Jump to content

Talk:Turkey and the Holocaust

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Turkey has used Holocaust commemoration to deny both the Armenian Genocide and antisemitism in Turkey? Source: Quotes from Turkish officials: "In our history, there does not exist any genocide." "Turkish society has always been away from anti-Semitic feelings [sic], has never shown any feelings of anti-Semitism and xenophobia. Our people has [sic] always embraced their Jewish brothers." https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fsocf.12521
    Analysis by Baer: Beginning in 2014, Turkish Jewish community leaders have been joined in their annual Holocaust commemoration by high-ranking Turkish officials who have used the occasion each year to promote the image of Turks as rescuers of Jews, from 1492 through to World War II. Playing the part of Jewish savior against the tide of genocide, the Turkish government can vaunt its pride and claim never to have engaged in such historical crimes, thereby denying, sometimes obliquely, sometimes explicitly, the annihilation of the Ottoman Armenians. — Baer 2020 p. 207
    "A second theme, unique to the Turkish case, is the determination to deny the Armenian genocide by acknowledging the Holocaust." https://pen.org/professional-ethics-and-the-denial-of-armenian-genocide/

Created by Buidhe (talk). Self-nominated at 18:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • If you go to WP:DYKRULES and look under "Content", it says The hook should be neutral.VR talk 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it non-neutral? It is just a fact. One that doesn't reflect well on Turkey, but many hooks don't reflect well on their subjects and have always been allowed on DYK. (t · c) buidhe 04:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that's a tricky one. I understand the NPOV concern and believe Vice regent is right about pointing to the DYK rules; but on the other hand after reading the article I believe the statement in the hook is correct, Turkey seems to do that (at least according to the sources in the article). So I would personally have difficulties wording the hook another way to present Turkey in a better light. @Vice regent could you maybe think of an example alternate hook that would satisfy NPOV for you? (Caveat: I am really not an expert on the subject, just a random Wikipedian chiming in.) --LordPeterII (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My previous hooks have often portrayed various institutions, people, or countries in a negative light. Just a few examples,
    • "that memorial director Jens-Christian Wagner blames Alternative for Germany for the increase in heckling at former Nazi concentration camps in recent years?"[1]
    • "that in September 2019, far-right politician Milan Mazurek became the first Slovak parliamentarian to lose his seat due to a crime after comparing Romani children to "animals in the zoo"?"[2]
    • "that after the Greek Civil War, 20,000 leftists were exiled to Gyaros (pictured), dubbed "Dachau of the Mediterranean"?"[3]
    • "... that the European Commission of Human Rights found in 1969 that the Greek junta systematically tortured dissidents, leading to Greece's exit from the Council of Europe?"[4]
    • " ... that the Israeli Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law was intended to punish Holocaust survivors rather than Holocaust perpetrators?"[5]
    • "that death squad commander Otto Ohlendorf claimed that the extermination of 90,000 Jewish men, women, and children was a justified act of self-defense?"[6]
  • Generally, the only negative hooks that were rejected were for BLP reasons. I don't really see NPOV as something that occurs in isolation for one fact or sentence, rather for an article as a whole, but I proposed hook ALT0 as I found it the most interesting element of the article. (t · c) buidhe 18:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

buidhe and LordPeterII How about something that actually discusses Turkey's WWII policies and considers both sides of the story:

  • Alt1: ... that during World War II Turkey helped thousands of European Jews escape the Holocaust even as it enacted a law that discriminated against Turkish Jews?
    • This is interesting because it shows the contradicting nature of Turkish policies. It also shows the good and the bad that Turkey did to Jews during WWII.
    • Source: "In November 1942, the [Turkish] government introduced a Property Tax (Varlιk Vergisi) ...[which effectively discriminated against Jews]. Meanwhile, and quite paradoxically, Turkish intervention saved many thousands of eastern European Jews from the Holocaust, by aiding their clandestine immigration into Palestine. There thus seems to have been a complete disconnect between internal and external policies. William Hale (professor), Turkish Foreign Policy since 1774, page 67VR talk 17:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not suitable, as I explained on talk, "saved" is not a WP:IMPARTIAL way to characterize giving a limited number of transit visas. Nor is it particularly interesting or unusual because that also Spain's policy at the same time was not dissimilar, although in the spanish case the laws discriminating against non-Catholics were passed before wwii. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have trouble understanding buidhe's comments. 1. The word "saved" only applies to the indicated "saved" people. So the fact that it is a "limited number" is not an issue - the number is indicated. There is no statement that all were saved. 2. The fact that Spain - not a Muslim country - had a similar approach does not as buidhe suggests make it not "particularly interesting or unusual". 2603:7000:2143:8500:6960:9DFE:CAD2:CC8E (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read other books that focus on this topic, such as Tuvia Friling's Arrows in the Dark, you would find that all of these transits were organized and paid for not by Turkey but by Jewish organizations, who faced many restrictions in their work. Furthermore, if you are going to contrast the transit visa issue with another Turkish policy, surely it would be denaturalization. (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now Vice regent your suggestion is problematic in the exact opposite direction: If buidhe's original hook shows Turkey in a negative light, yours show it in a very positive. I mean, if they enacted laws to discriminate against Jews, but then saved lots anyway, surely the law was more of a farce? (At least it sounds like that imo.)
More importantly, ALT1 does contradict the article, as both the lede and the history section quite explicitly state that Turkey did not actively seek to rescue/save Jews, and rather let them pass through at best. There are notable examples, sure, but your hook would suggest it was a general and official rescue scheme. Especially this part of the lede, "Turkey and parts of the Turkish Jewish community have promoted exaggerated claims of rescuing Jews", is such a sentence as it directly contradicts the message of ALT1.
I understand that this is a delicate topic, and I admit that I do not have nearly enough knowledge about it (or time to acquire it) to weigh in on the neutrality discussion about the article itself. My argumentation thus will revolve solely around the eligibility of hooks for the current article.
Going back to the original hook ALT0, I must say that I am convinced by buidhe's point that they had previously gotten hooks approved that are quite critical - not unlike ALT0. Now I have previously made the mistake of invoking WP:OSE, but I do not believe this is the case here: If the DYK rules allowed several hooks to be approved that were critical extremely of Greece and Israel, why would a hook critical of Turkey be disallowed?
So in conclusion, while I value the discussion and still agree that we must be careful not to break NPOV, I do not think that this is actually the case with ALT0. Instead, ALT1 is unsuitable because it contradicts the article (in its current form). Maybe you two will want to discuss the neutrality of the article itself first (and I see at least one uninvolved editor has weighed in there), and then this DYK discussion can resume once we know what the hook should be compared against. --LordPeterII (talk) 11:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I think its time to pass on this article. The talk page has pointed to clear neutrality issues in the article, which editors on the talk page have complained about. In summary, those who have looked at these offline references have argued that the wikipedia article paints Turkey in a more negative light than the sources being cited. This has been an on going discussion and it appears the issues have not been fixed after months of dialogue. Because of this we cannot approve the hooks in good faith, and given that it has been four months it is time to move on.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe Yes, I saw that. Unfortunately the talk page doesn't reflect a strong consensus. Having input from only one other editor in that conversation, and no affirming comments from Shrike on the talk page doesn't make for a convincing case in support of the neutrality concerns being raised. It might be helpful to get the opinions of those editors here to know what their opinions are specifically in defense of the article so we can build a clearly stated consensus. Having three editors is better than just two. Shrike and Vice regent would you care to comment?4meter4 (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting Brigade Piron. I find it unacceptable that a single editor can derail a DYK nomination on totally spurious and mistaken grounds. (t · c) buidhe 22:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your frustration, but as many of your sources are offline it is difficult as a reviewer to make up our own minds on a case like this; a fact you should appreciate by virtue that your nomination has languished for months. Brigade Piron Please comment here so we can build some consensus. I think we just need to hear from these other editors directly to help us draw a conclusion here at DYK. What's challenging is that not all of these editors participated in all of the relevant conversations on the talk page. If they are willing to chime in here and give some analysis on the neutrality issues raised, and a clearer consensus is formed I think a DYK review might be more likely to pass. Otherwise, I don't see how we could in good conscience promote this to the main page.4meter4 (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Buidhe has been unfortunate in the fact that the subject of this article is both niche and controversial at once. I think there are two issues which have been confused here. The initial objection was the supposed POV in the hook which seems rightly to been dropped. The issue now appears to be the tone of the article which, frankly, is never going to be very positive. Although I am certainly not an expert in this specific subject, it is no secret that Turkish history is particularly controversial area here which attracts editors with nationalistic motivation. Whatever the objections raised, it is undeniable that Buidhe's text is impeccably cited to recent scholarship on the subject. Personally I see no serious POV argument here. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[I'm inclined to agree with this point of view, as I look through it more. I am going to approve hook alt1 and AGF on the offline ref. Date, length, and in policy (with AGF on the neutrality based on community consensus) make hook alt1 ready for promotion.4meter4 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support ALT1 as pointed out by LordPeterII above it is inconsistent with the article and not supported by various reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 19:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Than I suggest we pass based on no viable hook.4meter4 (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No reasonable objection has been made to the original hook, which is true, supported by reliable sources, and no more "POV" than many other hooks that have been promoted without objections. However, I also thought up another hook if preferable:
Approving Alt 2 with the AGF of offline reference. Date, length, and in policy (with AGF on the neutrality based on community consensus) make hook alt2 ready for promotion.4meter4 (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources not used properly

[edit]

I am going through some of the sources in this article and I find that they are not properly quoted. For example, the article says,

Although Turkey has promoted the idea that it was a rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, this is considered a myth by historians.

Page 4 of Baer does not name any historian besides himself who believes that. On the contrary he admits that "historians of the Ottoman Empire" have promoted what he calls the myth. That means he's admitting to his view being controversial among academia. He also blames "Turkish Jewish elites", "major American Jewish organizations" and "the State of Israel" for promoting the myth. None of this is reflected in the article.VR talk 21:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source is also partially quoted. Webman calls Guttstadt's treatment of the topic "balanced" and she gives Turkey credit for things like

National Socialists’ racist hatred for Jews “was unambiguously rejected by the Turkish public”

. Overall this article casts Turkey is a more negative light than is done by the sources it uses.VR talk 21:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that the negative impacts on Jews are from Turkish nationalist policies rather than antisemitism per se.
I don't think that Baer says his views are controversial among academia. Most of the historians he refers to are either non-academics or, like Shaw, are discredited. (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yet you included the "antisemitism in Turkey" category in this article. You also didn't respond to my contention that sources hold both the State of Israel and American and Turkish Jews to be responsible for the myth, yet you seem to only hold Turkey responsible. I have provided in sections below other scholars who offer views contrary to Baer's (which is something he admits in his book).VR talk 03:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe can you explain this edit? On page 4, Baer says:

In the early 1990s the myth of the Turk as rescuer od Jews during the Holocaust was introduced. The Turkish president and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Turkish jewish elites and their foreign allies, hisorians of the Ottoman Empire, major American Jewish organizations, and the state of Israel - together they promoted the myth of the virtuous, humanitarian Turk for audiences in Europe and North America.

VR talk 11:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No one else supports your edit to this article. As I stated, Baer's book covers a broader topic, starting in 1492; only one chapter in it is devoted to the Holocaust issue. Furthermore, it is not accurate that Israel or Jewish organizations generally endorse the fabricated rescue tales of Necdet Kent et al., none of whom have been recognized as Righteous Among the Nations (and they didn't get a place in the USHMM either). No reliable source says so, so it shouldn't be in the article. (t · c) buidhe 12:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the quote above where Baer says what I edited in.VR talk 12:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're quoting out of context; I see no evidence that Baer is referring to Israel or Jewish organizations outside of Turkey specifically supporting myths related to the Holocaust. The next sentence says that what they are promoting is, "A resurrected version of the 1892 propaganda efforts [i.e. based on the 1492 expulsion of Jews from Spain], this campaign was a brew made of one part Armenian genocide denial and one part stale Jewish tropes of a Muslim-Jewish alliance against the Christian enemy."
I looked through the entire chapter on the Holocaust to see if he gives any examples of non-Turkish Jewish organizations or Israel supporting the myth of Holocaust rescue, but the only time he mentions Israel is,

Most significant is the lack of eyewitness and documentation to support Kent’s claims. For this reason, no international Holocaust organization, not even the Israeli Holocaust Memorial and Museum Yad Vashem, has acknowledged Kent’s self-declared rescue of Turkish Jews. (p. 196)

(t · c) buidhe 13:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw

[edit]

This article could benefit from the works of Stanford Shaw who wrote Turkey and the Holocaust: Turkey’s Role in Rescuing Turkish and European Jewry from Nazi Persecution, 1933–1945, published by New York University Press. I understand that Baer and others have strongly criticized that work, but other scholars have endorsed it.

He seems to continued to be cited by scholarly publications. For example, Nazi Germany and the Arab world (page 245) cites him for the claim that The role of Turkey in this developing process was very important. By 1943, Istanbul had replaced Switzerland as the central location for ... efforts to rescue Jews from German-occupied Europe.VR talk 23:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that book, Shaw prints fabricated claims about Necdet Kent and other Turkish diplomats. I would not consider it a RS for anything related to this topic. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the defects of Shaw are commented on by more recent scholarship. GPinkerton (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like you're doing WP:SYNTH. I'm evaluating sources based on how other scholars evaluate them, rather then doing WP:Original research for myself and see which scholar is right. At this point, I'm not seeing evidence that Shaw's views are so WP:FRINGE that they can't be included in this article. At best, his views can be treated as minority and given lesser WP:WEIGHT than other scholars.VR talk 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Err, we do not give equal weight to facts and falsehoods. The issue isn't about Shaw's opinions but actual fabricated information in his books. (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked to weigh in. I must admit that I agree with Buidhe on this point. Shaw is already mentioned in the "commemoration" section - it is not like his book is otherwise entirely omitted. At the same time, we must accept that scholarly consensus changes over time and does so relatively quickly in a field such as Holocaust studies where there are a large number of writers and scholarly accuracy is considered particularly important. From the scholarship today as I understand it, it is WP:FRINGE now even if it was not 20 years ago. Are there not more productive ways in which this article could be expanded? —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article is quite one-sided and part of that is because facts sympathetic to Turkey are ommitted, scholarly opinions sympathetic to Turkey are removed, yet opinions critical of Turkey are stated as fact in wikivoice.
According to google scholar Shaw's book is cited 124 times, including 61 times after 2010. His book is cited many times in a 2006 book by Arnold Reisman which received a positive review by Karpat (University of Wisconsin) in The Historian (journal). Arnold Reisman is himself a Holocaust survivor and Karpat's review asserts Albert Eckstein persuaded the Turkish government to let twenty thousand European Jews go through the country, among them 233 who came out of Bergen-Belsen in July 1944. Reisman's book also contains a lot of details on Jews immigrating to Turkey in the 1930s.VR talk 17:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rather vague claim. What dates, what countries exactly? If it includes Jews who transited through Turkey after they were liberated elsewhere, then it's not relevant to the article subject. (Furthermore, just looking at the citation count is misleading because many of these cite the book just to criticize it[9][10][11] all come up in the search). (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluating Turkey vs other countries

[edit]

The article says Turkey was also the only neutral country to implement anti-Jewish laws during the war. Baer indeed says that. But Bahar's Turkey and the Rescue of European Jews (p 263-4), Routledge, takes a contrary view:

Thus, as pointed out wisely by Guttstadt and reiterated by Hür in her newspaper article, the attitude of the Turkish government and authorities was not much different from that of other countries at the time. In this respect, Turkey is not to be blamed for much of the adverse events that happened during those extraordinary times.

This view should be reflected in the article.VR talk 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't contradict what it says in the other source. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that this article is not neutral because it only presents views that are critical of Turkey, but not sympathetic views, even though sympathetic views can be found in scholarship.VR talk 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to include opinions from various scholars, why not this one: "Guttstadt overturns the conventional wisdom that Turkey devoted considerable effort to rescue Jews; indeed, his documentation from fifty archives in eleven countries and from oral histories reveals vivid vignettes of horror that convince the reader that Turkey facilitated the Holocaust." (from Baer's review of the book).
It's a mistake to call that a "sympathetic" view, considering that historians also negatively evaluate the role of other neutral countries. No one is blaming Turkey for what Germany did. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You literally just blamed Turkey for what Germany did by saying "Turkey facilitated the Holocaust". That is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which will require extraordinary sourcing.VR talk 02:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't assume that I agree with an opinion just because I quote it. (Also, I interpret Baer's statement as blaming Turkey solely for the actions that it undertook, as opposed to Germany's actions.) However, if we're going to cover comparisons between Turkey and other countries, I think it's best to emphasize objective and factual information of how Turkey's policies compared to that of other countries, rather than subjective opinions. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Corry Guttstadt seems to contradict the statement Turkey was also the only neutral country to implement anti-Jewish laws. Guttstadt says (page 313),

The German authorities also repeatedly noted that Turkey did not issue openly anti-Semitic laws and was not susceptible to anti-Semitic hate campaigns.

VR talk 03:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Anti-Semitic laws" != "anti-Jewish laws", the former are those that actively target Jews alone and the latter those that have a negative effect on Jews. The fact that the laws also discriminated against Christians means that they are not strictly speaking antisemitic, but can hardly be described as less anti-Jewish for this reason. Similarly, not all anti-Jewish violence is motivated by antisemitism, see the distinction made in anti-Jewish violence in Poland. (t · c) buidhe 03:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This same distinction is made by Guttstadt, see how she repeatedly refers to Turkey's "anti-Jewish" policies in this paper.[12] (t · c) buidhe 03:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then the term "anti-Jewish" should not be used because even on wikipedia Anti-Jewish actually redirects to Antisemitism.VR talk 04:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey saved thousands by aiding their escape

[edit]

buidhe the information you removed here is supported by scholarship. I even attributed it in case it was contradicted.VR talk 03:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any information—although I did move it to a more relevant place next to Struma disaster that also affects Jewish refugees. Furthermore, the characterization "granted transit visas to" as "saved" is imprecise and does not satisfy WP:IMPARTIAL. (t · c) buidhe 03:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"saved" was never put in wikivoice but rather attributed, so it is not a violation.VR talk 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was in wikivoice, later attributed, but you never have made a case why Hale's opinion that this constitutes "saving" is WP:DUE in the article. His book is mostly about other topics, so I just don't see the relevance. (t · c) buidhe 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its WP:DUE because it is in a scholarly source and my proposed text mentioned it briefly.VR talk 04:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement More Turkish Jews suffered as a result of discriminatory policies during the war than were saved by Turkey is clearly an opinion. What is it even based on, is there some calculation where this determination is made? At the very least it should be attributed and balanced with scholarly opinions who credit Turkey for assisting Jews during the Holocaust.VR talk 17:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually partly agree with VR on this point. "More Turkish Jews suffered as a result of discriminatory policies during the war than were saved by Turkey" is a scholarly opinion unless "suffered" and "saved" are given entirely literal meanings which I do not think was intended. I do not see any harm on attributing it to a particular writer, along the lines of "X has noted that..."? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking that you could reliably and objectively calculate it by adding up the number of Jews affected by various policies such as wealth tax and denaturalization, and compare that to the number who were actually saved by Turkish policies. However, I will attribute it to the author. (t · c) buidhe 16:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the attribution. Does any other scholar make a similar assessment? If not, maybe it should be moved to body instead of the lead, as per due weight.
Also, if Bali's opinion is mentioned, why can't we also mention the scholarly opinions of Hale, Bahar and Guttstadt that don't judge Turkey as harshly as others.VR talk 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Baer does. Hale follows a longer discussion on the discriminatory wealth tax with an extremely vague sentence about escapes. It's not clear if either he or Guttstadt would disagree with Bali's assessment or whether their assessment is actually more positive, judging as a whole. (t · c) buidhe 22:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is professor Hale's statement vague? He is clearly crediting Turkey for "saving" thousands of European Jews. Its inclusion is as due as other scholars' opinions.VR talk 00:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you agree that it would be cherrypicking to quote him on "saving" Jews without covering his criticism of the wealth tax and other Turkish policies, in the same proportion of coverage as used in the source. (t · c) buidhe 09:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree all of those things should be mentioned. Lets not leave any of the scholarly sourced material out.VR talk 11:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's not how it works, Wikipedia summarizes sources rather than copying every bit of info from them. One sentence coverage in a source is probably WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe 12:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect this mirrors the "rescue" of the Bulgarian Jews: a retrospective myth constructed in the post-war period by the Bulgarian regime to downplay the previous regime's own cupidity and complicity in the Holocaust. The Bulgarian embassy in Paris notably refused to recognize the nationality of Bulgarian Jews detained in France, though it insisted that their confiscated property belonged to Bulgaria. As can be seen from what I have just added to the article, the Turkish mission in France was the same. GPinkerton (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey was obviously a Nazi friendly neutral country during most of the war until 1945. I find it very unlikely that the Turkish government saved thousands of Jews, maybe that some individuals decided to save Jews, but the only person to have actually saved Jews was Selahattin Ülkümen which is supported by evidence. The 1930s and 1940s are a very dark period in Turkish history that requires more research, Nazism wasn't embraced by all Turks, but the nationalist and Turanist Turks clearly supported Nazism because of the Soviet threat. Redman19 (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest this article should be expanded and feature more details about the faith of Turkish Jews in Nazi Germany, mostly students, Turkish nationals who were mistaken for Jews were saved by the Turkish government, those who were actually Jews, were stripped off their Turkish nationality and forgotton about, there are lots of sources about this, its a part of the German-Turkish studies, I however lack the time to get it all on here. I remember reading lots of articles about this subject, it shouldn't be that hard to find it on Google. Key people you might wish to look up; Uğur Ümit Üngör. Redman19 (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entire topic is based on person's sources

[edit]

The entire topic is written by using one person's sources. His name is Marc David Baer, a strange man, could not have shown any proof or official documents to justify these claims in his book. Actually, it is hard to say that his articles and books have reliable sources or follow any scientific approaches. Please just look over his book "Sultanic Saviors and Tolerant Turks: Writing Ottoman Jewish History, Denying the Armenian Genocide". 188.119.60.128 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is only this one book used to accuse Turkey of deporting Jewish people to Nazi Germany, and even on the part they referenced, it doesn’t say Turkey deported Jews. The book based its claim on one film recording. This entire article is filled with absurd claims from that absurd book. This is wikipedia for you. Muru3xi (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Baer and Friends

[edit]

This is a rich topic with lots of documentary evidence. Marc Baer's controversial book is being cited here to cast doubt on all of this documentary evidence. Baer is an aggressive ideologue, not a neutral source. His views are not the be-all truth on these topics. A lot of this has the form of: here is the Turkish historian citing Turkish sources and document sources, and German documents, and Jewish persons interviews and documents; and here is Baer saying: eh I don't believe it, its Turkish nationalism. Then suddenly we are presented with an edit which portrays Baer's unsubstantiated opinions as verified fact. I don't want to conjecture too much but it seems self evident that Baer is really motivated by a political-vendetta against Turkey in his 'works', and he is not a neutral source trying to produce historical scholarship on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ungitow (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence or retract your allegation about Baer. WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 02:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey deported 2,200 to 2,500 Jews to extermination camps. Did it really?

[edit]

From the mentioned book, this is the part given as reference to this claim.

“Turkey denaturalized approximately 3,000 to 5,000 Turkish Jews during the war. The film also silences the Nazis deportation of between 2,200 and 2,500 Turkish Jews to death camps (Auschwitz and Sobibór) and another three to four hundred to concentration camps (Ravensbrück, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen), where many succumbed.”

is this what wikipedia became? showing Turkey as a party to the holocaust because some people lack basic English skills. Muru3xi (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muru3xi: Yeah, Turkey did. You gave the reference which supported the claim in your comment here. Do you have a stronger source to back up Turkey not deporting 2,200-2,500 Jews to extermination camps? Dialmayo 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The denaturalization of these Jews enabled their later deportation. The entire point of denaturalization is that you lose the benefits and protection of citizenship. (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trust İssues

[edit]

The sources shown are just the writings of a few people and irrelevant quotes have been made. Please mark the article with a template. I would also like to say that there is no mention of any axis or allied invasion being considered a possibility in the internal politics of the Republic of Türkiye. Silahtar1923 (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkey_and_the_Holocaust&oldid=1256989917"