Talk:Is the Holocaust Unique?

Please keep in mind that this book is not denying the holocaust
As this P.h.D says, after describing the book Is the Holocaust Unique?:
 * However, in all of these disputations, absolutely none of the protagonists deny that the Holocaust actually occurred. Historians poring through the mountains of documents from World War II may refine some details about the Holocaust, such as reducing the total number of victims of the gassings, but at the same time revising upward the number of deaths resulting from the SS mobile killing units that operated on the Eastern Front. But no responsible historian of World War II maintains that the Holocaust is a myth or says that it never happened.

Inclusionist (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only is the comparison between the Holocaust of Native Americans and that of Jews perfectly justified, but it is also safe to say the former was far worse than the latter. Between 40 million and 100 million Native Americans died as a result of the European conquest in the 16-th and 17-th centuries alone. It's also worth noting that the Nazi regime itself kille far more Slavs (more than 20 million) than Jews. The claims of Jewish leaders that it's the Jewish people that suffered the most is bound to be disproven. Not only there is no evidence to back up the claim that the Holocaust of Jews was unique, there is also no evidence whatsoever that they were the most persecuted ethnic group throughout history RaduFlorian (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone who wanted more detail from this article, one piece of information I was looking for was whether it included the other victims of the Holocaust as being part of this one big uniquely massive genocide, or as separate genocides? One would think the Romani Holocaust is comparable to the Jewish Holocaust if they're being considered separately. --93.107.77.64 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing content
This article says nothing about the status of the book. How was it reviewed? Did it provoke any discussion, response or controversies? Overall, the article is very poorly referenced, even for such a short article. Where is proof of notability? I mean, if it went through three printings then there probably is some, and I'm not going to propose deletion, but it is certainly not in evidence here. DanielRigal (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)