Talk:Final Solution/Archive 1

Strong evidences

Following long discussions with people denying the existence of the final solution, I think this article should be carefully reviewed in order to provide more evidences about the application of the final solutions. I know the proofs seem quite evident and well known to most people (bodies, remains of the camps, german administration formulars, zyklon B commands etc) but I notice a strong temptation toward revisionism in certain countries... Thus, I really think this article still requires more work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.44.77.39 (talk) 10:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

After your long discussions with grandpappy? "But I notice a strong temptation toward revisionism in certain countries", what does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TellittoJesus (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Officially the "Final Solution" was the deportation of Jews to the East, not their extermination. Should this distinction not be made clear? The holocaust was the deliberate mass killing of jews, and others. But the final solution was the proposed deportation of Jews, a rather different thing.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No, "officially" it was the deportation of Jews to the East "for appropriate labor", "in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes. The possible final remnant will … have to be treated accordingly, because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival". Lars T. (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The definition is simply wrong. The Final Solution has two - closely connected - meanings. For Herzl it was Zionism - i.e. moving to Palestine, and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. For Nazi Germany it was deportation to the East. These are not so different, depending on how far East the jews were sent. It was NOT the systematic genocide of European Jews. If that had been the policy, none would have survived. Germans are nothing if not efficient and thorough. 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE LOOK INTO THIS

on 29th January 2008 the introduction to this page says the term was coined by 'Adolf Pancake' I'm sure this needs fixing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz james (talk • contribs) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hess

Rudolf Hess had already flown to Britain and that's why he saved his life at Nuremberg. Am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.224.96.198 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 April 2004

Rudolf Hess was said to be in a mental institute in Abergavenney in wales —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.38.32 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 December 2006

Community portal?

I'm curious as to why is this listed under "Community portal"? I was redirected here from Final Solution (and Final Solution of the Jewish Question)? Mischief afoot perhaps? --dahamsta 01:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

- doesn't seem sane to me either Joolz 23:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Psychology of the Final Solution

Are there any Wikipedia pages that deal with the minds behind the Holocaust, from the common German on the street, to the average SS soldier, to the T-4 program "doctors," to Himmler, to Hitler himself?

• See below. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about the psychology of those who flatly refuse to allow discussion about the history and details of the "Final Solution" or "Holocaust".124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Forced migration

All documents and speeches referred to the "final solution" as a plan of forced migration. There is no evidence whatsoever that there ever was such an "extermination plan".

Forced migration to where? -- Petri Krohn 00:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Forced migration of every Jew in Europe was merely the logistically impossible pipe dream of Nazi luminaries prior to 1941. The evolution of the plan of extermination was a direct result of the impossibility of the forced migration of over four million people in Europe alone. There is overwhelming documentary evidence that, after 1941, extermination was the Nazi panacea to the "question". -- Primaryspace 18:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: Migration was the original "solution". Hitler wanted the Jews deported, but the size of the population made it difficult logistically, and potentially devastating from an economic standpoint for any country(s) that accepted them. When that "solution" was not viable, the "final solution" was implemented.

The Wannasee Protocol seems to not be the source of the "final Solution" - of course if you read it.

"overwhelming documentary evidence" - finally I have found the source I have always wanted. By the way can you give links, etc to this evidence? Thank you very much!

One should see eg Beneš_decrees regardinng Czech expulsions of germans in terms of a "final solution" to a large minority. Most of it was involuntary dispossession and export to the unknown. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Final Solution

i am doing a research paper and im so confused right now i have no clue which information is which and im like so stressed out HELP ME email- baby_skittles_321@yahoo.com msn- missing_angel_321@yahoo.com -courtney

We must not forget that "Final Solution" is NOT a euphemism for genocide. The term comes from Theodor Herzl's 1899 memo to Tzar Nicholas II. He proposed Zionism as the "final solution of the Jewish question." The Nazi Party wasn't sure what to do about the Hewish Problem though deportation to Palestine was regarded as an option.

Incidentally Nicholas II may be regarded as an antisemite, but the suggestion that he was a murderous antisemite is slanderous and ridiculous.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

screaming

what does heinrich himmler and adolf hitler have to do with the Final Solution

Wikipedia is not really the forum to ask for homework help on a research paper, but, to give you a hint, Hitler ordered the Final Solution (the genocide of the Jews) sometime in 1941 and Himmler was one of the key officials in carrying it out. You can read the article, and the linked pages, for more information. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well that is not verifiable, but your teacher probably wont have the knowledge or guts to give you less than an A.

The order to carry out the Final Solution was not an order to commit genocide of Jews, but rather an order for their mass deportation to the East. A pity it wasn't carried out literally, many may have survived who otherwise died.124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The "Jewish Question"

I have redirected The Jewish Question and Jewish Question here. This article is about the so called "solution", but we would in fact need a separate article on the assumed question. The article should not study the "The Jewish Question", but the history of the term in it's use by the Nazis. Calling something in existence a "question" is a tool used by Hitler and previous demagogues to undermind the rights of the "questioned". -- Petri Krohn 00:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I've come here from Jewish Autonomous Oblast, so it was a bit o a suprise, I think there was also a "JQ" in many other countries. What the question was is elided by the circumlocution, but I think it was a customary style of the time, for example the Schleiswig-Holstein question of which Lord Palmerston, commented that only three people understood it "one is mad, one is dead, and I have forgotten." Rich Farmbrough 11:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You would know about the Final Solution from personal experience then- Stalin sent Russian Jews East to the Jewish Autonomous Oblast".

Actually Palmerston said: "Three men understood the Schleswig-Holstein Question: The Prince Consort, a German professor, and I. The Prince Consort is dead. The professor is mad. And I? I have forgotten."124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether the 'Jewish Question' deserves an article on its own would depend on whether there is sufficient amount of material to justify it. However, this 'Jewish Question' or 'Jewish Problem' needs to be elaborated in this article as there is no explanation of what it is. It leaves readers in the dark as to why the German policy makers at that time viewed the problem to such an extent that requires such drastic measures. Also the statements, if they were to cause another world war, it would lead to their own destruction , If the German people have to sacrifice 160,000 victims in yet another campaign in the east, then those responsible for this bloody conflict will have to pay for it with their lives and if the combined forces of Judaism should again succeed in unleashing a world war, that would mean the end of the Jews in Europe. Readers will be asking, what does all these statements mean? Why and how did the German authorities at that time came to view that it is the forces of Judaism that caused both world wars. The article would be more complete if these statements were explained. (218.208.212.191 07:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)).

I've changed the redirects for "Jewish Question" and "The Jewish Question" to the Marx essay On the Jewish Question. There now also exists a link to that article at the top of this one. 82.23.255.111 12:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the redirect to a disambiguation page, Jewish Question, which also briefly describes the use of the term before the Nazis, and contains links to the Marx article as well.--Goodoldpolonius2 17:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

"Jewish Question" was the term used. We have no choice but to use it - unless you would rather go in for historical revisionism, and re-write history?124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

The article is a bit repetitititious, perhaps suggesting a merge in its past... here are the start and end of the second paragraph. I'd clean the redundance up, but can someone tell me which of the figures is right? --Kizor 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Mass killings of over one million Jews occured before the plans of the Final Solution were fully implemented in 1942, but it was only with the decision to eradicate the entire Jewish population that the extermination camps were built and industrialized mass slaughter of Jews began in earnest. [...] By spring of 1942, Operation Reinhard began the systematic extermination of the Jews, although hundreds of thousands had already been killed by death squads and in mass pogroms."

"which of the figures are right" - well none of them are right, but don't let that stop you.

Yeah, I've just noticed the discrepancy in the second intro paragraph ("one million" vs "hundreds of thousands" of Jews died before the FS). The above comment was made more than 2 years ago. I am frankly shocked and dismayed that such a glaring error had been left for 2 years, and in such a subject with so much active research. And then I noticed that this entire article generally lacks citation and is filled with speculation. This does not bode well. o (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was to move this page --Lox (t,c) 20:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Final solution → Final Solution – The translation of the original German "Endlösung" should retain capitals for both words as it is a (two-word) proper noun. Thanks. David Kernow 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting

• Support correct capitalization for proper noun. Olessi 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support JonRoma 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Lox (t,c) 08:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

This didn't seem controversal, as Final Solution was already a redirect, so I moved it. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit by 204.107.82.125

This edit may be genuine "evolution=nazism" fundamentalist idiocy, but I'm more inclined to suspect a troll or straightforward vandalism. Regardless, I removed it and restored the para the IP nuked (probably by accident, but who knows). I hope I didn't void anyone's edits. EdC 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

My memory says that Endlösung was the German term for what has become known as the Holocaust. Therefore AFAIK the Holocaust was the effectuation of the ideas presentaed as Endlösung. Shouldn't we merge the two articles and describing this more accurately? Nomen Nescio 12:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nomen, please read the definitions at the beginning of both articles. Their topics are quite different. Regards, gidonb 12:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I see no difference in these statements:

• Endlösung German Nazis' plan to engage in systematic genocide against the European Jewish population during World War II.
• Holocaust the state-led systematic persecution and genocide of the Jews and other minority groups.

As I read it, and as I was taught, the Holocaust is the implementation of the Endlösung, but was not limited to Jews. Nomen Nescio 13:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for putting the definitions here. As you can see, Endlösung refers to the German government policies and only towards the Jews. The Holocaust here refers to the policy outcomes and impacts of Nazi ideology and Nazi/German/European hatred on Jews, Poles, Roma, homosexuals, communists, Jehova witnesses, disabled etcetera. The differences are threefold: the scale of the discussion (policy vs. social process, policies and mostly outcomes: the Holocaust), the affected populations (Jews vs. Jews, Poles, Roma and all others) and the geography (Germany vs. Germany occupied Europe and North Africa). Regards, gidonb 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree the current breakdown makes sense, particularly in terms of the scale of the discussion. There is plenty to say about the policies, and it's an active area of scholarly research, so it makes sense to have it separate from the main Holocaust article. --Delirium 13:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Headers

This looks a bit jumbled, doesn't it? Shouldn't we split this blob of text up into seperate sections? -raylu^T 04:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

how can you have such a gigantic quote on the page without a citation - this is why wikipedia sucks!

This article is so full of speculation that it is almost stunning in its depth and breadth. It lacks citations - it will eventually have to ignore citations - that are absolutely not available and this late in history probably will never appear. Layer on layer of intrepretive reading/hoping almost makes a reader faint. Wouldn't it be better not to have this article than to have some future young scholar see it and start to search. Make believe it is a law of nature - something we assume without proof. Trying to prove everything leaves an awfully lot of loose threads - don't tempt a young thread puller.159.105.80.141 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So much for "Final"

I want to point out that other than some Communist terrorists no French born Jews died in the time of this "Final Solution" in German occupied France. Not much of a "Solution".John celona 12:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bite me Gzuckier 14:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? What difference does it make where they were from? Who determines who are " Communist Terrorists"?Hitler? Are all of you Nazi sympathizers or Jew haters? TellittoJesus (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No decisions were made during the Wannsee Conference

I want to point out that all decisions regarding the "Final Solution" had already been made. Heydrich used the Wannsee Conference to inform the rest of the Nazi bureaucracy what was going to happen (and already happening), and warned them not to try and interfere. It is unclear exactly when the decision was made to try and eradicate the jews and other 'undesirables' but it is clear that this decision was made in spring or summer 1941 at the latest. --81.68.98.95 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Execution?

Parts of the article describes the killing of Jews as executions. Shouldn't it be considered murder? Or is the NPOV rule gone anti-semitic?--68.45.82.237 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Try a dictionary there champ, murder is the unlawful killing of another person, and execution is a state sanctioned killing. Whether you agree with Nazi ideology or not, the killings of all those people were sanctioned by the Nazi government. Calling them executions is in no way antisemitic, it's merely using the proper vocabulary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.141.250.149 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be considered murder but educated people like the person above rely too much on vocabulary. Whether state sanctioned or not what happened was murder. To simply call what happened executions is wrong. Texas executes people all the time, these are not the same things. Eradication would be a more accurate term. Or how about genocide, this is the exact reason this word was even created. The dictionary is black and white, the world is gray. TellittoJesus (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the term

The term was not coined by Eichmann during the Wannsee conference. The first time the term Endlösung der Judenfrage appeared was in an 1899 party program of the anti-Semitic Deutschsoziale Reformpartei (see Wilhelm Mommsen, Deutsche Parteiprogramme, p. 84, a German excerpt can be found on page 19 here). The program came to the conclusion that the only way to find any "final" solution would be to remove all Jews from Germany, either by forced emigration, or even by physical annihilation. On June 24th 1940, Heydrich referred to the Madagascar Plan as territoriale Endlösung der Judenfrage in a letter to Ribbentrop, and it's interesting that Himmler in his communique on the Madagascar plan dating May 1940 noted that it would be "the only viable solution if one is morally opposed to the Bolshevic method of physically annihilating a people because of it being un-Germanic and unfeasable" ("die bolschewistische Methode der physischen Ausrottung eines Volkes aus innerer Überzeugung als ungermanisch und unmöglich") which is another hint that the genocide plans were around long before the attack on the Soviet Union beside Himmler's statement to his masseur Felix Kersten in early 1940 that Hitler personally wished all Jews to be exterminated. --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

spam in "final solution"

This line is included in the article: "But then the holocaust made everyone die and the world will come to an end in 2009" in the Madagascar Plan section. Perhaps the whole section is bad. Thanks, Ledette Ledette (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mass exterminations begun after Operation Barbarossa

See the new article on Holocaust in Lithuania, where several academic sources note that the mass exterminations / new phase in the Holocaust / Final Solution began as early as in the summer of 1941 (after the German invasion of Russia). There is a discussion on talk whether that article contradicts this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Final Solution" vs. "Final solution"

There should not be a capital "s" by WP policy.--Ludvikus (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not Move it: Final Solution → Final solution

• What kind of "plan" was it? Is/was it a document prepared at the Wannsee Conference?
  • Then keep the capitalized "s."
• Or was is an expression for the unwriiten policy to exterminate the Jews?
  • The change "S" to "s."

--Ludvikus (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as not usage. Capitalize, as the Holocaust and Sho'ah are capitalized, and for the same reason: it's a proper name, meaning this phase of the destruction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved from RM:

• • Controversial. This is a proper noun. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "The Final Solution" is a proper name? Aren't you confusing it with "The Holocaust"? What, exactly, does it name, some Book or Document, a Moment in Time, what? Ludvikus (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is. The common noun-phrase final solution would be ambiguous with mathematics and chemistry. To quote the article: The implementation of the Final Solution resulted in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust. Discussion may overrule me; but there is something to discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• The original German form "Die Endlösung der Judenfrage" does not specify capitals because all German nouns have capitals. But in English the capitalized form is well established when it means the Holocaust. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"final solution of the Jewish question"

Lehrer, Stephen, Wannsee House and the Holocaust, p.143:

"Complementing the task already assigned to you in the directive of January 24, 1939, to undertake, by emigration or evacuation, a solution to the Jewish question as advantageous as possible under the conditions at the time, I hereby charge you with making all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe. Insofar as the jurisdiction of other central agencies may be touched thereby, they are to be involved. I charge you furthermore with submitting to me in the near future an overall plan of the organizational, functional, and material measures to be taken in preparing for the implementation of the aspired final solution of the Jewish question".

• That's an exact quote I'm supplying. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• Accordingly the correct exact expression that should be the title of this article is as follows:

Final solution of the Jewish question

The above should be the title of our article here. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• I got that record/document quote from the Holocaust History Project here: [1]. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not take (a translation of) German documents as determining English usage, or ours. Whether the Nazis used this as a proper name is not the question here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Military history my foot! {{WPMILHIST|class=start|German=yes|WWII=yes}}

Why is this Tag at the top of our talk page? Are we really dealing here with military history? --Ludvikus (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

{{WPMILHIST|class=start|German=yes|WWII=yes}} Removed. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. The SS was a military force; what it was doing instead of fighting the Soviet Union is a part of military history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Final Solution is a novel by Michael Chabon

That's no joke. I just discovered it. I guess you guys were unaware of it - that's why it wasn't disambiguated. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And that's one reason this page doesn't use the, which does disambiguate. There's a naming convention on definite and indefinite articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

www.shoaheducation.com or shoaheducation

Who knows what this cited site is: [2]? --Ludvikus (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• We should be careful not to stumble on holocaust denial web pages and use the here as scholarly references. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe

How exactly - on what page - is the source of the coinage (Ludvikus (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)):

    The term was coined by Adolf Hitler as
    “Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe.”
    
    The implementation of the Final Solution resulted in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust.

That's from our Page now. Can someone please Paste & Cut the alleged source of the "coinage" so we can all see it? --Ludvikus (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What did Hitler do exactly, distribute an "order" to his ministers? Or is that the title of the above authors chaper? Common, people, 6,000,000 Jews died under the "plan" - so we should not be sloppy with our language regarding what happened to them. It is customary to show respect for the dead. That is not done by Wikipedia when the language we use is sloppy and inaccurate. I want to know exactly how this "REDIRECT" is justified. Ludvikus (talk) 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Redirect. The only justification a redirect needs is that somebody is likely to type it in looking for a given article (this includes common mispellings), and that nobody is likely to type it looking for something else - in which case it is replaced by a dab header. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Die Endlösung der Judenfrage

I am not familiar with German capitalization rules. Can someone please advise us on that? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Simple. All German nouns and no German adjectives are capitalized in normal text, even proper adjectives like deutsche. (Proper names, like the names of organizations, are different; so are book titles.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That's what I thought - but I wasn't 100% certain. And in this context 100% should be sought. Again, thanks a lot. I was beginning to worry that no one was listening. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unanswered Questions

The puning concerns this cited reference

• Unanswered Questions: Nazi Germany and the Genocide of the Jews

Schocken Books, (1989)

p. 182

ISBN 0805240519

• Can someone please Cut & Paste the exact text from p. 182 here? I do not have this book. Much appreciated. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Final Solution to the Jewish Question"

• If you want to use Heydrich's expression in the lead sentence, that's OK.
• Do it like this:

• "Final solution to the Jewish question."

• But how does one justify the violation of Wikipedia rules of capitalization with the creation of the tile:

• "The Final Solution to the Jewish Question"? "Her Heydrich" was no "scholar" - is he supposed to be the authority?
• This is merely picking of a phrase from his sentence - so be accurate about it.
• Is there a usage in the published literature that turns this into a proper noun or proper name?
• Why do such implicit, effective, honor, and dignify "Ubenstumffeurer"(sic) Heydrich?
• Am I making myself clear - or talking to the wall? Please, people, it would be nice to get some other voices heard. I really want us to go by consensus, though I'm convinced of my position. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Rename as "The Final Solution?"

• The Article name should be, I now think, "The Final Solution". --Ludvikus (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

final solution for other races

I see here only final solution of jews question, but no reference to final solution of slavs (czechs, poles,etc) question - which have same effect - so exterminate all slavs - of couurse, after winning of war, in times of war, slavs are needed as factory workers. --194.108.217.125 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that the "repatriation of germans from east europe", involving a loss of some 3 million lives, is nowhere discussed as a 'final solution', since in these cases, it is the removal of people for being particular nationals, that are seen as a problem, for which their removal is a 'final solution'.

The comment that it was an 'industrialised' solution is fair: there have been many wars, etc, before and after WW2, but WW1 and WW2 (in increasing order), are regarded as being intense war powered by industrial might. By WW2, one sees the use of industrial might to settle matters, and that much more genocide would had been worse, (eg Poles by Ukraines, Russians against tartars and germans in Volga German ASSR) had the industrial processes and the event of war been at hand.

In any case, i can't see how one can substain the notion that the Holocast is something that was outstandingly evil, while ignoring the other industrial-age mass-murders.

For example, there is no cry over |Sudetanland or |Poland etc, even though the the posessionless expultion (and in case of war, murder) of the target population, is sanctioned by the laws of each country, were as every bit as industrialised with little care for the welfare or destination of those expelled from these caputred lands. The notion of 'recovered territories', and a ministry to thouroughly erase german traces as a kind of 'cleansing', bespeaks of something every bit as evil as the Nazis, and not anywhere covered by terms like 'the holocaust'.

--Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Idiot

Some idiot deleted the first few paragraphs - reinstated as per previous revision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdsearle (talk • contribs) 16:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No documentation? This looks like a fraud.

I am looking at this and wondering about the profound lack of documentation.

Are you people seriously suggesting that the Nazi left behind almost no, like zero, significant documentation on the "Final Solution"?

This looks like a historical fraud, something created out of WWII propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.214.106 (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for the Final Solution?

This article states what it was, and gives some nice quotes but completely ignores the reasons for its creation. A section explaining the ideology and need for a "final solution" are crucial for an article like this. --Львівске (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason was the perceived existence of the "Jewish question", and the need to "solve" it. Lars T. (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism had been prevalent throughout Europe in the Middle Ages. The modern movement originated in Russia and Central Europe. It was very strong in the Hungary-Austrian Empire and Germany, for example. Nazi anti-Semitism became a main corner stone of their political movement. After coming to power Hitler made it an official state movement. And it continued to be eminently serviceable as a rallying point for the Nazi party. They carried it to a higher level and made it part of the state policy.Kierzek (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was Holocaust used as term for Final Solution?

Didnt see in article or holcaust article WHY the word Holocaust was choosen for jewish genocide/ Thanks! (datedAfternoon, Mon.Oct.5th2009 21stcent.By Dr. Edson Andre' Johnson D.D.ULC>)Edsonbrasil (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Too Narrow

This article focus' too much at the microscopic level in looking at what the Nazi's did about the Final Solution. It doesnt even discuss what what the actual process of the modern techniques used in increasing the efficiency of their horrible schemes. There is nothing about the propaganda tactics used to manipulate both Jews and low level solidiers and even the rest of the world from intervening a lot sooner than they should. It didnt go into detail why the U.S. had such an isolationist attitude and even denied those trying to flee the Nazi controlled regions. What about Russia's own involvement in adding to the inhumane practices against Jews? I would like to see a more global perspective of the Final Solution. --Signed by Caleb D.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzsf12k106 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

POV

The text has unneccesary descriptions here and there, making it feel POV. Terms like "in frank and brutal terms" and perhaps even worse "industrialized mass slaughter" are examples of things that could be expressed more neutrally without losing their meaning. Obviously I'm not saying that it wasn't horrible but "slaughter" is an example of a word you use to make something feel more horrible, while something like "mass murder" is more of a neutral word in my opinion. notwist (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral? You people blow my mind. Are you one of Hitler's relatives? It should sound as bad as humanly possible because what these people had to endure was as bad as humanly possible. When will people quit trying to talk down the brutality of the Nazi's? It was more horrible, it was "indutralized mass slaughter". —Preceding unsigned comment added by TellittoJesus (talk • contribs) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly neutral, since there are many "industrualised genecide" practiced by pretty much anyone who had the mind to do it. It's just that with the case of the german/jew case, there was nowhere to export them to: that's why they set up "death factories". See also, |Poles/germans, |Chech/german, and various other |Ethnic Cleaning.--Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

2nd para

The second para:

Many historians view the Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass) as the genesis of the Final Solution as this event was triggered by the assassination of Ernst vom Rath by a 17-year-old Jewish youth.

is very problematic. It starts with an unattributed 'many historians', and asserts that they think Kristallnacht was in some way the start of the Final Solution, which is pretty definitely wrong - it was more like a 'testing of the waters' by the Nazi elite to see what reaction (domestically and world-wide) pogroms against Jews would provoke. Because it was so unfavourable, they never again incited mass violence by brownshirts and civilians against Jews in Germany, and eventually came up with the Final Solution - a totally different approach. ('Genesis' is a terrible choice of word, BTW - if it is supposed to mean 'start', 'start' should be used.)

The para then states that the reason that these un-named historians believe Kristallnacht to be the genesis of the FS is that the spark for Kristallnacht was the vom Rath assassination. Which doesn't make any sense: Do we really want to state that the FS was the result of a single assassination? I think not.

I'm strongly tempted to delete this para completely. Any objections? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

None. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Has Hitler's order been found yet?

It makes no difference to the final outcome of this human tragedy but has Hitler's order to begen the complete extermination of all European Jews been found? He stated it was going to happen if there was another world war, and many people quoted his words, but has a document been found in which Hitler gives the order that the 'final solution' is to begin? Given the Nazi/German penchant for thorough documation of everything in multiple copies one would think that if Hitler has personally given the order on a certain date that the 'final solution' begin that order would have been documented and at least one copy of that document would have survived.

I'll say again that it makes no difference to the final outcome of the 'final solution' whether a Hitler order can be documented, but since this article seems to turn up on the Main Page twice each year it would strength the presentation if a specific documented Hitler order could be cited as proof of his direct role. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC))

1st para

There's a mistake here. Hitler certainly never coined the phrase 'The Final Solution to the Jewish Question' as he didn't speak English. The two phrases should be reversed in the sentence and the English be specified as a translation of the original German, not the other way around. Grassynoel (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Early use?

An antisemitic IP editor inserted this material into the article. After I removed it it was re-inserted by an established editor:

A very early use of the term "Final Solution of the Jewish Question", was in an description of an 1899 memo to the Russian Tsar Nicholas II sent by Theodor Herzl. In his diary, describing the memo, Herzl wrote that Zionism is the "final solution of the Jewish question." Nicholas II was widely regarded as an antisemite, but Herzl was in contact with murderous antisemites including Vyacheslav von Plehve, Nicholas II's antisemitic minister, who was known to be responsible for the Kishinev pogrom in 1903.

As stated in the edit summaries, the problem with this material is that it is conspiratorial original research based on primary sources. Do any reliable sources link this use of the phrase to the Nazi policy? I've only seen antisemitic websites do so, claiming that it was "Zionists" who actually invented the "Final solution". Jayjg ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We seemed to be editing at the same time. This is what I was writing:

I put the reference back in for the record. Even though I think that it is rather irrelevant to the article, when it is pointed out that a Zionist first used the term, it may be useful to see that Herzl's meaning is rather different than Göring or Himmler's.

I don't have strong feelings about removing it, but sometimes shedding more light can take some of the piss out of conspiracies. Joel Mc (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be adding material to an article that is "really rather irrelevant" to it, per WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Nor should we be adding material here merely to debunk conspiracy theories promoted by antisemites; see WP:FRINGE. I'm happy to re-add it, though, if reliable secondary sources address it in the context of the Nazi Final Solution. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of History of the Jewish Question?

Why was this deleted from the page? I translated it from the German wikipedia page on the subject, and it's all sourced and approved there, so why can't we have this in English too? If there's a good reason, please do make it clear. Thank you.

What about the Hitler's WMDs?

I didn't find the definition of the WMDs which were built by the Nazi regime in order to implement the Final Solution. Wouldn't be interesting to have some words about that topic for completing that article?Grizouk (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Final_Solution

Moved from User tak:Antique Rose

In real live it is normal that people motivate there actions when they destroy work of others, further more your correction is way out outside the scope of the lemma. Because you are on Wikipedia it must be possible that you can read. It is original data I provide. Authentic text from original source. Pure facts. Real data. The way it really was. The how it all got to happen. Maybe Herzl needs to have a paragraph of its own as the inventor of the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Because that is what he really was. Than you can put the data on an other place and add it with something extra. The text was carefully placed in between the lines. Not prominent placed so everybody can read for itself. Wikipedia is a lie now.

The Final Solution begins with Theodore Herzl. He starts talking about it in public. It his his idea. There was no problem with Jews. The Zionists created problems for the Jews. If you read his diaries you can see that he thinks great of his invention. He is really fund of himself. Can supply you with Quotes from Herzl copy/past from his original Dairies on my desk to become convinced that Wikipedia now is less than half the truth.

Zionist leader Theodore Herzl, the soul of Zionism, is also in favor of antisemitism, against democracy, against free speech and thankful for slavery. Herzl wrote it all down by himself in his Dairies. And article in the Jewish Chronicle and papers. It also is all written down in the original protocols of the First Zionist Congress at Basel. The Wannsee conference was nothing more than the Zionist program in progress. All hard coded historical facts. The way it all really happened

So pleas re do your unmotivated editing on Final_Solution. Wikipedia looks like a propaganda machine now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roetschild (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Herzl, an anti-Semite? No. Was he the inventor of the Final Solution? No. The Wannsee Conference, a Zionist conference? No. I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 00:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your repley. You give me the impression you have not read the article good enough. It is the first publication about the Final Solution published and in his dairies Herzl states that he is the inventor. So it is relevant. Please be more like a scientist on this than just reproducing the lies that everybody is beiing told. Here you have some mind blowing quotes from his dairies:

Blz 83: It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property.

Blz 84: The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.

Blz 110: For I have the solution of the Jewish Question.

Blz 118: I believe I have found the solution to the Jewish Question. Not a solution, but the solution, the only one.

Blz 132: The only possible, final, and successful solutions of the Jewish Question requires a billion francs.

Blz 132: We shall solve the Jewish Question by either safeguarding or liquidating the fortune of the wealthy Jews. If we cannot do it with the help of the wealthy Jews, we shall do it in spite of them.

Blz 143: I have already told you that we want to let respectable anti-Semites participate in our project, respecting their independence which is valuable to us – as a sort of people’s control authority.

Blz 170: But wherever opposition may appear, we shall break it down. Everywhere we shall try it with friendly persuasion, but if need be we shall push it through by brute force.

Blz 169: I am against democracy …

Blz 170: We shall impose extensive but firm limits on public opinion

It is going on and on. Five books full of this kind of crap from Herzl, The man who invented the Final Solution. And you have seen nothing yet, it is even worse.

I think you're way off. Please, stop this nonsense! Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I think Wikipedia is a fraud now on this subject. These are real quotes from the real dairies from the real Theodore Herzl. Investigate before you tell me that I am way off. You have really no idea what really happened. How can Wikipedia ever be a good source of information if you delet the facts as they wore in real live. Herzl wanted to have antisemitism in Europe to further the Zionist cause of colonization of Palestine. It is all written down in his dairies, the books nobody read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roetschild (talk • contribs) 08:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Usage in German

I've heard German-speaking people use the term without the final "of the Jewish Question" in reference to other things (meaning the phrase "Final Solution" doesn't necessarily refer to the Holocaust); can a native speaker clarify this? Historian932 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not native German. It is not needed to answer your question because the relevant publications are in English. Furthermore the discussion about this solution was international and not local in Germany. The phrase "Final” in 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question' comes directly from Zionist leader Theodore Herzl who invented "the Solution to the Jewish Question" and stated in his dairies that it was “the final" solution. This is Herzls article from 1896 about the Solution of the Jewish Question:

In his dairies he wrote: Blz 110: For I have the solution of the Jewish Question. Blz 118: I believe I have found the solution to the Jewish Question. Not a solution, but the solution, the only one. Blz 132: The only possible, final, and successful solutions of the Jewish Question requires a billion francs.

His dairies are all about this final solution. He for instance wrote: "we want to let respectable anti-Semites participate in our project, respecting their independence which is valuable to us – as a sort of people’s control authority."

And: "It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property."

According to Herzl it was “to remove ... surplus Jews”. He uses these words “remove surplus Jews”. He also wanted Jews to shoot at each other and he (who is the founder of Israel) called Israel a “world getto”.

It is going on and on like this in the work of Herzl. The Final Solution of the Jewish Question can not be understood without reading the work of Zionist leader Herzl because he is the inventor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roetschild (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow! So Hitler, the Nazis and the German people really had nothing to do with the Final Solution, it was all the fault of the Jews after all! It's amazing, though, that Hitler would learn all this from Herzl, a Jew: are there any reliable secondary sources that make this claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are jumping in to conclusions. WOII and the Final Solution was done by a consortium of people. Hitler was one of them. The above information is from the original (first hand) source. It is reliable because it directly supports the information as it is presented. A secondary source would be all the other reliable information (sources) that is available. There are an overwelming lot more original sources that prove the fact that Zionists, Americans and the Nazi's were partners in the same crime. There is the book Hitler's Secret Bankers with evidence that Hitler got his money (twenty ore thirty million ore so) in 1929 from the FED (Federal Reserve Banks - OMG), Rockefeller and other US based entrepreneurs and organizations. There is the medallion with on one side the Swastika and the other side the Moĝendovid. The Transfer Agreement. There is the statements of Herzl about the Rothschilds that they are financially in control of the five powers and that they are an international menace. The fact that Hitler came out of the 'umfeld' of Rothschild. The fact that Eichmann joined Zionist conventions. They had the same agenda. There is so much more to tell about the final solution and the people who were key role players. The symbiotic relation between SS and IG-Farben for example. Zionism was supported by the German SS and Gestapo. The Zionists declaration of war against Germany in 1933 before Hitler implemented his anti-Jewish regulations. So yes, Hitler got his inspiration and more from the Zionists. Zionist reliance on Anti-Semitism to further their goals continues to this day. Think about the linguistic similarity between Askenazi and Nazi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roetschild (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I will ask one last time; are there any reliable secondary sources that make this claim? None of the sources you've brought qualify as a reliable source, and that's all we want here, reliable sources, not your personal theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not reliable and you are presenting a personal opinion. How reliable is reliable when the original quotes of the Zionist leaders are given where they state that the Zionists have to be allies with the anti-Semites? Read the Protocols of the Zionist Conventions. The Zionists rejected the human rights as the non chosen representatives of all Jews on earth. They were against Democracy. Thankful for slavery. There own words. There own theories. There own opinions. Zionists stated themselves before the war that is was there war to ruin Germany. Herzl writes himself that he is warned for his plan that he would cause the Jews harm with it. Five thousand pages of anti-semitism and preludes to wo2 in the dairies of Herzl. You can not understand Mein Kampf ore the Final Solution if you have not read the dairies of Zionist leader Herzl. Bet you never read those books of Herzl. Bet you never heard of it either. Before the war the Zionists were threatening everybody with war who were not with them. What I give above are all true historical facts. You can verify every bit of them by yourself. Even the Jews are telling these facts. Jews from Iraq were violently forced to immigrate to Israel by Zionists. Nobody told you that before on school. Did they? The general known history about the final solution is a blatant fraud. The book about Hitlers Bankers is authentic. The facts in it are true reliable facts. I myself have discussed it with forensic experts, it is true. And you must know that the Bush family also worked for the Nazi's. And everybody knows about IG-Farben, don't you? The deportation of the Jews by train is also part of the Zionist plan of Herzl. Read his dairies and you know that it was the Zionists who intentionally caused anti-semtism in Europa for the sake of the Holy Zionist Cause. Furthermore: it is very non-Jewish to have a Jewish State. According to the Jewish tradition Jews should live in the diaspora, because that is the will of G-d. I really think you know nothing about Jews, Zionism ore investigating facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roetschild (talk • contribs) 08:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While it is true that Herzl used the term “final solution” (to the best of my knowledge, he used the term “final solution to the Jewish question” only once: in a letter to Tsar Nicolas II in 1899) he was referring to the creation of a Jewish state to which Jews could freely go to escape anti-semitism. It is grotesque to link this to the idea of a “final solution to the Jewish question” which set out in the beginning to forcibly remove all Jews from the Third Reich, in the first instance. Joel Mc (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do people keep on repeating what they have learned wrong? Nobody thinks for themselves. The idea of removing the Jews from Europe is from the Zionists in the first place. It was there idea. The method was to induce/provoke anti-semitism. Herzl explains everything in his work. Please study on what Jews are really like and read the work of Herzl. It is a grotesque chutzpah to link the idea of the “final solution to the Jewish" only to Hitler because it is linked to Herzl. And Herzl did not mention the term “final solution to the Jewish question” only once: in a letter to Tsar Nicolas II in 1899 (!). He also mentioned it in his dairies and he is very fund of his invention. He thinks highly about himself because of it. Everybody is fooled about the facts. Why do people make it a big issue when Hitler talks about the final solution and why do people not make any rumor about the fact that the Zionists were the one who came up with the idea in the first place? They also funded Hitler and declared war against Germany in 1933 to ruin Germany. It can all be traced back to the Zionists. Anti-semitism got lesser and lesser over time in Europa after the France Revolution and Rousseau. That was a problem for the project of Herzl to colonize Palestrina. Satisfied Jews could not “yield” the Zionists “fresh immigrants”.

Herzl wrote that Zionism offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.” In his “Diaries”, Herzl stated “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.” Herzl wanted the problems for the Jews to happen. Herzl stated in his diary:

“It is essential that the sufferings of Jews.. . become worse. . . this will assist in realization of our plans. . .I have an excellent idea. . . I shall induce anti-Semites to liquidate Jewish wealth. . . The anti-Semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of Jews. The anti-Semites shall be our best friends”.

Is there more prove needed for the corruption of Zionism? Please be aware of the fact that Zionism en Judaism are not the same thing. Zionists do not represent Jews. It is a big mistake to think of Zionists as Jews. Judaism is a religion. Zionism is a political ideology of infidels. Judaism forbid Jews to want to have a Jewish State. Zionists collaborate with Nazi's and induce anti-semitisme to get a world ghetto for Jews. Do you get it? Herzl called Israel a world ghetto and he was against everybody who did not support the Holly Cause of Zionism. Please do your home work. There is so much more to know than the blatant lies that are being told in history class. --Roetschild (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Roetschild, please review WP:NOTAFORUM. Wikipedia is not interested in your conspiracy theories. If you have any reliable sources, please present them. Otherwise, do not post here. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewd WP:NOTAFORUM. You wanted reliable sources. I give you reliable sources. You apparently do not want to know the reliable sources: hard coded data from the reliable sources. Wikipedia is a lie now. We do not want our Wikipedia to be a lie. Do we? I want to discuss how to improve articles on the final solution and you do not even want to get in to the data. You give your own personal opinion that you prefer over the reliable sources. You even think that you add something to Wikipedia by calling the reliable sources a 'conspiracy theory'. That is very much against what Wikipedia stands for. Comes in to handy does it, to call the things that does not recognize the reliable sources you think you know a conspiracy? Easy way of getting ride of the truth these days with all those conspiracies. Santa Claus also does not exist. Hope you are aware of that fact of live. Go ahead with propaganda, be as stubborn as you can be.--Roetschild (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to improve the article final solution without chancing everything and without people thinking that Wikipedia is in to conspiracies. It is a fact that Herzl made important contributions to the discussion about the final solution. He can be quoted from his dairies, his letter and article in the Jewish Chronicle as the first who came up with the idea. He himself writres in his daries that he invented the final solution of the Jewish Question so Wikipedia can respect him for that. --Roetschild (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As explained already, Herzl's diaries are a primary source. What you are proposing is original research. For the last time, you must provide secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. Only that. If you instead post your personal views here again, you will be blocked. That's very simple. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrorable Bias

The discussion of this final solution out of its context is to repeat the conditions that made it happen. The general context is that because so many people died in the process, that a great amount of evil was involved, and collective guilt should be dealt out and with. This was much of the rationale of what happened after the war (which is nowhere addressed here).

Such things have been happening for a long while. The trans-atlantic slave trade, for example, was fuelled by persons displaced by assorted ethnic clearing in the west of africa.

In essence, one might suppose that some sort of problem or blame is to be laid out on some kind of people. (In the Jew's case, the root cause is that they killed Jesus). For that reason, one then supposes that these people are then 'sub-human', and ought be treated as such, for example, disconnecting them of their place in society, taking their possessions and places, and treating them as stateless beings. Then comes the filtering out of these people from society, and transporting them elsewhere. Of course, once one dumps people elsewhere, they become some-one elses problem.

The germans, having no elsewhere to dump them, had little other choice than to kill them.

One might note that the relative racial purity of countries like poland and the czech republic is exactly as examples of this, even down to the use of the 'final solution' metaphor. In these cases, the final act was trains of displaced people leaving places like prague and stettin, headded for other countries, where they might be unloaded much as one unloads coal. Poland, for example, managed to unload the entire portion of its Jewery, inherited in part from Czarist russia etc, by exporting them.

It is as every part to say, that the removal of minorities from these countries, from Russia, and other places, is every bit a 'final solution' as being presented here. In many cases, these were supported by the allies, and for this reason, one does not see any reference to 'guilty parties' etc in the 'expulsion of the germans from east europe', although there were indeed such.

While one sees the details of the various death factories ran in poland, one does not see any sort of refence to say, katlyn, where the bodies of 'displaced victims' are piled twelve deep.

In terms of the evil involved. Once one decides these victims become sub-human, the treatment of these victims become not much different to other livestock movements, be it the trans-atlantic slave trade, or russian prisioners heading for siberia, or british convicts on their way to australia, or jews heading for poland, or minorities expelled from eastern europe.

In short, the processing is not much different to the bulk killing of animals in abbitiors, or the sort of justification that one can wander around in Castle Wolfenstein killing what might come.

More over, the presentation seems to imply that the work is result of germans only, rather than many other nationalities who also had similar hatreds against the jews, but not the necessary will to undertake this.

I am no apologist for this event. Yet, to ensure that it does not happen again, we must not treat it as an isolated event. The means and methods existed for many people to do this, and even to this day, there are various events of this scale (cambodia, armenia-in-turkey, the kurds in iran, etc), where this activity goes without glance, because we are focused on this event in isolation.

And it is very much because this event is examined in isolation, that the allies let equally terrible events to happen.

Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider this from [Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia_during_and_after_World_War_II|Czechs] In the months following the end of the war "wild" expulsions happened from May till August 1945. Czechoslovak President Beneš on October 28, 1945 called for the "final solution of the German question" (Czech: konečné řešení německé otázky) which would have to be "solved" by deportation of the ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia.

It includes 'final solution', without necessarily considering it that the population be killed. 'Final solution' here as elsewhere means removal of the offending population. We do not, for example, see a parade of guilty people for this, and the common excuse given of 'collective guilt' is exactly what anti-semeticism is based on. That is, that the expulsion of people by the allies, say, by abandoning people at the railway stations at Munich and Hamburg, is pretty much identical a crime as those of the Nazis, yet it serves no good for allied historians to render their soldiers and polititians in the same light as the germans.

What is happening here is that the final solution of the Jews is being looked at in isolation. The idea that the 'final solution' ought mean death etc, and even by the history of the Jewish question, the question never really meant death until they ran out of places to deport. None of this is given prominance. Nor, say is the willingness of peoples of other countries to cooperate with the Germans.

Part of the problem in first, capitalising "final solution" here, and secondly supposing that it means something different to every other occurance of "final solution", is precisely the sort of stuff that goes on to make this sort of thing happen, in the past and in the future.

And, for repeating this structure in isolation, one is making exactly the same conditions that caused the problem in the first place: terrible crime + collective guilt = need for a final solution.

So what I am saying, is that this should be treated as any other event in the second world war: either there should be listed "Guilty parties" in the other events, or more likely, that the notion of "guilty parties" be removed from here. It is really more akin to what happens when progroms happen on an industrial scale. Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Definition Final Solution

I just read an original document about the final solution, which is published in the corresponsing German Wikipedia article. It is a letter of Goering to Heydrich dated July 1941.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carta_G%C3%B6ring.JPG

It says: "In addition to the task you received with the order of January 24 1939 to solve the Jewish question by emigration or evacuation in a manner feasible according to the temporal circumstances, I hereby command you to make all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish Question in the German sphere of influence in Europe." The original German says: "In Ergänzung der Ihnen bereits mit Erlaß vom 24.1.39 übertragenen Aufgabe, die Judenfrage in Form der Auswanderung oder Evakuierung einer den Zeitverhältnissen entsprechend möglichst günstigen Lösung zuzuführen" Now, the words "in Form der" describes how the Judenfrage (jewish question) was to be solved. This means that on January 24, 1939 it was decided to make the Jews emigrate or evacuate them. The order of July 1941 does not deviate but confirms the command. According to my understanding this means that the Nazis hadn't decided to kill all the jews in July 1941. The decision must have come later. So the meaning of the term "final solution" must have changed in the course of time. The present Wikipedia article does not really discuss the way the decision was made historically. Therefore, I suggest to include this document and its implications in the present article of the final solution. Ogbla (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior use of the term

I once encountered the term "final solution of the Jewish question" in the 1927 Encyclopedia Britannica, in the article on Palestine. Obviously nothing to do with the Holocaust, but relevant nonetheless if this article ever gets an etymology or "Origin of the term" section. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

WP successful at complete genocide

The Holocaust really needed the invention of another name, Porajmos: apparently, this article commits the most complete genocide of even the Roma that managed to survive the Endlösung. Further reading e.g. Sabo
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-31 06:43 (UTC)

Jews were not the first to be taken into the extermination camps: talking about 'final solution' without remembering Gypsies is absolutely immoral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.122.226 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

"to" or "of"

I always thought it was "Final Solution to the Jewish question" instead of "of." A Google search on both versions of the complete phrase in quotation marks turns up: "of" 631,000, "to" 523,000, on Google Books "of" 75,900, "to" 24,500. Thus "of" wins, but by not a huge margin. The original German doesn't help since there's no preposition. I'm not proposing to change it, but just wondering if we need a mention of the alternative and if someone knows more about this. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting finding. I'm not sure what bearing or relevance it has on the actual title and paper itself, presumably none? Could it be a translation or language error, which has just been repeated? Perhaps as you say, since it's been repeated so many times, it deserves a mention on the page and there should be some clarification of which is the correct literal translation in English, just for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.148.50 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"The original German doesn't help since there's no preposition." There is a preposition - kinda. "Der" is a feminine genitive. And genitive is always translated as "of the". So the original German would indicate that "of" is correct after all.93.208.53.210 (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Functionalism vs intentionalism

The section on origins is very weak, but I found that the issue is treated more thoroughly in the existing article on functionalism vs. intentionalism, so I've added a brief intro and a link to that article, which should be helpful to readers. --Tbanderson (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Herzl's use of term

I have already commented on this as follows: "While it is true that Herzl used the term 'final solution' (to the best of my knowledge, he used the term 'final solution to the Jewish question' only once: in a letter to Tsar Nicolas II in 1899) he was referring to the creation of a Jewish state to which Jews could freely go to escape anti-semitism. It is grotesque to link this to the idea of a 'final solution to the Jewish question' which set out in the beginning to forcibly remove all Jews from the Third Reich, in the first instance. Joel Mc (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2011 Joel Mc (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Proof "Final Solution" Meant "Systematic Killing Of Jews"

There is lack of reference or link to a primary source supporting the first statment of the artical:

I quote the artical: The Final Solution (German: Die Endlösung) was Nazi Germany's plan and execution of the systematic genocide of European Jews during World War II, resulting in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust.

"Final Solution" used in a letter is not evidence of "Nazi Germany's plan and execution of the systematic genocide of European Jews"

It would be greatly appreciated if this primary source would be established to back up the claim that these two ideas are indeed connected. I'm very curious to know the evidence people use to draw this connection.Kinuke (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This is because 'Final Solution' elsewhere does not equate to 'systematic killing'. See, for example, this use in by the Czechs regarding Germans in sudetanland. Expulsion_of_the_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia. In para 2, it explicitly states 'final solution to the ... question'. In practice, the concentration on the Nazi's crimes were in part to hide a large number of crimes effected by the allies between 1945 and 1948, largely sanctioned by the US and UK. Very few accounts of world war 2, in europe, go past potsdam, while people living in east europe did not see any reason to rejoice in the manner of the west. It's not unless you start poking your nose in here that you see something every bit as horible as the nazi programs.

What makes the Nazi-killings so large, is what made WW1 and WW2 worse than other wars: total war on an industrial scale. Because the expulsion of the germans was sanctioned by the allies, we get cases where people involved on the german/jew process are still being hunted down, while the pole/german or czech/german or pole/ukraine or ukraine/pole or russian/pole or whatever, largely goes unnoticed. Katlyn was every bit as horrible, where bodies were burried twelve deep, but goes largely unnoticed. Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

This sentence below uses a quote from "historians" at an organisation in the United States called United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It's presented as a statement of fact, without any reference to who said it. This suggests a high degree of bias on this page as this sentence appears in the first paragraph of the page:

The Nazis frequently used euphemistic language to disguise the true nature of their crimes. They used the term 'Final Solution' to refer to their plan to annihilate the Jewish people.”

Furthermore, the assertion that the term "final solution" was a euphemistic term to conceal a German government intention to mass murder Jews, is somewhat implausible given that there is a substantial amount of historic evidence to suggest that the Nazi's had made many attempts to separate, segregate and finally, relocate the Jews, from Germany and then Europe completely, before they reached the "final solution". Look at the German title to the paper again and read it carefully:

Die Endlösung der Judenfrage

In English, this translates to:

The final solution of the Jewish question

The sentence ends in "question" which suggests this was a topic of some discussion and debate, and had not been decided up until this point. We know from historic evidence that this was indeed the case. The German authorities tried a number of approaches and implemented a number of different policies for dealing with the Jews in Germany and later, Nazi occupied areas of Europe. If this article wishes to be unbiased, then it must present credible evidence to support the notions being asserted, namely that:

The Nazi's had a plan to annihilate the Jewish people, and this was their real purpose even before the "final solution" paper was published, and the wording of the title and the document, was intended to deceive readers into believing that the Germans did not have such a plan.

Even if such evidence is available, how then, would this article deal with the previously mentioned historical evidence (which is widely accepted as historical fact) that the Germans did try a number of different approaches and policies for dealing with the Jews. One of these policies pursued was the old idea of resettling the Jews on the island of Madagascar and establishing a Jewish homeland there for them. For further reading and historic evidence of this plan see the Madagascar Plan, detailed on this very site. According to the sources referenced on this page, the Germans seized upon the idea of a Madagascar Jewish homeland settlement and introduced it as official Nazi policy in 1938. The page also states that it continued to be promoted as Nazi policy in 1940. This, and all the other policies and previous approaches used by the Germans, would seem to contradict the notion that the Nazi's had planned all along to annihilate the Jews.

Here's the problem. This article seems to be attempting to present history in a way that is biased and not accurate according to how actual events occurred and unfolded in Germany and Europe, because it just makes assertions that are not supported and which are contradicted by other evidence known to anyone who has read history.

eg: How did the Nazi's go from a supporting a Jewish resettlement and homeland on Madagascar (which is obviously a humane policy and shows they cared about the fate of the Jews) to one of annihilation and "industrialized mass slaughter" to quote the term used on this article? This seems a very drastic change in policy in a very short space of time.

Since this is obviously a topic of such important and huge historic dimensions, surely this gap or disparity between the dramatic shift in policy merits some discussion on this page. Evidence should be presented showing when, how, and why, the Germans changed their policy so drastically towards the Jews and so that readers can understand the reasoning behind the "final solution".

The answer to these questions and the link is on the Madagascar Plan page, which is directly related to the British and French involvement in the war with the Germany, British naval resources, and ultimately, control of Madagascar. Yet strangely, there is not a single link to the Madagascar Plan page, nor any mention of it on the Final Solution page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.148.50 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

"How did the Nazi's go from a supporting a Jewish resettlement and homeland on Madagascar (which is obviously a humane policy and shows they cared about the fate of the Jews)..."

Seriously? If you are going to accuse an article of being heavily biased, perhaps you should avoid giving away your own rather significant bias by making completely absurd arguments like forceful expulsion to a radically different environment, like oh say being forced to go from Berlin to 1940s Madagascar, is somehow "humane" or shows that the German government "cared about the fate of the Jews." I mean come on, taking away a person's possessions, stripping them of everything they know and forcing them to live in what would be for them an incredibly hostile environment is something you would describe as "obviously a humane policy?"

That aside, given that the plan didn't include any real measures to provide proper shelter or basic living standards to handle the environment of this new "homeland," forceful exile to a place like 1930s/40s Madagascar is tantamount to a death sentence. It would be insane to think that dropping off Europeans, most of whom were accostomed to living in an urban environment, into an environment like Madagascar without any real provisions would result in anything other than the death of said people. The only "shift in policy" from the Madagascar Plan to the Final Solution is going from indirect murder to direct murder. It's really not that big a policy shift. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.140.197 (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have recently posted excerpts from Himmler's speeches at Posen in 1943 that show unequivocally that the final solution was a euphemism for the extermination (not deportation) of the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.41.218 (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The Madagascar plan was absurd. Madagascar was chosen because it was an island that could be more easily secured as a de-fecto prison/ghetto than an area on any of the major landmasses, because it was deemed large enough to accommodate the number of people involved, and because it was relatively isolated in terms of its distance from Europe and North America. No thought was given to the wishes of the indigeneous Malagasy population regarding this "population transfer" -- or the ecological impact of dumping several million people there. This, of course, presupposes British collaboration with the deportation, since as the dominant world naval power, Britain controlled the sea route to Madagascar. So those who advocate the Madagascar plan are essentially arguing that Britain should have made peace with Nazi Germany, or avoided fighting it altogether, so as to allow the Nazis to deport Europe’s Jews to Madagascar. Those who advocate the Madagascar plan do not, of course, consider just how many of the Jews would have perished on the voyage to Madagascar or after arriving there. They are also advocating that Britain and other be complicit in the Nazi's genocidal plans towards Slavs.

And it was not as dramatic a shift as you imply. The Nazis had begun murdering Jews in Poland from as early as September 1939, and the ghettoisation of Polish Jews was essentially a slow form of extermination. The mass murder of Jews in the Soviet Union was already well underway by the time of the Wannsee Conference of 1942. Ana Radic (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Change ref to Hitler and term of final solution

There obviously is quite a difference between "Hitler encouraged Jews to leave Germany and its occupied territories by any means available..." and a policy of expulsion. I don't have access to the Furet reference, but it is very dated and Browning is one of the more recent authorities on the issue. No where do I find that Hitler himself termed it "the final solution of the Jewish question". There is of course no doubt that: "In the long evolution of Nazi Jewish policy to the Final Solution, Hitler had been of course not only ‘‘champion and spokesman’’ but also the necessary and pivotal decision maker."Browning, p. 428 More work needs to be done on this entry.Joel Mc (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where you're going with this but this post looks like one which a "history revisionist" would make. Anyway, as you can see at the top of the article, the Final Solution was "Nazi Germany's policy to annihilate the Jewish people". Case closed. -Shalom11111 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical revisionism is not a dirty word, it is a fact of life - as more documentation and evidence presents itself, then historians adjust their views.

I am a historian, and for someone to tell me I cannot look into a particular area of history and search for new sources/documentation/evidence then I will question to logic of such a brick wall.

No one is saying no persons of an ethnic Jewish background did not die, what we are trying to debate here is whether the 'Final Solution to the Jewish Question' implicitly refers to using extermination camps to murder millions.

Of course I accept millions died, but do not dare to stop natural human instinct of uncovering the motives and facts, or you pay credence to tin-foil-hat wearing types the world over. 135.196.94.75 (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC) FW

Hilberg, Browning's The Origins Of The Final Solution, & Operation Barbarossa as prelude to Holocaust

The historiography section does not mention Raul Hilberg or Christopher Browning. Hilberg's The Destruction of the European Jews is widely regarded as the foundation for serious historical study of the Holocaust. [3] So I have added a summary of that book's analysis.

Browning's book, The Origins Of The Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939-March 1942, (2004), has been called "the definitive work on the road Germany took toward the Final Solution during the crucial first three years of the war.". [4] [5] [6] I am putting some of Browning's analysis into the article. Browning argues that the Final Solution as a systematic plan to exterminate all the Jews in Europe crystallised during a 5 week period, 18 September to 25 October 1941. During this time: the sites of the first extermination camps were selected, different methods of killing were tested, Jewish emigration from the Third Reich was forbidden, and 11 transports departed for Lodz as a temporary holding station. Browning writes "The vision of the Final Solution had crystallised in the minds of the Nazi leadership and was being turned into reality." (p. 424)

There is a section titled "Prelude: Holocaust in Lithuania and GG Galicia". But Browning and other historians of the Holocaust have described the entire invasion of the Soviet Union, Operation Barbarossa, as the event that radicalised Nazi policy towards the Jews and became the road to the Final Solution. Browning points out the crucial move from killing Jewish men and political commissars to killing women and children took place in Gargždai, Bialystok, and Lviv, and that the largest single massacre of Jewish women and children before the end of September 1941 took place at Babi Yar, Kiev. So I shall widen that section to address the full context of Operation Barbarossa. Mick gold (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Euphanistic use of Jewish.

Jewish, is an euphanistic use of a change in form of the word You (acousticly similar to Jew), and includes all and every instance of that what could be a You. This relationship includes warlord styles where the individual is a passerby that is unknown or not a resident of the area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.189.225 (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Global plan

Can the final solution be said to be a "global plan"? wasn't the purpose to eliminate Jews from Europe?Royalcourtier (talk) 07:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

January 24, 2016 overhaul

Now that I've reorganized the article by putting things in the right order, making factual corrections with references, improving the clarity of meaning, the WP:MOS formatting, and English grammar, I'm beginning to ask myself how this particular article should be different from The Holocaust and the Wannsee Conference articles; otherwise, they would start overlapping. Both "the Holocaust" and "the Final Solution" refer to the same chapter of World War II history to the extend of being almost interchangeable in our postwar historiography. I believe, this article should not be describing the actual events of the Holocaust but rather its quote-unquote "mental" architecture. Please give me some feedback. Poeticbent talk 19:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Poeticbent. I've had a quick look at your work and you have improved the article and also the citations. In general terms, I agree that this article should be about the origins and the systematic implementation of the Final Solution. Most of my knowledge of this process comes from Browning's and Hilberg's books. These historians describe how the Final Solution was devised intellectually and then implemented logistically. The perennial question "How/when did Hitler decide to exterminate the Jews?" continues to fascinate. So the article does well to outline the main stages of that process, and how the historiography has shifted since Hilberg first addressed the topic in 1961. Mick gold (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

German pronunciation

Learning German as my second foreign language, I was taught Germans pronounce [k] at the end of words ending with -ng. Well, you know, even in parts of Britain they do. Check it out, somebody... Lincoln Josh (talk) 15:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have never heard of this and can't imagine why that would be taught. Maybe I'm missing something. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

History again

This is the main problem with Wikipedia, amateurs cutting and pasting from books. Not academics who should by the nature of their PhDs be undisputed experts in the field.

Half this article is a mish mash with wrong assertions. Operation Reinhard the most lethal phase of the Holocaust was put in to effect through a verbal order from Heinrich Himmler to Odilo Globocnik in October 1941. But this article would have us believe that Wanassee was the pre-cursor to the "final solution".

Wanaseee was arguably more like a middle-managers briefing meeting with actual events already taking pace. Operation Reinhard, which began in Oct 1941, gets just a brief mention and ridiculously is supposedly referenced to say it started in July 1942 - a whole 10 months later than it did.

This article needs a full rewrite to change the emphasis give the killing phases of Operation Reinhard concurrency to before and after Wanassee. Before Reinhard there were killings, massacres and arbitrary murders but Reinhard was the pinnacle of the final solution when the victims (who were mostly Jews but also included Gypsies, Slavs and Poles).

This article gets it so wrong. Buy a book and read some real properly researched history. 81.129.127.243 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out aspects of this article that can be improved. I have edited the accounts of Operation Reinhard and the Wannsee Conference (note spelling!) to try to give greater precision to the article. Your criticisms of this article are perhaps a mite exaggerated.

Historians disagree about when, or indeed whether, a formal decision was made to begin the Final Solution to the Jewish Question. But this article clearly summarizes Christopher Browning's argument: "The Final Solution as it is now understood—the systematic attempt to murder every last Jew within the German grasp" took shape during a five-week period, from 18 September to 25 October 1941, when the sites of the first extermination camps were selected, and different methods of killing were tested. During this period, Browning writes, "The vision of the Final Solution had crystallised in the minds of the Nazi leadership and was being turned into reality." The article states: "The construction work on the first killing centre at Bełżec in occupied Poland preceded the Wannsee Conference by three months."

The Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942 is usually described by historians as Heydrich asserting his authority over the implementation of the Final Solution. In David Cesarani's words: "The simplest, most decisive way that Heydrich could ensure the smooth flow of deportations was by asserting his total control over the fate of the Jews in the Reich and the east, and by cowing other interested parties into toeing the line of the RSHA". Moreover, the construction of the Polish extermination camps Nazi extermination camps in Poland, including Belzec, began after the mass murderous activities of the Einsatzgruppen following the start of Operation Barbarossa on 22 June 1941. As the article points out, at a conservative estimate, 800,000 Jews had been killed by the end of 1941—primarily through mass shootings. Mick gold (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Usually, I don't respond to personal opinions by IP users (per above) making claims without any new references to back them up with. I don't think our article gets it wrong, and I don't think it needs a second rewrite. I rewrote it already between 29 January and 14 February 2016 by adding (16,212) of academically supported content. However, because Mick gold already responded, after editing the article, I now see that some clarifications need to be made. The phrase "Operation Reinhard" can be understood in two different ways. That's because of how the English grammar works! "Operation Reinhard" can be seen as the top-secret plan devised by Nazi Germany, as well as its European-wide murderous implementation which took place some time later. Both popular uses of this code-name are correct. "Operation Reinhard" (as an idea) was began in October 1941. At that time, no killings of Operation Reinhard took place. The killings began at Bełżec extermination camp on 17 March 1942; Sobibór extermination camp was ready by April 1942 when Bełżec was already operating. Treblinka extermination camp became operational in July 1942. This is what all leading Holocaust historians confirm. The killings of Operation Reinhard began in the spring of 1942. I'd like to ask you all to please note the semantic difference between the English phrase "Operation Reinhard" in relation to action planning on the one hand, and concrete actions on the other. Chełmno extermination camp was not a part of Reinhard.

Heydrich's vans were in fact only one of three different gassing technologies being tested and developed in September and October of 1941. A second, involved the testing of Zyklon B in Auschwitz, while the third involved preparations to transfer the technology and personnel of carbon-monoxide gassing (using the newly tested engine exhaust however, rather than bottled gas) from the euthanasia institutes in Germany to stationary gas chambers in Poland. — Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution.

Poeticbent talk 15:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)