Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 7

Homosexality section
As a matter of comparison, I added in the Gay men section the phrase that onanism was also considered harmful to the Reich. In fact, I rememebre reading about an episode from SS/SD internal quarrels that one official was filmed while he was onanized, withe the goal of discrediting, but it missed the target: the verdict was to find him a wife, a Party member in good standing. Does anyone remember this? mikka (t) 16:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No offence is intended, but can I suggest that a vague memory of something you read isn't a verifiable source? We should leave this out until someone can confirm it. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * A vague memory is about the particular incident. But I do not really insist here; it is but a tangential support of trhe topic of the section. mikka (t)  03:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An editor added "allegedly" before gay throughout the section. A second editor removed all these. I edited it to have one statement of "Germans who were or were believed to be gay" because certainly some men persecuted as gay were not in fact homosexual. That said, I have two objections to the original edit: first it makes too much of the fact that there may have been some misidentifications (indeed there were probably misidentificaitons of Jews and others) and second, the word alleged is inherently pejorative. No literate English speaker says "allegedly Jewish" or "allegedly brilliant" -- the conotation is that you are accusing someone of wrong doing. Jliberty July 1, 2005 02:05 (UTC) One use of "alleged" is fine; 10 or so in a couple of paragraphs is terrible style. Jayjg (talk) 1 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)
 * I kinda disagree that it's pejorative. All it means is "believed or stated to be XX, but not proven to be so". So, for example, if the Nazis killed a bunch of folk on the pretext that they were gay, but some weren't, it's accurate to say that the Nazis killed a bunch of alleged homosexuals, since it was the Nazis making the allegations -- and to the nazis, indeed, being gay was doing something wrong. It can be used as a sneer, certainly; but I think it's correct in this context. Once, anyway. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 1 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

Request for expansion of subsection 8.2 / Proposal
On August 8th, Jeftrokat requested an expansion of the subsection 8.2 Why did people participate in, authorize, or tacitly accept the killing?.

In his 1994 book "Warum Auschwitz? Hitlers Plan und die Ratlosigkeit der Nachwelt" (ISBN 3499136260) Gunnar Heinsohn lists up 42 of the more popular theories regarding the motivation behind the Holocaust (or Churban, as the author prefers). These include the functionalist and intentionalist positions already mentioned in the article as well as other historical, political and theological theories (e.g. "Auschwitz as a revenge for the defeat at Stalingrad", "Auschwitz as a deflection from Germany's domestic politics", as well as the different propositions that have been made during the Historikerstreit) and a 43rd theory by the author himself.

I want to make a proposal. Listing up all of these theories would probably be too much for this article. The collected theories are far too many for the subsection as it is. Maybe a new article for this would be in order which could be linked from the subsection in this article?

Right now I'd like to know what the opinion is on these few points:


 * Should an attempt be made to list the theories regarding the motivation for the Holocaust / the explanation for the Holocaust in Wikipedia at all?
 * If yes, should they be reduced to an excerpt (according to some criteria which would still have to be defined)?
 * If there is reason for them not to be reduced, should they be all listed in the Holocaust article or should a new article be made for a listing that aims to be complete?
 * Regardless, should an excerpt be integrated into the existing subsection?

Part of the reason I am asking all of this is because the book is in German and it would take me some time to translate the relevant passages. I also don't think there is an official translation into English and I don't know of any translations or comparable publications in other languages so I have no real idea on how much help on the article(s) can be expected.
 * ugh, forgot to sign this... zerofoks 06:11:44, 2005-08-15 (UTC)

Regarding this edit
"remove unsourced POV; violent conflicts had been going on since the 20s, and the claim that Israel is a "tragic legacy" of the Holocaust is POV]"

What exactly is being challenged? I just added a source of the article that pretty much ellaborates on that last edit. Also the article says "instability in the Middle East...is another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust", not " Israel is a 'tragic legacy' of the Holocaust is POV" as you claim. --Vizcarra 19:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? You added no source to the article; point out the edit in which you did so.  As for the insertion, it is factually wrong, since conflicts between Jews and Arabs were happening all through the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, they didn't break out after Jewish refugees started immigrating after the Holocaust.  As well, attributing current Middle East instability to the Holocaust is brazen POV.  And finally, this article is about The Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Let's try not to have that conflict spill over into every article. Jayjg (talk)  19:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That's true. for some reason my source did not show. I will add it next time. You have to spend more time reading the edits and less time reverting them. The first time, "instability Middle East" did not imply "Israel". Now #2 (Violent conflicts quickly broke out between Jews and Arabs, and conflicts continued after the establishment of Israel in 1948.) That does not imply that there weren't any conflicts between Jews and Arabs, but that conflicts arose after the settlement of Israel between Jews and Arabs. But I won't add that after tomorrow, I won't fall into a 3RR trap a second time.


 * 1) 3 You deleted "The resulting instability in the Middle East, which still continues to this day, is another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust." which is, obviously, related to the Holocaust. I will re-add that tomorrow as well if no opposition is shown. --Vizcarra 20:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Opposition is shown. The Middle East as a whole was utterly unstable before the Holocaust; the Holocaust exacerbated the situation, certainly. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding #3, the allegation that the "resulting instability in the Middle East" can be attributed to the influx of Holocaust survivors, and that this alleged phenomenon is "another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust", are both POVs. At a minimum, they would have to be sourced, and shown to be significant views. Jayjg (talk)  21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If there are others (i.e. non-Wikipedia editors) out there &mdash; scholars, political activists, let's say someone like Noam Chomsky or Edward Said, but these are just two examples &mdash; who have written that exacerbated conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine was "another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust," and they explicitlyy use the word Holocaust, then I do think we need to make room for it in this article. If scholars and politicians have discussed the role of Holocaust survivors in the I-P conflict in general, however, I think that that discussion belongs specifically in an article on the I-P conflict (although we could have a link here in this article). Be that as it may, the way this phrase was originally introduced into this article is just editorializing and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 21:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Victims of the Holocaust
First of all, I deem it very good that in the English wikipedia, all victims of the Holocaust are addressed. In the German wikipedia, it is held that "Holocaust" only attributes the Jewish victims; that has the "nice" effect to relativise the other victims, so that only the Jews must be remembered.

Two groups of victims I do not see: The "Roman Catholic" - no catholic was murdered just for his/her faith - and the Esperanto speakers. Esperanto was forbidden, but so was hearing allied radio broadcasts. I would rather subsumize that under "political dissidents" (which was also true for protestant people like Dietrich Bonnhöfer), as those people were prosecuted for their actions, not their race as were the gypsies, the Jews and the Slaws. --Dingo 22:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the Esperanto speakers are a special case. As early as 1922, Hitler was attacking Esperanto as a tool of the International Jewish Conspiracy. In "Mein Kampf", he wrote, As long as the Jew is not master of other peoples, he must for better or worse speak their languages. Yet as soon as the others have become his servants, then all should learn a universal language (Esperanto for instance), so that by these means the Jews can rule more easily. What I haven't found is any definitive numbers -- I find lots of claims that "many" Esperantists were murdered, but how many is "many"? More in Eastern Europe than in Germany, according to a couple fo sources. How many were there, anyway? I don't know, and this bears more research. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:58, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I assert that there were not particularly many Esperanto speakers to begin with in Europe, much less many killed for speaking it. Certainly not enough to merit inclusion in the introduction. Jayjg (talk)  05:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, but I'd still like to find some numbers. Esperanto was particularly popular in Eastern Europe -- but I'd imagine there was considerable overlap between Jews and Esperantists. Oh well. It doesn't interest me quite enough to do any more than a bit of web research (which has turned out to interesting but so far unquantified.) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 06:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann did some edits that seriously cut down the information provided. As the summary he put "Asatru" is an anachronistic term here.. That claim is clearly false (and irrelavant anyway) since the first recoded use is from 1885. // Liftarn

[reply by Keepausclean] I am in complete agreement. Jews the world over whine about the holocaust, while gays, gypsies, Roman Catholics and many others were killed as well. was it not confirmed that 6 million jews were not even present in occupied europe at the time of the executions? And what of the mass murders by the Jewish Commissars?

The leading image
I don't want this to be a competition in victimhood, but does anyone else find the leading image kind of unimposing or am I missing something here? The inmates on the picture are all males - very likely to be POWs - without clear identification, and their circumstances are unknown. Clearly their fate was not that of the Hogan's Heroes, but I feel that an image like this ((c) USHMM/State Archives of the Russian Fed) would better represent 1.5 million Jewish children and other totally innocent victims of The Holocaust. Just an example, I am sure we can come up with a better alternative. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 11:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * good point -- a better pic could be found. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

What is Holocaust?
(Sorry about this edit summary, I pressed "Enter" by mistake.) "The Holocaust was Nazi's systematic..." is not exactly accurate. First it was what it was and later in history it was called "The Holocaust". --Vizcarra 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's actually clear enough for our immediate purposes (lead sentence-wise), those qualifications can be made later on, whereas for the lead, we should aim for simplicity of exposition unless it is strikingly reductionistic, which I see no indication it is at present. El_C 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is clear enough for you, someone who is somewhat familiar with the concept but it may not be for many who will read the article to learn from it rathen than to edit it. "The Holocaust is the name applied to" as opposed to "The Holocaust was" does not add extremely complications to the sentence and reduces the possibility that someone will mistake "Holocaust" as being an official Nazi term.--Vizcarra 00:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Actually, my comprehension and command of the English language is overrated (as in assessing the level of complication, for ex.), so I'm interested to learn what other editors think about the addition. El_C 00:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that the definition came from that of the United States Holocaust Museum: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." --Goodoldpolonius2 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is understandable that anybody familiar with the subject of the Holocaust (such as those involved with the Holocaust Museum would not need clarification as to the origin of the term and would never confuse the Jewish name for that of the Nazi name for the Holocaust-related activities. Wikipedia should not be ethno-centric or center around a particular place or group of places. --Vizcarra 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'm okay with "The Holocaust is the name given," unless other editors object. Goodoldpolonius2 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

About a WARNING message on top
Hi,

I believe that the images in this article and the description of cruelty in this article warrants a suitable warning message on top of the article saying that the visual content and the description of acts in this article are not suitable for all people. Twice I have added a similar warning and twice it has been removed. Can I know why?

I believe putting a warning message is very reasonable because remember, even school kids reading about World War II in their history books can stumble upon this article.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.193.225 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2005


 * How about this template that I created. It's simple, NPOV and can be used on many other places.
 * Sensitive Readers
 * --Sebastian Kessel Talk 01:39, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No no no no no. Please no. No no. School kids reading about WWII in their history books SHOULD stumble upon this article and should be shocked by the acts. Please no. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Listen, I agree, my granpa spent 2 years in Auschwitz and it still angers me how some people say it never happened.EVERYBODY should see it. But some parents may not agree with us and we should at least let them know. Besides, when I was 10, seeing that made me scroll down even faster. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BTW, the first comment (until the "Thanks" isn't mine. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 03:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. Whose sensibilities are we attempting to protect here? Once someone is reading about the Holocaust, that person is reading about the Holocaust; there's no way to make it anything other than horrifying. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 03:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you do make a very good point there... If they're old enough to study the holocaust, they are old enough to see the pics. The template might still be good for other pages, though. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 04:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sebastian...you'll find there's a rather strong school of thought on WP that says that Wikipedia should not be censored for the protection of minors or anyone else. I don't particularly concur with this idea, but then I'm only one voice, and the rather collossal vitriol that was thrown around as a result of the Decency Wikiproject and its associated VfD demonstrates pretty clearly that this ideology is not only widespread but fiercely (and sometimes not very civilly) defended. Tomer TALK  06:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tomer, thanks for the heads up. I don't necessarily agree with the word "Decency" (since what's "Decent" it's inherently POV-ish) or with censoring (If we start censoring, we might as well close the encyclopedia altogether), but I do believe that we should at least warn people of the graphic nature of some articles (maybe some sex-related articles, I didn't do my homework). On the other hand, as jpgordon says, The Holocaust is so inherently horrific that in this particular article it might be redundant... who knows... In WP the majority rules, and I actually like that, even when sometimes I'm in the losing side. :) --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I thought the whole "Wikipedians for Decency" thing was a waste of time, harmless, but pointless. That said, NPOV is only relevant in article space, so that point is rather moot.  As for putting disclaimers on top of articles with sexual content, that's something to take up at the village pump, not on any particular article's talk page.  Good luck with that!  :-D  Tomer TALK  19:45, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a fight worth fighting right now, starting a discussion about where disclaimers are valid and where aren't will require far more time than I have available to dedicate to WP ;). As to the note being here, it was just a response to the anon's suggestion. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Bleiburg Massacre and Croatia
83.139.72.251, can you find one source that indicates the Bleiburg massacre was part of the Holocaust? It was a tragic event, but, like the horrific Katyn Massacre, it was not part of the systematic genocide conducted by the Axis, and is not considered part of the Holocaust. Further, you watered down the language on the Ustashe's role, making the paragraph on Croatian participation in the Holocaust instead a paragraph on the casualties and conflict in Yugoslavia during the War. So, can you can back you claim that the attacks on Croats and the Bleiburg massacre is generally considered part of the Holocaust? The US Holocaust Museum does not include it. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not generaly considered, but because of same geopolitical situation in Balkans that forced Americancs not to give Chetniks orden for saved pilots fo 60 years, Bleiburg masacre was not known or was talked for 50 years. In former Yougoslavia you would go to prison if you are heard to speak about this event. It was great black mark on English and Americans that they encouraged, deathcamps, deathmarches and killing of civilians on racial ground done by  "Chetnik" part of Partisans who ware chetniks Axis alies just 2 Years before.

It will take time to fight and put Croatian sufering in WW2 on racial ground to Holocaust. I will try to implement this statement in wikipedia. XXX

I have burnt myself by an edit, so I won't get into this topic, but for my two Euro cents' worth, "olocaust" is restricted to the crimes of the Nazis (and related crimes of their allies) or even more restricted to the racial mass murder in the East and the "death factories". That might be unfair (or not) but I think that's the way the term is defined. Str1977 15:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Str1977, I may not understand your points clearly, but feel free to clarify. The Holocaust is usually considered to be the systematic persecution of the Jews (and other targeted minorities) by Nazi Germany and their allies. All sources include the Croatian mass murders and deportations against the Jews and Roma as part of the Holocaust, and many sources include the similar actions agains the Serbs.  No source I have seen includes the Beiburg massacre, or the other attacks against the Croats at the end of the war. That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for these war crimes in Wikipedia, but I don't think it is the Holocaust article.  --Goodoldpolonius2 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, Polonius, I don't think we disagree here. I just wanted to say that the term "Holocaust" is restricted to the crimes you mentioned. If others committed atrocities at that time it is not part of the H. by definition, as gruesome these other acts might be. All right, now? Str1977 13:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. So, you would support reverting back to my older version, rather than the one by the anonymous user, below?  --Goodoldpolonius2 13:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

But then please find better place to put an idea in independet observer who will, when he winished reading this article understand that more Croats were masacred in WW2 in ISD (NDH) teritory by comunist and Chetnik hand then Serbs by Ustasha at that same era. You must understand that Serbian king dynasty and their terror autocratic rule was implemented in 1918 -1941 period over former Yougoslav teritory, and from 45-90 was also period of Serbian hegemony. on ex. In former Yougoslavia you had 80% serbian generals, 70% of all money earned in Slovenia and Croatia was used to support Serbia etc... My father finished in jail when he was student because he singed song similar tol "God save the Queen" or "Yenkee dudle"

For 50 yeras we can read that Craots are genocide nation but it is onesided look on things


 * I understand your concerns, and the Croats may have indeed suffered before and during the war at the hands of the Serbs, and afterwards as well. However, this article is about the Holocaust, not a place to justify why the Croats collaborated with the Nazis.  Even eaving aside the issue of the Serbs, your edits serve to obscure the fact that the Ustasha are the ones that worked with the Nazis to kill Jews and Roma, you totally remove that aspect from the text, so that it is a list of casualties ("Jews and Roma were killed" along with Croats and Serbs).  Even worse, how can you justify the change from "The Ustase also deported 7,000 more Jews to German extermination camps" to your sentence "More then 7,000 people were deported to German extermination camps" -- removing all reference to who did the deporation and who was deported?  You should feel free to discuss the issues of oppression of the Croats by Serbs in the appropriate articles (perhaps Yugoslavia?) but you should not remove references to historical events because you want to make the Croats look better.  You are going to need to show a scholarly source that shows that some group of historians believe that the Bleiburg Massacre, etc. was part of the Holocaust to continue making an argument here. You may also want to sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~ --Goodoldpolonius2 13:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

When I wrote about 7000 people that means that not only Jews ware deported. On ex. ex croatian prime minister Ivica Račan was born in 1944 in kamp., and is not not a Jew. and if you think that Chetniks and Nedicevci did not kill Jews and Romas and colaborated with Germans you are wrong. I did not se single line in text about Jews deportet from Belgrade and other parts of former Yug. As for Blaiburg I can not made up for 60 years of one sided propaganda.


 * The sources provided say 7,000 Jews were deported by Croatia to the death camps ("Based on a German agreement with its Croatian Axis ally, around 7,000 Croatian Jews were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau"), do you have any information to the contrary? As for the rest of the material, you seem to be avoiding the issue: the Utase regime collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust, rounding up Jews and Roma and then putting them in camps or deporting them.  It may very well be that other groups did the same, all you need to do is to give a source where this was the case, and we can add it to the article; as it is the article already obviously covers the Romanian and German troops that participated in the deportations from Belgrade.  Also, as for Bleiburg, please show a reference if you want to include it as the Holocaust, it was a horrible massacre, but like the Katyn massacre and others, it is not generally considered related to the Holocaust in any way.  I am not trying to minimize Croatian suffering, but whitewashing participation in the Holocaust is also not correct. The answer to your objections is not to remove all of the information about the Ustase simply because you want to do that. If you have additional info, provide sources, please. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a Holocaust denier?!?!?!
The definnition of Holocaust denial used in this article:
 * Holocaust denial, also called Holocaust revisionism, is the belief that far fewer than the 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis

is ridiculous. It implies that the article itself is an act of holocaust denial since the article gives the figure "5.1–6.0 million Jews" killed. A person who estimates the number of jews killed at 5 million or 3 or 4 milion should not be labeled as a denier.--198.93.113.49 12:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 198.93.113.49, I suggest that you read the whole paragraph, which makes the issue very clear: "Holocaust denial, also called Holocaust revisionism, is the belief that far fewer than the 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis (numbers below 1 million, most often around 300,000 are typically cited). Adherents of this position claim that there never was a Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews, and that many other minorities were persecuted as severely or worse than the Jews, particularly Ukrainians under Stalin (the latter persecutions are often attributed to Jews). Many people who hold this position further claim that Jews and/or Zionists know that the Holocaust never occurred, yet that they nonetheless disingenuously use the Holocaust to further their political agenda." --Goodoldpolonius2 14:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The accuracy of the rest of the paragraph does not validate the first sentence which is stupid. The second sentence makes a much better definition of holocaust denial.--198.93.113.49 15:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's only "stupid" if you interpret "far fewer" as meaning "any number less than exactly six million". I tend to read "far fewer" as, say, one million. But if you can come up with a more accurate phrasing, please show us here. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 16:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry I read through the "far". Might still use some rewarding to avoid others making the same mistke I did.--198.93.113.49 20:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What I want to know is, if Poland changed their number killed at AZ from 4 million to 1 million in 1990, shouldn't the cited figure drop from 6 million to 3 million? Or is it worth it to continue to make up lies?
 * Dear anon, Poland had not "changed their number". I'm from Poland, and I know. At Auschwitz it was claimed by COMMUNIST AUTHORITIES that few millions dies, from which most supposedly were GENTILES, not Jews. No serious non-communist historian ever believed that. The reducing number of deaths in Auschwitz was about mostly GENTILE deaths, not Jewish Szopen 12:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And perhaps more importantly, the Auschwitz figures given by the communist authorities were never used in any of the calculations of the death tolls by any scholars or groups studying the Holocaust. From the Auschwitz article on Wikipedia: "Some authors, usually sympathetic to Holocaust denial, have criticised what they claim as historical inaccuracies promoted by the Polish government on the subject of Auschwitz, namely that the communist Polish government used to cite numbers of 4 million murders in Auschwitz, and that the numbers have been steadily revised downwards for decades to its present number. The death toll as promoted by the communist government, however, has never been part of the calculation of the total deaths of the Holocaust by scholars, so these changes in the Polish estimates of the number of murders at the camp has not impacted the estimates of the total deaths in the Holocaust."

never used? ever? be careful, eyes are everywhere now


 * This is a very common trick used by people who want to deny the Holocaust happened, and involves willful disregard of the facts, since anyone reading histories of the Holocaust will see that historians have agreed that the deaths at Auschwitz were around a million for sixty years. You might want to read a detailed essay on the topic, which concludes: "Deniers often use the "Four Million Variant" as a stepping stone to leap from an apparent contradiction to the idea that the Holocaust was a hoax, again perpetrated by a conspiracy. They hope to discredit historians by making them seem inconsistent. If they can't keep their numbers straight, their reasoning goes, how can we say that their evidence for the Holocaust is credible? One must wonder which historians they speak of, as most have been remarkably consistent in their estimates of a million or so dead. In short, all of the denier's blustering about the "Four Million Variant" is a specious attempt to envelope the reader into their web of deceit, and it can be discarded after the most rudimentary examination of published histories. " --Goodoldpolonius2 14:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this addressed in the artcile. If it's a common question the article probably should exaplin it.--198.93.113.49 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's addressed in Auschwitz; perhaps it needs a mention in Holocaust denial as a good example of bad use of numbers by deniers. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This can't be true. Please whatever greater power help us. Since when was questioning a popular belief a crime?! Why can't this issue be debated openly? You speak of Holocaust Denial... as a proper noun! Who has the authority to coin such a phrase? The thought police! That's who. You all are perpetuating thought policing, how does that make you feel? Should I be thrown in jail because I don't believe 30 million Russians were annhiliated by Stalin? There are no "tricks" to revisionism. There are no deceptions. That's the point, it's revising according to recorded fact. And revisionists can debate openly and calmly having no qualms about taking on the whole holocaust lobby publicly. All they are met by are over emotional responses that draw attention from the truth. That's from the very few who don't cop out of the debate by saying its so rediculous I won't even dignify the.... grow up. Smear campaigns to demonize all who appose. You are helping revisionists gain attention this way. Have you ever noticed this entry in Wikipedia has one of the least footnote and resource count per givin allegation than all the other articles I have read here? There's more proof of UFOs on this site. Please ladies, gentlemen, literally free your mind and just listen, read what some hard working people just like you and me are trying to say. Speaking of relatives lost in a war 60 years ago is akin to me telling you about my uncle who was kidnapped by UFOs and fondled. I said it, so it happened right? I had relatives from Dresden... ahhh, that's right, but they deserved to die because of the terrible plan to wipe another race of the earth... we are getting somewhere now.

The truth will come, run as fast as you can now because truth is the great looming shadow behind you, closing ever so fast. I would adore to debate any one of you on this matter :) Good day


 * While it is true that one can question any popular belief, and thus not commiting a crime, it is pointless to question absolute truths. The sun sets at the west and rises in the east, would you not agree it is pointless to debate it? Say what you wish, question it if you are so inclined, truth remains. Stop covering for your own racism and guilt. There is no real debate. The holocaust happened, as surely as the setting and rising of the sun.

I apologize, but you are not reaching me. You just pushed my interest further from your point, if there is one. Anyone using 1/2 their brain potential can already sum up all the elements of this very old and legitimate debate in just your reply to what I first commented. You are, or you know, the mortal keeper of ABSOLUTE TRUTH? I'd like to meet him, I have a lot of questions. So you perceived the persecution, incarceration and deaths of the jews and others in WW2 just as you perceive the rising and setting of the sun? What?! I think your self-styled authority of this matter has inflated your ego to the point that you actually believe that anyone reading this page would find your reply a valid argument. Then after that, you mention something of me being a racist and that I feel guilt about something? Can you really re-read your reply and imagine that it doesn't seem childish? Or even more, that it implies a deeper purpose to the relentless advertising of the Holocaust? There is a real debate. I can see a new Wikicampaign in this very article for it has changed tenfold in the past few months. Revising the Holocaust is not a crime. Thinking about revising the Holocaust is not a crime. THINKING IS NOT A CRIME. Be fair and at least include the links and resources that were once in this article supporting a revisionist view of this topic. You editors have removed every sensible revisionist resource and replaced it with a sinister "Holocaust Denial" section. That, my friends, is manipulating perception. This is actually the only article where this happens on a regular basis. What is so scary about people researching this topic skeptically? The more and more you little bees work the more and more eyebrows are raised. Let's make it easier for everyone here. During a murder trial, is the person arguing for the accused's defense labeled a "Murder Denier?" No. 70.80.196.156 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No, but after the verdict is well-established one would say he is still denying guilt. Which illustrates once again that thinking was never the strong side of holocaust deniers.

Alas, you dig your ideological hole even deeper. Not only do you refuse to answer any of the questions I raise directly, but you actually try to insult, presumably to incite some emotional reaction. The very fact that not believing the official Holocaust story is a crime in some countries is definite proof to some people that something is wrong. As far as the verdict you speak of, I can only assume you are writing of the infamous Nuremberg Trials. There are records of scores of respectable men that claim that those trials were no where near a representation of precedented justice, domestic or international. It is an undisputed fact that these "Tribunals" were the first of their kind, ever. Anyone willing to research has access to scores books and documentation describing those trials as "farcical" and even "invalid" and that "law was created ex post facto to suit the passion and clamor of the time." Some going as far to charge that evidence was actually falsified and confessions were given under extreme torture. But these are the things that the little bees remove from this article, aren't they? How about some examples:

Milton R. Konvitz, a Jewish specialist of law and public administration who taught at New York University, warned at the time that the Nuremberg Tribunal "defies many of the most basic assumptions of the judicial process." He went on: "Our policy with respect to the Nazis is consistent with neither international law nor our own State Department's policy... The Nuremberg trial constitutes a real threat to the basic conceptions of justice which it has taken mankind thousands of years to establish." M. R. Konvitz, "Will Nuremberg Serve Justice?," Commentary, January 1946 (Vol. I, No. 3), p. 11.

At the time in Congress, US Representative Lawrence H. Smith of Wisconsin declared: "The Nuremberg trials are so repugnant to the Anglo-Saxon principles of justice that we must forever be ashamed of that page in our history ... The Nuremberg farce represents a revenge policy at its worst." Congressional Record -- Appendix, Vol. 95, Sec. 14, (June 15, 1949), p. A 3741.

Charles F. Wennerstrum, an Iowa Supreme Court justice who served as presiding judge in the Nuremberg trial of German generals. "If I had known seven months ago what I know today, I would never have come here," he declared immediately after sentences were pronounced. "The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals have not been evident," he added. Wennerstrum actually referred to what many believe to be the extent of the Jewish involvement in the Nuremberg process, albeit with caution (after all, we know what happens to people who speak out against such things, in a free country of course). "The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome ... Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were imbedded in Europe's hatreds and prejudices." He criticized the one-sided handling of evidence. "Most of the evidence in the trials was documentary, selected from the large tonnage of captured records. The selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case." He concluded that "the trials were to have convinced the Germans of the guilt of their leaders. They convinced the Germans merely that their leaders lost the war to tough conquerors." Wennerstrum left Nuremberg "with a feeling that justice has been denied." Hal Foust, "Nazi Trial Judge Rips 'Injustice'," Chicago Tribune, Feb. 23, 1948, pp. 1, 2.

On top of that, Germans were convicted of wartime atrocities that the Allies themselves were accused of! When (North) Vietnamese officials threatened to put captured US airmen on trial in 1966, US Senator Everett Dirksen was obviously moved by this reality to remark that the Nuremberg trials "may have been a ghastly mistake." W. Bosch, Judgment on Nuremberg (1970), p. 189.

Now, after someone has experienced the views of some very distiguished people presiding over or having explicit knowledge of these proceedings... and that these proceedings, besides the all way too conflicting and contradictory "eyewitness" accounts are the only "proof" that the "Final Solution" was some sort of "Master Plan" to annhiliate the entire Jewish race, or any other people for that matter...  is it wrong to question them?

Why is it that if anyone raises these facts to even a mention, that they are labeled an "anti-semite" or "neo-nazi" or better yet, the newly minted "Holocaust Denier"? To overtly shut them up and hide something it seems to many. It is an undisputed fact that there were concentration camps, that people of many creeds and backgrounds where treated like cattle and died of all kinds of causes, by the wars end, when supply lines had been destroyed, they started dying by the hundreds of thousands. Accounts of people rounded up and shot! But to this effect we can charge 1/2 of the world's armies, including the victorious Allies!! Ever know, that at Auschwitz, for the inmates there was an olympic size swimming pool, full soccer field, an organized orchestra and a full theatrical production company (fact)? What in Heaven's name for? Why isn't that mentioned anywhere in this article? Why isn't it permitted to include the fact that Hitler was instrumental in the annexation of the state of Israel? Why is it never mentioned here that there are a plethora of educated and respectable historians and revisionists that have been jailed, financially ruined, driven into exile, physically assaulted, and even KILLED for having these views? Doesn't paint the right picture now, does it bees?

Is this not enough to permit the views of valid historians and actual professional revisionists in this article? I just ask that someone answer legitimately. And if you disagree, why? I am no longer entertained by "Holocaust Revisionism Deniers"  70.80.196.156 00:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

70.80.196.156 & 192.117.97.81: Sign your posts on talk pages with four consecutive tildes:  ~  --zerofoks 14:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)