Talk:The Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Holocaust article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, not for engaging in discussion for discussion's sake.
Do not use this page as a discussion forum.
See talk page guidelines.
This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here.
Good article The Holocaust has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified The Holocaust as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Contents

[edit] FA

Shouldnt this be a featured article? Richardkselby 01:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes it should. Although there are some that feel the article doesn't meet featured article criteria. The article underwent a peer review - an evaluation - to see if it should be featured. This indicates the reasons why it isnt featured. A copy of the peer review can be found here [1]Ahadland 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree it should be featured! cdzrom

[edit] NPOV Banner

Why is it not on the article page? Aor 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing out it's here; it doesn't belong here either. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It dose not need a NPOV banner. --Nikki Fagin 04:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origins of the word khurvan - Churban

The word churban is not yiddish it is a hebrew word meaning destruction, from the word cherev (kherev) meaning sword. This artices wrongly claims it is yiddish. 81.86.121.50 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


The article claims that Khurban is Yiddish, not Churbn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Number of Victims.....

I have question regarding the number of victims in Holocaust? I have heard from different sources that there are 6 million who have been killed, but is this number according to any evident, pole, or it’s just estimation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.45.99 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

It is covered in the article: see The Holocaust#Death Toll and the sources cited therein. The total number of people murdered, including Gypsies and other groups, is well over 6 million. The number of Jews murdered is estimated at five million to six million, based on the evidence; see for example http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/faqs/answers/faq_3.html. --Mathew5000 17:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I am sure there are sources which are claiming about that figure. But how did they reach that figure, when there is not that many evidence. Still there are a lot of minorities in the world which there is no accurate estimation of their population. For instance the population of Kurdish people. Even though Kurdish civilians are mostly spread out in 4, countries in the world, sources estimate their population something between 27 to 37 million. Or even about the Jewish population, there is no exact estimate of Jewish population at this time in the beginning of 21st century (something between 13 to 18 million in the world).Bitches Where the technology of communication is dominating our estimation differs in millions in those two examples, in this situation how can we claim the estimation of 5.1 or 5.6 or 5.9 million murders, of something which happened more than 60 years ago? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.45.99 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The article discusses this and notes that the incompleteness of prewar records indicates that the figures are likely to underestimate the actual number (not overestimate it). Your premise that "there is not [much] evidence" is untrue; there is quite a bit of evidence. For more detailed answers to your question about how the estimate of the number killed was derived from the evidence, read one of the books cited in the article such as The War Against the Jews or Atlas of the Holocaust. --Mathew5000 07:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

My statement was there is not enough evidence to estimate the accurate number of victims. Of course I have seen, read many articles, documentaries, photos about this tragedy, and there is no doubt about the fact of that tragedy As reporting this statement I do not mean that the figure has been over estimated or exaggerated, It might be even underestimated as you mentioned. However, I am still not sure how feasible can be to do the estimation referring to the evidences? . Even though I have researched about this topic quite a bit still I will read one of these two books, maybe it will help to perceive the numbers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.136.45.99 (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC).


When you see an exact number it usually comes from an original German 1940s source - Red Cross Arolson files, memos, etc. The problem then becomes getting both a good translation ( never trust the first one you see, or the 10th one if from basically the same source/side.) Once you can read it, then is it authentic - you would be surprised how often it isn't. Then you can have fun researching all the interpretations and sources of the sources. The numbers are gradually coming together for the indivdual parts, the total seems unmovable. Good hunting - unless you give up you will be at this for years.159.105.80.63 18:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


I suggest using the terminology as given in the cited reference, "between five and six million"
http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/faqs/answers/faq_3.html
While this may seem like nit-picking, their use of a range has important implications -
It acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists as to the exact number due to many factors.
It constrains that uncertainty to a minimum of 5 million; the true figure cannot be reasonably construed to be 4 million, 2 million, 500,000, or zero.
More to the point, we should let the source speak for itself.

CeilingCrash 18:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not disputing the Jewish victim numbers of 4-6 million but do we have any idea as to how many of the victims in these camps died from rampant disease and supplies cut by incessant bombing of German transportation systems? Do we have survivor accounts of this? Also, has there been any discussion as to where so many bodies have been disposed? I just thought that would be good info for the article. Jtpaladin 22:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blank space

I tried to fix fmting of this page but so far I can't figure out what is wrong: note the amount of blank space and edit buttons below. Any idea? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who knew about the holocaust

Source 78 states that the average German did NOT know about the holocaust. Did anybody actually read it? I quote: "the only thing many Germans may not have known about was the use of industrial-scale gas chambers because, unusually, no media reports were allowed of this "final solution". I'd say the gas chambers are the singular most important aspect of the Holocaust and not just a little detail as this rather biased newspaper article tries to suggest.

In my opinion the conclusion of this study for Wikipedia can only be that there is no hint that the Germans knew of the mass murder while it happened. I will not change the text as I believe it would be reverted anyway. Nevertheless thank you for the ("widely respected") source which finally clears things up. D Krum , 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I do not think you are correctly reading the source Slrubenstein | Talk 14:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew this "argument" would come. :(
If you read my lines carefully you could have easily seen that I am no holocaust denier ("the mass murder while it happened"). I also did not twist anything (as you did) but cited an original quote from the source.
If you think that I am not right, please tell me where I am wrong and use a quote from source 78 or any other respectable non-Nazi source. Thank you so much. D Krum 15:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

My apologies. I know you are not a holocaust denier. But I do not think you have read the source carefully. It is sometimes hard to tell when someone wants to make sure another point of view, from a verifiable source, should be included in the article, versus when someone is just pushing their own point of view. The way I read your initial comment it seems like you are pushing a point of view. I am glad to know (after more dialogue) that this is not the case. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is my problem with what you wrote (I apologize if my comments go any further than that, to make claims about who you are or what you believe): You make an empirical claim: a particular newspaper article "states that the average German did NOT know about the holocaust." This is flat-out wrong in two ways. First, the newspaper article does not make this statement. The newspaper states that a particular researcher has made various claims in a separate report. Second, the newspaper article simply does not state that the average German did not know about the Holocaust. It simply doesn't say that. You made it up. You then quote the article, and the quote you provide not only does not say that the average german didn't know about the Holocaust, it says that the researcher believes that the only thinkg Germans may not - n.b. not definitely did not, but maybe did not - know was about the industrial use of gas-chambers. The article states that the research argues that Germans certainly knew about everything else. So what the article does and does not state is very clear, in black-and-what. And what is abundantly clear from your comment is that you just make stuff up - and have the audacity to provide quotes that contradict what you make up. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If I contradict myself you can simply say so without making stuff up. I gave a full quote and added my "opinion" about that quote, so that it could be discussed. The question is: Could the mass killings of Jews have been prevented? And for that, it is important to know whether the Germans knew about them or not. Wikipedia implies they did, but doesn't give a source. Fact is you agree that the study doesn't make a definite statement about that. That's all.
I find it unfortunate that the WP definition of Holocaust in the first paragraph does not include the preparations ("genocide ... during World War II"), while further down the term Holocaust is used for the whole NS time in context with Gellately's study. D Krum 18:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
PS. OK, I just checked the German Wikipedia and it supports the view that at least until 1943 the majority of Germans didn't know about the mass murder. I couldn't verify the sources as they just give names but no direct links so it would be useless to translate it.
PPS OK, I found all the information I needed. If somebody is interested in what the Germans knew and why they didn't prevent the killings then buy the book of Peter Longerich who might be considered to be one of the leading experts on this subject. I don't know if it has already been translated.
Peter Longerich: Davon haben wir nichts gewusst! Die Deutschen und die Judenverfolgung 1933-1945. Siedler Verlag, München 2006. ISBN 3886808432, 448 Seiten.
I found the book by visiting the German Wikipedia entry "Davon haben wir nichts gewusst"
For me this topic is closed now; if an editor should find my topic to be inappropriate feel free to delete it. I have no problem with that.

You are just POV pusher who wants to use Wikipedia to spread your own lies. I believe you are still misrepresenting the article and its sources. You say that Wikipedia implies Germans knew about the Holocaust but does not provide a source. Another one of your lies, a double lie. First, Wikipedia implies nothing. It does provide an account of some of those who spoke of mass killings of Jews during the war, and others who have claimed that most Germans knew about the mass killings. These are verifiable facts. Moreover, the article most definitely provides a source: source 78 states: "The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study." You are biased to the point of being delusional if you think the sentence, "The mass of ordinary Germans did know about the evolving terror of Hitler's Holocaust, according to a new research study" means, as you say above, that "the average German did NOT know about the holocaust." I still think it is funny that you think you can push your own POV and then quote sources that directly prove you wrong - and believe you can get away with it! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:10, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? My original message doesn't even contain these quotes. I give sources and quotes, while you are constantly digressing from the subject and attacking me personally on no grounds. This is getting ridiculous.

About the topic what Germans knew, these works seem to be generally accepted:

1) Robert Gellately: Backing Hitler. Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany, Oxford University Press, 2001 (I still suggest to read the book and not to rely on source 78!)

2) Peter Longerich, Davon haben wir nichts gewusst!, 2006 (see above) which doesn't seem to be available in English yet as I couldn't find it at amazon.com or Randomhouse.

3) David Bankier, The Germans and the Final Solution. Public Opinion under Nazism, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and Boston 1992, 206 pp. (this is only an early article which was followed by corrections and additional articles in the following decade. They are considered remarkable by reviewers, but I haven't read them, yet.)

In spite of their length and their difficult subject the first two books are written in a very understandable way. If you don't want to buy them: There are lots of reviews about both books on the internet. Just read for yourself. I really don't need to "push" my "POV" and will not discuss the obsolete newspaper review of 78 any further. D Krum 18:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

PS: At amazon.co.uk you can find a review of Gellatelys book by Simon J Miller of Sheffield University that describes what I tried to express: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Backing-Hitler-Consent-Coercion-Germany/dp/0192802917/ref=sr_1_1/202-7335552-6287847 D Krum 18:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Suddenly source 78 is obsolete - yet this section opens with you using it as a source to support your own view. Again, it is just laughable! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear about what is at stake here: D.Krum wrote, "the conclusion of this study for Wikipedia can only be that there is no hint that the Germans knew of the mass murder while it happened." This statement reflects an ignorance of or disregard for our WP:NPOV policy as well as our principle, "verifability, not truth" (see WP:ATT). It is possible that D.Krum is synthesizing from a variety of sources, in which case s/he is violating our ATT policy. Or it is possible that D.Krum is not synthesizing but simply presenting one point of view, supported by several sources. In and of itself that is fine, but to suggest that Wikipedia should provide only this point of view, and not other points of view (e.g. the one expressed in source 78), is a clear violation ofour NPOV policy. No one - certainly not I - would object to D. Krum's adding to the article a sentence to the effect that "Several scholars have argued that most Germans did not know about the mass-murders as they were occuring" (along with the citations). S/he cannot, however, add this view as if it were the truth, and exclude or discount other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur. The subject is rather complex as many factors are involved in what was known when. It is in my view impossible to express this in a single paragraph or even sentence. So, if Slrubenstein's proposed sentence ("Several scholars...") could be added to the paragraph in question along with the citation of Prof. Longerich's and Prof. Gellately's work it would in my opinion represent the ongoing discussion in a more adequate way. D Krum 20:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on this - it looks like it resolves the conflict? Please go ahead and make the appropriate changes, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. Please have a look. D Krum 16:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Slr, my understanding of the historiography on the subject is that the general sense is that, while German civilians obviously knew about the deportations, knowledge of actual mass murders was fairly limited, if only through willful ignorance. It seems disingenuous to try to argue that most Germans only "might" not have known about the gas chambers - I certainly haven't seen any sources which claim that most did. The vast majority of the murderous work of the Holocaust was done in Poland and the east, and there was a reason for this - the regime wanted to conduct its work outside the view of the German people. That being said, Germans most certainly knew about large parts of the Holocaust. the deportations of Jews to the east, they certainly knew about. And certainly large numbers of ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers would have known about, and participated in, atrocities in the east, and in particular likely would have had some idea of the Einsatzgruppen massacres. And one can be sure that rumors of the death camps got back to Germany. I think it would certainly be wrong, though, to imply or suggest that most Germans were aware of the mass murder of Jews, and particularly of the gas chambers. As I suggested before, much of the lack of knowledge was probably willful - Germans had some sense that horrible things were happening to the Jews off in Poland, but they had no desire to know more. The idea that Jews might be starving to death in the ghettos, or what not, probably would not have bothered most Germans, who were more concerned with their own health and well-being in the midst of the war and had been desensitized to persecution of the Jews by years of Nazi propaganda and gradually increasing persecution. As to the content of the article itself, I'm not sure what, exactly, is being proposed by D Krum, so I'm not sure what the argument is, exactly. john k 22:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article mainly represents the conclusion of Robert Gellately, which would be fine if - in accordance with the ATT policy - it had been accompanied by the citation of his work. Instead, the given source 78 is a book review of the Guardian that starts with "Germans knew of Holocaust horror about death camps" and continues mixing up the camps of 1933 with the death camps ten years later. But the rhetoric volte-face to call "the industrial-scale gas chambers" "the only thing" as if they were a mere trifle compared to the preceding atrocities in my view unnecessarily diminishes the extent of the Holocaust, if not in quality then certainly in quantity. This may be accepted for a newspaper, but in my opinion not as a summary of Gellately's book in Wikipedia.
Unfortunately my anger and disappointment about this being the only source influenced the tone of my initial post in a non-constructive way.
It is not my intention (anymore) to propose an alteration of the text due to the ATT policy, but I think that the book of Peter Longerich should be mentioned somewhere or be added to the notes section.
I also propose to replace source 78 by a citation of Robert Gellately's original work or, if this does not violate any policies, by a link to the book review of Simon Miller or a similar one.
If the Holocaust article should be splitted into several sub-articles, the description of john k might be used for this special sub-section. D Krum 08:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the text above to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding. Please assume good faith. Thanks. D Krum 08:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no problem with a citation of Professor Gellately's own work. I do ask you keep the view that many Germans knew a lot about the killings of Jews and others, but of course add other views. Personally I think there should be more discussion of Goldenhagen's work - and I do not mean the article should say he is right or he is wrong either, but that he has his view and others have other views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Goldhagen's views are not taken very seriously by most Holocaust historians. To the extent that he agrees with other historians, his work generally follows theirs, and to the extent that he disagrees, his work is generally disregarded. I would add that the issues in question are very different. Nobody would dispute that "ordinary Germans" - that is to say, Germans without pre-existing Nazi sympathies or involvements - were deeply involved in carrying out the Holocaust. The question of why they became so involved is in question, and Goldhagen's answer ("eliminationist anti-semitism") is, I think, generally rejected. The question of whether ordinary German civilians knew about the mass killings is an entirely different one. As far as I am aware, the consensus is that they largely did not. john k 18:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not doubt you. But NPOV requires us to provide diverse points of view if they come from verifiable and reliable sourece. There is no reason not to mention Goldenhagen - and say that most historians reject all or part of his argument with citations. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


Logically it seems that Germans - average folks - certainly knew that most of the Jews in town were gone ( I bet they bought their houses etc ). Americans - Californians anyway - certainly knew that their Japanese neighbors went in a hurry ( they did buy their stuff, really cheap). How many Japanese died in their camps, never heard but (pop/70)*4= natural attrition is probably the minimum. Most of the books on the subject seem to be in the realm of wild conjecture - who me?? all the way to evil Germans - all supported with absolutely no evidence either way. 159.105.80.63 19:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've posted this before about a year ago, and since it is part of an interview made for the Harry S. Truman Presidential library it is very much a primary source, nevertheless I felt it to be important and relevant. from Oral History Interview with Charles P. Kindleberger Economist with the Office of Strategic Services, 1942-44, '45; chief, Division German and Austrian Economic Affairs, Department of State, Washington, 1945-48; and Intelligence Officer, 12th U.S. Army group, 1944-45. July 16, 1973 by Richard D. McKinzie

...Well, I think the coal question was the basis for a positive view of Germany. Before that it was still in the de-Nazification stage and retribution (My note: see JCS1067 and Eisenhower and German POWs). Having been in the Army in Germany I was aware of this quite strongly, and particularly the fact that the American forces stumbling on concentration camps and seeing piles of dead bodies, emaciated, starved, felt vindictive and aggressive. I shared this myself having been through Nordhausen in probably late April or early May 1945. Nordhausen was a sight that's hard to forget. At the same time I got in an exchange with Sweezy, Paul Sweezy now a Marxist, then OSS member, saying that I thought that the non-fraternization couldn't last. It was a big thing that the troops should not fraternize. Eisenhower was strong on this. It was easy to understand it. We thought that all Germans were despicable and had been guilty of this crime. I remember very well myself, observing that in two cases and I think three, the American Army in its infinite outrage took the lord-mayor and his wife of a neighboring town, through the concentration camp and made them see the horror of it. And in these two cases--maybe three, the mayor and his wife went home and committed suicide that night. It made me understand, which I hadn't been aware of, the capacity of the human mind to reject things. I think what happened is in the sub-conscious mind the lord-mayor and his lady had known, the nearby units, but in their conscious mind they had been unwilling to understand and they had put it out of their minds. Only when they could no longer evade this they were overwhelmed by their guilt. I found that very moving as the way the human mind behaves. But the Americans were so damn sanctimonious in this question about Germans. I really began to correspond with Sweezy and say this non-fraternization is wrong, You don't want to fraternize with them, but you don't want to regard them as less than human beings. We are going to have to treat them as human beings in the long run, and we are all guilty--you know. I was moved by this issue. I still find it moving.

MCKINZIE: Of course, I should explain, one reason that I keep asking you about the positions that your office was taking is that I am aware that you got documents of a kind of conflicting nature. You got the Morgenthau business from the Treasury Department on one hand, and on the other hand there was residue of all of that planning that was done in the State Department by Leo Pasvolsky’s people, which did envision a rather early return of Germany into some sort of European economy. Dean Acheson says in his book that he didn't realize that Europe without a reconstructed Germany was analogous to a body without a heart. He and other people had felt that perhaps Great Britain could assume the economic role that had been played by Germany previously, and somehow this was all your heritage or the legacy that was dumped into your office.

--Stor stark7 Talk 20:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I cannot contribute to the discussion of the sourceability of this issue. Pardon an editorial aside, it seems unlikely the german population had any opportunity to know about the genocide for certain. The Nazis can be safely assumed to act in what they believed to be their rational self-interest. There is no advantage to making the camps public; many advantages to keeping it secret (avoid further inflaming jewish support of the allies, inflaming germans sympathetic to jews, keeping options open for a cease-fire and retention of german territorial gains, etc.)

Given total control of the media, a massive propaganda network, constant and ruthlessly efficient surveillance by the gestapo and SS, the germans had very little *knowledge* of any facet of the war. The deportation of many german-jews to death camps outside germany further concealed the atrocity.

German radio was reporing glorious victories in the east right up until the soviet artillery rolled across the border. Allied frequencies were jammed.

I am sure they knew of the deportation. I am sure there were rumors, dangerous to repeat. As there were rumors of a german superweapon. But in this era of massive bombing, food shortages, disinformation and paranoia, it's virtually impossible to imagine the average german knew anything else for certain except that his homeland had been lost to madness. CeilingCrash 19:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Given German control of the media, German propaganda, German soldiers taking part in crimes in the East and later travelling with pictures of the victims to the Reich - CellingCrash isn't right.

  • Death camps weren't outside - Auschwitz and Kulmhof were IN, in annexed lands. Auschwitz was a big business, visited and used by many German businessmen. Alnmost any German business was using forced workers.

Xx236 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point XX, I'll have to learn about the crossover between the economy and the camps. Thanx. CeilingCrash 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New proposals for the article

  • The article is too long and needs a major revision. This, particularly is a problem in the list of perpetrators section, and the historical and philosophical interpretations sections. I propose that these two sections should have their own article created or be merged into already existing articles.
  • The article has a number of rather inappropriate headings. Under the Execution of the Holocaust part there is a persecution section, which should mention pogroms, and laws passed. Thus this section, and others, need rewording.
  • The article is, in some respects, factually inept. For example, the execution of the holocaust implies the stages used to kill people, liberation was not one of those stages.
  • Appropriate reference is also a major problem throughout the article, if a sentence cannot be referenced, it should be removed.
  • Im not sure how popular support will be for this, but i think the holocaust should have an infobox. This should have heading such as number of victims, perpetrators, names, date during which the killings took place, etc. This, will, I believe make the article seem more coherent and summarize it rather succinctly.

Please leave your views on my proposed reforms to the article underneath the appropriate bullet point. Thank you very much 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is a 'top-level' article providing an overview of a huge historical event. Many individual paragraphs are quite short, but there are a lot of them. I agree that the perpetrators section is too long, and I think a few longer paras of decent prose would be a better format than the very bitty bunch of tiny sections we currently have. This would involve more than just removing the section headers, BTW.
The 'execution of the Holocaust' subsections seem OK to me as far as structure goes - death marches and liberation should be treated in the same para, as it would be difficult to understand one without the other, surely?
Someone has just replaced the 'abuse' infobox with the 'antisemitism' box (good move), which is a navigation aid. I don't think an infobox trying to sum up the actual historical data would work very well.
I would strongly advise against removing all the sentences which currently do not have cites. Take for example the first two sections of the 'cruelty' para. Anyone who knows about the subject knows that this is true, but it is not clear that the cite later in the para refers to these. A better way to improve the citation would be what usually happens, which is that someone reads something that they didn't know before or that seems to contradict some other source, and puts up a {{cn}} tag or raises it here.
The persecution section should certainly mention the marriage laws, debarrment from various professions, etc. It does describe Kristallnacht, and other pogroms outside Germany.
The Functionalism versus intentionalism section is about as long as the article of the same name - I'd move much of the detail there and leave a shorter argument here. That could be part of a historiography section, which would also be a good place to mention the Historikerstreit. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've slightly trimmed the first couple of paras of the philosophical implications section, removing vague or irrelevant stuff and tightening the language. Shout at me if you hate it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox discussion

  • I'm just wondering why your opposed to an infobox?
There is already an infobox which serves as a navigation aid to other, related articles. Summing up the data in a box would be difficult. Considering only the victims, they could be categorised by origin, ethnicity or religious identity, place of death, year of death, cause of death. The numbers for the different camps are not known with 100% precision, so a range of upper and lower calculations would have to be given, and therefore also whose calculations we are taking as a source. You could make a big table, rather than an infobox, but it's a large task. It is made more difficult because you would have to make editorial decisions about what counts as the Holocaust (Kristallnacht? T-4?) which is not the case with text supported by reliable sources. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How about an infobox that says the basics:

  • Type of Murder: Genocide
  • Location: Europe and North Africa
  • Main Victims: Jews, gypsies, and others
  • Estimated number of people killed: 11 million
  • Timespan: 1942-1945 (although estimates vary)
  • Outcome: Destruction of approximately ⅔ of European Jewry
  • Perpetrators: Nazi Germany and the Axis powers
  • Main events: Pogroms, Ghettoisation, Mass shooting, Gassing

I was only thinking of something like this 82.36.182.217 16:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this illustrates the problem. Most of these bullet points contain vagueness-increasing qualifiers ('and others', 'estimated/estimates', 'approximately'), and some oversimplifications ('Axis powers' includes Italy, but Mussolini's govt actually didn't contribute to the Holocaust in a major way). Nor were pogroms a 'main event' in terms of death toll, but Kristallnacht was important and needs a mention (as it has in the article). All of these points are hard to sum up in the kind of short sentences/fragments suitable for an infobox, and require careful, nuanced, and cited text. I believe that large-scale and complex historical topics do not lend themselves to this kind of summary treatment in the way that, eg, a single battle does. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The Holocaust

Star of David badge that Jewish people living in German occupied territories were forced to wear
Event name: Holocaust [1]
Event type: Genocide
Location: Europe & North Africa
Main Victims: Jews, Roma and Sinti, Poles, & others
Timespan: 1942-1945
Casualties: Total killed:
11,000,000
Jews:
between 5 or 6 million, including 3 million Polish Jews
Poles:
between 1.8 and 1.9 million
Roma & Sinti:
Between 200,000 and 800,000
Disabled people:
Between 200,000 and 300,000
Freemasons:Between 80,000 and 200,000
Communists:
100,000
Homosexual men:
Between 10,000 and 25,000
Jehovah's Witnesses:
Between 2,500 and 5,000
Outcome: Destruction of ⅔ European Jewry,Creation of the state of Israel
Perpetrators: The Nazi regime
Main events: Pogroms, Ghettoisation,Mass shootings & gassing
  • Something perhaps Squiddy, like this:


This hasn't really addressed the points I made above. I still don't think a complex topic like this can be usefully presented as a series of sentence fragments. I'd be interested to know what other editors make of this idea - if it's generally popular, I'll shut up and in it goes, if not it shouldn't. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Does it summarise the events of the Holocaust? 82.36.182.217 12:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it does, no. It oversimplifies and makes editorial judgements, as I explained above. Please don't add it to the article until we've got some sort of consensus here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't oversimplify, it is direct. For people who would like a brief grasp of the Holocaust, they shouldn't have to read such a colossal article, they should be presented with a concise table that gives them the facts, which this does. It tells them who the main victims were, and gives a link to the numerous other victims. It tells them the year the murder was in operation, and it also gives commonly accepted estimates for the number of victims, and information about the perpetrators. How does this oversimplify? Please, if you can suggest any improvements that can be made to the infobox please feel free to discuss them with me and I will ammend it accordingly. It could also be claimed that World War II's infobox makes "editorial judgements" and "oversimplifies" yet it has a n infobox that provides a brief overview of the main events. I've made a revision of the infobox since which makes the death toll more thorough. Ahadland 19:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll recap the problems which I have stated above and which you have not addressed, in the hope that you will present arguments not assertions.
(1) You make judgements, coming down on the side of one historian or another, which as a wiki-editor, you are not in a position to do. Examples are: the start date of 1942, which is when mass-gassing started, but you could equally argue for 1941, when the Einsatzgruppen were operating, or 1935, when the Nuremberg laws were passed, or 1933, when Jews were expelled from universities, the legal profession, etc. Changing the date to one of these would still be a judgement on your part.
Another judgement you make is that the term 'The Holocaust' applies to groups other than Jews - some historians use the term this way, some do not, as the lead para says. You should not decide this, it needs to be explained in the text.
  • I was basing it on commonly accepted definitions
(2) some entries in the list are misleading - saying the perpetrators were 'The Nazi regime and its allies' lumps together the Romanian, Hungarian, Italian and Japanese governments with no discernment as to the extent of their respective roles.
  • Then lets just say the Nazi regime, i doubt you could argue that they werent the perpetrators
These issues need to be addressed carefully in a way that short sentences are not able to do. They are addressed at length in the article, and for those who want a brief overview, there is the lead paragraph.
  • It may provide an overview but a very confusing one, for example, there are far too many names in far to many different languages, and it introduces scholarly opinions in the third paragraph, which to somebody who wants a brief overview isn't very direct.
The point about the WWII infobox doesn't support your case very well either; for example, the combatants section is just to other, more detailed articles. The casualty figures in that box should be cited, IMHO, but I'm not going to go and edit that to make a WP:POINT. The existing Holocaust infobox providing easy links to other related articles is fine, but the kind of quick summary you are hoping to make is not really feasible for the reasons I've been giving. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I dont think the existing thing is an infobox, as in it doesn't provide info, just links. For example, it doesn't say what it actually is? Or how many people were killed. Therefore it can hardly be claimed that it is an infobox, something that presents the basic facts such as victims, perpetrators, timespan and number of people killed. The existing "infobox" doesn't meet these requirements —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 12:10, March 16, 2007.
By and large, I find myself in agreement with Squiddy's arguments. However, I do think Ahadland raises one valid issue: there are undoubtedly readers who would like to be able to get a good overview of the subject without having to read the entire article. As it currently stands, the Intro doesn't adequately summarize the full scope of the article. I see two basic options: 1) improve the Intro, probably entailing some expansion; or 2) write a more concise Intro (the etymology should be moved out of the first sentence in any event, IMO), and follow it with a good, comprehensive summary as Section 1. Cgingold 13:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But it took me ages to construct that infobox :'(Ahadland 18:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel like a right bastard now. I'm sorry your effort has not met with approval, and I agree that the lead section should be more detailed, and that the etymology should be moved to a separate section. I've made some changes, what do people think? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah well, I'm only 16 and I thought it was a good effort. By the way, your new introduction is a lot more direct and very well written. :-) Ahadland 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate your comment. (If you want to contribute infoboxes, thare's a category listing pages wanting them here.) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of the article

The Beginning of the article says this... "The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II," The other 5 million who were killed should be added to the introductory sentence. I realized they are mentioned later, but I feel it dishonors the other 5 million who died. I myself am Jewish, and feel that adding the other 5 million who were killed in necessary and appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.177.206.71 (talk)

I agree. CeilingCrash 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

04:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I've re-ordered the lead section. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the their had to be more killed

of courese they had to have been more than six million killed in t he holocaust —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.79.51 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC). About 6,000,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Poles, 1,500,000 and 200,000 Roma were killed as far as I can tell.--Nikki Fagin 02:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sadly, Holocaust was not legally established as Genocide

I am very surprised to learn there was not even one single judgment confirming genocide against the Jews during Nuremberg trials,

Here are sentences handed down to 22 accused:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NuremJudgement.htm

This confirms that the Srebrenica Genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe.

Bosniak 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Bosniak, What is the specific point you are trying to make about the Holocaust? I know that you are obviously not denying that the Holocaust was a genocide; I'm NOT accussing you of that at all. I'm just very curious (and very puzzled to be honest) as to what point you are trying to get across here in the Holocaust discussion page. Again some important points:

1. The first Nuremberg Trials took place in 1946. The Convention on the Prevention of Genocide, which makes genocide a specific legal crime passed in 1948. It came into effect in 1951. The first conviction was in 1998 in a case dealing with the Rwandan Genocide.


2. The Nuremberg Trial and record makes it clear beyond ANY shadow of a doubt that legally, historically, etc. genocide was perpetrated against the Jewish people in Europe.


3. It was the Holocaust which led to the creation of the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. So, the Holocaust established the precedence for the Genocide Convention. It was the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide that Krstic was convicted of violating in Prosecutor v. Krstic.

4. Considering that it is illegal in most European states to deny the Holocaust; that is additional evidence that the Holocaust is legally established as a genocide. Gardenfli 21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I believe popular sentiment - politics - established the holocaust. The Nuremberg Trials, etc pointedly refused to entertain any habeas corpus testimony - did a crime actually exist. Judicial notice was used instead of evidence - neat trick seeing as how creating a prosecution from scratch would have been very hard - under normal legal proceedings. ( Then you torture confessions out of the defendants and you can start the hangings.) 159.105.80.141 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Aktion Reinhard link

The explanation for removing the link (www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm} list is that it is a "discredited site". How about and explanation and references? The site appears to be useful and reference link to it can be found on the British Academy Portal which is usually a very reliable source.Joel Mc 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The team that put together the deathcamps.org site appears to have split acrimoniously. Both factions have been reverting back and forth, adding or removing the hyphen (for several months, across many pages). The person reverting to the old (hyphenless) version explains here:[2], the person adding the new, hyphenated links explains on his blog here [3]. I haven't picked through all the details, and a cursory look at a few pages on both versions of the ARC site didn't turn up any significant differences. It's vaguely irritating to have these reverts going on, but the site did appear to be a useful resource. I'd like reliable info on what is happening if anyone has it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and the link [4]. They certainly could have used a marriage counselor early on. I raised the issue as I would anytime that I see a label "discredited site" with no evidence at all. I can't say that I really understand their little spat, but I find no evidence that discredits the page which is linked, i.e. the list of ghettos: www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm. That seems to me a useful piece of information. Perhaps a compromise would be to revert to the link and put in a footnote which gives the link to the holocaust controversies site indicating that the overall site has come in for criticism. Then users can judge for themselves the bona fides of the site. It doesn't really seem to be our role to make a judgement at least in this case whether a site is discredited or not. Joel Mc 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Researching death camps etc in minute enough detail to create a "good" encyclopedia article is bound to cause friction. A stickler for accuracy,citations, truth, .. is bound to make enemies in the family.159.105.80.141 11:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For a "point by point" (but obviously still rather difficult for some) explanation please look here[5].--Sergey Romanov 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Blogs are not research - I hope. Listing and quoting eyewitnesses, forensic studies etc is research. There continues to be almost no forensic studies and only witnesses that embarrass everyone. Someday someone ( other than deniers )will start - and finish quickly. 159.105.80.141 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] holocaust

The nazis exsterminated 1/6 of Jews, but they went after homosexuals to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.30.157 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

1/3 of the Jews. Also why would one connect these two phrases with the word "but"? There is no a contradiction whatsoever. Some of the vicitims even shared both identities. gidonb 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of an attempt to exterminate homosexuals. Paul B 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I removed some of the detail about how the Final Solution came about, because it did seem too detailed for the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead section now contains no detail at all about how the Holocaust came about, and duplicates some material I moved to the etymology section in the first sentence. This has lead to a less-readable start, and leaves someone who reads only the first section with no clue to the process by which genocide was conducted. I added the detail after some discussion above in which several editors said that this sort of overview was needed, and the resulting lead section was not excessively long. It also had links to key aspects of the genocide embedded in the text. For these reasons I would like to revert to this version. Thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I feel it's too much detail for the lead. Also, the way the other version is written (describing all the victims in the first para, with numbers, and then in the second para starting with "not everyone counts all the other victims) -- it feels a bit disjointed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to tweak it a little, but the problem with it is that it's a little simplistic. I know things have to be simplified for the lead, but this seems to go too far in that direction. I think the lead is better without it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of etymology & other changes

I removed the discussion of etymology, brief as it was, because it seriously overburdened the lede sentence. I'm concerned that the average reader, seeing that passage (with all of its unfamiliar foreign alphabet symbols), could suffer "glazing over of the eyes" before they've even finished reading the intro to the article. I made a point of directing readers to the etymology section, which follows immediately after the intro.

I also made a point of specifying the ethnic groups that comprised the Soviet POWs, since their genocide was in fact ethnic in character, and provided good links for those groups and some other previously unlinked terms in the 2nd paragraph. And I added some crucial details that were missing from the 3rd paragraph.

I think the intro has benefitted immensely from all of the work that has gone into it in the last 2 weeks, and I believe we have successfully addressed the issue that was identified in the course of the earlier discussions regarding User Ahadland's infobox:

"Ahadland raises one valid issue: there are undoubtedly readers who would like to be able to get a good overview of the subject without having to read the entire article."

I don't believe there is any such thing as perfection, so no doubt there will be additional tweaks to improve on what we've accomplished. But I think it's in excellent shape right now. If there was a competition for "three-paragraph Holocaust summaries", this would be a very strong contender, IMO. Cgingold 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greek Jew section

Can someone please give citation to the info in the Greek section of the article since none exists. A better article on what happened in Thessalonki to Greek Jews is covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Greece. Jtpaladin 13:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian genocide in Croatia

The following paragraph was removed from the "Death squads" section of the article. This genocidal episode was essentially a Serbian/Croatian affair, growing out of deeply-rooted historic animosity.

Serbs were victims of an extermination policy of Croat NDH since this Nazi puppet state was formed in 1941. The murders took many forms: burning of live Serbs forced into churches; slaughter of Serbs by small death squads, often numbering only three, called "black threes", who rampaged by night through villages in which dogs were first poisoned. The squads filled foiba pits with still-living Serbs, often connected by barbed wire, and practiced extremely cruel methods of torture and execution such as gouging eyes and cutting salted necks. They also nailed guts of slaughtered victims to the roofs. Extermination in Jasenovac camp existed since its onset in 1941, at the time when Germans had not yet started their systematic genocide, and it has appalled even the SS, though soon enough they were organizing systematic extermination in their camps too.[citation needed]

I don't think there's a strong rationale for including it in this article -- though perhaps a one-sentence mention directing readers to the main article would be appropriate. Cgingold 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there already is a one-sentence mention in the "Death toll" section; I added a link to Ustaše#Genocide there & in the "See also" section. Cgingold 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Workload on Children

Rather than go back and forth between Nazis and Germans, i.e.: "workload placed on them by the Nazis and due to the lack of food" why not just say "workload placed on them and due to lack of food" certainly Nazis did it and Germans did it as well as some who were neither Nazis nor Germans...Joel Mc 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No POV Or Bias Is a Wiki Policy, So Let's Implement It

Can we please add the word 'allegedly' to the opening paragraphs, as while a few Jews may have been euthanaised, the number 6,000,000 is the source of much debate. Some encyclopaedias from the immediate post-war era recorded 30,000 while some later recorded 4,000,000. Six million seems to be a rather recent phenomenon. An article like this is always going to be full of bias, in the Jewish favor, and adding a few words like this may help to bring it back into equilibrium. --Hayden5650 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Hayden5650

My oh my. So much nastiness concealed in so many inoffensive-sounding remarks. "euthanaised" [sic]??? "in the Jewish favor"??? Oh, please. "a rather recent phenomenon"?? - Hardly; this figure has been widely used for decades. If you're sincerely concerned about this, please note the use of the word "approximately" in the intro, and the more detailed discussion in the section "Death toll". But given your citation of the very early 30,000 figure, I find it hard to credit your remarks with sincere concern. Sorry pal, but this smacks of Holocaust denial, imo. Cgingold 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And regarding POV, familiarity with WP:NPOV#Undue weight will help you understand why "allegedly" is unnecessary; holocaust denial such as what you are suggesting is a minuscule fringe opinion and certainly deserves no mention in the lead. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New picture

I have just added a new picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Holocaust01.jpg This was taken by my father in law at the end of WWII. Please look at it and use it if appropriate. I'll try to get more information on it later he, is very upset right now he was going through this among other pics and is very emotional right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belizian (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

Hello, Belizian - thank you so much for posting this photo. I can well understand how your father in law would be very emotional after finding this among his old pics. I've seen scores of similar photos, and yet something about the unadorned authenticity of this one really stunned me. Please let him know that it is much appreciated.
I assume your father in law was an American G.I.? Please do your best to get as much info as possible, when he's up to talking about it. That would include an approx. date, the location, a brief summary of what was happening to give it context, anything else he may feel is pertinent. Also, his name (if he's okay with that), his military rank, and if possible, the details of his military unit (as much as he can supply in terms of brigade, battalion, division, etc.) I hope you understand why all of this would be important -- all of those details are what will give the photo rock-solid veracity, which unfortunately is very much required when the planet is crawling with Holocaust deniers.
Cgingold 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persecution began in 1938?

I was always of the impression that persecution began before the Nazis even came to power. Before Hitler became chancellor, the SA were attacking political opponents and inidividual Jews. I think the date should be changed from 1938 to 1933 --HadzTalk 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I've retitled that section 'Increasing Persecution (1938-1941). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Holocaust_b53c.html"