Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Auschwitz concentration camp article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Auschwitz concentration camp as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Auschwitz concentration camp as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Polish language Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Auschwitz concentration camp as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Greek language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Archives

Archive 1 (-Jan 30,2007)



[edit] Suffocation cells

Small point: "Prisoners placed in these cells would gradually suffocate as they used up all of the oxygen in the air" People in sealed rooms die of carbon dioxide build up, not oxygen depletion.

Acually, carbon dioxide is posionous and is inert to the human body. The current statement is still true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.250.207 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am a medical practitioner. Death in these cells was caused by anoxia, which is to say lack of oxygen, not carbon dioxide retention. The lungs will still expel carbon dioxide into the surrounding air even if this air contains little or no oxygen, and the oxygen is used up well before the carbon dioxide level becomes toxic. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Recheck your medical book - I believe once the co2 becomes high enough you stop breathing ( even if there is lots of o2 around. I don't believe c02 is toxic.

Not so. Carbon dioxide is a respiratory stimulant, which is why you breath faster in a stuffy atmosphere. I repeat, death in the suffocation cells was due to anoxia. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The swimming pools, etc.

I have read (on Scrapbook Pages) that Auschwitz had two swimming pools, one for SS members and one for Polish political prisoners (not Jews), and that the residents of Auschwitz I (said to be the location of the swimming pools) were largely Jews able to work in factories, POWs, political prisoners, and Nazis, as well as their prostitutes, while Jews unable to work in factories went over to Birkenau/ Auschwitz II. I wonder about the truth or untruth of such items. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I mention the swimming pools because Holocaust deniers routinely point out the existence of an "Auschwitz swimming pool". Those deniers probably also noticed the tampering that occurred with gas chambers (they were blown up, Zyklon B holes in roofs filled in and covered up very expertly, new Zyklon B holes in Auschwitz I inserted by the Soviet Union post-liberation, the gas chamber at Auschwitz I subdivided by Nazis for use as a bomb shelter, the restoration of same gas chamber was botched by the Soviet Union in that a restroom was added to the floor area of the original gas chamber, and other evidence-tampering), thus giving them further ammunition. Nonetheless, I don't see how they would explain all the human hair piled up with hydrogen cyanide in them (yes, it was used as a fumigation agent, which also caused deterioration over time, but it's tough to get Zyklon B out of hair before passing it to German industrialists. Thus, such hair likely came off of gassed prisoners). — Rickyrab | Talk 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


It's very unlikely that anyone at this late date wants to insert any story about dead gassing victims being shorn of their hair. Let's have this done before their gassing and then gas their hair before it was later washed and used in some as yet unknown industrial capacity. Having a barber shop in the gas/morgue/crematorium would be unwieldy - and so far unknown to any witness.

I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make, anonymous editor. But a very great deal of human hair still exists on the Auschwitz site, together with suicases, spectacles, shoes and prayer shawls.--Anthony.bradbury 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, and what does that prove? piles of hair? piles of shoes? does that prove that there was a mass killing? i have read that the hair was cut to fight the lice infestation and that a prison uniform, which included shoes, was issued to every new inmate. this, however does not prove that anyone was gassed. sorry, need more evidence. Keltik31 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, i'd say that the tins of zyklon b and the pure pictures were evidence enough. Besides, books written by Holocaust survivors all mention gassing and burning by the Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.212.111 (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I am saying that the gas chambers, morgue, etc are already so crowded and no eyewitness talks about a barber\shop operating in the gas/morgue/... They were using hair everywhere during the war. The last bunch of hair found means nothing - unless you have an awfully big pile. ( Zyklon B comes out of hair quite easily - evaporates eventually for one ). Above - you can't coverup holes in concrete "expertly" - concrete is a misserable substance once set, grinding the surface and a paint job can't fool an expert or even a picky customer.

The pile of hair at Auschwitz I is about 30 metres long, 8 metres wide and a metre deep. How big is "awfully big"?--Anthony.bradbury 00:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Looked up the hair - it was bagged for shipment. The big pile must be some museum exhibit. Bagged after disinfection - shaved to get rid of lice. I guess the Germans could have left the lice and hair alone, but then it appears they were trying to save lives and/or had some use for the hair. Where is the picture of this hair - is this the 7000k of bags full ready for shipment, seems not. Any analysis of the hair - lice bodies,Zyklon,DNA,etc - lots to work with it appears. 159.105.80.63 14:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Looked it up - you must have seen Block 4. Block 4's hair is an exhibit, they maybe tried to mute the emotional effect but they inside seemed to intensify it. The actual photos of hair at the camp at capture are shipping bags, and nowhere, it seemed to me, to be 7000k worth. If Germans used hair then I doubt they collected it for show. But it is true, when you want to get rid of lice you shave the hair ( of course if you just want to use the hair you shave the hair - both possibilities, now which is true?). PS Putting a big pile in a musuem exhibit means little to a scholar but alot to a tourist I guess.159.105.80.63 15:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


More about hair - they shaved the hair off everyone, even in the "non-death camps" - Belsen, etc. So there was hair everywhere - some exhibits just failed to showcase it. An analysis of hair from different camps would be interesting - Zyklon brought in - usage - difference, etc159.105.80.63 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to hold your opinion. It is not shared by most scholars, including this one.--Anthony.bradbury 22:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Too bad we don't have access to a doctor's opinion on what would have been the best way to stop a typhus epidemic in the 1940s, what would you need, what success would you have in wartime, estimated causalties in prison camps, etc159.105.80.80 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the hair came from gas victims, as hair was shaved off everyone shortly after arrival. De-lousing them with chemicals does strike me as redundant once the hair was shaved off, though, unless it was intended for further use. In any case, I thought it well established that all prisoners had their heads shaven, and any chemical residue found would thus have to be due to non-leathal application. Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. Tsuka 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree as how do they know about the hair coming from the gas victims? for all we know it could of come from the delousing...?


RE HAIR Timothy Ryback - NYT 2004 article --- The Poles have checked the hair - there is no Zyklon etc in it ( he gives some cockamamee reason - multiple washings etc - his concern is that the forensic evidence must be preserved ) He also states that the Poles were not able to find Zyklon traces in the gas chambers ( but they did find Zyklon in the delousing chambers ) because the executions were done so fast that it didn't get into the walls (???? wow - Abe Foxman almost had a bird with this type of support) Mr Ryback is correct though - the hair should be checked carefully to see if it was ever disinfected, given a DNA test ( if that can be done - save it until science can do it ). Does Mr Ryback still work at the NYT? I fell sorry for him, who let this article get in print?159.105.80.141 14:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry couple of mistakes - WSJ not NYT. Mr Ryback just wrote this article I believe - a Timothy W Ryback is a historian ( dirctor of the Salzburg Institue ). His article, accidently I suspect, brings up some interesting points. Number one, the proholocaust historians aren't as dumb as they appear. They appear to know they have no solid evidence to stand on. Being historians, they must almost vomit when they produce research and written work based totally on eyewitness reports. Number two - knowing that no forensic work has been done ( or knowing that what has been been done doesn't support their position ) why don't they get off their duffs and do the forensic work ( who better than tenured lay-abouts with travel expense accounts ). I can understand uuneducated true believers but Ryback et al are professionals - time for them to grab a shovel and head to Poland.159.105.80.141 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


In the New Yoker magazine in 1993? Mr Ryback ( Salzburg Seminar/not Institute) had a long article on hair,etc. In this article in 1945 the Cracow Institute found Zyklon traces in hair that were used to execute Hoess. I will have to check closer - the hair either did or didn't have Zyklon.159.105.80.141 17:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

is it not obvious? people the hair was shaved off before the people were sent to the gas chambers. i read in a source that mostly the hair was used to make blankets and socks for the prizoners and also the german soldiers out fighting for germany. i also read that a certain nazi officer had lamp shades in his home made out of human skin, there was also prove that a certian soap was made out of human fat. now that is just gross. and the hair did not have Zyklon in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.10.121.2 (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Some prisoners hair was shaved off after gassing. If you read Auschwitz, The Nazis and the Final solution by Laurence Ress he writes in detail about an eye witness account of two prisoners who were once barbers having to climb a mountain of bodies and having to cut off their hair, which they did keep and use to make carpets etc. If you search you can find pictures of them. The nazis wanted to make it as clear as possible to the prisoners who were to die soon after arrival that they weren't doing to die, they were being washed when they were being put in the chambers. They were asked to remove their clothes and place them in a neat pile, head shaving was more common for the prisoners who were going to be workers. I encourage you all to read this book as it offers a lot of detail from eye witnesses who have not spoken out before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.77.94 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prefabricated horse barns?

The Scrapbook Pages site also noted that prefabricated horse barns were used as barracks, sheds, and/or other facilities, and that Auschwitz I was on the site of an earlier Polish military garrison. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Many, albeit not all, of the presently extant blocks at Auschwitz I formed part of a pre-war Polish cavalry barracks.--Anthony.bradbury 22:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


So nothing prefab about it at all? I always wondered why the architecture was so grand - it must have been quite old, it 's buildings ( main ones ) never looked like rush jobs to build. Most of the fancy extras, swimming pools, etc then are easily explanable - as a matter of fact it would be odd if they weren't there, unless the Polish cavalry didn't like luxury. Each bit of information helps to revis/whoops I mean enhance the history of the place. Both sides can use this - the swimming pools were there for the Polish cavalry, but they were there, etc ...concert halls, hospital, sewage system, etc Revisionism at its finest - a slip or a slip of paper and you get a new prespective on actual surroundings. This may also tie into the finding of so many horseshoes etc in one excavation at another camp - I believe maybe near Auschwitz but not sure. Maybe the Germans used captured Polish military bases - infrastructure already in place - near rail lines etc. - near industrial areas that needed protection. Are there Polish records - blueprints etc - available. They would settle how much of the building was new or already in place - whether pictures were of new building projects or just reroofing existing buildings. This could gore both oxen.

Many of the brick-built barrack blocks existed before the war, and were part of a Polish cavalry barracks. After the defeat of Poland, when it was decided to convert Auschwitz I into a concentration camp, buildings in the same style were erected on what had been the cavalry exercise area. Nothing pre-fab, absolutely not. I have been thewre and seen it. The swimming pool, which I did not see and which may no longer exist, was built for the SS. I am not convinced of the existence of concert halls. Certainly there is no present physical evidence of their existence, and I went all over the site.--Anthony.bradbury 20:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I visited Auschwitz last year, and the tour guide told us that the prefabricated cavalry stables were used in Auschwitz II. Most were burned down by the Germans at the end of the war, but a good number still stand, mostly in the women's camp near the entrance. You can go inside them, and I did. I didn't see any of them in Auschwitz I, which is almost entirely brick-built apart from one or two large wooden buildings, quite unlike the horse barns in Camp II. This however constitutes original research and is not permissible as a source. Lexo (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where the cavalry stables were, though I would point out that Auschwitz-Birkenau was incontestably constructed by the Germans during WW II, while Auschwitz I was equally unarguably extant well before the war. But my comment about the Cavalry barracks refers to the housing of the Cavalrymen, not the horses. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Is this any help? I remember seeing the rings when I went. WilliamH (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Hey, just saying that there's vandalism in the first part of this page. I'm not really good at editing things, so i just wanted to alert people.24.159.205.132 18:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uses for Auschwitz after the war

I thought this was sort of ... ironic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zgoda_camp . It seems like it should be mentioned. Apologies if it is and I didn't notice it. --74.104.113.26 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The use of Auschwitz as a POW camp with similar operating principles as before 1945 continued to at least 1947. My uncle, aged just 17 when he returned end 1947, was there. He was one of the few lucky ones sent to the West, the rest all went to die in Siberian lead and sulfur mines.

[edit] Auschwitz

Say, shouldn't the Jewish swimming pools, camp theater, brothels and also the camp money be mentioned in this comprehensive Holocaust theory page?

209.226.237.48 02:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Swimming pool was for use of SS (mentioned in article); brothel was for use of SS and favoured Kapos (mentioned in article); there is no evidence of a theatre, although there was a small orchestra/band who played in the open (mentioned in article). I have no data on camp money.--Anthony.bradbury 08:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the swimming pool within the inmate compound? If so, it was clearly NOT for use of the SS. Also, I would like to know if this has any credence, allegedly by survivor Marc Klein:
"The working hours were modified on Sundays and holidays, when most of the kommandos were at leisure. Roll call was at around noon; evenings were devoted to rest and to a choice of cultural and sporting activities. Football, basketball, and water-polo matches (in an open-air pool built within the perimeter by detainees) attracted crowds of onlookers. It should be noted that only the very fit and well-fed, exempt from the harsh jobs, could indulge in these games which drew the liveliest applause from the masses of other detainees." (De l'UniversitÈ aux camps de concentration: Telmorgnages strasbourgeois, Paris, les Belles-lettres, 1947, p. 453).
I found this on http://www.rense.com/general24/controversy.htm . I could also have sworn I read something about theatre activities from an Auschwitz survivor. And I must say, it makes perfect sense that these facilities would be in place for the prisoners. Whatever the Nazies' ultimate intentions were for the inmates, improving their morale would still be an important element to keep them under control, and also for the guards' peace of mind. It is one thing to be ordered to do a terrible thing, but something completely different entirely to be the one to carry it out. Extremely few people have the sadistic streak necessary to perpetrate the camps as portrayed in popular history. But add a few tokens of goodwill and the other orders become more bearable. No one likes to think of themselves as evil, after all, and I don't see why KZ guards would be any different. Tsuka 15:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
rense.com, as well as Holocaust denial rubbish, hosts articles on how the US government controls its citizens minds with chemicals added to jet-aircraft contrails, plus much UFO stuff and cranky whatnot. They are utterly unreliable.
Theatre and artistic activity did go on in Theresienstadt, which was the showpiece camp for the Red Cross to visit. Some of the inmates ended up in Auschwitz. I don't remember reading of any such at Auschwitz itself. Unless you can find a source saying otherwise, I'd suggest that is what you remember.
Your psychological analysis is flawed. Inmate labour was coerced, and the guards did not need to be sadistic to carry out their orders - see Christopher Browning's Ordinary Men : Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland, Hannah Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem, and the experiments by Stanley Milgram. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Sadism is not limited to violence. After the war, German soldiers were placed in labour camps in Norway where they were tasked with repairs, mine clearing etc. They were horribly underfed, and the guards were expressly forbidden, under threat of imprisonment, to feed the prisoners. But, as my uncle and overseer of one such camp told me, they (the guards) were not hardened to this kind of work, and seeing walking skeletons were tearing them apart. Even if they were the hated enemy. In his own words: "It was the worst thing I ever saw." They ignored the orders and gave them food. Fortunately there were no reprisals. I realize this is purely anecdotal, but it is exceedingly difficult not to care about serious maltreatment. There will always be the occasional sadists who get off on beating up prisoners for no reason, and these are also the sort to harden themselves to the misery of others. They are also typically found among those who volunteer for prisoner management duties. Most people would rather keep silent and stay out of trouble, and deal with their guilt in private.
As for rense.com, I'll take your word for it, but I do not accept it as an excuse to discard references out of hand. A reference was provided: De l'UniversitÈ aux camps de concentration: Telmorgnages strasbourgeois, Paris, les Belles-lettres, 1947. Any comment regarding reliability should be directed at this, not the site what mentions it. Tsuka 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Looking up the Belsen camp, I tried to find one of the commanders, Kramer, in this article. He was at Auschwitz and then transferred to Belsen to get ready to receive the evacutees from Poland. He was executed for killing inmates while he was involved in transferring the sick to safety - odd ideas in one sentence. Any good leads on his correspondence?159.105.80.63 14:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ido not know what reference you are quoting, so my comment must be speculative. The idea would make sense, in a Nazi context, if the safety in question was the safety of the SS guards from the advancing Russians.--Anthony.bradbury 10:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


It would make no sense to retreat with sick inmates if you wanted to protect the SS. Kramer negotiated with the Allies concerning the evacuation, I believe. His memos concerning his attempts to protect,etc the inmates makes a strange juxtzposition with his later execution.159.105.80.80 11:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It would make sense if he was either concerned not to leave witnesses, or if he wanted favorable testimony from the sick whom he evacuated. But, as I said, I was speculating and you are perfectly free to place your own interpretation on his behaviour. What is it?--Anthony.bradbury 17:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


America has the memos where he negotiated with us about safe passage for the inmates, I hope we still have them. Of course he did leave witnesses, so it appears he wasn't too worried about that. Surprisingly few could be aroused to be witnesses against him, considering the number left behind/brought along who survived the typhus. His lawyer, an American I believe, later would not bow to pressure and say he thought he was guilty. Tracing down some of the minor characters - unpublicized - gives a real smell to parts of the story - after denying gassing, Kramer then was interrogated and confessed ( his confession was so ludicrous that he must have hoped he was talking to idiots and that history would exonerate him ). 159.105.80.80 17:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


RE: swimming pools, sports events, plays, concerts, etc - all this denial garbage is well documented with photos - would you like some for the article? If so, I will expend the energy to find them - should only take minutes: however, if you don't want them then suit ourselves. Photos of nontyphus victims are also available - pretty well feed, fit looking bunch in most cases ( but of course not the sick ones.)159.105.80.141 13:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


You may add 2 french inmates to your list of "well-know inmates":

Robert Desnos: French poet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Desnos

Simone Veil: French lawyer and politician. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Veil =Wrong Simone. You meant Simone_Weil

You should also add at least one C of E vicar - from Jersey, Channel Islands - Rev. Cahew, of St. Saviours' Church on Jersey, who was sent there for retaining an illegal wireless set with 20 members of his congregation, who each took a component to Evensong, and assembled it in a back room to keep the islanders in touch with events - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.176.133 (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "a large number of homosexuals and Jehovah's witnesses - and Black people??"

"Additionally, large numbers of homosexual people and Jehovah's Witnesses were killed at Auschwitz."
How large a number? Is there any source for this assertion? Earlier in the article, the number of homosexuals imprisoned is given at forty-eight.Proabivouac 05:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The 48 homosexuals were at Auschwitz I. Much larger numbers were killed at Birkenau, as is up to a point evidenced by the fact that they had teir own colour of triangle (pink) to wear on their uniforms. But I cannot give figures. Records are, as is known, incomplete.--Anthony.bradbury 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


48 - I guess Hitler wasn't out for a total purge. 48 sounds ridiculous, almost belittling the whole article - keep it in.159.105.80.141 18:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler had a strangely ambivalent approach to homosexuals, not wholly mirroed by Himmler. Many of Hitler's early associates, such as Rohm, were homosexual, although there is clear evidence that Hitler was not. But Nazi policy in the war years did target homosexuals, among other groups, and a large (but unknown) number died at Auschwitz-Birkenau.--Anthony.bradbury 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

At that period in time, Hitler was not the only person who disliked homosexuals. In many cases, homosexual activity was a criminal offense, and until a few years ago, that was the situation in some parts of the United States. A person with homosexual tendencies who kept them to himself probably was not a target. On the other hand, someone caught in the act of commiting sodomy likely would have been imprisoned, and that might have occurred outside of Germany at that time.

Black people are commonly found in Europe, particularly at that time. What is the source of the assertion that they were imprisoned there? Were they Allied prisoners of war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.0.178 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I was told that there were photographs of Black inmates at Auschwitz - I know several perished at Belsen, but have never seen a figure published for Auschwitz -

[edit] Picture taken from plane

(Image:May311944 auschwitz.jpg) Smoke can be seen issuing from Crematorium V, indicating that a group of prisoners had recently been gassed. Can smoke indicate what have happened with those prisoners before? They could have been shot, die from disease and so on. What the picture shows is only smoke. --Wnuk-pl 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


Odd how you pick up little bits of info here and there - noone seems to want to spill their guts all at once. I have always heard that Jewish grups have asked "why didn't the Allies bomb Auschwitz" - I have read they did sometime in 1944 I believe. Secondly why don't we ever hear of Thies Christophersen - agronomist ( not SS ) who was at Auschwitz for some time. It turns out there is considerable eyewitness evidence about Auschwitz - other than the stuff we noramlly hear - SS, agronomist, inmates, etc - that is aout 180 degrees different. There appear to be more witnesses who heard about gas chambers, etc years after the war and can't recall seeing any while they were there. Anyway I was surprised to find that the people I read about were only the tip of a different iceberg.159.105.80.141 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


I didn't think it was possible but the main article keeps geting worse and worse. Two posts to hang people from hooks - first time I ever heard that one. No cremation info of note ( excuse me, 20,000 per day - now that would have been a huge undertaking ). I noticed the photos hidden in the ground - cameras in Auschwitz and here the Allies couldn't even get one good picture in 4 years.159.105.80.141 17:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

After some consideration I decided to remove this part of the notice: indicating that a group of prisoners had recently been gassed. Can anybody assure us it were prisoners bodies burning in the Crematory while the picture was taken? Is there any information that can make the statement certain? --Wnuk-pl 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There are plenty of pictures in Brugioni & Poirer's report that you could write a caption for, using the report itself. That way you'd be citing a reliable source and making everyone happy. It's available here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Do the maths. Say 1.5 million people gassed in say 2 years is 750,000 each year; say 62,000 each month is about 2,000 each day. Not 20,000. Four crematoria at Birkenau is 500 per day each. Each chamber held about 100 people so that is five operations per crematorium each day, or one every 3-4 hours, assuming no night-time working. With six ovens to each gas chamber this would significantly under-use the capacity.

Okay, it is "mathematically possible," but did it actually occur at that rate? I do NOT deny the Holocaust, and the death of one person is unacceptable, but spreading misinformation about the Holocaust dishonors those who died. "Revising" the figure downward from 4 million to 1.5 million impugns the credibility of the process, and indicates that the persons who publish the figures are either deceitful or lacking in information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.13.0.178 (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are, in Auschwitz I, contemporary photographs of the hooks you take note of in the article. The fact that you were personally unaware of them does not reduce their significance.--Anthony.bradbury 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


why??......


I have neglected reading the main article for some time. Has it been totally changed. It has gotten really bad - is there really thaat little that can be verified? The truth would probably be a very interesting story, but the fable is getting pathetic ( ie at Dachau the standard story has Catholic priests being killed from hate? - the real story is that most of them died nursing typhus epidemic patients ( pick which one you think has the greater staying power and impact - Auschwitz etc could have/be the same, why not let it) .159.105.80.141 17:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] typo

The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum revised this figure in 1990, and new calculations now place the figure at 1.1–1.6 million, [2][3] about 90 percent of them Jews from almost every country in Europe.

I believe that correct word would be the instead of them. Just trying to help out a little.

No, I'm afraid that "them" is correct. It means 90% of the 1.1-1.6 million, not 90% of the Jews from Europe.--Anthony.bradbury 17:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah! You got me, I guess. Sorry if I have wasted anyone's time

[edit] Pointless reference

Can someone who is allowed to please remove the following point from the "see also" list?

  • The name "Auschwitz" is occasionally confused with "Austerlitz".

This article is on a very serious matter, and shouldn't contain links to nonrelated pages just because someone have them confused. I for one haven't even heard of anyone confusing the two, seems to me someone is trying to sneak in a link to a less popular article. 213.114.179.144 06:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


The German word "verichtungslager" - did it first show up in an English publication ( Time magazine - Aug 21, 1944 )? The Time article says that the bones were shipped back to Germany to be used as fertilizer. Any documents for this - or was Time being creative?159.105.80.141 13:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] After The War

"Most of the buildings of Birkenau were burnt down by the Germans as the Russians came near, and much of the resulting brick rubble was removed in 1945 by the area's returning Polish population to restore farm buildings before winter. That explains the "missing rubble" cited as evidence by Holocaust deniers."

I don't really think that the last sentence here is appropriate. I would think that it belongs in the "controversy" section, if at all. If it is used, it could do with some serious re-wording as well - Wikipedia is not meant to take sides. Pjhsv 01:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


The remains of the ineffective heating system - with the "duct work linking them" sounds like what is called "a Russian stove". They are extremely efficient, if this is what is described. I believe they are also called masonry stoves. 159.105.80.141 18:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


In the Death Toll sectio the Auschwitz Death Books are mentioned. Their total is about 69,000. Of course two years are missing but the Red Cross hinted that they might just be "misplaced". The Death Books document a pretty enemic extermination plan for most years - the latest stories about how the killing was condensed into a short time and short bursts seem to be trying to line up with the Russian archives. All the records for the camps were keep in Germany - the first camp was also the administrative office for the whole system. Does anyone know where those "master" records are, or went to.159.105.80.141 18:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


Fritjof Meyer - footnote 3. Surprised to see Mr Meyer in this article after his publication in Osteurpa ( one of those learned peer reviewed historical mags ) . Mr Meyer claims that the Auschwitz death count has been exaggerated, that Martin Brozsat falsified the Hoess' memoir before it went to press ( didn't say exactly what part was falsified but it appears nonconforming information was doctored sentence by sentence). Mr Meyer credits Van Pelt with discovering that the death count at Auschwitz was 500,000 and cremations take a little longer than originally thought, etc etc. This article was published in May 2002 - I guess we all missed it - Osteurpa isn't on my normal reading list. This will require a complete rewrite of wiki. 159.105.80.141 15:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears Mr Meyer was silenced ( maybe voluntarily ) and has fallen on hard times. This was big news ( in a small circle ) but has since died down - but not rebutted ). These holocaust historians seem to know stuff they aren't telling the average believer, unless the average believer knows this stuff and is keeping from the average wiki reader. It appears YOUR major historians are deniers.159.105.80.141 15:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

PS Meyer - the darn sneak has abandoned the gas chambers - actually moved back to the use of wooden farmhouses ( he must believe Leuchter's work ). However, he ends up with not enough corpses to account for the typhus epidemics. How do you get a PHD if you get lost in the details of a fairly small amount of literature surrounding this subject.159.105.80.141 16:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My friend, as an avowed Holocaust denier you have every right to hold your view, but what I really have trouble understanding is how, in the face of all the eye-witness, documentary and physical evidence, do you succeed in doing so?--Anthony.bradbury 17:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


I can not for the life of me figure out how reasonably intelligent people when confronted with the lack of evidence ( of any kind ) and after reading the eye-witness accounts can still support the holocaust story with a straight face. The historians, ie Meyer and many others, are/have abandoned essential details - so amny details that their belief in the holocaust has to be seriously questioned. It appears emotion hangs on long after the intellect has surrendered. ( Yad Yashem has pronounced the eye-witnesses as suspect, most historians admit that no smoking gun document has been found, physical evidence is non-existant ( no one even dares look very hard ie forensic teams ) - it's time to give up.159.105.80.141 19:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


In 1999 or 2000 Richard Krege, using ground penetrating radar discovered a mass grave at Auschwitz from 1942 ( spotted fever epidemic - about 20,000? victims ). Has this been checked out. 159.105.80.141 15:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The deaths at Auschwitz always seem to cluster around dates of known epidemics. How did they cluster gassings and typhus so closely - how could you operate that way, seems more than luck. 159.105.80.141 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Meyer, as a holocaust-denying historian, is part of a very small minority in the community of reputable historians. If you choose to believe him in the face of all the evidence, then that is up to you. You appear to feel that the first-person eye-witness accounts of some hundreds of camp survivors is of no value. I do not understand why. You appear to discount the existence of the gas chambers and crematoria, whose ruins remain and are clear evidence. You appear to discount the existence of the remains of countless bodies on-site - the whole area is covered with bone fragments. And you appear to discount the fact that a total of some six million Jews vanished during the Nazi era. (I do not claim that this number diead at Auschwitz; Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Maidenek and Belzec were also active)


Sorry this is so emotional issue for believers but it is Vad Yashem who says that the witnesses claims are largely fabricated or impossible - not me ( actaully, me too ). Meyer, I believe is a true believer who comes across evidence that doesn't agree with the old story. He is in a moral quagmire - does he publish it or bury it. I guess if he publishes the truth as he finds it he becomes a denier. If he covers it up he remains a believer. Take your pick. The remains of gas chambers etc in some cases are known to be reproductions - not even worth testing - those buildings that are original have been tested and come up short ( no Zyklon residue ). Hundreds of kids I went to school with are gone - moved away for jobs. In WW2 many/most of the soldiers drafted from my state never came back - most didn't die, they just married, got jobs, etc somewhere else. There are a lot of reasons to be gone - population censuses - I was surprised I thought Jews/rabbis kept records of their folks - seem very deficient in most cases. However, some later research seems to be using demographics to arrive at some pretty good estimates ( ie expect more of your historians to spring some uncomfortable news on you in a few years ).159.105.80.141 11:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Actually it's an emotional issue for YOU as you seem to be intent on using the old "numbers game"(if it's not quantifiable, it's debunked -- are you any relation to Mel Gibson's father?! Are YOU Mel Gibson's father???!!! ) as part of the Holocaust denial malarkey. Like the previous post before you states, your willingness to deny countless survivor's stories and other historical evidence seems laughable if it weren't so pathetic. It's almost as funny as arguing to what degree Nazi Officers who carried out the strategic and systematic extermination policies of the Final Solution were actually anti-semitic, as if that's some kind of mitigating circumstance. Oh yeah, maybe the disappeared Jews just moved on, got new jobs, married or ended up somewhere else like the WW2 examples you so casually and ridiculously attempt to use for equivocation purposes. Unfortunately for MILLIONS of Jewish people and numbers of others deemed unfitting, they ended up "relocated" as it was sometimes called by German Officers during this period. You probably have even convinced yourself that the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding! 71.217.22.202 07:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)La-Tonia Denise Willis


Just for complete clarity - I believe Meyer says/believes in the gas chamvers. He just says that only the wooden farmhouses still qualify. It appears that Leucher, Cracow et al have forced him to retreat from the "normal" gas chambers. He should be supported by believers, not reflexively called a denier, because he is doing his best to make a stand for the "truth" at the farmhouses ( which thankfully can't be tested (????)). The battle for Auschitz, the holocaust, Israel and American history books has moved to a new location, enlist in the battle, don't badmouth the general. Any links to this farmhouse think?159.105.80.141 13:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz I

I need to be imformed very soon about auschwitz I, I am doing a presentation on the holocaust and this is a part that i need to include. One of my questions is about wwhat the other name for Auschwitz I.

-Emily

Emily, there is no other name for Auschwitz I, unless you count the Polish name, which is Oswiecim (pronounced ozz-wee-chim). Auschwitz II was called Birkenau, and Auschwitz III was Monowitz, But as originally only Auschwitz I existed (near the Polish town of Oswiecim) there was no need for an alternative name. --Anthony.bradbury 17:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Auschwitz 1 was also referred to as "The Main Camp" or "Stammlager". I'm afraid your pronunciation of Oświęcim is well wide of the mark. A reasonable approximation would be Osh-vyen-cheem. Signalhead 18:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say. But I have been there and that is how they said it.--Anthony.bradbury 20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you anthony what i needed was the alternate name of The main camp. -Emily

[edit] Joseph Gani

I am in 7th grade and i am doing a project on the holocaust, i was given a person to research and his name was joseph gani, if you know anything about him please write me on this page i already have gone to the ushmm and know everything that it tells me there but i need more than that.

-Emily—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lalalala77 (talk • contribs).

[edit] The Terrible Conditions.

I can't believe how bad the conditions were at the concentration camps. It's terrible. I admire any survivors because they could've got gassed; put in starvation cells or dark cells. It must have been so scary. If anyone knows a story about someones experience during the holocaust, please edit this. HANA's SUITCASE is a fantastic book. Do read it. I'm Off. _________________________________________________________________.by.outraged.

Hello. I would just like to say that in the text it refers the eastern german city as 'Nuremberg'. I think it would be much more correct to name it by its proper german name of 'Nürnberg'. If anyone disagrees, fine. It's just my opinion. Marco 125.238.34.200 04:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if there is a well-known anglicisation of a place name, we use that because this is the English-language WP. With Nürnberg/Nuremberg there isn't much difference, but some names in English are very different from what the locals call the place, eg Firenze/Florence. We use the version most familiar to English-speakers. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


In 1948 there was a trial in Poland that had the official death count in Auschwitz as 300,000. Any link to this trial? I read about it recently and lost the reference. Thanks.159.105.80.141 11:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz Trials

If I've missed it in the article, my apologies, but there really needs to be at least a brief discussion here of the 1960s trial in Frankfurt of the Auschwitz perpetrators, particularly given the trial's role in making Auschwitz visible to the German public, and the recent appearance of *two* scholarly monographs on the subject (by Devin Pendas and Rebecca Witmann). I've added links to Frankfurt Auschwitz trials and Auschwitz trials (the latter dealing with the proceedings in Poland) as a stop-gap measure. SGilsdorf 14:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz renamed

http://www.poland.pl/news/article,UNESCO_approves_change_of_name_of_Auschwitz_camp,id,283069.htm

UNESCO officially changed name from "Auschwitz Concentration Camp" to "Auschwitz-Birkenau. The Nazi German Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)." as Polish government requested. The article should be updated.Kieraf 14:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly true that the extermination camp is referred to as "Auschwitz-Birkenau". But the title "Auschwitz concentation camp" also includes Auschwitz I, which predated Birkenau and is dealt with in considerable detail in tha article, and also Auschwitz-Monowitz, which was the labour camp complex. Calling the whole complex "Auschwitz-Birkenau" would therefore be incorrect, and the name of the article is correct as it stands.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to change the title of the whole article, but a title (name) in "Infobox World Heritage Site". Also, additional information about final decision of UNESCO regarding renaming should be added in 'Other controversies' part. I would do it by myself but I can't edit this article and my English is not so perfect. Kieraf 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding the new UNESCO name between brackets to the section "Auschwitz II (Birkenau)", but not in the heading. Maybe let the first paragraph of this section start with "Construction on Auschwitz II (Birkenau) (UNESCO: "Auschwitz-Birkenau. The Nazi German Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945).") [...] ". I have to agree that I don't see the logic behind the change of the name to Auschwitz-Birkenau. The old name seemed to refer to the whole complex, not only to Birkenau. Does this mean that only Auschwitz II is now on the list and the others are no -- Wild Wizard 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: On the site of UNESCO I found the original document about the listing of Auschwitz in 1979. However, it does not mention any elaborate description about the site. Rather, it mentions adding the 'museum' to the list, which basically consists of the remnants of the camp (camp II?). This would mean that the UNESCO list only applies to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and thus the table on the wiki page (on the right, with the reference to UNESCO) would be not entirely correct. -- Wild Wizard 03:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Only camp I and II was exact World Heritage Site (as the most known) all the time and nothing in this matter changed, except name of course. I added information about it to the article introduction part so the infobox should stay for sure. Kieraf 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The photograph at the top of the article is of Auschwitz I, not Auschwitz-Birkenau. The renaming is, I guess, a decision for the Polish Government; but I have reverted the label of the photo to restore accuracy. Only Auschwitz-Birkenau is regarded as an extermination camp (Vernichtungslager). --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The infobox refers specifically to the camps' (plural) status as a World Heritage Site. The photograph inside the infobox just happens to show the Auschwitz I camp. I would also draw your attention to the asterisk after the title in the infobox, and the associated external link. As a result of your changes, the title no longer matches the name on the World Heritage List, although the note states that it does. Signalhead 23:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the whole camp comlex is a world heritage site. But only Auschwitz-Birkenau was an extermination camp. Auschwitz 1, which is shown in the topmost photograph in the article, and which is covered in some detail in the article text, was not an extermination camp, and it is historically misleading to label it as such. Auschwitz 3, or Monowitz, which was a labour camp, I guess we have no argument about. Clearly we are both attempting to maintain a good article, so obviously neither of us want to run the risk of block for WP:3RR. Can we talk here, or on your talk page, or mine, and come to sensible agreement?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that Auschwitz I is being labelled as an extermination camp. It is clear that the Infobox, like the World Heritage listing and the article, relates to both camps. The photograph shows Auschwitz I, which is perfectly reasonable since it is included in the World Heritage site, but a picture of Birkenau would have been equally appropriate. One thing to consider is that the name "Auschwitz-Birkenau" can be used to refer collectively to both camps ("Auschwitz II-Birkenau", on the other hand, refers to one specific camp): The modern sign at the entrance to Auschwitz I reads "The State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau" and the museum's own guide book for both sites has "Auschwitz-Birkenau" printed on the front. Signalhead 21:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I have just accessed the various records relating to the decisions to change the name, and it is quite clear that the intent behind the published name change was quite clearly to refer to the Birkenau camp only, and not to Auschwitz I or to Monowitz. May I ask you to access these articles and come back to me?--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

New name emphasize Auschwitz II camp because mostly there people were exterminated but it concerns also Auschwitz I: "the remains of the two camps of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau, as well as its Protective Zone were placed on the World Heritage List" - http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-06/29/content_6307576.htm New UNESCO name covers all these places as well as old one. I think there is no other option. Kieraf 22:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I still think that this is not so, but it is not an important point beside the terrible events that took place at both sites, so I will concede your point and will not make further changes to the caption.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
UNESCO's press release on the name change -- World Heritage Committee approves Auschwitz name change" -- says clearly, "Auschwitz-Birkenau was the largest of the concentration camp complexes created by the Nazi German regime and was the one which combined extermination with forced labour. At the centre of a huge landscape of human exploitation and suffering, the remains of the two camps of Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau, as well as its Protective Zone were placed on the World Heritage List as evidence of this inhumane, cruel and methodical effort to deny human dignity to groups considered inferior, leading to their systematic murder." I've added the press release to the references about the name change down below, and also changed the infobox to reflect the official UNESCO World Heritage name. (User:HanzoHattori had changed it to "Former Nazi German Concentration Camp Auschwitz-Birkenau (1939-1945)" and incorrectly stated in the edit summary that that was its official named.) --Ace of Swords 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please try to find some consistent wording for the article. It is very confusing: The title is "Auschwitz concentration camp" (shouldn't it be camps?), the first paragraph has the lemma "Auschwitz-Birkenau" with a hyphen, the audio file says "Konzentrationslager Auschwitz", the infobox has the official UN title without hyphen (btw it's "German Nazi..." not "The Nazi German..." as stated above), and later on there is a chapter about "Auschwitz II (Birkenau)" and photos captioned "Auschwitz II-Birkenau". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.22.135 (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason that the Polish government requested the name change was to prevent uninformed foreigners from thinking that is was the Polish who perpetrated the attrocities there. The name now includes a reference to the Nazis and it is hoped that this makes it clear that it was a German undertaking. Bobby1011 03:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOTE

Timeline was uploaded by the USHMM. See OTRS ticket 2007071910012533 for details.

i would like to comment on the story of the hair. people it is obvious, hair where shaved of to make blankets and stuff for the nazi troops who where out fighting for germany. why would the nazi have cared about illnesses that could occure during the time people stayed at the camps. in fact they wanted the people to die. all hair was shaved off on the moment of arival at the camps then people where sorted, those who were weak or sick in anyway were sent to be killed or gassed. those who were strong and fit for work were sent for work, and those who were in a condition lets say for eg. pregnant were experimented on. see it is simple and clear.----

[edit] Slovakian

After living in Slovakia for a couple years, I can attest to the fact there is no such thing as "slovakian". It is mearly slovak. Check the CIA World Factbook. In the article, someone mentioned a Slovakian Rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.250.207 (talk) 22:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allied knowledge

In addition to the reports from the ground, the Allies probably had knowledge through Bletchley Park's Enigma decrypts, ULTRA. However the article does not mention the use of decrypts of SD material. I don't have the specialist knowledge to cover this, but I hope somebody else has. There are several possibilities: SD transmissions weren't a priority and were not routinely decrypted; they were decrypted and the British government did nothing; they were decrypted and played a part in the decision to insist on unconditional surrender. It's possible that the material wasn't publicised for prudential reasons; it could have made the war even more brutal than it was already and risked the lives of Allied POWS, as well as risking the Enigma secret, without doing anything to save the victims. The Allied fault was in not making a bigger effort to save the lives of Jews before they were deported, which Raoul Wallenberg and others showed was possible on a small scale.

BTW, the sentence "Oświęcim was incorporated into Germany" is puzzling as it stands. I suggest adding "as part of Silesia."

--JamesWim (talk) 14:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oświęcim isn't in Silesia though, is it? Was it ever in Silesia? Has the border moved? Signalhead (talk) 17:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't and hasn't; it has always been independent or a part of Galicia (with the capital in Kraków), but never - a part of Upper Silesia [sic!]. -70.18.5.219 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


Did the Allies get copies of the Red Cross reports on camp conditions? Not sure on that issue. The Red Cross - on site - seemed to have failed to notice anything amiss - noone has ever asked them to explain themselves to my knowledge.159.105.80.141 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

They failed to notice "anything amiss" simply because the SS did not allow them to see the crematoria. WilliamH (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect they didn't see the crematorium because they didn't ask to see it. The Red Cros, understandable, has been very reluctant to come out with their data and reports due to the PC nature of the situation. I am sure they wish that Hitler et al had out and out kept them away. They were either the dumbest, most gullible, incompetent, deaf, blind.... bunch that ever lived or not. It seems unlikely that a visit to a crematorium - right out in the open - would be needed to catch a hint that not all was right in Copenhagen. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No. SS-Obergruppenführer Oswald Pohl specifically ordered that crematoria must not be shown or even "mentioned to persons visiting the camp". WilliamH (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] End the excessive and abusive protection

{{Editprotected}} This article is highly inaccurate and misleading in violation of WP:NPOV (compare it to Oświęcim#Concentration camp) and should be corrected. The protection serves nothing else than "As a preemptive measure against vandalism before any vandalism has occurred" and "With the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users" in violation of WP:PROT#Semi-protection, so - please - end the protection ASAP. -70.18.5.219 (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection requests go to WP:RPP. At any rate, you can just create an account, wait four days, and then you can edit the article. Sandstein (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You entirely missed the point, which has been not, how to circumvent the unjustified protection, only that unjustified protection should be ended ASAP, please, as argued also in the fifth message of Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Can vandalism be remedied by protection?. Sincerely, -70.18.5.219 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would absolutely not agree that this article is either inaccurate or misleading, nor would I agree that it violates WP:NPOV. The permanent protection was agreed, by community consensus, for this and for a number of other articles which were being seriously, persistently and offensively vandalised over extended periods of time. Any editor with an account and a few days of experience can still edit the article, the protection being intended to prevent vandalism from one-off casual visitors who have no intention of benefitting the encyclopedia. I see no reason to change the protection policy here, and would request that this should only be reviewed after a full community discussion. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't be "Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp"?

Let's see:

--HanzoHattori (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd also propose to make a separate sub-article on Birkenau (see: Monowitz concentration camp). --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello? --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have a fair point, but the article does go into some detail both on Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II, which is of course better known as Birkenau. Auschwitz III (Monowitz) is mentioned briefly. As the whole complex was collectively know as "Auschitz Concentation Camp", or indeed just as "Auschwitz", I feel that the title is essentially accurate as it stands. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
As you see this article is about Auschwitz AND Birkenau. (There is actually no separate Birkenau article at all.) --HanzoHattori (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Gross-Rosen was, of course, the name of a town, and is hence exactly analagous to the camp complex named after the town of Auschitz (or Oswiecim)--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is "Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp". For example, http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/ - but if you click this, it's "Museum of Auschwitz-Birkenau". --HanzoHattori (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello2. --HanzoHattori (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the title is fine as it stands. "Auschwitz Birkenau" is a bit ambiguous, i.e. does it refer to Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II-Birkenau, or just the latter? It certainly excludes Auschwitz III-Monowitz, which is within the scope of this article. I propose no change. Signalhead (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other controversies - "since the fall of the Berlin Wall"

I don't think "the fall of the Berlin Wall" should be stated as a milestone of this process. Changes in Poland began earlier, 1989. I propose Fall_of_communism or "polish communist regime overthrown" to be used.


Footnote 2 - Is the footnote in error? I believe the mentioned article was Meyer's review of Piper, not the other way around. Meyer is slamming Piper's work. There is nothing in this footnote article that supports the point the main article is trying to make, actually quite the contrary.159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fiction

I have removed the section on fictional inmates. I entirely appreciate the notion that information about fictional works such as comics, books and film are legitimately included in Wikipedia, but I do not remotely see how the citation of non existant characters who accordingly never have visited actual places such as Auschwitz has a place on Wikipedia, for the same reason that the Passenger section in RMS Titanic doesn't list ficticious passengers. WilliamH (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I was torn... but I agree... if somebody wants to create a list, I can see having a "See also"...Balloonman (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep. I see little reason why a "references to Auschwitz in post-war culture" (or something similar) section cannot be included in this article (as long as it isn't just a facile/indiscriminate list of trivia). It's just that juxtaposed with actual survivors, it looks rather abstract. Thanks for your understanding Balloonman. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Replace Picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Auschwitz_I_Entrance.jpg

This picture quality is very low. I think that replacing it with this picture might be good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Auschwitz_I%2C_Ori_Lahav%2C_14-03-2008.JPG

VbCrLf (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Uploaded to Wikipedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Auschwitz_I,_14-03-2008.jpg

VbCrLf (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, but I don't. It's a clear, uninterrupted picture, but when reduced to 230px in the article's infobox, the gate will be virtually indistinguishable. Thanks for uploading it to commons though, it's still a good perspective of the entrance. WilliamH (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • You right, I didn't think of that. VbCrLf (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Killed and cremated - adding the numbers

Please can someone clarify the number or cremation ovens. The picture shows only 14 or 15 (5 banks of 3). The figure of 20000 individuals being exterminated and cremated in a day is confusing, average cremations would take an hour (possibly more) and about 30 KG of coal. This information is quite important and has been sighted by deniers.

Fifteen ovens in each of Crematiria 2 and 3, and eight ovens in each of Crematoria 4 and 5 is 46 ovens. If we accept the estimate of one hour per cremation - I suspect it was less - then 24 cycles per day, 365 days of the year and twenty corpses in each oven each time would allow a cremation total, in theory, of 22,080 per day. This would expand to some 16 million cremations in the two years in which the camp was in full operation - a figure which is about ten times the actual total, which various estimates place at between 750,000 and 1.6 million. While it would have been technically possible to process 20,000 bodies per day, in reality the true figure was about 2,000 daily. This is still a large number, and in my view does not give ammunition to holocaust denial. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

By the Nazis own documentation (a memo from SS-Sturmbannführer Jahrling to SS-Brigadeführer Kammler), the five Auschwitz crematoria had the capacity to incinerate 4756 cadavers a day. Many sources suggest significantly higher figures were acheived, then again many sources reveal the massive strain placed on the crematoria installations, and it is likely that the true figure in crematoria was more often than not, less. However, since pits were often used to incinerate corpses (disposing of bodies was obviously the bottleneck, gassing people just took a matter of minutes), the limit as to how many corpses could be incinerated was determined only by how many pits the SS felt like digging (or having dug), and this thus renders any denier criticism placed on crematoria capacity completely inconsequential. WilliamH (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large White Gap in the Middle of the Page

Can we fix this? It really gives a large discontinuity while reading the article.198.140.202.1 (talk) 14:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I see it too, and I think it's due to two factors: the long "holocaust" template transcluded in the intro, and the pictures aligned on the right-hand side in the second section The camp. Both are right-aligned, and because the pictures are anchored in text within The camp section, it forces the text down below the Holocaust template.
If I'm right, the only fixes wouldn't really improve the article. Removing the template just removes useful info and links, and shift the pictures to the left-side would unbalance the rest of the article. As Jpgordon says, browser-width is [a factor]. There are numerous pictures down the left and right sides, providing an aesthetic balance and there's no magic number of how many pictures would "fix" the whitespace issue. If you flipped every single picture from right to left, or left to right, it might do it...but even I'm not that insane. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evacuation and liberation

I removed a line from the Evacuation and liberation section about comments made by Barack Obama this weekend. He apparently claimed a great-uncle was part of the liberation force of this camp, when instead his relative was in the group which liberated Buchenwald. Without commenting on the notability of such a statement in the policital primary season, or the 2008 elections overall, I don't see how such claims are notable in an article about Auschwitz itself. His campaign has retracted the statement, so as I see it, no one is publicly challenging the current historical record. Please understand, this is not an attempt to "censor" any information. It's simply to keep the focus of this article where it belongs. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is back again. I know that Auschwitz is a serious business but for hilarity it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.217.41 (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the mention of Barack Obama's erroneous statement regarding his ancestors liberating Auschwitz is included in the article only in an effort to discredit him as a politician and is in fact irrevelant to the history of the concentration camp. Obama has since retracted his earlier statement and clarified that the camp his ancestor helped liberate was Buchenwald and not Auschwitz, which you can read about here: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Wikipedia is not for "hilarity". And your comment, "The fact that it was liberated by Russians is precisely why Obama's claim is noteworthy. It follows a long line of Obama's gaffes during his campaign in the "57 states." --Neil Brown (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" further illustrates your motivation for adding this information. This is already mentioned in the Obama presidential campaign article. Feel free to expand on it there. This is not the proper place. I am removing it. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)