Talk:Extermination camp/Archive 1

'Murder'
There has been some to-and-fro regarding the usage of 'murder' in the article to describe the treatment of the interred at the Extermination Camps. Can user Jayjg please state his definition of 'murder' and why it is apposite in this context as I do not agree that a state-sanctioned act can be considered 'murder' which is a criminal act defined by a state. Such a usage would contradict well established political and legal science as far as I am aware. Nicander 09:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

- nonsense the killing of the Jewish people is defined as murder in all political and legal sciences. The only difference is, it is considered instutional murder - meaning the individuals actually murdering the people can be pardoned for doing so, since it is assumed they had no choice. The people responsible however are/were not excused which is why we had the Trails - those men were charged with murder (genocide = mass murder)

Meaning of Vernichtung
"Vernichtung" is no euphemism in the german language, in the context of the concentration camps it can be roughly translated as "extermination". The term officially used was "Endlösung" (final solution), which belongs to the "Lingua tertii imperii", it veils the killing of people and sounds merely bureaucratic and harmless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens-Jakob (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert on German language, but so much have I learned, that I believe the following sentence is quite unluckily worded:
 * The German term Vernichtung (literally meaning "elimination") is a euphemism for killing; hence these camps are also known as death camps.

Vernichtung is hardly an euphemism, and literally I would think that it rather means "making into nothing" or "...into dust" or something similar.

I have no other particular interests in this article. It's on my watchlist, although I don't remember why any more, and that's how I came to notice the last change. /Tuomas 01:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It literally means "making into nothing" (nicht). Any term used to refer to killing other that "killing" is a euphemism. Adam 04:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It is not. Extermination is a purpose, killing is a means. Mikkalai 04:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also, I would strongly discourage to treat German compound words "literally". For example, "Hochzeit" is literally "High time". Many think it is not. :-) Mikkalai 04:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As a German I can confirm that the term "Vernichtung" means literally "making into nothing", which means total physical destruction. Therefore "extermination camp" is the correct translation of "Vernichtungslager".--MBelzer (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And I would strongly discourage you from editing articles on points of English usage when your English is not adequate for the task. Adam 01:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But could you be more specific in this case? If you are referring to the "euphemism" issue, it is not language-related. Mikkalai 03:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The German term Vernichtung (literally meaning "elimination") is a euphemism for killing; hence these camps are also known as death camps.

First, vernichtung is "extermination", not "elimination", hence second explanation is spurios.

Second, it is euphemism only in your brain: Nazis called them exactly according to the purpose: extermination of jews. Killing is a too wide term. One may kill for food (Do we call "hunting" euphemism for "killing"?). One may kill to punish (Is "capital punishment" euphemism for killing?). But Nazis were killing them to exterminate no euphemis, no need to look for any other word play. You are not writing a poem or a pun here.

Third, there is no logic: the conjunction "hense" would be valid if the camps were named "kiling camps". For the previous edits I apologize. I was't thinking much. Mikkalai 18:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * WHERE exactly is the word Vernichtung (or Vernichtungslager) found in any Nazi documents? I sincerely doubt it ever was used until the Nuremberg trials. Moreover, I doubt anyone today can source the origin. Most of this article is sheer fantasy. Go ahead, make my day and try to provide authorities on the subject. You'll find it's not an easy task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.173.165 (talk • contribs)


 * It's well known that the Nazis used euphemisms such as sonderbehandlung - 'special treatment' - and such like, and the article does not assert that 'vernichtungslager' was a term used by them. However, if you think that the article is 'sheer fantasy' then you are simply wrong. The number of history books on the holocaust is huge, and you should have no trouble in familiarising yourself with the subject. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  16:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Sonderbehandlung" wasn't a euphemism. It was a term used for any treatment beyond the normal. In Auschwitz Sonderbehandlung refered to hygienic actions relating to their struggle against epidemic diseases like typhus. The number of books on witchcraft is btw. huge, too. If you'd like to find out something about "special treatment in Auschwitz" just google for the phrase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.82 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.
 * What the heck is "The number of books on witchcraft is btw. huge, too" supposed to mean? The only way I can read it is snidely worded Holocaust denial. Have I misunderstood?
 * If the "special treatment" consists of mass killing, even if that was to contain an epidemic, then it is still quite a euphemism. - Jmabel | Talk 06:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why has the number of exterminations at Auschwitz been revised downward from Hoess's confessed 3 million to, now, 1.1 million? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.176.200 (talk • contribs)


 * According to the Rudolf Hoess article, he denied it was as high as 2.5m. See also Examination_of_Holocaust_denial. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  08:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * One can hardly rely on wiki articles for anything to do with Nazi history; the majority of them are unsourced or poorly sourced. One can hardly rely on websites devoted to the issues; these mainly use secondary or tertiary sources. It is also not well known that the Nazis used euphemisms such as sonderbehandlung - 'special treatment' - and such like. It is well asserted. Admittedly, all people, especially the military, use jargon to facilitate communication. The over-interpretation of it is faulty reasoning. Now, there is an interesting paragraph in Goebbels' diaries (March 1942) in which he states (according to David Irving):


 * Beginning with Lublin the Jews are now being deported eastward from the General Government [occupied Poland]. The procedure is pretty barbaric and one that beggars description, and there's not much left of the Jews. Broadly speaking one can probably say that 60 percent of them will have to be liquidated, while only 40 percent can be put to work.


 * Pretty damning evidence, but it's only one paragraph out of thousands of pages of diaries that make no other mention of any liquidation policy. It would be impossible to base an entire history of the holocaust on it. "Code language" just seems untenable without any concrete evidence.


 * No one is basing the 'entire history of the Holocaust' on one para. There is a large amount of survivor testimony, accounts from those who liberated the camps or visited shortly afterward, the physical remains of some camps, human remains, interviews with surviving Nazis, etc. You discount that because...? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said anyone was basing the entire history of the Holocaust on one paragraph. I hope you're not purposely mischaracterizing my statements. My point is that no single piece of evidence is absolute. The 'codewords' are not absolute. The 'gas chambers' are not absolute. Nothing in history is absolute. A good historian reviews all the evidence and tries to arrive at the facts as best he or she can. Furthermore, you've got me boxed in as a holocaust denier when I am mainly trying to get people to analyze information rationally. You have no idea what I think because I don't know my own opinion as yet. I do have a brain, however, and I can discern glaring discrepancies and physical impossibilities which have long been asserted as absolute fact and truth.


 * For example, with regard to the Goebbels quotation above, I see on a map that Lublin is east of Auschwitz, so to what location were the Jews being deported eastward?


 * Belzec. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  19:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You assume that. Perhaps it's true. Saying it doesn't make it true. Belzec is southeast of Lubin, more south than east and rather close to Lubin by from Goebbels' distant standpoint. Belzec was not a work camp, so presumably the other 40% went somewhere else.

I believe in German compound words that are ambiguous have to be viewed in context - sometimes the entire article, speech etc. Picking out a word and giving it the meaning you want is a little on the dishonest side. The use of terms like coded words and euphemisms likewise appear to be scrondrel techniques to avoid context. Most of the words mentioned - and others - seem pretty innocuous when seen in context - of course that's why you don't see them in context. Browse the internet and look up the complete text where any of these "coded" words are used to judge for yourself - be seated when you do, usually you will be shoked at how much BS you have been feed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

^ Careful in your spelling, Lubin and Lublin are two different cities. Karolina.d 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Concentration" or "Extermination" Nazi Camps?
Moved here from Village Pump

Wikipedia has an article on the Auschwitz concentration camp and one on Treblinka extermination camp. There are is also a Category:Nazi concentration camps and a Category:Nazi extermination camps. The term "concentration camp", when referring to Nazi camps of the WWII, was originally a lie used to mislead the Holocaust victims, who were unaware of the regime's true intentions. Nowadays, it still serves as an euphemism. IMHO, extermination or death camp is the right word here. I strongly suggest that these articles should be renamed, and their categories merged into one, and that for the sake of historical awareness. -- Etz Haim 04:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest you to read carefully the articles, for the sake of historical awareness. There were concentration, extermination, labor, training, and many other Nazi camps all over Europe. With German bureaucracy they were classified as such. Of course, we can rightfully claim that labor camps actually exterminated the laborers, but their purpose was still labor, see, e.g., Mittelbau-Dora. I also suggest you to read Auschwitz concentration camp. Actually, it was a camp complex that consisted of concentration and extermination camps.
 * Also, I would suggest you to carry discussions on well-defined topics at the talk pages of the corresponding articles. Willage pump is for general-purpose discussions, not immediately related to specific articles. Mikkalai 04:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Also*, we have a policy that you are supposed to pick the most common english names - in this case, "concentration camp" is by far the most common. So your suggestion goes against policy, and will probably be shot down on that account. &rarr;Raul654 04:34, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason I posted this here is because this problem (from my POV) spans several articles and categories. And just to be fair and prevent possible misunderstandings, I'm not suggesting that everyone who is using the word "concentration camps" has ill intentions; on the contrary, many decent people use this unintentionally. Honestly, I value the victims' fates and the survivors' memories of these installations more than how the Nazi regime described them in their paperwork. I'm suggesting extermination camps on basis of these facilities' aftermath, not the Reich's alleged purposes of them. Regards. Etz Haim 04:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The article can set people straight for historical awareness, in case anyone has any doubt about what went on in these horrid places. However, most people call most of them concentration camps and look for references to them as such and will search for them as such; hence articles should be named as they are commonly called. This is not "unintentional"--that's what they're called. Second most common in my (limited) experience would be "death camp". Wikipedia's article titles are not the place to attempt to change the world's vocabulary. (And, incidentally, I suspect that most people automatically connect the phrase "Nazi concentration camp" with "genocide", so it's not like anyone's being misled by the terms. And for those people who stubbornly refuse to admit that the Nazis ever killed anyone--well, changing the article titles won't make a difference there, either.)  Elf | Talk 05:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * We should certainly have appropriate forwards from "concentration camp" and (if we stick with "extermination camp" for the title) "death camp". I do agree that "death camp" is more common in English than "extermination camp", and it's just a matter of translation (neither is "more correct" than the other), but I do believe it is important to distinguish the death camps from other concentration camps. The U.S. put Japanese Americans in what were essentially concentration camps, but had no death camps. The distinction is very important. -- Jmabel 21:58, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article Auschwitz concentration camp should be renamed. Adam 01:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maintaining a NPOV becomes extremely difficult in such topics. As someone has said, history is written by the winners. We should not use POV terms that sugar coat the WWII U.S. Japanese internment camps, whatever they were called, or POV terms that denigrate the Nazi camps. Rather the titles should be as NPOV as possible and try to reflect common present, but within a NPOV, or better still, original usage. The facts should then be stated in the articles with any contention discussed. This is how I read the NPOV policy. If a camp was set up for the purpose of extermination (SOED definitions include "Total extirpation, total destruction" and this looks like a good translation of Vernichtungslager) then that should be the title. "Death Camp" is too simplistic as there was an entire "production line" mentality from arrival to cremation with anything of worth collected and recycled. It is also, by its simplicity, POV. If the term "Death Camp" is used (as it is in this article) then it would be helpful to say who uses this term and how it developed.

My understanding of the Nazi view of the "Jewish Problem" was that it was relatively unemotional and seen in much the same light as managing any public service or utility. For them it was a task that required attention and to which they applied "good old German efficiency". I believe this came out in the Nuremberg trials.

Having written all the above, it seems to me that this article is a bit thin on detail of what happened in the camps. One reference is given for a complex subject and the terms "war crime" or "crime" are not mentioned! This then led me to read a bit in Wikipedia on Nazi Germany and then Racial policy of Nazi Germany. These articles seem POV in that there is no explanation for WHY the Nuremberg Laws were enacted other than:
 * Jews had been disliked for years before, and the Nazi Party used this anger to gain votes. The blame for poverty, unemployment, and the loss of World War I were all placed on the Jews. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy, but laws were not as rigorously obeyed and were not as devastating as in later years.

There is no mention for instance of common German concerns about the numbers of Jews in key professions such as the law and in cultural fields. Such omissions are either ignorant or POV.

I am no expert in these areas, I am neither Jewish nor German. My exhortation is to let the facts speak for themselves and try to avoid a partisan view of the issue. Let us make things understandable. If we take a simplistic view of the past (e.g. the Nazis were evil and that's why they did it) then we will be less likely to notice creeping changes that lead in the same direction. For instance, it has been argued that some of the rhetoric in the "War on Terrorism" has similarities to that used in Nazi Germany but without an understanding of the background we will not know. --CloudSurfer 03:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aren't extermination camps concentration camps? Were communists and homosexuals not sent there?
I'm wondering about the sentence "Extermination camps should be distinguished from concentration camps (such as Dachau and Belsen)". My understanding was that extermination camps were specialized concentration camps. Maybe inserting the word "other" after "from" can help. But my concern goes further. This whole long sentence describes what extermination camps are supposedly not. It sounds as if communists and homosexuals were not put in extermination camps. If this is a historic fact, then it should be mentioned explicitly. If not, it should be purged. Sebastian 17:52, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of communists or homosexuals being systematically sent to extermination camps. The survival rate for homosexuals sent to concentration camps was about 50% (see Paragraph 175). -- Jmabel | Talk 03:01, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not realy but yes as well because some concentration camps were also extermination camps but there were just some extermination camps and hittler established these just so homosexuals and "unworthy" people can die and out of the three major camps Auschwitz, majdanek, and birkenau only 120 survived and that 50% that's totaly wrong because if you survived a concentration camp the Nazi would have shot you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobert369 (talk • contribs) 9 November 2006.


 * Survived as in "were alive at the time of liberation". Looks like I was slightly wrong on the number: it was about 40%. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Extermination camp as defined in Terminology?
Should the Jasenovac addition to the the list of main camps be removed in order to be consistent with the Terminology section? This page is about "extermination camps" and after much discussion the accepted definition appeared to be camps established with the primary purpose of killing inmates. The seven camps listed (Auschwitz-Birkenau, Belzec, Chelmno, Majdanek, Maly Trostenets, Sobibor, Treblinka) fit this definition, but Jasenovac does not?

Reference to a Warsaw extermination camp should also be removed as there was no extermination camp, as defined above in Terminology, in Warsaw?

Dean Armond 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Amos Oz quote
There is a passage in David Remnick's "The Spirit Level", a recent New Yorkerarticle about Amos Oz (November 8, 2004, 82-95) that may be of some interest here; it's only anecdotal though, so I doubt it would be appropriate to cite in the article. Oz is trying to express how hard it was for anyone to believe the stories of death camps while they were happening. He is quoted talking about a witness at the Eichmann trial who, against the usual pattern, went from Ravensbrück to Auschwitz to Theresienstadt. Oz talks about how in Theresienstadt her stories about Auschwitz were not believed. Oz ends the story, "So: how could people in Jerusalem or New York believe something that even the inmates of Theresienstadt refused to believe? Knowing is one thing. Believing another. Understanding another." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contribution
User:67.170.131.107 keeps adding the following material after the first paragraph: "the DEATH CAMPS. Also know as Extermination camps from the Nazi’s. They were just as horrible as the concentration camps. A death camp is where the prisoners are to die or be killed. When the babies, children, adult or elderly got there they were sometimes shot, worked until they dies, or they would starve and than be shot. Sometimes they would just starve to death. Most Jews were killed through being worked to death. Death camps were designed especially for mass murdering. Death camps were known as death camps because there were a lot of deaths. the dreaded and horrific CONCOTRATION CAMP’S. At the beginning of the concentration camps, they were used just to hold Political prisoners, criminals and security risks. Now they are also used for Jewish people and Polish. A concentration camp is where the civilians who were against Hitler, political prisoners and of course prisoners of war are detained and confined under harsh conditions. The people that were there were starved, shot, beaten, caught sicknesses, or they were worked to death. Some concentration camps were built out in the middle of the forest’s where nobody knew about them. The Nazi’s would leave them there and let them starve. The acted the same to the children, babies, adults and elderly. They didn’t have sympathy for the young or old or anything in between." I have removed this because it basically duplicates the information that is already present in the article. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 02:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the Nazis were anti-Semites
Recent edits by User:JonGwynne generally downplay the role of Jews as the main victims of the extermination camps. I'm remarking this, rather than editing at this time: I haven't read this article closely, but the nature of his edits seems clear.

While I agree that certain other groups -- notably homosexuals and the Roma -- were targetted to a degree roughly comparable to Jews, I gather from most of the history I've read that the extermination camps (as against concentration camps in general) were a direct result of the decision on the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem: the decision to exterminate the Jews. Thus, this downplaying seems wrong to me.

Would someone who has been more involved in this article please have a look at this? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree; the focus of the extermination camps (and indeed, of Hitler) was the Jews. I've restored the more accurate version. Jayjg (talk) 15:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible overstatement
Recently added: "the only prisoners sent to these camps not immediately murdered were those used as slave labor directly concerning the extermination process (e.g. to remove the corpses from the gas chambers)." Offhand, I don't think that's correct, though I lack citations. I believe that there were slave labor factories connected to several of these camps, and that starvation rations made these also a form of death sentence, but less immediate. Does someone have a citation one way or another on this? -- Jmabel | Talk July 3, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
 * This has now been clarified by the statement about Auschwitz II being different from the others; that is probably what I was thinking of. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Much of the information we take for granted - gas chambers, worked to death, starved to death etc - doesn't seem to match wartime Red Cross inspection reports I have seen. Does anyone have a link to the entire Red Cross files for this period? There are records that the camps were inspected but getting the actual reports is like pulling teeth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There is another subject Why Red Cross and Intelectuals haven't seen any crimes in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union.Xx236 14:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"death camp"
A recent edit links this to a vaccuous stub "death camp". I suggest that unless someone has something to add there that is not about the Nazi extermination camps, we revert, and change that article to be a redirect to this one. I could imagine 2 useful articles, one specifically on Nazi death/extermination camps and a broader one including also any others in history, but I don't think this pair of titles even suggests that distinction. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

"The Polish"
I find the current phrase "…disputes between the Jewish organisations and the Polish…" very problematic. Surely "the Polish" are not all of one mind in this matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Majdanek concentration camp
Tomasz Kranz, Director of the Research Department of the State Museum at Majdanek, has released revised death numbers for Majdanek totalling 78,000. The article and tallies have been updated accordingly.

see http://www.auschwitz-muzeum.oswiecim.pl/new/index.php?tryb=news_big&language=EN&id=879

ef3ca 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how definitive this is, until someone else reviews it, from the article: "The second figure, of 235,000, comes from a 1992 article by Dr. Czesaw Rajca, now retired from the Majdanek museum staff. Rajca’s estimate appears in the Wikipedia internet encyclopedia and in the exhibit at the Majdanek Museum. Rajca said that he “established that estimate on the basis of calculations by historians as published by the museum in the 1991 monograph on the camp. The people doing the research did not have access to all the sources, including some in Germany. Nor did I use all the records available in the museum archives, because they are fragmentary, and they will not be useful in analyzing the mortality figures at Majdanek until the data they contain is entered in the computers.”


 * "Rajca emphasized that he had “not yet read Tomasz Kranz’s article, but, at first glance, his figures for the number of people killed in the camp seem incredibly low.”


 * We should include the range. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Polonius, it looks like we had an edit conflict. Feel free to add further to the note I added to the article if you think reservations should be stated. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Include a range? Do you have a good number or not - this range idea seems odd. 78,000 is the latest revision by the "experts", then what was the 235,000 based on? These numbers are approaching levels that appear to match known epidemic and natural mortality rates - this is not good? If the other camps "revise" their numbers this much, there would have been no need for gas chambers. This is the largest "historical revision" and "holocaust denial" I have read in many years, can Mr Kranz avoid jail with this attitude? How did his research avoid being suppressed, has the law changed in Europe, I may have missed it?. My understanding of Europen law is that the truth is no defense - Kranz appears to have the arrogance to think he is above the law, why? Who do we petiton to give him the cell next to Irvin, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the trollish aspects of the previous, let me respond to its one substantive point. In matters where scholars disagree, it is not Wikipedia's job to stand as über-scholars and sort out truth. It is our job to report the range of scholarly opinion and to attribute the conflicting views.


 * Oh, and I'm sorry, but I don't have a cell handy for you. Perhaps you could have your friends build you one. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Just strolling/trolling through - but is the number 78,000 ( you do realize that that number is not far above what you would expect from natural mortality ) which you seem to like, correct or not. If you want an article on death camps you should return to the higher number. Hate to see you guys lose your argument from inattention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

Source of Term "Vernichtung"
Nowhere in the article is any source provided for the "fact" that the Nazis used the term "Vernichtungslager". When did the term come into existence? In what contemporary documents can it be found? Should the whole article be deleted because it is unsourced? Or are we content just to take everybody else's word for it?

Here's one idea:


 * One of the earliest, if not the first account of an "extermination camp" in a major American periodical is the short article, "Vernichtungslager" which appeared in Time on August 21, 1944. The title alone is of great interest as it is rendered in German giving the appearance that the Germans referred to Majdanek (and perhaps other concentration camps) as a "Vernichtungslager" or "Extermination camp." No where in the literature or archives has this been found. The use of this German phrase was obviously intended by the editors at Time to add a  dimension of mystery and evil.

Proskauer 05:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not claim that the Nazis themselves used the term. In fact it states the opposite. (Last line, 'Terminology' section.)


 * What is the source for your para in italics? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  06:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out to me. Why must I source even my discussion entries when the article itself is largely unsourced? If you are you asking out of curiosity, then just google it. This article seems rather schizophrenic. The passive voice of the first sentence makes it sound as if the Nazis used the term. It should be amended. I will do so in one week if no one else does. Proskauer 10:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying WP:CITE! WP:CITE!, I was just curious as you were clearly quoting some other source. I was hoping for a paper source, but googling turns up CODOH.com, and I advise you not to trust them, as they are despicable holocaust-denying shitwipes.


 * I further dug about to see if there was evidence that the Nazis themselves did distinguish between extermination and concentration camps, and they did. I've added that fact and the evidence for it to the article. Thanks for the help! --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  13:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Nuremberg trials were post-war, so do not qualify as "Nazi" use. I will change some of the wording to reflect this. I'd appreciate it if you would not get in to POV editing. Responses to interrogatories during a trial do not constitute proof of wartime use. Proskauer 15:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing POV about my edit. I refer to a book by a professional historian, who quotes a fairly senior Nazi describing the wartime attitude of the department responsible for deportations to the camps. When he says 'from the point of view of the Eichmann department', that has to be taken as their view during the war, because the department was not functioning afterwards for obvious reasons.


 * How the Nazis referred to the extermination camps during the war I don't know, the numbers of people involved was kept to a minimum, a large amount of documentation was destroyed, and they used euphemisms to try to keep the operation of the camps secret. That is not particularly relevant, as modern historians (egs Bracher, Bullock, Dawidowicz) refer to the gassing camps as extermination camps or annihilation camps to distinguish them from 'normal' concentration camps. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  15:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the passive voice in the lead sentence is unhelpful. The problem is that the article starts by talking about the term, rather than just saying what the camps were. I've sidestepped this by simplifying the first sentence, and moving synonyms/translation to the terminology section, which seems appropriate. The link to the Nuremberg trials is now in that section too, where Overy's book is cited. See what you think. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  22:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I think you are purposely avoiding a fair and truthful account of the facts as known and perhaps you are engaging in original research. The fact is that the first known usage of the term is at the Nuremberg trials. This form of prevarication is rather dismaying in an article intended to be a representation of the current state of factual knowledge. I would also appreciate it if you could explain your apparent attitude that all of my edits can be removed while none of yours can be altered in the slightest. Thanks Proskauer 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In what way am I engaging in original research? Of all the changes to this article in the last few days, I am the only person to have cited a professional historian.


 * You say 'the fact is that the first known usage of the term is at the Nuremberg trials'. Do you have a citation from a reliable source for this strong claim? You are keen to insert it into the lead para of the article, but you have yet to produce one shred of evidence that it is true.


 * Until this morning, you have made only two edits in quick succession to this page, the net change is here:. I explained in my edit summary why I changed this, but it is hardly 'removing all' your edits.


 * I repeat, do you have a citation from a reliable source for this strong claim? You have yet to produce one shred of evidence that it is true. I will remove it again if you cannot support it. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  09:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm using your own reaearch, Squiddy. You dug about and found the earliest known usage. Until somebody else finds an earlier citation this would have to be it. By "original reasearch" I mean it seems as if you've extrapolated backwards from the Wisliceny testimony to infer that the term was in use during the war. (Looking back on the discussion, I see I may have misread your intent.) Maybe the Eichmann testimony would yield more information. It is difficult, even impossible, to prove the non-existence of anything -- all one can really do is show what is known. It does seem highly relevant in a discussion about the term to provide its origin. I think if there were documentary evidence from the war period it would have been exhibited in the history books. Proskauer 14:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The passage quoted in Overy in no way allows you to state that 'No documents exist that reflect Nazi use of the term during the war.' Overy's book doesn't claim this is the earliest use of the term, and I didn't allege that either. If you want the article to contain the assertion that 'No documents exist that reflect Nazi use of the term during the war,' you will have to find a respectable source which says this. Since the archives of Nazi documents are huge, it would be a bold historian who would make this claim. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  17:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Squiddy, I'm slightly disappointed that yet again you feel you have the right unilaterally to remove my contributions to the article without dealing with my remarks. It is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually know what you're talking about. The burden is not on me to prove the Nazis DIDN'T use the term during the war, the burden is on you to prove they DID. I will edit to reflect this state of affairs. Proskauer 08:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have the right to remove your unsourced contributions - it is Wikipedia policy that 'The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references.' I've told you this many times already, why are you having difficulty understanding it? Read the verifiability policy WP:V.


 * The point is moot, anyway, I've found a Nazi source from 1942, describing Auschwitz as 'das Lager der Vernichtung'. And yes, I've cited my source. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now we're getting down to brass tacks. The fact that Kremer uses "Sonderaktion" instead of "Vergasung" is odd, since he had no reason to use code words to himself in his own diary. Sonderaktion is a rather generic term and can mean almost anything. Of course, he explains all this at his trial in Soviet-occupied communist Poland in 1946-47, for war crimes and facing a possible death penalty.

Strictly speaking the point is not "moot" at all, since you have not established widespread or official use of the term until after the war. Possibly it was a slang word, and indeed all sorts of unofficial reports were circulating throughout Europe at the time. (FTR, "moot" means something that is under discussion. In law schools it refers to an exercise in which one litigates an assigned case but in which there is no legal outcome. A kind of 'pretend court'. It is almost universally used the way you did, however, but I like to remember its original meaning: something having to do with a meeting of the minds.) Proskauer 17:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, well, well.


 * Anyone can stumble across a holocaust denial website, find something that looks interesting, and come to WP saying 'isn't this interesting' - that doesn't make someone a denier. That's why I've bent over backwards to assume good faith on your part even though that's how you started this thread.


 * But we've been wrangling for days about the wartime usage of the term Vernichtungslager, with you insisting that its first use was at the Nuremberg trials, and you never mentioned Kramer's diary (which does seem to have some relevance). Then, less than seven hours after I post the Kramer diary quote, you are able to say 'Of course, he explains all this at his trial ...', sounding very much the expert. Did you suddenly go read up on this, or did you know it all along and decide not to mention it?


 * But there's more. Doing a bit more research into Kramer's diary, I find that the Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson has written about it, saying "Never did he write that Auschwitz was a Vernichtungslager, that is, according to a terminology developed by Allies after the war, an 'extermination camp'." That's exactly the line you've been taking. (source here, where Faurisson's rubbish is debunked.)


 * And what sort of Sonderaktion do you think Kramer might have been referring to, which took place at Auschwitz, and which he describes as making Dante's Inferno look like a comedy?


 * Oh, and more. Looking at your contributions, you also kick off a thread on Talk:Dachau_concentration_camp with a different quote from the same denier website you quoted here.


 * You were good enough to share your suspicion that I don't know what I'm talking about, so I'll share my suspicion. You're a Holocaust denier.


 * This page would probably benefit from a few more knowlegeable editors, so I've listed it on requests for comment here WP:RFC/HIST. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  21:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just following your lead, Squiddy. You linked to an article and I read it, and read as much as I could in a short time elsewhere. You seem to be finding conspiracy ghosts where none exist. I'm just an ordinary citizen and I would appreciate your NOT attempting to exercise some power of censorship over me. That would be abuse of power. Not only is censorship evil, it demonstrates that the perpetrator thereof has a weak case. I have attempted all along to be civil, and I have not deleted or vandalized your contributions. If you like name-calling, try censor on for size. I am extremely disappointed that one cannot have an intelligent debate here. I thought we were getting somewhere when you kept coming up with more precise information that really elucidated the whole issue; I thought it was a learning process we were both benefitting from. I hope you are not some sham propagandist who will only enforce his own viewpoint.

Moreover, I am not making unsourced additions to the article. I am encouraging you to adopt higher standards, which, frankly, I think you've done. You'll notice I made no additions or changes since your last one. Good work. Let's keep up the discussion, however, in as rational a tone as possible. Proskauer 21:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I've unjustly tarred you with that odious description, 'Holocaust denier,' I understand why you would take offense, and I am genuinely sorry. I just get a bad feeling in my bones when people quote CODOH.com and the like. One of the reasons I've requested other people to come and comment is to see if I am being overly intransigent or paranoid. I still can't shake that feeling, though... --Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  22:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem like a fair-minded guy. Thanks for cutting me some slack and showing me a few of the errors of my ways. I'm happy to leave things as they are. Proskauer 02:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that Proskauer has been busy trying to insert Holocaust denial material into all sorts of articles, much of which I've already had to revert; for example,      He's also had it explained to him on Talk: pages, so his protestations of innocence ring hollow. Jayjg (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am afraid your comment is misguided. For example, I would'n say that the following phrase
 * "Mengele's zealous persecution and murder of the inmates at Auschwitz earned him high commendations from his superiors"
 * could have been added by a holocaust denier. `'mikka (t) 20:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at it in the context of all the edits. Proskauer wants the commendations of Mengele to be advertised; he's willing to take a hit on the "persecution of the inmates" stuff to get it kept in there. Note, he calls them "inmates" not Jews. As for the rest of the stuff, though subtle, it was the standard Holocaust denial material, e.g. "proving" that it was impossible that the Germans could have used Zyklon-B in gas chambers. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

hello.(: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.153.25.240 (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

What gall - the lead paragraph on this discussion page is about a word "verni...." ( whatever ) that we now - far down the page you will note - are told was never used by the Germans ( it was a Time magazine invention. It's hard not to start swearing about being conned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).

This might clarify. Leni Yahil in THE HOLOCAUST: THE FATE OF EUROPEAN JEWRY 1932-1945 writes on page 308 that the German word 'ausmerzen' = exterminate and was a common lexical entry of speeches by '...Hitler and his henchmen...'   So 'ausmerzen' was the German word used by Hilter and others numerous times for the word exterminate. Yahil's book is thoroughly documented; looking at Hitler's speeches in German--which I'm sure Yahil did, should clarify that 'ausmerzen' was the word used by Hitler and his henchmen. On page 307, Yahil asserts "..."Sterbehilfe' became 'Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens' (the destruction of undeserving life)..." So 'Vernichtung' means destruction/annihilation while 'ausmerzen' means to exterminate. (Both interchangeable.)  Somebody in an earlier post asked the question where exactly in the Nazi documentation does the word 'Vernichtung' occur?  Hitler use the word in his famous Jan 30, 1939 Reichstag speech when he prophicied "...sondern die Vernichtung [annihilation/extermination] der jüdischen Rasse in Europa!" While Yahil's scholarship is thorough, his failure to translat English 'exterminate' with 'Vernichtung' or 'ausmerzen' in a crucial Hitler speech (Yahil, page 317)represents a flaw; in any event, Hitler meant exactly what he said. This deliberate usage of a vocabulary, a lexicon, specifically devoted to 'extermination/annihilation/destruction' reminds the modern student, that the "Final Solution" was not an accident of Nazism but a long-standing goal of Nazism. To think otherwise is to have a very bad grasp of history and language and semiotics. StevenTorrey (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

'ausmerzen' does not mean exterminate. It literally means "to weed out". It does not imply killing, but is also used for removing something without necessarily killing in the process. It's easy to attach meaning afterward, especially if one has a particular PoV on a matter, but that doesn't make it so. 'Ausmerzen' and 'Vernichtung' are not interchangeable. I am a native German speaker, by the way.

Censorship
You have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to remove my discussion. This is outright censorship.

Here is SlimVirgins response to my contribution:

(passage deleted by Slim Virgin)

''I've removed your material from the above and I've protected the page against it being added again, because it's not appropriate there, and to keep on inserting it is arguably vandalism. If you feel your material is legitimate, and if you can write it up in an entirely neutral voice, you might consider adding it to Holocaust denial. However, please review our editing policies first: WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 17:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)''

DO NOT REMOVE! I have a right to add my views to the discussion. This is CENSORSHIP! You people are worse than the politburo. If you remove again it denies other wikipedia members their right to respond. You people really ought to be ashamed of yourselves. If you feel you are so much in the right here, please institute proceedings for a general review of the issue. Doremifasolatido 17:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, DO NOT REMOVE! Here is what SlimVirgin just removed:

(passage deleted by Slim Virgin)

If you are an administrator, SlimVirgin, I demand a review before you remove again. Doremifasolatido 18:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

YET AGAIN, HERE IS THE BRIEF PASSAGE I ATTEMPTED TO POST IN THIS DISCUSSION:

(passage deleted by Slim Virgin)

Hypothetically, as a black man, if SlimVirgin were to deny me access to a restaurant, public park, or shopping mall on the basis of my race that would be a prima facie case of racial discrimination and denial of my constitutional rights. If she were to tell me I can't walk down some particular street because I'm not Jewish, that would be a denial of my constitutional rights. Title VII under US federal law says it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, race, or religion. I believe that SlimVirgin and others, including squiddy, jayjg, and jpgordon, are operating in concert to deny me access to this site and deny me my right of free speech, and that they are doing so on the basis of my not being Jewish, that is, on the basis of religion. I further believe that they are "conspiring" to do so. Conspiracy to deny a person free speech rights and to discriminate on the basis of religion may in fact be a crime under federal law. The paragraph I posted above is not "hate speech" and so is not exempted from Title VII. I wonder if now it will be removed a fourth time. You people are megalomaniacs and appear to be bent on world domination. Is there nothing you will stop at? Should I expect a knock on my front door from the JDL gestapo?

Not only that, you are all cowards because you never engage in discussion, you merely exert and abuse your power.


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, dear. And not all views are equal here, holocaust denial being among the most dangerous of those. Finally, if you raise pseudo-legal arguments, please bear in mind that in many (most?) European states holocaust denial is a legal offence. In Poland it is punishable with up to three years in prison. Really.  // Halibutt 08:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well at least you admit you are a fascist. Doremifasolatido 12:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What kind of argument is that? If you're that interested I'm a liberal democrat with some leftist inclinations. Little to do with fascism. And beware of such vocabulary, calling someone a fascist is quite a serious offence, not to mention other terms you used (or suggested) above. Accusations of racism, bad faith, conspiracy, megalomania, cowardice and such violate the WP:CIVIL. At the same time your legal arguments might be seen as a violation of No legal threats. Adding this quote to several articles in a row without discussion at the talk page might also lead to violation of WP:3RR. Don't expect people to treat you seriously if you behave that way. Why not focus on the text you're trying to add and not on insults?  // Halibutt 14:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I did not threaten anybody with a lawsuit, and I merely pointed out that your statement follows fascist principles. Free and democratic people love free and democratic practices and speech. You have told me that WP is not a democracy. I don't appreciate others deleting my discussion without comment, but you were not the one doing it. It doesn't surprise me that most of Europe has laws against free speech, but I am an American so am not bound by their laws. We have our own form of fascism over here. Sorry for calling you a fascist, however.

As for dealing with the text, how about it? No one has actually dealt with the text so far. Faurisson merely states verifiable scientific facts in this excerpt.

Respectfully, Doremifasolatido 15:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is something I'd like people to discuss or at least have access to:

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.

IN MY OPINION, this would be an important part of the Holocaust Denial section. Feel free to disagree with me, but please don't delete.

Doremifasolatido 18:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Above description of a gas chamber - The Germans did have gas chambers built exactly like that - they used them at every camp for disinfecting clothes etc. However, the "gas chambers" for killing Jews seemed to have been designed and constructed by a troop of retarded Boy Scouts ( sorry I know they were built after the war and I am not trying to diss Poland ). Why just a few feet away did the Germans become really dumb - they knew how to do this correctly?159.105.80.141 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As one who has worked in the design and operation of industrial furnaces I can state that perfect conditions are not normally required to achieve effective production. No "magic" or supertechnology was required to perpetuate these horrible events. Fans, ventilation and time clear furnace atmospheres after use. Normal "rules of thumb" used in metallurgy were sufficient.Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly Doremifasolatido has been kicked out from Wikipedia, I'd love to know what he wanted to ask to slimvirgin. Well, next time somewhere else maybe, sure not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.112.64.102 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger
Please Read
 * Does anyone disagree that this page should be merged with Nazi concentration camps? AdamBiswanger1 16:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Extermination Camp" is a postwar neologism
The following gives the impression that "Vernichtungslager" was an official term used by NS-Germany in documents etc.:
 * "The terms extermination camp (German: Vernichtungslager) or death camp (German: Todeslager) specifically refer to the camps whose primary function was genocide.''


 * Extermination camps are distinguished from concentration camps (such as Dachau and Belsen), which were mostly located in Germany and intended as places of incarceration and forced labour for a variety of "enemies of the state" of the Nazi regime (such as Communists and homosexuals). In the early years of the Nazi regime, many Jews were sent to these camps, but after 1942 all Jews were deported to the extermination camps."

This is not the case. Those camps were referred to as Konzentrationslager (short: KL, KZ). The NS did not make such a distinction. "Vernichtungslager" is a postwar neologism. This neologism is an attempt to give credibility to the claim that Jews were in fact "exterminated" in those camps. This is actually a deeply dishonest rhetorical trick to set a debate by definition. It must be noted that there are people doubting that those camps were used for extermination at all. Those insisting on the claim of "extermination in homicidal gas chambers" however do everything to avoid any honest debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.54.202.82 (talk • contribs) 7 August 2006.
 * Ah, yes, your remark above read like Holocaust denial, but I see you are going full bore here. - Jmabel | Talk

Here jmabel gets caught in an outright lie and he .... hey is his behavior trolling. You wiki guys have gall/chutzpha for sure. Verni... must be a code word but please use your IQ and use a word the Germans used before 1946 idiots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs).


 * If you want to accuse me of trolling, and especially if you want to accuse me lying, start an RFC. And if you want to call me an "idiot", please expect someone to block you. I can't even tell what statement of mine you claim is a lie. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also people doubting that the Earth is round, but we don't write about elephants and turtles.Xx236 13:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about how upset some become when someone ( not me ) spots an obvious goof shall we say. By the way idiot was meant to describe the higherups in the holocaust story camp - most of us would have never known this trick ( but many of us will be fooled less easily in the future ) on our own. ( on rereading my post I guess I thought you knew about the trick with words - maybe/probably you were as duped as most of us). Honestly making up a new German word after the war and exchanging it in place of the original word seems a little less than low. It becomes harder and harder to believe a word that comes from debaters,etc that have such a tricky procedure that seems to try to divert/obscure/... instead of narrowing in on the truth. It is becoming more and more obvious that the feigned hurt feelings, dramatic language ,etc is covering up for a factual deficient story. Anyone involved in this is going to remeber the trick a lot longer than they remember the details of the trick, they also remember the tricksers. Unrelated - Martin Brozsat, in about 1960, said that the extermination camps were only in Poland. Before that date almost all camps were classified as extermination camps - Polish and German. Any information as to how Mr Brozsat came to his conclusion - a conclusion that all scholars seem to now accept ( also with no explanation ( I hope I just missed the explanation, not that one doesn't exist)?159.105.80.63 15:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

'Murder' versus 'killing'
Regardless of one's moral compulsion concerning the systematic extermination of the Jews and other minorities in Germany, the Nazis were not guilty of 'murder' which is a crime defined by a state. From a Hobbesian perspective it is the prerogative of states to set the bounds of justice and injustice. If another state decides to use force to stop them well so be it but the state may never commit 'murder'. Nicander 07:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Page move
The previous move was not discussed and not warranted. The main meaning of the term extermination camp is Nazi/Holocaust death camp. Hence it is the name of this artricle. Just as the article name is Moscow, not Moscow, Russia. Other Moscows are in Moscow (disambiguation). I highly doubt that Extermination camp (disambiguation) will be written any time soon. But even if it will be, this will not change the main usage of the term. `'mikkanarxi 19:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aktion Reinhardt
What's the source for including Majdanek as an 'Aktion Reinhard' camp? Arad and Arad list Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka in their book on the subject, as do most sources I've read. These were camps that all had the same method of extermination and were all under Christian Wirth Further, the summary here describes Aktion Reinhardt as aimed at the destruction of the Jews of Europe, whereas if I recall correctly it aimed at the destruction of the Jews of the General Government specifically. Wilhelm Ritter 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuals?
Maybe the line in the first paragraph needs cleaned up. Homosexuals were not targeted for extermination in nazi Germany. I don't think anyone even makes such a claim. If a male homosexual were willing to get married, bare children, join the SS, and carry on a very public affair with another man, he would have no problems. 88.155.171.247 09:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are simply wrong, especially post-1934. See Paragraph 175. - 21:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article Paragraph 175 seems to support the first of the anonymous users claims, namely that Homosexuals were not sent to extermination camps to be gassed en masse like Jews but were sent to concentration camps to be brutalized into submission to their proper role in the Reich, and if they died, so what, in the SS's eyes. Wilhelm Ritter 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct that they were not, in general, systematically gassed (although over half of those sent to the camps died there). There should probably be citation in this article of the degree to which members of each group named were sent to extermination camps. Other than the Jews and Gypsies (and the Serbs killed at Jasenovac), where the intent of extermination was general, I don't really know how much this occurred. Certainly there was not a general extermination of Soviet POWs, also mentioned in the lead. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? As many (percentage) of Soviet prisoners died as of the Jews of Europe. In case you didn't know, they were the fist people gassed at Auschwitz. And hundreds of thousands didn't die only because they escaped death through collaboration - if not, almost all would die. The German homosexuals were NOT targeted, Nazis wanted them "cured" and returned to society (males - lesbians were practically never jailed at all). This was the policy, to not kill them. They died because they were being discriminated by both individual gards AND fellow prisoners. --HanzoHattori 16:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Post war
The paragraph contains false informations. Auschwitz has been a museum since ages, partially reconstructed, which caused accusations by revisionists. Chelmno, Belzec and Treblinka were completely destroied by Germans during the war, so what were the Communist to do there? Construct idealized camps?Xx236 13:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i disagree jews were a main group that was looked upon as being not equal enough. they were forced to where a pink triangle and were even humiliated inside the ghettos and concentration camps

Todeslager Strippers?
Hello, I've been reading wikipedia for quite some time now and have silently edited a few 'tpyos' and misdirected links, but I have yet to comment on a discussion. A section of this article left me a little confused.

"In a generic sense, a death camp is a concentration camp were Jews learned the history of Germans. In these camps, there was good treatment and living conditions. They learned to read an write German and how to speak it as well. In the camps, there were German strippers to entertain the Jews."

I'm not sure to whom I should attribute this edit, but I have yet to find any documentation that supports this claim. In fact it seems like part of his or her description refers to a work education camp, but even then I have nothing that points to German strippers for Jewish prisoners. My question is should this statement be omitted without supporting evidence, or should it be treasured as a little-known fact?

Leemute 22:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That was vandalism; crap like that can be reverted immediately. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article states that bodies were cremated or buried in mass graves. Weren't they all cremated - I believe no mass graves have ever been found in Poland. All claims that I have heard say cremated or buried then dug up and cremated to remove all evidence.159.105.80.141 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - reading around at random on the Internet I came across this page. Noticed the vandalism on the page re - fried bananas!??? Hope someone more familiar with Wikipedia than me can clean it up! KevinBeyer 23:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Why "garbage"
From the article on the KLs:

Starting in 1942, Nazi Germany established extermination or death camps for the sole purpose of carrying out the industrialized murder of the Jews of Europe — the Final Solution. These camps were established in occupied Poland and Belarus, on the territory of the General Government. Over three million Jews would die in these extermination camps, primarily by poison gas, usually in gas chambers, although many prisoners were killed in mass shootings and by other means. These death camps, including Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, and Auschwitz-Birkenau are commonly referred to as "concentration camps," but scholars of the Holocaust draw a distinction between concentration camps and death camps.

What do you fail to understand? Now,

1. The Germans were NOT (n-o-t) exterminating "Communists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and homosexuals". Go figure.

2. Soviet POWs were not "Russian". In the case you never heard, Soviet Union.

3. Jasenovac was not an extermination camp and wasn't even German (it was a Croatian concentration camp). --HanzoHattori 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * HanzoHattori: Thanks for your explanations—I now see what you mean about the intro being garbage. I had my own doubts about parts of it but don't have the resources to fact-check those details and have been editing “Extermination camps” mainly for its stylistic aspects (i.e., good English, logical flow, etc.) and not so much for content. As far as Jasenovac is concerned, I had my own doubts about its mention in this article because it was not German; if it was not an extermination camp, that’s even more reason why it shouldn’t even appear in this article. In any further edits I make, I will endeavor to respect the changes you made today. I would like to ask one thing of you: Could you supply in-line attributive citations for any of the Fact and other similar queries? Such attribution could go a long why is ensuring that factually correct material is not removed by other editors who are ignorant of those facts. I say this because I’m also familiar with the frustration of having to repeatedly reinstate factual material that has been removed, whether the removal was an honest mistake or vandalism. Attribution will also enhance the credibility of the statements as well as, ultimately, that of Wikipedia. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

By the Wiki definition of ext. camp cited above, no. Also Yugoslavian communist and later Serbian nationalist propaganda painted it much worse than it really was (things like "600,000 victims", etc.). And this continues. From the Jasenovac concentration camp which I don't even attempt to touch: "The Germans said that the Ustasha were the worst and most cruel murderers in the whole world. [citation needed] Prisoners in Jasenovac were forced to drink water from Sava river with "ren". - what. --HanzoHattori 15:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And if we skip the Nazis and their merry gas, there are actually more fitting camps for "extermination camp" label. For example, only 7 out of 17,000 people survived Tuol Sleng. --HanzoHattori 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Perhaps this article should be rename “Nazi extermination camps” to preserve the focus as well as leave room for another article covering any kind of extermination camp, regardless of who ran it or where it was located. Jim_Lockhart 15:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The main thing about Croats killing Serbs, it was not even part of Holocaust, but of the then-even-more savage Balkan ethnic conflict. Sure, they killed the Jews too - but so did the German-supported Serbs (in turn, the communists exterminated Axis and former Axis civilians later). I guess I'd deal with it too. --HanzoHattori 17:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)