Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 1

Mark Stafford
The last sentence in the "Auschwitz III and satellite camps"-section contained the text "These camps were closed due to great work by the Allies, but mainly, the hard a tighless work of Mark Stafford.". After trying to figure out what this meant (assuming 'hard and tireless work..') I tried to find references to this Mark Stafford and why he was to thank for this work. I could however not find anything of interest at all, and just clipped that part out of the text. If someone has more clues to this, please inform me and correct the sentence. Gamkiller 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Upside down B
I know that in the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C., they make a point of mentioning that the "b" in the Auschwitz sign is written upside down (i.e. in the font used, the top loop of the B should be smaller, but in actuallity it was larger). It is a noticeable feature of the sign once pointed out, and the explanation given is that when the sign was cast, the B was purposely made upside down to sort of nix the notion that "work makes free"...sort of like crossing your fingers when you promise something. Here (www.deathcamps.org/websites/pic/big1401%20KL%20Auschwitz%20Work%20makes%20free%20Arbeit%20macht%20frei%201945.jpg) is an image of the sign, it's pretty easy to pick out the "upside down b." This always sticks in my mind when i think of the gate, but i'm not sure if its really all that notable, or even where to put it on in the article. Thoughts? jfg284 you were saying? 16:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but it seems rather far-fetched to me. It's probably just a simple mistake. I didn't hear any reference to it when I visited Auschwitz a few years ago. --Valentinian 00:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. This sounds very much like a story invented to explain the observation.  We should require a citation to a primary source (not just a repetition of the story) before accepting it as true.  --Zero


 * More than fair; that's why i proposed the question here first rather than just drop it in the article. I figured citing "Yea, but I'm pretty sure I read it in the museum 4 years ago" wouldn't fly as a reference.--jfg284 you were saying? 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In German a double 's' is written as 'ß', meaning a sharp 's' sound. It appears the sign maker modified a 'ß' to look like a 'B' to me. I can't handwrite it here to show how the letter looks like an upside down 'B' though. I lived in Germany for a few years. Malice1982

Random, Unspecified stuff
While I think that this article is great (in most respects), it is woefully deficient in relation to the number of SS guards that worked at the camp. The number of Jews, Roma & Sinti, Homosexuals, who passed through the camp (and either were murdered or survived) is related in great detail.

However, there is no mention at all (that I could see regarding how many SS guards worked at the camp). Does anyone know this fact????
 * According to local information, about 6,000.--Anthony.bradbury 21:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a picture which I feel would be relevant to this topic. It can be found here: http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y30/Illustrious86/99d52482.jpg. It is the memorial stone erected in memory of those inmates killed during the unsuccessful revolt of Sonderkommando's in 1944. For copyright purposes it was taken by me (James Jones) in March 2005, and I don't have any reservations about putting it into the public domain. I am not a registered user of wikipedia, and if anyone (with a little more technical expertise than I) wants to add my picture, I would be greatful.

How come no mention is made that the original figure put forth as the death toll was 4 million and has now been reduced to about 1.5 million thanks in no small part to the "revisionists"? Seems strange to me that in the last paragraph you seem to attempt to disparage the people whom you should be crediting.
 * The "original", or earliest, number was actually eight or nine million. (Note esp one item w/i: &lsquo;1,000,000 Source: Jean-Claude Pressac, writing in his 1989 book Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers. This is interesting since he wrote his book to repudiate so-called "Holocaust deniers" who were called that precisely because they had questioned the numbers&hellip;In 1994 Pressac scaled his figure down somewhat further&hellip;&rsquo;) Kwantus 16:58, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Um, you trust those vague "citations"? Also, I don't think a movie made in 1955 would count as a source for the "original" or "earliest" number. In any event, since the Auschwitz numbers were never used to calculate the total Jews killed, the number is not particularly relevant. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  20:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Pff. It's more citation than most people give, and excuse ME if I think it has relevance to a page on Auschwitz, not the sacred Holocaust-uber-alles. Actually, I should be annoyed that the shrinking auxiliary numbers can be used to further marginalise, say, the Holocaust of the Romany. If that were possible. Kwantus 16:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)


 * The citations are vague, untrustworthy, and most importantly, from non-historical sources. Hoess himself estimated the number killed at 2.5 million.  Serious historians like Hilberg (in The Destruction of the European Jews) estimated the number killed at 1 million in 1961, 25 years before Holocaust Deniers started questioning the number.  Numbers since then have fluctuated up and down.  Taking a series of dubious estimates from non-historical sources, and lining them all up from biggest to smallest, with little regard for when the estimates were made, then claiming that the number is steadily declining as a result, is one of the weaker Denial techniques.  And, as I've pointed out before, it's not relevant to the overall Holocaust Death toll, since the Aushwitcz numbers weren't used to calculate it. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  18:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hilberg was not entirely accepted by his contemporary historians, originally, and later on he revised his work in places to accord with David Irving's detailed accounts. Hoess also stated he had been beaten severely by his British captors, but this seldom makes it into the chronicles of the holocaust because it makes his confession sound untrue.

Auschwitz is very old town, once cultural centre, capital of one of duchy.. I am hesistating on whether I should've moved all of this into Auschwitz exetermination camp, and here instead put info on city of Auschwitz. szopen

Auschwitz is the town, so put information about the town here. However, the extermination camps is a important part of its history, so it should be mentioned and/or referenced. Just do it like you did with Treblinka. (I'm angry at myself for making such gross simplification wrt Treblinka.) --Yooden

However Auschwitz had really clear conotations in English, not like Treblinka. I was wondering maybe about Oswiecim entry about town, and Auschwitz about extermination camp. I mean, i don't like that name Auschwitz is nowadays associated only with death, but i am not sure if change similar to Treblinka in case of Auschwitz is justified... Mozzerati 10:17, 2004 May 4 (UTC)

Anyway, right now i have not any good informations about earlier history of Auschwitz, all i remmeber are some basic facts like that it was selled to polish kingdom by last prince of Auschwitz together with Zator and all mines nearby, and that protestants founded there some kind of school, If i am not mistaken... szopen

I see what you mean. So what about this: Once you have more information, make an entry for Oswiecim with all information, and prepend the Auschwitz entry with a synopsis and a reference to Oswiecim. (Auschwitz is the German name for Oswiecim, right?) --Yooden

I don't think that "tourist attraction" should be used while talking about place, where so many people were murdered. There is a wise phrase written in the museum in Oswiecim: "People, who forgot a tragedy, are convicted to experience it again" --swPawel


 * I agree the general tone should be soon rendered in a more respectful form; if we need to give a great attention to today's visitors, we could perhaps use a reference to "tourism" about that project (I don't know if it was completed - it was a few years ago) of opening a discotheque in front of the camps, and stress instead that human nature can be so pretty that there is also people who goes visiting the camps only to satisfy instincts that other people could also call insane, and in a spirit that might be better not to describe further.
 * About Arbeit macht frei, a native english speaking contributor might perhaps render with appropriate form, more than the geographical technical details of where people were entering, the general sense of insult that the sign could represent, which is the main reason why we remember it. I know it wasn't in the author's intentions, but by paradox it seems as if the sign was... "innocent" (I omit the following question).
 * The modern image of Auschwitz never actually existed as such risks to appear as a funny espression...

- -
 * Note that discoteque was not in front of camp. It was outside the protection zone. As one guy i met on usenet said, it seems that some people want to have protection zone around the protection zone. Or to evacuate whole damn town and leave only cemeteries.
 * Remember, whole Poland is cemetery. It is hard to find place where Nazis haven't murdered someone. But life must go on. szopenThey had faith all theywanted was to beliveve that everything would be ok until they showed up at the camp..................!!!!!!!


 * It was described on the newspapers as very close, and the fact of being close to it _meant_ as a feature, in the sense that going to dance in front of camps was its principal special offer. Yes, in front of camps' area, this is how it was described - now we can start a debate about journalists, about correctness in information, whatever you like, but this what I read, on papers from different countries. I however take your point that it wasn't there (and sincerely I thank you for your note); the debate anyhow was started from something, I presume.
 * Of course life must go on, but memories too deserve to be respected, specially in a place that is so much symbolic today beacause it has been so little symbolic and too much real in the past. I don't think a discotheque is going to open in the next future at Ground Zero, as well.
 * Life _goes_ on. I live in Rome, where so many places may have similar symbolic contents (in smaller proportions, obviously, but still important), and I can see people in the streets living and enjoying life because life goes on; nevertheless I don't see anyone trying to open an entertainment business in the proximity of any sybolic place right _because_ of this vicinity, or people frequenting it _because_ of this nearness. Are we a lucky people in a lucky place or is it perhaps that there are things that need attention in any culture, at any latitude, beyond any ideology?
 * So, this doesn't mean at all that whole Poland should be "protected" or that I would like to put the nation under a glass bell, it is not in my words because it is not in my mind; you are perhaps better able that anyone else here to tell us instead about the many camps in your country that nobody is aware of, as nobody is aware of italian camps (let's say just San Sabba, Trieste) and we all just think of Auschwitz to identify in it the whole tragedy; not to make a desert around any or each of these places of terror, but I think can we leave just a symbolic place to stand up alone, representing the many, for the respect of manhood, which is made of the sum of the single respects by anyone of us, starting from us here and passing through the respect of discotheque owners. And for the memory. I don't know if it is correct to be that "iconic", but I am afraid it would be worse if we weren't even that, at least.
 * On another field, I am not so worried about the discotheque, I am sad about the fact that very likely there would be customers. If so, you might "protect" anything you like, the problem will not be solved, they'd move to another sad but not protected place. And I already said the worse aspect of all is this insane curiosity that makes it seem as if there is a touristic business, a sort of Disneyland in black, that I do hope for general reasons Auschwitz (and Poland) is not.
 * I am sincerelly sorry if you read in my words something unrespectful for Poland, it wasn't at all in my intentions. I am sure that your country, in its entirety and locally, has no interest in making money from holocaust. I am sure Wikipedia will (respectfully) render this too.

I do not understand this sentence: "Several authors have criticised the historical inaccuracies perpetrated upon Auschwitz [...]" It sounds a bit like Colorless green ideas sleep furiously to me. Can an innaccuracy be perpetrated?

Perhaps some elaboration is necessary to, because we don't know what innacuracies these are.--branko

About 700 prisoners have attempted to escape from Auschwitz over the years


 * I don't know if the author really intended what this implies in English: that Auschwitz is still around as a prison. Perhaps you mean: about 700 prisoners attempted to escape the Auschwitz concentration camps or something like that?  DanKeshet


 * I'm assuming the latter was intended. I've tweaked it a bit; how does it sound now? --Brion

I have a question about Auschwitz II (Birkenau). The jews and gypsies who were not murdered right away lived in the camp. I would like to know what kind of work they had to do every day. If anybody knows, or has a reference work to look it up, I'd appreciate it. I tried usenet, but no answer. Thanks, AxelBoldt
 * I'll try to find something. Axel as a native German can you please say a few words about feelings of todays Germans of a such terrible thing from their past. I am sometimes also quite ashamed for my own nation too. There was no such camps as Auschwitz was on a teritory of Slovenia but some bad things also happend during nation's history (for instance terrible war crimes of Slovene traitors against Slovene patriols during the 2nd World War) or postwar crimes of official goverment against enemy's colaborators in 1940s. I must also say that my auntie came from Auschwitz in 1946 weighting a good 30 kg and died in the same year. Some say that these things must never repeat again, but Serb camps from 1990s like Omarska disprove this. How the mankind can protect itself from happening such things? Are we all the rat race in the end as Robert Nesta Marley sung or the dreads of society from Burning Spear's whoops ... Best regard and respect. --XJamRastafire 16:07 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Well, I think it's fair to say that the vast majority of Germans are shocked and deeply ashamed by the Holocaust, and still struggle to understand it. How it could have happened? Was it ordered from above or did people enthusiastically participate? It's an ongoing debate. Many Germans see the Holocaust as a defining moment in German history and have therefore very ambivalent feelings towards their own nation. AxelBoldt 03:05 Sep 21, 2002 (UTC)

--- Why is this page listed in the "In the news" section on the Main Page? --mav


 * See Current events. --Eloquence 10:06 31 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Probably because George Bush is visiting it today. Thanks the Poles for their war support, and simultaneously snubs the French by reducing the time he'll spend in France.  But unless he says something surprising, it doesn't sound like much actual news will be made there... -- Someone else 10:08 31 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I knew that - my question was why this article is in the "In the news" section since there is no mention of the current event in this article. --mav


 * Many Americans will probably hear about Auschwitz for the first time when they see on CNN that Bush visits that place. The idea is to provide a background article so that they know what this is about. But if you want to enforce a policy that all articles listed on the Main Page have to cover the event in question, then Auschwitz should not be listed, because it obviously does not meet this condition. --Eloquence 10:26 31 May 2003 (UTC)


 * For the first time? I dont know what Germans think about the American education system by a good chunk of high school history is based around World War 2 and the atrocities commited by the German government during that period --Anon

I'm a little confused - the article says that the gas chambers at A I didnt survive the war intact but did the ones at A II? PMelvilleAustin 17:12 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * No they did not; they were blown up by the Nazis. You can walk around in the ruins. AxelBoldt 22:19 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

''[The camp brothel] was staffed by women specifically selected for the purpose, and by volunteers from the female prisoners. ''

How voluntarily did they volunteer? --Charles A. L. 15:55, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I would imagine that some women preferred work in the brothel over the alternatives available to them. I'm not sure if "volunteer" is the right word under these circumstances. "I will shoot you either in the right foot or in the left foot." -- "Ok, I volunteer my left foot." AxelBoldt 08:47, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In the version prior to the edit I've just done, the beginning of the article implied that the camp was in Poland. The remains of the camp are in Poland, the area where the camp was had been in Poland prior to the war, but the actual camp, when active, was not, according to my understanding, in Poland. I think, given the way that Poland has moved around alot historically, it's worth explicitly mentioning that it was in the area which had been Annexed into Germany a map of Poland from 1941/2. Note that, at the time, Poland (General Government of Poland) did exist in a different area. I do not think that has dropped any information in this edit. Mozzerati 06:26, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)


 * Oh I see, I had a hard time understanding the convoluted first paragraph. If that was the point, I'll put it back in. AxelBoldt 08:27, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Axel has reverted a change that I made (Auschwitz is the name of a concentration camp..) to an older form (Auschwitz is the German name of a town). I, as a native English speaker, don't feel that this is really the main definition any more. How about something like the following proposal, which I think is both precise and clear (see below):


 * Auschwitz is used as a shorthand for a series of concentration and extermination camps. The name Auschwitz is the German form of the name  of the Polish town O&#347;wi&#281;cim, situated about 60 km southwest of Krakow. Beginning in 1940, Nazi Germany built several concentration camps and an extermination camp in the area, which at the time was annexed by Germany. The camps were a major constituent of the Holocaust. There were three main camps, and thirty-nine subcamps. The three main camps were:

The most likely place to encounter the name is in phrases such as "she was sent to Auschwitz", "he died in Auschwitz" and "Primo Lewi survived Auschwitz". Even though there's a certain ambiguity in this (which camp? was "she" actually sent to the camp or the town).

It should be noted that in English, the ambiguity is in most practical cases resolved by using the German form for the camp and the Polish form for the town. Try doing a Google search for each term; if you ask for results in English only the difference is striking (Auschwitz returns links about the camps; Oswiecim returns one link about the museum followed by many tourism links). This distiction does not exist in Polish (where both can be Oswiecim) or German (where both can be Auschwitz).

Mozzerati 20:01, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

Am informal discussion on the Wikipedia IRC channel agrees with your version. Please change the article to reflect that Auschwitz is camp, making the town name secondary, along the lines of "Auschwitz was a Nazi concentration camp, named for the nearby town of Oswiecim (which the Nazi Germans called by the Germanized name Auschwitz)." -- orthogonal 03:27, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Incomplete...
International Red Cross visited Auschwitz a lot (and certainly found no evidence of "genocide"), why isn't this mentioned?

In fact, nothing is mentioned that would provide evidence that Auschwitz was anything less than a death factory where Jews lined up to be gassed.

There is also strong evidence that the gas chamber shown to visitors even today was built by Polish communists in 1948. This may or may not be exactly true, but I take it it cannot be mentioned - where other speculation (and that's what it is) is presented as fact?

Very disappointing, and far from NPOV.

--Wintceas 14:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

1) Give us the dates when Red Cross had been in Auschwitz, please. Auschwitz was no Terezin.

2) It's common knowledge that today's gas chambers are a later reconstruction based on those destroyed by the Germans.

3) This article IS impartial, as far as your ignorant assertions are concerned.


 * If the Red Cross ever visited Auschwitz, which I dispute, I would like to hear of any comtemporary sources in evidence of it.The gas chamber in Auschwitz 1 is original, though it was modified by the SS into an air raid shelter, and re-converted to its original form after the war. The associated crematorium was rebuilt from the original components, which remained on site. All of the other gas chambers and crematoria, of which there are four at Birkenau, exist only as ruins. To talk of their existance as reconstructions merely reveals lack of knowledge of the camp.--Anthony.bradbury 21:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Red Cross visited throughout the war. They produced reports - supposedly in existence but not released ( the revisionists would love to see them, so they aren't the cause for the hesitatancy it would appear ). To convert the "gas chamber" to an air raid shelter would interrupt the deaths and make the total death count too low.


 * I do not accept your unreferenced word, anonymous editor, that the red cross EVER visited Auschwitz. I can find no record of it, so please give citations. As for the gas chamber conversion, that is undeniable. And as the total death count in this gas chamber was only some 60,000 spread over one year, as against 1.1 to 1.6 million at Birkenau, your comment about the total count is not defensible.--Anthony.bradbury 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Search for Red Cross Arolsen etc on the web, you can't miss the documents. The entire Red Cross inspection record - inmate counts, deaths, hospital facilities, foo - calories, etc - is available at their Arolsen facility. The records have been sequestered for decades - supposedly to end soon, fat chance I believe - but a few have been released - easy to find. Starnge to see the number 60,000, that happens to be the entire population of inmates who marched West with the SS to escape the Russians.


 * 60,000 - which is clearly a round figure estimate - relates to the number of murders perpetrated in the gas chamber at Auschwitz I between 1941 and 1942. It has absolutely no relationship to the number of survivors forcibly marched from Birkenau in 1945. In Germany and Austria today, Holocaust denial is a criminal offence, punishable with imprisonment. What are your views on this?--Anthony.bradbury 18:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now looked through the various Red Cross Arolsen sites, as you requested, and while there is contained therein extensive statistical evidence of the scale and dimension of the Holocaust, which confirms my position, nowhere is it claimed that the Red Cross ever visited the site. Nowhere. The Aroldsen data is all data accumulated post-war.--Anthony.bradbury 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
At the top of page, I see the pictures aligned horizontally in an ugly fashion before I see any of the article text. I would like to fix this by moving the pictures around, spacing them out vertically, but then again the problem may be particular to my browser or my Wikipedia format, in which case I wouldn't want to mess with it. Everyking 10:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture of entrance
The writing on the wrought-iron entrance actually translates as "work makes free" - although this is almost the same as "work liberates" it is the more correct translation. I don't want to change it without an opinion though. What does anyone else think? Selphie 13:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) **
 * I think you're right. Jayjg |  (Talk)  17:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know German, but "work liberates" sounds like a more natural english phrase than "work makes free". The BBC's Auschwitz series uses "work makes you free".  This sounds like a better translation. Cburnett 18:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * How about the current version, "Work (shall) make (you) free"? See also the Arbeit macht frei article. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  19:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that article has "work liberates" or "work shall make you free". Either would get my vote. Cburnett 19:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * As a German speaker (although I am English) I can tell you that it is Arbeit (work) macht (makes) frei (free). It almost seems as though they made it simplistic and 3 worded so that the inmates could    understand it. Even though it was an utter lie. Malice1982
 * Well, half a lie and half a horiffic pun. On the one hand, it was a false promise to keep the inmates pacified and obedient, hoping they might actually get to leave. On the other, it was literally true for those who were worked to death, if death can be considered a kind of freedom. --Arvedui 17:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Polish government
"The Polish government" has been imposed to the Poles by the UK, USA and SU, so I'd rather call it "Soviet-British-American government" or "Anti-Polish conspiracy". This government assigned some Soviet crimes to the Germans, e.g. the Katyn murder. I bet that the four-million story came from Moscow.

--Wintceas 14:12, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC) You don't need to bet anything. The figure was a Soviet fabrication made soon after the camp liberation. Historians know that since the 50's.

Gas chambers
The official museum site informs about the destruction of several chambers: http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/historia_KL/krematoria_komory_gazowe_ok.html (Some links are false, you may inform the museum, if you care)

Fate of female prisoners
I've removed the following from the article:
 * Some female prisoners fared even worse. A female Jewish prisoner has stated that Soviet troops repeatedly raped female inmates, sometimes strangling them afterwards.[1]

since it gives a citation that does not appear to exist within the article. Please supply a source citation if you restore this text to the article. -- The Anome 12:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have deleted a reworded version of the above statement. A serious charge like this needs to have a citation.  My Grandfather (deceased) knew a man whose wife had survived Auschwitz. From what my Grandmother can remember about her conversations with her was that Soviet soldiers provided food, water and blankets upon liberation. --RPlunk 23:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The information came from a review of Berlin by Anthony Beevor, I won't reinstate it until I've checked the original source. Incidentaly, a surving female prisoner made similar claims on the acclaimed BBC documentary Auschwitz.  Conch Shell 16:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Deaths by Experimentation
Why is there no mention in the article of the many experiments, including, most predominantly, Mind Control and medical experiments, which were performed on the inmates? It has been concluded that the numbers stated officially killed in gas chambers is a physical impossibility in the timeframe given, and many inmates actually died during such experiments. It is also known that some inmates were programmed through traumatic dissociative procedures, had their eye colour, hair colour, and facial features altered, and were then reintroduced into society, as part of Mengele's experiments. Why is this not mentioned? Atun
 * Do you have a source with information on that? If so, you might want to include some summarized material from that. Jayjg (talk)  15:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have found these discussions an interesting read, and I myself have visited the camps. With the information already printed I don't think there's much I could help you with in the understanding of Auschwitz though. Being part Polish myself, thinking of my grandad's participation in the war made the experience hard. Those of a German heritage that have contibuted on here mentioned that they were ashamed and I can understand this, but they have to remember that it was the Nazis not the Germans that ruled these camps. I visited in a large group consisting of English, Polish and German teens and as I was born in England it was us, the English, who helped with the pain of both our Polish and German company. Auschwitz was on the German side of the border at the time the camps were open and as others have mentioned with the shifting of the Polish border it is now part of Poland. Again relating to an earlier question, there is a small section of gas chamber remaining, consisting of a small empty room with a 'shower nozzle' hanging from the ceiling. As the prisoners were told they were about to have a shower. There is also a small section of the crematorium left, but a lot of the buildings remaining are the living quarters (in Birkenau) which stretch over acres of land showing the real extent of the capacity of prisoners held. - Bożena Jablonski


 * At Auschwitz concentration camp, Dr. Josef Mengele carried out medical experiments of this kind. These included placing subjects in pressure chambers, testing various drugs on them, freezing them to death, and various other usually fatal traumas. Of particular interest to Mengele were twins; beginning in 1943, twins were selected and placed in special barracks.  My source? Nazi human experimentation.  Maybe a wikilink in the main article?--jfg284 you were saying? 21:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

uncertain date
There are some doubts about 1941, September as a date of the first killing with Zyklon B in Auschwitz I. Please see Diskussion Tesch & Stabenow in German Wikipedia. Holgerjan = 84.143.205.238 21:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Belegstelle für ersten Massentötungseinsatz von Blausäuregas (5./6. September 1941)in Jürgen Kalthoff / Martin Werner: Die Händler des Zyklon B ... Hamburg 1998 ISBN 3-87975-713-5 / Seite 235 --- Ich suche zur Sicherheit eine weitere Belegstelle. --Holgerjan 00:48, 13. Mär 2005 (CET)

und schon ist die Sache schwierig. Ich habe nachgesehen in der gerade erschienenen hervorragenden DVD-ROM Der Auschwitz-Prozess" ISBN 3-89853-501-0 Bei den Vorermittlungen ist zu dieser ersten Massenvergasung in Block 11 des Stammlagers durch Fritzsch sogar der 9. Oktober 1941 genannt, später wird als Datum der 3. 9. 1941 genannt (auf Seite 404 / 633). Diese Angaben stammen ja aus den Akten von 1965 - warum in meinem zitierten Buch von 1998 das Datum um einige Tage verschoben wird, ist mir nicht klar. --- Ich werde also nur den Monat angeben, nicht den Tag. --Holgerjan 14:46, 13. Mär 2005 (CET)

Und nochmals wird das genaue Datum ungewisser: Peter Longerich: Der ungeschriebene Befehl. Hitler und der Weg zur Endlösung, München 2001 - gibt auf Seite 124 an: "In Auschwitz wurden im September oder Dezember 1941 600 sowjetische Kriegsgefangen sowie 250 ausgesonderte kranke Häftlinge in einem Keller des Blocks 11 mit Hilfe einer hohen Konzentration des hochgiftigen Desinfektionsmittels Zyklon B ermordet. Zu einem späteren Zeitpunkt, im Dezember 1941, wurden.... mit Hilfe von Giftgas ermordet." --- Ob hier ein Versehen vorliegt und es im ersten Satz zumindest November statt Dezember heißen müsste? Der Anschluss-Satz passt nicht so recht... --- Peter Logerich war Gutachter im Prozess gegen David Irving und gilt als ausgewiesener Fachmann. Der Vorgang selbst mit den Zahlenangaben bleibt unbestritten --Holgerjan 14:28, 27. Mär 2005 (CEST)

Ich gebe auf! Das fand ich bei Christopher Browning: Die Entfesslung der Endlösung. Nationalsozialistische Judenpolitik, München 2003 ISBN 3-549-07187-6 auf Seite 513: Spätsommer 1941. Höß habe jedoch unterschiedliche Angaben gemacht. Auf Anmerkung 205/206 werden diese zitiert. In Anmerkung 207/208 sind weitere Datumsangaben aufgeführt, darunter die des Irving-Prozess-Gutachters Robert Jan van Pelt, von dem offenbar das Datum Dezember 1941 stammt. Browning kritisiert, dass bei van Pelt nicht auf andere Beweise eingegangen wird; es wird deutlich, dass Browning Oktober 1941 für richtig hält. --Holgerjan 12:01, 29. Mär 2005 (CEST)

Many of the tests conducted were done on females. They were tring to stop the jewish race. in school we watched an inerview with a former Nazi doctor... he was aquitted because some one asked him to stop sending the people to the gas chambers, so instead he, and some other people did harmless tests to stall there death at the gas chambers. 152.163.100.204 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Beatified
The term beatified was piped to cannonization and not beatification. I changed it and piped it to beatification as there is a wikipedia article on it.

Vandalism?
I reverted User:213.206.148.225 because I saw they had changed Auschwitz from being a site to honor the victims of Nazism to one to honor Nazism. Subsequently I noticed the IP had made prior edits which may or may not be vandalism, I can't really say, so someone else may want to take a look at them. Everyking 06:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this be fixed?
At the moment I am at school doing a history assignment, I have chosen the Auschwitz camps as the topic. However, I think the person who made this change - the Afuckuschwitz camps (before the contents) is very immature and downright stupid. Someone should please fix this. Thanks.

A comment on Victor Frankl, listed as inmate at Auschwitz, if wikipedia is looking for the utmost accuracy that should probably be changed to most likely only transited Auschwitz, probably only for 3 days. At least that is the most recent conclusion from the Journal of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Timothy E. Pytell, Redeeming the unredeemable. http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/holocaust_and_genocide_studies/v017/17.1pytell.

"Most important, the revelation that Frankl spent only three days in Auschwitz is startling for any reader of Man's Search for Meaning. Frankl makes no mention of Theresienstadt in his book....Frankl even portrays himself as an authority on the camp with the claim that "the prisoner of Auschwitz, in the first phase of shock, did not fear death. Even the gas chambers lost their horrors for him after the first few days." 86 This assertion is dubious at best, since Frankl was in Auschwitz only for a few days. " 139.80.123.38 22:19, NOVEMBER 14, 2005

Link to Official Web Site of Auschwitz
Perhaps a link to the official web page of the Auschwitz Camp and Museum could be given: http://www.auschwitz-museum.oswieci.pl

Leuchter Report
There should be at least a mention of the Leuchter report which found no evidence that Aushwitz was used as an "extermination" camp as such, if for no other reason than to link back to the Leuchter page.

Being the most comprehensive scientific study ever performed on the site, its absence would lead an independent observer to question why it is not included.


 * Because the Leuchter report was found as bunk by the courts, engineers, and historians, a fact which was emphasized when Leuchter admitted lying to a court about his background. You can read about it at the article on Fred A. Leuchter. You can see an actual scientific survey here, which found cynide at the gas chambers: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/table-seven.html

His report was part of the evidence accepted by the court at the trial of Ernst Zundel that refutes the idea that Zylon B gas was used to exterminate prisoners (see Fred A. Leuchter) at Auschwitz. These facts need to be made part of this wiki.


 * You should sign your comments, but I see by your contributions that you have made a number of suggestions along similar themes to other pages, so I suspect discussion will not be that productive, since you appear to have a strong POV on the subject. However, if you read the article you point to in your link, you will see that the report was not accepted by the court as evidence, but rather as a display, about which Leuchter was brought to testify about.  He was shown systematically in that court session to have no knowledge of the subject, and was also later found to have perjured himself. Tests done using actual scientific methods detected cyanide residue. Holocaust denial already rears its ugly head in this article more than enough, with the whole Auschwitz plaque gambit, so including the disproven testimony of a Holocaust denier who was found by courts in Massachusetts and Canada to have lied under oath is not needed. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the only other study done ( actually they tried twice ) was by a Polish group. There study has been debunked. When they didn't find what they wanted they stalled the release of their report and then left out all they could from it. Easy to find their work on the web.

Zyklon B - wiki - is still in production. Has anyone tried to recreate a gas chamber using it? A reproducable experiment would clear up Leuchter's et all ( pro and con ) conclusions. Time, conditions, quantity,etc - unless someone cheated - could be reproduced under rigorous measurements. Prove your point - would make a great citation.

German prisoners reconstructed the camp?
I have recently read that German prisoners worked there after the war. If it isn't obvious I'll check my sources. Xx236 13:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just a question
It says that Auschwitz 2 (Birkenau) was started in 1941 as part of the "final solution". That really should be changed as the final solution wasnt decided until January 1942 at the Wansee Conference.Banana.girl 08:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct. The final solution had started long before the Wannsee Conference. The Wannsee Conference is NOT the beginning of the Final Solution, it is simply a conference in which Heydrich assures that 1) SS has the upper hand in the death process. 2) the coordination and cooperation go smoothly, something that necessitated the attendence of the different departments. Stiangutten 10:06, 24 February (UTC) Looking back, I really didnt say what I meant!! what i meant by that was that the final solution was decided then. Its just that my history teacher often says that January 1942 was when it was all finalised. If that wasnt true, its ok. I dont mean to cause a problem. Banana.girl 08:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Go read the Wannassee report - hard to figure out how a "final solution" can be found in it. It even lays out a solution that is defintiely not final. Your teacher should read more - or at least a little. Read it - really, you will be surprised as to what it says ( try several translations, hopefully you read German but the context certainly will not give you the traditional outcome. )


 * Have you read it? The phrase "die Endlösung der Judenfräge" is specifically used in the directive from ReichMarschall Göring to Gruppenführer (as he then was) Reinhardt Heydrich, and is quoted in the minutes belonging to Martin Luther, who was present. His was, as you may know, the onlyt copy to survive. I would accept that the word "extermination" is not specifically used. But deportation to th East is, and anyone who can not or will not accept that in this context the East means Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, Chelmno, Maidenek or Belsec has his head in the sand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthony.bradbury (talk • contribs) 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

However the Wannsee is rigorous in stating that the deportation was to remove Jews from Germany and to produce a work force. Killing Jews didn't require a camp and a dead work force is worthless. Who went to the hospitals in Auschitwz - Germans, Poles, or Jews.

Aerial photograpy by US Air force
Just read an article in history today that made reference to pictures of Auschwitz the US Airforce took when they where investigating IG Farben in preparation for a bombing. It was only recently realized that the camp was photographed back then.

As I understand it those pictures would be public domain. Do we need to get them from an official source or could we scan them from the puplication? Agathoclea 18:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Polish authorities asked the Americans repeatedly to bomb the camp (or rather its train station and other facilities in order to allow for the prisoners to escape), so they must've known what where they shooting pics of... But this is of course OT here. Halibutt 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The photos were actually published in 1978 by the CIA, but they are PD - you can see them here. I'll place one of them in the article.  Also, it is not clear that the US knew that the pictures were of a death camp at the time they were taken, the photography was of the factory, the camp was incidental.  --Goodoldpolonius2 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting it up :-) Agathoclea 23:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A detailed discussion of the photos are also on codoh.

Reason for location
the article states: "The German camp was located in this area due to a high Polish Jewish population." But accourding to the quoted references the camp was far underutilized, and I seem to remember that it was supposed to "deal with" all the Jews et al from the soon to be conquered lands. Which then didn't happen. - So my question is could the above sentance be adjusted to reflect that? Agathoclea 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz Cross
Is it verifiably true that most of the victims in Auschwitz 1 were Polish Catholics. If not, I think we should change the words "pointed out" to "claimed" in §5 of the "After the War" section. --David.Mestel 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Hearing no objections, I've made this change. --David.Mestel 06:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No objectons so you have changed... but you have changed the history as well.
 * What about sentence at the beginning:
 * Auschwitz I, the original concentration camp which served as the administrative centre for the whole complex, and was the site of the deaths of roughly 70,000 people, mostly Poles and Soviet prisoners of war.
 * Note: the overall number of Soviet POS in Auschwitz (1, 2, and 3) was 20000 to 30000.
 * Get your pencil and paper and do some math.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.2.99.90 (talk • contribs).

To the Holocaust denier posting above
Your denials will not make my grandparent's families memory go away. My Father's father was the only one of his family to survive the war as a young adult. His parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins, nephews - dozens of family members - are all gone. Murdered. There is no grave left, no fingerprints, no photos, no houses, no trace - save in the memory of the sole survivor, My grandfather David. He came to Israel, became a metalworker in a Kibbutz, married, had sons, grandsons and granddaughters. He died last year, age 88. My four grandparents all survived the war on a razor's edge. So many jews around the world have no family left. How can you do this? How can you try to kill the private and collective memories of a people? How can you try to erase the horrible crime committed against us and the civilization of man?

You can call me a liar. You can deny everything and everyone. You can deny that the earth circles the sun and say that all the astronomers are engaged in a massive conspiracy to hide "The Truth", and that nothing will make you change your mind from "The Truth". You could twist and turn pieces of fact and claim that somehow some discreptancy in modern astronomy "Proves" the astronomer's "Lies" with non-speak such as Such monolithic belief structures rarely have much credibility overall etc.

I ask you to stop this evil that you are commiting. Stop poisoning young minds that have yet to read about this terrible part of history. Stop trying to deny the horrible crime - as it aides those that seek to make it happen again. RZ. June 8th, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.24.43 (talk • contribs).

That is very sad that You've lost Your relatives. But that is also the fact that many nazis were defamed after WW2. That is not fair. Atrocities against jews are condemned like greatest evil in whole world history. But the same or worse atrosities against germans are somehow justified. That is too selective to be fair. You are'nt only who suffered during WW2. There are many peoples in Europe who suffered much more then jews. Germans, for example. You might be shocked, but atrosities against my own race worries me much more than atrosities agaist Your people. World jewry and whole mankind are not the same. Some author said: "propaganda of victors became history of vanquished". Sorry, but I don't believe victors' propaganda. Truth is not evil.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 06:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Given that Nazism was a philosophy which preached the superiority of the Nordic or Aryan race above all others, and also preached that Jews, Negros, Roma and some other minorities were subhuman species who the master race could enslave or destroy at will, I would suggest that defaming Nazis is a contradiction in terms, in that their philosophy defamed them itself without outside help.

As to there being worse atrocities comiited against the Germans, that is a statement hard to justify. If you are thinking of examples such as the firebombing of Hamburg or Lubeck, or the bombing of Dresden, you have a point to make. The answer of course is that, well judged or not, these were wartime operations against the German armaments industry or transport infrastructure. The people in the extermination camps were deliberately, callously and cold-bloodedly murdered, and I submit these are not comparable situations.

I do not know which your own race, which you alude to, is. If your name indicates a Soviet origin, then I would accept beyond argument that the atrocities committed by the Stalinist regime certainly equal those committed by the Nazis, at least in terms of total numbers. But to acknowledge one atrocity does not diminish the other. If, on the other hand, you are German, and are referring to the excesses committed by the Red Army on its advance to Berlin, then I can only say that many of the Soviet soldiers had seen what the Werhmacht did to civilian women in Russia, and while their behaviour is not excusable, it is in my view ubderstandable in the climate of 1945 --Anthony.bradbury 23:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My race is white, as You can guess. Both German and Russian nations are belonging to the same race. But that does'nt matter. The matter is that jews who suffered from that war much less then either germans or russians are considered as the "poorest victims" in world history. They are so poor that they are now allowed to expell other people from their homes. Soviet soldiers didn't care about nationality of women they rape. So that wasn't kind of revenge. If You think that soviet soldiers' behavior was understandable, than I think so about considering some minotiry as subhuman species. That was mainstream science opinion of that time in all civilized countries. Where is nothing defaminng in that. In that time it was absolutely normal. But not even subhuman. Allien will be more right. Acting in interests of your own people is absolutely normal too. Even now israelis think they have right both to enslave and destroy palestinians. Killing civilian population is not acceptable, but I don't understand, why killing jew is worse than killing white. That insults me. As I know, first example of the genocide described in Bible, in that part there jews conquer Promised Land. And Bible justified that genocide. Now some jews say they'll never forgive. Whom? My race? I owe nothing to them. Long ago was time both to forgive and forget everything bad.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 11:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think you can justify a statement saying that the Jews suffered less than the Germans or Russians. The Jews lost half of their total population in the Holocaust, and neither of the Nationalities you specify approached that percentage. And when I say that the behaviour of Soviet soldiers in Germany in 1945 was understandable, that does not mean it was right or that I condone it. The point I was making is that many of them had seen their own women raped and killed and their families shot by the Nazis, and they knew that were invading Nazi Germany. Two wrongs do not make a right, agreed. Furthermore, it was not the official policy of the Soviet Government to target German civilians, except as collateral damage in military operations, while it was the policy of the German Government to destroy all members of the Jewish race. I see a distinction here; if you do not we must agree to differ.--Anthony.bradbury 19:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt in number of 6 millions. 6 million includes 4 millions gassed in Auschwitz. Now it is estimated about 1,1 millions (by official history). Official history replys: "That does'nt matter, we just lied there, anyway 6 millions". Believe if You like. And there is no proves that that gas chambers existed except words. I think therefore number of 2 millions will be closer to truth. Not only nazis destroyed jews. So did romanians, ukrainians and others. Germany and Soviet Union lost more than 40 millions of people. Please explain me, why 1 jew more important then 10 whites? I see no reason but jewish money paid to mass media. Percentage? What if nation consistst of 100 persons? You think extinction of such nation more important then million of dead people? I hardly think so. Please point me an example of mass rapes commited by nazis. Policy is that made by politicians. Churchill desided to bomb Hamburg and Dresden, Trueman desided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so there is difference?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 20:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have stood inside the gas chamber at Auschwiz I, and walked around the ruins of the gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau. I recognise that there are always going to be some people incapable of accepting the simple, multiply attested existence of the Holocaust, and regret to find that you are one such. Goodbye.--Anthony.bradbury 20:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that chamber was built in 1946--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 21:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You heard wrong.--Anthony.bradbury 21:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

So when it was built?--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 21:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * September 1941. It was used as a gas chamber, killing approximately 60,000 people, until 1942, when with the opening up of the four much bigger gas chamber/crematorium complexes at Birkenau it was converted for use by the SS as an air raid shelter, and used as such until the liberation. All this is in the article - have you actually read it?--Anthony.bradbury 22:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I asked about chambers which are available for tourists NOW. When were built THESE chambers? If not in 1946? Original ones were destroyed in 1945. There written they were reconstructed. If there are some original blueprints? So how they were reconstructed? I don't understand. Faurisson proved that it is technically impossible to use that chambers in the way official history claims.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 15:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The four chambers at Birkenau were destroyed in early 1945 and survive as ruins. I have walked there. The chamber at Auschwitz I was not destroyed, and is the original one from 1941. Not reconstructed. As far as Faurisson is concerned, if you take the trouble to read this whole talk page you will see how he has been totally discredited. Why can Holocaust deniers such as yourself not accept the simple, straightforward eye-witness account of thousands of Auschwitz survivors? It seems so easy to me.--Anthony.bradbury 21:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Bacause there were examples when nazis were defamed. Like there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre Trials From December 29, 1945 to January 5, 1946, ten officers of the German Wehrmacht – Karl Hermann Strüffling, Heinrich Remmlinger, Ernst Böhm, Eduard Sonnenfeld, Herbard Janike, Erwin Skotki, Ernst Geherer, Erich Paul Vogel, Franz Wiese, and Arno Dürer – were tried by a Soviet military court in Leningrad. They were falsely charged for an alleged role in the Katyn massacre. The first seven officers were sentenced to death and executed by public hanging on the same day. The other three were sentenced to hard labor, Vogel and Wiese to 20 year terms each and Dürer to 15 years.[36] Dürer is said to have pleaded guilty at the trial and to have returned to Germany later, the fate of the others sentenced to hard labor remains unknown.

Soviet government executed 7 german officers for one's own atrocity. That is one of my reasons to be suspicious.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 12:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it is now generally accepted that Katyn was a Soviet atrocity; certainly I would not argue with this interpretation. But Katyn has no relationship at all to the Holocaust.--Anthony.bradbury 15:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

May be Katyn says little about Holocaust, but it says much about nazis' enemies who tried nazis and wrote history of that war.--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 16:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "discredited" in my eyes are those who have banned to ask questions about this matter, not those who doubt and ask questions.193.17.208.226 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)193.17.208.226 14:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)--Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Igor, you said a few paragraphs back "Please point me an example of mass rapes commited by nazis". Take a look into the origin of the name of the british band 'Joy Division'. Also, I think you'll find documents found at auschwitz confirmed reports of these divisions existing.

Couldn't find any internet reference to "Joy Divisions". Doubt it ( German officers were strick in disciplne - Hoss' predecessor I believe was executed for mistreating inmates, so I doubt regular soldiers were at liberty to indulge.


 * Höss was the first commander of the camp, and hence had no predecessor.--Anthony.bradbury 11:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that - it was Hermann Florstedt of Majdanek and Karl Koch of Buchenwald who were executed by the SS for mistreatment of prisoners. But I assume the message got around after a couple of executions.

Soviet liberation?
I noticed this in the Auscwitz II section: "When the Soviet army marched into Auschwitz to liberate the camp..."

From what I've read, I'm dubious that the arrival of the Soviet troops constituted much of a "liberation" - how about we leave out speculation over the Soviets' motives and say "When the Soviet army marched into Auschwitz"?

Also, there are very few inline sources in the article - are the claims supported by the few sources listed at the end? Just because something is widely known and accepted doesn't give us a break from the requirement to cite our sources. Cheers, Kasreyn 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point, but the word "liberate" in the context used means "free from Nazi rule" and that they certainly did. And the Russians did call in the Red Cross and tried to save the remaining inmates, none of whom would have lived under the SS.--Anthony.bradbury 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. "Liberate" is exactly the right word, and is also in general use. To verify this, Google searches on liberate (fill in the name of any concentration camp) yield copious results. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe most of the inmates voluntarily chose to leave with the SS when they retreated. Only the sickest stayed behind.


 * That is a quite extaordinary statement, anonymous editor. Please give references or retract. Unless by "voluntarily" you mean "come now or be shot through the back of the head".--Anthony.bradbury 20:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I really hate to do this but my source is Elie Wiesel. He chose to evacuate - his words - rather than remain with his father at the infirmary. This, however, is from a novel by Wiesel,"Night". I remember Anne Frank, etc were also transported out of Auschiwtz prior to the Russian arrival. Strange that the SS left the several thousand who were too sick to travel behind, and alive. I will check if there is a more reliable source than Wiesel. PS Back again - telegrams and letters concerning the evacuation of Auschiwtz etal are in the FDR Library at Hyde Park NY. It appears there was negotiations between the Allies and Nazis about the transfer of inmates. The death march story was actually train/truck transportation according to inmate witnesses, not novelists.

Removed the word "innocent"
"One display case, some 30 metres long, is wholly filled with human hair which the Nazis gathered from the (innocent) people they slaughtered."

Removed the word because also criminals (albeit a small number of them) were executed there.


 * I have left the article as modified, but am fairly certain that only Jews (predominantly), Romany, Jehovah's Witnesses, Political prisoners and homosexuals went to Birkenau. I thought that what one might call "ordinary" criminals went to Auschwitz I, or to other KZ Lagern elsewhere. I could be wrong.--Anthony.bradbury 12:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Improving this article
I believe that a frank, open, and democratic discussion of the history of Auschwitz should include differing viewpoints. Certain doubts are inevitable and should be explained to the best of the contributor's abilities. Robert Faurisson was the first to describe the technical impossibility of the mass gassings in the areas designated as gas chambers with Zyklon B, as testified to by eyewitnesses. The following sentence is a clear statement of the core of Faurisson's argument:


 * "If the Nazi gas chambers were to work at all, they would have needed the following: absolutely perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and then, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making touching and carrying them a deadly business. The ventilation and exhaustion of cyanide gas is very time-consuming and difficult. It adheres to the human body, and penetrates the skin so easily that it would be hazardous to touch the body of a person killed with high concentrations of cyanide gas with the bare hands. Contact through the skin alone may lead to intoxication."

It would go a long way towards establishing the factual accuracy of the Auschwitz history if this technical interpretation could be explained by a competent authority. Until such time, I would expect this statement to stand without being deleted. The above statement, while Faurisson's, is of personal concern to me. Thanks with utmost respect.

Doremifasolatido 17:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And, pray tell, what are Mr. Faurisson's technical credentials to support including this statement? We're not going to include extended statements from Holocaust deniers in this article, sorry. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not comprehend the viewpoint of holocaust deniers. As I understand the above point, Mr Faurisson is saying that in his personal view the technique used by the Nazis in the Auschwitz gas chambers is not possible, and therefore the eye-witness testimony of thousands of witnesses must be wrong. I suggest that he re-visits his database on the lethal concentration of inhaled hydogen cyanide. As witness accounts are clear that death in the chambers could take up to twenty minutes, it is obvious that the amount of cyanide present, while lethal, was vastly less than that which he is postulating; enough to cause the death of the chamber's inmates who were forced to inhale it, but nowhere near enough to persist in the way he suggests. Each chamber had two doors; an entrance, from the so-called changing room, and an exit into the crematorium. Witnesses, in some numbers, have stated that the Sonderkommando opened both doors, alowed the air to clear, and were able to work in the chamber. Please let us not produce abstruse unsubstantiated conjectures in the face of unimpeachable witnesses, all of whom were there, many of whom have left video or filmed witness statements, and a few of whom are still alive.--Anthony.bradbury 21:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WHO THE FUCK are YOU to make that "conclusion", Holocaust God? Don't you understand the problem? YOU are trying desperately to exclude SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY from "holocaust deniers" because the person has not given you his "qualifications", while you who have NONE are SPECULATING as to how IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED so that you can continue to be a "holocaust believer". Don't you see the STUPIDITY of your position?


 * My position contains no speculation whatsoever, and there is in reality no problem, except that which is caused by deniers who, for their own ends, attempt to distort historical fact. You can be as strident as you like, although being abusive is both unnecessary and pointless, but nothing that you say will alter the obvious truth enshrined in the first-hand eye-witness accounts of thousands of survivors.--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a better version:

As core arguments Faurisson claims that the Nazi gas chambers would have needed a perfect hermetic sealing; a special introduction and distribution system for the gas; a fantastic ventilation system to eliminate the gas from the chambers after the mass murders; a system to neutralize the exhausted gases; and, quite separately, a device, incredibly clever in design and construction, to eliminate the gas which would adhere stubbornly to the bodies, making further handling lethal.

The technical issues, indeed, should be discussed by people with scientific backgrounds. That's why it is brought up here on the Talk page. Doremifasolatido 18:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a scientific background. But the issues are not primarily scientific; the central issue is whether one does, or does not, believe multiple first-person eye-witness accounts. It would appear that if someone chooses to deny the Holocaust, then they remain unmoved by even the most compelling evidence. The Holocaust is NOT a matter for discussion; except for those with closed minds, it is a matter of fact. To discuss the Holocaust in any other way is to demean the survivors of it.--Anthony.bradbury 19:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

YOU are a liar and an idiot. If you have a scientific background, then WHAT IS IT? And, why should that be relevant to THIS discussion? If you disagree with what Faurison wrote, say WHICH part, then put forth your SCIENTIFIC evidence to refute that. Which part of 1+1=2 don't you understand? What difference does Faurison's motives make? He is either right or wrong scientifically. Address that, and with REAL FACTS, not "1,000 eyewitnesses", most of which have been shown as lies, like Elie Wiesel or Victor Frankl?


 * Fine. He's wrong. And furthermore, if you take the trouble to read through this correspondence you will see where and how he is wrong. I did not specify a specific number of witnesses, but some 7,600 inmates were liberated by the Soviet Army, all of whom were witnesses and many of whom have left written, filmed or video testimony. Given that the War ended 41 years ago, I assume that even you would accept that the testimony of a witness is not rendered invalid by their subsequent death? To stipulate this would wholly erase the entire history of the plane before the early years of the twentieth century.--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless any such dicussion would constitute original research, which is not supposed to be a part of Wikipedia according to the published guidelines for wikipedia articles. What is featured on this page is the generally accepted view of the vast majority of historians. If you want to challange that view you are free to do so through the normal channels for scientific research and papers, Wikipedia, however, is not a scientific journal and hence doesn't deal with such material. 83.108.157.39 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I seems the Holocaust is having PR problems these days. Too many people are starting to think for themselves and are asking the right questions. There are more doubters today than in the past. I suppose this is a mystery to some, but eventually the truth will come out.67.72.98.45 01:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The truth is already obvious to all except intellectually blinkered holocaust deniers.--Anthony.bradbury 12:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think YOU are the intellectual midget, or just a liar.


 * Calling me a liar is a futile and puny attack, in that I have made no original statements that might be called lies; I have merely pointed out that the Holocaust is well documented and well witnessed. Clearly, I will not change your mind. But that is your problem.--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Holocaust is NOT a matter for discussion; except for those with closed minds, it is a matter of fact. To discuss the Holocaust in any other way is to demean the survivors of it. The contradiction within your statement is oh so very comical.

This is a CLASSIC!!! And, in an "encyclopedia, too. Too funny.

It is so very sad that there are some ignorant people in this World, particularly self-opinionated ignorant Holocaust deniers, who appear to be utterly impervious to simple factual demonstrations. How many first-hand witness accounts would it take to convince you? And why do lack the resolve to sign your name?--Anthony.bradbury 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A "witness" account is NOT FACT. IT IS HEARSAY. Geez, do I have to teach you EVERYTHING?


 * That is a nonsense statement. Of course a witness statement of an event observed by the witness is fact, and is so regarded in a court of law and, indeed, anywhere else. Hearsay is when someone repeats what someone else told them which is not the case hear. What else can you teach me?--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, have you ever thought of signing your comments?--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'd call it a lack of thinking for yourself that is leading people to question the Holocaust. Too many are willing to swallow the lies put out by neo-Nazi groups and websites to be capable of seeing the truth for themselves: the evidence points to the inescapable conclusion that the Holocaust occured.  FVZA_Colonel 10:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer Doremifasolatido is looking for is actually a pretty simple one... all of those requirements Faurisson reels off would only be neccessary for gas chambers meant to be a) efficient about gas-usage and b) safe for the people who worked in and around them. No need for a perfectly hermetic seal if you just keep pumping the gas in until the screaming stops, and as for lingering health effects, well, that's what the sonderkommando were for, and they were all replaced every 4-6 months. Nazi soldiers hardly ever had to soil their hands. --Arvedui 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely correct. I hope that the Holocaust denier who is working through this page will see this comment and think about it; but I fear he may not.--Anthony.bradbury 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read Faurisson you would find that in order to met the numbers of gassed victims in the Auschwitz story you would have to do several gassings a day - almost continuously. Therfore without the ventilation, etc that he mentions you would have to "replace" each gang of sonderkommandos several times a day - several times each shift. The door to the gas chamber would start to get clogged with sonderkkommandos. Soon you would be gassing people in the yard. Go back and rehabilitate the ventilation system that other proholocaust groups have pushed for, otherwise this idea peters out.


 * Do the arithmetic. 1.5 million deaths in three years = 500,000 per year. That is 10,000 per week. Which is 2,500 people per gas chamber each week. A gas chamber held about 200 people, so that is perhaps twelve gassings per chamber per week. Call it two per day. This leaves more than enough time for the Sonderkommando to work, particularly as the SS guards were not unduly concerned about the health of the members of the Sonderkommando groups.--Anthony.bradbury 12:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Change
The UN granted Poland's request for a name change. Should we consider the same for the article? Agne27 16:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In my view no. The Polish Government wanted, with some reason, to put the memeory of the camp behind and allow the inhabitants of the area to go forward without the stigma associated with the name. But the atrocities happened at Auschwitz - which of course was always called Oswiecim in Polish - and the name of the article should not be changed.--Anthony.bradbury 18:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

On a related topic, there seem to be conflicting reports about whether the name change was actually approved. Reuters (via Warsaw) says it was, AP (via UNESCO) says a decision was deferred. Also, there is no "United Nations Ministry of Culture" as per the article (the news reports obviously are talking about the Polish Ministry of Culture). Airminded 00:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The proposed new name reminds me a bit too much of FYROM... --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, indeed it doesn't sound too fortunate, but still sounds better than, say, Polish death camp of Auschwitz.  // Halibutt 08:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No name change
I've tracked down the official word from UNESCO -- the name is NOT being changed at this time. As I've been criticised for aggressive edits before, I thought I'd bring this up here first. I propose replacing the sentence starting "On July 12th" with "On July 12th, 2006, UNESCO deferred a decision on Poland's request, pending further consultation." With an inline citation to the UNESCO statement. Airminded 03:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, as there were no objections, I've made the change. Airminded 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Auschwitz Figures
The part about the West assuming the figures quoted by the Soviet Union and Poland were false is rubbish, and it appears to be just an attempt to discredit those who have repeatedly challenged history and finally proved themselves correct on one point. This "we knew it all along" nonsense, supposedly quoted on the Auschwitz website according to the article's in text citation, wasn't even there. As it turn out, the link references the sentence immediately above it, talking about the Soviet and Polish figures. Granted, the "Four Million" factor isn't necessarily a lose thread that Holocaust deniers exploit and use to justify their claim that more "myths" exist to be exposed, but it is irresponsible on our behalf to distort the truth and say we know that it was 1-2 million all along, unless it can be accurately sourced.--72.92.0.83 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But you're also putting in unsourced assertions. So work it out here in talk; you're asserting that the figures were used at Nuremburg; that should be easy enough to provide sources for. Also, please be aware of Wikipedia's three revert rule; you're over the limit. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, fixed. By the way, I thought this was an interesting list of numerical changes, but it comes from a more questionable site. The numbers are sourced, but since I didn't know what to do with it due to my own suspicions I'll just put it...here. --72.92.0.83 08:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When I was at school (I live in Poland) at history lessons I was told that in Auschwitz 4 million people were killed, including one million Jews. Later I was told that the number was inflated by communist authorities to hide the fact that Auschwitz was death place of mainly Jewish victims. Szopen 10:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting.--72.92.0.83 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is easy to get bogged down in figures, and assertions of men such as Hoess, who according to the testimony of his trial was proud of what he did, need to be considered carefully. It is not, I think, now possible to give the number killed at Auschwitz with any accuracy. It is, however, known that large numbers were exterminated at Treblinka and Sobibor, which predated Auschwitz, and also at Chelmno, Maidenek and Belzeç. Smaller, but still large numbers of Jews died at what one might call "ordinary" concentration camps such as Dachau, Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, Theresienstadt and Ravensbrueck, and a wholly unknown number were killed in the ghettos and by the 'Einsatzgruppen' operating behind the Eastern Front. The total number of Jews killed is believed by all except deniers to be between six and seven million, on which basis a figure of one to one-and-a-half million in Auschwitz seems reasonable.--Anthony.bradbury 13:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bordello
I saw a documentary on the holocaust yesterday, and they had a segment on the bordello of Auschwitz. Aparently Himler decided (in 1943?) that valuable (non jewish?) prisoners should be rewarded with women, so they converted a barracks near the entrance in one of the camps into a bordello, staffed by female camp-inmates. In the documentary they interviewed an inmate, I think he was a Polish political prisoner, that was part of the camps "fire department", and thus deemed valuable enough to receive coupons to the bordello. He had gone several years without a woman, so he was quite pleased to get access, and in the interview showed no remorce for the suffering of the women forced to serve as prostitutes. I realise the bordello is a sensitive subject to some, but surely it merits inclusion in the article in order to paint a more complete picture of Auschwitz. --Stor stark7 Talk 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The bordello was in block 24 and is mentioned briefly in the article.--Anthony.bradbury 19:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Iranian researchers, Ambiguous sentence
Currently it reads: "In February 2006, Poland refused to grant visas to Iranian researchers who were planning to visit Auschwitz.[4]. Polish Foreign Minister Stefan Meller said his country should stop Iran from investigating the scale of the Holocaust, which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed as false.". The problem is that one could easily get the impression that Ahmadinejad is dismissing the Foreign Minister's statement as false, when it is in fact the scale of the holocoust he has dismissed as false. I could not quite see how to reword it in a good way. 83.108.157.39 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from Auschwitz
Auschwitz is the German name of the city that was nearby the concentration camps. So, Auschwitz should redirect to the article about the city (in which the camps are mentioned) or to a disambiguation page, linking both the article about the camp and the article about the city.--AchtungAchtung 13:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The concentration camp is clearly the most common meaning of the word. The city is linked in the first paragraph. I think the current situation is fine. Kusma (討論) 13:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Polish name for the city near the camps was and is Oswiecim, which was Germanised to Auschwitz. The Camps, being German, were always referred to by the German name. The city by the Polish one. I feel that there is really no possibility of confusion.--Anthony.bradbury 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true that the camps are more well-known than the city, but nevertheless the German name for this city was and is Auschwitz. If you enter Danzig there is also a redirect to the article about the city. --AchtungAchtung 18:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, alright. It is a fairly trivial point, but it is true to say that the names of towns and cities are changed when used by people from other countries; for ezample, in France London is called Londres, in England Köln is called Cologne, and so forth. It nevertheless remains true that the Camp complex, built under German control, was always called Auschwitz, while the Polish town had always been called Osweicim. It's only a usage thing, but the name of the place shoiuld not be allowed to obscure the essential issue associated with its existence.--Anthony.bradbury 10:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler
In the article, following is to be found:

"...Heinrich Himmler, chief of two Nazi organizations—the Nazi guards known as the Schutzstaffel (SS), and the secret police known as the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei).

Which is not completely true. In fact, H. Himmler was the head ("Reichsführer-SS") of the SS (1929-1945), Chief of German police (1936-1945), Reich Minister of the Interior (1943-1945), Reich Commissioner for the Strengthening of Germanism (1939-1945) and several other functions. He was the factual utmost chief of the Gestapo, but also of all other Police and NSDAP-Secret Service (Sicherheitsdienst, SD) instances; the official chief of the Gestapo was the Amt-IV des RSHA (Bureau 4 of the Reich Main Security Office) Chef Heinrich Müller (1939-1945), which in order of command underlied the RSHA Chiefs Reinhard Heydrich (1939-1942) and Ernst Kaltenbrunner (1943-1945), respectively.

Thus, I suggest to change the text to:

"...Heinrich Himmler, chief of the SS (Schutzstaffel, armed forces of the Nazi Party NSDAP) and German police and Reich Minister of the Interior...--84.163.108.185 01:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's just a form of words, isn't it. Himmler, as Reichfuhrer-SS, was the titular and de facto commander of the Waffen-SS and the Allgemeine-SS. The Reichsicherheitshauptampt (RSHA) which was headed in turn by Gruppenfuhrer (later Obergruppenfuhrer) Reinhardt Heydrich and by Obergruppenfuhrer Ernst Kaltenbrunner, and of which Ampt IV was the Gestapo, answered to the Reichfuhrer-SS. If he was not in direct day-to-day control, he was certainly at the top of the chain of command.--Anthony.bradbury 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. By this logic, you must come to the conclusion that the top of the chain of command was Hitler himself.

Himmler was leader of all three SS branches (Waffen-SS, Allgemeine SS, SS-Totenkopfverbände) and the deputy instance of all its offices.

My point is, that saying "Himmler was the chief of the SS and the Gestapo" is not correct. Chief of the Gestapo was Müller and Himmler, in turn was the highest authority of all "law-enforcement" and Nazi Party armed forces, not just Gestapo.--84.163.101.230 00:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point, although the reality of the power structure at the top of the Nazi hierarchy was that everyone tried to get a finger in as many pies as possible to widen their individual power bases. But I have no objection to the article changing as suggested.--Anthony.bradbury 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Making this a Featured Article...
I have been working hard over the last little while trying to re-word and cite claims made in the article to raise it up to Featured Article status. What I have written so far can be seen in my sandbox. While it still has a long way to go, I would like to have others who have worked hard on the current article to add things and make suggestions. -- Underneath-it-All 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This thing has a long way to go to get there. I was very disappointed at the quality and quantity of references for an article on such a delicate and well-covered topic. Maybe I'll make referencing this a pet project of mine... Grand  master  ka  07:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Victims
I have reverted the edit made by User:82 153 142 60. The comment about gypsies already exists a few lines higher in the article, and opponents of the regime, conscientous objectors (of which there were very, very few in Nazi Germany) etc were sent to concentration camps, usually Dachau, Ravensbruch, Sachsenhausen or Therisienstadt, not to extermination camps. Agreed, many of them died in these camps, but individually, not in the mass exterminations of the Vernichtungslagern.

The above edit was mine; I forgot to sign it. Apologies--Anthony.bradbury 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

supermarket

is it true that a supermarjket was built just next to it?--Tresckow 13:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no supermarket visible to me near either Auschwitz I or Auschwitz-Birkenau when I was there in July of this year.--Anthony.bradbury 14:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not right next to it. About two or three minutes walk along the road from Auschwitz I (if you're walking towards Birkenau), there's a retail park now, which wasn't there three years earlier.  Probably because, whether or not there's an old Nazi death camp nearby, Oswiecim is a fairly large and busy town.  Proto ::  ►  10:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1944 Sonderkommando uprising
Not even mentioned, as well as the Ukrainian mutiny. --HanzoHattori 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Images
Now I finally got a decent computer, I can upload a few images I took when I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau a few months ago. They are all free to use. I will let you guys decide if you wish to use them or not:



Proto :: ►  00:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see these images in the article. I await consensus.--Anthony.bradbury 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

But where are the images of the kitchens, hospitals, gyms, swimming pools, .... the place actually was very beautiful - not in the league of some of the other camps but still very impressive.


 * In an article of this type I think we can survive without the sarcasm.--Anthony.bradbury 21:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Todeslager or Vernichtungslager
I changed "or todeslager" as an apositive to "extermination camp" to "Vernichtungslager." (really, changing less formal "death camp" to more formal "extermination camp.") Should the noun be capitalized, as in German? That's how I've left it. Jd2718 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vernichtungslager, with the capital, was the normal official Geman usage. Todeslager was a more colloquial expression used in conversation within the SS and senior Nazi hierarchy.--Anthony.bradbury 21:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who called "vernichtung" the ugliest word in any language. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was. And in view of the concept contained in the word, I feel its ugliness is wholly appropriate.--Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

rape???
Why would the nazis rape jewish women? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.1.206.20 (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC).


 * This claim is not specifically made, and certainly it was against the Nuremburg Laws and doubly forbidden by SS regulations for SS-men to have sexual relations with Jewish women, either by rape or consensually. But not all the women prisoners were Jewish, although certainly most were. The claim is not cited, and I have so flagged it.--Anthony.bradbury 22:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can't we block this page from vandalism? Like new users are not allowed to edit or something? I mean people are obviously abusing this page on a very regular basis. I'm not an Admin (would like to be though), but something HAS to be done. --RobNS 01:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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.On arrival the prissoners would be told to have a shower but when they got there water did not come out of the shower head but gas did suffocating them the Nazis would then dispose of the bodies striping them of all valuables including gold teeth.

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)

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. &mdash; 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). &mdash;  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)

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. &mdash; 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)

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)

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.

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)

If the official number of dead at Auschwitz was 4 million then it was changed to 1.1 million, why has that not changed the official number 6 million killed? What is the discrepancy? --Rothschild&amp;co (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The number of dead that was accepted was 4 million for awhile, but it says 3 million on this page. I believe it should say it was 4 million then changed to 1.1 million, not 3 million because that wasn't the number that was used for the longest time, it was 4 million.--Rothschild&amp;co (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The origin of the 4.0 million murdered persons, Jews and Christians, at Oświęcim is an statement by Soviet sources in 1945, this preliminary estimate was repeated in western historical literature for many years. Today scholars in Poland believe that between 2.5 and 3.0 million Jews were murdered in Poland during the war, including 1.0 million Jews at Oświęcim. Since the fall of communism in 1989 historians in Poland have been able to publish research free from government censorship. An analysis of this recent research in Poland can be found in this source. Gniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline  The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at --Woogie10w (talk) 12:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the accepted number was 4 million dead until 1989 shouldn't that be stated in this article, not 3 million because 3 million wasn't used it 4 million.--Rothschild&amp;co (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It already is, see here. WilliamH (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what the article states "The camp commandant, Rudolf Höß, testified at the Nuremberg Trials that up to 3 million people had died at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum has revised this figure to 1.1 million,[1][2] about 90 percent of whom were Jews from almost every country in Europe.[". It states 3 million not 4 million which is the correct number.--Rothschild&amp;co (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"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 -

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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).

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

End the excessive and abusive protection
This article is highly inaccurate and misleading in violation of WP:NPOV (compare it to O%C5%9Bwi%C4%99cim) 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, 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. 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)

Shouldn't be "Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp"?
Let's see:
 * Kraków-Płaszów concentration camp
 * Gross-Rosen concentration camp
 * Bergen-Belsen concentration camp
 * Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp

--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)--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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)

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 think that's a browser-width issue. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 18:45, 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)

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.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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). --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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?--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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?--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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.--<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"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)

gate picture
i think that much much more appriopriate picture on the top of the page would be that presenting Auschwitz II gate not the Auschwitz I, which was known only to some polish prisoners. is anybody against it? --Discourseur (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

on french and german pages there are pictures of "death gate" of Auschwitz II!


 * Since this article is about all three Auschwitz camps, I think having a picture of the main/administrative camp is probably a good linchpin to go by. WilliamH (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * from perspective of bureaucrats it is most important part of auschwitz. but is it so from perpective of victims and their families? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would support using a picture of the main guardhouse at Auschwitz II, as it is the most well-known and recognisable image of all the Auschwitz camps. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  17:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More so than Arbeit Macht Frei? I'd suggest sticking with the main camp pic - it's, er, the main camp, and the slogan is definitive of the Nazi camp ideology. I've got the feeling this discussion is liable to go nowhere quickly though, so I'm not too bothered. WilliamH (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * More so than Arbeit Macht Frei? - Yes, I would say so. In fact, I would think that the Birkenau guardhouse is the most iconic image of the Holocaust. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;


 * again i say that it is main camp for nazi administration, not jewish victims. most jews never had any opportunity to see that slogan. to extend further your idea is to place there picture of hesse villa - that was a real administrative heart and "more so than arbeit mach frei".--Discourseur (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * since there are no new posts about the issue, i assume that kind of acceptation of given proposition was achieved. however i have to admit, that i am not skilled enough to change those pictures, so i am not going even to try to do it. if someone agree with the proposition, a floor is open. best. --discourseur 11:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  12:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)