Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 6

Neutrality
I disagree with a line about Jews "popularizing" it to further their cause. I have attached a POV boilerplate text to the article.


 * Looking at the context, I think the term was used by someone whose first language is not English in the sense of "make well known". I've corrected the text. In future, rather than slap on a POV message, why not just edit the article to deal with the item you are objecting to? NPOV warnings should not be the first resort. AndyL 02:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References on Ernst Rohm's sexuality provided at Talk:Ernst_R%F6hm. DJ Clayworth 17:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cruel Medical Experiments
Under the section on Mengele's experiments, it only lists trying to change eye color as an example. I know for a fact there were much more horrific instances. Can someone find a source that details some of these? Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 15:30 (UTC)

Dubious (POV) Brewing
Under section "Jews" the reversion is wrong, the previous to my edit  was  wrong , the present 'electoral' success is wrong. Someone else could easily prevent this article from needing a POV notice.

The words electoral success- what do they mean -that the Nazis gained a mandate electorally ? This is what they suggest. The Nazi vote in the 5 march 1933 Reichstag election was 43.9 %  - up from 33.1 % on 6 November 1932 which had itself been a fall  from their  31 July 1932 of 37.4 %.

It is well known that the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates bailed the Nazis out prior to this  5 March  ''electoral success'  and that their electoral success was even then  not enough to bring  them the power they sought. They existed with the support of the discredited  Nationalists' 8 %  so their majority as a party was no-existent. The period from 5 March brought them the opportunity to build upon this capitalist-corporate  collaboration  by removing the Communists entirely from the equation ( 11.7) by proscription, and with the connivance of the church ( Pope Pius XII  and Monsignor Ludwig Kaas  , adding  to themselves  the   Catholic Centre Party's and Bavarian People's  Party's  14.4 % votes.

opening section
I scanned the talk page - please excuse me if I cant see a relevant section - if there is one please point it out. The reason for my proposed change is that when I read the section it didn't make sense. Clearly the largest group affected in numbers was the Jews of Europe (as stated) but hos can this be the "main" target as stated when they form a absolute minority of the number - as outlined in the rest of the paragraph? My chenge tried to reflect that the largest single identifiable group was the Jews whilst removing "main" a word which I think has connotations of them being in the absolute (ie >51%) majority.

Perhaps we need to change the second half of the section? At the moment it just looks logically inconsisten to me. 62.252.0.7 22:35, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See "Targets to victims" and "Principal target" sections above. Jayjg (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair comment - many thanks - my fault here. I still think the second paragraph doesn't really work though. Perhaps split into two separate paragraphs? one setting out the "main victims" (who were undoubtely - ideologically at least - the Jews) and another talking about absolute numbers? 62.252.0.7 22:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As an aside - do we like the word "victim"? I'm not sure that "target" wouldn't be better. 62.252.0.7 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm. Well, certainly, all the dead ones were victims. The ones that survived were a mix of victims and targets, perhaps? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To me "victim" sounds passive - and glosses over some heroic resistance (warsaw - sobibor etc). 62.252.0.7 22:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone's trying to kill me, and I resist, and they kill me anyway, I'm a victim. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I could well be wrong - been wrong before . 62.252.0.7 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Anyone want to comment on my main arguement regarding the second para? 62.252.0.7 23:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Given the arguments over getting consensus for the paragraph, it does not read awkwardly enough to justify the pain of changing right now. It would be a bit cleaner to move " Other groups deemed "undesirable", especially Poles, Roman Catholics, Russians and other Slavs, Roma, Sinti, the mentally or physically disabled, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and political dissidents, were also persecuted and murdered," right after the first sentence about the Jews, but I am pretty neutral, and do not think the current paragraph is particularly bad. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Here we are talking seats in the Reichstag following the provacateur, supposedly Communist , but  in fact Nazi , burning of the Reichstag building. What is absolutely true is that Hitler chose  specifically  to achieve power by legal parliamentary means, so the use of the words  here electoral success are similar in  substance to  that actual historic aim  : that it be thought , even now, that this was all  legal. The Nuremberg trials decided that they couldn't try the  magnate  bosses nor individuals  such as  Franz von Papen, and  it was impossible for them to interview Ludwig Kaas , even if the church's  connivance with Hitler towards this supposed and  minority electoral success had been analysed   : Kaas "escaped" into the Vatican within days of  operating as the effective  papal tool  never to  re-emerge. The historical fact and recognition of the fact that the catholic political party assented to what really happened is disputed here on WP  right now, and mediation is sought, because of the continuing insidious nature of the mis-representation. The catholic Centre Paty provided the crucial extra , non-Nazi bloc vote which allowed for a parliamentary institution  of Hitler's Party  under a two-thirds  rule upon the  already Communist diminuished Reichstag seats.

Electoral success could more accurately be called quid pro quo with interests. It should have been left as I wrote it, fairly and briefly. However now an analysis of the change may become required. I therefore have to alert the reader unaware of the disputes and the mediation, to visit all pages pertaining to myself  and my editing and particularly  discussions in this matter. These are wide as they touch upon the rules to do with the church or its servants (Kaas  was a churchman Leader or Chairman of the centre bloc, and mysteriously cast the  bloc's vote such that historians notice and more or less, analyse the mystery ). Start with Pope Pius XII for the historical accusation, Centre Party Germany  ( discussion re: mediation  called) , Ludwig Kaas ( discussion re: mediation) , Hitler's Pope  (mediation /dispute) , Pope's Hitler (which is under 'request for deletion , and needs your  vote  otherwise  deletion with 3 days remaining ).

The questions arising from small edits such as this here, two words , are large. The good faith ruling the WP is severely tested, and my own ability  or otherwise to sustain  this is clearly  stressed. I will say that to me the  use of electoral success  - because the only possible reason for its use can be to erroneously  legitimize the otherwise extremly  suspect, and ,  since the editor  using these words is highly informed  -  say it  does  not suggest a will to legitimise Hitler electorally. I see no logic in so doing -though I may be wrong. I see the necessity to remove reference to what really happened. This is the inescapable logic of reason, running against WP civil code. If something is inescusably excluded contrary to sources etc., there has to be a further logic.

I edit at length elsewhere, before this rv I was  hoping to stay clear , yet  here I tried  to insert with purest precision. You will see that neither length nor brevity are allowed, but subject to rv. I could refer you to archives under Pope Benedict XVI for the moral-legal crossover discussion, to his Theology of Pope Benedict XVI for more, to the AIDS discussion where there is modern cross-over. Even though there is some urgency to preserve the space  required under the accurately  (googling) described   special source page  for these collaborations between  the church and  Hitler under Pope's Hitler, and your votes are needed - I will  wait until it is removed , and  simply re-insert  now my earlier dubious  signal  .If this is removed  , I will have to call POV tag here on the Holocaust article itself or the section  ,if possible  .Famekeeper 13:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, Famekeeper. I just reverted because of the tag, and El C kindly put it back. When you've had some more response here, could you suggest a NPOV-sensitive phrasing for the sentence in question? JFW | T@lk  14:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ancillary to this is the suggestion under relevant page for deletion  Catholic Holocaust Conspiracy  to move  here. I would never have dreamt of this, out of respect etc,  and I leave it all to brew a bit. A parallel to my (candidate for deletion) Pope's Hitler   suggested by PatGallacher  is that the sourced  references  to papal collaboration  in 1932 and 1933 be placed under Holocaust. I agree , and will write it  and  provide at least the source for the suspicions , and the standard historical sources showing  historical remark of  the catholic (papal)  involvement. The complete absence of reference to papal anti-semitism and christian antisemitism  on the page  is  noticeable , but I accept that it reflects the  majority perception. However, along with Haffner's thesis , the papal involvement is relevant given the out-come  and the historical comment. I believe the location could be Hitler's Pope, but without the limitations being forced on it presently (that it should relate to Cornwell's analysis alone ). And, JFW , I thought it was Str1977 who rv 'd my correction - from the "history"  ,  Famekeeper 20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 should now simply replace that which he reverted. The text would be NPOV and accurate with a return to : On April 1, 1933, the recently un-elected but two-thirds majority-instituted dictatorship of the Nazis,  organized, under Julius Streicher , a one-day boycott of all Jewish-owned businesses in Germany.. I will accept that, otherwise I consider it a POV violation. I couldn't have been shorter, and it cannot be more accurate. The present edit must revert to that which is a true explanation. You do not dispute this, Str1977 , so to save two words  for the sake of the true explanation of the facts is wrong. It is so wrong, as to support POV call. Accession is, I believe , generally used about people who ascend , as well as referring to things to which someone has acceeded. And Hitler did not accede -though he wished it to look like he was the saviour, he engineered it. People get sick of our analyses, but at this rate we will have to return to the catholic pages for another long round of explanation, and  there's lots to explain. "Please" revert to mine as above which explains the accession .Famekeeper 00:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FK, I won't revert to your version because
 * a) it is very circumstantial
 * b) it is not actually relevant to this passage. IMHO all that the original version wanted to give was a time frame, about when the boycott (which BTW was no success) took place, namely after Hitler was in power.
 * Hitler's accession to power and Germany's way into a dictatorshop is a process starting with his appointment (30 January) and ending only with him succeeding to Hindenburg as head of state. We can not include every stage of development (appointment - Reichstag Fire decree - electoral success (yes, it Hitler won the elections, though not the absolute majority) - Enabling Act - Dissolution of parties and unions) up to the boycott.
 * c) "un-elected" is clearly wrong: Hitler's coalition government won the March elections -this government was still in office during the boycott. Of course, the elections were not the only factor (even according to the Constitution: government was appointed by the President), but use "un-elected" is just plainly untrue.
 * d) again, it is you pushing your "message" - otherwise why don't you want to include other stages in this process. Well, I know why!
 * For these reasons I will not accept your version, even if you consider it a POV violation.
 * Str1977 15:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the text per the proof. I am closer to the truth, yours is as, everywhere designed to neutralize. And I notice nowhere ever is there any reference to the historical fact of the quid pro quo re: the Concordat and the catholic Church's position in history, where it is contributory , not on Holocaust not in Weimar nor anti-semitism. They were not an elected government, it was a president appointed co-alition , un-elected by majority and stitched together by interests  and talked in by Papen. Lets go to arbitration on this very edit, where it is simple. Will you go for arbitration with me on this single as you call it message. This particular edit demonstrates enough our respective positions. OK? Famekeeper 16:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * FK, the thing is that this entry is about the Shoa, as I prefer to call it, and the passage in question about the boycott. IMHO the words in dispute are merely giving the time frame. Please consider this: "On April 1, 1933, the Nazis organized a one-day boycott of all Jewish-owned businesses in Germany." This is the gist of the sentence, anything else additional information - Streicher and SA on the actual subject of the sentence, the disputed one mere chronological. Your addition would be going beyond this.


 * Of course they were not elected. But which German government was elected? Certainly not before 1918 and also not after 1918, according to the Constitution. All governments of the Weimar Republic were appointed by the President, sometimes based on a majority in parliament (1919-1920, 1923, 1928-1930), more often based on a plurality (1920-1923,1923-1928, 1930-1932), and sometimes even without any real support in parliament (Papen, Schleicher). The Hitler government coalition (NSDAP-DNVP) however gained a majority in parliament in the March elections - a success that proved to be crucial.


 * IMHO this issue is way beyond what this sentence actually tries to say. However, since you want arbitration, please go ahead.

Str1977 17:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * (For what it's worth, that's the way a parliamentary government often works; the head of state (Queen, Reichspraesident, whatever) appoints the head of government (Chancellor, Prime Minister), who is usually, but not always, the head of the ruling party or coalition. Is this an "elected" government? Or something else?)--jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed but not relevant to German democracy  under Decree 48 etc. This page should speak the truth  or be taken down, deleted.


 * The sentence in question suggested that Hitler had a government that was in power on April 1 1933 because of electoral success that allowed it to be operating on that day this particluar disgusting anti-semitic policy,  A Hitler co-alition  government was returned on  5 March  with a 16 seat  majority but was unable to govern   and certainly would have  not been embarking on  the particular  policy of 1 April (Hitler was too careful  before the  Enabling Act gave him free reign  . It is misleading because the  15th March  Cabinet meeting (analysed at  the Nuremberg Trials )  decision was to  ceremonially open parliament on the 21 March  amidst pomp and guarantees , to hood-wink  the President down , and  in fact the  action of this  co-alition was to negotiate the mysterious  Pope's Hitler Centre Party Germany}} [[Pope Pius XII Reichskonkordat  and  Monsignor Ludwig Kaas figuring Enabling Act for the  23 March  opening of the Reichstag}}. The parliament didn't exist , as the Nazis  had burnt it , so the  ceremonial was for the 21 st , and later ,the  convening of parliament was for 23 March in the Kroll Opera House . William L Shirer p250   'The street gangs ' in the words of Alan Bullock , ' had seized control of the resources of a great modern State , the gutter had come to power.' But - as Hitler never ceased to boast - 'legally' , by an overwhelming vote of Parliament . The Germans had no one  to blame but themselves .  This is the electoral success, inside  the Kroll Opera House , [[Ludwig Kaas gave the over-whelming nature of the vote , and in fact  the Germans do have someone other than themselves to blame .  Kaas' organised Pope's Hitler quid pro quo   . go there and save it from deletion , now...Famekeeper 00:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed the whole issue is not relevant to sentence in question. Str1977 21:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

To whom it may concern
'''Please whoever reads this, have a look at the edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=19649128&oldid=19648664

and post your view on the question, which version is more suitable. Str1977 22:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The second version is concise and exact. Readers interested in the mechanics and details of Hitler's rise to power will have clicked through to any number of links in the article. "Accession" is a good neutral word, too. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The first version looks like an argument. Jayjg (talk)  16:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto, the second version is better-written and accurate. If there is a need for a more detailed discussion of Hitler's rise to power, it belongs in the articles on Hitler, Naziism, and German history.  Here, the consitutional, legal, and political mechanics of Hitler's rise are just tangential. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

As relevant, I post this reply from where it could have gone instead , to here where it could do more good. It is tojohn on the Robert McClenon discussion- I claim good faith provocation from a bad-faith editor (ie denialist or revisionist) who denies cited source info entry. John you are over-stating the argument, when have I accused everyone who disagrees with me of anything to do with the holocaust ? If I did, I may be right as only Str1977 really disagrees. you qualified your difference rather minutely  in fact .The holocaust only just came into this  church dispute :revisionism may be specified in the limited world of the WP to Holocaust Denial but that is quite wrong and simplistic. To me revisionism has always been concerned with a separately dangerous creeping, insidious re-writing of history. This is reminiscent of the post WWI German denials that led to WWII, and without wishing to diminuish the people of the Holocaust , the 60 million resulting deaths overshadow The Shoah : therein is the real subject of revisionism for me , and others who may be dead by now. Revisionism is the most dangerous  thing there is, and it is what keeps me in the WP , and did from day one. Revisionism is again  brewing  - it is inter-european scandal which it seems ,maybe un-wishingly, that you support. I only know Str1977 from his actual WP actions, he is  highly useful only in that he focuses us on revisionism. Maybe I'm wrong and he's just a guy, another normal  bozo as they say about someone  un-rquiring suspicion. But I go by actions, and  the history shows that he is at least two people , one of whom  writes in english  for the other, or is a larger group - even ,as I  wonder , the Inquisition or CDF. See 4 th May/history for Pope Pius XII to judge. But the NPOV of  "History" itself  is that there was   separate  but in axis church conspiracy, which finally succeeded with the fall of Communism. The Which axis  cost, I was tired the last time and said 80 but its only 60,000,000 people like you or me or our granny. Pius I / Pacelli helped the future-holocaust-maker knowing of the pogroms under way/ planned, and knowing of the plan for  nazi-imperial  war  ,and with welcome to that likelihood(sourced). As to others ,they  are digging holes for themselves  still, against my kind advice. If this Holocaust situation festers further, it serves history's purpose : murder will out. See Rfc against Famekeeper  here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Famekeeper#Response  Famekeeper 20:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to put a few things straight:
 * To cite a source means to bring in from a source what the source says, not some misrepresentation of it, as FK did in the case of Klemperer, Lewy, John Kenney's quote, Dilectissima Nobis.
 * The causes of WWII are much more complex than you claim. It's not just mere WWI denial (whatever that means).
 * Yes, maybe you're wrong and I'm just a guy. You may call be Bozo but not Bryan.
 * I am not at least two people. I don't want to sound mean, but do you know any other human being in the real world? Do you ever talk to them about this stuff here? Since you refer to 4 May you must mean my Protestant friend. All he did was read Dilectissima Nobis for me. I wanted to find out whether your claim about what it said was just escaping my Catholic eyes or whether you were misrepresenting the content. Just as me he couldn't find what you found. Just one instance of you creating huge allegations out of thin air. Unfortunately not the last.

One more thing I'm interested in:

What's the point in your linking? Why should anyone want to read this?

Str1977 21:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Entire Holocaust Article Is Dubious
The complete lack of any explanation as to how the Nazis became  empowered is  obfuscated by the above dubious  row and  by the  complete ignoral of the Reichskonkordat quid pro quo that empowered them. I dispute this whole article and call for  editors to rectify the  lack  of clarity for the origins of the holocaust. They should  revert  the one revealing     reference  I placed, before they  do their duty to the  murdered  by relating the  balanced history  where it should be -on this article , and showing up as a contrib ution to this holocaust  stain  upon  our  bleak world history. I also object to the revisionism analysis  for sparate reasons- I consider the analysis  of revisionism to be  itself a serious case of  dangerous revisionism. I am not POV or MPOV, I'm out-raged at this vacillation and weakness , and  error. The least that must happen is that the  conclusions  of the Reichskonkordat  be averred here- and note that I have nothing whatever  to do with the history of the Reichskonkordat  ,which clears me of the  smears  and innuendo. Do it someone or I will have to myself .Famekeeper 02:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to put more background into the article, go ahead. These articles may help in your research: Eugenics, Racial hygiene, Eugen Fischer, Werner Heyde, Ernst Kretschmer, J. F. Lehmann, Friedrich Mauz, Friedrich Panse, Alfred Ploetz, Paul Rostock, Ernst Rüdin, Carl Hans Heinze Sennhenn, Werner Villinger, Bethel Institution, Racial policy of Nazi Germany, T-4 Euthanasia Program, Compulsory sterilization, Nazi, Nazism, Third Reich --AI 03:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Very good of you, however Nazism linking thru to History of Germany  couples with what I see everywhere ,cept  Reichskonkordat and  my own sullied Pius XII. Fraid friend, this is a big problem : the absence of crucial little-understood highly relevant sourceable history  of March 5 - July 15 , 1933. I FK am simply not allowed to rectify this, because the notice of bad faith that it brings to my attention, disables me as a  pedian right now. The whole WP article situation  is in need of the same understanding, explanatory fact  is entirely absent , and I am  neutralised by attack  wherever I go  to  help. I can only refer readers to follow my discussions, not the articles. A Deal with the blocking of FK is the only way forward, but your very presence here on the page, AI , prevents your formal help. Vote to save FK is all that seems to be going. The page for the sources is deleting on Pope's Hitler, an entirely descriptive self -explanatory link. Run yourself a check thru year 1933 thru history links for  all end of Weimar links  and you will find no reference to the 2/3  majority vote  or the  centre and above all not to the church axis ''quid pro quo. Then get disturbed yourself and then struggle for reason. Thanks, I need your good faith .Famekeeper 13:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think those articles need some peer review and severe authentication of references, etc. I am not in a position to do this, for one reason I am a significant contributor to those articles. What is this about FK (you?) and your mentions of a "block". Send a message to my talk page. --AI 19:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I think that Famekeeper is saying that this article is dubious or incomplete because it only blames the Holocaust on the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler and not on the Catholic Church. I have tried to request that he summarize what his issues are, but his anger prevents him from providing a concise summary. Robert McClenon 01:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to help both you while doing my best to maintain a neutral point of view. Just keep discussing things and providing citations. Keep things simple in discussion to avoid confusing any disputes. --AI 02:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

My edits
Just wanted to explain the edits I have made over the last couple days (in addition to the maps and pictures added). There were two large problems I saw with the article: first, it did not actually explain how the Holocaust was carried out -- as much space was devoted to the subject of badges as to concentration camps AND extermination camps combined, dates were unclear, the Ghettos and Einsatzgruppen were barely mentioned, etc -- which I think may have led to some of the questions on this page about how so many millions were killed. The second issue was the end of the article, which contained some vague words about the fact that the Holocaust helped start the Arab-Israeli conflict thanks to new immigrants to Israel, and that there were also other terrible things that happened during WW II -- nothing about Nuremberg, Displaced Persons, world reaction, or anything else.

I tried to address the first problem by putting in the chronology and details of the industrialized mass-murder of the Holocaust, including, roughly, the phases during which various types of killing methods were used by the Nazis. I tried to address the second by rewriting a bit, but it still requires more work. I would also suggest that we do a little more clean-up. Specifically, I think the badge section should be reduced to merely a link - we have so little room, and we haven't even touched major issues (liberation of the camps, the Catholic Church, reperations, etc.). Second, I think we should organize the collaborators section a bit more to explain what happened in each country, right now it is randomly organized, it seems. Finally, we need to expand the aftermath section - how did various countries deal with the issues of collaboration? What was the political reaction after the war? Thoughts are appreciated. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And I am uploading a wikipedians  "shortest  explanation" version for the death of democracy  that was the Enabling Act. Where it will reside yet to be determined. I agree with Goodoldpolonius  that  whatever is needed  to be must be included. Someone reading the article should  be able to leave  with the whole  Holocaust issue as clear in their mind  as it is today possible to be clear, including summary of all the  historical effects. Famekeeper 07:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverting dubious tags
DO NOT revert Famekeeper's addition of dubious tags. Discuss them here instead of just removing them. See Accuracy dispute. --AI 23:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

So far Famekeeper has added nothing relevant to this article. And even this one addition has been discussed on this talk page and "his wording" has found no support. Str1977 09:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of Jews as Targets
Purely in reference to the discussions on this page about Jews as targets of the  Holocaust, my threepenny worth thinking  is this.

That the anti-semitic nature of Hitler goes back to being over-shadowed by a Jewish school-fellow who was or wasn't Wittgenstein, and this  was re-inforced by the widespread cultural anti-semitism of central Europe  filtering through into his petty bourgeois  childhood. Hitler's very success in formulating a usefulness for this anti-semitism  holds the attention after the  shock of the actual mass-murder  is felt.

I tend towards the opinion that the Polish subject of murder, is  not to be accorded this prominence or description simply because it did not  have the same  philosophical basis.

I think the lesson of the history for the present is related to the pseudo- reasoning of anti-semitism, as the basis for it lies  in conjunction with the christian  revulsion at that church  which  christianity derived from. In this respect Polish or other national questions, but especially Polish - muddy the waters by needing cognizance  of  the contemporary  Polish national anti-semitic political tendency.

The relevance of all debate to our learning from history is in order not to be condemned  into  its' repetition. I see the philosophical or legalistic Hitlerian  anti-semitism  through a  contemporary prism: the question arising  is  the same question / law/ permissal/  as that which justifies  Islamic  counter-terror. Perish the Jew was the constant refrain in 1932.

The legal roots of christian anti-semitism  are found in the Biblical references to  the passing of sins unto succeeding generations, and the Islamic  roots come from the  exception  after the general murder proscription , for those who spread  evil/wrong/calumny/apostasy/etc in the land. This seems a reflection of the Judaic  .As everyone  who has read it knows, the  Qoran , almost by chapter relates to the  biblical , with  many/every chapters' ending in threat  at anyone who suggests it is simply such a repetition. I do not suggest this is the entire  of the Qoran , indeed I have not read it since   the Rushdie  insults created his 'affair' ( The relevance of Rushdie lies in his attack on the veracity of the very words in these chapters  ,plus the female insult towards the many wives of the  prophet . )

War is one thing - action instills re-action of force. But philosophical conceptions , such as pollute the minds of man ( to whomsoever  so claims ) -  anti-semitism , anti-christianity  as here  described - become cardinal to an explanation. Hitler did not operate in a vacuum, but tapped the philosophical  undercurrent  for strength. Equally the 'exception' of  the Qoran  makes of nearly everyone but the adherent , a justifiable  culpable target  , a non-innocent similar  to the non-innocnce of the born Jew  to the christian  militant.

For the Holocaust article to avoid the scrupulous explanation of  the 'currents'  both popular and  Hitlerian, is humanly un-useful. For the world to forget where it all comes from, or to forget the subjugation of the  mass-mind  conscience in Europe  so attained  , is to misunderstand the philosophical  hurdles we presently face.

The editor rising hereabove  is highly useful, as he requires considerable effort in rebuttal and this leads to evidence. At all times he seeks however to prevent any such historical linkage  as that to which I philosophically refer - hence his reverts here. He has been particularly useful in relation to an analysis of "christian law" - which relates to the collaboration (or, he states ,otherwise) of  christians , but especially  very powerful christians  -towards the  evident Hitlerian  centrality  accorded , throughout , to the   Jews. Famekeeper 10:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)