Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/December

Minority view of Poles as Holocaust victims, presented in Wikipedia's voice
- In regards to this revert, this is not "editorializing". For starters - the IPN source reverted to does not support Poles as victims of the Holocaust - it uses the term for Jews only - this is a misrepresentation of the IPN document. Furthermore, inclusion of Poles in the Holocaust is a distinct non-mainstream view - there is no scholarly consensus over this. The cited source - The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, Columbia University press, chapter: Defining the Holocaust, pages 45-52 - covers this discussion - mentioning arguments for and against inclusion of Slavs and Poles (as well as other groups) - this source also explicitly takes the view (on page 52) - that the Holocaust does not include Slavs (Poles included), but rather "The authors of this volume have adopted the third approach to a working definition; The Holocaust - that is, Nazi genocide - was the systematic, state-sponsored murder of ethnic groups determined by heredity. This applies to Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped" - while respectfully noting the opinions of other scholars. Frankly, we should be discussing whether to include the distinct minority viewpoint (the broadest definition possible of the Holocaust, that includes Slavs) at all in the article - but we definitely should not be presenting this viewpoint without qualification when it is not used by most historians.Icewhiz (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most Holocaust scholars today use the Holocaust to refer specifically to the extermination of about 6 million Jews, but most also acknowledge that many millions of other people, including Poles, homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses, communists, Russian POWs, the handicapped, and members of the Roma and Sinti trips (Gypsies) were killed by the same Nazi machinery. American Dreams and Nazi Nightmares, Kirsten Fermaglich, page 175. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think something to be aware of and sensitive to here is that most people using the term will not understand why there is a distinction or why it is important to make such a distinction. In plain speech, outside scholarship, and for many of our readers it is likely to be a source of confusion rather than clarity - technically scholars have divided Nazi crimes into categories like Aktion T4 and AB-Aktion and "Holocaust" - but it is nonintuitive for laypersons that for two people who were taken to the same camp, and died in the same camp, one would not be a victim of the Holocaust. Certainly it needs to be included and discussed, but the only question is how the disagreement should be presented. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 10:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In relation to Slavs (not Soviet POWs) - the vast majority were not taken to death camps (there were some - e.g. 100k in Auschwitz, usually political prisoners, and executed by other means than the gas chambers - e.g. phenol injections to the heart) - but were persecuted by the Nazi occupation (e.g. killings and mass killings as reprisals) - usually around their place of residence and as individual punishments or communal reprisals. Slavs (and Poles) only appear in the widest possible definitions (e.g. Niewyk&Nicosia cited above include Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped - but not homosexuals (who probably are included more often) or Slavs - though they do discuss the merits of including various groups in their 7 page definition chapter). - I was suggest the following - combined diff - three million Polish Jews, some historians consider up to three million ethnic Poles as victims as well in the infobox, and The genocide officially sanctioned and executed by the Third Reich during World War II, collectively known as the Holocaust, took the lives of three million Polish Jews. Some historians also consider up to three million ethnic Poles as victims. in the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the link to Aktion-AB should be added somewhere also, its intent was to "pacify" or stop resistance, so it was part of the Holocaust ... legally the designation has been more complicated, but I think that should probably be considered separately - the court's language is a lot about minorities, but they don't say Poles are not Holocaust victims- rather it is a procedural issue concerning capacity to organize independent representation as a class. Seraphim System ( talk ) 10:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is in the body - or more precisely we link to Intelligenzaktion which seems to include German AB-Aktion in Poland. I don't think we should get into legal cases (though Slavs were excluded from a lawsuit against Swiss banks - the legal case work here is not so extensive) - I think we should stick to a history definition (per major and minor viewpoints among historians).Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We've discussed it elsewhere. Icewhiz's phrasing may be coarse, but Marek's (or whoever's) revision is coarser. We need to acknowledge all the victims (neither version does) and we need to do so in a way faithful to the sources and readable to a lay reader. François Robere (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A somewhat different discussion (whether Holocaust needs a Jewish prefix). - any suggestion on how to formulate this (I'll note that my revision retained the minority view of Polish victims)? That Poles were killed by Nazis in WWII is not in dispute, however this article is about the Holocaust in Poland and most historians do not consider Slavs in general (and Poles in particular) to be Holocaust victims - though there is a minority (that embraces a very wide definition ) that does. Niewyk&Nicosia do discuss the pros and cons for Slavs in Poland and the Soviet Union.[. Note we do not presently mention Slavs as victims at all in [[The Holocaust in Ukraine]], The Holocaust in Belarus, or The Holocaust in Russia - though as Niewyk&Nicosia demonstrate the merits of the discussion are similar.Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Two sections: First with all the minorities and social classes that were specifically targeted for genocide (not present in current revision); Poles should be included there, but that number should be qualified with an "up to..." and postfixed with an endnote (preferably named [eg. [note]], not a random number) explaining the issues. The second section should included all of the non-Poles who were brought to Poland as part of the genocide. François Robere (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It might be more correct to call it Lebensraum - see how this source discusses it - it's part of the broader Nazi ideology, and I think this is the source of the confusion - should we call the whole thing the Holocaust (a word everyone already knows) - or should we be more precise - expansionary Lebensraum, anticommunism and antisemitism, as a dual genocide. We can probably explain this better in the articles. Seraphim System  ( talk )
 * - could we focus on how to formulate this (in 1-2 sentences) in the infobox and lede? I agree there's quite a bit that needs work in this article, but I think we could tackle this single-sentence issue first.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a hatnote about Lebensraum - "not to be confused with the broader Nazi colonial policy of deportation and resettlement in Poland" or something like this. Or as a footnote in the infobox? Seraphim System  ( talk ) 12:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're suggesting omitting from the text - coupled with a hatnote and/or footnote. I think that a footnote next to the victim numbers is necessary (or alternatively, article text describing the minority position) - as otherwise this will probably be edited in again due to the existence of the minority view (and promotion of it), and to clarify views on what the term includes.Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know that much about where the number 3 million ethnic Poles comes from, but its my understanding this number refers to deaths. But there is no definition of genocide that I know of that is limited exclusively to deaths. For example the first paragraph of the LEDE says The Third Reich's World War II genocide, known as the Holocaust, took the lives of three million Polish Jews and of a similar number of ethnic Poles, not including the extermination of Polish citizens of other ethnicities. but the quote given from the source does not exactly support the language in the article. It depends on what level of accuracy we want. Seraphim System ( talk ) 12:22, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, By Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia has three million Poles (as a minority view - which sees most Polish deaths as Holocaust deaths). Estimates for Polish deaths by the Germans vary - I've seen estimates as low as 1.8 million (USHMM), which is why I used up to three million (the article presently uses 2.5 million in the infobox - which is sourced to an IPN document covering deaths during the Soviet and German occupation). The estimates for Polish deaths are quite variable (more so than Jewish deaths - which also vary, but by a smaller margin percent wise) - but are clearly significant. There are a bunch of sources at World War II casualties of Poland. Perhaps we should specify a range (say 1.8-3.0 million).Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

How you phrase it in the footnote is less of a concern as there's less need for conciseness than in an infobox. As for a hatnote - I don't think anyone will be "confused". François Robere (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I came across an article while trying to revise some of this wording that argues that the main tactic of Holocaust deniers or revisionists is to begin a debate with a layperson and point out popular misconceptions and errors to build up their credibility - and then exploit that by deceptively adhering to a narrow definition to argue that there was no Holocaust, because what the "man on the street" believes is the Holocaust is wrong. So, it's important to get this right, and I think everyone is acting in good faith, but I'm cautious about characterizing this as a "minority view" without a more careful review of sources based only on an uncited statement from a footnote in Fermaglich. The debate seems to be substantial. I would agree to "Scholars disagree..." or "There is no consensus..."  Seraphim System  ( talk ) 13:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Scholars disagree is OK too - I do think inclusion Slavs is a clear minority view - it is the most expansive version (per Niewyk&Nicosia) in terms of number of victims and in terms of inclusion criteria of the various options they lay out for inclusion/exclusion, but saying "scholars disagree" on inclusion of Poles in the count of victims conveys the point without us getting into a detailed source analysis.13:50, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Poles were definitely also victims of Holocaust, numerous scholars mention this including such scholars as Szymon Datner. It is also worth mentioning that Nuremberg Trial judged the German kidnapping of Polish children to be part of genocide campaign, and thus it is correct that not only deaths are included in the victims.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Relationship to the main article
I think including ethnic Poles (without explanatory notes) would be confusing to the readers; compare with the main Holocaust article:
 * The Holocaust, also referred to as the Shoah,[b] was a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered approximately 6 million European Jews, around two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe, between 1941 and 1945.[c] Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event which involved the persecution and murder of other groups by the regime, including in particular the Roma, and "incurably sick",[d] as well as homosexuals, political opponents, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and Slavs.[6] (emphasis mine)

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond being confusing, this is a very expansive definition that most scholars do not subscribe to - inclusion of Slavs is the wodest possible definition of the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As this article is a about Holocaust in Poland, then Poles as victims of Holocaust need to be included as well.You are pointing to general article which I note, does mention briefly this, but here were are dealing with a specific article that covers more detailed situation..--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most Holocaust scholars do not consider Slavs in general, and Poles in particular, to be Holocaust victims. We mention minority positions with appropriate weight to their representation in RS on the subject (that for the most part focus on Jews, gypsies, disabled - only a few covering Poles).Icewhiz (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I find the current article reasonably accurate - it notes that some scholars, but not all (no consensus) may classify Poles as Holocaust victims. That said, this is currently discussed in a ref+footnote #5. This is bad style. First, footnotes and references should not be combined. This may merit a proper section, not a footnote. That footnote currently has no page numbers for the sources used to support the claims that Poles were victims too. TBH, right now one could argue that the very claim that Poles were H.'s victims is too poorly sourced to be even included here. PS. Done - see new section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Most Holocaust scholars do not consider Slavs in general Poles are Poles. THere is no pan-Slavic identity Icewhiz and Nazi Germany treated Poles differently from Slovaks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Take it up with the Columbia guide to the Holocause which treats Poles and Soviet Union citizens together, and mentions the Nazi favorable treatment of Slovaks as an example of a lack of a genocidal racial policy towards Slavs.Icewhiz (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Slovaks are are a different national group Icewhiz. Nazis had different goals for different nations. Anyway you removed numerous highly reliable sources that speak about what this subject of the subsection is about-Nazi policies against Poles, not against Slavs in general or Slovaks.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is about the Holocaust in Poland. Most scholars do not include Poles (or Ukranians, Russians, Belorussians, etc.). A section presenting the issue of Polish classification is perhaps due - Holocaust scholars see the lack of uniform Nazi policy towards Slavs (while there was a consistent policy towards Jews amd Romani across Europe) as relevant. If you have additional actual Holocaust scholars who discuss the issue - that would be relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "This article is about the Holocaust in Poland."Yes, exactly, therefore the treatment of Slovaks or Croats is irrelevant. Why are you including information about countries allied with Nazi Germany in article about Poland? Countries whose treatment was light years away from treatment of Poles, who were declerared subhuman, and yes, have been subject to genocide by Nazi Germany.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A RS by Holocaust scholars who discusses the question of Poles (and SU slavs) as possible Holocaust victims says the treatment of Slovaks/Croats is relevant (in regards to a lack of a coherent Nazi racial policy towards Slavs). We follow the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't state in any way that fate of Poles is connected to fate of Slovaks or Croats. Also it clearly states that Poles were victims of genocide, which you have removed, falsely claiming it isn't in the source.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please quote the exact sentence N&N say that. I see mass extermination of leadership (which is not genocide - selective to leaders) and reprisal killings - but no genocide.Icewhiz (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify: No one is dismisses Nazi atrocities towards the Poles, but "genocide" is a very particular term, and we owe it to readers to be accurate in where we use it. François Robere (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits

 * Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Revert substantive and undiscussed changes"; there's a legitimate debate among scholars to this effect. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The POLIN Museum
The Museum is generally not about the Holocaust, so the picture is inadequate. See or. Xx236 (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yad Vashem statistics - wrong link
Should be http://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/statistics.html Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

September 1939 Nazi crimes
Germans murdered some Jews in September 1939. The Jews were "overrepresented" among murdered civilians. Szczucin Sometimes German soldiers made fun of Orthodox Jews, eg. they ordered shaving of their beards.Xx236 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)