Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 5

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2018
In the "Background" section, first paragraph, fourth sentence, last word, "practice" is misspelled:

Similar legislation soon deprived Jewish members of other professions of the right to practise.[6]

Spelled as practise and it should be practice. AllAmericanGeek (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Not done. Usual British spelling. Zerotalk 06:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish tradition in the camps
I think this article is very informative and helpful to people who are trying to learn more about Auschwitz and what it was like for those who were imprisoned in the camps. However, I noticed that under the section called “Life in the camps” there’s no information on Jewish time or the religious practices of Jews while they were in the camps. I plan on creating a subsection under “Life in the camps” called “Jewish tradition in the camps”. I plan on adding information from the article titled Tracking Jewish Time in Auschwitz, which appeared in a peer-reviewed journal and is written by Alan Rosen, who has a Ph.D. in literature and religion from Boston University. I will add information on the dangerous process of making a Jewish calendar in the camp, how the calendar was organized, what it represented to prisoners, and the risk of not only making one but keeping it in the camps. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page. Chloe24681234 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

"the religious practices of Jews while they were in the camps"

Not a bad idea, but keep in mind that the Nazis' racial definition of Jews tended to ignore the religious affiliation of the people targeted. Anyone with Jewish descent could be classified as a Jew, even if they were not practicing Judaism. See for example the Nuremberg Laws (1935) concerning Mischling (mixed-race people). :
 * A Mischling will be considered a Jew if they are a member of the Jewish religious community.
 * A Mischling will be considered a Jew if they are married to a Jew. Their children will be considered Jews.
 * A mixed-race child that is born of a marriage with a Jew, where the marriage date is after 17 September 1935, will be classified as a Jew. Those born in marriages officiated on or before 17 September 1935 will still be classified as Mischlinge.
 * A mixed-race child originating from forbidden extramarital sexual intercourse with a Jew that is born out of wedlock after 31 July 1936 will be classified as a Jew.

Many of the described "Jews" were Christians or irreligious.:
 * "In the 19th century, many Jewish Germans converted to Christianity; most of them becoming Protestants rather than Catholics. According to the 1933 census concerning Germany, in an overall population of 62 million, 41 million parishioners enlisted with one of the 28 different Lutheran, Calvinist and United Protestant church bodies, making up 66% of the people; as opposed to 21.1 million Catholics (32,5%). The largest of which, the Evangelical Church of the Old Prussian Union, comprised 18 million enlisted parishioners. Noteworthy families of Jewish descent who converted to Protestantism included those of Karl Marx and Felix Mendelssohn. The borders of Germany changed several times between the Napoleonic era and the rise of Nazi Germany. Areas at times under French or Polish political or cultural dominance were overwhelmingly Catholic within the Gentile community. Two-thirds of the German population were Protestant until 1938, when the Anschluss annexation of Austria to Germany added six million Catholics. The addition of 3.25 million Catholic Czechoslovaks of German ethnicity (Sudeten Germans) increased the percentage of Roman Catholics in Greater Germany to 41% (approximately 32.5 million vs. 45.5 million Protestants or 57%) in a 1939 population estimated at 79 million. One percent of the population was Jewish."
 * German converts from Judaism typically adopted whichever Christian denomination was most dominant in their community. Therefore, about 80% of the Gentile Germans persecuted as Jews according to the Nuremberg Laws were affiliated with one of the 28 regionally-delineated Protestant church bodies. In 1933 approximately 77% of German Gentiles with Jewish ancestry were Protestant, the percentage dropped to 66% in the 1939 census, after the annexations of 1938 (due in particular to the acquisition of Vienna and Prague, with their relatively large and well-established Catholic populations of Jewish descent). Converts to Christianity and their descendants had often married Christians with no recent Jewish ancestry."
 * "As a result, by the time the Nazis came to power, many Protestants and Roman Catholics in Germany had some traceable Jewish ancestry (usually traced back by the Nazi authorities for two generations), so that the majority of 1st- or 2nd-degree Mischlinge were Protestant, yet many were Catholics. A considerable number of German Gentiles with Jewish ancestry were irreligionists."
 * "Lutherans with Jewish ancestry were largely in northwestern and northern Germany, Evangelical Protestants of Jewish descent in Central Germany (Berlin and its southwestern environs) and the country's east. Catholics with Jewish ancestry lived mostly in Western and Southern Germany, Austria and what is now the Czech Republic."
 * "According to the 1939 Reich census, there were about 72,000 Mischlinge of the 1st degree, ~39,000 of the 2nd degree, and potentially tens of thousands at higher degrees, which went unrecorded as those people were considered Aryan by the Reich."
 * "According to historian Bryan Mark Rigg, an Israeli Army and United States Marine Corps veteran, up to 160,000 soldiers who were one-quarter, one-half, and even fully Jewish served in the German armed forces during World War II. This included several generals, admirals, and at least one field marshal, Erhard Milch." Dimadick (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)


 * A solution to that could be, the first time you mention "Jews," to use the term "self-identifying Jews" and then you can be sure you're talking only about people who saw themselves as Jewish and not as those the Nazis classified as Jewish but didn't actually identify as such.
 * A section on preserving Jewish tradition in the camp sounds promising to me. The focus on time and calendars sounds a little odd; you could say something about that but too much will make that section disproportionate (time and calendars are just one form of maintaining Jewish tradition - so why would it be the focus of a section on Jewish tradition in Auschwitz).Chapmansh (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Rename it properly as the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp
Just as Bergen-Belsen concentration camp or Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Based on my own reading, my vote would be for this page to be named Birkenau concentration camp and extermination center (which were the two named purposes for it, by their names, and its actual name), with an opening like,


 * Birkenau concentration camp and extermination center, also known as Auschwitz II, and, because of its particular notoriety amongst the entire (link)Auschwitz complex of camps|Auschwitz camp complex(/link), simply Auschwitz, was...


 * How this article should be named, whether Auschwitz I should have its own article (I'd vote yes; it has plenty to justify its own), and whether the discussion of 'satellite camps' should simply fall under the term the 'Auschwitz camp complex' or 'Auschwitz complex' gets specific discussion in places like and . I get why colloquial names for these have made what the names of the individual pieces should be...problematic, but among other things, I really don't think camp I and II belong on the same page at all, and even holocaust museum and memorial sites point out that a lot of these (used) names are incorrect. As it is now, the opening of this article/this page is confusing because it is stating that it is about Birkenau, Auschwitz I, and the Auschwitz complex.


 * I get it. Birkenau concentration camp and extermination center is a mouthful. But if it's the correct name... Skybunny (talk)


 * I'm sure a case could be made as well for Birkenau concentration and extermination camp, depending upon whether camp or center is the most widely agreed upon term, as one example. I don't expect my musings to be the end of the matter. My main point is that this may warrant consideration, and some changes based on what's arrived at. Skybunny (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with moving the page. The camp was never historically called "Birkenau concentration and extermination camp" or "Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp" (Birkenau was a sub-camp). The Germans called it "KL Auschwitz" (Konzentrationslager Auschwitz), which translates as "Auschwitz concentration camp". So that's the correct title, and it's where our readers expect to find it; per WP:COMMONNAME, we are supposed to use the commonly recognizable name. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: The ideal solution would be to create separate articles about each part of the camp (eg, Auschwitz I concentration camp, Auschwitz II-Birkenau concentration camp, and Monowitz (which already exists)) and an overview of the Auschwitz concentration camp complex. Catrìona (talk) 16:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've taken the initiative here to move 'List of Auschwitz satellite camps' to the title 'Auschwitz concentration camp complex', with aliases 'Auschwitz complex' and 'Auschwitz camp complex'. Skybunny (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think in reply to Catrìona, an easy and small first step is to see if there's consensus to create the page 'Auschwitz I concentration camp', and move content specific to the separate camp begun in 1940 to that page. (There is a greater and probably more contentious discussion to be had amounting to 'What should the page - this page - referring to Auschwitz II actually be called?', but it can be deferred until after that's done. At that point we would at LEAST have one page each for each of the three main camps, and for the entire complex, which would make the opening to this page, and the content it represents, a lot less confusing. Skybunny (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the article needs to be split into separate smaller articles. The page is not large enough at 9174 words to require a split, and the change would make the article less useful to our readers, not more useful. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that splitting right now would be beneficial, but there's a vast literature that would certainly support articles on the different camps, hence the suggestion to create new articles rather than splitting. See the dewiki article for an example. Catrìona (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Creating an article on Auschwitz II-Birkenau would definitely be a good addition to this suite of articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

"Auschwitz-Birkenau"?
What about simply Auschwitz-Birkenau for this page? The current lead image pictures Auschwitz II (Birkenau), and Auschwitz II-Birkenau was not merely a concentration camp. It was also a death camp. The absence of a disambig would be helpful. Any thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with Coffman on this one. Most of the material on this page is actually about Auschwitz II-Birkenau, not Auschwitz I. Catrìona (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a couple problems with that title: it is not acceptable is because it's not a common name by which the facility is known. WP:COMMONNAME calls for us to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject. Auschwitz-Birkenau has had only 51,497 pageviews in the past year, while Auschwitz concentration camp has had 1,954,261 pageviews, so this is where our readers are expecting to find the article. The second problem is that it was never the name of the camp. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 07:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, since I didn't easily find this,, do you happen to know if Oświęcim does and has always translated as "Auschwitz" in German, or if this is a case of 'the town was renamed during the Polish occupation, and then named back again'? It would slightly change what I put into the redir opening of this page, depending upon the answer. Case A would be what it is now: 'the Polish town whose German name is Auschwitz', B would be 'the Polish town renamed Auschwitz from 1940-1945' (or somesuch). Skybunny (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know the answer to your question. Perhaps the hat could be changed to read "For the nearby Polish town, see Oświęcim" ? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * My first choice of title would be "Auschwitz", because that's the common name. The Germans called it "KL Auschwitz" (I believe "KZ Auschwitz" came into use after the war). Failing that, my second choice would be the current title. If people want to write an article on Auschwitz-Birkenau, please do, but please write it from scratch; don't copy or move material from here. This article is about the concentration camp Auschwitz, which consisted of Auschwitz I (the main camp or Stammlager), Auschwitz II or Birkenau (which housed the gas chambers), Auschwitz III or Monowitz (which housed the IG Farben plant), and several other subcamps. SarahSV (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha, this is what I was trying to understand, at last. The consensus is that this article is supposed to be about the entire complex of 45+ camps.
 * If and when articles are created for main camps I and II, what English names should they have, to best
 * - distinguish them uniquely from "the complex as a whole"
 * - incorporate the "actual" name each of the two camps had, as practical, and
 * - do our best to adhere to WP:COMMONNAME?


 * Maybe how other WP languages have handled this can help? Skybunny (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that "Auschwitz I concentration camp" and "Auschwitz II-Birkenau concentration camp" would be suitable. You may want to look at the dewiki article at de:KZ Auschwitz (not KL Auschwitz), the Polish one at pl:Auschwitz-Birkenau, and the hewiki one at he:אושוויץ (Auschwitz). Many of the other languages were translated from the English version of this article. Some of the commentators above, in my opinion, are putting too much emphasis on the Nazi command structure. While the Nazis considered Auschwitz I the main camp, postwar coverage has focused on Auschwitz II-Birkenau, because of its real-world importance as the largest site of mass murder in history. Therefore, this article is mostly about Auschwitz II-Birkenau, and if you were going to create another article, it should be Auschwitz I. Furthermore, there's no policy or guideline prohibiting copying from other Wikipedia articles, provided that it's properly attributed and integrated into a final article that's not duplicative of existing content. (As a side note, it is incorrect that the Nazis never used the name "Birkenau". They began to publicize the camp as "Birkenau" after reports of extermination at "Auschwitz" began to spread; for example the Theresienstadt family camp was officially called the "Arbeitslager Birkenau bei Neu-Berun") Catrìona (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)




 * The Germans called it KL Auschwitz. In the telegram to the right, about the escape of Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler from Birkenau in 1944, you can see that it's from "KL Auschwitz", alerting people to the escape from "KL AU II" (KL Auschwitz II). According to Nikolaus Wachsmann (KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps, 2016, p. 635, note 9), the abbreviation KZ came to be used postwar.


 * I'm not sure why people are saying this article is mostly about Birkenau. It's 9,174 words "readable prose size". The section on Auschwitz I is 500 words; on Auschwitz II, 504 words; the Roma and Czech family camps in Birkenau, 306 words; Auschwitz III, 525 words. Then we have death marches, liberation, trials, command and control, life in the camps, etc.


 * As for copying from here, yes, there is no policy against it, but it's not good practice. It's taking someone else's work and transferring it, and it leaves readers with the same text on two pages. This topic is too important for that, so if someone is planning to write separate articles, please work in a sandbox or draft space until there's something new and substantial to add to main space.


 * if I were writing these articles, I'd probably call this one "Auschwitz". I'd call a separate article about the main camp (the Stammlager), "Auschwitz I", and a separate article about the extermination camp "Auschwitz II". In the lead of the extermination camp, I'd list the other names used: "also known as Birkenau, Auschwitz-Birkenau and Auschwitz II-Birkenau". I don't see the need to keep adding "concentration camp" or "concentration and extermination camp". SarahSV (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 23:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Auschwitz concentration camp → Auschwitz – Please see discussions above, and. "Auschwitz" appears to be the lowest common denominator and also avoids debates on which descriptor to use: "concentration camp", "death camp", or a combination. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 02:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The simplified title is misleading: this isn't a camp named Auschwitz, but a camp at Auschwitz. It is called Auschwitz for the same reason Barack Obama is often called Obama (it's shorter). The redirect and hatnote are fine. Srnec (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per nomination and WP:CONCISE, which is policy: the goal is "to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area". SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't "a person familiar with the subject area" know that Auschwitz is a town? Wouldn't they therefore find the short title insufficient? This isn't an encyclopedia of World War II, after all. Srnec (talk) 03:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The town is known as Oświęcim. If you learn that someone died in Auschwitz, you don't wonder whether they had a car accident in Oświęcim. SarahSV (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Nowadays, Auschwitz to most people means the camp. Historically for centuries before WWII, Auschwitz and Oświęcim were the German and Polish names of the same town, and the form "Auschwitz" arose as an attempt by German-speakers at pronouncing "Oświęcim". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Srnec. The current name is in line with our naming conventions and dozens of other similar articles. We wouldn't also move Dachau concentration camp to "Dachau" or Theresienstadt concentration camp to "Theresienstadt". - Darwinek (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and SarahSV.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Srnec and Darwinek. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose since Auschwitz was for a time the name of the town. Using the current title makes it clear that this article is about the camp, and is the common name. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose provided there is a redirect from Auschwitz to this page, which there is; and that the openings of this page and Oświęcim both reference the name Auschwitz, which they do. Oppose on the same principle that "9/11" is an (appropriate!) redirect to September 11 attacks, but not the name of the article itself. Skybunny (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Header image change
The header image of the article was recently changed. The new choice doesn't seem ideal for several reasons; it is a modern photo which probably does not closely reflect what the area looked like during the war, and it looks too cheerful for the subject matter. I think that it would be best to use a historic photo, because that's closest to what is being discussed in the article. Also, the main gate at Birkenau is iconic, and represents how most victims arrived at the camp. How about this image? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with removing the colour photograph and replacing it with that suggested. The latter is not only iconic—I admit I'm not too sure how its replacement is cheerful though!—but it gives a (literally) broad perspective of the subject. The colour photo shows a close-up of one particular aspect of the camp—the gate—whereas the B&W hints at the extent of the operation, which I think is far more worthwhile. Although arbeit macht frei is, arguably, iconic in its own right, it has its own article into which the specific gatework image fits nicely. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see; so an image of the camp itself, rather than just its gate, fulfils that criterion. ——  SerialNumber  54129  15:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheerful? Buildings long abandoned, and no human or animal life anywhere in the picture seems cheerful to you? Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I think the "cheerfulness" might e reflecting that the photo is from a bright spring/summer day—if you read my comment, you'll see I questioned the word too. But that criticism is really no criticism at all: see MOS:LEADIMAGE. ——  SerialNumber  54129  17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The lead image should be of the main gate of the main camp, with the Arbeit macht frei sign, not the gate of Auschwitz II. The latter was first built in 1943 and the tracks laid in 1944. Can we see a source, please, confirming that this "represents how most victims arrived at the camp"? I was glad to see the change to File:Auschwitz-Work Set Free-new.JPG because I'd been considering making it myself, especially given the recent confusion over whether this article was about Auschwitz II. I was thinking about using File:Brama Arbeit Macht frei.jpg. Neither that nor the current image can be described as "cheerful". Anyway, that's what Auschwitz looked like; it didn't exist in black and white. Alternatively, we could use images of both camps, such as File:Auschwitz e Birkenau con neve.JPG. SarahSV (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Around 437,000 (one-third of the 1.3 million people sent to Auschwitz) were Hungarian Jews who arrived to the Judenramp through the iconic gate at Auschwitz II in May–June 1944. (Longerich 2010, p. 408.) So my feeling is that the image File:Auschwitz II-Birkenau, Oświęcim, Polonia - panoramio (20).jpg is suitable. File:Auschwitz-Work Set Free-new.JPG seems too bright and beautiful. But I don't think we need to go so far as to use a B & W image from the Bundesarchiv. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's a preference for images that aren't sunny, I've added a few. Bear in mind that we're writing a history article, not making a film. Auschwitz didn't exist in some dark corner where the sun never shone and there was no colour. The main camp consisted of quite normal-looking buildings. Parts of it could have been apartment blocks anywhere in the world. SarahSV (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm supportive of the original image, as shown in this version. The article is about the concentration camp complex, not Auschwitz I. The original image is more representative. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , more representative of what? I'm puzzled that anyone would think an image of Auschwitz II is more appropriate than the main gate of the main camp. As you say, this article is about the whole complex, not about one of the camps. The main camp was the headquarters of the complex. SarahSV (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Noting that I've tried it with both images and moved the map to the next section. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey
, re: this edit, why do you prefer a source that mentions the survey in passing, rather than a news item about the survey? SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We're quoting Posener, from this article. Why not use that as our source? since it is the actual source of the quote. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no need to quote Posener. We should summarize in our own words, and if we mention the survey, it's better to use a source about the survey, rather than a source that mentions it in passing. The article you removed contains more information about it. Better still would be to find a primary source. There are similar issues with the sourcing elsewhere, e.g. using Rees rather than the secondary sources he uses. It's fine to do that if the other sources are hard to find, but I think at least some of them should be replaced. SarahSV (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the quotation for now and will add something on that topic later when I have more time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it a little and added another survey in which 45 percent of 1,350 American adults could not name any of the German concentration camps, and 22 percent said they had never heard of the Holocaust. It would be interesting to add something about the extent to which Auschwitz is taught in schools in various countries and from what age. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

What number or percentage of inmates evacuated with the Germans before the Russian troops arrived? Where were they transported to? 2601:181:8301:4510:45F5:1C88:6FDD:CD3A (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Spóldzielców ?
Are you sure it's a memorial name? It's a typical Communist name without any connection with reality. Piwniczna may be also a neutral name, any sources?Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing this out. The paragraph was sourced to Google maps, with no secondary source supporting a connection of all the names to Auschwitz, so I've removed it. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Bordell
There existed one in the camp.Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation query
The article relies heavily on Steinbacher 2005. This is cited as



The details don't match the ISBN. Did the person who added this use the 2004 Verlag C. H. Beck edition (Auschwitz: Geschichte und Nachgeschichte), the Ecco edition that matches the ISBN, or the more common Penguin Books edition? The pagination may differ. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Siemens, Deutsche Bahn and Auschwitz
Siemens built a concentration camp in auschwitz. it has the name bobrek. you can read this in the article of bobrek concentration camp.

Siemens also built trains. trains were used to transport the jews into concentration camps.

The Deutsche Bahn is the firm, that deported jews to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. the deutsche bahn was the "Deutsche Reichsbahn"

Krupp wanted to built concentration camps in auschwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7A:4F0D:2400:CDE6:19BD:9459:A8B (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Christianization of the site
Please explain the site. The subject is the camp and all mentioned problematic places are situated outside the camp. Xx236 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2019
Delete the last sentence in the third paragraph of the After the war -> Trials of war criminals section seems misplaced. It likely refers to the execution of Rudolf Höss, but follows after statement on Hans Münch (who died around 2001):

Change: "... Hans Münch, an SS doctor who had several former prisoners testify on his behalf, was the only person to be acquitted.[264] Arrested by the British after the war, he testified at Nuremberg before being extradited to Poland. He was hanged in Auschwitz I on 16 April 1947."

to: "... Hans Münch, an SS doctor who had several former prisoners testify on his behalf, was the only person to be acquitted.[264] Arrested by the British after the war, he testified at Nuremberg before being extradited to Poland." Gakulev (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , thanks for pointing that out. The second and third sentences were stray sentences about Höss. The Münch material now stops at "the only person to be acquitted". SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Contemporary pictures
I'm not sure if contemporary pictures inform about the nature of the camp. The main part of the camp were prisoners. now we see partially renovated houses, similar to ones inhabited in many countries.Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Definite article in intro
Rarely have I personally come across literature which referred to Auschwitz as "The Auschwitz concentration camp." This shouldn't be a big deal really, but I believe it's far more common for it to be referred to, either in its shortened version or its full title without the definite article. 847,000 results without the "The vs 299,000 with the "The In addition, see 12,000 on Google Book search with the "The and 22,000 without the "The. To summarise, I'm just saying it's more than likely the definite article isn't really used when referring to Auschwitz, so I don't believe it belongs in the intro.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for opening a discussion. "Auschwitz concentration camp" is a weak proper name that needs "the". There are lots of examples of this, including The Auschwitz Concentration Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance by Chris Webb; and "A Calendar of the Most Important Events in the History of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp" by Danuta Czech. SarahSV (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to be honest, it's not really that big of a deal, but I think it's more natural flowing. I'm not disputing there are instances of it being referred to as "The Auschwitz concentration camp", but I don't believe it's the common terminology used to refer to Auschwitz. -- Tærkast (Discuss) 20:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Auschwitz" is the common name, and there was recently an RM discussion about moving it there, but it failed to gain consensus. The translation from the German name is "Auschwitz concentration camp" and in English that needs the definite article. The best way to check this is to look at how Holocaust historians write it. SarahSV (talk) 21:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think every proper name needs a "The" in front of it, see companies, for example "Ford Motor Company" not "The Ford Motor Company", "Dell Corporation", not "The Dell Corporation." I don't think it sounds natural to include the "The" in this instance, but again, it's a rather minor point.-- Tærkast (Discuss) 12:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

deutsche reichsbahn
the german railway "deutsche reichsbahn" deported jews to auschwitz and other concentration camps.

the deutsche reichsbahn is the pre of "deutsche bahn ag".

siemens built the trains, which were used to deport jews into concentration camps. siemens built the slave labour camp bobrek near auschwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7A:4F5B:3C00:3525:E0BE:DD5:9723 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2019
This is not nazi Camp this is Germany Nazi Camp. There is no nation Nazi. Wizardking76 (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * The concentration camps ran by Nazi Germany are referred to as Nazi concentration camps. – Þjarkur (talk)

BASF in Auschwitz - concentration camp monowitz
read this

https://www.basf.com/global/en/who-we-are/history/chronology/1925-1944/1939-1945/zwangsarbeit-in-auschwitz.html

the BASF was a part of the ig farben... the basf built the concentration camp auschwitz-3-monowitz...

auschwitz-3-monowitz has a size of 3 km x 8 km, so 24 km... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F04:4300:C94B:FFE5:3968:D8AC (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)