Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

edit semi-protected

I'd like to post a translated version of the Nuremberg Laws. The translation was obtained from OldSin at http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=59074 and I created the image by blanking out the German.

File:Nuremberg laws - English Translation.jpg

English translation of the Nuremberg Laws.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nuremberg_laws_-_English_Translation.jpg

Not done:Forums are not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Mdann52 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is biased

At some point it says "Saul Friedländer writes that: "Not one social group, not one religious community, not one scholarly institution or professional association in Germany and throughout Europe declared its solidarity with the Jews."[18] He writes that some Christian churches declared that converted Jews should be regarded as part of the flock, but even then only up to a point."

Which is completely not true as there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Righteous_among_the_Nations_by_country and in particular: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Righteous_among_the_Nations says that Polish resistance had a special division solely responsible for helping Jews.

I do not see why such a strongly untrue statement should not be rationalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacek2 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is and there's even more biased "facts" than that. People read a book and get all sad and must get on here and let lose their emotions, because a lot of this stuff is simply untrue about the Wehrmacht. Hannibalcaesar (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

And Saul Friedlander is a Jew, so I don't why he's even concluded in this article because of course he is going to be biased because his people were the Bulwark of those who suffered. His statement, as you said, is completely false and probably needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannibalcaesar (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a completely nonsensical argument. If you follow that, we cannot accept American history from Americans, or French history from Frenchmen, or history of slavery from African-Americans, and so on. The statement is attributed to a highly regarded historian. And mentioning Righteous among the Nations completely fails to address Friedländer's statement. He is not talking about individuals helping, but about organizations declaring solidarity. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole above argument by definition is biased which is pretty ironic... Ckruschke (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Righteous among the Nations status was given to several organizations, not individuals. "Resistance" that is Home Army is an organization. I am thus afraid that this gives a good counterexample to the mentioned statements. The statements are really strong (usually there are counterexamples for "noone" "everybody"). However it is true, that _generally_ Jews were left alone, as helping them was penalized by death (at least in Eastern Europe). But there were organizations that helped them, and thousands of individual. This should be pointed out in the article, as this is an important point of view. Without it this comment gives a true information which is totally misleading.Of course claming that the opinion is biased because it is given by a Jew is ludicrous. Every opinion on history is biased by definition. (I am Lacek2, just too lazy to search for a password).--87.207.43.94 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm no holocaust denier. I'm just trying to say that pointing fingers at all German society and most German military personal, as this article seems to do, is not the right way to approach the issue.Hannibalcaesar (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This article points finger not only at German society, but also on Dutch, French, Polish... (Lacek2)

It is legitimate to ask whether this assertion is helpful or even notable enough to be in the article. After all, what exactly does "declared its solidarity with the Jews" mean? What do you have to say to "declare solidarity"? And what exactly is Friedländer referring to? Is he referring to the Holocaust itself, which took place in the middle of an all-out war when expressions of "soldarity" were pretty much either redundant or suicidal (in Germany). Or is he referring to pre-war antisemitic legislation? If the latter, that should not be confused with the holocaust. Kristallnacht was very widely condemned, but again, one might say that condemnation is not the same as declaring "solidarity". This is where the difficulty of this statement lies. The wording is slippery. It sounds clear and definitive ("Not one social group..."), but actually it could mean almost anything. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed, that Baltic countries are united as one in table with killed jews(by Lucy Dawidowicz). Why? I mean why later editors did blindly copied data, but didn't make new table based on source? I don't see the point there and I really would like to see each country as separate, because there is no real use for this data - and it is also misleading especially for people who can think only in single direction. There is completelly different situation in Estonia, where most of jews fled to USSR, different situation in Lithuania where most of jews were killed also because of proximity of German border and Latvia in the middle.

Also note the fact, that all of USSR occupied territories Baltic states, part of Poland(Western Belorussia, Western Ukraine, Bukovina - maybe more) and part of Romania(part of Moldavia known as Besarabia) had received the same fate of oppressions, mass killings and deportations(Finland luckily escaped this happy reunion of borders of Russian empire, by successfully resisting advance of Red Army, but loosing some territories), that were made by abnormally high percentage of JEWISH national NKVD&co(some people call them also CK - anyway all who are responsible) repressive agents WHO DID ORGANIZE MASSACRES AND EXPULSIONS in occupied territories in 1940 and who really didn't suffer fate of the rest of jews who vanished or survived in Holocaust, but did their job by commiting crimes of country, that was ally of Third Reich and therefore can not share status of victims and really shouldn't be included in any of tables as the survivors of Holocaust!!! And as a matter of fact there were jews who collaborated with NKVD and who coexisted in the same time and space continium with others who didn't wanted to cooperate with them - let's not judge ANY nation by the worst elements and let's not make stupid assumptions, that jews formed uniform ethnicity - there were religious jews, along with comunists and there were jews, who blended with locals - as a matter of fact my ancestor was catholic jew and not comunist, but suffered the same fate as others who were killed, only his wife and children escaped to leave neirotism in next generations.

This is unique fact, that does not appear in Holocaust theme - do you really think, that local people who lived side by side with jews(who were expelled from different Europe countries in previous centuries) and suffered together oppression from germans and Russian empire and organized together first resistance to Russian empire and nurtured together idea of national state(including the idea of jewish state in Israel) as a RIGHT OF EACH NATION TO BE INDEPENDENT just went frenzy, because they were bigger antisemites, than the rest of Europe(including Germany) who sent jews to extermination camps in eastern Europe and Germany? This is really sad event, where group of zealous murderers in blind rage helped nazis, but really there is no right to accuse or justify whole nations because all nations under nazis HAD collaborators for different reasons.

As a backstep in history there were 450 000 jewish soldiers in Russian empire army in WW1 - that is huge number and that later made core part of Red Army and jewish people HAD most top positions in all organizations till the Great Purges. After Great Purges NKVD had ~97% of russians in top positions, and in that light this is really strange, that there were so many low level rank NKVD agents of jewish ancestry, who were sent to USSR occupied territories to massacre and execute expulsion of local people(including local jews) at the same time preparing to attack Germany. It would be similary as germans used nongermans to exterminate others(not only jews, but also 9000 villages of belarussian) - oh wait, they did the same... Unluckily for USSR, Germany attacked USSR sooner, than USSR wanted to attack Germany and Holocaust in eastern Europe was a gift of USSR to a Third Reich - it is simply unbelievable, that SUCH LUCK exists! And interestingly enough Germany and USSR were allies, before Germany attacked USSR. I really mean Russia as USSR - it was always been legacy of Russian empire - gulags were nothing new - they were called catorga, also ethnic cleansings and oppressions were common in empire, same for secret police - all the same, just different names.

Returning to my initial question - there is enough data to give numbers for each of Baltic country from respective wiki pages of Holocaust theme of these countries. Well, THANKS WIKI - I really was fooled all these years, because I thought, that more jews were exterminated and not many escaped, but I modified table in this way:

Country | before USSR occupation/before Nazi occupation / "saved" by Siberia| estimated killed | % from all pre-war / % from Nazi occupied Estonia | 4 300 / 1 000 450 | 1 000 | 23 / 100 Latvia | 93 479 / 60 000 ~6 000 | 56 500 | 60 / 94 Lithuania | 208 000 - 210 000 * 4 000 - 7 000 | 195 000 - 196 000 * | 92 - 94

• Lithuania is uncertain case - does this number includes Vilnius, that was part of Poland at that time? Also numbers from wikipedia is just dull - even if we take demographics data from 1925 it seems, that jews demographic skyrocketed in Lithuania - that can't be true, except if there were many refugees prior ocupation by USSR. Some sources give jewish population number at least 30k lower, than in table(my table data is based on wiki page Holocaust in Lithuania) - anyway final % should not change. Also, if comparing with total number given for Baltic, seems, that jew number in Lithuania should be between 168 000 and 188 000. There is surprisingly low number of jews, that retreated from Lithuania with Soviet army, when Nazis advanced. However there were some number of lithuanian jews, who fled to Latvia because they were living near border and later were killed by Nazi there(my ancestor who was originally from Latvia, was living in Lithuania and fled back to Latvia with bike together with all family). Well, the fact, that there were number of lithuanian jew fugitives in Latvia really dissolve the current trend in wikipedia, that try to prove, that lithuanians started killing of jews, before germans arrived. Could be true, as a cases of killings, that actually took place, but it was certainly not a mass scale killings of jews by lithuanians everywhere - Nazis really needed police help there.

Germany at that time had reoccupied Klaipeda region(as a part of Molotov-Ribentrop pact), that helped to advance almost simultaneously into both Latvia and Lithuania, so it seems to me, that killings of Lithuanian jews went the same path, by forming police batallions, who helped germans to exterminate jews and it is almost impossible to imagine, that lithuanians would make any independent decisions.

   Latvia was accepting jew refugees, that were fleeing from rest of Europe till end of 1938(well, germans did start to kill jews a bit later), because half of goverment were(ok, I'm exagerating, but some key positions were taken by) jews there at that time. Do not know about other countries of this buffer-zone if they did accept jew reffugees.

Note: difference before these occupations includes jews, who fled to USSR, when Nazi army advanced. Also some of that includes jews, who as some of todays russian "historian" says were "saved", by sending them to Siberia... o.O

I do think, that there should be same table entries for rest of USSR occupied territories(West Belorussia, West Ukraine and Bukovina, Besarabia), because percents killed do not match there already in each separate country and it would give view on USSR role of jew fate in these territores - also to note the difference from rest of Europe, who didn't suffer 3 occupations of 2 undemocratic regimes. USSR was expelled from Nations League, because of attack on Finland - they were prepared the same fate, because of aggreement of Molotov-Ribentrop between USSR and Third reich.

PS I blame for Holocaust germans. For pogroms - russians. They know why. Interestingly enough latvians comparing before and after WW2 suffered the same % of people loss, as did jews, if taken account of total jews in the world and compared to total latvians. I really justify my statement on the basis, that nazis killed first jews, then gypsies, then christians - it wouldn't stop with jews(so Holocaust is NOT really only about jews - it is really about germans and what they intended to do with nongermans and not proper behaved germans, too) and before russians, germans were biggest enemies of latvians and had a long running feud of 700 year long oppression and russians in WW2 did there a Great Job, to change that. And USSR really didn't do anything different than Third Reich there - banished whole nations from their native countries - some of them suffered the same casualities with 40-60% loss of people.

---

sorry for such a long entry - but I'm really fed up about current trend of interpretation of history and that includes even jews, who have lost ability to see the Big picture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.13.70 (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Definition of the Holocaust (yet again)

I have already pointed out above that the term "morally bankrupt" is clearly a POV and really has no place in such a discussion. When I was teaching Philosphy, albeit many years ago, at the very begining of the course, we examined the distinction between descriptive statements and prescriptive (normative) statements, or in lay terms between "is" and "ought". Using the definition of the Holocaust is a descriptive statment based on the use of the term today by a vast number of scholars (you only have to look at a shelf of books in the German history section of any library to get see this.) Scholars use the term today to distinguish the mass murder of Jews from other Nazi mass murders because there are important different characteristics of each of the mass murders, i.e. there is a difference between anti-semitism and anti-slavism, not to "forget the suffering of other groups". To lump all together makes it more difficult to understand what actually happened. It has been repeated over and over again in this discussion that the label used by historians is descriptive and not a judgement about more or less suffering by the different groups that were murdered by the Nazis. Nevertheless, the confusion between "is" and "ought" seems to keep rearing its head. I don't know what all the "Agreed"s above mean, but to make it clear, I do not agree to changing the definition that we have.Joel Mc (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be resolved by the use of a request for comment on this talk page, with advertisements at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. (Hohum ^@) 17:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough Joel, how about a compromise? The article should reflect exactly why the word is almost exclusively used to describe the treatment of Jews, and does not generally include non-Jews.

It should explain why the term is only used to refer to atrocities perpetrated on the Jews, and why it doesn't include the equally atrocious treatment of other groups.

Otherwise we are going to continually have this problem ad nauseum.

There are of course many things that led up to their extermination that did not occur for other groups who were exterminated in the exact same manner.

The article maybe should reflect that generally other groups, despite being executed in the same manner, weren't forcifully sent to Ghettos etc.

Otherwise, as has been mentioned despite the current in vogue treatment of the word, it is morally bankrupt to discriminate between similarly treated groups of humans, suggesting other groups do not qualify for being included in what is termed the Holocaust.

Again, the question that caused me to come to this talk page in the first place was the fact after reading the article I was left asking-

If the Holocaust happened to Jews only, and that comparable millions of non-jews were also systematically murdered in genocide, is the 'Holocaust' worse than Genocide? Why is the word Holocaust only used for describing the Jewish genocide?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany" v. "Germany"

The article brings ample evidence that the Holocaust was an official policy and set of actions by the nation of Germany. To refer to every state action as "Nazi Germany" diminishes this fact. It would be like referring to Britain's actions in WWII as "Conservative Britain" or the USA's entry into the war as "Democratic America". Rather, the term "Nazi Germany" should be restricted to references to the historical period, such as "Otto Dov Kulka, an expert on public opinion in Nazi Germany" - his expertise is on German public opinion during the historical period of the Nazis - i.e. Nazi Germany. In contrast "Various laws to remove the Jews from civil society, most prominently the Nuremberg Laws, were enacted in Nazi Germany years before the outbreak of World War II" should be rewritten as "Various laws to remove the Jews from civil society, most prominently the Nuremberg Laws, were enacted in Germany years before the outbreak of World War II". These didn't happen in Nazi Germany - they happened in Germany. Narc (talk) 05:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Case in point, there was no "Nazi occupation of Hungary" - it was a German occupation. Etc. Narc (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The goverment of Britain in the war was not "Conservative", except at the very beginning. It was a coalition of all parties during most of the war. The Nazis were not just a party who happened to be in power at the time, within a democratic system, like the Democrats in the US and the Conservatives in the UK. They were an ideological and social power that dominated and permeated the nation. In that sense it is approproate to say "Nazi Germany" in the same way that it is to say "Soviet Russia", or more precisely, "Soviet Union". Paul B (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Or the way we talk about the Weimar Republic or the Federal Republic of Germany. I agree with Paul on this one. --John (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Soviet Union" was the name of the country so it is appropriate. There was never a country named "Nazi Germany". Any time a country acts, we refer to the name of the country by itself, unless, as stated in OP, we are referring to a particular historical period in that country. Was it "Democratic United States" that led the D-Day invasion? Who committed the Nanking_Massacre, "Imperial Japan" or "Japan"? Who dropped the A-bomb, "Democratic America" or "America"? By labeling actions of the German state "Nazi Germany" the article seems to break the standard parlance of wikipedia and therefore limit the scope of Germany's state actions and therefore definitely violates NPOV.Narc (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"The article brings ample evidence that the Holocaust was an official policy and set of actions by the nation of Germany."

I feel this is somewhat confused. It is the politicians who formulate policy, not the nation. The politicians do not constitute the people. ColaXtra (talk) 14:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the Nazis had an overwhelming support in Germany and there's no point pretending otherwise. --Lysy^talk 16:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's difficult to judge what people really think in a dictatorship, but even if that's so, it does not alter the argument for using "Nazi Germany" or "Nazis" when it is most appropriate. Paul B (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a finely nuanced area and I do understand the OP's point. We don't tend to make such a difference when discussing 1940s Japan or Italy, although arguably we should. Nevertheless, we go with the sources, and my feeling is that the "Nazi" usage predominates in the sources. --John (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That logic is true if the original sources uphold Wiki standards of NPOV, which they do not necessarily do; in fact, on this point, they arguably use the term "Nazi Germany" in order to diminish the implication of national German guilt, which was/is a politically sensitive topic (and therefore not automatically NPOV!) See what I wrote above in reply to John and please respond to that argument.Narc (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, just wanted to add in reply to Lysy and Paul: the popularity of the Nazis is not the issue here. They were the party in power, but the actions described in this article were not actions of that party, they were actions of the sovereign state of Germany, period. Why would you want to soften that fact by saying, in effect, "well, it wasn't really Germany, it was only Nazi Germany". Hey, it wasn't America who dropped the A-bomb, it was Democrat America. It wasn't Japan who attacked Pearl Harbor, it was Imperial Japan. It wasn't "the British pursued the policy of rounding up and isolating the Boer civilian population in concentration camps" rather the British Empire. If you are going to claim that "Nazi Germany" is the correct NPOV then you're gonna have a lot of editing to do...Narc (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As I say, we go with the sources. I understand your point but I disagree with it. --John (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That's your only response to my NPOV argument, that some sources use the title "Nazi Germany"? Yet some sources indeed use the more neutral "Germany", such as Murderous science: elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others in Germany and Modern Anti-Semitism in Germany (to cite just two from the article). So based on your reasoning, the "sources" are not definitive, and therefore my argument stands, unless you have a better argument than that. And please don't tell suggest going with a "majority" of sources because that is unknowable. You also cannot claim that the titles of the sources are more definitive than the prose within the sources, and we simply don't have that information. Therefore your "sources" argument is inconclusive.Narc (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok. It seems we disagree then. --John (talk) 20:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a very forceful argument, John... you didn't even respond to my main points. Please note, others following this thread. John's chief argument to keep "Nazi Germany" is because "my feeling is that the 'Nazi' usage predominates in the sources". I've already rebutted this argument without a substantive reply from John. However, I have subsequently reviewed the article's sources, and it turns out that the vast majority of sources (10) prefer "Germany" over "Nazi Germany" (only 3 sources). So even according to John's "sources" argument, the term "Germany' should be used and my original edits re-instated. Unless anyone has a better counter-argument.

Using "Nazi Germany":

• Friedländer, Saul (2007). Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of Extermination
• Peukert, Detlev Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition and Racism In Everyday Life
• Gellately, Robert (2001). Backing Hitler: Consent and Coercion in Nazi Germany

Using "Germany"

• Müller-Hill, Benno (1998). Murderous science: elimination by scientific selection of Jews, Gypsies, and others in Germany, 1933–1945
• Gramel, Hermann "Modern Anti-Semitism in Germany"
• Shulman, William L. A State of Terror: Germany 1933–1939
• Berghahn, Volker R. (1999). "Germans and Poles 1871–1945". Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences
• Evans, Richard J. In Hitler's Shadow: West German Historians and the Attempt to Escape the Nazi Past
• Peukert, Detlev "The Genesis of the 'Final Solution' from the Spirit of Science" pages 274–299 from Nazism and German Society, 1933–1945
• Captured German sound recordings", The National Archives.
• Benz, Wolfgang (1999). The Holocaust: a German historian examines the genocide
• William W. Hagen (2012). "German History in Modern Times: Four Lives of the Nation
• Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, p.45: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II. (...)

(Note: The forgotten black victims of Nazi Germany, Voice Online, Feb 16, 2009 issue 1359. - uses "Nazi Germany" to designate the historical period, as per my main argument.) Narcissus14 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Would like to re-iterate for all - a very good analogy to the Holocaust is the Nanking_Massacre, where the article (and most sources) follows the correct NPOV to refer to the state actions of Japan, not "Imperial Japan", even though the state known as Japan was then under the grip of a specific ideology known as Imperialism. Indeed, modern Japan's difficulty in coming to grips with this event might be helped if they could simply say, that was "Imperial Japan" and not "Japan", just like modern German consciences have been somewhat settled by referring to "Nazi policies" etc rather than the more accurate "German policies".Narc (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your reply.

"the Nazis had an overwhelming support"

Careful: the Nazis never won a majority of the vote. Also I would say that the work of Ian Kershaw famously calls the majority German attitude, with regard to what the Nazis were doing, "indifference". ColaXtra (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

True but his appears (from the article) to be a minority opinion. Also, in the parliamentary system, the lack of a majority vote isn't usually relevant, as it works on the basis of coalitions. In parliamentary terms, the Nazis won power fair-and-square, they did not seize power by a coup. I believe that is the relevant distinction.Narc (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"the lack of a majority vote isn't usually relevant"

I feel that it is relevant here, since the statement was not "the Nazi coalition government had an overwhelming support", but the Nazis. If the Nazis could not win a majority of the vote, I do not see an objective basis for claiming they enjoyed "overwhelming support". To the best of my knowledge, the only evidence that exists for it comes once the Nazis had secured an iron grip on the country. This result, for example, is from 1934, and was announced by the Propaganda Ministry—not exactly convincing. Furthermore, I feel that suggesting the coalition government enjoyed "overwhelming support" is not tenable either, since the coalition were still far short of even the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution. Finally, while the Nazis may not have seized power by a coup, there remains the matter of the subsequent Machtergreifung. ColaXtra (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I hear your point; but a few observations: (1) the level of support in 1934 did not necessarily have anything to do with the level of support for the Holocaust of 1939-45. (2) If what is being disputed in this sub-thread is the term 'overwhelming' then I would possibly agree with you, that may be too strong a term, certainly debatable (it's not my term) (3) The fact remains however that the article, while presenting multiple POVs, does favor the view that the Holocaust which began in earnest 5 years later was conducted by all levels of the state and a complicit society. It was a social movement, a gigantic collective effort, not the work of a minority of renegades. It should be hard for anyone - German or Jewish or other - to swallow this idea that an entire country could become caught up in such evil, but if that's the history, then the article should reflect that as truthfully as possible and not distort it with misleading euphemisms.Narc (talk) 05:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Narc, I'm not super fussed one way or another. Perhaps we could springle each of the terms—Germany, Nazi Germany, the Third Reich—thoughout the article. Perhaps a way to suit all parties? ColaXtra (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I too don't think we need to be soup nazis about it (sorry, pardon the really inappropriate humor) but rather than randomly sprinkle this term and that throughout the article, how about someone actually go through it and use what seems like an appropriate term at an appropriate time, in order to keep the article well-written and adhere to NPOV? (which is sort of what I tried to do originally so maybe I'm not the right person for the task)Narc (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, be my guest. ColaXtra (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

"the Nazis never won a majority of the vote": it depends where. In Prussia they did. In many areas well over 70%. Also it gradually increased and in the late 1930s German enthusiasm for Nazism reached its climax. How many Germans would not support annexation of Sudetenland or Austria, or starting WWII in 1939 ? Check the results of 1938 elections. Only later, when Germany started to loose the war, the support started to drop but remained present in Germany even after 1945. --Lysy^talk 06:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I feel that the context of the discussion was the German public as a whole, and I feel Prussia cannot be used to infer conclusions about the whole. The 1938 elections cannot mean anything. I think my favourite is the 1936 voting: 98.9% for the Nazis. Almost as believable as Saddam Hussein's 100%. ColaXtra (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding German support for the Holocaust, a recommended reading can be the classic Hannah Arendt's position: "Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil". --Lysy^talk 08:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

NSDAP was allied with DNVP and in elections they won over 51% of votes together. DNVP was a nationalistic, anti-semitic party as well, but more orientated to ideals of aristocracy and monarchism. Jake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.170.143 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

German civilian awareness / complicity

The article states in an attempt at balance, "Most historians claim that the civilian population was unaware of the atrocities that were carried out, especially in the extermination camps, which were located outside of Germany in Nazi-occupied Europe." This is an unreferenced statement. I doubt that it's true. How do we know what "most historians" claim? How about citing even one historian who claims this? I didn't outright delete the sentence because I don't know enough to say it's false. But without at least one reference, I suggest it be deleted. --Narc (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this sentence should be removed unless somebody comes up with a reference justifying, "Most historians". I am presently far from my U Libe, but an example of a number of historians and studies indicating the contrary position can be found in Hitler's War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment (War and Genocide)by Rolf-Dieter Muller, Gerd R. Ueberschar, pp 238-40 Joel Mc (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

-everyone who trolls on wikipedia should be in the holocaust ten times over. -me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "most of historians" is not sourced. Furthermore some relaible historians seem to have an other opinion on this question. Among others Peter Longerich with his book "Davon haben wir nichts gewusst!", where he shows that most of Gemran population was clearly aware of the mass-murders that were organised on the East front (in view of the the whole Wehrmacht) and more or less guessed the existence of the extermination camps. Apparently Longerich's book has not been translated into English. --Lebob (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the people who lived nearby definitely knew the concentration camps, and perhaps even the extermination camps, existed. I'm curious though, did the vast majority of Germans(those living in cities) also know of there existence? Probably not, though I haven't read anything to the contrary. In sum, I agree the following reference is worth adding - Hitler's War in the East, 1941-1945: A Critical Assessment (War and Genocide)by Rolf-Dieter Muller, Gerd R. Ueberschar, pp 238-40 should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. I think that reducing knowedge of the Shoah down to knowedge of the camps is not very helpful. Two points need to be made here. First, the vast majority of people in Germany did not know of the death camps in Poland or elsewhere during the war. However, that is not the same thing as being ignorant of the Holocaust. Officialy, Jews were deported for "resettlement in the East". Most Germans had no idea about where the Jews were actually going, but it is clear that most were vaguely aware that there was no "resettlment in the East", and instead the Jews were murdered, even if there were ignorant of the actual places and methods of murder. Take the White Rose group in Munich-a group of university students with no friends in high places or access to special information who were certainly well aware judging from their pamphlets that their government was committing genocide, even if they were a bit hazy about some of the details. Incidently, that proves how ridiculous Albert Speer's claim to be ignorant of the Shoah was. Strange that a cabinet minister could be less well informed of what his goverment was doing than a group of students with no access to state secrets.

Second, reducing knowedge of the Holocaust down to knowedge of the death camps totally ignores the Einsatzgruppen. Contrary to what countless Wehrmacht generals and apologists have tried to claim, the Wehrmacht was massively involved in the massacres of Jews in the Soviet Union. Almost every single German soldier who fought on the Eastern Front knew of the massacres committed by the Einsatzgruppen, and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers witnessed the killings. The fact that German Army generals had to keep on issuing orders to their men telling them not to photograph the massacres of Jews speaks for itself. And that is not even considering that leading commanders like Manstein, Reichnau and Rundstedt to name only a few, issued statements to the men under their command justifying the massacres. Even if a German soldier did not see or hear about the massacres, they would heard the Severity Order read out to them by their officers, which spoke of the "harsh, but just punishment of Jewish sub-humanity". Given that millions of German soldiers fought on the Eastern Front, not only did the Army know of the Einsatzgruppen massacres, but so did most people back on the home front as well.

My suggestion would be to re-write that sentence to say that through most Germans did not know of the camps, they did know 1) of the mass shootings in the Soviet Union and 2) were aware in a general sense that people being deported for "resettlment in the East" were murdered. --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have changed "most" to "some" for now, seemed liked the simplest solution without complicated re-wording.Narc (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reconsidered this sentence and now feel it needs to be simply deleted. First of all, it's unreferenced. I'm not sure there are ANY historians who would agree with it. Second of all, the sentence is actually quite misleading. There was not a single "civilian population". There were civilian populations all over. How about France, where 95% of the Jews were shipped off to extermination? Historians (cited in the article) HAVE shown that the genocide in France and Hungary and elsewhere could not have been successful without the willing participation of civilians. Were there some civilians who were unaware? Undoubtedly. But Robert Gellately's scholarship is so forceful - does he have any significant detractors? It's just a poor and unsupportable generalization as written. In light of this, and all of the comments above, I believe we have sufficient consensus to delete, and will do so.Narc (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Peter Longerich's book: Davon haben wir nichts gewusst! has not been translated yet into English, however David Vickrey provides an English translation of Longerich's conclusion:In der deutschen Bevökerung waren generelle Informationen über den Massenmord an den Juden weit verbreitet.(General information concerning the mass murder of Jews was widespread in the German population.) Vickrey Joel Mc (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Books

Do people have objections if I pull out the books cited in the article to their own section and then use {{sfn}}s? Would make the cites less bulky, and save some duplication. Just a suggestion, I'm happy to do the donkey work. ColaXtra (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The duplications are burdensome, I think that this would help if you can do it!Narc (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that I don't understand what this means? Could you give some examples or point to a site where this has been done.? Thanks. I am against duplication, but sometimes its removal can make extra steps in checking references.--Joel Mc (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Joel Mc. For example, you can see the layout of the citations and bibliography for Operation Bagration. If you edit the article, you will see that the <ref></ref> have instead {{sfn|...}} instead. It just looks tidier, and saves multiple full cites of each book/article, all of which are done once in the bibliography section. ColaXtra (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Finland in annihilation by country table

Wondering about the table with header "The following figures from Lucy Dawidowicz show the annihilation of the Jewish population of Europe by (pre-war) country" since it notes that 22 Finnish Jews would have been annihilated while the context links this to Holocaust. Problem with this is that as per previous comments on this talk page - Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_26#Edit_request_23rd_August_2011 those 23 (not 22) died in service while fighting against the Soviet Union. Not as victims of persecution or Holocaust. What i also find peculiar is that if i follow the link to the article which according to citations is used for the table it does not note any Finnish Jews as victims of Holocaust. So what is the rationale behind the inclusion of the Finnish Jews who died in service in to the table? For that matter if servicemen are to be included then why only Finnish servicemen are included and not for example for British Jews? - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Good Article

Once I've finished fiddling with cites, which won't be long now, will people be prepared to either help out, or watch over me, getting the article up to 'Good'?? ColaXtra (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Invalid redirection

Trying to access 'Holocaust' redirects to this page. Should it not go to a page about holocausts, rather than redirecting the reader to a page dealing solely with one particular holocaust? kimdino (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

? ColaXtra (talk) 17:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

see the top of the article page: "Holocaust" and "Shoah" redirect here. For other uses, see Holocaust (disambiguation) and Shoah (disambiguation). cheers. Cramyourspam (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Then, the entry “Holocaust” should be the disambiguation page, and this page here should be renamed. It is neither didactical neither neutral to mislead that the word “holocaust” means primarly the jewish genocide. There were other holocausts as well. 85.241.133.47 (talk) 16:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that this page would more appropriately be renamed "The Jewish Holocaust". There have been many types of holocausts, and not differentiating it gives the impression that there was only one. This detracts unfairly from all of the other holocausts, and weakens the word itself. ie. "Nuclear holocaust", etc. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

See The Holocaust#Etymology and use of the term. Singularity42 (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing the lede

1. Made the distinction between proper nouns and common noun as there seemed to be some confusion in past discussions. 2. Replaced unreferenced discussion about etymology with referenced explanation. 3. Replaced Britannica reference with Snyder reference. One should avoid referring to other encyclopedias if a scholarly reference is available. 4. Replaced Huffpost ref with Dawidowicz, who is a scholar. 5. Added second reference on Romani issue, Niewyk's chapter is from 2012 6. Rewrote third lede para: no real evidence of a "most common definition" before the 1960s, corrected total figures of Nazi mass murders in light of more up-to-date info.Joel Mc (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Like it. ColaXtra (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nazi genocide or the Holocaust

I've noticed that Colaxtra has been going through this article and replacing "the Holocaust" with "the Nazi genocide." I am confused as to the purpose of this. They are both the same thing, but the Holocaust is the name of this article and is the more commonly used form. --Jethro B 19:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree: "the Holocaust" is a proper noun which today refers to the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis. Genocide is a common noun and it is even more confusing when it is argued that the Nazis carried several genocides, i.e. the genocide of the Jews, of the Roma, etc. Historian Timothy Snyder perfers to use the term "mass murders" and thus the Holocaust refers to the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis. Over the past much of the confusion in this article has been generated by a misunderstanding of the difference between a proper noun and a common noun. I must admit that in the flurry of edits, I missed the changes.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Having taken a closer look, I find that there are apparently only three places where "Nazi genocide" appears to have replaced the Holocaust, and only two seem to be inappropriate: 1. In medical experiments section which clearly refers to the Holocaust, 2. In the Romani section: Himmler is usually referred to as the architect of the Holocaust. In the third case in the East slavs section, it might be clearer to say the "Nazi mass murders".--Joel Mc (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the "going through" bit. I certainly recall using Nazi genocide once purely because I felt it fitted better in that context; other than that, I use the term Holocaust just the same as everyone else. Based on a far from complete reading, Henry Friedlander seems to prefer Nazi genocide over Holocaust (I can give you my guess as to why), but, like I said, I use the term Holocaust unless there is some particular reason not to. ColaXtra (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant to add, if you don't like using the term at all, ever, just whip out any places where I've put it in. Here is the example I remember: "Another distinctive feature of the Nazi genocide was..." I chose to use Nazi genocide because the sentence was in a comparative context (with other genocides); using the word genocide, I felt, just makes that comparative setting explicit. You don't need to, but that was my thinking: here we are talking of the Holocaust as one genocide being compared with others. Just my thinking, please feel free to revert me if you don't like it. ColaXtra (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

And this one—"Heinrich Himmler ... regarded as the 'architect' of the Nazi genocide..."—was simply due to the source being called (you guessed it) Himmler and the Final Solution: The Architect of Genocide. ColaXtra (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Cola, I apologize if there was any malice in writing "going through," that is not what I meant. I've only started watching this page a few days ago, and I've noticed it a few times in a few days. If that was incorrect language, I apologize. Thanks for explaining though why you chose it in those cases. --Jethro B 23:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! Better for you to call me on something that concerned you and me give you an explanation you are happy with, than for one editor to not challenge another with something then sneaking in under the radar, so to speak. ColaXtra (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nazi or German Genocide is accurate I believe. Holocaust is a general term. I believe there is importance to attaching Nazi's or Germans, including Hitler, for responsibility of genocide. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini

I believe adding information on Mussolini's and the Italian Army's resistance to the deporation of Italian Jews by the German Army would be beneficial to the article up until Mussolini was deposed in 1943. However, Mussolini and the Italian Army massacred the Slavs. This needs to be mentioned also. I request to add a segment on the Italian opposition to Jewish deportation and the massacre of the Slavs. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Italian Rab concentration camp. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Gypsies

The lede does not mention that 250 (250,000) Gypsies were murdered during the Holocaust. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Correction: the Romani people are mentioned in the lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of corrections - I think you'll find that the accepted figure is at least 250 thousand Romani murdered, possibly over a million - I assume your first post is a typo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, 250,000 is correct. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What belongs in the lead

I removed the material from the lead because material does not belong in the lead unless it also appears elsewhere in the article. WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, not a stand-alone repository for the facts deemed to be most important. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 00:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. See also WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

On 2 December Somedifferentstuff twice added material which was replaced over a month ago (24 October 2012). There is an explanation for the replacement on the Talk page (24 October 2012). Problem doesn't totally disappear as the outdated figures found in Niewyk, Donald L.; Nicosia, Francis R. (2000), reappear in the section Victims and death toll, which confuses murder victims with the Holocaust victims (I know of no serious historian who includes the murdered Jehovah Witnesses as Holocaust victims for example) but that is for another day.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Longerich has a new book, Longerich, Peter (2010). The Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280436-5. I hope to use it to do some serious re-writes of this article once i am done my current project. The article is nearly double the recommended length. Some of the sections need better sources. The quotation by Mommsen is really long and not very enlightening considering its length; it's got to be removed or paraphrased. And so on. An ambitious project, eh? Stay tuned. -- Dianna (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Terminology: Soviet / Ukrainian

The article talks about Ukrainian police (Babyn Yar, etc.) but of Soviet POWs and Soviet losses. Either call the police "Soviet police" or separate out the numbers of POWs who were Ukrainiand (and the number of Ukrainians among the Soviet losses). To do otherwise is a practice of questionable integrity, even if it is accepted practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zajchyk (talk • contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Italian and Japanese involvement

What is missing from this article is Italian and Japanese involvement of the Holocaust. I have already mentioned Mussolini protecting Jews at the same time keeping them in concentration camps. Mussolini, however, persecuted the Slavs. The Japanese interred Jews in Indonesia during WW II. Remember Germany was an Axis Power. The Holocaust was a world wide event. This is important. Not to mention the Japanese treatment of the Chinese. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to BE BOLD and add that content. Ckruschke (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I'd rather you didn't. The article is nearly double the recommended length as it is. -- Dianna (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking large edits here, but I believe the readers need to understand that Germany was part of an Axis power base. Jews were interned by Italians and Japanese. Recent research on Jewish internment by the Japanese needs to be added to the article. What is certain is that Hitler and the Nazis were heavily influencial in a world wide Holocaust. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like it might be a good addition. What all have you got for source material? Would you have any objection to posting a proposed edit here on the talk page so we can all talk it over? -- Dianna (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have information on the Italian internment of Jewish people. Mussolini interred Jews but he did not torture or execute them, as Hitler had wanted him to do. The Japanese internment of Jews is new to myself and there has been a recent study. I would have to find more information on Japanese internment of Jews. My idea is to mention this in a seperate section. I believe the Japanese were more cooperative then Mussolini on Jewish internment or may have taken direct orders from Hitler. The Italian Jews were taken to German internment camps after Mussolini was disposed. My whole point, I suppose, is to draw into the article that the holocaust was world wide and that the Axis powers worked together to intern Jews. Mussolini, however, kept the Jews from being transfered to German held territory while he was in power. Cmguy777 (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust is the mass murders in Europe by the Nazis and some of the people that they controlled. Although the Axis allies of Germany, Italy and Japan, both had committed mass murder, (i.e. Italy in Ethiopia 1935-1936 and Japan in Nanking, December 1937) there is little evidence that they participated in the mass murders of the Holocaust. The initial internments in Indonesia were of all Europeans, Jews and non-Jews. There is some indication that after 1943, some people in Indonesia were interned because they were Jews. However, they were not murdered nor transported elsewhere to be killed. While there was some anti-semitism in Japan, it was confused and apparently not wide-spread. (See Accusations of Japanese antisemitism). See also an interesting description of the Jews in the Shanghai Ghetto. Until recently, it was the general belief that Mussolini did not accept Hitler's racial theories, was not anti-semitic, and that he and the Italian Army resisted handing over Jews to the Germans. (see: Mussolini andJews during the Fascist era). However, a recent book by an Italian historian has raised some questions about these views. Daily Telegraph ReviewEnglish translation 2007 The Holocaust really was not world wide, but was purely European and carried out by Europeans. Internment of Jews does not a holocaust make, it is really about murder and extermination. Joel Mc (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. You have to understand Hitler and his master plan. Had he won WWII, he would have exterminated all the Jews in the earth. Living in a concentration camp is no picnic and the point is that Jews were seperated from other groups. This article can't rely on one Italian historian opinions. If Jews were interred by the Japanese and Italians then this needs to be in the article. The Jews or any minority group were under the threat of death if they escaped. Even in the good old U.S.A. thousands of Japanese were interred under the threat of death. Holocaust is a general term that implies Jewish internment, torture, and death. The Axis powers were worldwide and Hitler wanted to rule the world believing Germany was an eternal empire. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No link to Nazi concentration camp badges?

I'm sort of surprised that given the references to the triangles in the individual subsections on groups such as Homosexuals, that the only link I can find to Nazi concentration camp badges is in the Holocaust template. While I could be bold, this is an article that I'm sure has a great deal of watching by experienced wikipedians and would like opinions.Naraht (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe a section on camp badges would be appropriate, since there is a whole article written on the subject. The Germans used psychological warfare on their victims. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Holocaust" versus "a holocaust"

My understanding is that this article is about "The Holocaust" or the "Shoah". The lead states that: "The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt")[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory.[3][4] Of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust, approximately two-thirds were killed.[5] Over one million Jewish children were killed in the Holocaust, as were approximately two million Jewish women and three million Jewish men.[6][7]

Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition,[8][9]... (then goes on to talk about "holocausts").

While it is appropriate to mention the other groups in the lead in the context of the wider use of the term "holocaust", the content of this article needs to be re-focussed on "The Holocaust", which basically includes only Jews. Given there are scholars that argue for the two aditional groups to be included, it is appropriate (IMO) to include a summary style section on the mass murder of Romani people with a (main) template linking to the Porajmos article, and a separate section covering the mass murder of people with disabilities. The rest are "a holocaust", not "The Holocaust", so unless scholarly sources can be located that explicitly argue for the inclusion of those groups in "The Holocaust", that content needs to be moved to appropriate articles. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"The Holocaust" was a specific series of events conducted by the Nazi regime and based on the ideology of the party as formulated mainly by Alfred Rosenberg. Therefore (a) groups within the borders of Germany and (b) groups that were specifically mentioned by the party (Nuremberg Laws, Final Solution etc.) should be included.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 10:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The article in its present state sits at about 18,000 words. This number excludes material in info boxes, quotation templates, tables, and citations. As you may know, the current guideline calls for a maximum article size of about 10,000 words. I propose that the material on the various groups that suffered persecution be removed from this article as a way to focus the content and reduce it to a manageable size. Any material that does not already appear in the related articles regarding the Nazi persecution of these groups could be merged into those articles. The marker recently placed by Peacemaker67 down to the end of the section is approximately the material that would would be removed, if this change is undertaken. The article would be reduced to about 14,705 words of prose, which would be a good start in getting it down to the recommended size. -- Dianna (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously I agree with such a change, with the exception of the current subsections on Romani people and people with disabilities as noted above. The Romani subsection could be trimmed a little and treated as a summary-style section. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe the focus on this article needs to be on the Jewish Holocaust, however, not to include the Romani or Slavs would be potentially misleading. The term Holocaust is a Greek word that article is titled "The Holocaust". I believe focusing only on the Jewish holocaust would deminish the slaughter of millions by Hitler and the Nazis. A seperate article that focuses only on the Jewish Holocaust titled Shoah could be written. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not being proposed that Romani or people with disabilities be removed from this article. The sources cited in the lead of this article define "The Holocaust" or "Shoah" (the subject of this article) as including the German mass murder of Jews, with some authors including the two groups I mentioned initially. For some reason a lot of groups that aren't included in the definition of what this article is supposed to be about have been added. I have not seen a reliable source that includes the mass murder of Slavs and others than those mentioned above as part of "The Holocaust". Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that once there's sections at the bottom of the article, people add additional groups of victims because they don't want any group to be forgotten or ignored. It's certainly not that anyone wants to diminish or disrespect the suffering endured by any one group. It's become problematic, though, as a lot of the material is duplicated elsewhere in the encyclopedia, while this article has grown to an unmanageable size. I noticed also while doing copy edits that there's duplicate material throughout that needs to be found and pruned out as well. Yet there's also a lot of information missing about the causes of the Holocaust; factors such as the impact of the German loss in WWI and of the disatrous hyperinflation of the 20s and people's fear of Communism (which was linked to Judaism in some people's minds) are not touched on, and we will need to make room for at least some of that stuff. We might be better off eliminating the sections at the bottom and integrating some of the material into the chronology in a limited way. The structure of Longerich's book is good, and might be a model we could follow here. He pretty much covers events in chronological order, integrating events that occurred in various nations and to various groups of people into the time frame in which they happened. -- Dianna (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that approach. I have no interest in minimising or ignoring any people's suffering, my interest is in focusing this article on its subject and bringing it within the article size guidelines. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Minimizing/mentioning/ignoring of "suffering" shouldn't even be an issue under consideration. Our efforts should only be focused on writing a comprehensive article about the Holocaust. That being said, the Holocaust was a series of events undertaken by the Nazi Party based on a mixture of ideological racism and Realpolitik(14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Ukrainian) was a predominantly Slavic group). Not all groups that were persecuted during WWII by Axis forces belong to the Holocaust. Their persecution was mostly plain old ethnic cleansing with WWII as a background and the "injustice" of WWI as an ideological pretext.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 01:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi policies toward different ethnic groups were closely connected. Heinrich Himmler stated openly before the German invasion of the Soviet Union: "It is a question of existence, thus it will be a racial struggle of pitiless severity, in the course of which 20 to 30 million Slavs and Jews will perish through military actions and crises of food supply." The Soviet Union had lost 25-30 million people in World War II. The first use of Zyklon B in Auschwitz was on 600 Soviet soldiers and 250 Polish prisoners. Of course, it was a mixture of ideological racism and Realpolitik. Jewish Ghetto Police helped to round up fellow Jews for deportations, Indische Legion (which included Indian PoWs captured in North Africa) became part of the Waffen SS, the Germans also recruited anti-Soviet Ukrainians and Bosnian Muslims, etc. Tobby72 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Cmguy777.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? Would it be possible for both Cmguy77 and Antidiskriminator to specifically comment on the proposal to begin trimming the article down to a more manageable size by removing content at the bottom that is duplicated in other articles and transferring any non-duplicate material to the articles about those specific groups? That's the issue currently on the table, and I would like a firm answer before the work begins. -- Dianna (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• If you wanted a firm answer you should leave a talkback tag on Cmguy777's and my talkpage.
• I am afraid that your comment contains loaded question. The issue here is not "trimming the article". The issue here is Peacemaker67's and your struggle to change the context of the article about Holocaust to be focused on Jew victims. ("the content of this article needs to be re-focussed on "The Holocaust", which basically includes only Jews"). You know very well my opinion about your struggle because I wrote it at Holocaust template talkpage and at noticeboard discussion which you participated at (diff). Victims of Holocaust were murdered because Fascists separated them from other people. I can't support proposal to again separate Jews or any other victims of Holocaust from other people, especially not in Holocaust article. If this article is to big per wiki standards then I think the proposal of Cmguy777 (to create a separate article about Jew victims of Holocaust) is the best way to resolve it. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• And you "can't support that proposal" based on what reliable scholarly sources exactly? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My intention was going to be an attempt to raise this article to a Good Article standard. So my question was an honest one, not a loaded one at all, as there's no way an article of 18,000 words will pass GA. I therefore will be postponing the proposed GA attempt indefinitely and returning the books to the library. -- Dianna (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa: I was delighted that you decided take on improving this article to a GA standard, agreed with your approach, am disappointed that it will be postponed, and am not surprised at what has happened.Joel Mc (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa's proposal above using in particular Longerich, (and perhaps, Snyder, and Saul Friedlander to supplement) I do believe that the idea that this would minimise or ignore the suffering of other groups is a bit of a red herring. For example, burying the description of the mass murder of the Roma in this article gives their suffering less of a profile than simply linking to the extensive article on the issue at Porajmos. This issue has been discussed already many times, for example: "The most important thing for an encyclopediest is not whether the proper noun "The Holocaust" should or should not refer only to the mass murder of Jews, but how it is actually used by historians and scholars. I have listed above major ones who overwhelmingly use it to describe only the mass murder of the Jews. Not one of thoses listed uses the term to minimized the suffering of victims of the other Nazi mass murders and some of them (i.e. Snyder) have written extensively about other victms of the Nazi mass murderers.Joel Mc (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2012" (UTC)Talk archive--Joel Mc (talk) 12:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I am pasting my response to the DRN request submitted by Tulipsword here so my points are explained in this forum.

"Essentially I agree with Dianna, and would be amused by Tulipsword's serious case of WP:HEAR if the subject wasn't so serious. The lead of the current The Holocaust article defines the Holocaust as "was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II, a programme of systematic state-sponsored murder by Nazi Germany, led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, throughout German-occupied territory" and cites 10 separate sources supporting that definition, including from books written by:

• Professor Timothy D. Snyder, the American Professor of History at Yale University, who specializes in the history of Central and Eastern Europe, as well as the Holocaust
• Professor Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Professor David Cesarani, Professor of History at Royal Holloway College, University of London
• Sir Martin Gilbert, a leading historian who wrote a definitive book on the Holocaust
• Dr Raul Hilberg, the author of the influential "The Destruction of the European Jews"
• Professor Peter Longerich, director of the Research Centre for the Holocaust and Twentieth-Century History at Royal Holloway, University of London

among others

The article lead also indicates that some scholars include the mass murder of Romani people and people with disabilities in their definition of "The Holocaust" and cites two sources for those additions, an article by Professor Henry Friedlander, Professor in the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, and also Wytwycky, Bohdan (1980). The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell. The Novak Report.

No reliably published scholarly sources have been produced that widen "The Holocaust" any further (with the deepest of respect for the opinion of Simon Wiesenthal). It was Serbs that caught my eye on the template (because I have a particular interest in the Balkans), but the template should be taking its lead from the article, and the article definition (even the expanded one) does not include Serbs (and some other groups). I am proposing removing all groups that do not fall within the definition currently used in the article, accepting that Romani people and people with disabilities could arguably be included on the basis mainly of Friedlander's work (although it is probably debatable given the weight we would naturally give all those eminent Holocaust scholars that use a narrower definition)." Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

For a broader definition of Holocaust that includes Gypsies, Poles, Slavs in general, and Soviet POWs, see Bohdan Wytwycky, The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell (New York: Novak Report, 1980).

• Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, p.49 : "Those who offer explicit or implicit arguments for including them among the victims of the Holocaust, such as Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust and Christian Streit and Jürgen Forster in The Policies of Genocide, point out that the appallingly high losses among Soviet prisoners of war were racially determined. The Germans did not usually mistreat prisoners from other Allied countries, but in the Nazi view Soviet prisoners were Slavic "subhumans" who had no right to live. ... Those who would include Polish and Soviet civilian losses in the Holocaust include Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust, Richard C. Lukas in The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Rule, 1939-1944, and Ihor Kamenetsky in Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe."

• Timothy D. Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, p.412 : "The term Holocaust is sometimes used in two other ways: to mean all German killing policies during the war, or to mean all oppression of Jews by the Nazi regime."

• Peter Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, p.249 : "This practice can be attributed to the gradual brutalization of the war, but closer analysis of how prisoners were fed and treated generally shows that the systematic destruction of Soviet prisoners of war was an integral component of German policy towards the Soviet Union."

• Doris L. Bergen, The Holocaust: A Concise History, p.168 : "Like so much Nazi writing, General Plan East was full of euphemisms. ... Nevertheless its intentions were obvious. It also made clear that German policies toward different population groups were closely connected. Settlement of Germans and ethnic Germans in the east; expulsion, enslavement, and decimation of Slavs; and murder of Jews were all parts of the same plan."

• Jack Fischel, Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust, p.115 : "The term today has stirred controversy because other victims of the Nazi terror, such as the Gypsies, and people of Slavic ancestry from eastern Europe, claim that they were as much victims in the Holocaust as were the Jews. To differentiate between the more inclusive use of the word “Holocaust” and its special meaning within the Jewish community, many Jews have substituted the Hebrew word Shoah or Churban for the Nazi genocide."

• Timothy D. Snyder: "Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union."[1]

Tobby72 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit break 1

The Holocaust, in my opinion, needs to include every aspect of Nazi and or Axis powers combined persecutions of peoples. The primary focus of Nazi persecution I believe was the Jewish people. I have stated before that I believe the article needs to focus on the Jewish persecution, however, Axis powers including Italy and Japan need to be included. Both Italians and Japanese interred Jews. The Italian persecution of Slavs needs to be in the article since Italy was part of the Axis. When Mussolini was disposed, Hitler finally was able to capture and deport Jews from Italy. The Japanese were also instructed by Hitler to capture Jews. I believe before any reduction of the article that the best method would be to propose a specific reduction and then let other editors discuss and approve or disapprove of the reduction. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly the sections on non-Jewish Holocaust victims could be reduced in size, but content kept. There appear to be seperate articles on these Holocaust victims. For example the Poles and Slavs sections could be reduced in size, but kept in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Denial of the Holocaust is a criminal offence

The fact that many countries make it a criminal offence to deny the existence of the Holocaust should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.232.124.147 (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hilberg and resistance (Jewish history)

Hilberg's reasoning finds support in an article I read today in Haaretz, 70th anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising. This from Rabbi Menachem Ziemba:

Comparing the situation to the one that faced French and German Jews during the First Crusade, when the Halakha "determined one way of reacting to the distress," now, in the middle of the 20th century, "during the liquidation of the Jews of Poland," he suggested, "it prompts us to react in an entirely different manner. In the past, during religious persecution, we were required by the law 'to give up our lives even for the least essential practice.' In the present, however, when we are faced by an arch-foe, whose unparalleled ruthlessness and program of total annihilation know no bounds," said Ziemba, the Halakha demands, "that we fight and resist to the very end with unequaled determination and valor for the sake of Sanctification of the Divine Name."

Worth mentioning in the relevant footnote? 86.177.118.203 (talk) 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mommsen quote?

"In a 1986 essay, German historian Hans Mommsen wrote about the situation in post–World War I Germany that: If one emphasizes the indisputably important connection in isolation, one should not then force a connection with Hitler's weltanschauung [worldview], which was in no ways original itself, in order to deprive from it the existence of Auschwitz." Shouldn't that be in order to derive from it the existence of Auschwitz?--Richard Hawkins (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Odd thing to say even when quoted correctly. Paul B (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Esperanto speakers

This issue has been discussed before: see talk archives 7 and 20. There clearly was no consensus to include such a section. At the minimum, there needs to be further discussion before putting in a new section. Confusing groups persecuted by the Nazis and Holocaust victims should be avoided. The latter is about mass murder/genocide. All Nazis crimes do not come under that rubric. True, the same could be said about the previous 6 sections, i.e. "persons of color" through "Jehovah's Witnesses" and it is my opinion that they should be removed--particularly since most of them have their own separate WP articles. I know of no historian who includes them as Holocaust victims. But that is for another day...Joel Mc (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

One way to deal with this would be to have a section discussing the ways in which various groups persecuted to varying degrees by the Nazis have been identified as "holocaust victims" and also how victim-groups promote their cause, as it were, by lobbying to be identified as victims in this way. This is clearly true of gay rights groups (who are keen to set up memorials to victims such as the one in Berlin [2]). I don't know if it's true of JWs, or other specific groups - apart from Gypsies/Roma who have a fair case. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I support the creation of a section like this. The fact that Esperantists aren't often included in the list of groups that were persecuted is not a strong enough argument for not having them cited here. Pikolas (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Germans versus Nazis

I believe the article needs to replace the term Nazis with the word German in an appropriate percentage. The term Nazi has become a euphemism for German racism and genocide. The German people are responsible for the Holocaust in Germany and German occupied territories, although the Croatian people independently committed persecution of Jews, yet, allowed by the Germans. The term Nazi tends to dehumanize the Holocaust. I do not believe the article emphasizes that the Nazis were actually racist homicidal German people. The German people knew the Holocaust was going on and approved of what Hitler was doing. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's far far too dogmatic and frankly one-dimensional. We can reasonably use 'German' sometimes and 'Nazi' at others: for stylistic reasons, established convention (no one talks of the "Nazi army". It's the "German army"), clarity or logic. But to do so in order to assert through Wikipedia the belief that "the German people" are to blame is to go way outside NPOV. Paul B (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Underneath the swastika and the Nazi regime were Germans. A political party is not a people. The German people knew and approved of Adolf Hitler. The Nazi uniform or costume with the swastika was all part of Hitler's con job on the world. Calling the Nazi's Germans eliminates POV from the article. Wikipedia is writing as if the Nazi and Hitler were legitimate party and leader. These Germans wanted to destroy the Jews and the entire world. The Germans are refered to as Germans in WWI, so why not refer to the Germans as Germans in WWII? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. "Calling the Nazi's [sic] Germans" doesn't "eliminate[] POV", it introduces your POV. -sche (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. This has been discussed many times before. It would be useful to look in the archives before proposing such changes.Joel Mc (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

There are currently 27 archives to look up. Do you know what archive has talked about Nazis versus Germans? My original question has not been answered: "The Germans are refered to as Germans in WWI, so why not refer to the Germans as Germans in WWII?" Cmguy777 (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Constant use of 'Germans' obscures the large role of Austrians (and the role of others). This is an important reason for using 'Nazis' rather than 'Germans'.

Here is a contemporary example. Mussolini started the National Facist Party, however, the invasion of Ethiopia by the Italian Army is refered to as the "Italian Invasion", not the "NFP Invasion" nor "National Facist Party Invasion". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick search through the archives indicates at least archives 10,13,27 have some related discussion. But that is not the only point. True that historians do not speak of the "NFP Invasion", but that is a non sequitur: the fact is that historians do use "Nazis" and "Germans" interchangeably for the reasons given by Paul B. above. A quick look at my bookshelf finds the practice followed by Longerich, Snyder, Lipstadt, Bauer, Browning, and Kershaw.--Joel Mc (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Joel Mc for information on the archives search. If Nazis and Germans are used interchangeably by historians, then would a 50 Nazis : 50 Germans ratio usage be appropriate for the article? Cmguy777 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

As Paul said, that's far too rigid and one-dimensional. Which term is appropriate in a given sentence is determined based on the sentence, not some quota. I just looked through the first fifth of the article at every instance of "Nazi": -sche (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

"murder by Nazi Germany" → this wording is good as-is; "Nazi Germany" serves to clarify both the era (it wasn't "Weimar Germany" or "post-war Germany") and the regime which dominated all aspects of Germany (I know you're not proposing to change it to "German Germany", anyway) then there's a use of the phrase "Nazi Party" "some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders" → good as-is, IMO, because it is specifically Nazi mass murders (not pre- or post-Nazism mass murders) that are referred to "the Nazi regime" → sounds better to my ears than "the German regime", but maybe that's just me "the Nazi genocide of Jews" → I wonder if it should be "of the Jews", but to me, "Nazi" sounds better than "German" here, too — althogh "German genocide" could also work "The Nazis used a euphemistic phrase, the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" (German: Endlösung der Judenfrage)" → good as-is, because it was specifically the Nazis who used that euphemism "Nazis used the phrase" → as above then there's a use of the word in a quotation "all areas of Nazi-occupied territory" → I would change it to "all areas of German-occupied territory" (which the the title of the linked article, anyway) "The Wannsee Protocol makes it clear that the Nazis intended" → since the Wannsee Conference was a conference of senior officials of the Nazi government, "Nazis" seems appropriate here, although "Germans" might also work then there's a use of the word in the name of an article that is linked to; whether to rename the article is not a discussion for this talk page "distinctive feature of Nazi genocide" → could stay as-is or be changed then there's another link to an article "link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps" → the wording should probably stay as-is, since it's a quasi-temporal reference (contrasted with "medieval") then there's another use of "Nazi Party" "By the time the Nazis came to power in 1933," → good as-is, obviously; it wouldn't make sense to say "By the time the Germans came to power in 1933," then there's another use in a quotation and two other links to articles then there are a number of references to "Nazi leaders" and "Nazi policies", which should IMO stay as-is because they are contrasted with pre-Nazi leaders and policies rather than with, say, British leaders and policies I also looked at every use of "German" in the same fifth of the article: "throughout German-occupied territory" → good as-is, IMO there are four uses of "Germany" and one use of "German" = the New High German language, plus a use of "German" within a quotation "German pharmaceutical companies tested drugs on camp prisoners" → good as-is, IMO three more uses of "Germany", including in a quotation "the German national bank" → good as-is, because it's the [[Germany|German]] bank which is referred to there are three more uses of "Germany", a mention of a modern, non-Nazi historian who is "German", and another use of "German" in a quotation "from the Middle Ages onward, German society" → good as-is, because it's pre-Nazi as well as Nazi-era society that is referred to, and contrasted with e.g. French society there's another use of "Germany" and a use of "the German people" in 1895, pre-Nazism "German Jews ... German citizenship ... German life," → all OK as-is, IMO there are two mentions of the "German Empire" and four mentions of "Germany", pre-Nazism, which are OK as-is, plus a use of the full name of the "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and two other group-names that contain "German", and another reference to a post-Nazi-era historian who is "German", and a reference to post-WWI "German bureaucrats", "the German medical establishment" and "German social policy" there are two uses of "Germany" in quotation, and another reference to a post-Nazi-era historian who is "German", and another long quotation

-sche (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, sche for these observations! I would accept any changes and your observations would help make changes to the article. I am not for a quota, rather, to stop any over usage of the term Nazi in the article. I believe the term "Nazis" tends to dehumanize the horrible acts committed by the German people against Jews and other races. The term "Nazis" is a political party, not a people, as has been mentioned before. I believe that even a few changes from "Nazis" to "Germans" would help clarify the Nazis were actually German people. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The word 'Germans' in this context obscures the large role of Austrians and the role of others. Actions on behalf of the Nazi regime or party carried out by non-members of the party are properly described as Nazi actions. For these reasons I favour the use of 'Nazi' over 'German'.Martin852 (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(POV) Issues with References

I think the following references should be improved as they are misleading

1. In text:
"and the Jedwabne pogrom, in which between 380 and 1,600 Jews were killed by local Poles in July 1941.[112]" but in reference [112] it states:
"The inscription on the memorial stone raised in the place of the barn at Jedwabne read: "Place of torture and execution of the Jewish population. The Gestapo and Nazi gandarmerie burned 1600 people alive on July 10, 1941."
which first of all does not refer to Poles, but to Nazi Gandarmerie and Gestapo. One must find a better reference for that part to be valid. I did a bit of research I could not find any evidence supporting the "local Poles" burning 1600 people alive". As it is a strong accusation, it should be better referenced.

2. In numerous places in the text there is a reference to "Poland". It says "death camps in Poland" etc. That doesn't make historical sense. Unlike Vichy's German-collaborating government of France,there was no government in Poland. Poland was incorporated into Nazi Germany and no polish official had any role in German government. Referring to a land which used to be Poland between first and second world war, but was not Poland before the WWI and during WWII is misleading. The reference should always say "in General Governance" or in German-occupied Poland not just "in Poland".

In "Reaction" section, there is no mention that the earliest reports about Holocaust come from Polish officer Jan Karski and were issued in a form of a document by Polish government residing in London: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Mass_Extermination_of_Jews_in_German_Occupied_.pdf

I have heard, read and watched different statements about Jedwabne massacre. They all contain "German element". Current version suggests that some Polish have said "let's burn Jews" entirely on their own.

Either the reference has to be fixed, either "local Poles" has to go. --Lacek2 (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Jan Karski in mentioned in another part, but Witold Pilecki would be a better mention: it is a persion who: 1) has Wikipedia page 2) according to that page, hr entered the camp on purpose, organized an underground, was sending radio transmissions from inside of the camp (prisoners built a radio transmitter) which were later relayed to London (it was 1942).

Trove of New Data re Sites, Extent

see ny times article. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Trove of New Data re Sites, Extent

see ny times article. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Trove of New Data re Sites, Extent

see ny times article. Cramyourspam (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I added a brief note in the introduction and an anchor cite. I'm not sure how to fit this information into our existing article. Probably a section should be created and the different sorts of facilities explained in a time appropriate way. Only the first two volumes of the underlying reference work, The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos have been published. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Why only jews?

I don't understand! What about Romani peopole, homosexualist, communists and other people that were under Nazi extermination same way as jews? Why first sentences only about jews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.229.172.101 (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Introductory language has varied over the life of this article, see this version from October 15, 2002. I'm sure there is extensive discussion in archived talk pages. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There has in fact been extensive discussion in the past, see just one example at: Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_17#Consensus_proposal. The Nazis committed a number of different mass murders: Jews, Roma/Sinti, the Polish intelligentsia, Soviet POWs, to name only a few examples. Today, most historians use the proper noun The Holocaust to mean the mass murder of Jews. There are separate WP articles on Nazi mass murders relating to most of those other groups, i.e. Porajmos (Romani), Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs. In addition the Nazis persecuted (as opposed to mass murdering) other groups for example, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, blacks. They also have separate WP articles: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Black people in Nazi Germany. I know of no expert who confuses persecution with an attempt to exterminate.--Joel Mc (talk) 12:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Jews were the primary targets of the Nazis. For a broader definition of Holocaust that includes Gypsies, Poles, Slavs in general, and Soviet POWs, see Bohdan Wytwycky, The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell (New York: Novak Report, 1980).

• Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, p.49 : "Those who offer explicit or implicit arguments for including them among the victims of the Holocaust, such as Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust and Christian Streit and Jürgen Forster in The Policies of Genocide, point out that the appallingly high losses among Soviet prisoners of war were racially determined. The Germans did not usually mistreat prisoners from other Allied countries, but in the Nazi view Soviet prisoners were Slavic "subhumans" who had no right to live. ... Those who would include Polish and Soviet civilian losses in the Holocaust include Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust, Richard C. Lukas in The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Rule, 1939-1944, and Ihor Kamenetsky in Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe."

• Timothy D. Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, p.412 : "The term Holocaust is sometimes used in two other ways: to mean all German killing policies during the war, or to mean all oppression of Jews by the Nazi regime."

• Timothy D. Snyder: "Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union."[3]

• Peter Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, p.249 : "This practice can be attributed to the gradual brutalization of the war, but closer analysis of how prisoners were fed and treated generally shows that the systematic destruction of Soviet prisoners of war was an integral component of German policy towards the Soviet Union."

• Doris L. Bergen, The Holocaust: A Concise History, p.168 : "Like so much Nazi writing, General Plan East was full of euphemisms. ... Nevertheless its intentions were obvious. It also made clear that German policies toward different population groups were closely connected. Settlement of Germans and ethnic Germans in the east; expulsion, enslavement, and decimation of Slavs; and murder of Jews were all parts of the same plan."

• Jack Fischel, Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust, p.115 : "The term today has stirred controversy because other victims of the Nazi terror, such as the Gypsies, and people of Slavic ancestry from eastern Europe, claim that they were as much victims in the Holocaust as were the Jews. To differentiate between the more inclusive use of the word “Holocaust” and its special meaning within the Jewish community, many Jews have substituted the Hebrew word Shoah or Churban for the Nazi genocide."

• Jack Fischel, The Holocaust, Introduction : "Jews were not the only targets of the Germans. They also killed an estimated 10,547,000 Slavs, which included millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Soviet prisoners of war. Others whom the Nazis marked for death included the gypsies, and about 5,000 homosexuals of an estimated million Himmler believed resided in Germany. These numbers suggest that the Nazi genocide was far-reaching in its preoccupation with the creation of a master race and that although the Jews composed the primary category of people designated by the Nazis for extermination, there were many such categories."

Tobby72 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The article does mention other racial, ethnic, or sexual groups. Hitler targeted the Jews or any persons he viewed as a threat to the Third Reich. Hitler exterminated and planned to exterminate persons he believed were inferior. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The definition here of the Holocaust as solely an action against Jewish people is inconsistent with the Wikipedia “Holocaust Victims” definition, which includes the Nazi murders of over 12M civilian Slavic peoples as well as the Nazi murders of over 6M civilian Jewish people. Shouldn’t “Holocaust Victims” and “Holocaust” entries in Wikipedia use the same definition of Holocaust?--Truthwillneverdie (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

20 million killed

It is well known over 20 million were killed in the holocaust. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9906771/Nazis-may-have-killed-up-to-20m-claims-shocking-new-Holocaust-study.html

The same report is cited in NY Times article. This NYT article is already in the reference list of this wiki article. AadaamS (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The 6 million figure is thinly veiled antisemitism. 70.176.239.63 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is rather well known that(asuming) you are talking about the holocaust only refering to jews, then that is a physical impossibility. The 6 million that died of the 9 million in Europe, would mean some secret documents that scholars and researchers all over the world for over 60 years into their research about the holocaust, means they somehow were hidden. we are talking about millions here and we are talking about population numbers. so no there wasnt 20 million jews even alive back then in the ENTIRE WORLD.

perhaps if we talk about russian POW camps since they were the secondary highest murder rate of 3 million inside the camps and mass murdered outside the camps would perhaps count. of the 25 million dead russians in the war, instaed of 22 mil dead outside the camps and 3 mil dead inside the camps, perhaps if the article and source you linked to implies 9 million more dead would constitute 20 mil means that of the 25 mil dead russians its 16 mil dead russians outside camps and instead war deaths as soldiers 9 mil dead russians inside camps thus the normal 11 number thats cited for the holocaust would then euqality too 11+9=20 Orkanosera (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Strike comments of banned editor User:WitsBlomstein

Responses to the various people on this thread:

• @OP: It is not "well known". It is a study that just came out this week.
• @IP: Stop trolling.
• @Orkanosera: If you read the link provided, or the reference in the Wikipedia article itself, you will see it is referring to all victims of Nazi persecution in concentration and labour camps during their regime, not just Jewish vicims. In addition, saying it is inaccurate due to earlier studies misses the point. This is a study that was just released this week after additional Nazi records were uncovered. Singularity42 (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

after 60 years of research that only recently new nazi records would be discovered considering the time it took to research the original 12 million, would mean it must have been a HUGE coverup for DOUBLE the camps. most logically its a fabrication due to no sourced documents have been released in any source to Verify AND of course, to explain where they(the documents) where hidden all this time. It would be as much evidence as the Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

:::However, if there is any explanation and photographic evidence of these documents and where they were hidden, then yes it would be plausable source. even under 40 years these new HUGE numbers would rather likely come up periodicly wise based on the most massive researched genocide in the world. 9+ MILLION are no small numbers to miss, let alone 20.000 EXTRA facilities somehow went unnoticed in the most reserached genocide in the world that has constant holocaust research not only in studied but in the archives aswell. they , as stated earlier, would come up periodicly wise with more and more camps and thus increase in the death toll.

still, if any source does explain that I have no qualms with itOrkanosera (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Strike comments of banned editor User:WitsBlomstein

I have to agree with Singularity42. Considering the volumes of records that the allies gathered from the Nazis, and if anything the Nazis liked to keep voluminous records, I don't find it hard to believe that it took 60 yrs to compile all the information. Rather than leaping to judgement, or making crazy statements about what we "know", how about we allow this new development to play out among the people who are actually experts in the field. Considering even the researchers themselves are in shock of what we found, my guess this isn't the last we'll hear of it. Ckruschke (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The number of Jews in Poland in 1939

There is an error (probably typographical in source) in the number of Jews given when the Germans invaded Poland: The article states 2 million, but the link it sends to actually gives the number as about 3.2 million. This is also the mumber I am acquainted with from other sources. The figure of 2 million could refer to the number of Jews in the area conquered by the Germans in September 1939 - the others being in the Russian occupied area of Poland. If so, then the wording of the sentence needs to be corrected to reflect this difference.In 1941 the Germans conquered the rest of Poland so these Jews too were brought in to the fold, so to speak. Since the article is locked could your official editors please correct the number and the wording appropriately. Thank you Dr Eado Hecht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.229.150.214 (talk) 12:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

"Recent estimates based on figures obtained since the fall of the Soviet Union indicates some ten to eleven million civilians and prisoners of war were intentionally murdered by the Nazi regime."[13][14]

Perhaps because of its location in the overall section, this quote makes it sound like the Nazi's exterminated 10 to 11 million non-Jewish civilians. Yet a reading of the wikipaedia article cited (13, 14 Snyder) makes clear:

1) that the Nazi's were responsible for 2/3 of the approximately 14 million intentional civilian deaths caused by Hitler AND Stalin (in the years 1931-1945 ["The book is about the mass killing of an estimated 14 million non-combatants by the regimes of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union and Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany between the years 1933 and 1945...with Nazi Germany being responsible for about two thirds of the total number of deaths."); and

2) that the 5.4 (approx.) murdered Jews of the Holocaust are INCLUDED in this figure. (["Timothy Snyder provided a summary of the 14 million victims.... 5.4 million Jewish victims in the Holocaust"])

In other words, if one is to speak of Nazi non-Jewish "intentional murder" victims (by Snyder's definitions of these), they number about 5 million: 3.1 mil Russian POWs, 1 mil Russian civilians starved during the Leningrad siege, 0.1 mil Polish civilians (1939-1941) and .7 mil Polish & Belarussian civilians (1941-1945). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.130.14 (talk) 07:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Denial

Hi. Why isn't there a section on the arguments of holocaust deniers? UltimateBoss (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an entire article, Holocaust denial. That's sufficient treatment; no reason to honor their delusions and lies by so much as mentioning them in this article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

jpgordon is correct; if too much was mentioned; such as a full section herein, then undue weight would be given to WP:Fringe arugments. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Struck post by sock puppet of racist editor Mikemikev Dougweller (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning the denial phenomena is not "honoring" their delusions. The fact that some people do, in fact, have such views would allow for at least one sentence and a link to the article, and one sentence would not be out of bounds for any truly scholarly treatment of the subject. Marteau (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

For example, how in the Moon Landing article, the denial phenomena is handled by saying "...people insist that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. However, empirical evidence is readily available to show that manned moon landings did indeed occur..." and then briefly addresses the issue with a link to a full article. Deniers on these issues do make a lot of noise and are out there, and just putting our virtual hands over our ears and virtually going "la la la la I can't hear you!" on this article is, in my opinion, unencyclopedic. Marteau (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, the moon lander hoaxer article should be linked from the conspiracy theories article, not the moon landings article. The same goes for Holocaust deniers, its category is "conspiracy theories", not the "holocaust". AadaamS (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Think also about linking "the Earth is flat" from the opening box of the Earth article. Poeticbent talk 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

A link to that is in the fifth paragraph Marteau (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

See section six in this article. Poeticbent talk 19:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This article is engaging (I hope unintentionally) in a type of holocaust denial. By redefining the Nazi holocaust as a Jewish experience it is excluding the millions who were victims of the holocaust, but weren't Jewish. This article is more about the Shoah (the Jewish experience of the holocaust), than it is about the holocaust of WW2. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream POV

It is not mainstream POV to exclude non-Jews from the holocaust. The holocaust includes all people systematically killed for being undesirable in this Nazi program of mass-killing. To confine the holocaust to the Jewish victims is cow-towing to a right-wing attempt to redefine history and is certainly not mainstream POV. The emphasis of the article intro places a minority definition - i.e. only the jewish victims count - as mainstream while portraying the mainstream point of view as some sort of minority view. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The Holocaust was more than a Jewish event. Victims of the Holocaust are those groups of people targeted for immediate death by the Nazis and their accomplices, or treated in such a way so as to knowingly lead to their eventual deaths. Most of the victims of the holocaust were not Jewish (which does not diminish the suffering of Jewish victims). Numerous factors have contributed to the American public's perception of the Holocaust as an exclusively Jewish event--misinformation, misrepresentation, and political agendas. In the American consciousness the Holocaust has increasingly become synonymous with Jewish history due to many of the factors mentioned above. Given the powerful voice the Jewish people have through the government of Israel, it is not surprising that the focus of the Holocaust has been on Jewish victims. As a member of one of the groups targeted for extermination by the Nazis I was surprised to see us starting to be written out of the holocaust when reading this article. I'd imagine Russians, Ukrainians and others would also find this apparently ethnocentric (American) definition of the holocaust extremely startling as well. Even if it were true that most American historians define the holocaust as a Jewish event (which I doubt), I don't see why American views should take precedence. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but I thought the mainstream definition of the Holocaust concerned the Jewish people. Transcendence (talk) 22:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Not where I live, and that definition would be regarded as minority outside the USA 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In any case, it doesn't matter what you or I think. There are multiple dictionaries that support the capital letter Holocaust referring to the genocide of the Jews.

• http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust
• http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/holocaust
• http://www.thefreedictionary.com/holocaust
• http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/holocaust (Not American specific, the American specific one is here http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/holocaust)

I'm inclined to think that the dictionary's definition is mainstream.Transcendence (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually only one of those dictionaries you've cited above defines the holocaust as a Jewish-only event. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

When I am next at the public library i'll ask the Librarian which textbooks are the official school history textbooks here in New Zealand. I'm curious to see how they define the holocaust. It's been 20 years since I was at school, but I certainly don't remember the holocaust being defined as this article defines it. I'm positive we were taught that it included various groups, with the Jews being a significant group. Outside of biased fringe theories I've never heard of the holocaust described as an almost exclusively Jewish event, with the rest exiled to the periphery.121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The term "The Holocaust" itself is ambiguous according to en.wiktionary.org, having one narrow (6 million murdered Jews only) and one broad (11 million victims total - other sources up to 20 million total) Rather than taking sides in this terminolgical debate, it should be enough to clearly state in the article which definition this article deals with in the lead. We could also sidestep this debate issue by creating two articles, one for the narrow definition and one for the wide definition.AadaamS (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps what is needed is an article about The Shoah (which is what this article is), i.e. the murder of Jews, and another about The Holocaust - which is an event in which the killing of Jews was a part. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

If the term "Holocaust" itself is ambiguous and lead to discussions such as these, why even keep using it? We ought to be able to come up with another title. If we by the end of this discussion end up with no single article being named "The Holocaust", I would not be too sorry to see that term disappear entirely. Perhaps this article should be renamed "The Shoah" with disambiguation pages for "The Holocaust" going to "The Holocaust (wide)" pointing to an all-encompassing article and "The Holocaust (narrow)" poiting to "The Shoah". AadaamS (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

In fact there is already a whole article about all German atrocities, and it has a whole section about all atrocities perpertrated by Germany during World War II. I haven't searched this article (The Holocaust) to see if they are cross-linked. Such a cross-link should be rather prominent in my opinion. 121.73.7.84, what do you think about this? AadaamS (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

On that basis why have any article about the holocaust at all? Just leave it all as German war crimes? The problem here is that this article defines the term The Holocaust as being a Jewish event with other victims diminished. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

A terminological difficulty by naming it "German war crimes" is that murdering your own citizens is not a war crime, it's genocide. You can only commit war crimes against citizens of other nations I think. Then the murder of Jews, roma, the disabled and others who were German citizens at the time would not be included in that article. Perhaps something like "German genocides of WW2". AadaamS (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I was reading some of the article's archives. If the article was titled "The Shoah" instead, or "The Jewish Holocaust of WW2", while also making it clear that this was subset of a wider event, i.e. The Holocaust (WW2), then it wouldn't come up against these obvious objections time and time again. It's amazing how pig-headed someone is being that this hasn't been rectified yet. The way the article defines the holocaust as a Jewish event with most other victims relegated to a peripheral position is highly offensive. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

But as I said at the beginning, the article violates Wikipedia's mainstream point of view policy. It takes the mainstream definition of the holocaust which recognises all the victims who were systematically murdered and portrays it as a minority "some scholars argue" POV. The article then inverts reality by pushing a minority view and passing it off as mainstream, i.e. it's the Jewish victims that count, with the others in the queue outside the gas chambers (or where ever) being exiled to a "oh, by the way" position. I'm sure that non-Jewish victims would find that highly offensive. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC) The World Book Encyclopedia (an American Encyclopedia) in its introductory section of the article on the holocaust defines it as a systematic killing of millions of people Hitler regarded as racially inferior or politically dangerous: Jews, Germans who were physically or mentally handicapped, Slavs - particularly Poles and Russian prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, priests, communists, and other political opponents. No where does it define the holocaust as a Jewish event. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 23:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I just consulted my "The New Collins Dictionary & Thesaurus (London, 1987)" says "holocaust: 1. great destruction or loss of life or the source of such destruction 2. (ususally capitalised) the mass murder of Jews in Nazi Germany". I wish I had a more recent edition of this dictionary though. I wonder if the difference is due to the intervening years if your dictionary is newer, or a difference between American and British English. "Shoah" on the hand does not appear at all in my (admittedly dated) Collins dictionary AadaamS (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence (reliable sources) that the mainstream POV is indeed what you say it is? Transcendence (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear to me what is meant by a mainstream POV. Which "mainstream"? There is little doubt that "mainstream" historians use the proper noun The Holocaust for the mass murder of Jews. It is possible to go fishing in various dictionaries and find different definitions (the same is true for old school textbooks) But an encyclopedia article should be based on the current work and usage of reliable historians (irrespective of their nationality). Few, if any, "mainstream" historians of the WWII period use the term "The Holocaust" to refer to all "those groups of people targeted for immediate death by the Nazis". (refer to fn 3, 4 in article) There is no question of other groups being left out. There are separate WP articles on Nazi mass murders relating to most of those other groups, i.e. Porajmos (Romani), Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs. In addition the Nazis persecuted (as opposed to mass murdering) other groups for example, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, blacks. They also have separate WP articles: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Nazi Germany, Black people in Nazi Germany. There has in fact been extensive discussion this issue in the past, see just one example at: Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_17#Consensus_proposal. Joel Mc (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The article clearly states that Some scholars argue that the mass murder of the Romani and people with disabilities should be included in the definition,[9][10] and some use the common noun "holocaust" to describe other Nazi mass murders, including those of Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, and homosexuals. There is clearly some ambiguity of the term "The Holocaust" and since the article addresses this ambiguity I am now firmly in the camp of not renaming this article or changing its scope. The one source I named clearly states that in British English "The Holocaust" refers to genocide of Jews, as does the Hypertext webster Gateway dictionaries. AadaamS (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I only know the basics of the Holocaust, so this is merely an observation of someone who's just quickly skimmed the article. In terms of names, whatever the Holocaust used to be, it has become the Nazi genocide of European Jews. Therefore, if one takes the view that the Holocaust was, or rather is, the murder of the Jews, which is what the article does—"The Holocaust [. . .] was the mass murder or genocide of approximately six million Jews during World War II"—one becomes curious to know why there is a section, Section 4.2, that deals explicitly with "non-Jewish victims". I mean, if the Holocaust was the Nazi genocide of European Jews, it follows, trivially, that there were no non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust!

From my point of view, a dual omission is the question of when and why Hitler ordered the Holocaust, i.e. opted to undertake immediate genocide before the war was over. As will be known to those who have read more about it than I, and I have read little, the three main views (and I assume we can safely ignore the hardcore intentionalists and hardcore functionalists) are represented by Browning (decision came with Hitler's euphoria from the military successes against the Soviet Union in autumn 1941), Friedländer (bit later, December 1941: "Hitler probably finalized his decision in December", quoting from the lengthy endnote 103 of Chapter 5 of Years of Extermination), and Longerich (he goes for some time in 1942: "By the middle of the 1942, the Nazi regime was to consolidate and unify the mass murders that it had begun in the occupied Soviet territories in the summer of 1941 [. . .] into a comprehensive programme for the systematic murder of the Jews under German rule. [. . .] The authorities gradually moved away from the idea that the mass murders were anticipations of the 'Final Solution' that was to be carried out to its full extent only after the end of the war; instead, in the middle of 1942, the conviction had become established that the 'Final Solution' could be achieved by an intensification and expansion of these murders during the war itself", quoting from p. 313 of Holocaust). These two fundamental questions do not appear to be addressed in the article. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I presume a consequence of the Holocaust becoming a Jewish event is our having a name for the genocide of the Gypsies: the Porajmos. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

AadaamS & Others, the article talks exclusively about Jews for the first two paragraphs and only introduces others in an "oh, by the way" manner in paragraph three. It creates the impression that most historians don't regard these others as fully part of the holocaust, and to do so is some sort of minority view. All the dictionary definitions you [Aadaams] provided (except one) includes non-Jews within its definition of the holocaust. The article should lead with a definition as seen the worldbook encyclopedia's lead paragraph: "The systematic killing by Nazi Germany of millions of people Hitler regarded as racially inferior or politically dangerous." It should then go on to list them, by numbers killed, i.e. Jews, Germans who were physically or mentally handicapped, Slavs - particularly Poles and Russian prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, priests, communists, and other political opponents. No where does it define the holocaust as a Jewish event. The significant role of Jews can be discussed after this, once it is clear who the holocaust affected. To exclude non-Jewish victims from the mainstream definition of the holocaust is a form of holocaust denial for those groups so diminished. The Jewish-specific experience was the Shoah, not the holocaust. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you want done here. There is clearly disagreement over whether the mainstream definition "The Holocaust" as a proper noun refers primarily to the Jewish genocide as opposed to the whole sum of German committed genocides. Perhaps you could create a draft of proposed changes so there's actually something concrete to talk about? Transcendence (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Transcendence, agreed - I will script a proposed new lead paragraph(s) 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I have provided exactly one dictionary reference to support that The Holocaust means the extermination of Jews, my Collins Dictionary on my bookshelf. Then I have further provided the Wiktionary (which is not a WP:RS) to to the claim that the term is ambiguous. The other links were provided by Transcendence at the time you wrote. Further down I provide i also provide the Encyclopedia Britannica. AadaamS (talk) 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Joel Mc: I couldn't disagree more with your statement that "few, if any, "mainstream" historians of the WWII period use the term "The Holocaust" to refer to all "those groups of people targeted for immediate death by the Nazis". In fact i'd say that is far closer to how they define it. Of the sources cited so far in this thread, only a minority define the holocaust as a Jewish-only event, so that would appear to be the minority definition, not the mainstream one. There appears to be an increasingly revisionist re-definition of the holocaust (last 20 years?) occurring in some quarters towards it being a Jewish event - a misconception which the Wikipedia article is inadvertently helping to perpetuate. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, we need to differ betwen the event itself and the name used to describe it in this discussion. For instance, Encyclopedia Britannica says "The Holocaust" is the translation of the Hebrew term "the Shoah". Nobody here is denying that the Nazis tried to exterminate many groups of people and had they succeeded, they would have eventually murdered or enslaved all of Eastern Europe. Also, can you provide any reliable sources that show there is a revisionist movement underway to support this claim? If so, that should probably go into the article. Now I have provided two reliable sources as to the defintion of the term The Holocaust being the extermination of Jews only. As LudicrousTripe correctly points out, that definition would make discussions of other groups off-topic. There is a big difference between other groups being off-topic and outright denial. This article does not deny or diminish other genocides at any point, using the EB definition. It's just not the main focus of this particular article. AadaamS (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

If the article about the holocaust made it into a gypsy event to the diminishment of other groups, then most people would correctly find that strange. That is what the article is doing by defining the holocaust almost exclusively as a Jewish experience. What if we wrote an article about WW2 in Europe and reduced the allied side to the Soviet Union on the basis they did most of the fighting: i.e. "oh, by the way some scholars argue that the involvement of other countries fighting against Hitler should be included in the definition of the allies", but the war was basically just Germany vs USSR, so the article will exile the rest to the periphery. There would be howls of disapproval and accusations of bias. That is the same degree of bias this holocaust article is engaging in. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So you would rather have the Porajmos article deleted outright and its content merged into this one? AadaamS (talk) 06:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, quite the opposite. I think it's good to have articles about the specific experiences of each group during that time as their circumstances and experiences differed. My point is that THIS article should be about the holocaust in general, without that term being limited to only a subset of the people who died in the holocaust. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I notice that The Jewish Virtual Library is quite happy to acknowledge that there were 5 million non-Jewish victims of the holocaust: Who Were the Five Million Non-Jewish Holocaust Victims? "Of the 11 million people killed during the Holocaust, six million were Polish citizens. Three million were Polish Jews and another three million were Polish Christians. Most of the remaining mortal victims were from other countries including Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Russia, Holland, France and even Germany." - Jewish Virtual Library. This is especially reassuring considering it's primarily Jewish and Israeli sponsored organisations that are pushing a redefinition of the holocaust which excludes non-Jews.121.73.7.84 (talk) 08:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

121.73.7.84: you may disagree with my statement "few, if any, "mainstream" historians of the WWII period use the term "The Holocaust" to refer to all "those groups of people targeted for immediate death by the Nazis" but as far as I can see there is not a reference in the thread to any major historian who uses the definition. As I already mentioned, footnotes 3 and 4 in the article provide the names and references of major historians. The Jewish Virtual Library is not really a scholarly source, taking its terminology from the title of a book written by Terese Pencak Schwartz: Holocaust Forgotten - Five Million Non-Jewish Victims. Schwartz is an important advocate for non-Jews murdered by the Nazis not a mainstream historian, non of whom would deny the murders of non-jews but would not include them in their definition of The Holocaust. If one would read their writings, it would become clear that the definitions are technical terms used to distinguish different policies of mass murder.Joel Mc (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're asserting that dictionaries and encyclopedias (the majority) which include groups other than Jewish people in their definition of the holocaust are not mainstream and are applying a non-mainstream definition?

On that note I've just quickly googled the Encyclopedia Britannica, Quote: Holocaust (European), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and MILLIONS OF OTHERS by Nazi Germany and its collaborators. So who are these millions of others then?

WorldBook Encyclopedia, Quote: Holocaust, was the systematic, state-sponsored killing of Jews and Others by the Nazis...whom Hitler regarded as racially inferior or politically dangerous (1) Germans who were physically or mentally handicapped, (2) Gypsies, and (3) Slavs, particularly Poles and Soviet prisoners of war, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, priests and ministers, members of labor unions, Communists and other political opponents. Historians estimate that 11 million people were killed, including Jews.

Of the six dictionary definitions offered up by [Transcendence] earlier in the thread, only one limits the holocaust to Jews only. It is clear the definition i'm offering IS the mainstream definition. The sources you cite, Joel Mc, appear to have vested interests.

121.73.7.84 (talk) 09:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes to your question above. Dictionaries and encycopedias are compendia and as such are tertiary sources. WP policy prefers secondary sources, i.e. peer reviewed research of scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources I am not sure what you mean when you accused world-renowned scholars of having "vested interests".Joel Mc (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem here with using reliable sources like Britannica or Worldbook Encyclopedia: Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. In fact using encyclopedias and dictionaries appears to be the right thing to do considering the circumstances. I find this whole debate ridiculous. People other than Jews died in the holocaust. It's one of the most well-documented events in history. Period. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

(edited: there seems to be no consensus on wide or narrow definition in secondary sources vs tertiary sources) Well you have opened my eyes to that I mentally skipped straight to the "shoah translation" bit in the EB article and now. However I think the ambiguity of the scope of the term should still be adressed somewhere in the article. Nobody here has argued about the scope of the event, of course other people than Jews died in Nazi genocides and nobody here has said otherwise. At least I have only been discussing about the naming of the event, not the scope of it. AadaamS AadaamS (talk) 05:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

121.73.7.84, there is no doubt that the Germans and allies killed millions of people (besides the Jews) before and during World War II, as this article also makes clear. Indeed, this article has a lengthy section devoted to describing and enumerating the non-Jewish victims. The issue here is, however, how scholars generally define the term "The Holocaust" - and the reliable secondary sources provided indicate that they generally use the term to described the genocide of the Jews. For that reason, this article follows the lead of those sources, and uses the term in the same way. I am interested, though, in your claim that "it's primarily Jewish and Israeli sponsored organisations that are pushing a redefinition of the holocaust which excludes non-Jews". What is your source for that claim? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can contribute a dictionary definition! From the 8th edition of The Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992):

holocaust

1. large scale destruction, esp. by fire or nuclear war.

2. (the Holocaust) mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis 1939–45.

• Raul Hilberg uses the term Holocaust in the intro to the third edition of his Destruction of the European Jews—the obvious implication being he reserved the term Holocaust for the genocide of the European Jews, since, as the title of it suggests, his study is concerned only with Jews.
• Peter Longerich's study is called Holocast: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews.
• Saul Friedländer uses Holocaust to refer to the genocide of the Jews; see his famous two-volume work.
• Tim Snyder uses it only to refer to the destruction of the Jews.
• Christopher Browning uses it to refer the Jewish catastrophe.
• Henry Friedlander and Sybil Milton saw no reason not to de-emphasise the Jewish aspect of Nazi genocide when using the word (or, put another way, advocated the making term Holocaust more inclusive).
• After Henry Friedlander it is obvious to mention Yehuda Bauer, who reserved it for Jews.
• Others avoid the word completely—likely for one or both of two reasons—when speaking of the genocide of the Jews, e.g. Richard J. Evans (Third Reich at War, 2008), Mark Mazower (Hitler's Empire, 2008), Adam Tooze (Wages of Destruction, 2006). Each of the three books uses Final Solution.

LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Jews were the primary targets of the Nazis. For a broader definition of Holocaust that includes Gypsies, Poles, Slavs in general, and Soviet POWs, see Bohdan Wytwycky, The Other Holocaust: Many Circles of Hell (New York: Novak Report, 1980).

• Donald L. Niewyk, Francis R. Nicosia, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, p.49 : "Those who offer explicit or implicit arguments for including them among the victims of the Holocaust, such as Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust and Christian Streit and Jürgen Forster in The Policies of Genocide, point out that the appallingly high losses among Soviet prisoners of war were racially determined. The Germans did not usually mistreat prisoners from other Allied countries, but in the Nazi view Soviet prisoners were Slavic "subhumans" who had no right to live. ... Those who would include Polish and Soviet civilian losses in the Holocaust include Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust, Richard C. Lukas in The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Rule, 1939-1944, and Ihor Kamenetsky in Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe."

• Timothy D. Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, p.412 : "The term Holocaust is sometimes used in two other ways: to mean all German killing policies during the war, or to mean all oppression of Jews by the Nazi regime."

• Timothy D. Snyder: "Yet even this corrected image of the Holocaust conveys an unacceptably incomplete sense of the scope of German mass killing policies in Europe. The Final Solution, as the Nazis called it, was originally only one of the exterminatory projects to be implemented after a victorious war against the Soviet Union."[4]

• Peter Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews, p.249 : "This practice can be attributed to the gradual brutalization of the war, but closer analysis of how prisoners were fed and treated generally shows that the systematic destruction of Soviet prisoners of war was an integral component of German policy towards the Soviet Union."

• Doris L. Bergen, The Holocaust: A Concise History, p.168 : "Like so much Nazi writing, General Plan East was full of euphemisms. ... Nevertheless its intentions were obvious. It also made clear that German policies toward different population groups were closely connected. Settlement of Germans and ethnic Germans in the east; expulsion, enslavement, and decimation of Slavs; and murder of Jews were all parts of the same plan."

• Jack Fischel, Historical Dictionary of the Holocaust, p.115 : "The term today has stirred controversy because other victims of the Nazi terror, such as the Gypsies, and people of Slavic ancestry from eastern Europe, claim that they were as much victims in the Holocaust as were the Jews. To differentiate between the more inclusive use of the word “Holocaust” and its special meaning within the Jewish community, many Jews have substituted the Hebrew word Shoah or Churban for the Nazi genocide."

• Jack Fischel, The Holocaust, Introduction : "Jews were not the only targets of the Germans. They also killed an estimated 10,547,000 Slavs, which included millions of Poles, Ukrainians, Byelorussians and Soviet prisoners of war. Others whom the Nazis marked for death included the gypsies, and about 5,000 homosexuals of an estimated million Himmler believed resided in Germany. These numbers suggest that the Nazi genocide was far-reaching in its preoccupation with the creation of a master race and that although the Jews composed the primary category of people designated by the Nazis for extermination, there were many such categories." Tobby72 (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A conclusion needs to be reached, and there are compelling reasons for keeping the article as it is—that is, it uses the term in the Jewish-only sense, but makes a clear note that this use is not universal, and makes connections with aspects and targets of Nazi mass-killing and genocide where needed. Does someone want to migrate the various sub-sections that mention non-Jewish victims—Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah witnesses, and so on—across to the relevant articles? Then if, they aren't there, we can add Wiklinks to ==See also==. I am happy to do this if no one else has the time and if I am given permission. The current situation is agreed by all sides to be absurd, so would be nice to get cracking. LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Unique section

I don't understand most of what the section is saying, and of that, how it's important to the article.Relyk (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Very important to the topic. What's being discussed is the discussion (argument?) over whether the Holocaust is the death of millions of Jews or whether its about EVERYONE who was killed by the third Reich (Roma, Commies, Homosexuals, to name only a very few) and, to varying degrees, whether the term "Holocast" can only be used in only the instance of Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazis or whether the title can be attributed to other mass killings/topics due jour. See the thread directly above this one for just a small slice of that discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Institutional collaboration

Perhaps there can be a reference to Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens and his call, along with members of the greek academic community, to halt the deportation of Greek Jews from Nazi occupied Greece. Damaskinos formally protested against the deportation, clashed with the german authorities and was threatened to be shot, in an incident documented by "The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation" (http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/general/greek-orthodox-church-academic/).

Apart from that, the greek version of the article about the Archibishop claims that he ordered the priests to supply the Jews with certificates of (orthodox) baptism, in order to rescue them from arrest by the Nazis, but i can't provide any source for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.86.12 (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2011

Adding time stamp so this will autoarchive. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)