Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Nisko plan...

Quite frankly, this is entirely too much detail for this plan in this article. We really need to remember that this is an overview article and not stuff it full of too much detail. And... the google books link to the page for the 95,000 does not work for me. Besides Cesarani and Longrich who both report only 4700 deportees, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust (p. 232) also says ""Only 4,700 Jews were deported to the Lublin area, all in October 1939. The camp at Nisko remained in eistence until the entire plan was crapped in April 1940." We obviously have a difference between two secondary sources (Cesarani and Longrich) and a tertiary (Columbia) on one side and one tertiary on the other (the 2013 edition of the Holocaust Encyclopedia). I have an earlier edition of the Encyclopedia - since the Google link isn't working for me to verify the information - would it be possible to have the title of the entry it's from? And can we conform the citations to the style already in use in the article - I went to a great deal of effort to standardize the references - it is a bit annoying to have a a new style introduced. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• I truly admire the amount of work you put into this article recently. I patiently waited for the volume of your edits to slow down before changing and/or adding anything. Please look at the size and coverage of the Nisko Plan in a separate WP article where you can get a sense of how important the plan was in the lead-up to Operation Reinhard, the most deadly phase of the Holocaust in Poland, taking place roughly in the same area. Globocnik was in charge of the 'reservation' as well as death camps of Operation Reinhard. That is not too much detail. Below are the sources and editions I used, all available online through Google Books:

1. David Cesarani (Nov 8, 2016), Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews 1933-1949, St. Martin's Press, ISBN 1250037964 at https://books.google.ca/books?id=mimNBwAAQBAJ
2. Dr Robert Rozett, Dr Shmuel Spector (Nov 26, 2013), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Routledge, ISBN 1135969574 at https://books.google.ca/books?id=d5MuAgAAQBAJ
3. Abraham J. Edelheit (1994), History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary, Westview Press, ISBN 0813322405 at https://books.google.ca/books?id=ilnACY97x4kC

Please explain what you mean by non-standarized references. I kept the same system as you did, with {{r}} being a short for <ref name=""/>. The system remains the same. I did not use any tertiary sources, because verifying the information without weblinks becomes a different ballgame. Please ask about anything you'd like to have clarified. I can also take screenshots of any specific pages from the online editions of these books. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 23:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

The Encyclopedias/Dictionaries are tertiary sources.. Especially the first as its designed for a high school/early college level library. The original edition of it was published by Facts on File, well known for producing reference works for non-academic libraries. I actually switched the whole article over to using {{sfn}} ... the only references that don't use that are single use citations or citations I'm still trying to verify by getting the sources. (As for Google books - it is notorious for not displaying the same for everyone. And a snippet view (whcih is what those are showing) is not really helpful to verify as it leaves context out.) As for the weight... we do need to mention the Nisko scheme, but compare the amount of coverage it gets in Cesarani to the total number of pages. Or what the plan gets in Longerich.

"After the invasion of Poland, the Germans set up a "Jewish reservation" in the Lublin district of the General Government territory governed by Frank. The initiative was known as the Nisko Plan. Adolf Eichmann was assigned the task of removing all Jews from Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to this reservation.[124] The first Jews were sent there in October 1939.[125] Although 80,000 Jews were initially planned by Müller to be removed, Eichmann managed to sent only 4,700 Jews to Nisko from Vienna,[126] Katowice, Ostrawa, and Stettin until March 1940.[127] In late March, Göring put the Nisko Plan on hold,[128] and it was abandoned completely in April.[129] By mid-October however, it was revived by Himmler as the Nahplan 1 followed by Nahplan 2 (short-term plans),[130] due to mass influx of Germanic settlers into the Warthegau area, requiring farms.[131] The resettlement action continued until January 1941 under Odilo Globocnik.[132] By that time 95,000 Jews were already concentrated in the area;[133] (78,000 before the end of February 1940). They were imprisoned in the newly-built labour camps of the Lublin-Lipowa and Majdanek camp complex,[134] but the idea of deporting further 400,000,[134] or 600,000 Jews to Lublin,[130] has failed." is what you added. But.. the detail on the Germans wanting the farms, the exact cities that the 4700 came from, the fact that 78,000 arrived before March 1940, the names of the two sub-plans, the fact that the camps were newly built, which camps, and the fact that 400,000 to 600,000 were further planned but did not get expelled is certainly way too much detail for a top level article. And that's a quick look. This information would certainly be useful in the Nisko article itself - if its not already there... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

• The books listed above are offered to me by Google in a "Preview this book »" mode, not in a "snippet view" mode. All of them are displayed with entire chapters available for reading (not just pages); phrase searches, scrolling feature, zoom, and monitor options. But also, many other chapters are not available to me. That is what I meant by taking screenshots from what I have. You can open a Google Books' account, no questions asked, if you happen to have a Gmail account ready. They also appreciate book reviews. The distinction between secondary and tertiary sources is relative. The History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary has multiple citations in every paragraph for confirmation of fact. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust does not have notes but only the names of individual authors and titles of their articles. For example the 95,000 figure originates from article "The Destruction of European Jewry, 1933–1945" by Aharon Weiss. We can look it up elsewhere. Heavy reliance on individual authors can be a problem, especially when a subject of our inquiry is covered by them only in brief. Cesarani is a very good source, but the Lublin Reservation is not covered by him at all. Only the Nahplan 1 & 2. However, I'm open for your suggestions. Please add strikethrough to text that in your view can be removed without loss of general overview of the plan. If the Nazi idea was to move 600,000 Jews to the 'reservation' eventually (Cesarani 262), our mentioning of 80,000 Jews planned initially (Cesarani 258) becomes spurious in a condensed article, if you see what I mean. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Here's what Joseph Poprzeczny writes about Nisko on page 160 in his Odilo Globocnik, Hitler’s Man in the East (ISBN 0786481463):

"...the scrapping of the Lublin Reservation plan did not mean deportations of Jews to the East had ceased. By the summer of 1940, according to a Warsaw Jewish Community report, Globocknik had 30 work camps. This number rose to 51 by early 1941, with the largest extablished in July 1940 at Belzec, where 30,000 or so Jews referred to earlier were forcibly put to work digging anti-tank ditches on what Globocnik saw as an Eastern Wall, at task not too different from those undertaken around Nisko/Zarzecze only a few months earlier... The Belzec site became, in 1942, the Belzec killing center."

https://books.google.ca/books?id=2arPruq8lhIC&q=Nisko%2FZarzecze

Poprzeczny mentions the 78,000 Jews dispatched eastward to the "Judenvorstaat" on page 153 in his book. Poeticbent talk 03:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

We definitely have an issue with a clash of sources. I'm still not seeing where Edelheit gets the number of 78,000 (I can't access that footnote in Google books). See further in the Rozett and Spector work here under the entry for the Nisko-Lublin plan where they don't give the 78,000 number. The page 133 that you're citing is actually in the introductory material on page 47 and should be cited as Weiss, Aharon (2013) [2000]. "The Destruction of European Jewry 1933-1945". In Rozett, Robert; Spector, Shmuel (eds.). Encyclopedia of the Holocaust. New York: Routledge. pp. 45–55. ISBN 1-57958-307-5. (see [https://books.google.ca/books?id=J5EuAgAAQBAJ&q=nisko-lublin#v=snippet&q=nisko-lublin&f=false here where I found the information on actual page with numbers). Cesarani is very clear - on page 259 he says "Little more than a week after its inauguration the plan foundered. Instead of 80,000 Jews, a mere 4,700 had been removed." (I own Cesarani so I can easily read the entire section). On page 260 he says "The abortive Nisko venture..." where he winds up talking about the deportations in 1939 and 1940. Reading further, it appears that some of the confusion stems from the fact that deportations of Poles to the same area were also taking place. Cesarani p. 261 says that in early December 87,000 Poles (including 10,000 Jews) were deported to the Lublin area but clearly Cesarani sees this as a distinct project from the Nisko project - which was limited to specifically the Nisko area. Page 262 of Cesarani he says that there was an interim plan (part of Nahplan 2) to deport 40,000 Poles to the General Government during Feb and March 1940, but "only a very small proportion were Jews". And then on page 263 "Nahplan 2 was resurrected in March 1940 and continued in fits and starts until January 1941, by which time 143 transports had carried 133,508 Poles to the General Government. Only three trains were used to deport Polish Jews, chiefly from Posen. The majority of Jews in the incorporated territories ended up staying where they were." ... more in a bit after I take the dog to the groomers. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Try the following link, and please describe exactly what it is that you actually see in Google Books so I can get a clearer idea about your level of access. Generally speaking, Wikipedia editors prefer online sources to paper copies, especially when the subject of our article is in certain points controversial.

https://www.google.ca/search?safe=off&hl=en&tbm=bks&q=%22a+transport+1%2C200+Jews+from+Pomerania+%E2%80%94+left+in+early+February.+Between+these+two+dates+an+estimated+78%2C000+Jews+were+deported+to+the+reservation.%22&oq=%22a+transport+1%2C200+Jews+from+Pomerania+%E2%80%94+left+in+early+February.+Between+these+two+dates+an+estimated+78%2C000+Jews+were+deported+to+the+reservation.%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...225890.225890.0.229074.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0.mm1bEdP1Ezg

I am going to incorporate your other suggestions in my next edit. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 14:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite finished with digging through sources ... so its probably best to wait. I can see the page ... but there is a endnote on the information but I cannot access the actual citation in the endnote. As for "Wikipedia editors prefer online sources"... that's not really true. We prefer current and up to date sources. There is no bias against print sources and we shouldn't say that online sources are preferred at any time. (And ... since I've been here over 10 years and have quite a number of edits (as well as a goodly number of featured and good articles, I'm familiar with wikipedia's sourcing requirements... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So... Longerich (2012) pp. 151-155 discusses the Nisko Project (or Nisko-Lublin Plan of October 1939, which is the subheading he uses for the section on the plan). Page 152 "Between 20 and 28 October 4700 Jews were transported to Nisko from Vienna, Katowice, and Ostrava in a total of six transports." Page 153 "On 20 October the RSHA issued an order banning the transports; Eichmann was permitted only one train from Ostrava, 'in order to preserve the prestige of the local state police'." and later on the page "Despite the abrupt end of hte Nisko campaign, the RSHA steadfastly stuck to its plans for deporting Jews into the district of Lublin." and again later "As the history of the Nisko campaign shows, the organs..." where Longerich wraps up the actual Nisko plan. I think a good solution would be to drop the "nisko plan" from the heading here in this article - and make the "main" article go direct to the Lublin reservation page rather than through a redirect to the Nisko plan redirect page.

Longerich then goes on in pages 155 through 160 to discuss further deportations to the General Government under the heading "Deportations Phase II: Autumn 1939 to Spring 1940". There on page 156 he says "And indeed, according to the Higher SS and Police Commander, Wilhelm Koppe's concluding report, between 1 and 17 December there were more than 87,000 people deported from the Warthgau into the General Government, 'politically incriminated Poles, Jews, Polish intelligentsia, criminal and asocial elements'." Later on page 159 "Between the failure of the Nisko plan in October 1939 and the provisional end of deportations in March 1940, a total of about 128,000 people had been deported from the Warthegau into the General Government under the aegis of teh first short-term plan and the intermediate plan, and this figure includes a few tens of thousands of Jews. As we have seen, the extent and modalities of these 'resettlements' were affected above all by the ethnic German 'returning settlers'." He then discusses "The second short-term plan was to be realized, however, albeit in a modified version. Between 1 April 1940 and 20 January 1941 130,000 Poles and 3,500 Jews from the Warthegau were to be transported into the General Government." It's not clear if this actually occurred or if Longerich is just writing very convoluted, because the wording of that sentence appears to imply that it was planned but he never comes out and says it happened.

So from reading a bit of this - it appears that Cesarani and Longerich apply the term "Nisko plan" to the short-lived October plan to deport people to Nisko, and that they do not include the later deportations as part of that plan. I do think we'd be better off making the heading more general and linking directly to the Lublin plan... which would avoid it making it look like all the deportations were part of the Nisko Plan, which the current heading appears to do. Still digging, however. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

From Browning, Christopher (2010). "Problem Solvers". In Hayes, Peter; Roth, John K. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Holocaust Studies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 128–141. ISBN 978-0-19-966882-3. on pages 132-133 "In October 1939, the SS expulsion expert, Adolf Eichmann, experimented with transports of Jews from Vienna, Mahrisch Ostrau in the Protectorate, and Katowice in the "incorporated territory" of eastern Upper Silesia to the village of Nisko on the San River, where some Jews were made to construct a transit camp while others were chased eastward into the Lublin District. In Eichmann's words, he did this "to collect experiences, in order ... to be able to carry out evacuations of much greater numbers". However, Himmler quickly closed down Eichmann's Nisko experiment in order to concentrate on expelling Poles and Jews from the Warthegau and thus to make room for repatriated Baltic Germans. The attempt to clear the "incorporated" territories of all Poles and Jews foundered on the growing opposition of Hans Frank and Hermann Goring to the logistical difficulties and economic consequences of Himmler's attempted demographic revolution in the midst of an unfinished war. By the spring of 1940, the expulsion of both Poles and Jews had been sharply scaled back, and Hitler disowned the plan for a Jewish reservation in the Lublin District." I also checked Richard Lukas' The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation 1939-1944 (3rd edition) for information on the Nisko plan or the deportations into the General Government in 1939-1941 .. while it's discussed, numbers aren't really given, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

So... looking at the above... I suggest the following:

Lublin reservation

Main article: Lublin reservation

After the invasion of Poland, the Germans planned to set up a "Jewish reservation" in the Lublin district of the General Government territory governed by Frank. Adolf Eichmann was assigned the task of removing all Jews from Germany, Austria, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia to this reservation. The first plan to be implemented was to concentrate the Jews around Nisko, and it began in October 1939. Although this "Nisko Plan" initially intended to remove 80,000 Jews, Eichmann managed to send only 4,700 Jews, by March 1940. The Nisko Plan was put on hold in late March 1940, and it was abandoned in April. By mid-October however, the idea of a Jewish reservation was revived by Himmler, due to the influx of Germanic settlers into the Warthegau. Resettlement actions connected to this reservation plan continued until January 1941 under Odilo Globocnik, and included both Jews and Poles. By that time 95,000 Jews were already concentrated in the area; but further ideas of deporting up to 600,000 additional Jews to the Lublin reservation failed because of logistical and political factors.

• Edelheit, Abraham J. (1994). History of the Holocaust: A Handbook and Dictionary. Westview Press. ISBN 0813322405. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)</ref>

Note that I fixed the citation for the first sentence from Cesarani 2004 to Cesarani 2016 - as the quote you had in that citation was from Cesarani 2016. I've tried to stick with sources that are already in use in the article... and I've cut a bit of detail that doesn't necessarily deal with the Lublin reservation itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• This is excellent. I love your investigative spirit. The 'Nisko Plan' section of our article was confusing because the actual 'plan' did not succeed even though it gave birth to the idea of mass extermination of Jews in that exact area. The true subject of our inquiry is (and was) the Lublin Reservation. Here's what Leni Yahil writes in the "Prologue to the Final Solution" chapter of The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, 1932-1945 on page 160.

"What motives lay behind the German attempt to concentrate the Jewish population in the so-called Lublin Reservation? The area in question extended southeast of the city of Lublin between the San and Vistula rivers in the west and the Bug River in the east, comprising 300 to 400 square miles.[44] The idea was not entirely new, as it had already been broached at the end of the 1930s. [i.e.: the Nisko, and the Nahplans 1 & 2] The Germans believed that the focus of the Jews' power and source of their genetic potential lay in Lublin [45] ... It therefore appeared to the Nazis that by its very nature, the Lublin area would lend itself to the extermination of its Jewish population. For one thing, it was situated far off on the eastern border, and the Germans eve believed that it was deserted [46] ... Frank's deputy, Artur Seyss-Inquart, quoted the regional governor as having said, 'This area, which is noted for its swampy nature, can ... serve as a reservation for the Jews, and this action may cause a considerable decimation of the Jews.'[46]"

What do you think about this? Poeticbent talk 16:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's interesting, and probably would be useful in the Lublin reservation article - not sure it's that useful here in the overview. Interesting though... of course, neither Frank nor Seyss-Inquart were exactly in the forefront of the Nazi hierarchy either. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I just spent an hour rereading Leni Yahil. There's definitely a clash of sources in the coverage of this subject, just like you said. – Some historians conclude that the plan was a failure. For their names, see Browning, The Path to Genocide, page 6. It is a known fact however, that the 'resettlement' resulted in the creation of 51 slave labour camps in the area (Poprzeczny, page 160). Browning explains that the disagreement originates from the old "functionalism versus intentionalism" debate. He writes (pp. 6–7): "... functionalists, who maintain that Hitler was envisaging an expulsion of Jews into Russia even as late as the Summer or Fall of 1941, have taken the seriousness of these resettlement schemes for granted. But they have not examined whether the frustrations and failures of these schemes might not have led the Nazis in general and Hitler in particular to take decisions for mass murder earlier than the military failure of late 1941. Nor have they sought to analyze what the shaping of Nazi Jewish policy in this interim period indicates about the key role of Hitler and the manner in which he made decisions setting the parameters within which the Jewish question was to be solved." – I think we ought to give equal footing to both sides of the aforementioned debate. The Nisko boondoggle from Cesarani gets mentioned in our article together with the camps from Poprzeczny. Yet, Leni Yahil writes on page 327: "In Eichmann's instructions to the Gestapo on organizing the deportation of Jews, he mentioned locations in the Lublin district as the destination. The gas chambers at Belzec and apparently also at Sobibor were in preparation by the beginning of 1942. There is no way of knowing why the Germans again chose this area that had once before been selected to absorb deported Jews, but this time it was transformed from a "Reservation" into a liquidation center." – I don't think we need to actually try to answer this question here at all. Poeticbent talk 19:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• I worked on the Lublin Reservation article before.[1] That's why, during my 10 September 2017‎ reading of this article, I noticed right away that there was something wrong with the Lublin coverage. Cesarani wrote on page 262: "In the second phase, Nahplan 2, Heydrich envisaged the deportation of 600,000 Jews from the new portions of the Reich to a reservation in the General Government where they would be held as hostages against the good behaviour of the Americans. The operation would commence on 15 January 1940, assuming that the Transport Ministry provided trains sufficient for 5,000 deportees per day."[55] – What is Cesarani's source for this statement, can you please look it up for me? On page 263 Cesarani adds: "Nahplan 2 was resurrected in March 1940 and continued in fits and starts until January 1941, by which time 143 transports had carried 133,508 Poles to the General Government. Only three trains were used to deport Polish Jews, chiefly from Posen."[57] – Where does this information come from in Cesarani's book? I appreciate any help you can provide. Poeticbent talk 20:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • For the stuff on page 262 - the citation is to "Rutherford, Prelude to the Final Solution 110-11, 113-19, 120-5; Browning The Origins of the Final Solution 53-61". Unfortunately, my copy of Browning is packed away (and I used a library copy for my checking of this article so I don't have quick access to him). The stuff on page 263 is from "Rutherford Prelude to the Final Solution 170-2; Longerich Himmler 455-7; Gerwarth Hitler's Hangman 154-7". I have the Longerich and the Gerwarth on my shelves, if you're wanting them. It'll be tomorrow before I can get to this - hubby's home so will be spending the evening with him. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I just ordered Rutherford - I should have it by next week. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Rutherford is not available in Google Books preview. But Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution is; shedding light on the timeline of events. Quote (page 53): "When Himmler had ordered the deportation of all Jews from the incorporated territories on October 30, 1939, the exact border between the expanded Third Reich and the General Government had not yet been determined." — Therefore, the ideas devised at the end of September had no bearing on reality. The Nisko Plan was scrapped "just days after it had been set in motion" (page 7). However, the Nahplans (1, 2 & 3) have been implemented. The evacuees were deported "to all four districts within the General Government (and not just to Lublin)." On page 109 in Browning there's a table of Nazi expulsions: Nisko (Oct. 1939) Total: 5,035 (Jews: 5,035); Nahplan "1" (Dec. 1939) Total: 87,833 (Jews: 10,000); followed by Nahplan "2" (which included): Volhynian Aktion (May 1940–Jan. 1941) Total: 91,956 (Jews: 2,663); Cholmer Aktion (Sept.–Dec. 1940) Total: 28,365 (Jews: none); Saybuscher Aktion (Sept.–Dec. 1940) Total: 17,413 (Jews: none); Mlawa Aktion (Oct. 10–20, 1940) Total: 10,700 (Jews: 1,000), and Litauer Aktion (Dec. 5–17, 1940) Total: 9,766 (Jews: 3,259); followed by Nahplan "3" (which included): Warthegau (Jan.–Mar. 1941) Total: 19,226 (Jews: 2,140); Vienna (Feb. 15–Mar. 12, 1941) Total: 5,000 (Jews: 5,000); Danzig–West Prussia (Mar. 1941) Total: 2,000 (Jews: 2,000). Grand total: 503,000 people, of whom: 'At least' 63,000 were Jewish (approx. 12.5%); according to the Nazi authorities, per Christopher Browning). — In my opinion, the line between Polish gentiles, and the Jewish Poles in those actions remained blurry, see the Action Saybusch article which I wrote for WP:DYK 5 years ago (listed as the Saybuscher Aktion in Browning's table). Jews didn't live in Żywiec (German: Saybusch), but in nearby Zabłocie (now a district of Żywiec). The knowledge of Polish is invaluable in this sort of research. Jews from Zabłocie served in the Polish Army in 1939. They were deported to a transit ghetto and labour camp in Sucha Beskidzka in spring of 1941, and in 1942 sent aboard Holocaust trains to Auschwitz-Birkenau. Poeticbent talk 23:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

We still need to keep in mind that this is very much an overview article... and while we may be fascinated by the details... the average reader is most likely wanting the basics ... if they are interested in more details, that's what the subarticles are for. Do you have suggestions on improving the suggested text above? Rutherford should be in tomorrow, hopefully, now the problem will be finding the time to research/edit (Mondays and Tuesdays are my husband's days off and we end up doing house stuff usually). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

We are just brainstorming here. Your suggested text above is very good. A few lines can be added for the average reader explaining the significance of Lublin which "was transformed from a "Reservation" into a liquidation center" (Leni Yahil). In an overview article the location of camps built for the sole purpose of killing people, with only three such facilities in existence, can be interesting. There's no other section in this article for it. I'll be waiting for your review of Rutherford. Poeticbent talk 21:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, didn't mean to rush. Just didn't want you to think I hadn't seen this. Nothing is more annoying than silence sometimes.... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going through trying to tighten the text a little. Is there consensus to go ahead and add the new Lublin section? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The number of escapes

Hi Ealdgyth, I could really use your help here. According to http://auschwitz.org/en/history/resistance/escapes-and-reports/ the total of 928 prisoners attempted to escape from Auschwitz. I have included this total in the article and I wonder if it is significant because the museum does not explain where it came from. Their website says that that number "has been established so far" but without listing (or linking) anything. Here's a quote from the same paragraph: "The escape of 433 prisoners failed - they were captured, and sent to the camp where the majority of them perished, or shot during pursuit." The problem is that numerous sources including Rudolf Hoss himself employ the phrase "shot while attempting to escape" to justify murder. The confirmed number of successful escapes was 196. Perhaps only this information is useful for our purposes. Some postwar stories told about what happened at Auschwitz are likely to be hearsay upon hearsay ... which I got from reading Laurence Rees. Poeticbent talk 16:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Busy for the next few days but check The Auschwitz Chronicle if you have access to it... it might have more information. If not, I'll try to get to this Wednesday when I get back to wiki-work from my weekend. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ealdgyth. Unfortunately, The Auschwitz Chronicle 1939-1945 by Danuta Czech (1990) is not in Google Books. On a side note, some of the notorious storytellers from the Stalinist period about the Auschwitz escapes include survivors never imprisoned there. Their claims are used by historians nevertheless. Poeticbent talk 17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Auschwitz Chronicle does not give a figure for total escape attempts. Neither do either history of Auschwitz - Dwork and van Pelt's or Rees'. The chapter in Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp on "Prisoner Escapes" doesn't try to quantify the number either. Given that none of those sources do, I think we need to avoid giving a number that's only from the museum's site without any sources for that information. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• According to Jewish resistance in Nazi-occupied Eastern Europe published by Reuben Ainsztein in 1974: "The total number of inmates who escaped from the greatest death factory in Nazi Europe was 667 and of them 270 were recaptured." (That's a direct quote from a 40-year-old book). I am sure we can do better than that. Poeticbent talk 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Holokost.news from Russia:

Auschwitz Aufzeichnungen eines Häftlings: "... Wir trugen die Leichen dieser unschuldigen Frauen und Kinder zum Aufzug, der sie in den Raum mit dem Öfgen beförderte , und dort stecken sie sie in dei öfen , wo sie verbrannten ohne Zuhilfenahme von Brennmaterial aufgrund des Fetts , das sie haben. Ein Mensch ergab nur etwa ein halbes Okka Asche (600 Gramm), die uns die Deutschen zu zerkleinen zwangen , um sie dann durch ein grobes Sieb zu pressen, und danach holte es ein Auto ab und schüttete es in den Fluss , der in der Nähe vorbeiflisst, und so beseitigen sie alle Spuren". ( von russische Historiker Pavel Polian und IT- Spezialist A. Nikitjaew , Der Spiegel 40/2017)OkkaAscha (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

About the unique of the holocaust

This is unbelievable the following claim is not in the article:

The slavic people were enemies of the Germans. The USSR fought them.

Also, the Polish people and the German people had long History of wars and conflicts.

The Jewish people was not a threat to the Germans at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.60 (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sources please.

please explain what do you mean exactly - that extermination of Polish people was legitimate?

I believe that the above statement should be removed, not a forum.Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Origins - expulsions

The Jews were expelled from some areas (Spain, Germany) to another areas (Poland, Bulgaria), not expelled from Europe. Xx236 (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Goldhagen

The text doesn't inform about Goldhagen's book and the critics but the boook is listed under Books.Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Genocidal state

The section describes facts which took place in different periods without explaining the sequence.

The Holokaust took place in several countries, it's true that mainly in Nazi Germany and occupied lands, but also in Romania and Slovakia, Independent State of Croatia.Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Nazis may have killed up to 20m, claims new Holocaust study

Here is the source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html We should update the figure of 6 million as fast as possible. --Avoided (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

We already refer to the larger number, and the Holocaust Memorial Museum study, under the header "Victims and death toll". --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

But it says '17 million victims overall' and not 17 million Jewish victims overall. The new study clearly says that 15-20 million Jewish people were exterminated during the Holocaust. --Avoided (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

the “new” study isn’t new. That article is from 2013. And it doesn’t say that 15-20 million Jewish victims died, it says a total figure that includes 6 million Jewish victims. There couldn’t have been 15-20 million Jewish victims because there were at most 9 to 10 million Jews in Europe. And this study is just one, among other estimates. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Up until now, the Holocaust is thought to have consumed between five and six million Jews, with an estimated further six million other people also murdered by the Nazi regime. The new figures of 15 to 20 million, which have astonished some Holocaust historians, come after thirteen years of painstaking study at Washington's Holocaust Memorial Museum. Reading both sentence after one another, it seems so obvious to me that what they mean is that the 6 million was revised to 20 million. How comes you understand the article differently? --Avoided (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it doesn't say "15 to 20 million Jewish victims". There were an estimated 9.7 million Jews in all of Europe. There is no way that the article can possibly mean 15 to 20 million Jewish victims. We already refer to the study in the article - through its use by the USHMM. We also note that the same study found a lot more camps throughout the Nazi sphere than had previously been thought existed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Precisely that. The USHMM study would have said explicitly if they meant the count of Jewish victims needed to be reconsidered; it didn't. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

ok. Thanks for clearing that up. --Avoided (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of deaths

Hey guys, I was told I had to get a consensus before I changed the number from "about 6 million" to 5-6 million, I assume I get a consensus here, and should I post sources to back up why I think it should read 5-6 million rather then 6 million or?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowHawk555 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources are a good thing. Consensus is based on discussion and a discussion is based on arguments… ;-) Robby.is.on (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

According to the Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, "[a]ll the serious research" confirms that between five and six million Jews died.[389] In 1986 Lucy S. Dawidowicz used the pre-war census figures to estimate 5.934 million.[380] Yehuda Bauer and Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990) estimate 5.59–5.86 million A 1996 study led by Wolfgang Benz suggested 5.29 to 6.2 million, based on comparing pre- and post-war census records and surviving German documentation on deportations and killings.[389] Martin Gilbert arrived at a minimum of 5.75 million.[392]

It seems the minimum is over 5 million and the maximum is slightly less then 6 million, with one source saying 6.2 million

I think therefore it would be more accurate to say 5-6 million rather then about 6 million, because 5-6 million sets a larger range and Holocaust Martyr's and Heroes remembrance authority also says between 5 and 6 million. I know the death toll can be very controversial especially with neonazi trolls, but I think the edit would provide more clarity especially in the introduction when the 6 million figure is first mentioned, rather then going all the way down to the section about jews to see the range of estimates of the death toll of jewish victims ShadowHawk555 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yad Vashem isn't the only authority so we shouldn't base it on that. The usual "rounded" number is 6 million. We aim for an overview in the lead and its probably best to stick with simple figures. Most estimates are closer to 6 million than 5 million in more recent scholarship, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

We would need a preponderance of reliable sources to change the figure in the lede. The odds of that happening in the near future are vanishingly small. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the infobox include the number of victims of all categories (slavs, disabled and such) under the broadest definition?

Here's what I am talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&oldid=818859475 (my edit that was by User talk:Ealdgyth because "(lets keep it simple - infoboxes are meant to be simple)".
What do you think? Personally I support the notion because 1) we already mention all the other categories in the infobox under the victims category, but there's no mention on the number of casulaties 2) we do have to remember that people generally don't read the entire article, and many stop at the infobox, which gives them the false impression that the majority - or even the only- victim of the nazi crimes were jews 3) the number of total victims given in the current version is rather misleading, since if we calculate the total number of victims as listed in this very article - even by the lowest estimation - it will surpass the 17 million mark (this very article lists the number of Slavs murdered by nazis as 10,5 million!
What do you think? Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No I think mentioning the other victims in the article is OK given there has been a lot of discussion on this in reliable sources. But there is currently no consensus among these sources and reputable historians in favor of the inclusion of these other victims under the broad heading of the Holocaust. So putting them in the infobox I think is a bridge too far for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(Forgive me in advance if I misunderstood what you meant) but here's two counterarguments:

1) If what you are saying is that the numbers in question are doubtful - (in my edit) I took the numbers from this article, using the lowest estimates (I agree, for example, that the number of 2 million Romanis mentioned in the article seem to be bloated). Ofcourse you can say that other stuff exists, but then we should start a discussion about whether we should remove the whole seaction about non-jewish deaths if the sources there are in question

2) If, however, what you are saying is that there's no consensus about whether the murders of non-jews are a part of holocaust, then, again, we already listed non-jews under the "victims" section, under the "broader definition" category. If we were to add non-jewish people to the number of deaths section, then, ofcourse, we shoul list them there under the "broader definition". Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No Obviously, since I reverted the addition, I don't think so either, but mainly to keep the infobox simple. Crowding it with too many figures just creates bloat. And then having some figures be precise but others not is also not good practice. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

1) It's ofcourse a question of personal preference, but I am looking at my edit (the one I linked above) right now and I really don't think the infobox is in any way bloated. And it's certainly not bigger than many other infoboxes in featured articles.

2) As for the precision of this numbers, I can partially agree with that. But (as I did in my edit) we can list them in spans. For example, 3.3-5.7 million Soviet POWs.

3) In any case I feel like mentioning the number of non-jewish deaths (considering the number of said deaths) is just waaaay too important for this article to just ignore because the numbers might be arguably less precise, or because the infobox would become slightly bigger.

4) And finally that really doesn't take into account the discrepancy between the total number mentioned in the infobox (17 million) and the number you'd get by calculating the number of deaths mentioned in the article (which would surpass the 17 million mark even if you only summ the smallest estimations for each category of victims). Karl.i.biased (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• No. Keep the infobox streamlined. The article discusses the groups, the numbers, and the debates about numbers. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• No Infobox bloat is a perennial problem throughout Wikipedia. Infoboxes are meant to be concise summaries of the primary topic and are inappropriate vehicles for information that requires nuanced discussion in prose. Infoboxes are not places to try to cram in contextless figures and one-word summaries where they can't be explained properly. Acroterion (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
• No. If we were to itemize other groups of victims, we'd need to itemize them all, not just the ones shown in your edit. That would not be optimal the infobox. It's not just the lengthiness but the lack of context, as Acroterion notes above. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Ribbentrop removal

I do not fully understand your explanation for the revision of of 00:37, 1 January 2018. Perhaps the paragraph does give undue weight and adds info not included in the article (which is easily remedied by including other info) but it would be helpful to explain your points. The implication that Ribbentrop had a minor role in the Holocaust is contrary to the Nuremberg judgement, (section War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity) wich concluded that "He played an important part in Hitler's “final solution” of the Jewish question." But maybe I have misunderstood Joel Mc (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Ribbentrop played much less of a role in the Holocaust than say Himmler or even Speer. The Nuremburg trials records are generally considered a primary source - they were written and the trial held so soon after the events that they cannot be considered a "history". Historians have had much more time to judge the Holocaust now ... and very few historians would place Ribbentrop in the top tier of the people responsible for the Holocaust. If we're going to discuss in the lead the crimimal proceedings - we shouldn't give undue weight to peripheral events - the execution of people responsible should most likely begin with Rudolf Hoess at Auschwitz, the Einstzgruppen trials, and the various doctors trials. Of those judged at Nuremburg (at the first major trial at least), historians now would consider Speer much more culpable in the Holocaust - he used concentration camp labor extensively and then tried to cover up his involvement after the war. Of the non-Germans executed - most of them were executed for other crimes as well as for their Holocaust efforts - and their trials were definitely also tinged with problems. The first Nuremburg trial was very little concerned with the Holocaust... it dealt mostly with war crimes and conspiracy to commit "crimes against the peace". The fact that Hoess testified at the first Nuremburg trial but was not a defendant shows how much that trial dealt with Holocaust crimes. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I am puzzled how one measures “much less of a role” or what is meant the “top tier” or how to determine who is “more culpable”. Both the eminent historians, Peter Longerich and Saul Friedlander leave no doubt about the important role Ribbentrop played in implementing the Final Solution (as well as formulating it). Joel Mc (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Just chiming in that Alfred Rosenberg was another major Nuremberg execution.Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Joel Mc: perhaps instead you could add a few sentences to the Trials section. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Good idea, Sarah. Will look into it a little later as am on hols in the depth of Provence away from books. Hated to see Ribbentrop disappear completely from the article on the questionable claim that he had a "minor role." Cheers + Happy New Year Joel Mc (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying Ribbentrop doesn't merit a mention in the article - but it would be very very odd to mention him (and the others in that edit) in the LEAD of this article but have no mention of Himmler in the lead. I, too, am on holiday and not editing as much and didn't really have the time to devote to digging out and editing sources especially as the addition wasn't to the body of the article. Let's keep it in mind that this edit was to the lead of the article, not the body. Statements about undue were related to it being in the LEAD. You must admit, it would be very very odd to never mention Himmler in the LEAD but yet mention Ribbentrop and Seyss-Inquart. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I have hurriedly put Ribbentrop back in where he belongs per Sarah's suggestion. Could be improved. Hope it is ok. Joel Mc (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason I had put the block quote in was that the Nuremberg definition of crimes against humanity is a subset of today’s overall definition in WP article. It was directly applied to the mass murders that made up the Holocaust. Agree to removing the block quote and have added direct link to the Nuremberg definition of crime against humanity. Joel Mc (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

That works. Thanks, Joel. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to ban extremist political symbols from templates

There is a discussion at the Village Pump that may be relevant to this article. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Photo replacement ...

I'd like to remove File:Doctors' trial, Nuremberg, 1946–1947.jpg and replace it with a photo of a victim of the experiments, rather than the rather dry photo of the defendants. I looked around and found the photo to the right, but it's not very clear and I don't believe the victim is Jewish. Anyone have any better options? I know there are a few photos around of some of the Dachau experiments. There's also one of the Roma children from Auschwitz, but I do not have access to a good quality reproduction of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

We could try to track down a better version of the Roma children. I would like to see that restored. I was in touch years ago with someone who knew about that image, so I can resume contact, but that will be a longer term project. For now, I'm fine with any image you suggest. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

One reason I'm hesitant to use an Auschwitz image is that there are already quite a few in the article - it'd be nice to fight the image that many people have of Auschwitz being the only place the Holocaust took place. Let me see if the USHMM book has better images... I'm open to suggestions - images are not my strong suit, I'll admit. (I'm a wildlife/landscape photographer, not a people photographer!) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Both photos in Nazi human experimentation are fair use so those aren't much help (and I'd rather not duplicate photos from a sub-article if we can avoid it). I checked The World Must Know but it actually lacks any photos or discussion of the medical experiments. They do have the Roma children photo, with a credit which might help if we want to go that route. It doesn't help that Commons is so strangely categorized - most of the images under the Nazi experimentation categories are of the perpetrators, not the victims. Helm's RAvensbruck has a few photos, including one of Dzido testifying at Nuremburg and showing off her mangled leg from the experiments, but its a very small photo published on regular paper, so its even worse than the one above. Helm credits "Ullstein/Topfoto" for that photo. On the same page there is an image of Maria Kusmierczuk in the camp showing her mutilated leg - the credit for that is with the USHMM and it's on their site as this image (for which they are claiming copyright, heh). They have this video of her testimony at Nuremburg showing her leg, but I suck so badly at video stuff I couldn't begin to extract the useful bits for the article - but that'd be a great addition... I'll keep digging on the USHMM site... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are 70 public domain photos at the USHMM under the search for "medical experiment". Some of them are a bit grisly. Open to suggestions of which ones would work. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Start of Holocaust

The Holocaust started on 16th August 1941, when Himmler gave permission to the death squads to start killing Jewish children. scope_creep (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Citation request

Ealdgyth, re: this, they don't use that definition. Their definition includes the Jews, Roma, and Aktion T4 victims: "the systematic, state-sponsored murder of entire groups determined by heredity. This applied to Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped" (p. 52).

I'm looking for mainstream academic historians who actually use the broadest definition. If none do, we ought to rewrite that sentence ("other groups were persecuted"). If they do, we should name them in a footnote. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

They don't use that definition themselves - but they say that's it a definiton that can be used - they mention all those groups on the pages 45-51 - and then say "A fourth definition would insist on seeing Nazi racism whole and describe the Holocaust as an inseparable complex of policies and events encompassing all racially motivated crimes and all their victims." They enumerate the victims in the section headers: Gypsies, the mentally and physically handicapped, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet citizens, and "political prisoners, religious dissenters and homosexuals". They also summarize historians who include each of those groups in each section - for the handicapped they mention Henry Friedlander's The Origin of Nazi Genocide. For Soviet POWs - they mention Wytwycky The Other Holocaust and Streit and Forster in The Policies of Genocide. For Polish and Soviet civilians - they mention Wytwycky again, Lukas The Forgotten Holocaust, Kamenetsky Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe. Homosexuals are included in The Pink Triangle by Plant and The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals by Rector. Bergen War and Genocide (3rd ed.) (pp. 3-4) includes the Jews and handicapped and Roma first, and then later says ""At the same time, Nazi Germany persecuted, incarcerated, massacred, worked to death, and deliberately starved millions of people in the occupied territories to the east - non-Jewish Poles, especially those in leadership positions; Soviet prisoners of war, accused partisans and people in large cities. Back home the regime attacked German Communists, gay men, Jehova's Witnesses, Afro-Germans, and other people deemed unwanted in Hiter's "new order." Whether or not one considers members of any or all of these groups to belong under the label "victims of the Holocaust," their fates were entwined in significant ways with that of the Jews targeted and murdered...This book seeks to identify and explore connections between and among victim groups..." Included in THe Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined (ed. Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck) are chapters on "The Michling, the Judischversippte, and the Gypsies", "Slapping up Spastics" (the handicapped), homosexuals, and "the Black experience during the Holocaust". In the introduction to Part 6 in that work "Multiple Voices: Ideology, exclusion, and coercion", the editors say "One of the most divisive and persistent academic debates over the past fifteen yeras has centered around the question of who the victims of the Holocaust were. Is the word "Holocaust" to be confied solely to what the Nazis termed the "Final Solution of the Jewish problem", the systematic, state-sponsored execution of the Jews, or does the HOlocaust encompass a mosaic of Nazi victims - Soviet prisoners of war; Jehovah's Witnesses; mentally retarded, physically handicapped, or emotionally disturbed Germans; Roma and Sinti; German male homosexuals; trade unionists; political dissidents; and outspoken clergymen." (the introduction is from 1998 - so the 15 years covers 1983-1998). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

They say that a "fourth definition would insist" (conditional), not that any historian actually uses it. I think we should provide names of historians who do use that definition; if none do, the lead is misleading and violates UNDUE. The overwhelming majority of Holocaust historians confine it to the Jews. Some extend it to the Roma and disabled. Some restrict it to post-1941; others admit events before that. But does any Holocaust historian use the broadest definition that we offer in this lead? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect there are some genocide scholars that do. Bergen certainly includes those she mentioned in her third edtion - although most of the coverage is on the Jewish genocide. Berenbaum and Peck also included at least homosexuals and blacks in their definition, as they included those categories in The Holocaust and History. For that matter - the USHMM includes many of the above in their "Introduction to the Holocaust page. Personally, I prefer the narrow definition but it's not my choice to just cover the Jewish genocide. If we take out the sentence in question, we'd need to remove the sections on those groups from the body of the article, because then they would make no sense to be covered. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Writing from memory, Berenbaum doesn't, and the museum doesn't: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." [2]

The USHMM does say (and I think we should too): "During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups because of their perceived 'racial inferiority': Roma (Gypsies), the disabled, and some of the Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, and others). Other groups were persecuted on political, ideological, and behavioral grounds, among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals."

But that's quite different from saying there is this third, broadest, definition that we refer to, with all the groups we include. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the language or it being there - something like it was there when I started revamping and it was part of my "don't rock the boat too much" to not remove things that I could find sources for. Part of the problem is that historians usually don't do "definitions" ... it's like we're allergic to them or something. The gods forbid that we should like define our scope somewhere in plain English... like I said - if it was me writing this article for a textbook - I'd only include Jewish victims, but that's not what the sources do so... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I've added words about a "larger event", and used "including" so that we don't list all the groups in the lead. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ordering the non-Jewish victims by the number killed

Perhaps it's a minor edit proposal, but the sentence that lists the non-Jewish victims seems to be ordered randomly (?), which may skew the perception of a casual reader: "[...] Roma and "incurably sick", as well as political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, ethnic Poles, and Soviet prisoners of war."

I think it would be prudent to order them by the number of casualties: "ethnic Poles and other Slavs (most notably Ukrainians and Belorusians), Soviet prisoners of war, as well as political opponents, the Roma, "incurably sick", Freemasons, homosexuals and Jehovah's Witnesses."

As you can see, I also added Freemasons and non-Polish Slavs, which all had significantly more victims than, for example, Jehovah's Witnesses or homosexuals.

Pikulis (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Offensive terms regarding people with disabilities

This article contains numerous cases of phrasings and terms regarding people with disabilities that are obsolete and for many people pejorative. The expressions where "the" is put in front of such labels are also not recommended.

Suggested changes:
In the list "involving the persecution and murder of other groups, including in particular the Roma and "incurably sick",[6] as well as political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, ethnic Poles, and Soviet prisoners of war.[7],
add "people with disabilities".

Change all instances of [x] to:
- physically and intellectually disabled people > people with physical and intellectual disabilities
- disabled and mentally ill > people with physical and mental disabilities
- disabled > people with disabilities (don't forget the "info box")
- the disabled > people with disabilities
- and so on...

Also, I'm skeptical to "intellectual" and "mental". These words are not synonyms.

/2018-02-20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.34.3 (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to go down that road, then we also need to consider the use of "homosexuals" because the noun form of the word "homosexual" is widely considered objectionable and is deprecated by various reliable sources. The problem is that many of the reliable sources we're using may be somewhat behind the curve on these things. Personally, I don't think it's a huge deal, but I have considered this before and thought I may as well say something now. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. It was gay men they targeted, and that's what we should say. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'd certainly support that over the status quo, but it might be better to say "homosexual men", since the word "gay" wasn't in common usage at the time, and the adjectival form is generally not considered objectionable. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Outside of quotes I do not think level of usage in the 1940's is terribly important; we write in contemporary English. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

This does not have anything to do with what I suggested in detail. The situation for words like "gay" or "homosexual" is not the same as for what is used to describe people with disabilities. PLEASE CREATE A SECTION OF YOUR OWN FOR THAT DISCUSSION! (If it's legitimate for Wikipedia discussions, please break out the other discussion from this section.)

Now, further on the topic. "persons/people/etc with disabilities" are what is being used by governments throughout the world, including USA, Sweden and many more. Compare the change of the 1975 Education for All Handicapped Children Act into the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. Quite a name change, isn't it? Also, the Americans with disabilities act should speak for itself. /2018-02-22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.34.3 (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

IP thanks for opening this discussion, but Wikipedia talk pages are a little different from some other discussion forums on the internet, in that that is no expectation that the OP has "control" over the scope of a given discussion. If multiple things get fixed as a result of your bringing this up, that is a good result all around - not a reason to be upset. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I agree that we should use contemporary language, which would be "gay men". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I get "upset" because none of you commented on the actual point I was making. Discussing use of other pejorative, derogatory or obsolete words is good, but if that's what you want to do, I don't think this section is where to be doing it. /2018-02-24

When we talk about people with disabilities being targeted, we're referring to what the Nazis called the "incurably sick" or "genetically diseased" (Erbkranke), and that's already in the lead, so it would make no sense to add "people with disabilities". There is no contemporary term. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I missed "incurably sick". To quote what words the Nazis used is good, but it needs clarification. To just write "incurably sick" does not provide enough information on what they included - according to the article: people with physical, mental and intellectual disabilities. Anyway, that's just the list. The majority of instances I'm talking about are not quotes. /2018-02-24

"Oh, I missed "incurably sick". To quote what words the Nazis used is good, but it needs clarification." I am not particularly educated in what the Nazis thought to be sickness, but I would assume that they targeted the same categories of people as Aktion T4 (1939-1941), their program of involuntary euthanasia.

The first to be targeted were "all children under three years of age in whom any of the following 'serious hereditary diseases' were 'suspected': idiocy and Down syndrome (especially when associated with blindness and deafness); microcephaly; hydrocephaly; malformations of all kinds, especially of limbs, head, and spinal column; and paralysis, including spastic conditions".

The program then expanded to include children and teenagers, and some of them were not actually sick. ".various borderline or limited impairments in children of different ages, culminating in the killing of those designated as juvenile delinquents. Jewish children could be placed in the net primarily because they were Jewish; and at one of the institutions, a special department was set up for 'minor Jewish-Aryan half-breeds'. "

Then the program expanded to adults. "In early October, all hospitals, nursing homes, old-age homes and sanatoria were required to report all patients who had been institutionalised for five years or more, who had been committed as "criminally insane", who were of "non-Aryan race" or who had been diagnosed with any on a list of conditions. The conditions included schizophrenia, epilepsy, Huntington's chorea, advanced syphilis, senile dementia, paralysis, encephalitis and "terminal neurological conditions generally". "

Reportedly, some Nazis would like to include people with physical disabilities, who were otherwise functioning within society. The idea was scrapped because a very prominent Nazi had a physical disability of his own: Joseph Goebbels and his deformed right leg. Dimadick (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dimadick: thanks for unpacking that. "People with disabilities" wouldn't be correct. We should remove "the disabled" and replaced it with "incurably sick" (or a different phrase depending on what the RS use; "incurably sick" doesn't quite capture it either). SarahSV ^(talk) 19:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Translation Error

In the very first line of the article, if you hover your mouse over the reference tooltip over the word Sho'ah, it reads that sho'ah is Hebrew for "catastrophe". However, this is false, as "sho'ah" or "שואה" means "destruction". Catastrophe is only a synonym to the actual word. The same goes with "HaSho'ah" meaning "The destruction". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueRavin (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source, that would might get the text changed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify

Was the murder or other minorities like Romas part of TH or not? I think TH refers solely to the plight of Jews, but the lead is not as ambiguous as it could be, since immediately in the second sentence or so it discusses the wider context and plight of other groups. Some could get confused.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It depends on which source you use. Most use the term just for Jewish victims, especially in the wider non-academic sphere of writing, but a significant minority of academic and non-academic writers include other victims, thus why this article is a bit ... fractured. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Holocaust was one of the most horrific historical events. Known worldwide as the near-depletion and complete humiliation of Jews in Nazi-Germany, Europe, the Holocaust remains a nightmare and inhumane part of history to all. However, the Holocaust did not only occur in Europe. The holocaust took place all throughout the eastern part of the world were Jews mostly resided- including North Africa. Jews in the 1930s were mainly living in the Arab countries in the middle and near east. Before World War I, Jews in Libya had been subjected to anti-Semitic laws. The discrimination against Jews had been an ongoing stigma but things only worsened during Adolf Hitler’s presidency.

In North Africa, after the occupation of Cyrenaica by the British, Jews began to celebrate what they thought to be their liberation- which was the fraternization with Jewish soldiers. But this only made their circumstances far greater. They were blamed for the economic deterioration, they were beaten and abused, and were overall oppressed and forced to be suppressed under French and German rule. At this time, Italians were directed as allies of the Germans, so, they were also terrorizers of Jews.

Many people assume that the holocaust happened in only Germany because of the place were Nazi leader, Adolf Hitler, was stationed. However, there were concentration camps and labor unions set in place for Jews as well. During the time of the 1930s and early 1940s, Jews were exiled and killed almost worldwide. Even without the physical concentration camps though, Jews were abused and completely cast down upon by everyone around them. Nowhere was safe. One of the worst parts about this today is that there is little to no awareness to these harsh truths. The Holocaust was not just a European affair; it was alive and well in North Africa as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adtardy (talk • contribs) 12:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018

This table is more precise than the actual "Figures according to Wolfgang Benz" in "Victims and death toll" -> "Jews":

The following figures of the Federal Agency for Civic Education (Germany) show the annihilation of the Jewish population of Europe by (pre-war) country as percentage points:

Country	Estimated Pre-War Jewish population	Estimated killed	Percent killed
Poland	3,400,000	3,000,000	88,25%
Russian SFSR	3,000,000	1,000,000	33,3%
Romania	757,000	287,000	38%
Hungary	445,000	270,000	60,7%
Czechoslovakia	357,000	260,000	73%
Germany	500,000	165,000	33%
Lithuania	150,000	145,000	96,7%
Netherlands	140,000	102,000	72,9%
France	300,000	76,000	25,33%
Latvia	93,500	70,000	74,9%
Austria	206,000	65,000	31,5%
Yugoslavia	68,500	60,000	87,6%
Greece	70,000	58,800	84%
Belgium	90,000	25,000	27,8%
Italy	46,000	7,500	16,3%
Luxembourg	3,600	1,200	33,3%
Estonia	4,300	1,000	23%
Norway	1,800	758	42,1%
Bulgaria	48,400	142	0,3%
Denmark	7,800	116	1,49%
Albania	200	100	50%
Finnland	2200	7	0,32%
Total	9,689,500	5,594,623	57,74

}}WarburgerII (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

We should use actual scholars of the Holocaust instead of an unsourced government agency's webpage. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Ealdgyth, the numbers of the table ARE the results of actual scholars, incl. Wolfgang Benz.

Here are the sources:

Benz, Wolfgang (Hrsg.), Dimension des Völkermords. Die Zahl der jüdischen Opfer des Nationalsozialismus, München 1996.

Pohl, Dieter, Menschenleben und Statistik. Zur Errechnung der während des Nationalsozialismus ermordeten Juden Europas, in: Stiftung Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas (Hrsg.), Materialien zum Denkmal für die ermordeten Juden Europas, Berlin 2005, S. 72-77.

Proudfoot, Malcolm J., European Refugees 1939-53. A Study in Forced Population Movement, Evanston, Illinois 1956.

Stiftung Jüdisches Museum Berlin/ Stiftung Haus der Geschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Hrsg.), Heimat und Exil. Emigration der deutschen Juden nach 1933, Frankfurt am Main 2006.

--WarburgerII (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Liberation

Many liberated prisoners died during few days, somtimes beacuse they obtained food. Some women were raped.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This can be true, but it's not actually part of The Holocaust. It can be perhaps added into the relevant section of the Nazi concentration camps article - if properly referenced - but I can not see how it's directly connected with the Holocaust proper.--ז62 (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If you write about liberation please explain basic facts.Xx236 (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain your proposition somewhat more fully, please? I'm not quite sure what are you aiming at.

I've certainly noticed that this article has a section on liberation (if that's what you mean), but as deaths from sudden food intake (refeeding syndrome) happened to the liberated prisoners of concentration camps in general and were not limited to the Jewish victims, and not actually part of the Holocaust, I suggested that the section on liberation in article about Nazi concentrations camps would be more suitable to cover these events. --ז62 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Move list of Victims and death toll to head of article

Hi,

I think we should move list of "Victims and death toll" to head of article, as is in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_victims

Regards, Aleksander — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wronskialek (talk • contribs) 10:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

That article is specifically about the victims though. Prinsgezinde (talk) 15:51, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Two templates

The are two templates Template:The Holocaust sidebar, Template:The Holocaust. Do we really need both of them? The second one lists existing pages rather than important subjects. Holocaust in Hungary and in Greece aren't listed there.Xx236 (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236 Feel free to add missing links. Reserve making up my mind about the need for these two, distinct, templates for a later time. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Please remember to remain civil toward other editors when commenting in talk page discussions. Dekimasuよ! 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The Holocaust → Holocaust – Per WP:THE. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE. Please read. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ​I did. Which of the two points in WP:THE calls for an article in this case? —  AjaxSmack  04:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No.1 "If a word with a definite article has a different meaning with respect to the same word without the article, the word with article can be used as the name of a Wikipedia article about that meaning, and the word without article can be used as the name of a separate Wikipedia article. For example, "crown" means the headgear worn by a monarch or other high dignitaries, while "The Crown" is a term used to indicate the government authority and the property of that government in a monarchy." see a holocaust. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

How do you figure that? Crown and The Crown are two separate articles. But Holocaust (without the the) has the same meaning as the Holocaust. It redirects to this article (as it has for years). —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per previous decision at Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 28#Requested move, nom makes no new arguments._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose no new arguments presented. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE and extensive previous discussions Acroterion (talk) 11:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ​Which of the two points in WP:THE calls for an article in this case? —  AjaxSmack  04:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
    • As stated above by In ictu oculi , the addition of a definite article sets a distinction on what follows, it's an obvious application in this case. By the way, it's bad practice to ask the same question in multiple places in a discussion. Acroterion (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose it's like déjà vu all over again. (Hohum ^@) 16:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as I do not see anything in Wikipedia:THE which calls for a definite article here. In particular, reliable sources say "about the Holocaust" or "about the holocaust", and not "about The Holocaust". Moonraker (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE and all of the above. In English, the Holocaust is never referred to simply as Holocaust. Just as the Beatles are never referred to as Beatles. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Simply using "the" before a term is not mentioned in WP:THE. Note my examples below. —  AjaxSmack  04:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:THE and general linguistic usage. Of course the definite article is usually used with "Holocaust". It is also used with Holodomor, Rwandan Genocide, Porajmos and other similar articles, too. It is also used with Rocky Mountains, Cultural Revolution, Renaissance, and no doubt thousands of other terms. However, like these other examples, "Holocaust" does not meet the two main criteria of WP:THE. The first is that the name with and without the article have different meanings. While this may have been the case decades ago, the fact that "Holocaust" (without an article) has redirected to The Holocaust for all of these years shows the two are synonymous. The second criteria is that the article would be capitalised in running text. This is also not the case with the Holocaust. In short, there is no meaningful difference between these other examples and the Holocaust. —  AjaxSmack  04:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose for one practical reason. "Holocaust" look very similar to "Holodomor", and I noticed many Eastern European readers do not understand the difference between these two catastrophic events. In addition, I see a worrying tendency in popular literature, especially in some Central European countries, to understate the former and overstate the latter. It would be desirable to make the names of these two articles as different (visually) as possible: I prefer to have "The Holocaust" and "Holodomor" articles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:THE condition #1. The "the" disambiguates from the other holocausts listed at Holocaust (disambiguation). Also, this discussion and consensus was already reached here; the nomination does not address what might have changed since then. Ajax, looking at that discussion and this one I would say it is time to step back from the conversation; you've had your say. VQuakr (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry I didn't realize I'd reached my quota. Can you please tell me if or when I'll be allowed into the discussion again? (BTW, the the doesn't disambiguate anything. Holocaust [without an article] redirects to The Holocaust.) —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose In common usage, "The" Holocaust - as the proper name for an event - is a different thing from "a" holocaust. Shearonink (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Vquakr, Shearonink etc. The redirect isn't a good reason to change the title either. Ajax, please don't respond. Doug Weller talk 12:36, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Homosexual numbers

Does this look like a good source for 60% murder rate of homosexuals? CTF83! 07:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

That would be better placed in the Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

To be more specific, it currently says "unknown" number of homsoexual deaths in the table. Would that be a good source to change it from unknown to a number? CTF83! 19:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

60% of what number though? The numbers are unclear. And the unknown figure comes from the USHMMM, if they don’t have an estimate ...we can’t do our own calculations. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you read?

"In my empirical research, I have sifted all extant documents to examine the names and data on all concentration camp prisoners registered as being homosexual.' I found the data for about 1,500 homosexuals (This is a complete survey of the quite incomplete documents). I chose as control groups Jehovah's Witnesses (about 750) and political prisoners (200)."

What do you think? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"...aided by its collaborators"

In the first line of the lead, Currently its collaborators links to Axis Power. That page primarily focuses on military alliances of Germany, rather than collaborators of The Holocaust and doesn't even mention Holocaust once, except for United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I did not find such an article that lists the different countries' participation in The Holocaust, but these two articles contain lot of relevant info, for starting a new page if need be: Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and Wansee Conference

@K.e.coffman: Shushugah (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should link to Collaboration with the Axis Powers. Many of the collaborators were sub-state groups - e.g. the most notorious being in the Baltics and Ukrainians in Nazi service.Icewhiz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC) Done - diff - feel free to revert/modify if there is a better one.Icewhiz (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Ustashas allow conversion

The way it is written here is like Serbs or Jews in NDH had a choice either to convert or to die. The reality is that some of them were forced to convert, otherwise they would be killed, some of them were expelled to Serbia or elsewhere, and some of them were killed or taken to the concentration camps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.194.27.158 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2018 (UTC)