Talk:International response to the Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21st May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Peer review International response to the Holocaust has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

It would be nice to see some good links or references. Thanks. --Splitpeasoup 22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Laundry List

Can we get this article to lose its laundry list form by integrating the sections into a larger body of explanatory text which links the central points and ideas together in a way that's more substantive? This is really the only form in which I believe the article should be kept. In it's current form I feel that it's rather pointless and should be deleted. --Strothra 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language issue: camp _inmates_ (not _prisoners_)

In writing about individuals in concentration camps, POW camps, and their ilk, I recommend using the term inmates rather than prisoners. The latter carries a criminal connotation, associate as it necessarily is with the word "prison", while the former is more neutral as to the reasons for their internment.

I'll particularly note that in writing texts for Web resources, I evaluate English usage in light of the needs of the large reader population whose English is non-native. For the sake of these readers' optimal comprehension, words with unwanted connotations are best avoided if a clearly suitable alternative is available. Deborahjay 13:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Auschwitz

Auschwitz Throughout the whole course of the war, the Allied Powers never tried bombing the death camp of Auschwitz-Birkenau or the train tracks leading there. The Allies said that their planes couldn't reach the death camp from their airbase and that an airstrike would not be precise enough to ensure the safety of the inmates [3]. It is known that American planes have flown farther distances, such as from northern Italian airbases to Warsaw and back. Regarding the latter, many accusers state that bombing Auschwitz, even if they would have killed all the Jewish inmates, would all together save many more Jews, since the Nazis kept gassing Jews for a long time. [4] It is believed that if Auschwitz had been bombed, the Nazis would have reverted to other methods of mass killing their victims, such as open air shootings, although it would have taken precious time, as was the case in the dismantling of the Sobibor death camp. [5]

I'm not sure the references in this section actually relate all that well to the body of the text. The link [3] doesn't have the allies saying they couldn't reach Auschwitz, link [4] doesn't say that American planes could fly further distances (although link [3] points out that the British photographed Auschwitz from the air), and it doesn't quote anyone talking about how more lives would have been saved by a bombing. And I'm not too sure what the relevance of link [5] is. --Coroebus 12:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I completely agree but it seems that if you try to debate it or make changes to the article which reflect that then individuals want to enter into an edit war over it. I'm glad I have someone agreeing with me on this issue. Feel free to make changes to the article but you're very likely to get into an edit war. I stopped because I refuse to let other bring me to that bickering level. --Strothra 13:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The other page is an article; it is not a list, redirect, category or service page. gidonb 19:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in my AfD of this article, it should be redirected instead of being just a laundry list. I completely support this merge. --Strothra 20:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. I am a little confused by the procedure. There was no initialization of the discussion or even a tag in the other article. It was only claimed that the international response to the Holocaust is not an article. Although there may be advantages to a merger, this does not seem to be correct.
  2. I do not know why this article should be merged or not. Was it created because the Holocaust article was getting too long? Such information would be helpful when a merge procedure is started. Without a proper start of the merge discussion we may never know. gidonb 21:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK the tags look good now. gidonb 22:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge - The Holocaust

This merge header appears to have been around since 17th June 2006 according to the history of the article International response to the Holocaust. It needs to be addressed by editors of this and the other article. Gnangarra

  • I cant see any reason to merge the two articles The Holocaust is already 106k, this article really needs to broken into smaller articles. Gnangarra 05:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, and split The Holocaust on other grounds. There are no criteria as to whether a section should be here. (I did vote delete in the AfD, because I believed that all the information was or should have been contained in the respective main articles for each section.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] International Response?

I do not think that this article contains sufficient references to the international response of the Holocaust. If it did, it would release statements issued by world powers, response of the international Jewish community and references to books that go into the subject in more detail. Hence, when the aforementioned items are included, then and only then will it be sufficiently detailed to be regarded as an article relating to the international response to the Holocaust. Discuss Ahadland 11:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Too Biased

I nominated this article. There are so many sentences that need citations and seem one sided. One example:

In particular, the Allied Powers were accused to be negligent in saving Jews.

It is believed that if Auschwitz had been bombed, the Nazis would have reverted to other methods of mass killing their victims, such as open air shootings, although it would have taken precious time, as was the case in the dismantling of the Sobibor death camp.

[edit] Factual inaccuracy over bombing of Auschwitz

Linked to the point above; Primo Levi's personal account ( If This Is a Man ) mentions bombing raids, the construction of shelters and the destruction of the train line branch to Auschwitz during the closing year of the war in europe - if only related to his little patch of Auschwitz. This conicides in his account with the advancing Red Army and so it could be assumed that Auschwitz was either deliberately or accedentally bombed by the Russians, who either knew its purpose or simply wanted to take out communication lines and what would appear from the air to be a military base. This ommision seems to show either an anglo-centric view of what "the Allies" means in the entry or perhap a need for it's points to be re-written to show that although Auschwitz was bombed as the front line advanced towards it, it was never specifically targeted for bombing during the rest of the war - showing the Allies ignorence or inactivity in helping Auschwitz's victims.

If anyone at all bombed Auschwitz, it would first have to be mentioned here, then we can link to it and mention it. As of now, that article says no one did. If you have good sources saying otherwise, please help fix that article. Thanks, Crum375 23:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-compliant

I didn't put the tag at the top of the article in the first place, but I think it should stay there. Here are some reasons why:

  1. No mention is made of international action during the Holocaust. As the lede mentions, at least three countries protected their Jews from the occupying Nazis. Other countries took as many Jewish refugees as they could.
  2. Most of the article is made up of criticism of the Allies for their inaction. No explanation is provided for the actions they took (or rather didn't take).
  3. Except for the footnotes in the lede (which I wrote), the article is virtually unsourced.

I don't think that WP:NPOV requires that an article like this justify the world's failure to act to stop the Holocaust, but I think that it should include reasonable opposing views (like those I wrote about in the lede).

As I wrote, I didn't put the tag there in the first place, but these are some of the reasons I think it should stay there. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

Would the information of Spain in the Second World War be useful? --Error (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)