Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Social democrats, socialists and communists as victims

I think this aspect of the holocaust is largely ignored in this article, much like it has been largely ignored in most western litterature on the subject. This is imo systemic bias (understandable, considering the atrocities of the Soviet, but still bias), and should be corrected. Acording to the short line under "others", it says that 100,000 "communists" (i suppose other political groups are included, but how can I know?) were killed, yet this figure isn't explained (or given source), and the whole political aspect of holocaust is woefully understated considering this relatively high death count. All that is said on the matter is that there had "been attempts at sterilising them using x-rays", again without sources or further explanations. The 100,000 isn't even counted in the Death toll section, but 2,000 Jehovah's Witnesses are (thus it can't be because the number is insignificant). Someone, please expand on the subject, until it has been corrected the article is slightly POV.

iw:Arabic?

It seems there is no article on the subject in Arabic WP. Hmm. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 10:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you should write it. That's the WP way, no? Ronabop 13:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no article on the Armenian Genocide either, and Arabic WP is much smaller than Hebrew (and much much smaller than English) WP. Thanks for pointing it out though, I'll put that on my list of things to do. But your "hmm" comment is strange, since you seem to be implying purposeful evasion. Here is an excerpt from the Arabic Israel article:

 :

بعد المحرقة التي تعرض لها الشعب اليهودي في اوروبا والتي ادت الى ابادة ما يتجاوز عن

٦ مليون من ابنائه وتدمير منازلهم واطاراتهم الاجتماعية وفقد ما امتلكوا من المال والثروة والبيوت بدأ لاجِئ المحرقة اليهود يبحثون عن مكان للاقامة حيث لم ترد اية دولة استيعابهم رغما عن وضعهمالانساني الخطير ولم وضع امامهم اي بديل سوى الهجرة الى ارض فلسطين.

Translation: After the Holocaust that befell the Jewish people in Europe, and that led to the extermination of over 6 million of them, the destruction of their homes and their social fabric, and the loss of their fortunes and properties, refugees of the Holocaust looked for a place to live after no other country would accept them despite their desperate humanitarian situation, and they had no choice but emigrate to Palestine.

The article is available in German and other European languages, and that is more important than (but doesn't excuse the absence of) an Arabic version. Ramallite ^(talk) 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 83.131.*

An anonymous editor or editors continues, once every day or so, to replace the paragraph on Croatian participation in the Holocaust with the same incorrect (and grammatically wrong) information* (example). The user stopped responding to my queries on the Talk page above, where I attempted to explain both why the information is wrong and suggests paths for moving forward. I am not sure the proper resolution path for this, especially as the editor continues to come in from many IP addresses. Does anyone have any suggestions? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you already tried solutions suggest at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing_with_vandalism? Personally contacting an admin about this might also help. zerofoks 19:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Freemasons as Holocaust victims?

The introductory definition states that

The Holocaust is the name applied to the systematic state-sponsored persecution and genocide of various ethnic, religious and political groups during World War II by Nazi Germany and its collaborators.

(emphasis added)

I removed the (poorly edited) note on The_Holocaust#Victims stating that Freemasons were particular victims of the Holocaust.

My reasons are as follows:

• I believe the introductory definition makes it clear that actual victims of the actual Holocaust are those who were targets in the genocide, not simply all victims of nazi propaganda and persecution. The article on genocide clearly defines the act as "systematic killing of substantial numbers of people on the basis of ethnicity, religion, political opinion, social status or other particularity." (emphasis added). Whether "substantial number" is a term that can objectively be applied to other groups listed in The_Holocaust#Victims (such as Africans) is probably also a controversial issue. I scanned the talk archives for related discussions and it seems the usage and difference of the terms "target" and "victim" has been problematic, and no conclusion has been come to. However, it is my opinon that all those listed in The_Holocaust#Victims should also be able to be identified as targets (for genocide) in the nazi plans.
• The link [1] provided by User:Grazon in this revision (deleted by me and later reinstated in some unrelated revert action, I believe) does only list examples of nazi propaganda and vague references to persecution against Freemasons. There are no mentionings of actual nazi plans to single out Freemasons for the systematic killing in the genocide.

If you disagree with my decision, please discuss this matter here first before reverting the section again. zerofoks 19:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I have a new source which states

"In 1934, Leo Muffelmann, the Grand Master and founder of the Symbolic Grand Lodge of Germany, died as a direct result of his incarceration in a concentration camp." http://bessel.org/naziartl.htm

He was not the only Mason sent to a camp

grazon 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I am afraid the death of one (!) high-ranking member of an organization generally not approved by the nazis won't do. You could argue that one member might be enough as long as he is targeted because of his group membership but then the question is why there aren't more widespread persecution of Freemasons in the Holocaust. It is more likely, as the facts make it seem, that this man was singeled out for being in a position of power if anything. If there is factual record of a general, widespread or at least planned act of genocide against Freemasons, please present it.

Also, please sign your contributions with 4 tildes (~~~~) on talk pages as explained here: Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages --zerofoks 22:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

• 1) he was not the only Mason sent to the camps
• 2) I am signing my posts can you see this? grazon 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

grazon 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Simon Wiesenthal's biography Nazi Hunter mentions specifically that Freemasons were one of the four groups (Jews being another of those four groups) that the Germans specifically oppressed. Furthermore, the Nazis systematically dismantled Freemasonry in Germany (Google that phrase for an idea), as well as every other country they were either allied with or had annexed.MSJapan 02:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Are we really supposed to take this VfD seriously? Should we wait until it failed or remove the note immediately? Str1977 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a speedy deletion tag to the linked page, hopefully an admin will delete it. Ramallite ^(talk) 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

We can remove the note immediately, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says: Nominations that are clearly vandalism may be discarded. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Syntax leap

I deleted the following clause (in bold), which was part of the reverted deletions:

(These views are not accepted as credible by mainstream historians) and disregard a substantial historical record on the Holocaust.

The author of this clause should specify what he meant by that. Currently the connection to the rest of the text is unclear.

Str1977 19:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what the original intent was, but added substitute text, and a source, backing up the lack of credibility. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok by me, Polonius, even if it is not what the author intended. If he cares, he may comment. If he doesn't, I don't care either. Thanks. Str1977 16:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I feal this article could be improved a lot not really with facts. Talk+|WWW 07:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Shoah

I inserted Shoah in the intro and then thought better of it as the note in etymology appears as a first reference. Is "became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust" accurate or is it better to say "...for the Jewish aspect/component/etc. of the Holocaust"? Marskell 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bored of the Holocaust?

I dont know about you guys, but what would you say to a Holocaust in the media section refering to over-exposure compared to any other event in human history? This much is undeniable, even for Westerners, yes?

I mean, every year you have a Holocaust Memorial Day. In Western Europe and the US. Let me tell you something. Here in China we don't care about this thing. That is part of your history, not ours. That's right, 1.2 billion people who don't care about the holocaust. Do you think the 1 billion odd people in India care about the holocaust or even know about it? What about the 800 million people in Indonesia? Or the 1 billion odd people in South America? The hundreds of millions of people in Africa? None of these people attatch such reverence to this one event yet you Westerners do. It is laughable. Ignore the crimes of all the world as evidenced by Africa and try to artificially stamp the Holocaust into history so it will never be forgotten.

Well let me tell you one last thing: most of the world never cared in the first place. And eventually, your grandchildren will not care either. It is the way of the world. Eventually, all things are forgotten no matter how many films the Jewish movie moguls make on the subject.

So: a section about media over-exposure of the Holocaust, and also, to perhaps get some perspective on this: how the Holocaust is viewed outside of Western countries. Or does that lie outside your comfort zone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.213.215 (talk • contribs)

The way to eliminate systemic bias is to improve other articles not dis-improve this one. If you want a Holocaust viewpoints outside of the west it shouldn't consist of something idiotic like "most of the world never cared in the first place." Nor, I think, is this place for a tirade about Jewish movie moguls.

Indonesia has 200+ million people, incidentally. Marskell 16:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

And South America some 350 million people. It's interesting to know that a person so concerned about history is so inaccurate about present-day reality. Especially the blatantly racist vandals. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ignore the troll -- he was doing this to a dozen articles on every subject, and has apparently already been blocked. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, 86.138.213.215 was responsible for the above vandalism. Superm401 | Talk 18:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Two Incompatible Aims

Sebastian Haffner's The Meaning Of Hitler(Wiedenfeld and Nicolson) ISBN 0297775723 of 1979 p143 concludes :

In short, in December 1941 , within a few days , Hitler made his final choice between the two incompatible aims which he had pursued from the outset - German domination of the world and the extermination of the Jews . He abandoned the former as unattainable and entirely concentrated on the latter. (on 30 November it had still been a a few days too early for that.) Moreover he now accepted Germany's total defeat with all the possible consequences as the price of being able to carry out at last the extermination of the Jews throughout Europe , a plan which had long made his mouth water .

I believe I had included a very brief reference to Haffner's thesis in the Hitler article, but it is essential as understanding here ...This thesis of Haffner's developes from German defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad , which was the turning of the tide . Anyway , I will tell editors that there was a continuous and clear reference by Nazi street gangs throughout Germany from at least 1931, of literally "perish the Jew" . It is artificial to consider the origin of the Holocaust from a verbal order in 1942 , as it is artificial to ignore the reality of a purely verbal order . My pennyworth aside is that Hitler learned some circumspection in his dealings from powers that existed and thrived upon purely verbal orders . However , Haffner explains:

To Hitler , during the last three and a half years of war , the war had become a kind of race which he was still hoping to win . Who would reach his goal sooner, Hitler with the extermination of the Jews or the Allies with their military overthrow of Germany .

EffK 23:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

User note: User:EffK is also User:Flamekeeper [was FK, that cookie lost]

I do not understand the quoted paragraph to be arguing that the origina of the Holocaust lay in a verbal command in 1942, or a realization in 1941 — only that after a certain point in WWII, the war against the Jews came to take priority over the war against everyone else; this does not mean that the war against the Jews didn't exist earlier, indeed, it assumes it was already going on. Lucy Dawidowitz I believe makes a similar argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I must say, I'm a little confused myself. Does this article assert the "final solution" became the main war aim only in 1941 or 1942? I don't think so, so I'm not sure what the criticism is. And I'd really dispute any author suggesting the Nazis were only doing X in Y year based on Z motivation. Neat solutions are neat, but inter-war German history is not. Marskell 23:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You may dispute any author suggesting the Nazis were only doing X in Y year based on Z motivation. Frankly, I might too. Alas, it is entirely irrelevant that you or I would dispute this, because our own views don't count (see Wikipedia:No original research. If there are reputable published scholars who make such claims (that you or I would dispute) their views, and their reasons/evidence, ought to be included in this article along with a proper citation. And if there are reputable published scholars who make different claims (including the claim that inter-war German history is more complicated), then those claims should be included, properly sourced too. The article should not "assert" any one claim or argument; it ought to provide an account of various verifiable respected (even if contentious, disputed, or rejected) scholarly views, along with proper citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The verbal is an aside that I contribute . Is it not the case that we are lacking direct Hitlerian order towards impementation of the genocide at the Wannsee moment, or any other  ? Slrubenstein I commend .EffK 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I'm more confused: Slrubenstein, I was agreeing with you. Of course, we should not 'assert' any one claim or argument. Marskell 10:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Sebastian Haffner and Correction to Wikipedia Holocaust

I see no confusion. what is the confusion ? Haffner says Hitler had two aims. Not a second aim , that transpired subsequently.

Haffner says he had them from the outset .

Haffner says Hitler . Haffner does not say Nazis , any more than he says Germans .

Haffner says abandoned the G'n domination by end 1941 .

If you are confused , is it due to retention of another interpretation ... A Nazi interpretation ? The import is that Hitler is alone . The decision is his . Confusion is artificial , & results from earlier mis-interpretation . Confusion would rest in ,say, speculation as to Generals, Reichsmarshals or Camp Commandants agreeing to the Hitlerian decision/analysis.

O! We lost the war , but no matter, we get the Jews . [ Tho we know the soldiery & people recognised the same as Hitler-it was lost at Stalingrad- but he retained control']

I believe herein lies the confusion of the whole Article . But, everyone is frightened of this conclusion ,FOR to accept it is to need to analyse first , not the collaboration of the General Camp Command Marshals or the German People , BUT require an honest understanding of the origin and nature of Hitler's thinking and control, even to the extent of analysing his Germanity , and where his two policies came from .

Maybe our great sense towards the injustices of Hitler's results , dissuades us from the wish to limit the questioning SO to one man , in ,or dislike against , limiting this very same sense ?

The holocaust IS [under this premise] one side of one man , AH . Alone .[This is according to Haffner-I just say that I have read this book, this is the premise, it is a study of AH, I quote what I can, and I raise this to sort confusion , & I have not written those quotes , I have no input except the exegesis. We can disprove him , if we can ...or wish or quote .]

To clarify the Wikipedia article , under realisation of ,say, the Haffner quotes , ask yourselves as editors of the article, to write NOT the majority of progressively older history sources , say, as basis for opposing views, but to write a Wikipedia reflection of the actual reality .

If the reality is that Hitler and Hitler solely and alone decided upon or controlled , the policy ( one of two ) THEN the article reflects this reality . If you disagree ask yourselves-can you name a single other man with an input to the policy during the Third Reich , an input SAY that persuaded Hitler NOT to dominate the world , or , NOT to exterminate the Jews ?

It is impossible , do you agree ?

Does the Article reflect this reality , or not  ?

THEN , Have we the guts to revisit , given we will have the sense/guts to agree with HAFFNER that NOT , that no other man had persuasive power over AH ,either to determine the war as lost and take decisions in that view' , OR that the Holocaust was unecessary ?

We can fix the holocaust article easy peazy, but have we the guts to understand why Hitler alone, solely in control , seduced the nation to BOTH policies.

Haffner states: "from the outset" , and the outset is 1933 , from the CONTROL - there is no 1939 barrier to this subject we have to fix [intellectual honesty being even] .

ps [Im not a stmp collector-not here to write a good article, but the correct article. Anybody who believes there are two correct differing interpretations of this, is NEWS to all] . EffK 17:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Premeditation

Science and Ploest is not enough . Rohan. D'O.Butler divides his sources for the roots of National Socialism ( sheltering AH's twin policies ,above,) into

• Romanticism 1783-1825
• Reaction 1815-1848
• Unification 1848-1871
• Empire !871-1918
• Republic 1918-1933

It would be great to blame Science , nice and clean , any blood would be down around the corner from us people , who think , and allow others to think , and allow the tyrants to think the thoughts for us .

I commend that book , as a philosopical education in itself , since Germany produced most of the interesting intellectual advance of Europe , as well as Hitler. It would take WP consolidation at each of the German philosopher's articles and bring WP almost ahead of the general Stanford Philosophy links -were we to do justice . But , we may not wish to rock the boat . We may prefer to exist in this carefully constructed painted image of the reality instead [I mean in our normal occidental influenced minds].

Nazis do that , the Nazis are dead, so no one does that .

Only the Nazis thought of it, and so the world is better, and lets do business . [I used Butler for Herder before getting manacled by Rfc fvat attak .] EffK 17:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As the reverts perhaps settle someone might like to know that re : premeditation , Chapter XVII of Edgar Ansel Mowrer's 1933 John Lane The Bodley Head Germany Puts The Clock Back is named Perish The Jew , precisely for the reason stated . Take out the name .EffK 19:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear EffK (cross-posted with your message),

Some changes to your edits. Don't consider these attacks but rather attempts at helping you.

1) I removed your insertion of AH to the Nazi Germany and its collaborators. Certainly, Hitler is essential, but here the context is generally on the "country" level.

2) I removed the IBM sentence. It is true, but it is already included, a few lines above under the term Dehomag = Deutsche Hollerith-Maschinen-Gesellschaft = a German daugher of IBM.

3) I moved the church records passage, which is undoubtedly true further up to the Race law section.

4) Your Mowrer reference I moved up to the beginning of the "Jews" section, as there Mein Kampf was already mentioned. As a special treat, I include the German version of the rallying cry and also a anti-semitic SA song. I delete your Mowrer reference, as I don't doubt the accuracy (and know what you posted to be true, though not from Mowrer).

5) However, I must revert your link to the EA, as this overemphasizes its importance in regard to the boycott. This was not done by law but an initiative by the SA. Str1977 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re last, you could(one could) use your argument it was generally dependant /linked. I stongly dispute the removal of Adolf Hitler from the opening. At weakest , leaning as far as I can to you , I tell you this contradicts Haffner and true understanding of the world. I think in general it is vital to name the chief power .I include this as a denial , Str, sorry . EffK 10:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mahmoud Abbas and Holocaust denial

I just noticed during the most recent vandalism revert that there is a sentence regarding Abbas randomly dropped in the article directly following the phrase "Holocaust denial is most commonly associated with neo-Nazis or anti-Semites; it has become popular in recent years among Islamic fundamentalists". This is a bit problematic, because of the following reasons:

1. According to all available sources, Abbas is not a neo-Nazi, an anti-Semite, or an Islamic fundamentalist.
2. There is dispute as to whether Abbas' dissertation actually reflects his true beliefs. On one hand, the article here quotes a source that claims that Abbas had to write what he did because he was at a Soviet institution, but more relevant is a Haaretz interview as follows:

   The question about whether he denied the Holocaust in his Ph.D. angers Abbas. "I wrote in detail about the Holocaust and said I did not want to discuss numbers. I quoted an argument between historians in which various numbers of casualties were mentioned. One wrote there were 12 million victims and another wrote there were 800,000. I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgiveable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it." [2]

In light of all of this, one could either NPOV this section by adding this information and unnecessarily elongating the article, or remove the reference to Abbas altogether because it is on very shaky ground. I'm inclined to remove it. Thoughts? Ramallite ^(talk) 20:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say remove it. There are other and better examples of Holocaust denial as part of general anti-Israeli rhetoric (though not, anywhere I've seen, by Abbas). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it was a distraction. I removed it, and inserted a direct quote from a scholarly journal instead of an assertion. Also, I added the AHA quote. If someone wants to add an example of denial used for anti-Israeli sentiment, we can, but I don't think it is necesary to discuss denial any further in the main Holocaust article than is already present (which is probably way, way too much in any case, compared to better uses of the space, but I guess this is a case where the internet requires a different mix of content than a paper publication). --Goodoldpolonius2 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler in "A matter of style"

Dear fellow editors, please have a look into this edit

[3]

and comment on whether you think the former or the latter version better or whether the explicit mentioning of Hitler is needed or appropriate here.

EffK, this is purely a matter of style" - no one here questions the central role of Hitler in the Holocaust. The question is merely whether he should be included here.

Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the current change makes it look like Hilter alone was culpable. I and have changed it back, to be more in line with standard definitions. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"...during World War II in Nazi Germany under the Dictatorship of Adolf Hitler by collaborators." Seems to mean that collaborators inside Nazi Germany, lead by Hitler did it. The Hitlerless version is clearer. I think the problem here is that "Nazi Germany" and "collaborators" are groups, trying to squeeze a single person in between them makes an awkward sentence. Perhaps he could be mentioned some other place in the sentence or later in the summary. --BadSeed 00:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Murder vs Homicide, genocide, etc.

I just reverted a POV that seeks to characterize the deaths as "murder", which implies intent. A guy who switched trains (as part of the killing machine) may not have had the intent of killing the jews on the trains. Jews were undoubtably murdered, by some, but the Holocaust wasn't simply a system of murder. It was murder, forced labor, etc.Ronabop 11:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, someone must have had intent to murder, be it Himmler, Eichmann or whoever. To refer to it as killing removes personal responsibility. And no, I'm not saying this because of Goldhagen. JFW | T@lk 11:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some of the Holocaust was murder, which has intent, and accountability. My point was that the edit which I removed seemed to characterize *all* of the deaths in the Holocaust as murder. I don't think we should strip out non-lethal, or non-intent, portions of the article (and resulting numbers) simply because they don't meet the definitions of murder. Thus, it seems we need to include more than simply outright murder (under a term such as "killing"), or we need to prune the article down to only include murderous actions, which I would find to be a not-so-satisfactory solution. Ronabop 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronabop, the Holocaust was murder and not just killings. Your are right, there were other elements as well but the objective of the Holocaust was to kill these human beings. Granted, not all implicated in the Holocaust were murderers (e.g. the train driver), but that doesn't affect the character of the whole "event". Str1977 11:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My point is that the Holocaust wasn't simply an event of ouright murder. It was economic devastation, it was warfare food shortages, it was medicine shortages, it was systematic sterilization, it was a great number of things. Some portions were intended to cause death outright, some inadvertently resulted in death, and some people survived. Ronabop 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronabop, Not every cog in the machine inteded to kill Jews, but it Nazi leadership did. To claim that it was not murder you would have to claim that no one inteded to kill people. --BadSeed 11:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess my contrast with your point would be that to characterize *all* the deaths as murder requires that *all* deaths were the result of murder. Thus, anybody working in a forced labor camp who died in a machine accident would have to be called "murder". Anybody who killed themselves would have to be called, quite oddly, "murder". Somebody who died of TB would... (etc.). In short, to characterize the whole of the Holocaust as murder would require that *every* death was the result of an intent to kill people. Ronabop 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For it to be murder, not only must a killing have intent, but it must also be done unlawfully. These were ordered by the rulers of Germany at the time, and as such were not unlawful. People are using the word 'murder' to push their own POV, and I am labelled an 'apologist' (although we all know I am assumed to be a white-supremacist or some such) simply because I can look at the situation objectively. 86.128.31.164 18:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This (Ronabop's) is a ridiculous assertion. The intention of the nazi elite to murder the jews and other minorities is well documented, see for instance Wannsee Conference. This is not POV. The executing nazi organs were mostly well aware of what happened and that the slaughter was intentional as well as that the intentions of the numerous plans and organizations were aimed towards slaughter. Thus = murder, EOD. --zerofoks 12:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV-pushing I reverted wasn't about whether or not murder was intended during the Holocaust. The POV-pushing was that *every* death in the holocaust was an act of murder. Ronabop 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just by reading Zerofoks comment above, is is obvious that he has a POV to push, despite his claims to the contrary. He uses the word 'ridiculous' to refer to calling it killing as opposed to murder, and declares it to be the end of the discussion, as if his word is the be-all and end-all. 86.128.31.164 19:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

People get killed in earthqueakes or auto accidents. The vast majority of the Holocaust victims were innocent (1.5M of Jewish children), and their "killing" was premeditated, i.e. murder. The fact that it has been done according to law makes things worse and in no way exonerates its penetrators. See Nuremberg Trial. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 19:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

They also get killed because cities are bombed, they get killed because of disease epidemics (the Typhus myth, it's big with deniers). I haven't seen a breakdown of causes of death in the Holocaust that would indicate that what percent of the deaths were the result of pre-meditation intended to cause death (murder)... Indeed the historical record seems to have the reverse problem, where Wieslaw Kielar's memoirs from Auschwitz graphically detail *falsified* death records. Ronabop 01:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the appendicitis. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 01:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

See the definition of murder, it is a killing that is done with intent AND is unlawful, not one or the other. I'm not saying these killings didn't happen, or that it wasn't a bad thing, simply that the use of the word 'murder' when not technically true is POV. Being done according to law doesn't make it any better, true, but it does make it not murder. 86.128.31.164 20:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thing is that after 1945, international laws were created that a) defined the Nazi laws that justified genocide as legal to be illegal themselves and b) did this retroactively (which created a huge controversy, but on this base the Nuremberg trials took place. It also lead to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide among other things. The assertion that murder (or genocide) of a state cannot be called murder (or genocide) because that state itself defines its own actions as not to be classified as murder (or genocide) is simply not true and does not represent the general consensus of today's international philosophy of law. --zerofoks 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

There actually was no Nazi law that made genocide legal. The Third Reich was of a dual nature: on the hand there was the old legal state that was gradually "nazified" (e.g. the Nuremberg laws, harsh penalties for trifles etc), on the other hand there was the state of exception, where Hitler's and his representatives' will alone counted - inside the concentration camps, in occupied countries, in certain situations (Röhm Putsch). The legal basis for this second state was the Reichstag Fire Decree, suspending basic rights, but even that didn't actually make genocide legal. In fact, the Nazis took care to conceal the genocide concealed from the people (not entirely successful). Only in regard to Euthanasia was passing a law considered, but this plan was then given up. Str1977 00:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ronabop, you're splitting hairs. Whether people died by gas, gunshot, starvation, disease or overwork it is all, in this context murder. The Nazis' aims were to kill the Jews, Slavs and Gypsies in the territories they occupied, it doesn't matter whether they did that directly through gas chambers and shootings or "indirectly" by putting them in labour camps where life expectancy rarely exeeded a several weeks, the intention was to have them die. As for legality, killing civilians in occupied territory (especially as genocide) is never legal. --BadSeed 12:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler was the "LAW"; therefore, the Holocaust was legal in Germany at that time. Battlefield 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Good thing we have the section on functionalism vs. Intentionalism. :-) 135 people died at Manzanar, and since there was a clear effort being made to separate out a group of people, relocate them into some pretty horrid camps, resulting in their death, would it be POV-pushing to characterize all of those deaths as murders? I think it would. Here's another case to think about: Indian_Removal. The article states the deaths were unintentional (yeah, people dying in forced camps, after being relocated at gunpoint Trail of Tears, and on death marches is 'unintentional" in that article).

I guess I see a difference between the Holocaust deaths that were part of deliberate brutality (such as Einsatzgruppen, the death camps, and T-4), deaths which were all a part of an eventually developed intent to slaughter people, and the Holocaust deaths which were incidental to the war. Ronabop 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I may be repeating myself: genocide was not legal in Hitler's Germany. And Hitler was not the Law, Battlefield. Granted, since the Reichstag Fire Decree suspended human right and Hitler through the Enabling Act efectively had legislative powers, he could have issued a law regarding the genocide of this group or that group. But since he didn't do it, the Holocaust as a whole was not legal - even when viewed through purely legal-positivistical glasses. And I haven't even begun to mention natural law. Str1977 16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

From the article on the Schutzstaffel:"SS Judges have themselves admitted that the mass murder of Jews and the shooting of women and children was against German law and that no SS member could be held accountable for refusing to obey orders which were clearly illegal." If the Holocaust was illegal according to SS judges there should be no further need to beat this topic to death, even if we were purely legal positivists. --Goodoldpolonius2 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

From the very same article: "The SS response to the German legal establishment was to petition the Reich Ministry of Justice to pass an act which removed the SS, and all of its members, from the jurisdiction of the civilian courts. This effectively placed the SS “above the law” and its members could break regular German law without fear of penalty." This is not entirely unlike the US secret services kidnapping, "rendering" (torturing), and killing people in their current state of warfare.... though such actions are illegal under US civillian law, they are not illegal under US military law. This is how much of the SS escaped any sort of legal prosecution. While genocide may have been illegal, "shooting an escaping prisoner" was legal. Ronabop 05:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)