Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 20

Marx and Engles
I think it should be pointed out that the idea of a Holocaust was first proposed by Karl Marx in 1849. Marx argued that certain races the Scottish Highlanders, Basques, Bretons, and above all the Slovaks were behind capitalism and as such when the workers revolution came would be two steps behind that is to say medival while the rest of the world was post-capitalist. Marx argued that "the races and classes which are too weak to survive must perish in a revolutionary holocaust." This is the earliest known use of political genocide.


 * The quotation in question is a garbled version of a passage from this article by Engels (not Marx), which says nothing about Scottish Highlanders, Basques, Bretons and others being "behind capitalism". It says that such marginalised peoples develop a fanatical anti-modernising ideology since their continued existence as an ethnicity "is itself a protest against a great historical revolution". He then qoutes Hegel as saying that such "residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character." This is a description of a historical-political dynamic, not an advocation of genocide. In any case it is irrelevant to this article, which is specifically about Nazi crimes. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
The current page has extreme vandalism done to it, I don't have the right to edit it and I've no clue how he did it. Villadelfia (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC) the page, and see the vandalism. Some of the best vandalism Ive seen by the target and time up. (not as good as willys page moves, the ascii goatse, and the bodybuilder with an erection that made the front page) 71.37.50.189 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it still there? Likely someone messed with a template. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found it. Yes, someone messed with a template, and the damage was already reverted by the time I looked. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I still see it...Villadelfia (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Have you reloaded the page? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just came here (see my signature for time), never loaded

Disambiguation
Why does the "holocaust" link here? It is not a proper noun BY DEFINITION. There is a disambiguation page and it should fo there first. From there viewers can choose to come here. Furthermore, why is it THE holocaust? the definition of holocaust is not limited to 1940's. Perhaps Holocause (Nazis) would be more appropriate. 59.183.149.111 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many time in this page and editors are tired of rehashing it over and over. Check back through the archives.  This is not WikiDictionary so the most common historic usage of the term gets priority hence Holocaust redirects here.  There are other historic uses of Holocaust where it means "burnt offering unto God" and those are covered in the dablink (disambig link) found at the header of this page: "Holocaust" and "Shoah" redirect here. For other uses, see Holocaust (disambiguation) and Shoah (disambiguation)..  As for THE Holocaust, can you name any other Holocaust as widely known as the WWII one?  Alatari (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "The editors are tired of rehashing it over and over" Wow, that's interesting, considering the fact that everyone is an editor of wikipedia. These peole who 'rehash' the idea have just as much say as the people who shut them down. If they're so tired, they should take a break and let other people have a say in where the articles go. You aren't helping anyone with your negativity: he has a good point. In fact, I accidently came across this page while looking for the Armenian Holocaust. I don't have a problem with "holocaust" re-directing here, but it certainly raises a good point about how pretentious people are getting over this article. There is no holocaust as well known as this one, but that's a problem not a solution. We're here for the sake of information, not a popularity contest.Thadeuss (talk) 10:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously everyone is, or can be, an editor of Wikipedia, Thaddeuss, but what I think Alatari is referring to is the fact that most Wikipedia pages have a relatively small group of editors who are interested in the article and are familiar with its history and its controversies. For them it can be rather tiresome to have someone visit the article's talk page and rehash old, weak arguments that have never gained consensus and never will, and do so without bothering to check whether the issue has been debated previously. If you think that the primary notoriety of the World War II holocaust is a "problem" to be solved, I suggest you try solving it elsewhere. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Also, calling other editors "pretentious people" who are "getting over this article" is a personal attack that will do nothing to help you gain consensus for any of your actions. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what he's saying, but as an open dictionary, I think we should encourage people to re-open arguments if it is still unresolved for them. These articles don't belong to the small group of editors, regardless of how much they have invested into it. If someone wants to re-open an issue for discussion, they have every right. If that small group of editors is tired of dealing with it, they are welcome to step down for the next generation of editors who might have different opinions. The fact that very few people have even heard of a holocaust other than this one is, yes, a problem that needs to be solved. Nobody said anything about the notoriety of this holocaust being a problem, so don't even try tilting in that angle. Informing people is EXACTLY what wikipedia is for. No personal attacks there, god bless opinions. Thadeuss (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article beautification
I went through and made sure all the headers were left justified instead of free floating and improved the flow of pictures, quotes and charts. The number of changes made in the Victims section over the last 6 months made that task a bit harder. The only change to wording was done in one chart which was a non-Jewish victim chart and was free floating. I made it just a victims chart, added Jews and the same ref from the other table listing 6.8m and moved the table to the first paragraph which describes all victims and death tolls. So it is now spatially attached to it's relevant subject material. Alatari (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Why cant any one edit this article ?
Why cant any one edit this article ? I do not see the edit this page button on this article about Holocaust. I have never seen this happen on any other Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fforest1222 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This article is under semi-protection to prevent persistent vandalism. Please see the article on Wikipedia's Protection policy for more information. Edward Lalone | (Talk)

Why are Soviet POWs under Slavs section ? Soviet soldiers were also people like Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azeris who were murdered as well.
Why are Soviet POWs under Slavs section ? Soviet soldiers s were also people like Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Azeris who were murdered as well. And they definetely don't classify as Slavs.--Molobo (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose to remove it then from Slavs section, if nobody disagrees.--Molobo (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nazi propaganda depicted Soviet Army as Untermensch hoards with Asiatic features.  The reality was quite different, only about 5% of Soviet combat forces were from the Turkish and Asian ethnic groups.  These groups were considered unreliable and were used mostly in rear area units.  The Germans did recruit a Turkestan legion during the war.  Nazi propaganda  depicted these Asiatic volunteers with their faces turned to the side!  --Woogie10w (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Source for 5 % ? Anyway it would still mean that placing Soviet PoWs among Slavs is wrong.--Molobo (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Source for 5% figure-Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6--Woogie10w (talk) 11:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take no offence, but are there any other estimates ? For example Soviet ones or Western we could compare with Russian ones ? I am asking because Russia underwent nationalism period after collapse of SU and sometimes the role of Russians and Russian history is portayed in dubious way by Russian sources. Anyway it still means placing Soviet POWs in Slavs category is wrong-they were killed primarily because they were Soviets not because they were Slavs(I do not deny that Slavs were to be exterminated according to German state, and such operations existed) --Molobo (talk) 12:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On a practical level a knowledge of Russian language was necessary for troops in combat units. In combat orders must be communicated and understood without delay. For example in 1940-41 the Soviets drafted men from the annexed territories; Poles and Baltic conscripts were usually placed in construction(tyl) formations. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Poles and Baltic conscripts were usually placed in construction(tyl) formations"
 * Balts are not a Slavic people's group. Lithuanians and Latvians belong to Balts people's group and Estonians are Finno-Ugric.--Molobo (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Nazi racist propaganda that depicted the Soviet Army as Asiatic was not at all accurate. About 90% of Soviet combat troops and POW were Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, 5%  Turkic and Asiatic and the remaining 5% from various ethnic groups such as Georgians, Armenians ,other minorities from the Caucasus and Baltic regions.  The Soviets needed men who could understand orders given in the Russian language.  Conscripts who were not proficient in Russian were placed in the rear (Tyl) units for construction and supply. I was told by an ex German POW that guards in his camp were Volga Germans, among the prisoners at the camp were Soviet soldiers convicted for offenses.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I propose to remove it then from Slavs section, if nobody disagrees. Go ahead, be bold and move it, I have no problem with that. The only bone I have to pick with this article is the fact that the Russians count only 1.3 million dead POW, not 3 million. The balance of 1.7 milion were considered civilians because they were conscripted reservists not listed on the strength of military units. Western historians really need to become familiar with contemporary Russian soruces.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

why were my edits to this page removed?
and who removed them? i'm getting a little pissed here. Bannedtruth (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Because they were pure trolling and denialism. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

says who? you? Bannedtruth (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't argue with denialists because there is no point. They are way way beyond any form of mainstream scholarship on the subject. And that's the last I'll say on the matter unless you want to raise any legitimate issues about the article. Paul B (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

so paul, there is no free discussion allowed on this issue? i cant disagree with certain aspects of what is supposed to be an historical event? is this why they throw people in jail in germany and ban them from speaking out on the flaws of the holocaust story? it amazes me that people who claim the Nazi's were so evil and wrong are yet so quick to adopt their tactics Bannedtruth (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

and i dont argue with small-minded bigots. Bannedtruth (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not soapboxing. Continued disruption and personal attacks will result in you being blocked from editing.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Banned truth, what are your arguments? Who are your sources? --Woogie10w (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

does it matter? i was called a "denialist" and did anyone make an issue of that? Bannedtruth (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My. What a well-fed troll.  Horwendil (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bannedtruth, it does matter, per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEIGHT. Please do not try to insert your edits again. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 21:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

you see, there you go. i get called a "troll" and does anyone care? can anyone say double standard Bannedtruth (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like everyone to be civil and avoid personal attacks. This page is for discussing improvements to the article; let's use it for that. Bannedtruth, if you don't have anything constructive to suggest, please do not post here again.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Let the guy come on, we can refute his arguments. Holocaust denial is in the same ballpark as the Lost Continent of Atlantis and the face on Mars. No personal attacks, just facts and sources. Let's go, Bannedtruth, throw the first punch.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We're in agreement here. Facts and sources are exactly what I had in mind when I asked for constructive suggestions.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 00:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

well, i think there should be open discussion on this issue, just like there is on all others. if you doubt the official holocaust story you are marginalized and called a "denier" or a "troll". you want facts? how about the fact that in 1942 British Intel cracked the secret getman code and could intercept the communications from Auschwitz to Berlin and nowhere is there any mention of one gassing let alone millions. Bannedtruth (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence presented at the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials proved the mass murder using of gas chambers by the Nazis. Source: Naumann, Bernd Auschwitz; a report on the proceedings against Robert Karl Ludwig Mulka and others before the court at Frankfurt. Translated by Jean Steinberg. With an introd. by Hannah Arendt.New York, Praeger [1966]
 * The film Verdict on Auschwitz by ROLF BICKEL provides an overview of the Frankfurt trials.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for this discussion. Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing changes and improvements to their respective articles, not for debates about the existence of the article's subjects. If Bannedtruth has some material he wishes to add to the article, all he needs to is provide reliable sources to that effect. There are better places to have this discussion. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Jpgordon is right. Besides, there is overwhelming evidence that the British government knew of the mass murders, but kept silent. The British population of the 40's was too anti-Semetical to either care about the Holocaust or support the government in taking action. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The UK was not silent! In Dec 1942 the UK condemed the mass murder of the Jews. Read this BBC report,--Woogie10w (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is supposed to provide, on talk pages, the opportunity to discuss evidence and help people come to a consensus on topics with a scientific eye for detail. Bannedtruth has presented no evidence, so this shouldn't be turned into an online forum, there's places for Holocaust discussion all over the internet that would suit him better. However, if someone actually comes here with real evidence, like sources, citations, material, that can shed doubt on the Holocaust, it should be discussed, but that's not what Bannedtruth is doing in complaining and refusing to discuss something he wanted to put into a Wikipedia article as 'fact'. LeobenConoy (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith on the part of Bannedtruth and asked him to engage in rational dissussion. However, his edit history today indicates that he is disruptive person who wastes the time of serious editors. Jpgordon was right to delete his BS.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You say, This is not the place for this discussion. If anyone has any reasonable points to make, please post them with sources. I will answer them, and expect them not to be deleted. I have two thoughts on this discussion. The first being that the editors on this page really need to read a good solid history of the topic before they start editing and the second being that we have a moral responsibility to correct the young folks that have been led astray by the Holocaust deniers.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not here. This page is solely to discuss the Wikipedia article The Holocaust; it is not to discuss the Holocaust. If you or anyone persists in inappropriate conversation, it will be deleted. Feel free to set up your own website to argue with Holocaust deniers and similar idiots; it doesn't belong here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * inappropriate conversation, you are not the sole judge of what is posted here. You do not own the article. Who are you to decide what is posted on the discussion page. Time out, you are dealing with a guy who has been on Wikipedia for three years, I have a solid track record of dealing with facts backed up by sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm surprised you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. In particular, Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be honest, a great deal of the material on Wikipedia talk pages is not always directly related to the article per se. Lets us take two examples, person A, a good guy, who is a registered user makes a post to the talk page that quotes a web site claiming the gas chambers were not used for mass murder. Let us also assume that the user is a 12 year old who is starting out in life. We have a moral responsibility to point out the facts this user and others, not delete the post. The bad guy, person B who is not a regular user makes a violent anti-semetic remark, we need to delete this material.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Bad wording on my part, Woogie. By "kept silent" I meant more along the lines of action- but then again what could they do. I agree that talk pages should be used to only discuss changes to the article, but I think that this discussion actually might fit in discussing changes to the article, ie the change to include denialist POV's. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 23:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a forum. Not all talk pages are ideal, but with a subject as potentially incendiary as the Holocaust extended debate is not necessary or wanted. We're not going to change a "revisionists" view, and there are better venues than this to engage them in extended discussions. A ni Mate 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

i am sorry that i caused such a stirr with some questions. i have no agenda, no axe to grind. i am just trying to find the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bannedtruth (talk • contribs) 12:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're trying to find the truth, stating unverified, unsourced, erroneous claims as factual is a pretty poor way of looking for the truth. LeobenConoy (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

there is a multi-part interview with David Irving in which he talks about the lack of pysical evidence of the holocaust like the gas chambers that didnt exist and also the intercepts of transmissions of british intel that make no mention of the holocaust gassings. that was my source. david irving is a well known historian with over 30 books to his credit. is that a good source? Bannedtruth (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In case anyone doesn't know David Irving: Irving's reputation as a historian was widely discredited after he brought an unsuccessful libel case against American historian Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in 1998. During the trial, an English court found that Irving was an "active Holocaust denier," as well as an antisemite and racist, and that he "associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." The judge also ruled that Irving had "for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence."  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He knows this. He's a troll. Ignore him. Paul B (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

first of all Paul, nobody was asking you. and i wish you could call me that to my face.

in the interview i have referred to david irving states that he is not an antisemite, that his lawyer was a jew, and his attorney was also a jew. why would an antisemite have jewish people in his employ? i think a man with 30 books to his credit, who discredited the Hitler Diaries as the fraud that they were deserves a little more respect than this.

i dont think unless i espouse the mainstream holocaust views that i will be allowed the respect of making contributions to Wikipedia. everything is open to discussion and debate.....but this one historical event that cannot survive as history at Wikipedia without name calling like "troll" and "crank" and cannot exist as historical fact in europe without the threats of fines, jail and deportations. Bannedtruth (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct in that as long as you espouse falsehood (i.e., Holocaust denial), you'll be given little or no credence on Wikipedia. Perhaps you might find an area you can make useful contributions in; Holocaust studies are clearly not your forte. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues raised by Bannedtruth have been addressed by the Nizkor Project which engages in open debate with Holocaust deniers. I strongly recommend that this user check the Nizkor website  and review their  material on the Holocaust.
 * At the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials the use of gas chambers for mass murder was proven beyond any shadow of a doubt. After reviewing hundreds of hours of testimony the judges concluded that the gas chambers were in fact a horrible reality that cannot be denied. Bannedtruth, if you go to Germany today and deny the Holocaust you will find yourself in front of a judge to answer charges.
 * Bannedtruth be nice and stop wasting our valuable time. --Woogie10w (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've ever heard it expressed so eloquently and bluntly at the same time. :) There is a difference between a minorithy view and simple incorrectness. I quite frankly don't see the point of Holocaust denial. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Changes
To improve this article I recommend the following. ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed. The article as it stands now implies that the Holocaust occured with the advent of the Nazis, without a discussion of the deep rooted European Antisemitism. I reccommend the edirors read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews which has a good overview of the Christian persecutions of the Jews over the centuries. Lucy Dawidowicz In her book The War Against the Jews draws a line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Martin Luther to Hitler, writing that both men were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. This article is a whitewash of the problem of European Antisemitism and promotes historical revisionism TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. The Slavs were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. Also, anti-Semitism in Poland during the war needs be addressed in the article, I recommend that the editors read Unequal Victims by  Israel Gutman for a discussion of this sensitive issue. Why does this article ignore the ugly issue of anti-Semitism in Poland during the war that was documented by Israel Gutman in Unequal Victims? I contend that the editors haved chosen to ignore this historical reality in order to avoid the noisy denials of anti-Semites who wish to promote historical revisionism--Woogie10w (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your first point. The Nazis were only able to do what they did by scapegoating the Jews, and they were only able to scapegoat the Jews because of rampant anti-Semitism in Europe. To your second point, the article needs to distinguish between the fates of the tow groups without diminish the fate of non-Jews. I propose a wording along the lines of, "While Jews were the main group targeted by the Nazis, and indeed the group identified most with the Holocaust, other groups such as Slavs, homosexuals, the disabled, and religious and political dissidents were also killed in the millions." Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 23:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I contend that, the other groups were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. This needs to be made clear. Israel Gutman is my source--Woogie10w (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not go engaging in historical revisionism here. I agree with you that European antisemitism was widespread at the time (including Poland), but Auschwitz, Birkenau and other concentration camps located in Poland were run by occupying Nazi forces. Add to that the fact that the Polish are the greatest number of people who were acknowledged as Righteous Among the Nations, i.e. who put their own lives at risk to save Jewish people - 6,066 people, and I think your suggestion veers toward undue weight (do you want to only mention Polish collaborators and not Polish rescuers? Let's not make broad summaries about nationalities as this is inaccurate and offensive). Also, why doesn't the proposed sentence of other groups affected mention the Gypsies? They were also heavily targeted for genocide. I don't see why we should give any greater weight to the opinion of Mr. Gutman just because he wrote a book. Brisv e  gas  11:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You write, I don't see why we should give any greater weight to the opinion of Mr. Gutman just because he wrote a book. My reply is that Israel Gutman is a well known and respected scholar of the Holocaust. He was chairman of the Scientific Council of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. --Woogie10w (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing against expansion of discussion of pre-Holocaust European anti-Semitism. Why can't we include other groups without diminishing the importance and impact of Jewish suffering. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and there is not a limited amount of space. We can give other groups their due weight without taking away from the due weight of the Jews. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 13:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, what I wrote does sound quite silly in retrospect - if Gutman's part of Yad Vashem then obviously he's more notable. But you still haven't addressed my point about the 6,066 Righteous Among the Nations - are you going to ignore facts inconvenient to your hypothesis? Nor do you seem to be much interested in the anti-Gypsy Porajmos nor the anti-Slav Lebensraum. And we shouldn't restrict coverage of anti-Semitism to Poland; for a balanced article refer to all relevant countries. I understand the Holocaust is one of the most controversial issues on Wikipedia, so I respect we all have different views on what areas should be highlighted and covered. Please write here what text you would like to add to the article, so we can discuss something concrete rather than just vague what-ifs. Brisv e  gas  21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Get the book Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman, please read it. Then you will understand why the genocide  of the European Jews by Nazis cannot cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared to the other groups persecuted by the Nazis.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I in fact have read that book, multiple times, and I do not think that the genocide of the Jews compares in any way to that of other victims of Nazi persecution. However, both genocides are classified under the heading of the Holocaust and thus both must be mentioned on this page. We might want to do something similar to the French Wikipedia and have a separate article under "Shoah" (which currently redirects to this page) dedicated entirely to the genocide of the Jews. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 18:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to give readers a fair and unbiased introduction to the Holocaust. The history of European anti-Semitism needs to be covered in the article. German Wikipedia gives adequate coverage to this topic and could serve as a guide for editors here Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I support Erik's suggestion that we cover all groups affected - yes, Jews were a main target, but then so were Gypsies, Slavs, homosexuals and others; it would be just as unfiar to ignore their plight. Woogie, I agree with you that coverage should be fair and unbiased, but from whose perspective? You only cite Israeli and German sources so far, which I respectfully suggest is hardly balanced coverage. Brisv e  gas  21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I cite the well known and respected scholars Raul Hilberg,Lucy Dawidowicz and Israel Gutman to support my position that the European antisemitism needs addressed in this article. Hilberg and Dawidowicz were Americans. Gutman is an Israeli national.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We need to point out, as does German Wikipedia, that the other groups persecuted by the Nazis were not singled out for total destruction like the Jews.  There must be a clear distinction between the genocide of the Jews and the Nazi persecutions of Slavs, Roma and homosexuals in order for this article to have credibility.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "I have sent my Death's Head units to the East in order to kill without mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the lebensraum that we need" - Adolf Hitler. That sounds like genocide to me. However, I do agree with you that Jews were the greatest number of total casualties, but obviously they were not the only victims. Let's not ignore that. Brisv e  gas  22:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 which is a collection  photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. People shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality.  There is also a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma.  At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Woogie that the great majority of this article must be dedicated to what the Nazis called "the Final Solution to the Jewish question." However, that does not mean excluding entirely all other groups, just giving them their due weight, which is considerably smaller. I also agree with Woogie that pre-war European anti-Semitism must be discussed at length in order to give readers a clear picture of how the Jews were able to be scapegoated. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reorganized the victims section, so that there are two subsections, "Jews" and "Other groups", with the other groups section further divided. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 00:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

ONE - Anti-semetism was clearly a precondition to the Holocaust, nobody will argue that. Yet so was a deeply rooted history of belittling Slavs and the East in general, which was considered the land of untermensch far before anyone coined the term. Nor was Europe especially friendly to homosexuals or gypsies in the leadup to WW2. So if you insist that a primer on European persectution of the Jews be placed in this article because without it you imply that anti-semitism was invented in the Nazi age, you must also include an explanations of the hate for these other groups as well, lest they be "mistaken" for new targets sighted by Nazis. OR you could just click the hyperlink to Antisemtism and find all this out, which is why Wikipedia is so cool. TWO - The article is not "highly misleading" when comparing the fate of the "other groups". Basically, their fates are comparable: work to the edge of death and then get gassed. Take Jasenovac where there were propotionally few Jews, but the inmates recieved the same fate as the camp inmates in the Polish camps (gassing). I know the Jewish treatment was different. I know that they death toll alone was in all estimation higher then the others combined. but to say that "their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews" is a very strong statement. Mengela didnt care if his twins were Jews or Gypsies. The Police Batalions on the eastern front did not care if they were lining up Jews or Slavic partisans. So while it is legit to say the Jewish suffering was "different" so was the suffering of the Partisans, homosexuals, political dissenters, what have you. Nazis did not make special exeption when it came to whose turn it was for "delousing" Eric Forest (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

- i forogt to add, if you are seeking to have people identify the special case of the Jews within the Holocaust, I believe you what you mean to refer to is the Final Solution Eric Forest (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictures at the "Liberation" section
Are the images of this section of the article hidden on purpose or is it a mistake? The pictures are covered by a text box and I'm not good at fixing and formatting pictures on WP... Maybe someone could fix this? Pel thal (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * On my computer, it looks fine. No text overlapping the images. I am using a Windows XP machine with Mozilla Firefox browser set to a viewing size of 1024x768. What are you using? Binksternet (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm using Windows Vista, Internet Explorer browser and viewing size 1280X800. Pel thal (talk) 09:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean -- the two quotation boxes in that section don't render the same way in Firefox and in MSIE. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Those boxes were just all wrong. I've done something saner so it at least will be readable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Coordinates
Does it make sense to have coordinates of one particular camp on the top of the page? The Holocaust wasn't about a place definable by a single latitude and longitude. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just coming here to discuss the same thing. That should be removed.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The German Poor, are they Holocaust victims?
The recent post that claims the social deviants, the poor and the unemployed of Germany should be included as Holocaust victims is original research should be deleted. There is no support in the historical literature that would include the poor with other groups of Holocaust victims. This article has become a soapbox for anybody who discovers a new group of Holocaust victims.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We cannot let this article evolve into a list of every ethnicity on the face of the planet. Only ethnicities killed qua members of the ethnicity should be included in the other groups section, and even then in less detail then the Jews. Erik the  Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 14:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the section. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted the post on the inclusion of the German poor becuase I believe it violates the rule Wikipediais not a publisher of original thought. There is no support in the historical literature that would include the German poor with other groups of Holocaust victims--Woogie10w (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Woogie, do you have a reliable source on the percentage of non-Jewish Poles killed? I think it would be a good thing to add into the article. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 13:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article! It is already there. 6%.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Erik, I am very disturbed by your strange arguments here. If a group of people were targeted and murdered in the camps, that MUST be mentioned in this article! You seem to be implying that this page should ONLY address the Jewish victims--a position that is academically absurd and morally revolting. It's not every day that someone pooh-poohs the murder of 2-5 million people. -Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.83.230 (talk) 01:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This statement (from Erik the Red) concerns me "ethnicity should be included in the other groups section, and even then in less detail then the Jews." You actually want this to be upheld?!? Surely this is precisely the kind of statement that fuels anti-Semitism. --Angryjames (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg
The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:1938 Interior of Berlin synagogue after Kristallnacht.jpg
 * File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg
 * Image:Window jump ghetto Warsaw.jpg
 * Image:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg
 * Image:Holocaust123.JPG
 * Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All images supplied with appropriate FUR's. -- Avi (talk) 05:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust Deniers
Why is there no secton for peole who say the holocaust did not happen? I think this is worthwhile and should be mentioned at the end of the article. Nor3aga (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See the Holocaust denial page. Ironholds 11:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Included here as a See also, which seems about right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally think that there should be more on holocaust denial than just a "see also". On this subject, can we really treat the Holocaust as "fact" without breaking the NPOV policy. Surely if this subject is being debated, then should it really be considered such? This is probably approaching a more philosophical level and not really relevent, because by this logic almost every article on wikipedia could be deemed opinionated, since we cannot prove that anything that we think happened in the last 10000 years happened, but I think this might be important as the Holocaust/ no holocaust debate gets heated.--HandGrenadePins (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. Do you really think we can treat the Moon landings as "fact" without breaking the NPOV policy. Surely if this subject is being debated (which, in fact, it isn't. there are just a few kooks trying to crank up phony "debate") then should it really be considered as such? I guess that "since we cannot prove that anything that we think happened in the last 10000 years happened" (and the Moon landings certainly fall in that time frame) we should treat this as if there is some honest doubt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is more than just a "see also" on the article for moon landings (see Moon_landing and its talk page. Whether there is actually "proof", etc. that the Holocaust did/did not happen, Holocaust denial is a very well-known topic and the mention of the Holocaust often brings up thoughts of the existance of Holocaust deniers.  There has been major media coverage of the topic, and it is a topic that is inseperable with the Holocaust.  Bottom line, it deserves more than a buried "see also". Ranever (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "There are some idiots who believe or assert the Holocaust did not occur. For a discussion of this pathology, see Holocaust denial." Perhaps someone might suggest better language. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree that it deserves a few sentences. Let's try to reword that into something appropriate. Ranever (talk) 07:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * NPOV would be something along the lines of "some historians put the death toll at 5 million Jews, others at 8". Putting the number in the hundreds of thousands and brushing those off as expected casualties in wartime prison setting, and backing it up with forged documents and invented citations is just lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by Sine

Please do not add a "holocaust deniers" section to this wonderfully accurate and educational article. For those people who don't want to believe this happened, the gates of Dachau are opened to the public...take a visit. If that doesn't sit in your stomach, go to a library. If all the literature, documentation, photographs and eyewitness testimony, including that of Nazis, doesn't help you understand then nothing will. There was never a genocide in the history of this world that was documented as well as this one was.~

The Holocaust template
There is an ongoing edit war over the inclusion of certain extermination camps in the The Holocaust template. I don't have an opinion either way, and I am just trying to make sure that WP:CON is respected. Could editors who have a greater knowledge of the topic please get involved, so that we can try to achieve a firm consensus and try to put a stop to the monkeying around with the template? Much thanks. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To call upon WP:CON makes sense only among editors providing effective knowledge of the subject under discussion. Those denying a historic fact cannot justify their intentions by some non-existent and pointless 'consensus'.--Don Luca Brazzi (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, let me be clear -- I have no opinion either way on the topic. Second, you do not get to arbitrarily decide which editors have a sufficient knowledge of the topic or not, or whether you feel that it makes sense to abide by the policy or not.  That is not how WP:Consensus works.  If, as you suggest, you are factually correct, then you should be able to convince other editors of your position, as I suggested on your talk page.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion- Re:Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
I propose that this material in the summary section be deleted, it was plugged into the article and makes no sense. It is political propaganda, with no historical merit at all. Proposed Deletion --Woogie10w (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC) ''This distinction is central to concerns voiced by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about the nature of the Holocaust in Europe.
 * Done. Good catch. Erik the Red  2    17:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits re: Holocaust definition in first para
A lot of discussion went into defining The Holocaust of which Lihaas seems unaware. It should not be changed without some discussion. Let me repeat it briefly: The definition that The Holocaust is the genocide policy of European Jews by the Nazi regime is used by historians and scholars for a good reason: to distinguish it from other genocides and massacres carried out by the Nazis. It is the only genocide, at least in the 20th century that set out to exterminate everyone, everywhere who had three or four Jewish grandparents. Nobody who lived under Nazi or Nazi-related regimes was exempt—even if they converted to another religion or assimilated in other ways. This is unique in European history.

This does not mean that other genocides or massacres carried out by the Nazi regimes are not recognized or that the suffering of other victims is devalued. This is recognized in Wikipedia by separate articles on those event which I would suggest gives more prominence to them than if they are buried in the Holocaust article. One of the reasons that this article is so unwieldy is the result of trying to include all of the victims of the Nazis under term The Holocaust. The Final Solution was only one of the genocidal policies, but it was not about Slavs, Roma, or homosexuals. This seems to me to cloud an understanding of Nazi crimes--but maybe that is what some want.--Joel Mc (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Final Solution of the jewish question may very well pertain to jews alone. But to say the holocaust is to include only jews in its definition (which some scholars may cite) is to limit the article to worldview to a western one. In which case a globalize tag is more suited. Other scholars have (and some I've read here online) indeed said the holocaust is inclusive of those who died in camps of the Third Reich. Granted jews may be the highest number, but it is a misnomer and a gross exaggeration, to say the least, that limits the terms to simply to jews. Lihaas (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Final Solution to the Jewish question is sometimes used as a synonym for the Holocaust. The article, if you read it, doesn't say that the genocide was solely about the Jews, and includes, oh, seven, eight subsections on non-Jewish victims. The term most commonly used by the Roma is in the first sentence, even. Erik the Red  2    00:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of the non Jewsish victims needs to be covered because some scholars now are including Roma, Slavs, disabled people and political prisoners in the definition of the Holocaust. We must have a NPV and report the various opinions of recognized scholars on the topic. In order to be faithful to the NPV we should also point out that 80% of the Jews perished in Nazi dominated Europe and only 1-3% of the non Jewish population died in Nazi hands.-We must not fall into the trap of allowing the page to become a propaganda forum for folks who post their personel opinions that are not backed up with reliable sources. Let me give a concrete example, an unsourced post was made to plug some nonsense about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that should have been deleted ASAP, yet it remained on the page for a two weeks. We need to keep our eyes open in order to maintain the integrity of the article. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Erik, your just helping my point. Precisely as you say since the article does mention all the rest in detail, the lead needs to de-focus on the jew deaths and give equitability to the rest. Woogie, I agree with here, and on this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=246628011&oldid=246615748). But on this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=246700238&oldid=246686201) the "somewhere" has been conventions for a rough number between X and X. And for this (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=246615748&oldid=246593298) the "further" part has to do with "further to," not "a further addition." your definition focuses on something else, the word as opposed to the connection with other words for the phrase. Your changes our otherwise great, except with the "if we include," if is rather weak. Lihaas (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We need the word "if" because some scholars do not include these other groups, we say if because there is no one opinion on this topic. Lihaas, for us in the west the Holocaust can be compared the deaths of Hindus and Muslim civilians during the 1947 civil strife in India and the 1971 massacres in Bangladesh. We treat the topic seriously, emotions can run high.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks Woogie for the reminding me of the Niewyk/Nicosia book and Lihaas for making me reflect again on the issue. It is of course a good source.  I do have problems with the Chapter on Defining the Holocaust.  They begin by saying that the Holocaust is "commonly defined as the mass murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews.." But, I do think that it is important that they refer to the three other ways of defining it.  However, I believe that it is unfortunate that they don't give any relative importance (weights) to the four definitions as used by important historians and scholars, and that they opt for what I would call a minority view definition.  Yes, it is true that we can find respectable proponents of each of the four.  However, from my studies, the overwhelming majority of scholars and historians use the definition which identifies The Holocaust with the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, a distinct event among the other genocides and massacres carried out by the Nazis.  This is not about the numbers who were murdered (the great 19th century man-made famines of India which have been referred to as Victorian holocausts, killed between 12 and 30 million people), but that the Final Solution, "the planned total murder of a people was an unprecedented catastrophe in human civilization." (Yehuda Bauer). This is not really my POV, but my conclusion based upon reading different views.  My priority is to be able to use history as lessons to be learned and as I have written before, lumping all of the massacres and genocides carried out by the Nazis just makes that task more difficult.
 * as far as the presentation of the statistics I leave that to Woogie who has far more experience than probably any other WP editor. Joel Mc (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How abour refining the phrase a little instead of the phrase if? Maybe something like "Other definitions..." or "A broader definition/holocaust..."
 * As for the numbers and the lead in general, wOOGIE, i thought we read each other as being on the same page. Since the jewish numbers are the bigger, they would obviously lead the lead (bad english, i know) but the others need not be sidelined as the current update has it. Lihaas (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Our edits should be based on verifiable sources that are reliable, our own opinions should never be on this page, to put it in American colliquial English, there should be |"no if's and's or but's" that would violate the Neutral point of view guidelines. I read my sources and get the facts straight before I edit. My opinions are not posted on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which part are you talking about? The "further" definition clarification? If so then see my edit below in the relevant section.
 * If it's my above "definitions" part then, following the thread, no one is altering scholarship. We our just acknowledging the differences in scholarship and putting into different words. We can have the whole thing as quote, that would also be copyright. Lihaas (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about Holocaust
Our agreement is that Holocaust scholars are speaking about "only" 6 Holocaust Extermination camps (stupid definition but ....). Our disagreement is about creation of sub section other extermination camps. With knowledge that there has been many others extermination camps and sites (I know 7 of them) question is: Will we create subsection in The Holocaust template for this camps ? Can you please hear your comments about this question in section Non involved users ?--Rjecina (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

17 Million not a furthur 17 million, when one considers Soviet civilians as victims
Our source Donald Niewyk clearly states that the broadest definition of the Holocaust, including Soviet civilian deaths, would produce a death toll of 17 million, not a further 17 million dead.  Please check your sources before you edit, thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is not "further." What I was saying is "to a further" meaning the total adds up. I was NOT saying "by a further" meaning adding another 17 million. Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Our source, Niewyck, gives a maximum death toll of 17 million incuding 6 million Soviet civilians. The Russian Academy of Science issued a report in 1995 that listed 13.7 million civilian victims of the Nazis. Western historians really need to become familiar with contemporary Russian sources. For example the official Soviet statistics for the battle of Stalingrad list 323,856 dead & missing military personnel, the civilian death toll in the Stalingrad region was 555,700. The Holocaust in the USSR needs better coverage on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like we're on the same page now. My wording was likewise restricted to a max. of 17million, as you have shown to. Agreed then? Lihaas (talk) 01:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement now that we have posted Niewyk's figure of 17 million. The article is correct by letting readers know that many historians no not include the other non-Jewish groups persecuted as Holocaust victims. Historians who include ethnic Poles as Holocaust victims but exclude Soviet civilians are not being consistant. The Nazi occupation of the USSR was more brutal than in Poland. The whole issue of the other non-Jewish groups persecuted as Holocaust victims needs to be covered in a more through manner by historians. Here at Wikipedia we must reoprt only what the sources tell us. In the case of the Holoaust, the editors of Wikipedia feel comfortable with English language sources, Russian language sources are excluded. I have no time or patience to engage in an edit war on this topic.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so we are done with this part. (the paragraph in the section pertaining to the victims) Quite cordially and intellectually I might add.
 * I was just wondering about the lead now, as per the upper section. Lihaas (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * as per the upper section, what do you propose?--Woogie10w (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In essence to cut the essence on european jewry death to a more equitable distribution between the casualties. the original reverter let go of the debate, he really never said why he opposed what I proposed. (of which we both bascially agreed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Holocaust#Edits_re:_Holocaust_definition_in_first_para)) It seems like the two of us are the only ones discussing this out.
 * Anyways, keeping in mind that "The Holocaust is not only limited to european jewry, a common mistake. 'Many' scholars may say this, but not most, nor all. Remember, Wikipedia's goal is to get a global perspective (hence the tag to globalize)." The following is my proposition:
 * The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as (Ha)-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), or Porajmos (most common term used by Roma) is the term generally used to describe the genocide that was a result of a programme of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) regime in Germany during the tenure of Adolf Hitler as fuhrer of the Third Reich. The victims included European Jewry, Roma, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, ethnic Poles; the handicapped, homosexuals, and political and religious opponents of the regime.
 * The following is what the reverter put:
 * The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as (Ha)-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), or Porajmos (most common term used by Roma) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a programme of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime, including the Roma; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; handicapped persons, Gay men, political and religious opponents of the regime. Lihaas (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Here in the English speaking world, most people including academics, use the word Holocaust to describle only the Nazi genocide of the Jews, I strongly suggest that you do not change the article--Woogie10w (talk) 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * But that is exactly the point. Wikipedia is global (see the tag), it should not reflect a mentality that refers to only some academics. as you said above, the others need to be given credence too. which is mentions in detail in the article, hence the lead should reflect a paraphrase of the key points from the article. Ie- that jews are not the only with others as [mere] "additions."
 * See this tag:
 * as in perspective/outlook Lihaas (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * as in perspective/outlook Lihaas (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Lihhas, we cannot compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma. Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 which is a collection  photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality. In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians. At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day. German Homosexuals were persecuted, about 10,000 (1%) of the estimated 1,000,000 German Homosexual population died in the camps, compared to 160,000 of the 165,000 German Jews who were sent to  the camps The handicapped were persecuted by the Nazis, 200,000 were murdered. Let us not forget that the German Protestant churches protested this barbarity and the executions were halted. They did not make similar protests to save the Jews. The fate of Soviet POW was tragic. About 3 million of the 5.7 million captured perished in German hands. But we must not forget that 800,000 Soviet POW were released from captivity to serve in the German military. 215,000 died in the German uniform and 285,000 were sentenced by Soviet courts after the war for collaboration, another 180,000 of these collaborators found refuge in western countries after the war. Lihaas let us see the sources for your attempt to globalize the page, without sources this is strictly your personel POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"we cannot compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma." What a strange statement! Yes, there are obvious differences, as you point out, and I agree that these differences should be discussed. But how is it POV to point out the number of people, and the different groups of people, murdered in the death and labor camps? I think what's happening here--which is quite common--is that some want the Holocaust to refer ONLY to the Jewish suffering (aka the Shoah), when in fact most "average people" think of the Holocaust as encompassing ALL the murder and suffering that went on in the camps, thus making no mention of the other millions killed is morally troubling. I believe this was the point raised by Simon Wiesenthal. There's something academically unsound about pooh-poohing the murder of millions of people so as to force the focus to be maintained on just the predominant group of those persecuted. It would, in fact, be POV to ONLY mention the Jewish casualties. I'll put it this way: resurrect a jew murdered in the camps and a gypsy murdered in the camps and ask them which suffered more. The question would be absurd, for obvious reasons. -Michael —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.83.230 (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Michael, I recommend that you read; Unequal Victims Poles and Jews During World War Two by Israel Gutman, Shmuel Krakowski. Most "average people" that you refer to need to know the fact that the Jews and Roma of Europe were singled out for destruction, the other peoples of Europe were to be enslaved by Germany--Woogie10w (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Template_talk:The_Holocaust
Currently there is a discussion about the inclusion of several camps on the Holocaust template, including Jasenovac concentration camp, Maly Trostenets extermination camp, and Sajmište concentration camp. Amongst the issues raised are whether or not these camps are considered extermination camps, if they are extermination camps should they be included in the same section as the traditional six extermination camps associated with the Holocaust, should they be included in a separate section, or should they not be included as many if not most of their victims weren't Jews but of another ethnicity (Serbian, Russian, etc). Any input would be appreciated. A ni Mate 00:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
Very first sentence is vandalised: "The Holocaust was a time with hitler or somefin", fix it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.241.64 (talk) 04:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust should include the 6 milion Jews as well as the Roma, (also known as Gypsies), the ethnic Poles, homosexuals and disabled etc. This would bring the total to 11 million. Many russiancivilians were killed, but these were either war casualties or starvation during sieges and battles (Stalingrad and Leningrad) and also populations of villages whose populations were held hostage and then executed if partisans and freedom fighters did not surrender. The same type of atrocities were committed by the Nazis in Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, France, The Netherlands and Belgium, as well as Italy. Russia, unfortunately had a much more involved population and a much larger population. However, the casualties in Russia were not intended as extermination etc., as neither were those civilians killed in similar ways in the other occupied countries, excepting the Jews, Roma and the other groups included in the Holocaust. The Nazis, especially Hitler and I believe Goebbels, had a special hate for the Poles and intended them to be exterminated or used and worked to death. Apparently this evolved from a defeat of the Germans by the Poles in Medieval times, and was an insult to Hitler's insane idea of Germans as being above any other race, in any and all ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meowsecrantz (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust as opposed to holocaust
can someone tell me when the word "Holocaust" was first used? was it by the Soviets way back in WWII or was it later. and why is it capitalized like Coke or Pepsi? Statesboropow (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might read the first chapter of the article (after the table of contents.) As far as why it's capitalized, it's like the Civil War, the American Revolution, or the War on Drugs. It's a title for a particular set of events. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * can someone tell me when the word "Holocaust" was first used, there were few references to the Holocaust before 1968 when Nora Levin wrote a best selling historical account entitled The Holocaust, in 1978 there was a popular TV soap opera, Holocaust that caused the widespread use of the term by the general public. I am from the old school and can remember when the term was unknown.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

okay, so if this was a "Holocaust" what word can be used to describe the alleged 60 million people that Stalin murdered? or the Cambodian murders that are said to total three million? is there something special about this? Statesboropow (talk) 02:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This page is to disuss improvements to the article, not for talk that belongs at the water cooler, good night.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Use whatever word you like. "The Holocaust" is a particular set events, one of many holocausts, certainly, but the term "The Holocaust" generally applies in the limited sense used in the article. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

i dont own a watercooler. have there been other "Holocausts" throughout history?Statesboropow (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you might read the article; there are about a thousand words on the subject. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You asked about other "Holocausts" throughout history. Take a look at this Wikipedia page for further information. Holocaust (disambiguation)--Woogie10w (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

bones and remains
what happens to a persons bones when you cremate the body? isnt there some method used today where they are put into a grinder? was this method also used during the Holocaust with the millions who were gassed? what was done with the bones? Statesboropow (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the death camp. At Treblinka (where most of my relatives were killed), there was a twenty-foot layer of ashes. Likewise at Maidenek. At Auschwitz, the ashes were used as fertilizer, and also dumped into the local swamps and rivers. The bones were not completely destroyed by cremation; I haven't found all the details, but at least at some camps, the Sonderkommandos were forced to grind them down with pestles. Nowadays, they use electric grinders to reduce the bones. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 02:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Holocaust cannot be denied, please read  A Priest Methodically Reveals Ukrainian Jews’ Fate .To read this NY Times article you must log into their website, its free--Woogie10w (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

who said anything about denying the holocaust? Statesboropow (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every one of your edits to Wikipedia puts your intent in question. You might wish to choose another subject area. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, this page is should be for improving the article, not a rehash of Holocaust denial. UFO’s, the lost continent of Atlantis and the ancient astronauts of Erich von Däniken would provide a less offensive form of escapism for this person.  Millions died at the hands of the Nazis, people who survived the war or lost family members would this discussion of bones and remains offensive.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's just kinda too bad. We get to discuss facts (such as how the remains of my relatives were dispersed), even if they happen to offend someone -- Wikipedia isn't censored. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets put in a few words about the work of the French priest in the Ukraine that appeared in the NY Times. The section Death squads (1941–1943) would be the appropriate place. How about,  Currently there is a project, led by a French cleric,  to document the murder of the 1.5 million Jews of Ukraine, shot dead and buried throughout the country.  We will cite the NY Times as a source, which is reliable and can be verified on line.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial discussion at Talk:Treblinka extermination camp
I recently reverted the removal of comments on this talk page that concerned denial of the Holocaust. In my view, the comments that were removed were good faith discussions. In another editor's view, they were vandalism. I'm not aware of any official policy that denying the holocaust is considered vandalism on wikipedia, but I'm aware that to do so in certain countries (France for example) is illegal. I consider it to be a matter of free speech, but another opinion would be appreciated. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the comments. Did they involve discussing improvements to, or problems with, the article? If so, they're appropriate here (broadly speaking.) If not, they're zappable. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 20:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They were somewhat conspiracy threoryist, but they did concern the specific camp. There was also a solid response which was also removed. One was a rant that was removed and not restored. The edit removing the material (for a second time) can be found here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, clear-cut trolling and disruption. Good work, whoever deleted it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Years
Could somebody please clarify in the lead when the Holocaust was started and when the general public became aware of it? This is important and is not common knowledge, there are many popular misconceptions. Colchicum (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for an infobox
This is not just for the Holocaust Per-se, but the site lacks a genocide infobox, if its possible, im not sure how to make one, but if theres any way to make an infobox for genocides could someone take this up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude018219293 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thats a very good idea in theory. In practice, I'm not sure a template or infobox for genocide is possible. The term itself can be rather loaded, and editors will fight tooth.and nail to make sure that their country or ethnic group isn't assigned blame despite the historic facts. It's hard enough getting some of these articles stable, the thought of getting editors to agree what can and cannot be included seems impossible .--<font face="papyrus" color="Black">A <font face="papyrus" color="Green">ni <font face="papyrus" color="Black">Mate 22:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

3 million Christians lots of Catholics suffered in the holocaust
it's wrong to ignore that. many of the people who helped the jews were Christians who loved them because of Jesus their jewish messiah. those kinds of Christians are the ones helping Israel and the Jewish people. they don't ask anything in return but are treated badly.
 * Actually, he's right. Anyone caught assisting the Jews were also killed with the Jews. It should be included. --74.184.188.59 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestion?
Hi, I have created User:Arilang1234/Sand box/Literary Holocaust by Manchu Qianlong, before I turn it into an article, user PBS suggest I put a request here for discussion. Thanks. Also see Siku Quanshu Arilang   talk 18:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to keep it with Chinese History. You have done a lot of good work. I am sure the article on the Literary Holocaust will not please the Chi Com secret police. Best Wishes for the New Year.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you are not wrong! There certainly are Thought Police around, advocating Self censorship, acting like eunuchs in spirit trying to please their master. Hehehehe. Looks like Nineteen Eighty-Four is getting closer, instead of getting further away. Happy New Year to you. Arilang   talk 07:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I have been on the China mainland. The communists will be defeated, its only a question of time.--Woogie10w (talk) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone, and Happy New Year to all those who celebrate it! I've already posted my opinion concerning Arilang's sandbox on his talk page (specifically here), but let me post the same content here for the sake of discussion. I think the title Arilang proposes ("Literary holocaust") doesn't work. The main problem is that "literary holocaust" is not the term by which this eighteenth-century censorship campaign is known in the scholarly literature. Luther Carrington Goodrich's book The Literary Inquisition of Ch’ien-lung (1935) is entirely devoted to this suppression campaign; the other relevant work is R. Kent Guy's The Emperor's Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in Eighteenth-Century China. But neither uses the term "literary holocaust." And Alexander Woodside (the scholar who used the term "literary holocaust" in an article in 2003) used this term to emphasize the extent and seriousness of the censorship campaign, not as a consistent label. I am quite certain a Wikipedia page cannot be named after a single turn of phrase in a single author's work. Second problem: there is already a section in the Siku quanshu wiki explaining the suppression campaign that Woodside called a "literary holocaust." And there is already a page called literary inquisition explaining the broader censorship campaigns of the Qianlong reign. Actually, most of the content of Arilang's sandbox already appears on that page. To summarize: I don't think "Literary holocaust" is appropriate to name a wiki, and I don't think we need a new page devoted to the SKQS suppression campaign, because we already have two of them that present this information. But Woodside's words definitely deserve citation in both Siku quanshu and Literary inquisition, and even on the Qianlong page, though the term "literary holocaust" should be presented as Woodside's term, not as some kind of self-evident label. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Wannsee Conference
A name lacks in the list of Wannsee Conference attendees : Karl Wolf : The "Eyes and Ears" of Heinrich Himmler. He was present, according to The Holocaust Chronicle, p.301 rodall2006@hotmail.com 132.203.216.20 (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the reference given does not say that Wolf attended the conference, it just says that the picture shows: "leaders of the Third Reich's immense police apparatus." I Lists I have seen do not list Wolf, i.e. http://www.ghwk.de/engl/cateng6a.htm.Joel Mc (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Victims?
While this was of course overwhelmingly a crime directed agains the Jewish people, I do think some mention should be made of the many Catholics who were killed by the regime. People like Father Maximillian Kolbe deserve that much recognition at least, surely? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.250.228 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to create new article, “Nazi Mass Murders.”
The Holocaust Talk page has noted a longstanding problem over the title of this article and its application to jewish victims. The problem we have is that the secular term, ‘holocaust,’ has been changed over time. After 1945, ‘holocaust,’ was used widely to refer to the impact of a nuclear war. The year 1951 marked the first time it was used in reference to the Nazi mass murders, however, it was used broadly, not focusing solely on jewish victims. It appears that Elie Wiesel – the prolific author – can be credited with recasting the term for popular culture (in the late 50’s to early 60’s) to refer specifically to jews who perished under the Nazis. (Please Refer to the article by Jon Petrie, http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/ for the facts cited above).

I suggest, Wikipedia would be well served by ending the debates on the jewish issue by having two articles: 1) The main article on Nazi Mass Murders which includes all victims and 2) an article linked to it entitled “Holocaust,” that refers specifically to jews, reflecting the terms usage in popular culture.

Additionally, I would like to point out that the argument made on this page suggesting the Jewish mass murders were “unprecedented,” and “unique,” and therefore warrant there own special category are historically unsound. European history, from the Cathars onwards, has been marked by attempts to destroy and expel the “other” among us; the Jewish genocide may be the most recent and perhaps a more vicious product of what is a longstanding defect in the culture.Tobit2 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote, the Jewish genocide may be the most recent and perhaps a more vicious product of what is a longstanding defect in the culture; can you provide a source or is this just your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The study of European culture and it's historical changes is very wide indeed. If you are interested in this area, one place you may wish to investigate are the articles of medieval historian Teo Ruiz at ULCA; I believe he has also produced some works for a popular audience.Tobit2 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You wrote, Additionally, I would like to point out that the argument made on this page suggesting the Jewish mass murders were “unprecedented,” and “unique,” and therefore warrant there own special category are historically unsound. I would like to point out the fact that 78% of the 7.3 million Jews in Nazi domintated Europe perished compared to 1.4 % (5 million) of the 350 million non Jews. Your argument of equating the Jewish and non Jewish victims of Hitler is historically unsound--Woogie10w (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you have misinterpreted the issue. There are three aspects to the misinterpretation: 1) Improper Criteria: imagine a world in which 89% of the Lakota people happened to be murdered systematically, without cause, by the state, and 77% of the Creek were destroyed under the same government program.  Would objective historians not consider the death of the Creek under the same rubric?  Unlikely.  How about if only 50% of the Creek perished?  Still unlikely.  Now bring it down to 20%.  Would the deaths of the Creek be kicked-out of the records?  Perhaps not.  Okay, how about 10%?  The fallacy here is that the percent of destruction is not the proper criteria to consider whether one peoples' death should be treated differently from another, 2) Improper Calculation: your implied percentage is likely understated: 1.4% is found by taking 5 M / 350M.  What definition could a person with some semblance of emotion properly use to define such a thing?  Are we talking all Europeans who died at the hands and programs of the Nazis?  Well then far more than 5 million were certainly killed.  Are we talking about those behind the barbed wire of concentration camps?  If so, how could one apply 350 Million to the invalids, Roma, Poles, and Slavs who were targeted based on hereditary characteristics?  Again, it is difficult to parse annihilation into such neat categories, and 3)Not My Argument: my argument was far more simple than the path of inquiry you are following, to discern the differences between Jewish and Gentile deaths.  I had only suggested the Jewish genocide is not without precedent and pointed out the first such mass murders can be seen with the cleansing of the Languedoc of the Cathars.  Hope this helps.  Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your argument is straight from the Ward Churchill school of Holocaust studies. I am a bit sympathetic to your POV since I am 1/16 Creek on my moms side. The next time I am in Oklahoma I need buy a pedigree to hang up in the den--Woogie10w (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it that some writers resort to insults rather than fact-based argument? Just something I've always wondered about.  Please let's try to stick to facts and logic.  Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Say, if you want to know the facts organized in a logical manner, just read the article along with a pot of coffee, I prefer my black, with no sugar. If you have an issue with the material in the article just post it here--Woogie10w (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We need to have a reality check, time to brew up some nice hot coffee. My argument is that Poles and Jews were unequal victims. There were no Nurnberg laws against Poles that were used to classify Jews. 90% of the Polish Jews were rounded up and killed by the Nazis, 94% of the Polish Catholics, in Poland, survived the war working for Germany. There should be no comparison of Polish and Jewish Holocaust victims. We need to put the issue in a proper perspective on this page. Also it must be mentioned that there were 2 million ::German citizens of Polish ancestry living in pre war Germany who were treated as other Germans as long as they used the German language. Ethnic Poles from pre war Germany were  considered Germans in the Third Reich
 * Gerda Christian was in the Bunker with Hitler in 1945,  Christian, Gerda, née Daranowski, born on December 13, 1913 in Berlin, since 1937 Hitler´s Secretary, until May 1, 1945 in the bunker, successful escape to West Germany.
 * Walter Krupinski was a top fighter ace of the Third Reich.
 * Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was a notorious SS war criminal.
 * The facts are quite clear, one cannot  compare the fate of Jews and Poles.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, these examples are flawed in that although they may have had some polish ancestry, they were culturally German. For instance, Walter Krupinski was a Prussian not a Pole. And secondly, even if you had given accurate examples of Polish Nazi collaborators, you would have still not proven you point since there were also Jewish Nazi collaborators. The existence of Jewish Nazi collaborators no more proves that Jews generaly collaborated with the Nazis than does the existence of Polish Nazi collaborators prove that Poles generally collaborated with the Nazis. Both Jews and Poles did not, for the most part, collaborate with Nazis. <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"> selfworm Talk ) 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Time out, there is no way you can equate the fate of the Jews to that of the Poles. 90% of Polish Jews perished in the war compared to 6% of Polish Catholics. There were 1.3 million German citizens who declared their loyalty to Poland after the war and remained in Poland. They spoke Polish as well as German. During the Nazi era they were not subject to racial persecution like the Jews. They served the Third Reich like other Germans, in 1946 they suddenly became loyal Polish citizens. These are facts you cannot deny.--Woogie10w (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the film Shoah the railway workers who tansported the Jews to their deaths were Polish Catholics. As long as they were doing their jobs they had nothing to fear from the Nazis, they survived the war just like 94% of the other Polish Catholics. You cannot equate the fate of the Polish Jews and Catholics, no way at all.--Woogie10w (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No where did I "equate the fate of the Jews to that of the Poles". You are pulling this out of thin air. <font style="border:solid 1px #FDD017; background:#342D7E;" color="#342D7E"> selfworm Talk ) 20:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Woogie has taken this thread in a new and interesting direction. The original topic concerned the creation of an article, entitled, "Nazi Mass Murders," in order to recognize all victims of Nazi persecution. Whether some victims suffered more than others was not raised. But let me understand. Woogie, are you suggesting that 5 million people who perished alongside jews in concentration camps do not deserve mention because they were not jews, and thus, in your opinion, did not suffer as much? If so, are you also in favor in deleting existing articles that discuss suffering if they are not comparable to the uniquely jewish experience of death in a concentration camp?Tobit2 (talk) 04:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The article already exists, Holocaust victims--Woogie10w (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tobit, we cannot compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma. Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944  which is a collection  photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality.  In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians . At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day. German Homosexuals were persecuted, about 10,000 (1%) of the estimated 1,000,000 German Homosexual population  died in the camps, compared to 160,000 of the 165,000 German Jews who were sent to  the camps The handicapped were persecuted by the Nazis, 200,000 were murdered. Let us not forget that the German Protestant churches protested this barbarity and the executions were halted. They did not make similar protests to save the Jews. The fate of Soviet POW was tragic. About 3 million of the 5.7 million captured perished in German hands. But we must not forget that 800,000 Soviet POW were released from captivity to serve in the German military. 215,000 died in the German uniform and 285,000 were sentenced by Soviet courts after the war for collaboration,  another 180,000 of these collaborators found refuge in western countries after the war. Tobit let us see the sources for your attempt to create a new page, without sources this is strictly your personel POV--Woogie10w (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not consider this article to be properly balanced in the treatment of the victims of the Nazis. The article reflects the current position that is widely held by academic circles in the English speaking world. I have two exceptions with this position, the first being the poor coverage of the German genocide in the Soviet Union. Scholars in the English speaking world need to become familiar with recent Russian language sources on civilian losses in the USSR under Nazi occupation.  In 1995 the Russian Academy of Science published a detailed analysis of the impact of the war on the USSR. Civilian dead were 13.7 million, within 1946-91 borders. The source being, Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6. The second exception is the poor understanding of the nature of Polish losses during the war. Non Jewish losses in Poland were 2 million not the often quoted 1947 figure of 3 million. About ¼ of these losses were persons deported by the USSR and Poles killed by Ukrainians in 1943-44. Of the remaining 1.5 million, at least 200,000 were battle casualties of military personnel. The remaining 1.3 are civilian victims of the Nazi occupation.  Included in that figure are at least 300-400,000 indirect victims of the war due to famine and disease.  The source beingGniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline  The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at --Woogie10w (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph
I will begin to edit the lead. The sentence upon which the current form is based, "Most scholars, however, define the Holocaust as a genocide of European Jewry alone," contradicts the previous source cited; it defines the Holocaust as the mass murder of Jews, Roma, and Invalids while noting that many more millions were also killed as part of the overall Nazi Mass Murder program. Paragraphs will be edited to be consistent with the sourced material. In the near future, I will create a second article to be more inclusive (see above section). Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the lead to reflect the variation and debate in the usage of the term "Holocaust." The lead is now consistent with the array of sources cited. In editing the lead, though, I realized that there is a laundry list of references in the text that claim to be scholarly (reference list #5). I would suggest that Encarta and BBC reports are not scholarly. These should be deleted. Thanks.Tobit2 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the obvious non-scholarly references from list #5. A few others look out of place. I'll investigate.Tobit2 (talk) 07:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the lede did reflect the sources used, so I restored it. Also, there's nothing wrong with using Encyclopedias as sources, so I've restored them too. It's not a good idea to remove reliable sources that contradict your view, then claim that the sources don't support what they're used for. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 06:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree Jayjg's edits. The lead should be clear & concise, not a POV push for the non Jewish groups persecuted by the Nazis--Woogie10w (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Now how can this be? The article says, "Most scholars, however, define the Holocaust as a genocide of European Jewry alone."  So let's look at the sources cited:

1) Weissman, Gary: this book defines the Holocaust as a jewish issue, but Mr. Weissman's text reads more like a popular narrative than a scholarly examination. Nevertheless, let's let this stand as a reference, for now, that has a POV supporting yours. 2) Yad Vashem Museum:  a jewish organization that also says the Holocaust is a jewish issue. 3)Niewyk, Donald: without doubt, the most, or perhaps only, scholarly source cited. The text does NOT claim the Holocaust was a jewish incident only. 4)Encyclopaedia Britannica: Britannica is a secondary source; you will never see it quoted by an scholar. 5)Encarta: Encarata is a secondary source; you will never see it quoted by an scholar. 6)BBC News, "A View of the Holocaust,": In this case, BBC is a secondary source; you will never see it quoted by an scholar. 7)http://www.auschwitz.dk/: a website with Google-ads along its sides is not considered a scholarly source.

....Tally so far: 2 questionable sources that suggest a jewish-only holocaust, 1 scholarly source presents a boarder holocaust defintion. But let's continue....

7) Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies: the citation actually says, "and other groups [besides jews]." 8)Compact Oxford English Dictionary: a dictionary is a secondary source; you will never see it quoted by a scholar. 9)Historiography of the Holocaust: one article is cited from this promising source which appears to be a collection of articles. I do not have access to the book, however, and cannot declare that it as a whole, takes the POV suggested.  This should be investigated. 10)Bauer, Yehuda: pro-jewish only scholar. 11)Dawidowicz, Lucy: it is difficult- very difficult- to consider the "War against the Jews," as a scholarly work.

...Tally...1 scholarly work agrees with jewish only holocaust, 3 questionable sources also say jewish-only holocaust, 2 scholarly sources suggest a boarder holocaust definition, and 1 is unknown.

It appears there is, among scholarly sources, debate over the application of the term, "Holocaust." Niewyk captures this debate very nicely and the same debate should be presented in Wikipedia. I will reinstated the edits, given this discussion. Reflecting disagreement, when it exists, is Non-Point of View. Taking one side, when disagreement exists, is a Point of View. Let's try to make a good article into a great article!Tobit2 (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is with a sense of "deja vu" that I enter this exchange. Anybody who is familar with modern history would agree that most experts/historians/scholars of modern european history use the term Holocaust to refer to the Final Solution.  I am afraid that Tobit2 shows his true colors when he writes off Yehuda Bauer as "a pro jewish only scholar" as well as rejecting Lucy Dawidowicz's work.  It is true that Niewyk is a respected scholar who uses a slightly broader definition, and he is not the only one, but they are a minority.  Not to recognize this is to show a lack of knowledge of modern European history or a disingenuous agenda.  There are plenty of other references that we could use.  There is nothing wrong with using respectable enclopedias or dictionaries: their authority is well accepted.  And, of course the "tally" means nothing.  --Joel Mc (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rereading my post above I now realize that I owe Tobit2 an apology as it appears that he wasn't writing Bauer off, but rather just tallying him as supporter of the Holocaust to mean the genocide of the European jews only. Bauer is of course one of the most respected scholars who explained clearly his position in his address to the German Bundestag.  However, the rest of my comments hold. --Joel Mc (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Joel, your apology is accepted and warranted. Given that, what other comment did you make that still stands?  Besides attempting to label me an antisemite and bantering around accusations of ignorance, you have not actually addressed what I said.  I would actually appreciate objective discussion.  Thanks. Tobit2 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Time out, the lead does in fact relect the view of Niewyk. The conflicting views are in fact on the page already. What Tobit wants to do is equate the genocide of the Jews with the other groups persecuted by the Nazis. Read Niewyk, he does not express this POV --Woogie10w (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. First, the cited sources show a spectrum of views on the use of the term Holocaust yet the article fails to reflect this.  Second, as with Joel, you are falsely ascribing an agenda to facts you do not appreciate.  Please address the facts rather than spin conspiracy theories.  Thanks for staying honest.Tobit2 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cut the jargon, our source Niewyk does not support your hidden agenda, Niewyck's views are in fact reflected on the page. You can't use Niewyck for your POV push--Woogie10w (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't fret; I know the score: three on one. Joel has suggested "we can get other sources," while you state, Niewyk is "our source."  So it appears, Woogie, Jay, and Joel have settled down on this article and bat off any who encroach, attempting to paint them as foes, antisemites with "hidden agendas."  As a result, no clear majority can form to improve the article.  I will stick around, though, to join with other editors who recognize the flawed logic.  Hopefully, all of us, can work together constructively.  Let me add a personal note: I truly understand how this topic upsets you so much.Tobit2 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I must repeat my earlier posting, please forgive me.
 * I do not consider this article to be properly balanced in the treatment of the victims of the Nazis. The article reflects the current position that is widely held by academic circles in the English speaking world. I have two exceptions with this position, the first being the poor coverage of the German genocide in the Soviet Union. Scholars in the English speaking world need to become familiar with recent Russian language sources on civilian losses in the USSR under Nazi occupation.  In 1995 the Russian Academy of Science published a detailed analysis of the impact of the war on the USSR. Civilian dead were 13.7 million, within 1946-91 borders. The source being, Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6. The second exception is the poor understanding of the nature of Polish losses during the war. Non Jewish losses in Poland were 2 million(6% of the population) not the often quoted 1947 figure of 3 million. About ¼ of these losses were persons deported by the USSR and Poles killed by Ukrainians in 1943-44. Of the remaining 1.5 million, at least 200,000 were battle casualties of military personnel. The remaining 1.3 are civilian victims of the Nazi occupation.  Included in that figure are at least 300-400,000 indirect victims of the war due to famine and disease.  The source beingGniazdowski, Mateusz. Losses Inflicted on Poland by Germany during World War II. Assessments and Estimates—an Outline  The Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 2007, no. 1.This article is available for purchase from the Central and Eastern European Online Library at  --Woogie10w (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for repeating the post. I had not understood it previously.  I had meant to ask you about it (context matters) and perhaps I owe you an apology.  But if you recognize the imbalance, why do you support the lead?  My edits (if you read them again) were an attempt to be consistent with the sources and the text in the Victims and Death Toll section.Tobit2 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not support your attempt to equate the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. Read Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman. You really need to have a better understanding of the facts. 80 % of the Jews were killed by the Nazis, 17 % of the non Jewish civilians perished in the Germnan occupied USSR, 4% of ethnic Poles, in Poland, perished during the German occupation. The Poles did little or nothing to help the Jews and many helped the Germans in the destruction process. In Germany itself there were 2 million Reich citizens who were ethnic Poles, for example one of Hitler's personel secretaries Gerda Christian. These are facts that can't be denied.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it seems we are in agreement. Trying to equate or even compare suffering is not appropriate.  Forgive me for repeating my post..."Woogie has taken this thread in a new and interesting direction. The original topic concerned the creation of an article...to recognize all victims of Nazi persecution. Whether some victims suffered more than others was not raised."  We have come full circle.  No agenda here.  Simply put, the lead paragraphs for this article are inconsistent with the later text in the Victims and Death Toll section.Tobit2 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we are not in agreement. The persecution of non-Jews should not be considered as part of the Holocaust. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then they should be deleted from this page.Tobit2 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, I must repeat my earlier post. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 which is a collection  photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality.  In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians . At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Shall I start removing the extraneous material or would you prefer the honor? It seems one of us should finish Goodoldpolonius2's work.  Let me know, because I'm ready.Tobit2 (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let it stay, the readers will draw their own conclusions when they read that in the Holocaust 6% of Poles died compared to 90% of Jews.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be disingenuous. The correct solution would be to be consistent with the current lead paragraph as edited, quietly and without debate, in January 2006.Tobit2 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Say, what is the source for your propsosed edits?--Woogie10w (talk) 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to make my position clear. I have just re-read the lead paras and checked the references.  I do not think that they need to be changed.  The references are all authoritative (If we really need more we could cite Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust, p. 18). --Joel Mc (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Tally complied above suggests otherwise. You may still address that post.Tobit2 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The matter, in the end, is consistency. For most of this article's history, from the time it was first put up in 2001 until January 2006, the Holocaust was defined as an event that included "various groups," of which jews were one. In January 2006, this changed radically, so that now all groups are excluded from the Holocaust except jews. Apparently, either this edit was incorrect (and the lead paragraphs should be reverted) or the text of the article wrongly continues to discuss millions of others who died (and then these paragraphs should be deleted). A path must be chosen. The article is flawed. If the Holocaust includes various groups, they should all be on this page and the definition broadened to include them. If the Holocaust includes only one group, the others have no business being on this page.Tobit2 (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Replacement internet link for a source
I'm a new user and cannot edit the article, but if an old user wouldn't mind doing this for me, I'm sure others would appreciate it!

The link used in source number 88 is no longer active or is incorrect. I found a working link to the original page that has the cited information on it: http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/romaSinti/jewishResponses.html

Thanks! Mcshears (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Death toll
In 1989 the Aushwitz Muzeum reestimated the total amount of victims in that camp from 4 million to 1.1 million (see Auschwitz concentration camp for details). So why keeping uncorrected data (ex.: 5.9 million jews killed - Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, Bantam, 1986) based on pre-1989 sources in this article? p.s.: I'm everything but a negationist, it's just for the sake of correctness.--87.0.163.108 (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, the Jewish Holocaust death toll computed on a demographic basis is about 5.7 million. This was disclosed in a 1946 report by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and is still accepted as being correct. The figure of 4 million dead at Auschwitz was reported separately by Polish and Soviet sources in 1945, it also  included Soviet prisoners of war and Poles.  Soviet and Polish sources from the post war era are no longer accepted as being valid. For example the Polish government in 1947 reported that total war dead were 6,028,000, including 2.8 million Jews. Historians in post communist Poland now estimate the losses at 5 million, including 3 million Jews.  The 1947 census of Jews in Poland confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt that losses were about 3 million.  In 1939 there were 3 million Poles who spoke Yiddish, in 1947 the figure was about 100,000. In the case of the USSR when we compare the Soviet census of 1959 and 1939  we can confirm Jewish losses at about 1 million, within 1939 borders.  We can do a similar demographic analysis for the rest of Europe and we will confirm total Jewish losses were 5.7 million.  If you still have any doubts, please post them. I will cite sources to convince you that the Jewish death toll was indeed 5.7 million. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right, I was simply questioning the outdated references in the article. I think that if you put new sources from the 90's or the 21st century, no more reader will have any doubt about numbers.--87.0.163.108 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I always check figures, I never accept them on faith. The source must be credible and make sense. The noted Polish historian Franciszek Piper puts the death toll at 1.3 million at Auschwitz based on research of the camp records. Evidence presented at the the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trials in Germnany proved the existance of the use of gas chambers for mass murder. The number of Jews transported to the other Polish death camps was 1.5-2.0 million persons. Demographic studies published in Poland after communism give details of the post war census that listed 250,000 surviving Jews. The Yiddish speaking population of Poland was gone after the war. The mass executions by the Einsatzgruppen in the USSR was detailed at the Nuremberg Trials. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Victims>Esperantists
Esperanto mentions people speaking/advocating that language were targeted during the Holocaust. Does that possibly merit a brief mention in this article, or is it already covered in a sub-article? Шизомби (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say add it in somewhere around Freemasons. A few sentences would bring more value to this already excellent article.Mtsmallwood (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that this belongs on the Holocaust page. Hitler in Mein Kampf did say that once the Jews ruled the world they would use an international language such as Esperanto and force everybody to use it.  Part of Nazi antagonism was due to the fact it was a vehicle for international understanding and part was certainly due to the fact that its founder Zamenhof was Jewish.  Zamenhof's whole family was exterminated by the Nazis but it is likely that was because they were Jewish and not Esperanto speakers.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes I guess whether non-Jewish Esperantists were targeted would merit investigation. Шизомби (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)