Talk:The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia

Totaleinsatz
Hello, a diff I made was reverted by that piped "Totaleinsatz" with "foreign workers in Germany". Looking at the page "Totaleinsatz", it seems pretty clear that this refers to forced labor. The first few hits on google also all make clear that this was forced labor: https://www.zwangsarbeit-archiv.de/buecher_medien/literatur/b00077/index.html ; https://www.buchenwald.de/983/ ; https://deutsch.radio.cz/erst-freiwillig-dann-unter-zwang-tschechen-im-totaleinsatz-fuer-deutschland-8278500. Referring to Totaleinsatz as "foreign workers" is a WP:EUPHEMISM - either we should remove the link to Totaleinsatz, or change the piped text.-Ich (talk) 08:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The workers in particular went to Germany in order to avoid being detected as Jews. So your proposed text makes little sense in context. You've been making similar edits across a variety of articles without paying much attention to the nuance of particular usage. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Copy edit notes and queries
Hi, I am starting the copy edit you requested. Feel entirely free to revert or change any of my edits without consultation. If you do have any queries, could you post them here. I shall do likewise. I plan do do several run throughs, so an initial change is not necessarily my considered last word on something. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The first sentence does not seem to meet MOS:FIRST: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where."
 * Similarly "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic" per MOS:OPEN.
 * I am going to skip copy editing the lead for now, pending your response to the above and/or any rewrite. Could you ping me when you are ready for me to come back to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article initially had a first paragraph like you're suggesting, but it was altered during the ACR at the request of a reviewer. I don't have a strong preference between the two versions (t · c)  buidhe  18:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "The law was repealed in 1848." Could you check that this is correct.
 * It is
 * "Of the 10 million inhabitants of pre-1938 Bohemia and Moravia". This is an odd construction. Does it mean 'Of the 10 million inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia in 1938'?
 * This is the 1930 census, taken on the territory that was part of Czechoslovakia excluding Slovakia and Carpathian Ruthenia (but including the Sudetenland + Zaolzie which were lost in 1938). Rephrased
 * "The majority of Jews were tradesmen or businessmen." No they weren't, the majority were women or children. Perhaps 'The majority of Jewish men worked as tradesmen or businessmen.'?
 * IDK how many Jewish women worked at this time, especially in family businesses. Anyway I removed the sentence as unimportant.
 * "led to immigration restrictions and an end to racial persecution as an accepted reason for seeking asylum." Is the date of either of these known?
 * Mid-1930s
 * "in the no-man's land"; "wait for days in no-man's land". I think you need to explain what this is/was.
 * Replaced both with "along the border"
 * "a changing definition of nationality and citizenship". A change in legal definition?
 * I get the feeling that it is partly legal, some legal changes are mentioned, but it's not like they changed the law to immediately denaturalize anyone who was not ethnically Czech or Slovak
 * "to which 98.5 percent of the adult male Protectorate citizens would belong". "would belong"? When was it that this happened?
 * Rephrased. It was legally mandated for all Czech adult men. All the 1.5 percent was probably Jews and others who weren't allowed to join

Pausing for responses, including any on copy edits to date. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I really appreciate your feedback and should be able to get to the next points tomorrow afternoon. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a copy edit, no rush, take your time. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "he participation of Czech local authorities in anti-Jewish measures far exceeded passive compliance with orders from above. He also found that local authorities were obliged to respond to demands to persecute Jews and often did so reluctantly." These two statements seem to contradict each other.
 * "local authorities were obliged to respond to demands to persecute Jews". Demands by whom?
 * "Jews would be barred from working in public agencies, corporations, schools, administrations, courts, stock exchanges, the arts, and medicine." What are "administrations"?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Aryanization needs explaining in line. I am happy to have a stab, but thought that you might prefer to.
 * "Jews were excluded from the unemployment system and had to register at labor offices to receive unemployment assistance." The second part of this sentence seems to contradict the first.
 * "By mid-1939 Jews were banned from any job except manual labor." If this is so, why did they later need to be banned from salaried and then management positions then in law, education, pharmacies, medicine, or publishing; surely the first ban covered those?
 * "the Jewish community's welfare rolls". Should that be 'roles'?
 * "of the 15,000 Jewish men". What "15,000 Jewish men"?


 * The source says: "Man kann gewiss ihre Vorstellung von einer „passiven“ Wahrung der Gesetze in Frage stellen – wobei die archivalischen Quellen zeigen, dass die tschechische Zentral- und Provinzbürokratie weit mehr tat –, doch kann man nicht umhin, eine gewisse Sympathie mit den in der Klemme steckenden lokalen Behörden zu empfinden. Wenn sie einmal von Prag die Weisung erhalten hatten, einen Fall zu untersuchen, blieb ihnen kaum etwas anderes übrig, als zu reagieren, und oft haben sie offenbar ausweichend oder bewusst verdunkelnd berichtet. Selbst die aktivsten lokalen Vollstrecker antisemitischer Vorschriften konnten jedoch mit dem Prager Wunsch, die Gesetze in vollem Umfang durchzusetzen, in Konflikt geraten." Google translate result (reasonably accurate): "One can certainly question the notion of a “passive” enforcement of the law – the archival sources show that the Czech central and provincial bureaucracy did far more – but one cannot help but to feel some sympathy for the local authorities in a bind. Once ordered by Prague to investigate a case, they had little choice but to react, and often reported in an apparently evasive or deliberately obscure way. However, even the most active local enforcers of anti-Semitic statutes could run afoul of Prague's desire to fully enforce the laws." (Confusing wording, but he goes on to cite a case where local authority applied an antijewish regulation as written, and were told the punishment was not sufficient) I don't see an inherent contradiction here, since it's possible that some bureaucrats were active vs passive and depending on which antisemitic measure in question. Frommer is currently working on an English language book The Ghetto without Walls: The Identification, Isolation, and Elimination of Bohemian and Moravian Jewry, 1938-1945 that should shed more light on his thinking (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed as I can't confirm this in other sources
 * Nuanced using Gruner's most recent publication (He says "Nonetheless, following their exclusion from the independent professions and state apparatus, from the summer of 1939 onwards, Jews had little option but to engage in manual labour" (2019, p. 97) which is slightly different than the 2006 publication
 * "Welfare roll" is correct
 * Clarify that this is the figure of men meeting the conditions discussed in the previous sentence (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

1. Any idea if the ambiguous "the archival sources show that the Czech central and provincial bureaucracy did far more" means that the Czech central and provincial bureaucracy were harsher or less than the law specified? Gog the Mild (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * not with regard to what the law specified, but in some cases harsher than they were ordered / had to do. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Aryanization-> removed most uses


 * "Prague Jewish Community". Why the upper case C? Elsewhere you don't use it - "of the Jewish community of Prague for resale".
 * Capitalized both, since it refers to a specific organization rather than the generic set of all Jews living in Prague (t · c)  buidhe  00:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

More to follow.Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "by both the Western Allies". There were a dozen or so. The main ones were either: - those with at least an army in the field at the end of the war - the US, UK, France and Canada; or - those with post-war occupation zones in Germany - the US, UK and France. Perhaps you could specify? Or remove the "both"?
 * "Czechoslovak war victims". Perhaps a word other than "victims"? Or you are implying that those who suffered grievously but weren't directly killed weren't victims.
 * "Emigration to Palestine was not restricted until late 1949". It was, just not at the Czech end.
 * "President Edvard Beneš". Who became president when?
 * "pre-war"; "prewar".
 * "Although two thousand Jews". Why the switch from figures to words?
 * "Any connection to the German minority was a reason not to return a confiscated house to a Jewish survivor." At law, or in practice?
 * "the majority of confiscated property, that was not claimed by heirs". These could mean one of two things. Any chance of clarifying the ambiguity?
 * "an earlier promise". Is it known when this was made?
 * "Czechia". What that? I mean, I can guess, but I have never come across the term. At a minimum a link would help.
 * "with a connection to Judaism". This seems so vague as not to be helpful. What constitutes a "connection"?
 * "Equivalent to $350 million and $75 million US dollars at the time or $7 billion and $1 billion today." Really today? The (1968) source states this?


 * The sentence is "both the Western Allies... and the Red Army". I'm not immediately thinking of a rephrase that would make this more clear
 * Yes, this means war deaths, clarified
 * Emigration was not restricted, immigration was
 * Benes was president before 1938, during the war (in the government in exile) and after. I don't think this is necessary to include in the article
 * Made consistent
 * I believe I was told this is the best way per MOS. Additionally, thousands is spelled out earlier in the article as appropriate and I think "2,000" might express more precision than is actually known.
 * Clarified with more precision
 * Removed this clause since the source does not give a date
 * Standardized to "Czech Republic"
 * The source states: "There is a general consensus, however, that the number of people who identify somehow with Judaism is much larger [than the number registered with the Jewish community]. The federation, for example, estimates the number to be between 15,000 and 20,000" Source is an email so I can't check what it says
 * The 1968 source is for the exchange rate. Inflation is sourced to the sources provided in the inflation template.
 * Thanks so much for your comments! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  17:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Buidhe. I'm going to sign this off as done for GoCE purposes, but I will give it another run through, including reviewing your comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)