User talk:SlimVirgin/draft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Holocaust article

This page has been set up to discuss the draft article and what, if anything, needs to be done before it goes on the page. SlimVirgin 03:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...this is even more problematic than I had remembered. Stuff I have problems with:

[Hitler] was more explicit in private. As early as 1922 he told Major Josef Hell: "The annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jews will be my first and foremost task." He said that he would personally hang all the Jews of Munich. "Exactly the same thing will happen in the other cities until Germany is cleansed of its last Jew."

This gives the impression that it is generally agreed that Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews as early as 1922. Most historians (Kershaw, for instance, who should presumably be the authority here) would disagree.

It would be necessary to pass a law "handing over the problem to the National Socialist Party for final solution (Endlösung). This expression became the standard Nazi euphemism for the extermination of the Jews.

The way this is currently phrased implies that "Final Solution" in 1935 meant the same thing as it did in 1942. The discussion of the famous January 1939 speech which follows also seems inadequate to me - most historians feel that this kind of rhetoric from Hitler is not indicative of a clear intention at this point to exterminate the Jews.

Although German culture was deeply imbued with anti-Semitism, most Germans, including most people who voted for the Nazi Party, probably did not anticipate that the Nazis intended to carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews.

Probably?

There is no documentary evidence that Hitler ordered the preparation of a concrete plan for exterminating the Jews (although this does not prove that no such order was given). The most likely originator of such a plan was Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi paramilitary force (the SS), a fanatical anti-Semite and Hitler's most trusted lieutenant.

This statement would be a perfectly correct assessment of the situation in 1941. The way it is currently placed suggests that plans were being drawn up before the outbreak of war.

The ghettoes would be in cities located on railway junctions, so that, in Heydrich's words, "future measures can be accomplished more easily." At his trial in 1961, Adolf Eichmann testified that the expression "future measures" was understood to mean "physical extermination."

I have no idea what Eichmann said, but, again, this defies the majority of scholarship which argues that various deportation plans (including the Madagascar Plan) were very seriously considered. Browning has written on the ghettoes, and notes that bureaucratic in-fighting actually resulted in the people who thought that those in the ghettoes should not simply be starved to death won out. If ultimate extermination were already the plan in 1939, this is hard to square.

The transcript of the Eichmann trial is available at Nizkor. I did not manage to find this item, but I didn't look for long either. The wording would not need to be exactly the same because of variations in translation. --Zero 00:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By December 1939 3.5 million Jews were crowded into the Government-General.

The previous bit had been talking about stuff happening in 1940-41, and this is expressed as though it is a result of that. Is the date wrong, or what?

Although it was clear by 1941 that the SS hierarchy led by Himmler and Heydrich were determined to embark on a policy of killing all the Jews under German control, there were important centres of opposition to this policy within the Nazi regime.

I'm not sure this was clear - at least, historians don't all agree on this. The article as it is does not even mention things like the Madagascar plan, or the idea of creating a Jewish reservation around Lublin.

The rest of part 1 looks fine to me...Part 2 mostly looks good to me as well. A lesser point regards the issue of France's participation - the Vichy government actually didn't send to many Jews they considered to be genuinely "French" to their deaths. They were enthusiastic in rounding up "foreign" Jews (many of whom had lived in France all their lives), however. This should probably be clarified.

At any rate, most of my points have been related to my rejection of an intentionalist perspective on the Holocaust. I don't want to simply say that the Intentionalists were wrong, but I think some nuance is in order, especially since the leading current historians on the question - Kershaw and Browning - hold a more nuanced view. I think that some explicit discussion of historiographical discussions is in order, to show that there's not simply one view on a lot of these issues. john k 22:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John, are you able and willing to provide that nuance, either within the current structure, or by adding a section? Also, what do the non-intentionalists argue that Hitler meant by the comment quoted by Adam (below), if not what it appears to have meant? Or is there disagreement as to whether he actually said this, or about the meaning of "vernichtung"? SlimVirgin 22:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

[Hitler] was more explicit in private. As early as 1922 he told Major Josef Hell: "The annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jews will be my first and foremost task." He said that he would personally hang all the Jews of Munich. "Exactly the same thing will happen in the other cities until Germany is cleansed of its last Jew."

In general, I think, the usual argument is that statements like this reflect Hitler's hatred of the Jews, but not any clear plan to murder them. Essentially, Hitler was running his mouth off. I will say that I am not certain of the provenance of this particular quote, which I have not heard before. At any rate, I'd like to go to Kershaw to see what he says about this statement, assuming it appears in his biography of Hitler. That said, when I get the chance I'll try to both nuance the statements in the main narrative and to provide a historiographical section. But that's a fairly large undertaking, so I'm not sure when I'll get the chance to do it. john k 22:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's a huge undertaking. Would this article as it stands be all right to put on the page in place of the current one, and you could add more material there; or would it be best in your view to nuance the intentionalist position on this subpage before replacing the current article? Here's a link referring to the Hell quote. [1] It seems to say that Hell actually published this in 1922, unless I've misread the citation, which isn't very clear. SlimVirgin 22:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of JohnK's comments that I understand. The article at present is a little too Goldhagen for my liking. It should focus firstly on the consensus view and only mention minority views as such. --Zero 01:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I wrote this draft last year, I have read Richard Breitman's The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution, which sets out in detail the process of thought which led Himmler to a concrete plan for exterminating the Jews. He also discusses the Madagascar plan and other alternative proposals. I now agree with John's comments that the draft goes too far in suggesting an early date for a decision on extermination. Possibly I was too influenced by Goldhagen, but also by Lucy Davidovich, who was my introduction to this topic. I still think Himmler always wanted to exterminate the Jews, and believed that that was what Hitler wanted, but I agree there was no actual decision before 1942. Adam 02:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...I think there's some definite bits that can and should be changed before we make any attempt to replace the old article. But I don't think it needs to be in perfect shape, necessarily - certainly, I don't think we need to wait for a historiography section to be written. john k 08:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Was Auschwitz an extermination camp? I thought it was a concentration camp and forced labor camp that had a gas chamber. In contrast, Treblinka, Sobibor and Belcec were real extermination camps.Andries 22:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was both, as is explained in the text. See also Extermination camp. Adam 02:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General Government

Sorry about that, Adam. I was about to go in and change it back, as I've just looked it up in Hilberg: he mostly writes Generalgouvernement, but capitalizes both words in English. Sorry. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've always been puzzled about why the Germans called it that, since Gouvernement is not a German word. One would have expected Regierung-Allgemein or something like that. Adam 00:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked it up in the German Wikipedia. There are a couple of words in there that I don't know and I don't have a German dictionary here, but it seems to be a traditional Prussian-German term used to refer to a semi-autonomous region that hasn't yet been declared independent (very rough translation).SlimVirgin (talk) 01:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Frühere Generalgouvernements
    • Bis 1918 handelte es sich bei dem Begriff „Generalgouvernement“ um die traditionelle preußisch-deutsche Bezeichnung für ein befriedetes Besatzungsgebiet, das bereits unter Zivilverwaltung steht, einer endgültigen staatsrechtlichen Klärung aber noch nicht zugeführt ist. Bereits seit den Freiheitskriegen hatte es solche Generalgouvernements gegeben:
      • Generalgouvernement Berg 1813 - 1815
      • Generalgouvernement Frankfurt 1813 - 1815
      • Generalgouvernement zwischen Weser und Rhein 1813 - 1815
      • Generalgouvernement des Mittelrheins 1814
      • Generalgouvernement des Niederrheins 1814
      • Generalgouvernement des Nieder- und Mittelrhein 1814 - 1815
      • Generalgouvernement Deutsch-Lothringen 1870/71
      • Generalgouvernement Elsass 1870/71
      • Generalgouvernement Reims 1870/71
      • Generalgouvernement Belgien 1914 - 1918
      • Generalgouvernement Warschau 1915 - 1918

Rough Babel fish translation: "Until 1918 the term "Generalgouvernement" was the traditional Prussian-German name for a befriedetes (?) area, which already stands under civil administration, is however not yet supplied a final state-legal clarifying. Already since the Freedom Wars (ie, the Napoleonic Wars) it had given such Generalgouvernements"

Which shows that the term dates back to Napoleonic times when Prussia was still heavily French-influenced, hence the adoption of a French expression. (That's also why the highest Prussian medal was the Pour le Merit). Adam 01:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Befriedetes is one of the words I'm not sure of, but it probably just means "freed," so presumably an area under military control which is governed de facto by a civil administration but not (yet) de jure. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Befrieden means "pacified." So it is an area no longer under military rule, and has a civil administration, but which hasn't been officially annexed. john k 06:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, use LEO for all your German translation needs. It's tremendous. john k 06:15, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Better than Babelfish? Adam 06:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting new development in the "What did Hitler know?" debate. Has anyone read this book? Adam 01:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)