Talk:The Holocaust in Lithuania

Name
Almost all articles in Category:Holocaust by country follow similar naming guidelines. This is one of the exceptions, and should be moved to Holocaust in Lithuania. Comments? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. May well make it easier to find. The simplest title may also avoid the political concerns debated at the top of this talkpage.Fainites barley scribs 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This title is more exact and logical - Holocaust did not happen on national basis, neither it did happen before Nazi-occupation. Maybe this naming practice should be applied to other articles also, to avoid confusion? "The simplest" is not always the best, and there is a redirect for easier finding.--Lokyz (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My views are; a) there should be consistency of naming between all the articles dealing with this topic, b) the titles should be worded in a way that avoids making any assumptions either way about matters which may be the subject of controversy within the article. On that latter point, speaking as a non-expert, I had understood "Holocaust" covered the process of genocide of Jews as planned/organised/carried out by the Nazis by a variety of means. This would include recruiting/encouraging people of other nationalities to join in, including creating a climate which gave murderous anti-semites or just criminals free rein. If there is a controversy about the extent to which various groups from various countries took part, this should be dealt with in the body of the article and/or a separate article. Hence the preference for a simple title that makes no assumptions one way or the other.Fainites barley scribs 09:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * NC. Compare: "Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Lithuania" - 2 GBooks hits and "Holocaust in Lithuania" - ~270 GBooks hits. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the reason for the title as is, is to counter the false contention that Lithuanians (and Latvians and Estonians) took to gleefully slaughtering their Jewish neighbors before the Nazis arrived. Even as is, the article presents too much the notion that the Nazis just pointed and the Lithuanians took up all the planning and execution.
 * Rather, no Legion could be formed by the Nazis even if against the Red Army, small but effective German killing squads were sent out to annihilate Jews and then blame the Lithuanians--there's documentation for all of this: correspondence from non-military Germans observers writing back to Berlin about "how bad it would look" if it were discovered the Germans were roaming the Lithuanian countryside killing Jews-- in direct contradiction to military reports towing the propaganda line constructed in Berlin before the invasion, that of Lithuanians--and all Eastern Europe--joyfully taking up the cause of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, most authors as soon as they find "neighbor killed neighbor" accounts denounce [fill-in-your-Eastern-European-ethnicity]. Exactly why is there a veritable industry that Eastern Europeans hated Jews for centuries and became barbarians bludgeoning their Jewish neighbors to death at the very "first opportunity" the Nazis presented? Because we indulge those who all too easily accept the Western Europeans are civilized and Eastern Europeans are animals given the chance. It starts with Nazi propaganda, usurped by the Soviets, and accepted by far too many without question.
 * The notion that the archives of possibly the two most propagandist regimes in all of recorded human history "don't lie" and can be accepted at face value is preposterous. Exactly why are so many, including serious scholars, so eager to accept the most heinous of evidence at face value and ignore existing contradicting evidence?
 * I find myself agreeing with Lokyz that perhaps the more appropriate solution, albeit not the simplest, is "Holocaust in Nazi-occupied X" so that we are never ambiguous about who brought the Holocaust to X and who was responsible for the execution of the Holocaust in X.
 * The notion that many or the majority of ethnicity X were involved in (or welcomed) the Holocaust in Eastern Europe both smears ethnicity X and minimizes the crimes against humanity of the (far fewer) collaborators of ethnicity X by effectively contending that they were no different from any other X, they were just caught. PetersV      TALK 02:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see your point, but I'd like again to point out to the naming conventions above, and the fact that 99% of the related articles and categories follow the simpler naming convention. I don't see why Lithuania - or the Baltics in general - should deserve special treatment. Please note I've also proposed the move of Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland to Holocaust in Poland as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what it is you want to avoid but I don't think the title" Holocaust in Lithuania" implies what you fear it may imply. It would never have occured to me for example for the reasons I explained above. My first concern would be consistency between all the articles. Secondly the title needs to be as simple and obvious as it can be without being inaccurate or raising false implications. I don't think "H in L" does raise a false implication as you fear. Fainites barley scribs 22:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yet we have Polish death camp controversy. Renata (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying there isn't a controversy. I'm saying I don't consider the proposed title implies anything one way or the other.Fainites barley scribs 13:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop building straw men, please. There is no controversy regarding Holocaust in Lithuania, save a sad tendency by some to push a version of Holocaust Denial and trying to minimize the very fact that yes, Holocaust occurred in Lithuania, and local populace was involved. The very fact that Lithuanian article is an exception in the series of "Holocaust in a country" articles is sending a very interesting message here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(od) Where Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland is concerned that too suffers from insufficient Nazi accountability--weasel phrases like "German-inspired massacres" implying no Nazi involvement, et al. IMHO, that's why the "reminder" is required in the title. We might consider "The Nazi Holocaust in X", using "Nazi Holocaust" is quite common in titles on the subject. PetersV     TALK 02:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't The Holocaust as a proper noun refer to the Nazi one by common usage? I haven't looked but no doubt this has already been debated endlessly on various pages before. We need a consistent formula and one place to debate it. The choices seem to be "Holocaust in X", Holocaust in Nazi-occupied X", "Nazi Holocaust in X".Fainites barley scribs 13:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Indeed, rarely, the Holocaust is used in another context. But in this cases it is usually indeed specified in more detail. Thus "clarifying" the title of "Holocaust in Lithuania" makes it actually more confusing - and suspicious. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favor for the current tittle. "Arguments" for the "simplest", "shortest", or "more popular", usually obscure in such situations. Good example German camps in occupied Poland during World War II, title is one of the most clumsiest ever, even have no established usage in google hits (compare German camps in occupied Poland during World War II 4 hits of same source, Polish concentration camps 325 hits, concentration camps in poland 617 hits.) M.K. (talk) 13:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As the GA reviewer on this article I will weigh in on the debate. I am fairly impartial on this subject having just reviewed the article. To me, two of the above arguments hold the most weight, one being consistency - I am a big proponent of being consistent across all articles on a given subject. The second is regarding the term "the Holocaust", which is a proper noun and is used to describe the Nazi Holocaust of WW2. I don't think there is any ambiguity in removing "Nazi-occupied" as the term "Holocaust" automatically infers Nazi involvement and Nazi responsibility. I don't feel that it automatically puts a stigma on the nationality described (in this case Lithuania). As long as the body of the article correctly reflects the history of the time then the reader is left to judge. The title of the article will not sway the reader one way or the other. Make all the articles on the topic named the same, this enhances Wikipedia's credibility and organization. Those are my two cents. H1nkles (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the article, per arguments above and comments of neutral GA reviewer. Please note that the current name (HiL) is the original name the article was created under. It was moved to HiNoL without discussion. If some editors still feel strongly about moving it back and making it a singular exception throughout Category:Holocaust by country, please use WP:RM.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no controversy regarding Holocaust in Lithuania, save a sad tendency by some to push a version of Holocaust Denial.

Could P.K. aka P.P. elaborate on this opinion of his? Who are "some" and how does "this tendency" push Holocaust denial? Dr. Dan (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For benefit of other editors I'll make an exception to the WP:DFTT policy and answer your question. Few years ago, respected Lithuanian scholar Arūnas Bubnys noted that there are certain organizations in Lithuania who try to spread false claims, creating straw man and bogymen (for example by slandering the name of Armia Krajowa) while having appalling underlying political motives, chiefly among to whitewash and divert attention from German–Lithuanian collaboration and crimes committed by units such as the Lithuanian Secret Police. As for which editors share this POV and try to promote it on Wikipedia, I think it has been clear for years now. EOT for me on this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I have to beg to disagree. Nazi propaganda regarding the Holocaust in Eastern Europe and the extent of collaboration by the local populace is still alive and well. Both Lithuanians are victims as well as Poles (aforementioned Polish death camp "controversy"). People are making their livings on the tenet that all Eastern Europe were vile Jew-haters for centuries, it only took Hitler to unleash them.
 * I've read that the local populace of X supported the deaths of Jews because "that's the only way Hitler could have been so 'successful'". There's a wide gap between reputable scholarship and sensationalist taking "authentic" Nazi reports at face value (that would be the aforementioned "slander"). "Archives" does not mean "authentic"--especially when those VERY SAME ARCHIVES contain documents that give the lie to military reports, "news" accounts sent out through Nazi collaborators in Sweden, etc. It's too bad my hands are full with family matters, an article on Hitler's creation and engineering of the myth of the "Germanless" Holocaust as part of his invasion of Eastern Europe, Soviet exploitation of that myth, and how that myth is rooted and being reinforced today is long overdue. PetersV     TALK 19:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Polish death camps controversy is not a result of Nazi propaganda. It was not Nazi propaganda that tried to portray EE as a haven for antisemites. The best explanations I've run accross is that such an image was created by Jewish historiography, which assumed that the death of local Jewish populations had to be a responsibility of local (non-Jewish) populations which could have but didn't stop the Holocaust. In any case, I certainly think that we should have an article on the myth of the Germanless Holocaust (or whatever is the appropriate term). But that has little to do with the title here. Holocaust in [country name] does not suggest it was was a Holocaust perpetrated by the populace of that country; it simply notes it occurred there. Singling out Lithuania, Poland, the Baltics or so on simply confuses things. Either all of the articles in the series use the "Nazi-occupied" string, or none at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Piotrus, it's a bit late to be ordering anyone who wishes to restore the old name to "please use WP:RM". Article has been at HiNoL for nearly a year, from a few days after it was created. The stable version is hence HiNoL, so if your move is reverted it will be you who needs to hold a WP:RM. I don't think you'll find any WP:RM admin who disagrees with me on this one btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Less wikilawyering, please. The article was created under proper naming conventions as part of the series "Holocaust in country", it was moved without discussion to a new title. Indeed, I gave the editor who moved it more time then I should before I moved it back, but the current name is the consensus name throughout the entire series of "Holocaust in country". RM should have been used then, wasn't, now the situation is restored to were is should've been. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no written law for WP:RM, just custom. It is not the custom to treat names that haven't been the location of pages for nearly a year, and even then only for a day or so, as stable. The only reason this was brought up was because you yourself brought it up citing the article's earliest name as some kind of precedent. Less [pointless?] wikilawyering? Start with yourself. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, as all other such omit the "Nazi-occupied" part it does not seem feasible to make Lithuania an exception. I agree with Piotrus that there's no choice at this stage but to 1) leave this article without "Nazi-occupied" or 2) move most other such articles. It should be noted though that not all such articles could be moved; e.g. the currently non-existing Holocaust in Romania, where it was the free Romanian government rather than German government that planned and carried out genocide against Jews. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see the need for comprehensive articles on this whole topic. Good luck with writing them. But the title of this one really does not imply one thing or the other. Fainites barley scribs 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Recent ip warrior on the Lithuania page just proved, that this recent implied naming convention is biased and politicised. And, just to be sure, what lithuania we are talking about? The GDL, in the 1918 declaration borders, after the zaligowski mutinity, after 1923 Klaipėda region uprising, after 1939 regain of Vilnius or after 1945 additions by Stalin? it should not be omitted that Lithuania has lost it's status as an independent state in 1940, AND that Soviets had initiated a wide antisemitic campaign. How does this recent move reflect those changes?--Lokyz (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S Ah, I've forgot the ripoff of Klaipėda by Nazis in 1939. Is th holocaust in memelland also p-art of this article? Or not?--Lokyz (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There is Lokyz's complete valid point that we not count the Holocaust twice/thrice/etc. "Nazi-occupied" is significant ONLY for Lithuania as there is the question of exactly which Lithuania are we talking about . An enormous number of Holocaust victims came from inter-bellum Poland. PetersV     TALK 01:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The place to clarify such things is in the article, not the title. Per NC: should there be a disambiguation at "Holocaust in Lithuania"? The answer is "no". It's as simple as that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Jewish partisans in modern Lithuania
I removed the following unreferenced block of text which doesn't seem that relevant anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus convoked a special panel of international experts to investigate what were termed "the crimes of the Nazi and Soviet occupational regimes in Lithuania," a move that initially drew criticism because the title of the commission again equated the Holocaust with an alleged genocide against Lithuanians committed by the Soviets. Initial criticism evaporated when respected figures in Holocaust Studies such as Sir Martin Gilbert and Yitzhak Arad, former head of Yad Vashem, agreed to work with the Lithuanian presidential commission. In 2007 Lithuanian prosecutors began investigations of war crimes allegedly committed by Jewish anti-Nazi partisans in Lithuania and asked Israeli authorities to question Yitzhak Arad. Arad promptly withdrew from the Lithuanian presidential commission and told the Israeli press he would not return to the Baltic country. Since then, Lithuanian prosecutors have expanded their investigation to include other anti-Nazi Jewish partisans who survived the Lithuanian Holocaust through armed struggle. The investigation has drawn international criticism and global media attention. Speaking in an interview with BBC Radio 4 documentary "Lithuania: The Battle for Memory" by Tim Whewell on 22 July 2008, Efraim Zuroff noted Lithuania's total lack of will to prosecute Nazi collaborators but enthusiasm in accusing Holocaust survivors of crimes against Lithuanian civilians.


 * I do not think removing this information is inappropriate. It would be tantamount to including information or quotes in an article on WP such as The History of anti-Semitism in Poland:
 * "Poles suck anti-Semitism with their mothers' milk. This is something that is deeply imbued in their tradition, their mentality. Like their loathing of Russia. The two things are not connected, of course. But that, too, is something very deep, like their hatred of Am Yisrael. Today, though, there are elements in Poland that are cleansed of this anti-Semitism." Quote by: Yitzhak Shamir former Prime Minister of Israel. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As always, your motivational comments inspire me to hard work on this project. Do you think that I should select YB for my next project? Or perhaps the Ponary massacre? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Try Zydokomuna first, (I believe that article was your own special creation). Then find someone else to inspire you to remove the WP:weaselness from the Pinsk massacre article. If you do a good job I'll try to give you some further inspiration so that you can do the same with the Kielce pogrom article.  Please note that I did not include the Jedwabne massacre, since that took place under Nazi-occupation, whereas the other two events did not. Of course the victims in the events that preceeded the Holocaust and subsequent to it were not any deader than any others who had been murdered as a result of anti-Semitism during the Holocaust. Dr. Dan (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been doing some digging and there are some reputable contentions that Gross ignored evidence that non-Poles were involved in Jedwabne. But a story for a different talk page. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) But back to the original, I'm disappointed that the more I read of Efraim Zuroff over the years, the more I have come to believe he is interested in the politics (viewing in simple black and white) and less in a comprehensive investigation and accounting of the events of WWII. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Arithmetical Discrepancy
The article at time of my writing this contains the following two passages:

> Prior to the German invasion, the population of Jews was estimated to be about 210,000,[2] although according to data from the Lithuanian statistics department, as of 1 January 1941 there were 208,000 Jews.[3] <

> About 80,000 Jews were killed by October and about 175,000 by the end of the year.[1] The majority of Jews in Lithuania were not required to live in ghettos[c] nor sent to the Nazi concentration camps which by then were just in the preliminary stages of operation. Instead they were shot in pits near their places of residence with the most infamous mass murders taking place in the Ninth Fort near Kaunas and the Ponary Forest near Vilnius.[5][10][11] By 1942 about 45,000 Jews survived, largely those who had been sent to ghettos and camps <

175,000 + 45,000 = 220,000, which is 10,000 more than 210,000 and 12,000 more than 208,000.

Can anyone resolve this? Thanks Hardicanute (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

Arithmetical Discrepancy
The article at time of my writing this contains the following two passages:

> Prior to the German invasion, the population of Jews was estimated to be about 210,000,[2] although according to data from the Lithuanian statistics department, as of 1 January 1941 there were 208,000 Jews.[3] <

> About 80,000 Jews were killed by October and about 175,000 by the end of the year.[1] The majority of Jews in Lithuania were not required to live in ghettos[c] nor sent to the Nazi concentration camps which by then were just in the preliminary stages of operation. Instead they were shot in pits near their places of residence with the most infamous mass murders taking place in the Ninth Fort near Kaunas and the Ponary Forest near Vilnius.[5][10][11] By 1942 about 45,000 Jews survived, largely those who had been sent to ghettos and camps <

175,000 + 45,000 = 220,000, which is 10,000 more than 210,000 and 12,000 more than 208,000.

Can anyone resolve this? Thanks Hardicanute (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Hardicanute

MAP
this map is supposed to show predominantly the concentration camps in the Baltic region, yet Siauliai Concentration Camp is not on it! I can also not imagine that there was NO concentration camp in Estonia (or death camp)!!! When reading the description of the map, the status of the map is given as in the year 1942, BUT not which month, which possibly explains why the "Farthest Advance of German Armies" is so far in the west!!! Although there are no towns located on the sowjet part of the map, I cannot imagine that the "Farthest Advance of German Armies" is really the farthest advance! 151.136.147.71 (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, I'll ping the map creator, User:Poeticbent. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Holocaust in Lithuania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lituanus.org/1975/75_4_02.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070207041704/http://www.wsp.krakow.pl/konspekt/konspekt5/ponary.html to http://www.wsp.krakow.pl/konspekt/konspekt5/ponary.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080307033256/http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/holocaust.html to http://depts.washington.edu/baltic/papers/holocaust.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

"Not all of the Lithuanian populace supported the killings...."
I am a little bit puzzled with this statement:

"Not all of the Lithuanian populace supported the killings.[19] Out of a population of close to 3,000,000 (80% of it ethnic Lithuanians),[20] a few thousands took an active part in the killings while many hundreds risked their lives sheltering the Jews.[11]"

It would be ridiculous to imagine that ALL Lithuanians supported the Holocaust, so the first part of the statement is indisputable and redundant. In addition, together with the second sentence, it is somewhat misleading: it implies those who were not documented perpetrators did not support anti-Jewish activity. That is not the case. For example, even in Nazi Germany only small fraction of Germans took an active part in killings, and per se it doesn't mean all others did not support them.

In addition, I do not understand the need in a reference to the ethnic composition of Lithuanian population. What idea is it supposed to convey?

I think this statement should be rephrased.Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I partially modified and partially removed this text to resolve an obvious OR problem. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I looked back through the MacQueen piece. None of it even remotely supports the propositions, for which it is cited in this piece, that antisemitism was among the “national traditions and values” of Lithuania or that there existed “a more Lithuanian-specific desire for a ‘pure’ Lithuanian nation-state with which the Jewish population was believed to be incompatible.”

BTW, of Mr. MacQueen’s four “case studies” of Lithuanian Holocaust perpetrators and their motivations, he describes one (Antanas Gečas) as an individual who had served as an undercover agent for the NKVD during the first Soviet occupation of Lithuania - the very model of an individual who “volunteered” precisely because otherwise his immediate past collaboration with the NKVD “easily could have earned him a bullet” (at n.14).

A reader who really wants to understand the Holocaust in Lithuania should consider, as Mr. MacQueen did, individuals like Mr. Gečas and how they navigated their world -- and not the baseless, discredited trope that the entire nation was antisemitic.A. Vizbaras (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Mass deportations
"Soviet occupation which had culminated in mass deportations across the Baltics only a week before the German invasion"

Can we make this red hyperlink into a working one? Is there a topic we can connect? - - GI — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhettoInvestigator (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Scenes from Massacre of Jewish Men at Lietukis Garage in Kaunas, 1941 - Holocaust Museum - Vilnius - Lithuania (27829860056).jpg

MM why it's protected, THIS IS AGAINST FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Shame on Wikipedia for propaganda content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euglenos sandara (talk • contribs) 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please omit the statement that in pre-war Lithuania there was a “Lithuanian-specific desire for a ‘pure’ Lithuanian nation-state with which the Jewish population was believed to be incompatible.” This conclusory and simply incorrect statement greatly hinders the reader really understanding the topic, the Holocaust in Lithuania. MacQueen, the sole authority cited, does not support the proposition. Pre-war Germany, at the highest levels, had a “specific desire” -- and demonstrated one -- to deport all its Jews somewhere, perhaps Madagascar. Pre-war Poland at the highest levels had a very similar and demonstrated “specific desire,” but specifically to Palestine instead. In contrast, until Stalin invaded Lithuania in 1940 and decapitated its political elites, President Smetona -- who publicly called out Hitler as a “zoological racist” and declined to ally with him -- would have placed a citizen who demonstrated such a “Lithuanian-specific desire” in a Lithuanian-specific prison cell : ) A. Vizbaras (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Lithuanian SSR?
it was occupied Lithuania and should not be referred to as Lithuanian SSR. nobody views German occupied Lithuania as German Occupied Soviet Territory. Jaygo113 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust i Litauen – Norwegian Wikipedia
Could someone please add the template? The Norwegian article is more complete than the English one. Synotia (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

done Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of European Holocaust
A new history focuses on the collaborators in the Holocaust Dan Stone shows that people in various countries were willing participants in the Nazi horrors An electrified barbed-wire fence separates male and female prisoners at a German concentration camp. A Nazi guard keeps watch in the foreground. The inmates appear to be in relatively good health at this point in their internment, indicating they may have arrived recently at the camp. | Location: Eastern Europe or Germany. (Photo by © Hulton-Deutsch Collection/CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images) Victims and perpetrators                                                     www.economist.com%2Fculture%2F2023%2F02%2F08%2Fa-new-history-focuses-on-the-collaborators-in-the-holocaust


 * Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Volume 22: Two Hundred and Twelfth Day - Two Hundred and Eighteenth Day The Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, 2008 Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School


 * Jewish Defense Cultural Rescue Project  NCJ Number 222528


 * Looted Art: The Holocaust Records Preservation Project, Summer 2002, Vol. 34, No. 2 Anne Rothfeld Prologue

Broken reference urls
Getting security error on http and 404 on https. current references 35 and 37. I have used at least one of these recently at another article however; leaving refs in place because I believe I can correct this Elinruby (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

konspect source
If there is a way to Google Translate an Internet Archive copy of a dead link it am not seeing it. I cut and pasted the first paragraph of the Konspect source and got the following. I will add the rest while I am here, but surely there is a better source:

(a bit later: realized that this may not be fair use under Polish copywight law so editing into notes.


 * Article is about ceremony commemorating the memorial not the massacre

.." Then a letter from the Prime Minister of the Republic of Poland, Jerzy Buzek, was read, in which he wrote, among other things: "In addition to the Katyn lie, there was the Ponary lie for years - such a tragic death and sacrifice that many do not want to remember today. We cannot pretend that the murder was committed by unknown perpetrators. Most of them are known by name and surname."
 * Over 100,000 people were murdered in the Ponary forest. people, mainly of Jewish nationality.
 * Mieczysław Jackiewicz, Consul General of the Republic of Poland in Vilnius. \
 * "the degenerate perpetrators of these crimes, which were the volunteer execution units of IPATINGU BURIAI in the overzealous, voluntary service of the Gestapo... " *Sauguma
 * "liquid fuels for aircraft. Pits were dug for the installation of cisterns, 12-32 m in diameter and 5-8 m deep
 * 7,500 prisoners of war who were captured in the first days of the war.
 * from the Viletis prison in Łukiszki and the Gestapo headquarters at ul. Sacrificial. * hostages or rounded up on the streets. Kazimierz Pelczar, Mieczysław Gutowski and many others. 20,000 Poles were martyred in the Ponary forest.