Talk:First mass transport of Jews to Auschwitz concentration camp

Mistake
The first mass transport of Jews to Auschwitz wasn't from Slovakia, but Poland. See Auschwitz concentration camp. SarahSV (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is a difference in definition of "mass"? At least some sources do state that this was. buidhe 22:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * See Danuta Czech's The Auschwitz Chronicle. That should be consulted about dates for events in Auschwitz. As I recall, the number in the first transport isn't known, but it was the first of the all-Jewish transports, leave bags on the ramp, then straight to the gas chamber. The Slovakian transports were the first all-female transport of Jews, but not the first mass transport. SarahSV (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct. Both Wachsmann and Longerich state that this was the first mass transport of Jews. I would consider them better quality sources than Czech. buidhe 22:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Czech's Chronicle is authoritative for dates. The Slovakian transport you're discussing, as our Auschwitz article explains (also sourced to Czech) was the first organized by the RSHA office IV B4, led by Eichmann. Did you look at the Auschwitz article before creating this? SarahSV (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I never look at Wikipedia because it's not a reliable source. And no, I wouldn't consider Czech authoritative. I've found too many errors in her work for that. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources in the Auschwitz article are solid, so you certainly should look at it. Can you give examples of errors you've found in Czech? SarahSV (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, on 29 October 1944 she states that a transport of Jews arrived from Slovakia. But none of the Slovak sources (which are pretty complete) mention this. She probably meant the transport that left Theresienstadt the previous day. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you cite here the Slovak source that Czech seems to contradict? She writes (p. 742) that on 29 October 1944 seven men were admitted to the camp and registered after selection from an RHSA transport from Sered. Others were sent to the gas chambers. She cites "APMO, D-Aull-3/1, p. 8, Quarantine List". APMO stands for the State Museum's archives. She mentions the arrival of Theresienstadt Jews on 30 October. If you find a discrepancy between Czech and other sources when it comes to Auschwitz, you should probably trust Czech, unless it's another Auschwitz scholar making the correction. If she conflicts with what you believe is an authoritative source, perhaps the museum staff would be willing to check the record for you.


 * What other errors have you found in Czech? SarahSV (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are complete lists of transports from Sered in these two sources among others:
 * Both of these reference two lists compiled separately at Sered, which agree in almost all particulars and both omit any transport that correspond to the one that shows up in Auschwitz Chronicle. Czech is also missing some of the transports from Slovakia in 1942. I remember finding more errors but I can't remember them all off the top of my head.
 * Why is Czech automatically more reliable than any other source? One weakness of her book is that, as far as I can tell, she didn't necessarily cross-reference with records for the points of departure. Her book is a useful but her methodology means that she runs the risk of reproducing errors in the records she cites. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Czech worked for the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum for decades with access to the primary sources. Holocaust historians regularly cite her. If seven men from that transport were registered and given serial numbers, it means that records exist for them. On what page does Fatran discuss this? Also, why do you trust other sources over Czech and believe that something is a complete list if it omits a transport she has mentioned? I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm not in a position to judge), but I just wonder what your reasoning is. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Both of these reference two lists compiled separately at Sered, which agree in almost all particulars and both omit any transport that correspond to the one that shows up in Auschwitz Chronicle. Czech is also missing some of the transports from Slovakia in 1942. I remember finding more errors but I can't remember them all off the top of my head.
 * Why is Czech automatically more reliable than any other source? One weakness of her book is that, as far as I can tell, she didn't necessarily cross-reference with records for the points of departure. Her book is a useful but her methodology means that she runs the risk of reproducing errors in the records she cites. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 01:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Czech worked for the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum for decades with access to the primary sources. Holocaust historians regularly cite her. If seven men from that transport were registered and given serial numbers, it means that records exist for them. On what page does Fatran discuss this? Also, why do you trust other sources over Czech and believe that something is a complete list if it omits a transport she has mentioned? I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm not in a position to judge), but I just wonder what your reasoning is. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Czech worked for the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum for decades with access to the primary sources. Holocaust historians regularly cite her. If seven men from that transport were registered and given serial numbers, it means that records exist for them. On what page does Fatran discuss this? Also, why do you trust other sources over Czech and believe that something is a complete list if it omits a transport she has mentioned? I'm not saying you're wrong (I'm not in a position to judge), but I just wonder what your reasoning is. SarahSV (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reference in the text to both is necessary—whether one in the main text and one in a footnote, or both in the main text I'm unsure. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  01:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article can discuss both transports and explain the difference. The Polish transport in February 1942 went straight to the gas chambers. According to Czech, it was the first all-Jewish transport to Auschwitz; the Wannsee Conference in January decided the transports should begin. The Slovakian women sent in March were used as slave labour; it was the first transport organized by Eichmann's office. Another thing we can do is look up the most recent edition of Czech's Chronicle to make sure it refers to the February 1942 transport. SarahSV (talk) 02:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It could potentially be mentioned in the background section, but it's not even clear that this was the first transport of Jews (per Longerich). <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sources for February 1942
1. Danuta Czech, The Auschwitz Chronicle, Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, 1990, p. 135 (also in Czech, Auschwitz 1940–1945, Volume V, 2000, p. 142): "February 15, 1942: The first transport of Jews who have been arrested by the Stapo and destined for death in Auschwitz arrives from Beuthen. They are unloaded on the platform of the camp siding. They have to leave their bags on the platform. The standby squad takes charge of the deportees from the Stapo and leads them to the gas chamber in the camp crematorium. There they are killed with Zyklon B gas."

2. Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum: "Anniversary of the First Transport of Polish Jews to Auschwitz", 13 February 2006: "February 15 is the 64th anniversary of the first deportation of Polish Jews to Auschwitz. A transport of Jews arrested by the Gestapo in Bytom arrived that day in 1942. They were all liquidated immediately after arriving." SarahSV (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

3. Franciszek Piper, Auschwitz 1940–1945, Volume III: Mass Murder, 2000, p. 14: "In February 1942, Auschwitz was incorporated into the destruction of German Jewry. The first transports were brought here from the parts of Upper Silesia (Bytom and Gliwice) that had been German before the war."

4. Franciszek Piper, ibid., p. 219: "The first known date of arrival of a Jewish transport is that of several hundreds of Jews from Bytom (Beuten) on February 15 1942. The whole transport was murdered." Citing Höss (Broszat, ed., 1958, p. 160, note 2).

5. Rudolf Hoess, Commandant of Auschwitz, Phoenix Press, 2000, p. 148: "In the spring of 1942 the first transports of Jews, all earmarked for extermination, arrived from Upper Silesia." Note 3: "One of the first, if not the very first, of these was a transport of Jews from Beuthen on 15 February, 1942." SarahSV (talk) 07:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

6. Sybille Steinbacher, Auschwitz: A History, 2005, p. 107: "The first German Jews on a transport organized by the RSHA arrived from Vienna in mid-July 1942. German Jews from Beuthen had already been transported to Auschwitz in February 1942, probably in connection with regional anti-Jewish measures in Upper Silesia."

7. Mary Fulbrook, A Small Town Near Auschwitz: Ordinary Nazis and the Holocaust. Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. 220–221:

"Gunter Faerber, for example, recalled the moment in February 1942 when the Jews of Beuthen (Bytom in Polish), where his grandmother lived, were brought through Bedzin on their way to Auschwitz. ... Two large army trucks of Jewish women from Beuthen were brought "straight to the station, they were queuing at the station":


 * "I was still given a chance to say goodbye because we knew already ... that the women of Beuthen are arriving ... I went down to the station, I saw the long queue of women."

Faerber asked permission of a Gestapo guard to go up to his grandmother, who was with her sister, "and I said goodbye, and that was the last I saw of them and the whole transport was moved out by train ..."

The first gassings of Jews from Upper Silesia, including very probably Gunter Faerber's grandmother, took place on 15 February in the gas chamber of Crematorium I, in the main Auschwitz camp."

That's a description of a "mass transport". SarahSV (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's not really clear how many people this involved. "Mass transport" usually means lots of rail cars, not trucks. Furthermore, since the source doesn't say mass transport this is all original research. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 04:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: "the whole transport was moved out by train". Buidhe, we're having this discussion because you wanted to create another article about Slovakia for another DYK, GA, etc. Stop to think about that. We have to describe this in a certain way, and forget the Polish Jews, and I have to spend hours looking for sources, because of that. SarahSV (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the sources, but none of them say "mass". So we can't describe that as a mass transport without original research, regardless of what you think it was. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 06:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Buidhei, describing this as "mass" is common sense and needs no source to use the word. It's not as though "mass" in this sense is a technical word. I also have a few issues about the use of the foreign-language sources. They do need to be verifiable – if not by our readers, by en.WP editors. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  07:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I've edited the section in the Auschwitz article to introduce sources saying other than February 1942, so that gives a quick overview for now. I don't have time at the moment to look for more sources. There was also a transport of Polish Jews around 20 March 1942; they went straight to the gas chamber. See Czech 2000, p. 143. SarahSV (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Noting that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum also says 15 February: "February 15, 1942: The first transport of Jews from Bytom (Beuthen) in German-annexed Upper Silesia arrives in Auschwitz I. The SS camp authorities kill all those on the transport immediately upon arrival with Zyklon B gas."That doesn't necessarily mean anything; there are mistakes and inconsistencies on their site, as there are in the work of all the historians, unsurprisingly given the confusion of primary sources. Still, if this had been convincingly refuted by 2015 (e.g. by Longerich and Wachsmann), I'd expect the USHMM to have removed it by 2020. SarahSV (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Quote from Czech

 * From The Auschwitz Chronicle, Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, p. 135.

February 15, 1942: "The first transport of Jews who have been arrested by the Stapo and destined for death in Auschwitz arrives from Beuthen. They are unloaded on the platform of the camp siding. They have to leave their bags on the platform. The standby squad takes charge of the deportees from the Stapo and leads them to the gas chamber in the camp crematorium. There they are killed with Zyklon B gas."

She cites Martin Broszat, Pery Broad and Rudolf Höss. Also see Auschwitz concentration camp; Beuthen Jewish Community; and Bytom Synagogue. SarahSV (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Longerich: "Instead, in the spring of 1942 three groups of Jewish prisoners came to Auschwitz: the first mass transports of Jews to Auschwitz were made up of Slovakian Jews, of whom four transports of young women, some 3,800 in total, arrived between 26 March and 7 April." He cites Longerich, Politik, p. 492. Previously, (p. 281) Longerich states: "There is a series of indications that even before the end of the year [1941] several smaller groups of Jews were also murdered in Auschwitz with Zyklon B; presumably they were the ones who had been selected from the Schmelt camps as no longer fit for work." But, evidently these are not considered mass transports. Wachsmann states that "Systematic mass deportations of Jews to Auschwitz began in late March 1942. The first RSHA train, carrying 999 women from Slovakia, arrived on March 26" <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 23:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Slovakian transport was the first RSHA transport organized by Eichmann, as Czech says, and as our Auschwitz article says. But it was not the first all-Jewish transport. Neither Longerich nor Wachsmann are specialist sources on Auschwitz, by the way, and don't claim to be. Danuta Czech was. We don't know how many were in that first transport. This non-RS says 1,300. But if it was 500 or 100, would you say it wasn't a mass transport? Franciszek Piper refers to the first transport here on p. 385. SarahSV (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Where does Czech describe it as a mass transport? It's not in the quote you gave. Piper doesn't say mass transport either. The two sources I gave are inconsistent with the first mass transport being in February. I don't think we should use original research to determine the size of "mass" but rather go off of what reliable sources say. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Czech and Piper are among the most authoritative sources that exist for Auschwitz. That something was the first mass transport organized by Eichmann's office doesn't mean it was the first overall. SarahSV (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * For things that they don't say, it doesn't matter how authoritative they are. So far you have not found a single source which supports the supposition that the February transport was the first mass one. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 02:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Recap
Buidhe has nominated this for DYK. Some of the outstanding issues:


 * The 26 March 1942 transport, according to Danuta Czech, was "the first registered transport sent to Auschwitz by RSHA IV B4 (the Jewish Office, directed by SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann)". That doesn't mean it was the first overall.
 * This issue is exploited by Holocaust deniers. They argue that the first transports were not sent to the gas chamber. Therefore, they argue, this is evidence that Jews were sent to Auschwitz to work, not to die.
 * Czech and others say there was a transport on 15 February 1942 that was gassed on arrival and another one on 20 March, also gassed. The former has been disputed by two historians that I'm aware of, but not the latter. We need to establish what the current scholarly consensus is.
 * Regarding how many women were in the 26 March 1942 transport, the article and hook say 997. Czech says 999 (Auschwitz 1940–1945, V, 2000, p. 144): "March 26, 1942: Nine hundred ninety-nine Jewish women from Poprad in Slovakia arrived, and were assigned numbers 1000–1998."
 * Sources: parts of the article are based on non-RS. For example, the 997 figure is sourced to a newspaper. That needs a scholarly source.
 * Would it make sense to move the article to First mass transports of Jews to Auschwitz and focus on the early transports, plural? There were registered transports (with prisoners given serial numbers) from Slovakia on 26 and 28 March, from France on 30 March, and from Slovakia on 24 April (see Czech). And there were (possibly or probably) unregistered ones in February and 20 March.
 * File:Linda Reich Auschwitz Album.jpg could use an explanation. The women are smiling, not obviously starving, have their hair, and are wearing what look like clean shirts. They seem to be part of the "Kanada" detachment (inmates who worked in the storage facilities) or have access to it. The Vrba–Wetzler report addressed their situation (p. 32):
 * "Of late these girls have been able to dress themselves quite well as they have had opportunities to complete their wardrobes which, in some cases, even include silk stockings. Generally speaking they are reasonably well off and are even allowed to let their hair grow. Of course this cannot be said of the other Jewish inmates of the women's camp. It just so happens that these Slovak Jewish girls have been in the camp the longest of all. But if today they enjoy certain privileges, they have previously undergone frightful sufferings."


 * SarahSV (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. So what? Wikipedia is for reporting the facts according to reliable sources, not advocacy against Holocaust denial. Article makes it very clear that most of the victims were killed eventually.
 * 4 and 5. The 997 number is the estimate of the only person (as far as I know) who looked at the entire transport list; she found duplicates. I have also seen estimates of 1,000 and 999, but this is the most recent and in depth research so I think it should be used. I don't have access to the book but Times of Israel is a reliable source and is just reporting her findings.
 * 6. The article meets GNG and is of decent length. Therefore, it should be kept and not merged into a different article. Other articles could be created on other transports if GNG is met. If you don't like the name start a requested move.
 * 7. Article already explains that those who were able to survive obtained special positions where the conditions were not as bad. If there is relevant commentary on this specific transport or the specific image it could be added. However, the comment in the report isn't specific to this transport as the girls/women referred to may have come in later transports. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 6. The article meets GNG and is of decent length. Therefore, it should be kept and not merged into a different article. Other articles could be created on other transports if GNG is met. If you don't like the name start a requested move.
 * 7. Article already explains that those who were able to survive obtained special positions where the conditions were not as bad. If there is relevant commentary on this specific transport or the specific image it could be added. However, the comment in the report isn't specific to this transport as the girls/women referred to may have come in later transports. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 7. Article already explains that those who were able to survive obtained special positions where the conditions were not as bad. If there is relevant commentary on this specific transport or the specific image it could be added. However, the comment in the report isn't specific to this transport as the girls/women referred to may have come in later transports. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * The photograph was taken around May 1944. The Vrba–Wetzler report describes the period up to April 1944. They are not discussing a different group of Slovakian women. As for the figure, Czech says the inmates were given serial numbers 1000–1998; she cites documents used in the Höss trial. If you're going to say something different, you'll need a source that explains the discrepancy, ideally a scholarly source. As for the title, it's not a question of just holding an RM. The title has to reflect the content. SarahSV (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Slovak Jewish women continued to arrive until the end of 1942. In fact, Büchler says "Some Jewish  women  from  Slovakia endured  Auschwitz for two and a half years, a smaller group  for  nearly three." Only a few hundred were still alive by the end of 1942, so this indicates that the bulk of those left alive in 1944 arrived on later transports, not this one.
 * I expect that Macadam has a more extensive reasoning behind the number in her book. Still, in recognition that reliable sources disagree, it wouldn't be wrong to say "about a thousand" or something to that effect. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I expect that Macadam has a more extensive reasoning behind the number in her book. Still, in recognition that reliable sources disagree, it wouldn't be wrong to say "about a thousand" or something to that effect. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 03:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, the point I was making about the photograph was a different one. The photograph is jarring. The women are wearing clean clothes and look as though they're having fun at a bring-and-buy sale. The article should explain that they were members of the "Kanada kommando" at the Kanada warehouses. The Vrba–Wetzler report describes the extra privileges these Slovakian women had, that their situation was unusual, and that conditions had not always been like that for them. (In fact, many of them died because of the atrocious conditions in the women's camp.) The report was written in April 1944 and the photograph was taken around May 1944, so the report is clearly describing the group to which the women in the photograph belonged. In addition, one of the women in the photograph, Linda Breder (Libusha Reich), was on the 26 March 1942 transport from Slovakia. For all these reasons, I think the article should mention that part of the report.As for Macadam's book, it isn't an RS for Auschwitz, except perhaps for interviews with survivors. The article should reflect the scholarly consensus regarding the date of the first transport (the first overall if the title states that) and the number of women on the 26 March transport. Saying just under a thousand would be fine—Höss said the transports never numbered more than a thousand—but the article should also explain about the serial numbers, and Czech is the source for that and 999. Consider moving the page to a title that reflects that this was the first RSHA mass transport. SarahSV (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mass exposure on the front page seems a bit premature: there are ongoing discussions about important and sensitive issues. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  10:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so it's inappropriate in the context of this article. <b style="color:darkgreen">Tony</b> (talk)  06:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As for Macadam's book, it isn't an RS for Auschwitz why not? The book has been published in both the US and UK by reliable, if non-academic, presses. Take it up with RSN if you disagree.
 * Article already mentions the serial numbers. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Article already mentions the serial numbers. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)