Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 27 October 2006

This page is not a forum for general discussion about The Holocaust. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about The Holocaust at the Reference desk.

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The Holocaust has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FAOL Template:V0.5

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The upper side

There is no proper section dedicated to the history of the rescues, that is, how and when the first steps and measures were taken to save whom and which of the victims of the holocaust and, in general, the Nazi control of the government. It gives little to no enviroment to the fact that heroes existed that did their best to save the dying.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.185.213 (talk • contribs)

Article IS Biased and does NOT have a Neutral Point of View

The articles states the holocaust as a PROVEN FACT, when it isn't, so far there isn't a single shred of SCIENTIFIC evidence that it actually happened, there are lots of revisionism studies that have proven the arguments of "witnesses" wrong.

Besides the FACT that in the countries that the actual fisical evidence (bodies, ashes, chemicals, facilities, etc.) could be found, have laws that forbid research on the topic. Most of the historical revisionists that conducted research on the topic have faced persecution, and even jail. That in my opinion means something is not exactly like how mainstream media wants people to believe it is.

It also depicts the Nazi regime as the encarnation of evil on the earth, and that's not a neutral point of view either. Or is it that every single german was a spawn of the devil?? =/

I say that the article should have the {hoax} and {NPOV} tags until proven wrong.

--201.210.185.213 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)-Chaos-

"the article should have the {hoax} and {NPOV} tags until proven wrong"? Freudian slip much? I don't believe that you exist, and your user page should have the {hoax} and {NPOV} tags until proven otherwise. Gzuckier 14:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived

None of the conversations about the article seemed to be current, so it seemed a good time to archive the entire talk page. --jpgordon 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no discussion anywhere about Turkey's role during the Holocaust starting as early as 1933 and running through 1945. I would therefore like to bring to your attention a new title. TURKEY'S MODERNIZATION:Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk's Vision. This book discusses/documents a bit of little known yet significant 20th Century/Turkey/Holocaust history (best described by the prepublication reviews which are given on below links). It also addresses some important facts about the history of science, medicine and law, and, as a consequence of discussing previously unpublicized life-segments of some eminent intellectuals. http://www.writersandreadersnetwork.com/html/turkeysmnew_releases.html

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product//0977790886/ref=cm_aya_asin.title/002-1252850-7414445?ie=UTF8

http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-0977790886-1

http://tcm-ca.com/reviews/1283.html

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0977790886&itm=1 http://www.armchairinterviews.com/reviews/categories/nonfiction/turkeys_modernization.php

http://www.turkishdigest.com/2006/09/how-professor-trained-as-engineer-came.html

http://hnn.us/articles/29114.html

http://www.newacademia.com/turkeys_modernization/

Death Camp definition

There is a need to better define and clarify the meaning of Death Camp as it is often misused. Answers.com currently refers to a Death Camp as a concentration camp. This is miss-leading and incorrect. (Answers.com and the American Heritage Dictionary Publishers are currently reviewing their definition as it is recognised that the current definition is inadequate)

A better definition can be found

• • • DEATH CAMP(Legal Definition -

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Death_camp) "A death camp is a concentration camp which has been deliberately set up in order to kill those imprisoned there; such camps are not intended as punishment for criminal actions, rather, they are intended to facilitate genocide." ***

11 million

shouldnt the first number of victims on the page be 11 million and not just the number of jewish victims then 'others'58.107.175.127 10:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

               Agreed! However the 11 million is of some debate as well and i believe to be at the 
                       lower end of estimations.    Having the intro talk solely about one group 
                       diminishes the honor and memories of others.

no, becasuse 11 million didnt die. keltik31

You are correct. It's probably closer to 14 million, when one includes Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Homosexuals, and others the Nazis considered "worthy" of death. Of course, Stalin still "wins" by killing 20 million of his own people. Weirdoactor 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

if you look for the truth, you will find it. the figure is an absurd lie when you look at the facts. i even contacted two holocaust museums to ask for photos of the alleger dead childen. they couldnt provide me with any. i asked for photos of gassed adults. there are none. the dead adults died of typhus. you want to believe that while germany was fighting a war on two fronts, he had millions of gallons of fuel to run creamatoriums and all the other crazy things that you believe happened? you are crazy if you think it happened the way the zionists say it happened. why does the european census have more jews living in europe after the war then before? do the math, it doesnt add up. keltik31

restructure massively

imagine you are a schoolchild embarking on your first research on the holocaust for school, how confused would you be after reading this?. this page would personally have confused the shit out of me if i had have known nothing previously about it. we need to make this page more comprehensive and simple, atleast in the opening few paragraphs. i dont have the time to do it myself, that and the last time i tried to i got blocked for some reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.175.127 (talk • contribs)

I tend to agree. Some ideas start out quite simply. But different people add and add and add to the sentences complicating them further and further. It may be an idea to have a very simple intro, and move the technical stuff further down the way for the experts actually who want to read all of it. Wallie 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Book Suggestion

I'd like to suggest the following book/ text collection for critical reading: www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/ the Holocaust

It would be a good idea to provide as a link to web sources of Holocaust denial mis-information as this one, so everybody can see how these people minds argue about themselfs. I guess it's up to the administrators.--Kundry59 15:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Simply because one questions the details of the Holocaust doesn't make them a denier, a minimizer or misinformed. Nothing about the Holocaust has been proven 100% and so there is room for debate. Even Jews, like Norman Finkelstein, are apt at questioning aspects of the Holocaust.((unsigned|64.180.14.34}}

While it is true that we will never have an accurate count of how many died in the Holocaust, we can look at how many Jews (and Roms and other ethnic groups) lived in Europe before and after the Holocaust, and make an informed estimate of how many died. All attempts to minimize the number of victims of the Holocaust have to be weighed in the context of Holocaust-denial. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't give a very accurate picture as countless Jews had flew Europe shortly before and during the war. --Nazrac 23:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why "countless"? I should think the number who fled would be easier to determine than the number who were killed, since immigration authorities in the destination countries might have kept track somewhat better than the Einsatzgruppen. --jpgordon 00:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• The number of Jews who escaped the Holocaust by leaving Europe was only in the thousands or tens of thousands. Most western countries severely limited immigration of Jewish refugees, and many of those who were able to secure passage out of Germany got turned back or were caught by the Germans when the countries they had sought refuge in were occupied by Germany (see SS St. Louis). -- Donald Albury 17:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Holocaust

Since encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, and wiktionary all define "The Holocaust" as involving killing, I propose that the first sentence in this article should be changed to remove the phrase, "state-led systematic persecution and"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorinish (talk • contribs)

Do you mean that "state-led systematic persecution and genocide" implies that killing wasn't involved? -- Donald Albury 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the current article implies that the persecution actions were part of the Holocaust, which is inconsistent with more accepted definitions.Olorinish 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The important point is not what Encarta, American Heritage or Wiktionary say, but rather are there sources cited to support the statements in the article. And, I see, the source cited for that sentence does not mention 'persecution'. Now, you can be bold and removed 'perscution' from that sentence, and possibly irritate editors who have been involved in this article for a while (I'm not one of them, btw), or you can wait and see what other comments are made on this. -- Donald Albury 00:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought the word holocaust related to large fires, such as the Coconut Grove fire. That is why I have a problem with this word. "Shoah" or "Pogrom" are much less confusing terms. Wallie 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Languages, including the meaning of words, keep changing. Economic downturns in the United States used to be called 'depressions', until the Great Depression. Now, the 'Great Depression' is often referred to simply as the Depression, and economic downturns since then are not called 'depressions'. Similarly, 'the Holocaust' was a holocaust so horrendous that it has largely preempted the use of the term for lesser tragedys. So, indeed, the Cocoanut Grove fire may well have been described as a 'holocaust' at the time, but I doubt The Station nightclub fire was called a 'holocaust' in news acounts when it occurred. 'Shoah' has entered the language as more or less a synonym for 'the Holocaust', although probably not as well known yet. Pogrom, however, still has a distinct meaning, and one that is useful to have. To me, anyway, 'pogrom' still denotes sporadic, often spontaneous (or, at least, not overtly led) violence against an ethnic group (primarily Jews). Pogoms, while often incited by government agents, do not have the bureaucratic organization and thoroughness of the Holocaust. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Since encarta and the American Heritage Dictionary define "The Holocaust" as an episode of killing, not an episode of persecution, I have changed the first sentence in the article. Olorinish 17:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ivrit

Is it possible to get the words in Hebrew and Yiddish alphabets to read right to left? At present they are written out backwards in the article, which could be misleading for anyone not familiar with the alphabets. I tried rearranging the letters but can't crack the system for writing Ivrit on WP. Smerus 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about simply enter them backwards in the keyboard so they'll display the right way around? .siht ekiL It's a horribly bad method but it might work. Kasreyn 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

bizrrely , the only way I could correct these words was by copying them into Word, rearranging them and then pasting them back - but surely there is an easier way?--Smerus 08:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That picture

Re Killing of 5,000 Jews in Kaunas by Lithuanian nationalists in June 1941. The SS urged anti-communist partisan leader Klimajtis to attack the Jews to show that "the liberated population had resorted to the most severe measures against the ... Jewish enemy." I takes a lot to shock me... and to think that Lithuania is now in the European Union!! What a traversty. It would be interesting for someone, or the person that put the picture in to explain the full story behind this. Maybe POV, but I cannot imagine any Nazi (German) person sinking to this level. This is special, Wallie 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the background is simply the Nazi line that Communism was a Jewish conspiracy. It was precisely because the Nazis had 'sunk to this level' that they were able to encourage others to do the same. Let my remind Wallie that in fact Germany is also a member of the European Union; and that there were (and are) good and bad Lithuanians, Germans, Englishmen, etc. There is nothing 'special' alas in people behaving badly.--Smerus 09:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

But how can you hate Communism so much to do this to people? Even Americans under McCarthyism would not go down anywhere near this level. Anyway, Lithuania was later a Communist country. So they must have gotten over their hatred. Wallie 11:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, please read about the history of Europe after World War II and understand how Lithuania, and other East European countries, were sold into the slavery of Stalinist communism, against their will, by the complacency of Roosevelt and the impotence of Churchill. If it is true, as you claim on your userpage, that you 'love everybody', then don't condemn a country wholesale without investigating the facts. I hold no brief for the Lithuanians - I am in fact a Jew - but let's not use WP to start, or vent, prejudices. Smerus 08:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. I just got very upset by that picture. Wallie 22:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's natural... if such things didn't upset you, you wouldn't be human. I think everyone who edits these articles, does so with unsettled stomach. All the best, Kasreyn 00:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

See Wiyot people#History, Bear River Massacre, Sand Creek Massacre, Marias Massacre and Wounded Knee Massacre for examples of what Americans have been capable of doing. This kind of behavior is always wrong, but one should be careful about holding one's own country up as a paragon of restraint. -- Donald Albury 17:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to forget that these American Historical episodes you mention, were conducted by the Army, they were not carried out in such a brutal way, do not involve the sheer numbers of people killed, and most of all were done in a much earlier period in history. People should look into their own hearts and ask themselves truthfully "Are people that I know in my country capable of this?". I am sure that most would say no. Unfortunately Lithuanians know otherwise about themselves. Wallie 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think all of this is fine. I'm doing a school project on relating the jewish struggle through the Holocaust to the book To Kill A MockingBird and this is extremely helpful in delivering information. Who cares about the picture? If you don't like it, don't look at it. This is an extremely good article and should NOT be deleted. ‡‡‡тĦε Çяɵщ‡‡‡ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.42.2 (talk • contribs) 14:03, September 29, 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust redirect

The Holocaust page is currently a redirect to a disambiguation page. If nobody objects, I think it should redirect here, because The Holocaust is what most people mean when they say "holocaust," in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Where 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, the disambig should be moved to Holocaust (disambiguation).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought Holocaust redirected to The Holocaust in the past. On the disambig page this article is the third one listed after about two paragraphs of text. Since most users are probably looking for this article a redirect makes sense. GabrielF 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

no opinion. I dont care either way, I initially changed it because I thought it would fit the wikipedia standard of keeping a neutral POV. It could be argued that not having it redirect to the disambiguation page makes it seem as though the Holocaust during WW2 was the only one worth making note of, not very neutral.64.230.27.94 06:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - most disambiguation pages have a "most usual meaning"; that doesn't invalidate the other meanings. Edit the disambiguation page to put "The Holocaust" at the top if you wish, but people looking for other meanings should be able to find them easily too. Robina Fox 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Cruelty fork

Please see Holocaust Cruelty and it's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Causes of Hate

I can't seem to find in the article an explanation of why did nazis go after Jews and other groups of people. Or why, for instance, they hated the communists. And why did they single out the Jews for extermination. This is not explained. Seems a little odd, that in 1933 they would suddenly one day start passing all kinds of exclusion and discriminatory laws. --xarm 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Judea_Declares_War_on_Germany may be of help.

People today look at Jews quite differently than they did in those days, back then it was the "cool" thing to blame the jews for your problems. It's hard for us to understand how the laws were passed because we weren't exposed to the social pressures exerted on the people at that time. Perhaps if we were alive in Nazi Germany at the time we would have a much different opinion of what happened. 64.230.27.94 06:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hilter's grand thesis can be watered down to: Who is making gains in the German economy and making others suffer? It must be Jews because they own many profittable businesses. And looking most of the communist leaders is Jewish. So, Jews are bad, and therefore communists are bad.(or the other way around) Nazi philosophy died with the invasion of Poland (when the met "poor Jews" in mass numbers). The rest of the war in the east is a futile attempt to recapture a broken philosophy.Thor Templin 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Thorht

As far as I know, it didn't start suddenly on 1933 either- it had been part of the Nazi's propaganda since before 'Mein Kampf' was written. It was just that the Nazi party didn't have sufficent power o make dicriminatory laws until Hitler became Chancellor in 1933. Hitler probably was the driving force behind the anti-semitism. It's thought that he resented them for their prosperity during his time living as a tramp in Vienna, and like the person above me said, anti-semitism was a lot more common and socially acceptable- see things like the Blood libel against Jews. As for anti-Communism, Fascism was an idealogical opposite. - Catriona McM 16:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Cruelty Redirect/Merge

Many who have read my article on Holocaust Cruelty have noted that the subject does not need an article of its own, and should be merged with the holocaust article. I have therefore taken the liberty of selecting the most relevant points of the Holocaust Cruelty article and have merged them with the main article on the Holocaust. Ahadland 15:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is already merged then? If so, the notice at the top of the page should be removed. Lagringa 06:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And Holocaust Cruelty changed to a redirect. -- Donald Albury 10:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm unsure on how to perform a redirect Ahadland 14:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of it. --jpgordon 14:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And you deleted the redirect. I don't really care, but -- why? --jpgordon 15:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article now has no reason to exist, and I thought deleting all the info on it would delete the article

OK. It's gone now. --jpgordon 16:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

3 million Polish Jews

This is incorrect. These so-called Polish Jews were in fact part of the USSR as of 17 September 1939. The part of Poland occupied by Germany contained 2 million Jews while the western Ukraine and western Byelorussia liberated by USSR contained 1 million. Out of 5.2 million Jews in USSR, 2.2 million died. Needless to say, the deaths of 2.2 million Soviet Jews is not any different from the deaths of tens of millions of Soviet Russians. Disproportionate emphasis upon Jews is insolent to those who receive considerably less attention like the 12 million killed Chinese. The "Holocaust" is purely a Zionist Jewish interpretation of World War II Jewry and is a fundamental violation of NPOV policy. The term "Holocaust" cannot be located in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia which reveals the inherently Jewish POV nature of the term "Holocaust". The Chinese don't talk about the "Holocaust" but instead focus on the horrors endured by the Japanese occupation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs)

"Western Ukraine and western Byelorussia liberated by USSR"? What are you talking about? The territories you refer to were part of Poland. Poland was a soveriegn nation. The Nazis and the Soviet Union made a treaty with each other which allowed them to conquer and divide Poland; the Soviet Union continued to trade with and support the Nazis until the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Just because the Soviet Union was able to keep the Polish lands it conquered (because of its military strength and the unwillngness of Poland's allies to challenge it) does not make it right. The fact is that Jews were targeted for extermination by the Nazis simply because they were Jews, regardless of their nationality. The Soviets were unwilling to acknowledge that, and apparently you are still parroting their propaganda. If "The term "Holocaust" cannot be located in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia", does that mean it didn't happen?

Lack of Controversy Section

Why isn't there a controversy section for this? Every other major topic on Misplaced Pages has a section for the controversies that have arisen over the years. The Holocaust has controversy in spades (the "soap" hoax, disputes over numbers, etc...) This is lacking.

I agree. There is so much controversy over this subject, and even if we feel all of the arguments to be false, it isn't NPOV for us to not at the very least make a mention that some people legitimately believe it. The paragraph about holocaust denial could be moved to a controversy section. Having a controversy section is VERY important to have if we are to maintain a NPOV.

Even if you are anonymous, please sign your comments. The amount of controversy is so vast that it cannmot be accommodated by one article, so we have another article on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Either create a seperate section in this article or a link to a full discussion in another article. JettaMann 18:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we work on sourcing the sections we already have before adding more? There are lots of ways this article can be improved. Kasreyn 06:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust: Limited to Jewish Peoples?

It appears several times in the article that Holocaust refers to all the groups rather than just Jewish ones. This should be stream-lined: either it does or it doesn't. If it doesn't then it should not have the Anti-Semetic catergory heading included (as, e.g., killing Roma and communists isn't anti-Semetic). Clean-up!Thor Templin 16:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Thorht

On a related note, I reverted this as no sources were given and it is vague: "It is a little known fact that far more Christians were executed during the Holocaust, however, the main difference is that they were not targeted for being Christians. This "Christian" group mainly comprised of smaller targeted groups, some of which happened to be Christians. It should also be noted that some Christians that were executed during the Holocaust were targeted for having aided Jewish individuals and families. The exact number of individuals that were executed during the Holocaust is a number of great debate, however, the majority of numbers far exceeds six million." Perhaps the article could be improved by mentioning a) the total number of Christians executed, and b) the number of Christians targeted for having aided Jews. Kla'quot 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The important question is, how many executed Christians were targetted specifically for their Christianity, and how many were targetted for other things and just happened to be Christian? And can we, in fact, even make such a determination? Kasreyn 06:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm

      Yes Christians were victims of a holocaust during WW I Era   before Hitler  
      came to power.

http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/cahr/holocaust.htm (conservative) ESTIMATES of Non-Combatant Lives Lost During the Holocaust (WW II) Ukrainians 5.5 - 7 million (non jewish) Jews (of all countries) 6 million + Russian POWs 3.3 million + (non jewish) Russian Civilians 2 million + (non jewish) Poles 3 million + (non jewish) Yugoslavians 1.5 million + (non jewish) Gypsies 200,000 - 500,000 (non jewish) Mentally/Physically Disabled 70,000- 250,000 (non jewish) Homosexuals Tens of thousands (non jewish) Spanish Republicans Tens of thousands (non jewish) Jehovah's Witnesses 2,500 - 5,000 (non jewish) Boy and Girl Scouts, Clergy, Communists, Czechs, Deportees, Greeks, Political Prisoners, Other POWs, Resistance Fighters, Serbs, Socialists, Trade Unionists, Others Unknown

Table assembled from figures quoted by Milton; Lukas 38-39, 232; Gilbert 824; Berenbaum 123; and Holocaust Internet information sites.

The number of people of a said heritage/people that died as a result of the Holocaust is almost impossible to figure out and will likely never be known. The numbers of dead for a said heritage/people will always be suspect unless it can be proven beyond doubt. It may be claimed that a set number is "conservative" but that is up for debate. For example, even Jews like Norman Finkelstein in his book "The Holocaust Industry" has questioned whether 6 milion jews actually died. Regardless of what many people may think, Professor Finkelstein is not anti-semitic.

Merge - International response to the Holocaust

This merge header appears to have been around since 17th June 2006 according to the history of the article International response to the Holocaust. It needs to be addressed by editors of this and the other article. Gnangarra

• I cant see any reason to merge the two articles The Holocaust is already 106k, this article really needs to broken into smaller articles. Gnangarra 05:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I've just semi-protected this article on a request from a user on IRC. There has been multiple unique IP addresses vandalising the article today and none have positively contributed to the article. Any administrator should feel free to unprotect it whenever he/she feels that semi-protection is no longer necessary hoopydink 16:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Jewish History

Is there also a WikiProject made solely to highlight the advancements and positive influences that Aryans have had on the world in whole?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.174.126.110 (talk • contribs) .

Well, there is Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Iran and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject India, but nothing I know of that covers Aryans as an entity. -- Donald Albury 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the above poster meant "Aryan" according to the National Socialist definition of the term. His point is valid in that certain minority groups are given special consideration in promoting their history while the history Europeans is reduced to and undue emphasis placed upon slavery, violence, war, genocide ect. For too little attention is given to European culture and history in its positive aspects and positive influences on mankind. Then again that opens a whole other can of worms, since the promotion of European culture inevitable gives rise to arguments about colonialism, racism et al. It's unfortunate that being a European or someone of European ancestry these days means you aren't allowed to express adulation or affection for your own culture or people without having to express it for every other as a sort of disclaimer that you're not a racist or white supremecist. Multiculturalism works largely on this principle of guilt. --Nazrac 17:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? --jpgordon 17:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers and groups included or excluded

I wonder whether it would be useful to gather together the information that is currently scattered in footnotes and other oblique references into a section that openly debates the question of which killings count as part of the "Holocaust". Footnote two currently says,

"Among the historians arguing that the Holocaust should refer only to Jews are Yehuda Baur and Guenter Levy. Those arguing the Holocaust includes Jews and Roma include Ian Hancock, Sybil Milton, and Donald Kendrick. Henry Friedlander argues that the definition should include Jews, Roma, and the handicapped. Richard Lukas and Ihor Karmenetsky include Poles among the Holocaust victims. Bodan Wytwycky includes Poles and Soviets. Richard Plant and F. Rector argue that homosexuals should be included, while Gunter Grau and Rodiger Lautmann argue against including gay men in the Holocaust."

There is no further discussion of this debate. We don't learn why some authors think that the term should be restricted to Jews, or why homosexuals should be included or excluded. I mindful of the length problem, but concision and judicious moving of text should resolve that. If not, a new article could be created and linked to. I think there are several reasons why we should include this discussion.

Reason one: Holocaust deniers are always claiming that Holocaust numbers are arbitrary, or are subject to constant inflation. We don't want to unwittingly support this by leaving unexplained the reasons why the numbers are sometimes given as 11 million, sometimes as 6 million etc. There has been a kind of "inflation", but that's due to a tendency to include an increasing variety of Nazi killings in the holocaust as such, rather than list them as separate war crimes.

Reason two: We need to explain inconsistencies. The article currently lists victims in the opening, giving a number of Poles as follows "6 million killed, of whom 3 million were Catholic/Christian, and the rest Jewish". Later it states in a list of victims, "1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)." Clearly these figures don't match up. Also the latter figure includes in the category of "holocaust victims" all Poles killed in the 1939 war and the 1944 uprising. If we are to do that then we may as well include all victims of the bombing of London in the "holocaust". We have to make a distinction between victims of war and victims of murder. Failure to do so allows some contributors to make arguments like the following (from the Talk:Adolf Hitler page) "The number of victims as a result of World War II, are, according to a few versions, about 50 million, whether as a result of the war or of Hitler's crimes. Of these, 18 million were Germans. Among the victims of this war were Jews, like other members of the human race, but all of them should be considered victims of the Holocaust." (here the word "holocaust" seems to be used to mean "the disaster of WW2". It's unclear whether the writer wants to see Germans as victims of the Nazis, or to mitigate Nazi killings by including war-victims of the Allied action).

Reason three: We need to be open about the fact that there is a distinction between war victims, war-crime victims and holocaust victims, but that these distinctions are not clear-cut. Are all people who died in concentration camps victims of the holocaust? Were the villagers of Lidice victims of the holocaust, or of a separate war-crime? What about Communists in Russia? By being open about the ambiguities we can explain why some writers want to say that only Jews were targeted for mass murder, and so are the only victims of the holocaust as such, while other victims suffered from separate Nazi war crimes. It also explains the debate about groups such as homosexuals. Since homosexuality was illegal elsewhere in Europe a case can be made that the Nazis were not unusual in criminalising it and that the deaths of homosexuals in the camps were not part of some campaign to physically eliminate "carriers" of homosexual identity, but were mostly the result of general brutality, disease etc in the camps. A discussion of the desire of certain groups to be included in the holocaust, to stress their victimhood, might also be included, as should the desire to stop the definition expanding to the point that all victims of the war are included.

Sorry this comment is so long. Paul B 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

nonsense on the page

Some people added nonsense to this page not too long ago. I'm glad that it has been removed. There's a huge gap in the efficiency section. I think that it must be fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.46.185.29 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Very long tag

Hey, I've just added the "This article is becoming very long" tag. I did this because i read the World War 2 article, and that was 110 kb and had the same tag on it. So I figured that since this article was 108kb long that maybe a very long tag should be put on it. Did i make the right decision, discuss? Ahadland 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we change the article so no headings are questions?

--Greasysteve13 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Other Holocaust

The following comment has been moved from the article page. -- Donald Albury 20:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

When Holocaust is defined as "A morally monstrous act of genocide that is not only against the people themselves, but also a crime against humanity." Thus these words accurately describe the African reality, the Jewish reality, the Native American reality etc. Holocaust thus is not the property of any one group of people, just like Diaspora, slavery. The politically correct solution is thus to hyphanate the word holocaust; African holocaust, Indian-Holocaust, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talk • contribs)

why has it been moved? --Halaqah 11:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly support the exclusion of this passage. The term "The Holocaust" is specifically used to refer to the systematic murders committed by the Nazis. Before that it was a non-specific word referring to any act of obliteration, especially ones involving burning. I have a collection of Freud's and Jung's letters published in the 70s in which the editor explains the paucity of Freud's letters by saying that he "made a holocaust of his papers". So even in the 70s it was clearly not perceived as word exclusively to be used to refer to mass-murder. It only became strongly associated with the Nazi crimes at the end of the 70s. Attempts to claim the term for other real or alleged genocides are essentially piggy-backing on the talismanic status given to the Nazi murders. Paul B 12:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust is a word from the English dictonary, what you have stated is an opinion, your opinion. No one is riding on a term. Further more if it is a term (you can see other ethnic groups use it) so it is valid to have a discussion about the "other holocaust" as clearly not everyone agrees there is one. How would you like if African people claimmed the word slavery. werent Jewish people slaves too? What about Diaspora? Is that only for Jewish people? Now we dont live in a static world and the history of murder is certainly not limited to Nazi's, and we must realize that words change. Once Holocaust wasnt used now it is, google African Holocaust, google Indian Holocaust these are terms in usage (even in Misplaced Pages)--Halaqah 12:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

We are conflating three simple issues and I do not see the need for any big deal. First, "holocuast" originally and generically means a burnt offering. When people say "The Holocaust" they are referring to the Nazi acts of genocide against Jews; prior to this usage the word was not applied to any genocide. Since the emergence of genocide studies, the term has taken on a third set of usages, to describe the Romani holocaust etc. This is what Paul was referring to when he talked about piggy-backing on the initial usage; he is right, and I do not see anything contentious with what he said. This does not mean that the definition of the word has changed, just that the ways people use it have changed. Clearly, this article focuses on the Holocaust as such. No one is claiming that Jews "own" the holocaust, only that "the Holocaust" refers to a specific period in Jewish and european history. Clearly, there should be links to articles on other genocides. I think this is all paul was saying and it makes sense to me. It certainly is silly to "define" the word "holocaust" as "A morally monstrous act of genocide that is not only against the people themselves, but also a crime against humanity." Isn't genocide always morally monstrous? International law defines genocide as a cribe against humanity. But the word here is "genocide," not holocaust. Another word for "A morally monstrous act of genocide that is not only against the people themselves, but also a crime against humanity" is simply, well ... "genocide." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly no-one is denying that these are terms in usage, and I don't see why they should not be linked. But there are good reasons why the word "holocaust" came to be used of the Nazi murders, reasons that make the term far less relevant to these other events. The meaning "obliterative physical destruction" applies to an event in which there was an attempt to systematically annihilate a whole people and to physically obliterate both the evidence and the bodies. What Freud did to his papers is in this sense the same as what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews - obliterate them entirely and cremate the remains. That's why this particular term seemed so appropriate. It's also why it's much less applicable to the other events you mention. The disambiguation page discusses some of these points. Paul B 08:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

extermination camps section is crappy

It has a picture of "Empty poison gas canisters and piles of hair shaved from the victims of Auschwitz-Birkenau", while the text explains that "live men and women's hair was shaved to prevent the spreading of typhus".

The picture apparently makes a false link between poison gas canisters and hair cutting aginst the spread of diseases, while that would be a correct link according to holocaust deniers who claim that the canisters were only used for desinfection.

It doesn't seem plausible that people had an anti-typhus treatment immediately before they were murdered... Harald88 13:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• And how about the last sentence in that section? Gold teeth were extracted from the corpses, and live men and women's hair was shaved to prevent the spreading of typhus, along with shoes, stockings, and anything else of value was recycled for use in products to support the war effort, regardless of whether or not a prisoner was sentenced to death. Eek! --jpgordon 15:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not all of the Jews and others sent to death camps were killed right away. Healthy prisoners were used for work details, including removing the bodies from the gas chambers and cremating them. But even the ones slated for immediate death had their hair cut off.The Belzec death camp -- Donald Albury 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there is no logical development of thought, instead it's too confusing. What does the hair have to do with the canisters and the camp being an extermination camp if indeed (but is that correct?) the hair was cut of prisoners for the sake of general health?

Your reference states (contrary to the article!) only of women and girls, and not why.

BTW, thanks for the above link, by chance I had been looking for a reference to that German chemical engineer. Harald88 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The illustration is just a juxtaposiion of two sets of discarded "remains" from the camp. I'm not sure why you think it's important. It's just a picture. In itself, of course, it doesn't prove anything, nor does it need to. Paul B 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It already has improved. Remains the phrase "The living men and women's hair was shaved to prevent the spreading of typhus" that is partly unconfirmed and partly contradicted by your abovementioned source. Harald88 21:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My first remark above referring appears to actually have hit the nail on the head: There is no justification to claim that hair was cut "to prevent the spreading of typhus", see . I'll correct that piece of holocaust-denier misinformation. Harald88 19:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC) In addition, here is evidence of the origin of the misinformation: judicial-inc.biz/Treblinka, "It was a transit stop where Jews were de-liced and had their hair cut before being shipped to occupied Russia. Train loads of Jews would arrive at T-II to be deloused." Harald88 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you implying that so say that hair was cut to minimise the spread of typhus implies that the Nazis were concerned for the health of the inmates, and that this would suggest that they were brimming with humanitarian intent towards them? I'd say it simply indicates that they wanted everything be as clean, tidy and controlled as possible. Runaway disease creates numerous problems. It's chaotic. It also threatens the health of camp staff. The typhus explanation seems to be the only one offered here that makes any sense. Paul B 10:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've had a quick look round. Yes, it seems that some holocaust deniers claim that the poison gas was part of a disinfectant programme to check the spread of disease. However, I very much doubt that the person who uploaded and added the image intended, by some sort of "Kuleshov effect", to suggest any such message. However the evidence that head shaving was done on arrival is clear. . That the procedure arose from the spread of typhus is discussed here. Paul B 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing suggests that the 1942 document was "secret". Indeed there is no reason why it should be. It simply says that cut hair should be utilised. There's nothing sinister about cutting hair. Indeed, as an explanation it's inconsistent with other evidence, since it clearly states that hair needs to be beyond a certain length to be useful for this purpose, whereas witness-statements are clear that all body-hair was removed. Public hair would presumably be useless. So removal for sanitation purposes, followed by a policy for use of some of the hair is entirely consistent. Paul B 17:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to know that some camps at some time applied both general anti-licing measures of everyone as well as hair harvesting of women and men with long hair. That provides indeed a consistent image and explains the differing stories. In any case, the collection of long hair from women was not done for health reasons, as explained in the document. I agree with you that the secret status of that document is open for debate, I'll neutralize it. Harald88 21:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that the site I linked to is about one camp in 1942, where truck exhaust fumes were still being used to kill the victims. It does not necessarily apply in detail to other camps, and later dates. -- Donald Albury 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but that sentence and the caption of the picture are so poor that regardless of their veracity, they are laughable. --jpgordon 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is nonsense. The photos are apparently from the museum. Paul B 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by User:207.200.116.74

I have reverted a bunch of edits made by User:207.200.116.74 because they were unsourced, not necessarily relevant to this article, and difficult to sort out. While some of the edits might have been acceptable, it would have been very difficult and time-consuming to clean them up. This article is already overly long. It needs tightening up, not expanding. -- Donald Albury 10:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits' lacked essential resources, but you agree on some edits are historical facts. The one edit on the origin of Nazi anti-Semitism was not from Christianity, but originated from the far left isn't earth raveling. The P-C left has somehow exploited the holocaust to make the conservatives look bad. Of course, they aren't related to the Nazi political mindset, unlike the far right in Europe and the "white nationalists" shared these twisted ideas. Should I explore the issue and come back with a web link to demonstrate the edits' claims? I've found the connection between Nazism and paganism through the wikipedia articles on Germanic Neopaganism and the Thule Society, and what's the "anticlerical" anti-Semitism when the term means one who dislikes Christian clergy, be it Catholic or Protestant? I will check out the issue in details on some other time. I don't like when far leftists blame the moderate right and Christianity for the holocaust, but the Soviet Union's Communist party and extreme forms of Socialism in Europe expressed anti-Semitic opinion themselves. On wikipedia's Heinrich Himmler article, the prominent Nazi himself wasn't only anti-Semitic, but has vocally opposed Christianity and conservatism (i.e. capitalism) he viewed to be part of a Zionist conspiracy. + Mike D 26 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Also to note the reverted edits on "other genocides" in history must go to the genocide article. The article had explained why historians compared the holocaust to officially declared 'genocides': The WWI-era Armenian and Herero, South Africa genocides, but edits on the United States government's treatment of Native Americans through warfare and removal as "genocide" is questionable, and the British naval blockade of food shipments to Ireland during the Irish Potato Famine suspected as a political advantage on the starving masses, are explained in their proper articles. For the past decade, there was much public attention on the lack of historical research of Imperial Japan's role in Asia. The Japanese armed forces during WWII were involved in 'genocidal" or ethnic displacement campaigns against millions of Koreans and Chinese under Japanese occupation, plus in other East Asian occupied territories. This has an article of its own, so keep it out in this one. The holocaust is the primary discussion, and the other edit on involvement of Japanese, Italian and Spanish doctors in the Nazi concentration camps? I've heard of it myself, but where's the proof? Misplaced Pages is a place to collect and type information, everyone can edit ... but the rules are bring in truth (and to demonstrate the edit is truthful and useful), not trash! For a theory you want to share has exist, you have to examine and analyze, or it just remains a theory. + Mike D 26 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no British "naval blockade of food shipments to Ireland during the potato famine"! Anyway, this is about The Holocaust, not any other real or imagined genocides in history. Paul B 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The cause of the Holocaust

This contribution was removed by User:EliasAlucard:

Anti-Semite teachings by the Catholic Church over centuries lead to the Holocaust of six million of God’s chosen people.

The Catholic Church directly caused the Holocaust by teaching its followers that the Jewish people killed Christ, which is not correct. Christ was killed by the Romans. Christ was a Jew.

Pope John Paul the Great went to Israel specifically to ask forgiveness of the Jewish people for the sins of the Catholic Church where he kissed the ground at the Holocaust memorial.

I would be pleased if you would explain you reasons. --WikiCats 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What are your sources for those edits? -- Donald Albury 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, are you forgetting that Germany was almost universally Protestant until after WWII? I don't think the Catholic Church is blameless. It should be obvious that any Anti-Semitic organisation, the Church of the day included, shares in responsibility. That said, blaming them piecemeal is just plain silly. The Vatican of the day is no more or less responsible than any other Anti-Semitic institution. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Almost universally Protestant"? Something like a third Catholic, I think is more like it -- and the Catholic part is where Naziism was born. That being said, WikiCat's edits are inappropriate. --jpgordon 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Of cause I've got all the references on a Word document but you won't be able to see them till I place it in the article. The citations are from the Vatican site. --WikiCats 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Show them here. -- Donald Albury 22:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article?

Hey my friend believes that this article may be bias. He believes that the article presents the Nazis in an unnecessarily bad light by stating facts that he claims "cannot be proven". I personally can see nothing wrong with the article, but I've respected my friends views, so if we could debate this to determine whether the article is biased, that'd be good, cheers! Ahadland 09:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC) 09:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well why doesn't your friend Lewis present his arguments? Disputes about specific matters can be raised here, but generalised statements to the effect that the Nazis were really cool are going to get short shrift. Paul B 10:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

THE ITALIAN CONCENTRATION CAMPS OF GIADO (LIBYA) AND ARBE (RAB)

You have to explain which kind of concentration camps were Giado (for Jews) and Arbe (for Slovenians and also Jews). In Giado the conditions were horrible. In Arbe may be 7,000 people starved to death. This did happen in 1942-1943 before the Italian surrender. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.149.84 (talk • contribs) .

Give us a reliable source and we can see how it fits in. -- Donald Albury 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rab concentration camp is a start. For the other, do a web search for "giado libya jews" and you'll find some discussions of it; neither are very well known, though. --jpgordon 16:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find informations about Giado (and about other Italian camps for Jews in Libya)in the Encyclopaedia of the Holocaust.

Switzerland and the Holocaust

This article says nothing about Switzerland's refusal to allow Jewish refugees entry, or the Swiss banks' obstruction of efforts by the families of holocaust victims to retrieve funds deposited by their relatives. I don't know much about this topic, so I won't edit the article myself, but maybe someone here would like to take a stab at it. --Slashme 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles