Holocaust lived in areas that came under German control because of the war, and the Holocaust was ended by Germany's defeat in the war, so they can hardly be considered separately. JanSöderback 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no. No one claims that the attack on Pentagon was a part of the attack on WTC, rather that it was one out of several parts of the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, one could imagine the slave labour camps (like Dachenau etc) being used however they were used during the war even without the WW2. Knutars 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Some statistics

I would like to read some informed comments on this professors work. Is it reliable? Can it and its sources be used for Wikipedia articles?

Democide and Genocide

What say yee? One excerpt:

No one knows or can give the precise democide figure. Probably even that for the Jewish Holocaust is wrong. Experts who have painfully sifted through the Nazi archives, extensively interviewed survivors, and taken detailed depositions of witnesses have been unable to agree among themselves on the final total. In his thoroughly documented and comprehensive work, Raul Hilberg concluded that 5,100,000 Jews died;8 based on her detailed country-by-country analysis Lucy Dawidowicz arrived at a figure of 5,933,900 annihilated.9 Gerald Reitlinger calculated the toll at 4,204,400 to 4,575,400 Jews.10 Taking all such studies into account and making his own calculations for his Atlas of the Holocaust, Martin Gilbert arrived at a total of just over 5,750,000 deaths.11 In the latest such work, the appendix to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman and Robert Rozett estimated total losses at from 5,596,029 to 5,860,129.12

Just among these five thorough studies of the available evidence and statistics, the variation from the lowest to the highest figure is 41 percent. This is for a genocide carefully administered by a regime that was better than most about keeping records and statistics, whose surviving archives and secrets were completely available after the Nazi defeat, and about which there has been for nearly half a century many historians dedicated to uncovering the truth. If then the estimate of the Jewish Holocaust can vary so much, we should hardly expect to get the true figure on other genocides or mass murder; nor, of course, the overall democide.

The statistical problem is clear, if not easily resolvable. It is how to determine within some range of error the most likely Nazi democide, given different published estimates, different kinds of killing, different events, and different time periods. The approach has to be one of reasonable approximation. This involves successively narrowing the range of estimates to what a hypothetical, reasonable analyst would arrive at from the available information, and then defining within this range a prudent figure that somewhat reflects the central thrust of the statistics and historical events.

Stor stark7 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the Jewish population of the affected areas of Europe just prior to the war? I have read that the entire Jewish population was about six millionm so this argues that virtually ALL European Jews died in WWII, which is clearly not the case. Many came to the US, many fled to Russia, and many started over in Israel. Anybody have the numbers? 69.109.122.251 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The American Jewish Yearbooks of years 1936-1939 speak, for example, of about 3 million jews living in Poland. The holocaust statistics states that 3 million jews died in Poland only. This means that almost %100 of the Polish jews were exterminated in the concentration camps. I'm not sure how many of the world Jews are from Polish origin but I would say pretty good percentage of them are polish.
See Examination of Holocaust denial#Jewish population for a detailed discussion of this. Seems to be around ten million. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the discussion you linked doesn't really provide any authority to the European population and relies on some unsourced Nazi estimate. The discussion you refer to mainly deals with world population numbers. It must be easy to find out the population figures for Europe circa 1939. 69.109.124.59 14:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is only 10 million if you include Russia and Britain. Even at a stretch. I'd say the numbers given in this article are a little out of whack. 69.109.187.228 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The "unsourced Nazi estimate" is from the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, as shown at the Nuremberg Trials; a good source of that is Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953., Vol. XIII, p. 210 (as shown at nizkor.org). If it's easy to find out more precise or differently sourced population figures, please let us know how, as it would be one more piece of truth to shove in the face of Holocaust deniers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I'm confused because, at a glance, the Nizkor website statistics citing Wannsee include about a combined 5 million in USSR. 11 minus 5 equals 6 -- thus six million Jews in Nazi-occupied territories. Actually less because Britain had 330,000, and there may have been other countries unaffected. Could you engage in a little more substantive dissussion than just telling me to look elsewhere? I'm hoping you can shed some light. 69.109.187.228 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm not sure what your point is; do you think somehow Germany never occupied any of Russia? Something over a million Russian Jews perished in the Holocaust.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I find the 6 million figure pretty hard to swallow myself. Given that we're talking about approximately 3 years here, let's say 1000 days, then this is an *average* of 6000 killed a day. I can't conceive of how 6000 could have been killed in a single day in the circumstances we're talking about here let alone *every* day for 3 years. Doesn't this seem strange to anyone else? What is the best source for me to wrap my head around this figure? I think *anyone* would have to be skeptical about this particular claim (I'm no holocaust denier or anything BTW).

blake121666 69.139.238.47 23:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just search wikipedia. For example "capacity" of Auschwitz II (Birkenau) extermination camp was 20 000 daily...

There is no way the capacity could have been 20,000 gas chamber victims per day, gas, burned and disposed of. That is proposterously absurd considering the facilities with a small one room gas chamber that was apparently never air tight and reconstructed from a bomb shelter, which was apparently a crematorium and a prisoner bathroom area before that. (you can see the holes where the toilets were installed in the photos) Think about it rationally for a moment, how are you going A.) transport 20,000 people per day during a war when rail lines are being blown up and supplies and fuel are short supply everywhere B.) strip and sort property from incoming prisoners C.) herd them into a gas chamber 50-100 at a time D.) gas them sufficiently long enough for the gas to have a lethal effect E.) Remove the bodies and clean up the inevitable soiling, vomit, and other unpleasant things F.) cremate 20,000 prisoners per day in a crematorium that by sheer size alone could not cremate more than 200 or so bodies per day

It also does not make sense for the Germans to issue inmates uniforms and shave their heads to prevent the spread of lice if they are going to be put in a gas chamber moments later. In all the movies and drama about the holocaust we see these huge smoke stacks in the background with a massive line of grim looking prisoners being herded towards a giant death factory or furnace, but none of the camps remotely resemble this in reality.

Nizkor cites an alleged document recovered after the war that stated the crematoriums needed to be upgraded in order to reach a maximum capacity of 800 bodies per day (they ommit parts of the original document which discusses how to deal with a mass typhoid outbreak in the camps that was killing off inmates faster than they could be safely cremated) Finally if 20,000 per day were being exterminated, why are there all these photos of extremely malnourished prisoners dying of typhoid and cholera? The fact that these photos are being used as proof of the holocaust when in fact they contradict the whole gas chamber story seems very troublesome to me. It seems the Nazis are the guys everyone loves to hate. Just like King_Arthur where everyone glorifies him and he becomes a legend very different than the real Arthur if there ever was one, we see the Nazis become a kind of larger than life super villain, regardless of how true that may be in reality and fact. The problem is not that there isn't a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, but that people would rather believe the myth than the facts. You need only ask one simple rhetorical question to prove this point: What do you think is a more disturbing notion to people? A.) the notion that the Nazis brutually killed millions of people B.) the notion that the Nazis did not brutally kill millions of people

That hypothetical question usually elicits a hysterial tirade from the person asked, without even the most brief consideration the known facts of the issue. --24.68.237.6 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First off, I find this is an excellent, well-sourced article that tackles the issue of "body-disposal" at Auschwitz. 24.68.237.6, you don't seem to have considered open-air burning pits, which are well-recorded. Also, most inmates who arrived at Auschwitz were shaved and stripped of possessions because their hair and clothing could be re-used elsewhere. Most of the incoming prisoners towards the end of the war would simply be stripped and then killed.
This is directly from the article I mentioned up above: "How many prisoners were incinerated in open air burnings during the Hungarian operation? The answer will probably never be known. In the author's opinion, at least 75% of the Hungarian Jews killed were burned in the pits near Krema V or on the pyres near the White Bunker while the remainder were burned in the ovens of Crematoria II and III. According to Hoess, about 9000 per day were murdered during this period of time. [293] Hoess's number is consistent with the number of victims who were arriving on trains. The train transport records from Hungary show about 1200 to 3400 victims on each train transport leaving Hungary. [294] Assuming that three trains per day arrived, it would have been possible to incinerate all 9000 victims in three operations without having to use either Krema II or III."
Again from the article above: "Thus, there were 450 Sonderkommandos on a shift to clear about 3000 bodies, the probable amount of prisoners from one transport gassed in an operation. The photo of the burning operation shows that a body was carried by one or two Sonderkommandos. It also shows that the burning started before all of the bodies were cleared from the gas chamber because corpses are being dragged to the area while smoke is obscuring the view of the pits."
Reading many of the arguments you posted, 24.68.237.6, none of them seem particularly reasonable. Why are there so many photos of starving and sick prisoners? Because the prisoners who were used to maintain the camp were starving and sick. Those photos don't contradict anything, 24.68.237.6. You have declared two things mutually exclusive when they are not. It would be equivalent to declaring the Vietnam war a hoax, because there were so many photos of soldiers sick with tropical diseases.
As for your argument about death camps being portrayed inaccurately in movies.... surely you aren't basing your denial of the Holocaust on the fact that Hollywood doesn't reproduce reality accurately? What's next, saying that World War 2 didn't happen because Saving Private Ryan wasn't historically accurate?
I hope you'll take this into consideration, 24.68.237.6. Does anyone have any comments about what I've posted here? If the formatting looks strange, I apologize, I haven't posted much.

The number of Serbian victims are overblown

  • "The exact number of war victims in Yugoslavia during World War II may never be known due to fifty years of intentional disinformation by the Yugoslavian and Serbian governments, Serbian exile groups, and others. However, it is likely that approximately one million people of all nationalities died of war-related causes in all of Yugoslavia during World War II and that as many as 125,000 Serbs died of war-related causes in Croatia during the War. The question of war losses during World War II represents the most divisive, heated and emotional issue among all of the nationalities of the former Yugoslavia during the post-War period. The bloody multi-sided War in Yugoslavia involved the German, Italian, Ustashe, Partisan, Domobran, White Guard, Slovenian Guard and at least four different; Cetnik armies. The multifaceted war pitted Serbs against Serbs, Croatians against Croatians, Serbs against Croatians, and Serbian Orthodox against Catholics and Muslims. The loss of life was heavy and difficult to document. As the war progressed and even long after the war ended, the mythology of the numbers of victims continued to grow ".[1]
  • "More conservative and realistic estimates demonstrate that Montenegrins suffered the highest wartime losses (10.4% of the population),

followed by Serbs (6.9%), Bosnian Moslems (6.8%), and then Croats (5.4%).53 However, these overall percentages do not give the complete picture as the majority of Serbian losses occurred on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia (16.3% in Croatia; 14.6% in Bosnia).54 According to a leading Croat demographer, when those Serbs who died in combat and/or asìcollaborationistsî are taken out of the picture, the ethnic Serb victims of ìfascist terrorî on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia number 217,000, i.e., somewhere on the order of one fifth of Yugoslaviaís total wartime losses (estimated at lying somewhere between 950,000 and little above one million).55 Here, apparently, the tradition of Croat ìintegrationismî did little to live up to its historical promise, as the ethnic violence unleashed against Serbian civilians as- sumed a grotesquely brutal character. Undoubtedly, significant atrocities were visited upon others as well, and especially on Bosnian Moslems by Serbian Chetnik forces.56 Nevertheless, it is obvious that ìgreater Serbian chauvinismî was hardly the sole culprit in the story of twentieth- century Yugoslav ethnic victimization. " pp 14 -15 [2]

  • "he Yugoslav losses represent 34%, thus more than a third of all allied losses.”4

The number of war losses was officially set at 1.7 million, a figure which, as we shall see, has later been the cause of much debate. There was no attempt at internal reconciliation, as all guilt of war crimes and suffering was laid on the occupying powers and the so-called collaborationists: primarily the Croatian Ustaša regime, The Serbian Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, and Serbia’s pro-Nazi administrators. The stigmatisation of traitors and collaborators was elaborated and widely published, as was the case with the reports of the trial against Bishop Stepinac and other representatives of the Catholic Church in Croatia and that against Draža Mihailović and other Chetnik leaders, who were collectively found guilty of national treason and numerous “crimes against the peoples”, amongst this mass murder, massacres, and torture in concentration camps.5 " [3], pp2

  • "With regard to the Serbs, Žerjavić's calculation ended with a total of 197,000 Serbian civilian victims on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia: 50,000 in the Jasenovac concentration camp, 45,000 killed by the Germans, 34,000 civilians killed in battles between Ustashas, Chetniks and Partisans, 28,000 killed in prisons, pits and other camps, etc. Another 125,000 Serbian people from NDH were killed as combatants, raising the total to 322,000.[2]

Most international agencies have accepted Žerjavić's (and Bogoljub Kočović's) calculations as the most reliable data on war losses in Yugoslavia during WW2. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reports:

"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac."[3] A notable exception still seems to be the Simon Wiesenthal Center." [4]

Miroslav Filipović was a Catholic friar

Well Miroslav Filipović was excommunicated from the Catholic church, and the main article states he was a Catholic friar, which in the sentence claims he was at the time he was the head of the conc camp. Well Stalin was in a school to become an orthodox priest... This reference needs to be modifed, it has no relevance. The Serbian Orthodox church was active in the killing of Jews in Serbia, Serbs murdered 40k Jews, Belgrade was Judenfrei.. what about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.227.1.53 (talk • contribs) .

Croatophobia

Looks like this is a rather infectious disease, attacking mainly Serbian populace whose immune system has been down due to the long exposure to Greater Serbian intense radiation causing, among other things, malignant mental disturbances. Keywords: ustaše, Jasenovac concentration camp, Ante Pavelić,...Possible antidote(s): Vladimir Žerjavić, long solitary walks in the clear air..Mir Harven 16:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Night

I you have read the book NIGHT you have seen how the Jews were treated then and there. Well Hitler was a very cruel man and did not know anything about the Jews, he just wanted them dead. And he got his wish by having the Nazis work them to death. But, thankfully, some had survive and very few still live today. I wish I could meet Elie Wiesel. I liked the book he wrote. It's very heart warming. Thanks Elie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.231.203 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments at Talk pages to discussing the content of the article and see WP:NOT. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dora Mittelbau Mass grave.jpg

I saw this image at army.mil, and it therefor is in the public domain, so I uploaded it to wikipedia. I'm sure someone who is more of an expert on the various articles relating to the holocaust can find a use for it. Cornell Rockey 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

My memory says that Endlösung was the German term for what has become known as the Holocaust. Therefore, AFAIK the Holocaust was the effectuation of the ideas presentaed as Endlösung. Shouldn't we merge the two articles and describe this more accurately?Holland Nomen Nescio 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nomen, please read the definitions at the beginning of both articles. Their topics are quite different. Regards, gidonb 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Holocausts in History

The term "the Holocaust" is not truly an accurate term. There were hundreds of holocausts in history, the term the 'last Holocaust' is a more accurate description of the "the holocaust", or a better term would be the Nazi holocaust. The Holocaust implies that there was only one holocaust in history. This is not accurate. The word holocaust comes from the latin word holocaustum (spelling is not correct), to holocaust (reference ommitted). This is a very old term. It is extremely important to be aware that several holocausts exist in history, the nazi holocaust was not original, it was only the largest scale. Another 20th century holocaust occured in Turkey in the 1910's.

  • That's why the article is called "The Holocaust" rather than "Holocaust". "The Holocaust" is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust, as opposed to the other disasters. It might be unfair to the memory of (say) the Armenian genocide, but it is the way the word is used; hence, it's the title of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • That's nonsense there have been other cases of genocide but there has been only one holocaust - the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Though this is probably not a good term since it means "burnt sacrificial offering" - personally I'm not convinced that that is at all an appropriate word to describe the Nazi genocide of the Jews & others. "Shoah" would be better but given that "Holocaust" has gained widespread acceptance amongst the public it's probably too late to change. Roydosan 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting a new article?

There has been some sentiment that the article is getting too long, a sentiment I share. How would authors / editors feel if we were to address this? My own sense is that section 8 on interpretations could be moved with benefit into its own article, and developed further from there. That would keep the focus on The Holocaust in the present article. (The same move is one I would recommend were the final sections--on art and the Holocaust, etc.--to be beefed up a little. These are all important, further topics that a reader of "The Holocaust" would likely want to continue with that seem to deserve their own space and place, and that contribute to less focus on The Holocaust itself in a lengthy article. --raw


Article too long, (but I am a hypocrite)

I agree that this article has become to long, but just added to the problem in the Obedience section by sighting references to the "experiments" conducted by Jane_Elliott and Ron Jones (The_Third_Wave).

The psychological reasons or explanations for the blind obedience to such horrific actions could be a section all to itself, and could be eliminated as a link to Mob_psychology if the Mob_psychology stub were expanded by some experts (which I am not).

I added the Jane Elliott and Third Wave experiments to the Obedience section because both experiments are relatively recent, try to answer the perplexing obedience question, and when I saw these experiments as films they sent a chill down my spine.

ALSO... As Roydosan points out, there are many Holocausts in history. This article should probably be re-titled. I have difficulty however with "The Nazi Holocaust" or some other name. This is difficult because if you call it the "Nazi" or "Arian Holocaust" then you emphasize the people responsible for the Holocaust in the title. If you call it "The Jewish Holocaust" then you exclude the other victims.

the article has proper title THE Holocaust. Please, sign your contribution. -- tasc talkdeeds 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PURE EVIL

There should be NO controversy whatsoever that the killing and torture of millions of innocent people was PURE EVIL. The Holocaust HAS to be one of, if not THE worst, events conducted in the history of man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.73.73 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006 (UTC)

      • Please, come on now. Be serious. Do you honestly support the PURE EVIL point in Wikipedia? I suggest we tell users to behave accordingly to policies and delete unneccesary posts of to help keep the discussions clean, neutral and scientific. Knutars 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
        • I suggest we do not delete non-disruptive posts from talk pages, period. Discussions don't have to be neutral or scientific; the results of discussions (that is, the article pages) need to be neutral. I usually answer posts like that with, "What suggestions do you have to improve the article?" It's part of not biting the newbies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering what could cause this pure evil, hatred and inhumanitarian aspect of Hitler. I started reading MEin Keimpf to get into the mind of the person but not. Who can ever get to know not only hitler but his 2 million followers agreed with him. I find this very very strange.

Endemic vs. epidemic

Minor change, but "endemic" means the exact opposite of its usage on the caption for the picture of the child dying in the street (ie. specific to a particular group, or as in a species existing in one region and nowhere else in the world). Meant to explain that in the edit, but accidentally hit Enter too soon. MoriyaMug 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Politically Correct

The Holocaust is a term used to describe the Nazi system to eliminate all Jewish men, women and children in all territories that they controlled. The fact that there were other poor folk killed too, and non Germans helping with these crimes is true too of course. But there is a problem with being politically correct. that the definitions become too complex, and no one can agree anyway. The problem with non Jews is the aspect of genocide and systematic extermination. I am not attemping to say that these crimes are any less serious, for example the dreadful and wholesale murder of Slavic peoples, but they are really outside the central definition of "The Holocaust". Wallie 18:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavic peoples were killed in the same gas chambers, worked to death in the same concentration camps, perhaps shared the same barracks, but for YOU, they are outside of The Holocaust. During WWII, 27 Million Russinas were systematically slaughtered by nazis, but only jews matter. Nobody is commemorating the Russian victims in February and now in May, nobody stops for a minute of silence, no international ceremonies are held to remember Slav victims. No TV programs constantly educate us about any Slavic Holocaust. One only wonders why? --71.247.39.213 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Does one have a suggestion why? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I know what you are saying. And naturally I will be criticised for what I am saying here. The Soviet Union and Germany were at war, however. Russians and Slavs were not singled out for extermination in every country the Germans conquered, eg, France. The Jews were. The Slavs were victims, as they were the enemy. Note that the Slavs also got their revenge in Germany. The Jews were enemies because they were Jews. Naturally the case of the Serbs arises, but this was an internal problem in the old Yugoslavia. As for my own personal opinion. I think what happened to the Serbs was attrocious, and I can well understand how they feel even now. Wallie 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Guy's, this is turning into a "No, we're the bestest victims!" debate. It doesn't make sense that somehow "Holocaust" only refers to Jews when so many other groups died and in larger numbers. JettaMann 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Where is the factual basis for the notion that "27 Million Russinas were systematically slaughtered by nazis"? It seems here again somebody is playing with the numbers. The Wiki article on Stalin can't even come up with a solid figure of more than 4 million deaths during Stalin's regime. Frankly, I find this tossing about of such impossible figures to be somewhat disturbing as it makes all of us jaded to the horror of what truly took place. Perhaps you could explain yourself. 69.109.120.65 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The figure of 20-million+ Russians dying in WWII is widely accepted, indeed taught; see e.g. Martin Gilbert's WWII (and IIRC this figure is stated in exhibitions at both Dachau and Auschwitz). And I suppose you could say this amounts to 'systematic slaughter', since that's what war's all about. I must agree with comments above though; referring to non-Jews as being 'outside' the Nazi Holocaust is not only misleading, it's downright offensive. Thank goodness this article does not fall into that trap; I would be interested to learn the motives behind the beliefs of the so-called 'scholars' cited. I see Wallie's point about being at war, but really this wouldn't apply to other minorities targeted by the regime (homosexuals, gypsies, invalids etc.) Xyster 01 Aug 2006


I guess what bothers some people about the Holocaust and the Bosnian War is that Europe (according to themselves)is supposed to be the civilized region. They are the rich and upstanding. They were supposed to (so they thought back then)to conquer the world to spread their ideas of their society. Then, Germany, one of the most powerful countries in the world, kills millions of people because of their backround. Serbia, sippoedly the rightful heir to the Yugoslav kingdom, kills Bosnian, Muslims, Macedonians, Albanians, etc. These were the people that called themselves the model for the world. They did it from Alexander the Great to Milosvec. Don't think this is supposed to be anti- European. Africa and Asia now have the ideas of democracy in their mindset. But "civilized" people don't kill people for the backround.

Religious Meaning of the Holocaust

Since the article provides almost no religious interpretation of the Holocaust, I will try to make one, that is, to share my opinion. It is a well-known notion in the (Christian) Bible that the love of God towards his people invokes Satan's hatred, a fact well proved in the Holocaust, as well as in numerous other events in the history of the Jewish people. A history which for some 2600 years was practically a list of killings and persecutions. Well, the question why does God allow such terrible things to happen remains, and there can be many correct answers to it, I have a dozen but maybe not the best ones. I also want to say that the New Testament contains some predictions about the fate of the Jews and their time of exile among other nations, which were made by Jesus Himself. Jesus also made an appeal to the Jews, in certain times which they will know, to abandon Jerusalem and run for their lives. These warnings are believed to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, certainly they also refer to the time of the Holocaust, except that it wasn't to run FROM, but TO Jerusalem (this is my interpretation!). The words of Jesus (why did He cry when He entered Jerusalem?) also foretell another mass persecution of the Jews, which is still to come and will actually be bigger than the WW 2 Holocaust, by no-one else but by the Antichrist. Surely I'm not saying anything new. Still, I guess this part would be rejected by the Judaism, I heard it from Protestant theologians. Actually, I am Bulgarian, an Orthodox Christian, but don't know what is the view of the Orthodox Church on the matter.
As for the question how could one nation, in our case the German nation, carry out such atrocities, I think that this act could have happened anywhere in the world. The German people, who are probably abhorred of the word "Holocaust" and avoid even reading this article, were just an instrument, you see, it wasn't only them, it was everybody, all gentiles and all nations against the Jews. Some participated actively, some turned a blind eye... Paradoxally, after WW 2, the Arabs and the Muslims, who for 1500 years were so tolerant toward the Jews, turned against them and became their most "vicious" enemies. A circle of hatred which will never stop... Or God knows, may be it can stop for a while? We saw during the 90-es in Yugoslavia, that former victims (the Serbs, but here I don't underestimate the cruelties of the Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians) were easily seduced by the hatred and created the fertile soil needed for the worst war crimes in Europe after WW2 to happen. Let's hope that the lessons of the Holocaust will be rightly learned by the Israelis themselves, and they will never become mass killers of Palestinians, no matter what the cause is!

This stuff here is truly disingenous, closing with this notion of Israelis as a group as mass murderers. As usual there appears to be this expectation of a standard applied to Israel that is higher than to any other nation in the world. We don't presume that isolated incidents of massacres by Americans define all Americans, but there is a tendency to damn Israel in the face of the situation vis a vis the Palestinians. Israel is not perfect, and Israelis themselves in past and in the present, writers and leaders have stated that the occupied territories could be and are a detriment to Israel.Finding a religious context to the Holocaust is like trying to define God. It is beyond comprehension in that context. The holocaust is understandable from a historical context and is the result of thousands of years of both anti-semitism, and the human tendency to identify in groups. One doesn't need to go very far to see how this is still expressed when insurgents in Iraq stop a bus of students and kill all those of one Muslim sect - all the Shi'ites. It is no different than the Serbs slaughtering Bosnians, or vice versa. It always stems from fanaticism. Unfortunately, religion has long been the fomenter of fanaticism - not only religions of God, but also religions of nationalism, and ethnocentric attitudes (my group better than all the rest). The same sort of fanaticism that enables a Taliban murderer to decapitate a school teacher in front of his family because he was enabling education of girls. All leaders in the world - including religious leaders must disavow themselves of these evil fanatics. You want to find Satan.. that is where you will find it.. and it is in people.. not in space or hell or anywhere else,, it is in human nature.. the elements of that "beast"... And in our mental capabilities, it is where humans must struggle between nature and the abilities of the human mind and spirit..


85.11.148.77 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand the religious and philosophical part, if its possible 85.11.148.77 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Total count

I'm not confident enough to do this myself, but could someone add near the start of the "Death Toll" section an estimate of the total number killed? Or is such a number not possible for some reason? Mrjeff 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Very WRONG Serbs killed

It is highly unlikely that half a million or even 1.2 million Serbs was killed esspecialy all of them by Croat Nazi as is written in the article. This needs immediate attention. I am from Serbia, so I know a lot of stories about this, there were Serbs killed in Croatia but this figure is too much. What about all the soldiers and civilans that died in germand bombings and in fighting? I lack exact numbers but will try to find it and change it (if i can get good source) Genius82

Revised back to 300,000. Sorry, but all other references in the entire article suggest the minimum number of 330,000, even by Croatian estimates. All other numbers are nothing more than revisionism and cannot be tolerated. Please cite a source for the 100,000 that does not start with David Irving or some neo-Nazi organization... Please refer to Yad Vashem, Holocaust Memorial Museum or even Britannica. Please discuss prior to revising DOWNWARD numbers of Holocaust victims... User:Xanthippus

Murder

Is the term Murder not POV? It's mentioned everywhere in the article. (I'm VERY new to Wikipedia.) Paulus Caesar 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the term Murder not POV, (in a nutshell). And I'm not new to Wikipedia :) Imacomp 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It does seem POV - why not use "killed" which includes murder in any event? The article losed credibility IMO by use of the word murder.Michael Dorosh 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's POV: the POV that wrongful killing is murder, or perhaps the POV that the killings were wrongful. Only the very tiniest fringe of humanity questions that conclusion, and they need not be represented under WP:NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It is not disputed that many POW's just died of typhus, old age and other disease while in camps. These were deaths, not murders. To use the term "Murder" everywhere is just incorrect because it assumes all deaths were murder.JettaMann 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I rather disagree. First of all, we're not talking about POWs; the victims of the Holocaust were not, by any usual definition, POWs. Second, if I take someone against their will and against the law and lock them up, and they perish as the direct result of my locking them up, I've committed murder; that's what Germany did to the Jews, and thus it's murder. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Tiniest fringe of humanity? What about the thousands of people who actually commited the crimes, or the millions who witnessed them and were complicit? You can't tell me the thousands of people actually conducting mass shootings or feeding the ovens regarded themselves as criminals...See Browning and Goldhagen for evidence of how these guys felt about themselves. I suspect there may be millions of people in the middle east who might feel differently than your average European or North American. Ask the president of Iran, eh...POV indeed.Michael Dorosh 13:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes but some do not think that the Holocaust killings were wrongful killings. I.e. National Socialists. I agree with Michael. Paulus Caesar 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course some do not think that. What did I just say? Only the tiniest fringe... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite. I think the reader should be able to decide for themselves whether or not "murder" applies. Surely a right thinking person can come to that conclusion themselves without being beaten over the head with it.Michael Dorosh 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure it was murder. Not just murder: mass murder. Leave it alone. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Humus sapiens. In many other cases, if there was less public consensus and the issue was more ambivalent, I'd be likely to agree with Michael. However, the public consensus is overwhelmingly that the extermination committed by Nazi Germany was mass murder and a crime against humanity. I would not hesitate to estimate a figure of 90% at minimum for this overwhelming consensus. This being the case I do not feel there is the slightest NPOV issue with describing the Holocaust as murder. Respectfully, Kasreyn 17:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The term murder originally carried the meaning of unlawfulness, as in "to illegally kill". Easy going humans have used the term in over-emphasis and naivety for so long that it's meaning has been bastardized into "a killing that I disapprove of". So, if killing Jews and turning them into lampshades is legal in your municipality, doing so might be deplorable, but it'd not necessarily (in the spirit of the word) be murder. I am bothered when people say "abortion is murder!" No! What you mean is "abortion should be murder!" But I digress.
Back on target: Clearly, the killings were war crimes, so that'd qualify them for the term "murder". Does anyone know if the Holocaust was illegal at the time in Germany's own, abused legal system? –Gunslinger47 04:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
We've been over this before. The Nazi regime was a dictatorship and the Holocaust was authorized at the highest levels of command. In a dictatorship there can be only one legality: whatever the dictator says is legal, is legal. By definition, within Nazi Germany and by its own standards, the Holocaust was entirely and perfectly legal. It is only by the widely accepted standards of the vast majority of humanity that it is recognized as a crime. I really wish we could drop this issue and go back to discussing something more important about the article than a single word. Kasreyn 11:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The intention to annihilate the Jews of Europe and other populations has been established. Therefor the term murder is npov. Killing may be used to alter, but the exclusive use of killing would be pov. In fact, the same user who tries to delete the murder instances in the article marked as unsummarized minor edits also claims elsewhere that The Holocaust article uses exclusively killing and therefor that would be the npov term. Traditionally the article uses both and the conclusion of previous discussions also was that this is the proper terminology. gidonb 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV The word "genocide" implies murder - raptor 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the Jews during World War II

Found that article in a bad shape. IMHO, it should be expanded (I'd prefer that option) or merged. What do you folks think? For now I called it a stub. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Help requested for a newbie to debunking deniers.

I'm fairly new to the tumults of this debate, so I'd like to ask for assistance. An editor going by Overthrow has claimed, on the article Prussian Blue (duo), that this source fails to disprove the group Prussian Blue's claims, cited in the article, regarding the chemical Prussian Blue in gas chambers. (Specifically, the group claims that there was insufficient Prussian Blue (the chemical, not white nationalist bubblegum pop) present in the gas chambers for them to have been used for their widely accepted purpose.) I am of the opinion that the document at Holocaust-History.org, which I understand to be a scholarly site for the purpose of debunking Holocaust denial, does indeed debunk that claim rather effectively. However, I am definitely not a chemist by training, and rather than go about reinventing the wheel in arguing this with the editor in question, I wonder whether this exact issue has not been dealt with before on this talk page, or the talk page of an associated page. If so, an editor more experienced in these matters than I might be able to help me understand the issue better. I am also interested in finding a way of citing both the claims of the band, and the debunking of those claims, in a more NPOV and effective manner. Can anyone provide me with some guidance? Kasreyn 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn. You know and I know that you are not a "newbie", and would debate that black was white. This is not the time nor the place to bring up this sort of irrelevancy. Wallie 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm aware that Prussian Blue is not particularly notable on this talk page. However, I had a very reasonable assumption that editors knowledgeable about debunking Holocaust deniers' claims would hang out here, since this article must draw more Holocaust deniers than any other. And I thank you for your backhanded compliment on my debating skills; I will take it in a positive light. However, no matter how good I am at rhetoric, if I don't have an underpinning of knowledge, I can't construct any really effective arguments. I've never actually gone toe-to-toe with a Holocaust debunker before. I wouldn't want to botch my first time at bat, which is why I'm here asking for a coach. In any case, it's beginning to appear moot, as Overthrow seems to have fallen silent and is no longer replying. Kasreyn 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not particularly worth arguing with Holocaust deniers; if their intellect was suited to logical discussion, they wouldn't be Holocaust deniers in the first place, since Holocaust denial is built on lie after lie. (Of course, they'll say that about their opponents too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The trouble is that they still must be argued with, in order to prevent their numbers from growing through convincing the ignorant. Some deniers, like some "intelligent design" pushers, are highly skilled at projecting the appearance of being scientific. The solution is to arm oneself with the facts, which are what I came here for. Kasreyn 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. A quick look through the archives shows I've spent more than my share of time arguing with them. In this case, I'd think that "who gives a shit what two addled 12-year-olds' opinions about the Holocaust are?" should suffice, but I know it won't. Literally, however, the paper does not disprove what the girls said about the absence of Prussian Blue in the gas chambers; what the paper (as well as others) does prove is that the absence of Prussian Blue does not mean they were not gas chambers. Here's another article, same guy, less technical: [5]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
You know, I'm amazed that all these scientists base all their experiments on scraping the walls of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Maybe there's something I've missed, but wouldn't replication be simpler? Build a replica of the chambers, down to the same materials of bricks, paint, pipes, floor, everything. Get some Zyklon-B and fill the empty room with gas for however much time it would have taken to murder millions of people. Then measure the walls. Even taking into account the necessity of calculating the effects of age and decay on the real walls, how hard could it be? Kasreyn 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Pretty hard. How could you calculate the effects of age and decay? Further, the gas chambers weren't filled continuously; they were emptied between loads, and were also (I think) scrubbed down to get rid of the disgusting stuff that newly dead people sometimes leave behind. And that disgusting stuff (as well as simpler matters like respiration) would change the chemistry of the air in the room, further confusing the issue. I don't think current science is really up to doing a simulation of this sort. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    I see... I guess it's back to the paint-scrapings then! Thanks for the article, I found it very interesting, though to be honest my chemistry isn't good enough to follow it that well. Kasreyn 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I might be missing something here, Kasreyn. But you introduced these people, these "holocaust deniers" as you call them, into the equation. Why? Are you trying to start a debate with yourself? I do not know what your agenda is to even talk about this on this discussion page. Wallie 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have already explained adequately why I came to this discussion page: to seek help in dealing with Overthrow. I feel that a proper reading of my remarks would indicate this, and I know you're a bright guy, so the only reason I am left with for your incomprehension is that you did not read my remarks carefully enough. Kasreyn 02:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
If the deniers are lying, and they claim that non-holocaust deniers are lying, one objective question comes to mind. Who stands to benefit most from the lies they tell? 147.10.24.157 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)R

Since Holocaust deniers are lying and they lie that the non-liars are lying, technically only one side can benefit from lies. 67.165.155.235 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Um...

Shouldn't we stop Jews from editing this page? I mean, it's going to be filled up with POV if you allow them to say whatever the Hell they want about the Holocaust.

(gets shot)

(gasping for breath) It was just a thought... Max W. Gore 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If that was a joke, it was in extremely poor taste. Racial remarks are considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, and if you keep it up you will be banned. --DLandTALK 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
So Jews are a race? Like white, black, asian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.18.146 (talk • contribs) 00:12, August 18, 2006
No, but "racial" is pretty generic in this usage; "racism" inexactly embraces Jew-hatred, but it's the same flavor. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it was in poor taste. And it wasn't a trolling attempt. I'm just saying that people like that get shot. For better or worse. You realize that because we won WW2, we don't know anything about Nazism. Not anything. All we know is that they were Racist and killed a lot of Jews. I'm fine with that point of view. But it is a POV. And what the Hell was that about that being Racist? What if we found conclusive evidence that the Jews killed Jesus Christ? History is Racist. And so is Evolution. Max W. Gore 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Max W. Gore: I believe that by now, you have exhausted a reasonable credit of good faith, so proceed with extreme caution. Read WP:RULES and keep WP civil. Consider this a friendly warning. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok. You don't have to yell at me. I'll remove the comments. Max W. Gore 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My God you're an idiot. Why don't you try reading the numerous actual books that historians have written about the Nazis before you say that "we don't know anything about Nazism." Nazism and the Third Reich has probably been the subject of more historical study than any other comparable topic in world history. The vast majority of those scholars have not been sympathetic to Nazism, but that doesn't mean that we "know nothing" about the subject. What on earth are you trying to say? john k 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that no matter what a person has said, it's not productive or civil to sink to namecalling. Refer to WP:BITE; Max W. Gore appears to be a newcomer to Wikipedia and may not yet understand that such joking is not appropriate here. Kasreyn 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about the "joke." I care about the stupid arrogance behind the "joke," which allows Mr. Gore to claim, on the basis of his own ignorance, that nobody knows anything about Nazism. If a person is completely ignorant of the subject matter at hand, and uses their ignorance as a bludgeon in debate, I don't see any particular reason to treat them with kid gloves. But you're right that calling him an idiot was out of order, and unproductive. john k 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Kasreyn, I believe that you have deliberately set a climate which encourages these sentiments. You start this sort of a debate, and then you step back and take a holier than thou attitude, when others carry on from where you started. Wallie 22:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me Wallie, but if you have problems with Kasreyn's behaviour, please take them to his talk page. Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Why? What I am saying has direct relevance to this talk page. Or are you in agreement with his approach? Wallie 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What approach? In the previous section, he asked a good question: how can he refute the claim another editor made, that one scientific document does not contradict what a couple of 12-year-old idiots-with-a-fan-club said (e.g., that there's no Prussian Blue on the gas chamber walls.) Considering how complicated and nuanced the answer is, it's a very good question, albeit a little bit misplaced. I'll assume your good faith, and that your response to him was based on a misreading of his header: "Help requested for a newbie to debunking deniers". I parsed it (and I'm sure it was meant) as "(Help requested) for a (newbie to debunking deniers)", while you seem to have parsed it as "(Help requested for a newbie) to (debunking deniers)." That is, he was claiming to be a newbie to debunking deniers, not a newbie on Wikipedia. Then, in this section, he quite correctly (as any editor might do) chides john k for calling an editor an idiot. And you find fault with that. Since reading his comments solely in context of this talk page provides no clue to the vehemence of your personal responses to him, I can only conclude that you have some other issues with Kasreyn -- which I ask you to take to his talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly what I am trying to establish. I did a search on this page for "Prussian Blue", and the first mention of it was from Kasreyn. Which editor made the claim and who are these 12 year olds? All I can see is people getting sucked into this "debate", and now I am in the position of having to defend myself. I am also unsure as to Kasreyn's motives. Either he is trying to start a debate about holocaust denial. Or he is a holocaust denier himself, and is trying to enlist support for his theory. I did try to ascertain this earlier and my question was responded to by another question, a typical delaying/avoiding tactic. An honest person would have given an honest response. Wallie 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I just read everything Kasreyn posted on Talk:Prussian Blue (duo), never having had any interaction with him before, and your characterization of him as possibly a holocaust denier makes no sense at all, and could easily be construed as a personal attack. As have your other comments. You're way out of line here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that this discussion has soured our relationship. However, I am sure that there are others who will understand. Wallie 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wallie, I'm very confused. Why are you so mad at me? I had thought we buried the hatchet a long time ago over our differences on the Paris Hilton article. Since then, the article has largely gone your way with very little interference from me. I don't know why you're suddenly taking me to task, and worst of all, calling me things I am not. I do not appreciate your interference or the aspersions you cast on my character. Let me reassure you that I do not have an "agenda" here; this page was not even on my watchlist until I made my original post requesting some education, which Jpgordon provided. Even the original purpose of my question - my debate with Overthrow - has vanished, since Overthrow has stopped responding and essentially ceded his position by default. I have no further reason to participate on this page, so I fail to see how I could have an "agenda". Besides, if you study my remarks on Prussian Blue (duo) I don't see how you could draw any such inferences from them. I'd like you to do that - to read my remarks on Prussian Blue - and let my words speak for me. I have no interest in pursuing this further. Kasreyn 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am not mad at you personally, and never have been. It is just that we all have to remember which page we are on here. As far as I am concerned, you are also very welcome to add/change this article or contribute to any discussions, or any other article. The debate with Overthrow should really have remained on the Prussian Blue page though. To mention it here on this page gives credence to their nonsense, but I am now sure this was not your intention. If you were concerned with "holocaust denial" it is best to add a well referenced piece of text, or say that you intend to add it, and discuss this. The effect is the same, but then your intentions are then open clear, and these Prussian Blue individuals do not get a mention. As far as your character is concerned I was really trying to bring your true feelings out into the open, which you have now, and all is OK. The way it was, many people would not say anything, but could think a lot, and come to the wrong conclusions. My mind was completely open, and I thought it was important enough to find out exactly what you mean't. On this sort of talk page, you have to be very clear. Otherwise some will get the wrong idea. Wallie 05:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I can see the template now: "To discourage bigotry, editing of this page by Jews has been disabled". : ) --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Gordon. Credence is given by discussing the topic on this page. By the way, I find your attitude most unprofessional. Wallie 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The person here who has most clearly been guilty of not discussing the topic of this page has been you, Wallie. Your comments about Kasreyn have no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. john k 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
That is quite incorrect. I have repeatedly pointed out that the "Prussian Blue" people and any discussion related to them have no relevance on this talk page... quite frankly, the mere mention of them on this page is a gross affront. How can I be any more direct? The fact that Kasreyn introduced it also has no bearing. I would have said the same to anyone else too. Wallie 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
How does that have anything to do with Kasreyn's justified rebuke of me for violating civility? And the Prussian Blue thing was an effort by Kasreyn to find people to help him out on that page with an issue specifically relating to the Holocaust. I don't see how that is a "gross affront", and has "no relevance" to this page. You're totally out of line here. john k 11:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
If I have to be called a few names in order to protect this page and the memory of the six million, it is a small price to pay. Wallie 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
An admirable goal, Wallie. However, if it's your contention that what you claim is my misuse of this talk page in some way constitutes a threat to that memory, I think I should point out that your endless defenses of your actions and aspersions on my character have wasted at least twice as much space as I used in my attempt to defeat a debunker. Kasreyn 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Unfortunately that's what sometimes happens when a discussion from one talk page spills over onto another. As with a bomb, it takes longer to clear up the damage than to drop it. Wallie 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
You loser. Joke about that kind of stuff, you wouldn't last two seconds where I come from. Try that crap, you will regret it ... you will be threatened with learning the real truth and we will shove understanding down your throat. The Jews were main victims of the Holocaust, they are the ones who have personal experience (European Jews, anyways), and they have every right to edit this article!

Leopard Gecko 23:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Is this really the place for such threatening insults? Hope it made you feel better, anyway. Where do you come from, by the way? Sounds delightful. Xyster 01 Aug 2006

The term genocide

The article states that the term genocide was coined during the Holocaust. Wouldn't it make sense to link it to the genocide entry which explains who actually coined the term and why?

Murder continued

The Holocaust and other examples of ethnic cleansing does not fit the current definition of mass murder. The current definition states "Mass murder (massacre) is the act of murdering a large number of people...". Murder in itself is defined by virtually every encyclopaedia and dictionary as the unlawful killing of a human being.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has been careful not to use the word murder in its definition of genocide: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group...".

Oxford of course defines the Holocaust as "the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis" but its lack of internal consistency is no execuse for this article to conflict with murder.

I feel that Holocaust was murder in the vernacular sense of the word. The definition of murder should somehow be changed to include 'immoral legal' killing such as genocide but still exclude legal abortion, euthenasia, execution, assassination, collateral damage, etc.

- -  sYndicate talk  13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was illegal. See Eichmann Trial and Nuremberg Trials. Wallie 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Holocaust was state sanctioned by the Reich (meaning 'empire' - under military command) and as such was not illegal in Nazi Germany. - -  sYndicate talk  16:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Well Nazi Germany was illegal too. See Denazification. Wallie 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The Nazis were in control of Germany and hence made the laws governing the country. I am not saying that what they did was right or moral, but it certainly was not illegal. Citing denazification as proof that "Nazi Germany was illegal" is nearly as asinine as using anti-communism as justification that the USSR was illegal. - -  sYndicate talk  21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Most of the killings didn't take place in Germany, though... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
As you can see from this picture all the extermination camps were in Greater Germany and occupied territories. - -  sYndicate talk  22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi Regime was an explicitly and purposely lawless one. The killings were obviously state sanctioned, but there were never any explicit laws which made it legal to kill Jews. As far as I'm aware, the conventional legal system remained theoretically in operation throughout Germany. Mass killings of Jews were not within the bounds of German law, except insofar as German law was subordinated to the will of the Führer, which seems dubious. But, in any case, all of the extermination camps were within the Government-General of Poland, which was occupied territory. Behavior of the Germans in occupied territory would have to follow the tenets of international law, which certainly doesn't allow mass killing of civilians. john k 22:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Another stupid debate we had before. The shoa was murder plain and simple. Just because murder is organized by the government doesn't make it any less so, especially if they don't pass a law authorizing the murder (if they did, you might be able to argue your point, but -heck- they didn't). So could we please stop it until you come up with a law from Nazi Germany supposedly legalizing the shoa. Ah, and please not "Hitler's word was law" nonsense. Finally, yes, it is nonsensical to say "Nazi Germany was illegal" (whatever Nazi Germany is supposed to mean here), but that doesn't prove your point, Syndicate. Str1977 (smile back) 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany was illegal" may be more or less meaningless, but I think it would be fair to say that "Nazi Germany was a criminal enterprise." Trying to discern what is "legal" and what is "illegal" in a government run by a bunch of gangsters is nearly impossible. john k 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, John. Str1977 (smile back) 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I agree that the Holocaust was murder and that debating it is senseless. However, murder is defined as being unlawful. Nazi Germany did have laws and (to my understanding) never had any sanctioning the extermination camps.
However, the country was controlled by an absolute ruler (see the article on Fuehrer) who obviouly superceded any laws and did directly sanction the killings. Was this illegal? No. Should the Holocaust be called mass murder? Yes. Are you saying that if they find a document tomorrow proving that there was a law allowing the Holocaust that it would suddenly no longer be murder? Surely not. The Holocaust, and any ethnic cleansing, should always be considered murder regardless of where it was committed and regardless if there was a law in place to legalise it.
A simple modification to the definition of murder will allow us to have our cake and eat it too. As john k suggested, we should just include a reference to international law. This would imply that killing, whether legal or not in the country it was committed, is still murder if it violates international law.- -  sYndicate talk  23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm...as I meditate on this, I fear that we seem to be moving in the direction of original research. Wouldn't the thing to do be to see if our sources describe it as "murder?" If specific legal issues of "murder" have been raised, we should refer to them. But we shouldn't include our own legal arguments in the text. john k 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that WP is not the place for original research. Nearly all other sources do call genocide 'mass murder'. Definitions of murder never elaborate on what they mean with 'unlawful', 'illegal' or 'without legal excuse'. The only way for reconsiling the two ideas (legal genocide being mass murder and murder being illegal) would be to bring in a reference to international law. Are you proposing that we leave the definition for murder as is and live with the inconsistency?- -  sYndicate talk  09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm saying to refer to it as murder, and not worry about whether there's an inconsistency unless we can find actual sources discussing the issue. john k 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I think WP would be better off without inconsistencies.- -  sYndicate talk  17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Syndicate, you are basing your point on several questionable assumptions:

  • insisting on murder being "unlawful" is problematic, as long as the law referred to is unclear - there is more than merely positive law, the legal definition of murder I know of is defining it as killing with intention and for "lower" motives. A moral definition would also take into account the killing of innocents (thus distinguishing it from capital punishment)
  • You wrote "However, the country was controlled by an absolute ruler (see the article on Fuehrer) who obviouly superceded any laws and did directly sanction the killings", but that is simply not right. In the Nazi state the Führer's will superceded any legal requirements but that didn't change these legalities unless a law was passed or changed. Hitler pondered and prepared issueing a law legalizing Euthanasia but in the end backed off, preferring to act "quietely". There was no law sanctioning the Holocaust and hence it cannot be described as legal, even under the law of the time. Also, we still don't have (and probably never will) direct proof of Hitler ordering the Holocaust, which doesn't mean that he didn't do it or that he didn't willed it, but it widens the gap between Holocaust and Law even more. So "Was this illegal?" - Yes, certainly.

"Are you saying that if they find a document tomorrow proving that there was a law allowing the Holocaust that it would suddenly no longer be murder?"

The moral character of the act would not be touched by such a document, and the legal one only if one subscribes to legal positivism (which unfortunately is again very popular these days). But still, we won't find such a document because there are no "secret laws" (one reason why there was no law - no one should know) - a law, even under Hitler, came into effect by promulgating it to the public. If there was such a law, we'd know it.

Returning again to the moral issue, I agree with your last point: murder remains murder, even when sanctioned or legalzed by the state, even when committed in the name of progress or other absurdities. Str1977 (smile back) 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Str1977. My last point is the only point I want to make; the current definition of murder would incorrectly exclude the Holocaust from being murder if it had been legalised.
- -  sYndicate talk  17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The death penalty in Nazi Germany was accepted and legal. The mass killings of the Jewish population could be seen as the death penalty on a larger scale, and therefore it was legal. All executions do not have to be open to public. I don't think the mass killings were murders at all since I go by the definition of murder being an illegal act. Paulus Caesar 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh and whoever said that since 90% would consider it murder doesn't mean it should be in an encyclopedia. It's like saying that Roman Catholicism is the one and only true belief because a majority of people believe in it. Murder = POV. Paulus Caesar 18:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
"The death penalty was ... accepted and legal" - yes, but irrelevant to the Holocaust. Which law court condemned six million Jews to death and for what crimes? Even in war times there is something like (pardon the German term) Standgerichte, which issue quick verdicts that are immediately executed (as in the case of Stauffenberg). There was nothing like that in the case of the Jews (ecepting killings as a reprisal within the camps, but even that is only remotely related). Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that we should keep the definition of murder as is and remove examples of legal killings from the articles for ethnic cleansing, mass murder and genocide?
- -  sYndicate talk  17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Paulus, on what basis do you claim that the mass killing of Jews in death camps in occupied Poland can constitute "the [German] death penalty on a larger scale", and therefore be legal? The death penalty was authorized for specific crimes, for which a trial was required. Even the July 20 plotters against Hitler (with the exception of those who committed suicide or were summarily shot in the immediate aftermath) were given trials and condemned before their execution. There was never any German law passed which made it a capital crime to be Jewish. Nor were there any secret ordinances to that effect. The killings of Jews - either in the camps or by the Einsatzgruppen in the Soviet Union - were clearly extralegal, in that there was no clear basis in German law to sanction them. They were most certainly not extensions of the capital punishment system, which still relied on the normal judicial system, which was completely bypassed for the murders conducted under the Holcoaust. Whether or not we should see the Holocaust as murder or not, we certainly shouldn't see it as an operation of German capital punishment - this is to completely misunderstand what was going on. john k 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
John, a quick addition: even those four who were immediately shot on July 20 had their (sort of) trial. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
John, maybe so but then it was an act of war. Would you rather have this article be POV'd or stick to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and revert everywhere it says murders to killings? Paulus Caesar 18:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"Acts of war" are these acts involved with warfare according to the existing rules of combat of that time. There are such things as war crimes. And killings way behing the frontline in death camps is hardly part of warfare. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Why not go a bit further and say that Nazis disliked certain categories? Would that be NPOV enough for you, my coughing friend? ←Humus sapiens ну? 20:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes why not? Too anti-Semitic for you? Seriously though, there are other examples of POV in this article as well. "Atrocities" shouldn't be in an encyclopedia either. Paulus Caesar 00:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Seeing that Paulus declared himself a Neo-Nazi earlier, I am not surprised at his attempts to exonerate the Nazis. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah so? You're a Jew (I think) and you protect what you have been taught. It's the same with me. Let's not judge people's ability to stay civilized by their beliefs and keep the debate going. If that's not what you were doing then I'm sorry. I don't want to cause any trouble, and if my NPOV POV's are trouble in your opinion then too bad, I guess. Paulus Caesar 02:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The response is at User talk:Paulus Caesar#Civility. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This problem can possibly be solved in this way. It all depends on who is making the laws. Nazi Germany would not call the Holocaust murder. However, East Germany and West Germany did call it murder, and so does the re-united Germany. I can see what people are trying to get at, though. When defining crimes, it is all down to individual countries and their laws. Yes, you can make an argument fopr "victor's justice" too. However, I think that we are all agreed that the killing of Jewish people in the Holocaust was clearly murder. As to who as individual people were guily or indeed not guilty of these crimes, that was the problem facing the judges at Nuremberg. Many of us observed on our TV sets the recent ill treatment of Croats in Yugoslavia. Did we rush off and save them? No. Are we all guilty of these crimes as we knew about them? Maybe. These are complicated problems. As has been said on many occasions, we are all human beings, and are capable of great evil, as happened mainly between 1941 and 1944. We should all learn from the mistakes of the past, and never let this happen again. Wallie 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany didn't call the Holocaust at all, as the leadership did their best to keep it secret. They didn't pass a law to authorize it and hence there is no basis for calling the Holocaust legal, even if one radically adheres to legal positivism. Str1977 (smile back) 12:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If "the Holocaust was clearly murder" shouldn't we have a definiton of murder that unequivocally classify the Holocaust as murder?
- -  sYndicate talk  20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
This is becoming a discussion on the topic of Criminology. Definitions of crimes across cultures and historical periods can cause problems. Encyclopedias normally are written to reflect the thinking at the time they are written. I am saying that based on 2006 thinking, the Holocaust is clearly murder, and few would disagree with this. Wallie 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "crimes... across historical periods". If, tomorrow, country X passes a law declaring killing people with blond hair legal, it would not be murder according to Wikipedia.
- -  sYndicate talk  11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Syndicate, our murder article correctly states: "As with most legal terms, the precise definition varies between jurisdictions." - and we are not in the business of redefining terminology. I'd like to note that in light of Nuremberg Trials and Oxford Dictionary, the repeated attempts to misapply political correctness here look increasingly disturbing. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The quote you give was intended to explain that actions such as abortion or euthanasia can be murder in one country but not in another. It was not meant to say that ethnic cleansing is not murder if it is legal.
We are talking about changing the definition of murder to include a reference to international law - what does this have to do with political correctness?
- -  sYndicate talk  11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
There is some question, I think, of what precisely the jurisdiction involved is. It would be useful to see if there are any articles in journals of international law on this issue (or something related), which could help us to see what the issue is. It seems to me that, because the murders pretty uniformly happened in occupied territories - either the Government General of Poland or occupied territory in the Soviet Union, international law would apply. I'm not sure there were any specific protocols in force on the subject of treatment of civilians as of 1941 (the Fourth Geneva Convention was not agreed on until 1949), but presumably there would be international common law to the effect that "it is not okay to systematically murder civilians in occupied territory during war time." But I'm not an expert on international law, so I'm not sure on this. In the Nuremberg Trials, the effective charge was "crimes against humanity," I think...This would suggest that, retroactively at least, we cannot see the Holocaust as having been legal - it was subsequently found to violate international law. john k 00:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I am trying to say. Killing is only murder if it violates a country's laws or if it violates international law.- -  sYndicate talk  11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Syndicate. We are all agreeing with what you are saying. So you should be happy. Wallie 21:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Genocide

Don't get me wrong, the Holocaust was a condemnable and terrible thing (that really happened). The word genocide is used a lot, but doesn't genocide imply that ALL of the Jews/Polish/"Undesirables" were murdered? Isn't this technically attempted genocide. By the same token what happened in Rwanda was attempted (thankfully it wasn't successful). You see what I mean? It's a question worth asking. If it is a question of definition... who's do we accept? Angrynight 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From genocide: Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say the Holocaust fits this definition. Extinction implies that all members of a species has died off. - -  sYndicate talk  23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word "species" but that makes sense to me. Angrynight 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

France and the Netherlands

There has been a number of TV programs recently indicating that French people actually had one of the best records of saving Jewish people. When the Germans occupied France, their soldiers took all the food they could, and many French people virtually starved. Many French people would share any little food they could find with Jewish people trying to hide from the Germans. The article as it stands appears to be very harsh on the French people. Any thoughts? Any personal knowledge? Wallie 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, the Dutch who through Anne Frank and other dairies created a myth of exceptional assistance to Jews during the Second World War, had one of the worst records. gidonb 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're speaking to an offended Dutchman gidonb. Care to back up that claim on Dutch collaborationism? Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

And do you know why? Because the Dutch had an excellent civil administration, which exactly said who had which religion, sex, etc. Your remark on percentages, 75 vs 25 is very offensive as you "sort of" claim that the Dutch themselves are responsible for their deaths. Let me tell you this, if the was any country in Europe were Jews were excepted as much as any other person it would have been the Netherlands.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to have to tell you this, then, but the Dutch themselves share responsibility. "There were Dutch officials who collaborated with the occupiers. They contributed to the horrible process in which Jewish Dutchmen were deprived of their rights and in which human dignity was defiled." -- Jan Peter Balkenende, 2005.[6] This case study is illuminating; there were more collaborators than resisters. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it did not help them much did it? Before the war the Queen of the Netherlands also vetoed a refugee camp for Jews at a large distance from her summer home. The myth of the "good" Dutch people in the war has since long been debunked. Alright, the Dutch Government has still put it in small letters in one of their last passports. gidonb 22:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The topic was France. How did we suddenly digress to the Netherlands? Wallie 00:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of the French record is as follows. The Vichy regime went to a fair degree of effort to protect those whom it considered "French Jews," by which it meant, iirc, Jews whose families had been in France before 1918. Foreign Jews, and Jews naturalized since 1918, did not fare very well, and there were some enthusiastic Jew hunts conducted by Vichy officials. As I understand it, France's record is generally considered to be worse than some (Bulgaria, Denmark, Italy, Hungary up to when the Nazis overthrew Horthy and deported and murdered all the Jews), but better than others (certainly than Romania). In terms of the Netherlands, it should be remembered that, unlike Vichy France, the Netherlands were under direct German administration. The Dutch government had fled into exile in 1940, and Denmark the Netherlands were was being governed by a German Reichskomissar. Other than Romania, which enthusiastically killed its Jews (and some in the Soviet Union, as well) the general benchmark is "countries with own government=did fairly good job protecting Jews; countries under direct German control=Jews deported and murdered." When compared to other countries which had their own government, Vichy doesn't fare very well - only Romania was notably worse. john k 00:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you both (gidonb and jpgordon ) knew even the slightest about the Dutch people during the second world war you'd know that the bulk of the Dutch people engaged in passive resistance.You'd also know that all Dutch officials "collaborated", they were required to do so, as (like john k said) the Netherlands had no government of their own, and were directly governed by German Nazis.

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Some municipal services and others held a partial strike during two days in Amsterdam and some places in the area, initiated by activists of the underground Communist Party of the Netherlands. Students in Delft and Leiden struck for one day to commemorate the deportation of their Jewish fellow students. The huge attention for these events, mostly by the Dutch themselves, assisted in creating the myth. In case you haven't already, please read WP:NPA. gidonb 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, I know my history gidonb.I find it offensive you suggest I'm living in a myth. Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that you live in a myth. In fact I believe that you live beyond the myth. I do suggest however, Rex, not to be instrumental in recreating it. The myth is offensive to some Dutch people just as well. gidonb 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

recreating? Please how can you create something out of nothing?! Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 16:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So, is http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-gerstens00.htm all lies? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You know Germanus, that if you complain that your country is getting unfair treatment, then various people will try to rub salt into the wounds. I personally think it is pathetic and probably worse, as some of these people are Administrators who should be setting an example, not a bad one. I also know people who lived and suffered through the Holocaust who would definitely not be impressed by these statements against the Dutch. Wallie 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon, the day that I trust an article comming from the JCPA has still to come. I am not anti-semetic in any way, but that particular organisation is just too much zionism for me.

Are they all lies? Probably not, is all truth, certainly not. You see, I'm not the one who will oppose the fact that there were collaborators in the Netherlands during the second world war ... what I do oppose is that an image is created in which the Dutch are potrayed as collaborators. I recall a Jewish girl onces wrote in her diary she wanted to become a Dutch citizen after the war. Why would she write that if the Dutch were all collaborators? Rex 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Beg pardon; who said they were "all collaborators"? Not sure what Anne Frank's teenage opinion -- from in hiding from those collaborators, who ended up betraying and helping to arrest her -- has to do with anything. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What about the Dutch people who protected her? Do you only look for the bad in people? Wallie 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there is an argument over the fact that Anne Frank was hidden and betrayed by Dutch people. However, the diary was written before she was betrayed or at least knew she was betrayed. The emphasis on the diaries and the great pride Dutch take or took in those who acted against the Nazis were instrumental in creating what is now known as the myth. There were additional factors. The official Dutch historian of WWII was protective of the Dutch government in exile and especially of the Queen. And the collaborators vanished quickly after the war: quite a few received capital punishment, some escaped, some were killed by the resistance after the liberation, and a large group of people sentenced to jail (or to death but pardoned by the Queen) saw their terms incredibly shortened. Only very few sat for long periods of time. Many did not get any punishment - it was just too widespread. There was some bias of survivors as well, many of them were saved by people hiding them, but their murdered family members were not. Lets not forget however that the pride Dutch take in the resistance by itself is not wrong - just imagine that the Dutch would take pride in the collaboration with the Nazis - yet the emphases on certain themes has caused a wide misunderstanding of the horrors of the Dutch-Jewish Holocaust. We are behind that phase now. gidonb 06:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly. Rex 13:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Any opinions on to what degree the Dutch collaborated with the Nazis are irrelevant. Only facts matter. Can anyone show me numbers, statistics, on the quantity of collaborators in France? In The Netherlands? In Belgium? In Poland? In Romania? Etc. Or on the number of those who enlisted in the German army? The German SS? If those facts are to be found somewhere in an archive or in a publication, how do we compare and interprete them? For the time being, my conclusion (and my advice) is: please do not assume anything on the basis of your own personal bias.--Willem Huberts 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Then please follow your own advice. This section was opened on the basis of discussing the French helping the Jewish people. It has been twisted into an attack on the Dutch. If you wish to discuss the Dutch, you should open a new discussion section on that topic. Wallie 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss the Dutch. Nor do I want to discuss the French. I just want to emphasize that if anyone is discussing the Dutch or the French in regard to their attitude towards the Jews during WW2, they'd better stick to facts, in stead of opinions.--Willem Huberts 08:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

France continued

Have a look at what I first wrote. There has been a number of TV programs recently indicating that French people actually had one of the best records of saving Jewish people. When the Germans occupied France, their soldiers took all the food they could, and many French people virtually starved. Many French people would share any little food they could find with Jewish people trying to hide from the Germans. The article as it stands appears to be very harsh on the French people. Any thoughts? Any personal knowledge? What has this got to do with collaboration or the Dutch. This was intended to be a discussion about the French. Wallie 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, lets keep the topics separated from now on. gidonb 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

GA status -

This article recently was nominated for Delisting from GA. A major concern is that all images have either incorrect copyright tags (PD - author died over 100 years ago), obsolete tags or where fair use is claimed no rationale. Gnangarra 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Italian Sheltering of Jews

I have just finished reading Mary Doria Russel's "A Thread of Grace" [7], which is a novel about the plight (and shelter) of both the Italian Jewish population and of Jewish refugees at the end of WWII in northern Italy. This is, of course, fiction, but it appears to be based in quite a bit of reliable research. Both this article and the Italian Front article on WWII seem to mention very little. Since I'm comparatively new here and this is a controversial topic, I thought I would mention it here to see if it has been previously considered. -- Semifreddo 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

No it hasn't. The Italian people certainly protected Jewish people, and the church too. Do not worry about this being a controversial topic. This is exactly the sort of comment, and the way it is put that people would welcome as a breath of fresh air. Wallie 13:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please put the Turkish Wikipedia weblink of the Holocaust article

Holocaust (Türkçe) - tr:Yahudi Soykırımı

  • I'm assuming good faith, but before I install this link, I'd like some independent verification that that article is indeed the right link; I don't read Turkish, but it puzzles me that an article on the Holocaust talks about George W. Bush. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

it is really about holocaust. it states G. Bush argued denying the holocaust sould be banned all around the world. yet the article is in quite a pathetic shape over all.neurobio 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone translate the English Holocaust article into Turkish for the Turkish Wikipedia weblink?

The Turkish Holocaust Wikipedia article tr:Yahudi Soykırımı is definately inadequate though not biased or racist in anyway. But it urgently has to be brought up to professional Wikipedia standarts, and the English language text is perfect for translation into Turkish. One does not have to speak nor understand Turkish in order to see that the article is poorly prepared. Is there anybody in the Wikipedia realm up for this task? Please? Thank you for your contributions.

To answer --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ about the inclusion of George W. Bush in the Turkish Holocaust Wikipedia article. In the Turkish Holocaust Wikipedia article under the section Holocaust Denial, diverging views about this article are given: U.S. President George W. Bush demanding that the denial of the Holocaust should be banned worldwide and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad claiming that the Holocaust is a lie in order to settle Jews in Palestinian lands.

Bosniaks

Removed this text until some sources are found. As far as I know, the Ustashe weren't anti-Muslim. Indeed, they collaborated well enough in killing Serbs in Herzegovina. Also, the Chetniks were an anti-Nazi guerilla group, so whatever they did, it can't be considered part of the Holocaust. --estavisti 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Another group of victims of Holocaust were Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). It is estimated that between 100,000 and 500,000 Bosniaks perished in Croatian-run (Ustashe) & Serbian-run (Chetnik) concentration camps. These camps were specifically made to torture and kill non-collaborators of Nazi-regime and/or to ethnically cleanse Muslim Slavs from their land. Bosniak villages and towns were deliberately destroyed and populations detained, deported, tortured and killed. In Bosnia alone, more than 100,000 Bosniaks perished during Holocaust. [1]

King of Denmark

From the article: "The King of Denmark had earlier set a powerful example by wearing the yellow Star of David that the Germans had decreed all Jewish Danes must wear." According to Rescue of the Danish Jews, this never happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.194.244 (talk • contribs)

It's a popular and beautiful legend, I removed this line from the article and added link to Rescue of the Danish Jews. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Why nobody has mentioned the rescue of 50,000 Bulgarian Jews by the people of Bulgaria including members of the Parliament and the Government. Bulgaria is the only country who managed to do that.
Read the whole article. It's there. Under "rescuers", it says the Nazi-allied government of Bulgaria, led by Dobri Bozhilov, refused to deport its 50,000 Jewish citizens... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is lacking some major sections

1. A background section explaining why the nazis wanted to get rid of the Jews, and how this fervent wish eventually took the form of the holocaust. As I recall reading, early in the war they prohibited French Jews from emigrating, in the hope that that would improve the chances of German Jews finding refuge outside Germany. How and why this eventually led to a policy of killing all Jews in Europe is something I would like to know. Reading the article now I’m just overwhelmed by the technicalities of death and suffering. If the holocaust is not to be repeated far more focus should be placed on the “how it could happen in the first place” question, I think.

2. A section focusing on how the rest of the world dealt with the issue, both while it was taking place and afterwards. Refusal by various nations to accept Jewish refugees. Exactly how the existence of the death camps was toned down. As an example of the indifference: General Eisenhower even went so far as to in November 1942 make a deal with the Vichy French Admiral Jean Darlan. The allies were to tolerate local Vichy decrees, which included sanctions against the Jews. In return the French opposition to the Allied landings in Vichy French North Afrika would be blunted by the Admiral. (Ref: M. Beschloss The Conquerors, pg.73). In the end the French fought back against the U.S. invasion so poorly that Hitler was enraged and took over Vichy France also, violating the 1940 armistice. As a side note, Eisenhower did receive some government critique for his decision.

It's François Darlan. And Vichy anti-Jewish ordinances are not the same thing as "the Holocaust." It is not as though Eisenhower condoned Darlan shipping off Jews to Auschwitz - just various discriminatory laws, and such (which were, I should think, no worse than Jim Crow in the United States at that time). And even that, as you noted, led to criticism. john k 12:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's actually Jean-François Darlan[8], and Beschloss setles for the shorter Jean Darlan. I did in no way equate Eisenhowers policies to the Holocaust, so the refuting comparison of the two is irrelevant to the topic. The fact remains that while european jews were being shipped of to gas-chambers, the U.S. did not take a firm stand, and for pragmatic reasons even was complicit in sanctions against jews in North Africa. The critisism of this policy was lead by Henry Morgenthau, Jr. who apparently went as far as calling Eisenhower a fascist. It does not seem to have harmed Eisenhowers career though.--Stor stark7 Talk 14:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
He was known as, in short, François, not Jean. Beschloss is being careless. We don't talk about Henri Pétain or Louis Thiers, either. john k 12:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

3. A section describing which actions that the Nazis took to hide what was taking place from their own people and everybody else. Always using code-words etc. I remember reading somewhere, I think it was in Gitta Sereny’s “Into That Darkness: from Mercy Killing to Mass Murder, a study of Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka (1974)” that they were planning to obliterate the camp, build a farm on top of it and have one of the Ukrainian guards live there pretending he had always lived there, and had never heard any rumours of any camp…

--Stor stark7 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Beside why it also lack of Oposition section. the Holocause Denial should have linked here instead of Historical and philosophical interpretations. It is a common thing to have Oposition section for any historical fact, since any historical fact including the holocaust are subjected to re-studies and re-evaluation from both sides.

Serbs

In this section, should the sentence starting "Simon Wiesenthal Center..." instead begin "The Simon Wiesenthal Center..."?--83.67.93.132 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editor Rational

I want to know what is the rational of the people who edit this article seeking to reclassify to the mass murder of millions of people as killings. What is it specifically that motivates these editors to deny Jews and other minorities were murdered? I really cannot comprehend the position of these editors. Are we dealing with holocaust deniers editing this article, or just editors that hate Jews and other minorities to the point that they refuse to see the premeditated wrongfulness (and later ruled illegalness) of the killings? Sysrpl 17:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sysrpl. You might want to give WP:AGF a quick reread. Focus on other editor's contributions and don't concern yourself with speculation on their motives, OK? Cheers, Kasreyn 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I largely concur with the above, whilst assuming editorial good faith. Mousescribe 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The rationale was stated above - those doing the killings did not consider them "murder". If they did, they wouldn't have performed them. The legal status of the killings was - correctly - delineated during the war and immediately afterwards, and condemned by the majority of the world. That doesn't change the fact that "murder" is a loaded word and is inherently POV. I think having the word "killings" in the article, with a section at the end discussing how they were actually "murders", would be far more appropriate. Soldiers in war don't murder, they kill, and many of the thousands of perpetrators of the Holocaust saw themselves as soldiers in a cause. I don't agree with them, and neither does history. But that shouldn't effect our ability to accurately report.Michael Dorosh 18:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Those doing murder do not consider it as murder - so it is not murder. An interesting defence, as an exercise in, somewhat flawed, tautology. Mousescribe 18:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Michael: Where do you draw the line? If contemporary Nazi's kill Jews because they see "themselves as soldiers in a cause" would that also not be murder?
Not if whatever nation they lived in permitted it by law. Convicts executed in Texas are not "murdered" because the state sanctions it, as did Nazi Germany.Michael Dorosh 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you.- -  sYndicate talk  19:25, 09 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why I have to repeat this over and over again, but the Holocaust was not "legal" according to the German law at the time. There's absolutely no basis for redefining it as "not murder". Str1977 (smile back) 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC) PS. Execution after a trial, even in Texas, is not the same as mass shootings, gassing or whatever. Str1977 (smile back) 14:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Didn't germany, under Hitler, change how law was supposed to be interpreted, with respect to the Führer? Ronabop 05:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Oxford defines the Holocaust as "the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis". Anyone wanting to change the article to say that the Holocaust was not murder should find an equally reputable source to back their claim.
- -  sYndicate talk  19:25, 09 July 2006 (UTC)
It goes without saying that the OED is writing in hindsight, after the Nazi state was declared itself illegal.Michael Dorosh 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Just like we are. - -  sYndicate talk  19:25, 09 July 2006 (UTC)
Another point: "after the Nazi state was declared itself illegal" - where did you get this? How do you declare a state illegal? WHo has the authority? The Nazi state was evil, no doubt about it, but to say it was illegal is both nonsense as well as pointless. Str1977 (smile back) 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Nuremburg declared the Nazi Party an illegal organization, ditto the SS, and indicted leaders in the judiciary, legal, financial etc. spheres. As for "evil" that is something children believe in. How do you declare an entire state "evil"? It doesn't make sense except perhaps in propaganda. Criminal, yes, evil is subjective.Michael Dorosh 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
So should we be taking a point of view as if we were writing in the German Wikipedia of 1944? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So to summarize, some of you say Nazi's didn't not murder millions of Jews and other minorities? The killings of all these people were wholly within the law? Care to point out this death sentence legislation? Sysrpl 03:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting here. The term "murder" is used frequently throughout the article to describe the Nazis' actions. The discussion here on the talk page is over a technicality, nothing more. No one here, to my knowledge, is asserting that the Holocaust wasn't murder. Calm down and try to assume your fellow editors' good faith, all right? Kasreyn 03:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What makes you think I am not calm? I don't see any exclamation points in my remarks or use of allcaps. I only pointed out the counter argument and asked for references to the death sentence legislation. If you read through this page you will see a few comments claiming that the killings were not murder. Is their argument so weak that I must be accussed of wrongdoing? Sysrpl 04:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The argument is legalistic, but is making an assumption: that by saying the killings were legal means they weren't murder. A distinction is being missed: whether or not the individuals doing the actual killing had legal authority to do so, the nation was committing murder. So we can say "murder" regardless of whether the German soldiers doing the slaying were murderers. Maybe that's a way to stop this whole stupid argument. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jpg. The assumption is both wrong and not met by the Holocaust. Even if a law would have been passed, it would still be murder, but there was no such law! Str1977 (smile back) 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The killings were both Murder and legal (state sanctioned) killing. It was legal, within Nazi Germany, because the Jews were diminished to subhuman status, by Nazi rhetoric, yet it was factually Murder because the Nazi definition of Jews as a subhuman species was fallacious. No law was needed legalizing their murder, in the same way no law is needed to slaughter and process any other (non-human) animal. To be clear, and specific, there was no law protecting the supposedly subhuman Jew from slaughter after being stripped of their humanity. After the defeat of the Nazi's, it was once again the universal belief that every race of mankind is homo-sapien, and therefore the Nazi atrocities were deemed Murder by mankind. I hope I said that correctly - > Just a newbie butting in with .02 explaining why it was legal without a law on the books to slaughter them, and Murder, because there was not a law entitling others to kill them. - Michael Corrieri

Should the article refer to the Holocaust as murder?

Give your opinion on Talk:The_Holocaust/Polls!

- -  sYndicate talk  08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes (And Wiki is not an International Court - see above). Mousescribe ;;12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Straw polling is a tool used to reach consensus. Of course WP is not an international court. What's your point?- -  sYndicate talk  13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes Sysrpl 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes (reffering to the question in the section title, what about the linked page?) Str1977 (smile back) 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is already very messy. Please only respond on the poll page. -  sYndicate talk  13:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Syndicate, do you think that the Holocaust is murder? Wallie 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. -  sYndicate talk  22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting on what an article should contain is discouraged by Wikipedia. See the 'What Wikipedia is not' page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Specifically it states:

"Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes. For an experiment in democracy, visit WikiDemocracy." --Nazrac 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazrac, if you read my statement above and the poll page you'll see that I already said everything you just said. I created the poll page because I couldn't figure out what we agree on and what not. The poll makes it clear that all the disagreements on this page are not because we have different views on whether the Holocaust was murder or not. -  sYndicate talk  22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazrac, please forgive me if I am wrong here, but I think everyone should take your words with a grain of salt. I took the liberty of examining your edit history [9], as well the history of your sock puppet account [10], checking for the hallmarks of an ethically bankrupt misanthrope. I can't say I was entirely suprised to see that you lavishly quote Hitler [11] and find "no proof whatsoever contradicting holocaust deniers." [12] You also appear grieved about how the articles on Wikipedia unfairly misrepresent Nazi Germany [13], going so far as to suggest the Nazi SS soldiers were valiant knightly soldiers. [14] Though you participated in the "Goys are Niggers" discussion comparing those of Jewish faith with Scientologists, [15] I supposed you'll claim it was all a blatant act of of sarcasm. [16] Sysrpl 05:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing

I will try to say this gently, as I am aware that the issue of the Holocaust has a very deep emotional impact, being one of the greatest crimes of history. It is a sensitive subject and so must be approached with sensitivity. But I still feel I have to say that this article needs much better inline sourcing. Yes, it has 57 sources, but the article is 114kb long. It amounts to one source every two kilobytes. This is not enough for an article this important.

To go into detail: At a glance, the subsections on cruelty, victims, communists, religious groups, searching for records, execution of, pogroms, euthanasia, extermination camps, Jewish resistance, rescuers, fascist Italy, Bulgaria, German-occupied Soviet territories, who authorized the killings?, obedience (great job on mention of the Milgram experiment btw), functionalism vs. intentionalism, religious hatred and racism, displaced persons and the state of israel, legal proceedings against Nazis, Legal action against genocide, holocaust theology, art and literature, and holocaust memorial days, are all lacking inline sourcing.

It appears that most of these sections rely on main article elsewhere. I haven't looked at these articles yet, but I'm sure that when I do I will find that they are well sourced. However, it's not sufficient for us to simply source a claim by linking to another article that contains the source. What if the source is removed from that other article? How will this article's editors be aware of that, and find a new source? Clearly, best practise is to replicate the citation in every article that makes use of the claim rather than relying on inter-article linking.

From the amount of vandalism it receives, I consider this one of the most important articles at Wikipedia. It needs to be made stronger and better sourced so it can hold up to vandalism as well as intense scrutiny. I notice that poor sourcing is one of the reasons this article failed in its nomination to be a Featured Article. That was more than a year ago! Isn't it time for another try for FA?

I will try to find time to read some of the main articles on these other sections and copy inline sources to this article. Other claims I am sure will be easy to find sources for using Google. Kasreyn 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess most, if not everybody, agree here with you. There's just one little point: although on-line sources are nice, because one can check them immediately, on such a subject, I think most people who've add here do so out of specific knowledge (historical studies, books, etc.). Book sources are really important too...Tazmaniacs 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood me slightly... I was referring to in-line, not on-line sourcing. An in-line source is a source which has a footnote which links to the bottom of the page. The actual source info at the bottom of the page can be a link to an external website, or a dead-tree book, or a magazine or journal, or whatever. I'm not concerned with what media the source itself is printed in, be it online or a book. I'm concerned that claims have in-line sources so that claims can be more precisely and specifically sourced. Ie., rather than hunting through a whole book on the Holocaust to find the source cited here, we can use an in-line source here and, in the reference section, note the page number cited. Cheers, Kasreyn 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
All right. WP:RS is certainly a necessity, all the more in this major article which can still be hugely improved. Tazmaniacs 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget-me-not

What's with the "Forget-me-not as a symbol" section, and what does it have to do with impact on culture? It seems so minor that it should appear, if anywhere, in a subarticle. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It has nothing to do here, maybe in the Freemason article. WP:Be bold! Tazmaniacs 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy Section

Why is there no controversy section for this article? Most other articles on topics of this nature have a controversy section but this one is utterly lacking for some reason. I've heard of controversy in regards to myths about the holocaust that were fabrications (e.g. NAZI's making soap out of victims), disputes about the number of victims, and even controversy about the Auschwitz camp - for example one building was alleged to be a gas chamber but many doubt this based on evidence they have gathered (not the mortuary buildings - it was an air raid shelter building that some believe was converted to a gas chanmber). This article needs a controversy section to address disputes about the holocaust history, just like any other Wikipedia page. JettaMann 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what now? Did you say "for this sort of foolishness"? I'm talking about a section for legitimate controversey, not some made up conspiracy theories. You seem to think that for some reason this article is different from others. How can a topic this wide ranging not have any controversy? That would be an assinine assumption to make for any article, let alone this article. There are plenty of controversies addressed by legitimate sources in magazine, TV, books, and academia. To ignore them makes no sense to me.JettaMann 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
You must understand that this is an article about the special tragedy of the special, chosen people. Nobody is allowed to question it, especially if one is a gentile. Did not you figure it out by now?
  • As I've pointed out above, there is already too much unsourced material in the article. Efforts should be focused towards sourcing the existing claims, not adding new unsourced claims. Kasreyn 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ugh. The Holocaust is one big controversy gone berserk to the 200th power. A controversy section would be out of the question, as it is already a controversial topic by itself.

--Tromboneplayer 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Tromboneplayer

73%

The article mentions that 'Norwegian police rounded up 750 Jews (73%)'. It is unclear what 73% refers to. --Spet1363 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

If both are true, then Norway only had 1027 Jews to begin with. That seems rather low to me. Kasreyn 04:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the ambiguous 73% reference (it was unclear what the proportion is making a reference to and was unreferenced). I also moved Slovakia to its own subsection within the list. It is an independent nation after all and has little to do with Norway, IMO. --129.67.89.102 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Survivors Section In Need

Okay, speaking as a Holocaust survivor's grandson, I suggest that we add more information than just the paragraph on Holocaust survivors. My grandmother goes to child survivor groups and some survivors were from other generations, older than here, of course, but ... my point stands. I think that the survivor's section of the Holocaust article is a bit of a stub. Leopard Gecko 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

Wikipedia article List of Holocaust victims

The article List of Holocaust victims has an overly broad interpretation, in my opinion. It includes in the list, for example, officers in the German military who were courtmartialled for plotting to depose Hitler. I proposed that that article be renamed to People who lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis but nobody seems interested in that proposal. As written, I think that article with its current title is at best confusing and at worst offensive. This should probably be discussed at Talk:List of Holocaust victims. --Mathew5000 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Say a German SS officer died in a death camp, for the crime of refusing to kill Jews? How about a Jew who personally murdered other Jews in order to remain in good standing with the Nazi regime, but was killed in the end? Maybe List of Nazi atrocities covers the extreme cases? Ronabop 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see your point. As far as I know, the Nazis did not use death camps to punish their own SS officers for insubordination. Didn't they have firing squads for that purpose? In any event, maybe you could quibble about whether such a person is correctly described as a "Holocaust victim" (I'd say not) but the Wikipedia article in question lists many individuals who clearly are not "Holocaust victims" under any reasonable definition. That's why the title of the article should be changed. List of Nazi atrocities is not a good name for the content of that list, because it's a list of individuals. Plus, it is not an "atrocity" for a military organization to execute one of its officers for insubordination. (It may be unjust, it may be reprehensible, but it is not an atrocity.) --Mathew5000 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
My point might be hard to see, if a given perspective already has a strictly delimited definition of the "Holocaust". It's a sensitive word. So, let's back up. Some people *may* consider the Shoah to be *a part*, or *the whole*, of the Holocaust, others may consider the Holocaust to be any action which killed "üntermenschen", etc. In your own words as I understand them, you find some people who are currently listed in List of Holocaust victims as failing "under any reasonable definition", which leads me to ask what the *exact criteria* you are using for "any reasonable definition"? Could that lead us down a road where key-points of your terminology can be used? Ronabop 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Looking at the article List of Holocaust victims, do you think that is a good name for that article? Do you think it is a better name for that article than something like List of victims of the Nazis? --Mathew5000 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there an article on Wiki challenging the claims of the Jewish Holocuast?

A lot of evidence is showing up that is saying that the Jewish Holocuast is not what it was made out to be.

This is some information to look over; it does challenge the conventional story. And before anyone starts making accusations of biase or anti-Semiticism...it is not I looked through it all. Zionists and Jews are not the same thing, neither are ISraelis and Jews. Just look at it to expand your horizons on the issue.

These are all documentaries on Zionism, the Holocaust, and how portions of it were fabricated or adultered. The first two is just collected information and also claims that there is a link with Septmeber 11, 2001 and the third was is a full visual documentary with interviews and academic explanations.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=911+Stranger

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5382004121587104053&q=Germans+and+Zionists

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7272889307599304093&q=WWII+commentary

This is the full text of Benjamin Freedman's speech...a Jew who was once a leading ZIonist who later left the movement and said it was behind the death of Jews and both World Wars

http://compuserb.com/benfreed.htm

69.196.164.190

Merging 'The Abandonment Of The Jews' into 'Who knew about the killings?'

The Abandonment Of The Jews is about a book which discusses 'Who knew about the killings?', so I think it is appropriate to merge any new material into this article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Like many other important books it desrve it's own article. Nothing prevent use of this acdenic source in other articles (as source) Zeq 12:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why this book deserves its own article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could explain why it doesn't deserve it's own article? If the book is not notable, then we should merge. If it is notable, give it its own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The book itself may be interesting, but in all cases the article needs work. Content shouldn't be merged here without previous work, as it doesn't explain anything right now, just assert that the Allies didn't "save Jews" although they could. The article should go & explain the author's thesis in a more thorough manner. If the book is notable, this page is already huge, and it certainly deserves its own article. Tazmaniacs 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, the article need more work. Zeq 14:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust (resources)

I merged the references and external links from Holocaust (resources) back in here. Please see the Wikipedia policy on references and external links: they are supposed to be put in the main article, not moved in other place. Also, there is an excessive number of books and links: maybe they should be trimmed and only the most important/influential kept and some the rest being be moved to more specific articles. bogdan 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is too long, even without the references it is 114k - way beyond normal bounds. Also there is no reason to cut down on the references, who decides? - and just because of a generic "rule"? it is a helpful resource, make it a "list of" article. The holocaust is unique in the amount of references available, it's not the typical subject. -- Stbalbach 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The references can be put into sub-articles, e.g. references regarding the death camps can go into that article, regarding, etc. - FrancisTyers · 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
A real article on the Historiography of Holocaust would be ok, but not just a list of books and sites. bogdan 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Each article page should be an article on its own, not the dependency of some other article. bogdan 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a CSD for this? A3? - FrancisTyers · 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Historiography of the Holocaust waiting for us... Tazmaniacs 16:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
A list of references is not a historiography. More like a bibliography. -- Stbalbach 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Rampant bs coming from all directions here

why are people so stuck up over this? why is it okay to joke about the mass exterminations of native americans, aztecs, christians, muslims, and animals, but not jews? Oh, here comes the bs about "how dare you compare jews to so-and-so!!!" people act like someone joking about the holocaust is a grave danger to the entire universe. guess what - we're not the center of the universe. we don't really matter at all, actually. everything's subjective. If the nazis had won ww2, you would all have very different opinions about the holocaust. there will be a million more holocausts too, but atleast not in Israel, as they seem to be the only country ever to have learned a damn lesson from history. I have to give Israel credit for that. Then you people prance on here and act like your opinion matters at all, all the while people are being legally murdered all around you and somehow you miss that. all the while you put animals to sleep because they didn't act like you wanted them to. just shut up and stop acting like anything matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.9 (talk • contribs) 23:56, August 7, 2006

Has Israel hell learnt from history. http://c2ore.com/archives/?itemid=1794—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.41.67 (talk • contribs)

No one JOKES about massive exterminations on Native Americans, except for sick people. There may be the stereotypical Native american owning a casino, but other than that they don't JOKE about ANY EXTERMINATION. Who jokes about Christians being exterminated? No one, except for, of course, the ignoramuses. Aztecs? Who the hell are you kidding? NO ONE makes fun of Aztecs, not because they HATE them or anything, they just wouldn't know enough history abotu them, and even if they did, they wouldn't JOKE about Europeans KILLING them. To even TRY to joke about the Muslims in the Middle East being exectuted it God-awful. All these people, including Jews and African Americans, are only being made fun of by bigots. So unless you're TRYING to be paranoid into thinking everyone makes fun of these exterminations but not Jews, then get some help, because, and I'm not trying to point fingers, YOU might be the one who is, indeed, prejudiced. Every religion and race makes fun of the other (well, a lot of them, anyways) in the media ... but NO ONE is allowed to deliberately going to slam on massive genocides on a group of people and get TV for it. Leopard Gecko 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Leopard Gecko

you can't even print a cartoon of mohammed without setting off a global crisis, here's some guy telling us jews are too sensitive, it's "okay to joke about the mass exterminations of muslims". Gzuckier 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  1. ^ Imamovic, Mustafa, History of Bosniaks
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_11&oldid=1137235026"