Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed move

This should be at something like Responsibility for the Holocaust because the current title, The Holocaust (responsibility) implies that this is a different thing from the The Holocaust. Any objections or other suggestions? howcheng {chat} 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, this move is now done. howcheng {chat} 20:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland

There may be some people who are surprised to find Switzerland listed here. However, it was extremely imporant that the Swiss parliament set up the International Commission of Experts which came to the conclusion that official Swiss action sent Jews to the extermination camps. This does beg the question about other countries who refused Jewish asylum seekers permission to land, i.e. the SS St. Louis, resulting in the deaths of many of them. But the Swiss border guards did physically hand Jewish refugees to the Germans, well aware that they would be shipped to an extermination camp. Joel Mc 15:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Rosenstrasse protest

I have tried to modify some of the claims made about this courageous protest. There is clearly more work to be done on the Rosenstrasse protest article itself which remains one-sided in its claims. Joel Mc 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Footnote 18 really confuses the issue. The men were returned from a death camp where supposedly "everyone" knew "what was going on". A real soft spot in the holocaust story. Thanks for the information on an episode I had never heard about.

Fair use rationale for Image:Brussels, Belgium, May 1943.JPG

Image:Brussels, Belgium, May 1943.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit on collective guilt should be added

Efforts to instill a sense of "collective guilt"

"In 1945 there was an Allied consensus—which no longer exists—on the doctrine of collective guilt, that all Germans shared the blame not only for the war but for Nazi atrocities as well."[1]

The British and The Americans considered the Germans to be guilty, using the terms "collective guilt", and "collective responsibility"[2]

The British instructed their officers in control of German media to instill a sense of collective guilt in the population[3]

In the early months of the occupation the Psychological Warfare Division of SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) undertook a psychological propaganda campaign for the purpose of developing a German sense of collective responsibility.[4] Using the German press (which were all under Allied control) and posters and pamphlets a program acquainting ordinary Germans with what had take place in the concentration camps was conducted.

"During the summer of 1945 pictures of Bergen-Belsen were hung as posters all over Germany with 'You Are Guilty' on them."[5]

Later the U.S. army came to draw a distinction between those legally guilty and the rest of the population which was then merely considered morally guilty.[6]

A number of films showing the concentration camps were made and screened to the German public. For example "Die Todesmuhlen", released in the U.S. zone in January 1946, "Welt im Film" No. 5 (June, 1945). A film that was never finished due partly to delays and the existence of the other films was "Memory of the Camps". "...the object [of the film] was to shake and humiliate the Germans and prove to them beyond any possible challenge that these German crimes against humanity were committed and that the German people -- and not just the Nazis and SS -- bore responsibility."[7]

Immediately upon the liberation of the concentration-camps many German civilians were forced to see the conditions in the camps, bury rotting corpses and exhume mass-graves.[8] On threat of death or withdrawal of food civilians were forced to provide their belongings to former concentration camp inmates[9]

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

On the statistics from the post war polls

We need someone to actually read the book the statistics come from, who can say what the U.S. interpretation of the numbers was.

Personally I think that perhaps with 3 million[10] Germans dead from the post-war ethnic cleansing the Allies and Poles had staged/were staging, and the millions of Germans in allied slave labor camps, many former nazi concentration camps in Poland used to slowly kill German civilians[11] the Allied dismantling of German industry that lasted until 1950, the mass-rapes by Russian and Polish soldiers, the "democratisation"[12], and the "collective guilt" propaganda campaign perhaps the Germans were not in a mood to give the "liberators" the answers they wanted? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 01:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

3 milion Germans ?

"Regarding German knowledge of the workings of the ordinary concentration camps, it should be noted that as many as 3 million Germans had been sent to the camps or prison for political reasons"

Not clear. Ethnic Germans or citizens of German that for example were classified as untermenschen, that is for instance Jewish minority in Germany or Polish one. I will change it accordingly.--Molobo (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the recent revert

Joel Mc (talk · contribs), regarding this revert of yours, please state what it is you feel that needs to be discussed.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 15:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I had planned to explain my revert here, but was pulled away. The removal of the image and reference to the poll(s) needs explanation and discussion. I think that I understand your opinion about the polls, and the references were a bit messy. I have changed this, making the direct reference to Tony Judt. Given his status as a historian, his use of this info certainly gives added weight to it. Your references to German victims of the Nazi regime are certainly important but don't seem very relevant to this article: The important work of Peter Hoffman is not contradictory to the results of the polls. Your idea of linking to the Denazification article is a good one although I needed to correct my reference to polls. Goldhagen's study has been discredited by a wider range of historians than indicated, i.e. Yehuda Bauer: Rethinking the Holocaust. Haven, Yale University, 2001.--Joel Mc (talk) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some issues with this. First, you've put the reference to Denazification in the footnotes, which means that essentially no-one will be able to see it and investigate furhter - and therefore will accept the opinion poll that is provided without any context as gospel. This is very bad, since the referenced data certainly needs context, for example showing that the cited question was very badly phrased.

Second: My reference to the German victims are very relevant here, since they were victimized because they were opponents to the regime. As it is the article currently wikilinks to the Greek resistance, the French resistance and to the Norwegian resistance, but incredibly no link is provided to the German resistance!

• You removed the image of the "anti-Nazi German women in the concentration camp ovens"

There is a sentence in the text that currently implicates the Germans by stating: "and that the basics of the concentration camps, if not the extermination camps, were widely known." That is sheer idiocy, of course the workings of the camps were known since many ordinary Germans had been forced to spend time there. This is the text you removed.

Almost every community in Germany had members taken away to concentration camps, as early as 1935 there were jingles warning:

"Dear God, make me dumb, that I may not to Dachau come."[13]

"Between 1933 and 1945 more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps or prison for political reasons"

Tens of thousands of Germans were killed for their resistance; 12,000 were killed by Special Courts, while 40,000 were killed by "regular courts". In addition 25,000 German soldiers were killed after court martial. (see German resistance)

Please state specifically why you do not wish to see that text in the article.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• I put the internal link to Denazification in the footnote as this is standard practice for making such a reference. I have no problem if you want to put it in the body.
• You have an interesting point of view about the historical context in which the polls were carried out and the nature of the question referred to. I have seen no reference to a scholarly discussion of this viewpoint. That doesn't mean it does not exist, but until there is a reference, it remains a personal point of view. The standard studies made of the polls can be found in: Merritt, Richard L.; Merritt, Anna J. (1970). Public opinion in occupied Germany: the OMGUS surveys, 1945-1949. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-00077-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) and Merritt, Richard L.; Merritt, Anna J. (1970). Public opinion in occupied Germany: the OMGUS surveys, 1945-1949. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-00077-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
• I removed the text and the picture because they were copied and pasted directly from the WP article German resistance, which seems to me where they belong. I agree with your point that there ought to be an internal link to German resistance.Joel Mc (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I will re-insert Denazification into the body then, and expect you not to remove it again.
• "Interesting point of view regarding the polls". You just proved that you never bothered to read the Denazification article, which is where the polls are discussed. It is not a "personal point of view" This makes your revert of my original edit suspicious. You did not revert the user who included the polls withou context in the first place[14], and edit that he by the way seems to have plastered all over Wikipedia. I once again suggest that we either delete the data and direct the reader to the relevant article, either that, or copy the full discussion into this article.
• Regarding the deleted information, how come you did not choose to leave the link to German resistance in that case? --Stor stark7 ^Speak 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not only read the Denazification article but Sarah Gordon as well. She has never implied given the historical context of denazification that: "the Germans were not in a mood to give the "liberators" the answers they wanted?" (Your words and personal point of view above.)In fact she has written with respect to some of the process, "The interviewees may have been particularly reluctant to give 'unfavorable' answers to Americans." (p. 199) She does raise some important points about the wording of the OMGUS surveys, but of course there were other surveys, and the 1950 and 1952 stix come from elsewhere. I also note that you have copied again chunk of text from Denazification and pasted it into the Responsibility for the Holocaust article. I don't know if there is a WP policy on this, but I certainly have never seen it done in any other encyclopedia. I have tried to keep my interventions here civil and don't really think they warrant your aggressive reaction. I have other things to do and will move on.--Joel Mc (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Point regarding my own quote taken. I note however that I made that edit more than 4 months ago, so I really don't see why you involved it into this discussion as if that was the topic being discussed, you should have been more clear as to what you were referring to. As to copy-pasting chunks, the original part that you had no problems with was being copy pasted all over the place, such as here, but you did not seem to have any issues with that then. Second on copy pasting, I only copy pasted the context section since you had previously allowed the raw data without context remain after my attempt to replace it with a notification about the polls and a pointer for the reader to the correct article for a discussion on the polls. Copying the context here was then simply the second best alternative. As to my judgment regarding German attitudes to the occupying forces affecting the polls they are admittedly as far as I know my own, but then I haven't been looking at the polls very much. But anyone who does some thinking will realize that oppressive conquerors may not receive truthful answers in opinion polls. Which way the polls go is of course another question.

Some sources on the Joys of occupation:

• Did the United States Create Democracy in Germany? (The answer is a resounding NO)
• Example of a poster used by U.S. forces to create "collective guilt"
• Americans are loosing the victory
• Victor Gollancz, "Germany Revisited", London Victor Gollancz LTD, 1947
• Várdy, Section: by Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II goto pages. 274 - 288
• War_children#American
• Conquerors road
• random google book
• And I like this one Things must be tops when a former U.S. president takes the leaf from his mouth and after 2 years of occupation writes "There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."
• How three million Germans died after VE Day

If Id been a German living in the western occupation zones then I might have had some particular feelings about the good old GI's, the American occupation activities and to their survey takers.

Again I apologize if you feelt offended, but I think you should take part of the blame for any miss communication.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your views on Allied liberation of Europe from German Nazi occupation Stor stark are not relevant to this discussion. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a political discussion forum.

--Molobo (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me Molobo, I will seek to follow the good example you set in the future. And may I welcome you back to Wikipedia, for a while there I though we had lost you to the permanent banning.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hilberg1.jpg

The image Image:Hilberg1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Otto Ohlendorf (Ollendorf)

Can the author/authors verify if "Otto Ollendorf" is the same as "Otto Ohlendorf" ([15]) and if not, where can I find his trial testimony ? Some generalizations are affirmed in the article based on this Ollendorf testimony (with no reference given). Otto Ohlendorf's testimony (see for example link above) has no mentioning of the Romanian troops behavior vis-a-vis "an orgy of rape and plunder".

I am not denying events such as Bogdanovka, just wanted to clarify the specific point of existence of Mr. Ollendorf and his testimony, as they are cited in the article.

Edit (after further reading):

I also submit the following paragraph for deletion:

"Probably the most conspicuous collaborators in the Holocaust were the Romanians, whose army killed about 400,000 Jews during their occupation of Bessarabia (Moldova), Bukovina and parts of western Ukraine, including Odessa. Otto Ollendorf testified at his trial that the behaviour of the Romanians assisting the Einsatzgruppen in Ukraine disgusted even the SS: they engaged in an orgy of rape and plunder, and killed most of their victims by herding them into barns and burning them alive."

reasons:

• the information can and is already included under the heading "Romania", I see no need to single out.

• "the most conspicuous" is a personal characterization unless we go ahead and make some sort of macabre top-ten - other states were also documented to have been actively worked towards Jewish extermination (Belgium, Croatia and Hungary for example), some with the same or larger magnitude.

• the reason for the "Ollendorf" paragraph is explained above and I submitted it separately for reference correction purposes.

Kyry101 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Romania

I would like to submit to discussion the following paragraph to be added to the entry on Romania:

However, as in the case of other nations, collaboration was not the whole story. The protests of various public, political and religious figures (e.g. Queen Elena of Romania and Prince Constantin Karadja) against the deportation of the Jews from the Romanian Kingdom contributed to the change of policy toward the Jews starting with October 1942 (Wiesel Commission, "Final Report of the International Commission on the Holocaust in Romania" (in English at Yad Vashem) [16]). The result of this change of policy and that of the actions of a relatively small number of individuals (Righteous Among the Nations - per Country & Ethnic Origin January 1, 2008 [17]) was that at least 290,000 Romanian Jews survived (Wiesel Commission and ROMANIA FACING ITS PAST - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [18]).

reason: an attempt to provide the entire story as is the case with the entries for Belgium, Croatia, Serbia, Slovakia. Not intended to exculpate the regime, feel free to suggest changes if meaning is not clear that way.

Kyry101 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni and islam

I only make additions for what i have sources or references, so it is not a theorie. If the islam and Mohammad Amin al-Husayni appears, then it is our responsibility to reveal the truth, and not to ignore them because it would be uncomfort. Just because informations are new they arent wrong. --Santiago84 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how the Mufti was responsible for the Holocaust? That is, after all, the subject of this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure. He made direct suggestions to Hitler. During world war 2 he was at Hitlers Side. He was part of planing the Holocaust. He recruited Muslims to several german squads, signed contracts for a shared final solution to jews for the arab world and europe.

Your first source is a copy of a Wikipedia article. I don't have access to, nor could I read, your second source. The third is a link to a Wikipedia article. The fourth says the Mufti supported the Nazis, not that he was responsible for the Holocaust. The fifth is a personal essay, not a reliable source. How about a mainstream historian who says that the Mufti was responsible for the Holocaust? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The first source is not a copy of a wikipedia article, it is an entire compilation of the Grand mufti beeing involved in the holocaust, the second is a book and a valid proof. the third is a link of the jerusalem post!. the fourth and fith are revealations of this informations of major newspapers! Just read the sources and article of Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction of Longerich conclusion

Longerich actually came to the opposite conclusion and I have corrected the sentence. His conclusion is reproduced in German with an English translation in http://www.dialoginternational.com/dialog_international/2012/02/review-peter-longerichs-davon-haben-wir-nichts-gewusst.html. I have removed unreferenced statements as well as the reference to Moltke's letter as he was not an expert or a reliable source, besides the letter is a primary document and constitutes OR.--Joel Mc (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced

Would anyone mind if I trim down the article in order to get the unsourced parts out? Five and a half years of not sourcing is quite long, I must say. Best regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would discourage trimming. It is true that the article was tagged in June 2007. However since then, a number of references have been added. It is true there are still unreferenced paras and other statements, however, many of them are not unimportant to the discussion and the necessary references do exist. I will try and see what I can come up with during the coming time.Joel Mc (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I just added the needed sources and removed the tag. -Shalom11111 (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing such a great job!Jeff5102 (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Japan

There is nothing mentioned about the Japanese and the degree of their collaboration of handling the Jews in Shanghai under German pressure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.67.49 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Idiom

"Smoking gun" is an idiom which isn't allowed WP:IDIOM. It should be changed. Rupert Loup (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hitler's language

Ultimately, I think the issue is insoluble and massively unbalanced weight given to the attitudinally authoritarian "anti-Revisionist" camp inclines me to the opposite against my conscious will, almost by reflexive subconscious intuition... I think people need to realize reality might not be all simple and this article is not Wikipedia's best, LOL - but has made one person think, its Soviet-esque methodology failing in blowback...

Hitler described numerous times his plans for the radical cultural and socio-religious reconstruction of Europe - the quotations highlighting brutal literal homicidal mentality on Hitler's part are not consensually agreed upon as authentic, are presented void of any meaningful contextual depth, and make things appear they only reflect his bipolar-schizotypic world-view and temperament more than anything else - an emotionally explosive antisocial peasant with visionary dreams chiliastic and his perception of the world.

I was stimulated in reading this article into reflecting it is indeed historically bizarre NOT ONE IOTA of actual sourced, written judicially-court-defensible communication exists conveying Hitler's murderousness, if existent - if Hitler indeed was the primary agent, his shrewdness was demonically intelligent. I was never prompted to consider this fact until the ADL and Wikipedia helped me -

In all honesty, what I see is a pattern of alcohol, Pervertin-addled youthful fringe-SS gangs going wild in the East consciously suppressing their activity from Hitler... That is what the actual papers show: implicit acknowledgements again and again, when Hitler was aware of massacres, immediately he violently ordered stopping them, if only for pragmatic reasons...

The Nazi files show Goebbels and others probably more causally involved in the infamy, I believe (tentatively) - I am not lionizing Hitler by speculating he seems to have been genuinely unaware of things especially in the anti-guerrilla Eastern Front campaign...

Hitler was not stupid, I think we can all agree, as we all agree he was evil in whatever sense we choose evil to mean morally. But not stupid. Out of sheer pragmatism, Hitler showed a career pattern of clamping down on underlings' actions initiated without his knowledge Hitler knew to be bad for his agenda: immediately after the savage "Crystal Night", Goebbels-engineered, Hitler frothed at the mouth at Goebbels for encouraging such things and the next day across Germany was issued a stark top command "from the highest authority" signed by the now-prostrate Goebbels, declaring emergency State-wide prohibition in every sense in the strongest terms any criminal, organized action against Jews inside Germany...

Hitler was involved in the eugenic deaths, but that is not quite the same thing, truly. Plato was eugenic. Not that I agree with either...

I honestly see gangs of youthful SS under the influence of booze and meth reverting into savagery - and various Nazi officials are variably "tolerant", e.g. Himmler less tolerant than Goebbels, etc. - and Hitler as "Prime Mover" not the only reasonable possibility.

The words about destroying Judaism are so mendaciously presented, do I even need to point it out...? Do people remember METAPHORIC FIGURAL language exists? Hitler was a brutal peasant, but his neo-Blavatskyian ideology was real, his sense of spirituality was real if super-perverted, and not every pronouncement concerning Judaism's disappearance is to be construed as mass homicide. If Hitler says hatefully, "We should have gassed more traitorous Jews" in relation to WW1 in an emotional hysteria, that has a certain context; context is removed from each statement here, silently... All of these litanies of words are grossly presented without responsible context. Acknowledging Hitler has murder in mind at least psychologically in several of his expressions here cited - but then there is EMOTIVE feeling and ACT, and things are not simple, I dare to state...

When in front of the German Congress, Hitler said, "Jews destroyed instead of us this time if they act up", why did not any contemporary newspapers go ballistic at the time etc.?

Ultimately, I don't know... I do know demonizing Germans en masse is just as wicked as anti-Semitism, however -

Intelligence branches of the conquering party, it is well known, are the script-writers of "history". I imagine masses of material of Nazi government mechanics, were set ablaze for all-too-human reasons on the part of the Allies...I mean I know this fact personally, in other words...

I really would feel more comfortable in assessing this article and subject if every single party to the scholastic brawl was not an extremist ideologue and/or employee of extremist, ideology-fanaticism-based organizations of self-interest.

ADL et al really shoot themselves in the foot in over-the-top, overkill frenzy. I don't even know the name of one "Revisionist" and the ADL world-view of hypervigilant militancy, and volcanic impassioned mind-state, in combating these people seen as so dangerous, so numerically laughable, just alienates, scrambling attempt to analyze, I almost pity them for being bullied...

I think there is sufficient evidence to put on here, in the article, Goebbels and others seemed to have been powerful actors if the unannotated words of Hitler are left on the page so stupidly: the whole myopic singling out of Hitler and just totally pretending his Theosophically-oriented mind and statements, every last one, implied LITERAL DIRECT CORPOREAL KILLING, it just is not going to fly...

Hitler was a complexly mentally-ill semi-schizoid addicted to methamphetamine and then some, with a bit of genius, and, as all testify, totally ultra-Bohemian in terms of everyday "work ethic" - such a person could very easily become detached from events if others were strategizing to do so...

Schopenhauer often discussed the extinction of Judaism from the planet as a joyous occasion etc. Voltaire was nasty here, many others - did they all really have in mind murdering physically hordes of human beings, so simple-minded...?

The German word for what is interpreted as extermination here is similar to English "uprooting" or "rooting out" - logically, the possibility of non-literalistic language is not necessarily negated, minimally...

Ultimately, I don't know concerning the wider tragic subject; but this article is a parody due to the ADL and similar organizations, fuelled on self-matyrizing belligerency and in obsessive tone of warlike fury I have seen little elsewhere, going nuts in rhetorical mega-death, making all opaque...

Murder should be reacted to in horror, of course, but this is parody, just parody, not the right way to handle things if one has arguments and more importantly, if arguments hold water...

The ADL staff hack ideologue-nerds need to take some sedatives before expounding these theses of total war and blood-red pulsatile vehemence...

REITERATING: Hitler was evil I repeat an evil tyrannical criminal in office and nothing I say is inspired by political tenets.

I was totally closed off mentally to considering so-called "Revisionist" counter-points until the very instance I perused this piece, Wikipedia. Intelligent people detect funky stuff in the air. Something is funky, a tad bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:79FA:252E:197F:4F18 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, apparently some crypto-editor is f'ing around with my words, making repeat sentences etc. in (?) attempt to make me seem like a lunatic, I suppose. Good for you Wikipedia, top stuff. I'm done here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:79FA:252E:197F:4F18 (talk) 18:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How many staff did the Holocaust employ ?

It might be informative to know a rough estimate of how many staff (or how few) it took to carry out the task outlined by Eichmann. I would hypothesize that, compared to other tasks carried out by states (civil engineering projects, immunization programs, the space race), the numbers would be quite (worryingly) small. Has an audit ever been attempted to answer this question ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.68.66.79 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Poland

Sooner or later some crusader will come here asking why there is no Poland in the list. I advise creating some fair section in advance. Szopen 11:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be one sooner or later... but I say - just wait for him. These nonsense accusations have been tried before but they are easy to rebut.--Jacurek (talk) 07:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say the Poles were responsible for the holocaust, but certainly some Poles seem to have had a dislike for their Jewish compatriots, to the point of after the war continuing the process of expelling the holocaust survivors from the territory under Polish control, killing a few in the process.

• The Killing After the Killing After the ::Holocaust ended in 1945, Poland's surviving Jews still faced hatred from their fellow citizens.
• 'Fear': preliminary investigation launched into book by Jan Gross
• Chasing Away the Memory of Guilt: The End of Jewish Life in Poland
• THE JEDWABNE AFFAIR
• Poland's willing executioners
• The participation of poles in crimes against Jews

By the way, I think the sentence above was a bit sexist Jacurek, it should be him/her or "the user" etc.

hope the info above helps. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

All your links are nothing new, all Jan T. Gross... here is just a few for you.... I hope the info will help :)--Jacurek (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [[29]]

I think we need to add something about Poland. I'm suggesting the following (first draft):

When the Nazis entered Soviet-occupied Poland in 1941, a series of Polish-on-Jewish massacres took place at villages such as Jedwabne, Radzilow, and Kolna. The extent of German coordination behind these massacres is a controversial issue. Also, there were multiple incidents of individual or groups of Poles turning in or blackmailing Jews; such people were condemned as collaborators and sentenced to be executed by the Polish resistance. According to Raul Hilberg [Perpetrators, Victims, and Bystanders, pp 92-93] "Of all the native police forces in occupied Eastern Europe, those of Poland were least involved in anti-Jewish actions.... They [the Polish Blue Police]…could not join the Germans in major operations against Jews or Polish resistors, lest they be considered traitors by virtually every Polish onlooker." The Poles never surrendered to the Germans so there was no collaboration on a national governmental level as took place elsewhere in occupied Europe. Nechama Tec writes that she has never heard of a Polish concentration camp guard [When Light Pierced the Darkness]. In general the machinery of the Holocaust ran with little to no Polish collaboration.

Any comments? Velleities (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)Velleities

• The article is about "states" but some states existed, like Vichy France, some were destroied like Poland. Poland wasn't "occupied", it was erased.
• Jews were beaten and murdered by Germans in September 1939, later many starved in the ghettos. Great Synagogue, Białystok was burned June 27, 1941, some 2000 people inside [30] .Xx236 (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://bolekchrobry.tripod.com/polishinformationcenter19391945/id22.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929115902/http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhKRI6PDInE&b=296323&ct=350525 to http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhKRI6PDInE&b=296323&ct=350525

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060924133258/http://www.historycommission.ee:80/temp/conclusions.htm to http://www.historycommission.ee/temp/conclusions.htm#crimiger1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929104457/http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=245494&ct=3761331 to http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=245494&ct=3761331
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070206111528/http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu:80/jpetropoulos/arrow/holocaust/holocaust.htm to http://hist.academic.claremontmckenna.edu/jpetropoulos/arrow/holocaust/holocaust.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Rauff, Rommel, Africa =

The first Weinberg link, pdf, also once post in Einsatzgruppen article does mention Rommel, but nowhere does it mention that he knew or agreed with the mission

The second Weinberg link does question his hero status, but is from a reader/audience of Weiberg, meaning third hand, also does not explain clearly Weinberg's position on the matter, let alone saying anything like: "American historian Gerhard Weinberg commented that Rommel's willingness to work with the SS in killing the Jews of Egypt and Palestine suggested that he was as every bit committed to the "Final Solution" as his counterparts on the Eastern Front, and that his reputation as a chivalrous officer opposed to Nazi crimes is undeserved." So the only first hand Weinberg account we have here is the first, which incidently while discussing Rommel and the Einsatzgruppen doesn't bother mentioning that he supported the mission, and its opinion has been warped by the editor who had put the thing here. Edit: checked this second Weinberg link again, so apparently the one it reviews is the first one, namely the pdf, which totally does provide anything like what was posted on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 14:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Besides, we have Mallmann and Cueppers, pg.117 pg.103 (most famous historians who have worked on the subject) who report that Rommel did not even meet Rauff because he was 500km away directing the second El Alamein.

And Caron who has collaborated closely with these two and explicitly mentions that the findings of three of them lean to the direction that Rommel did not know or would have supported the mission. Deamonpen (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deamonpen: The first Weinberg says "Erwin Rommel... was to supervise the killing of all Jews in Egypt, Palestine, and elsewhere in the Middle East under the control and with the participation of the murder commando attached to his headquarters." Now I'm not an expert but the guy appears to be a historian and the source reliable enough. Is completely removing it the best course of action? Shouldn't he be included as a minority view, perhaps in a similar way to Caron right now? That "(although A.B, C.D. and E.F. say this and that ) X.Y. claims the opposite"? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously all historians agree that Rauff was ordered to report to Rommel and that the Nazis would try to order Rommel to do this, so technically it can be said it was part of his "responsibilities" in Africa (see all links above). But as I see it, no historian, including Weinberg, is explicitly saying that he knew, let alone agreeing with the mission and had willingly supported Rauff, like the previous version of this page say. Here Cuepper also says that Rommel escaped direct responsibility for Holocaust, including the confrontation with this terrible mission, only by accident, and that if he had won the battles, the way to Palestine would have been paved, and then even if he wanted, it was unlikely that he had ways to prevent the SS carrying out the mission. Even Maurice Remy (Rommel's most important modern defender) and this Israeli newspaper which seems to be very sympathetic agree

The myth of Desert Fox continues to flourish around the world. But, as the author of this fascinating book reminds us, if Rommel had conquered Palestine, Adolf Eichmann would have been right behind.

This is part of the modern general portrayal of Rommel, especially in Germany, that whether he knew about atrocities or not, whether he did it for his fame or for his country or even for impressing Hitler (like a guy trying to impress a girl, instead of a son trying to impress a father - yes, some authors now seriously push it that way), he was politically irresponsible in allowing his military achievements to be exploited mercilessly. So yes if you want to write that "He... was to supervise...", I don't think it should be interpreted that Weinberg explicitly protests other authors' opinions here. Especially because Weinberg seems not to have directly worked on the subject but relied on Mallman and Cüppers

The material in the relevant article and book by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers is now available in English in Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews Deamonpen (talk) 06:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, the previous version indeed does not entirely match the source. What I meant was whether outright removal (of the ref & its info rather than strictly the previous wording) was the best way to go about it. Seeing as it is a RS and its viewpoint seems to me sufficiently different to warrant a note. Not that R. agreed with it (indeed, no such info there) or that W. explicitly attempts to disprove the other writers (again, not any sort of polemic in the text), but that it was to be a part of R.'s mission in the MENA theater (this, however, is what W. says). Especially as in a subsequent sentence Caron is cited with a partially opposing view. Although maybe it would be too much detail for this particular article, the more important/relevant Erwin Rommel#Views on the conduct of war already says as much. In fact, come to think of it, --CCCVCCCC (talk) 07:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah one more thing, right now/after the latest edits the "The German Army" section comes out wrong, the part ending in "... protesting about SS atrocities in Poland." and the following "On 20 July 1942, Walther Rauff, who was responsible for the unit..." don't match. One of the edits removed the introduction of the Einsatzgruppe so it doesn't make much sense. We should probably just end the paragraph after "Poland", start a new one and replace "the unit" with the now removed description/mission of the EG or something to that effect. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It's OK if you want to add that source (the PDF; the second one from the reader of Weiberg's work is inappropriate I think). I generally don't quote authors (even RS) who don't provide new info but admit/imply that they take it from other without modifying, and don't even protest the opinion of the person they take the info from. But if others want sources that at least come from a real historian or notable in some way, I don't protest. Feel free to make the edits you like:) Deamonpen (talk) 08:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I haven't included it after all, like I said that would probably be too much detail for this article and the Rommel one already talks about it. What I have done was shuffle around the entire section a bit. Like I said before, the paragraph after the latest edit didn't initially mention Rauff's unit but then suddenly referred to it – and when I went to fix that I thought the whole section could use some more order so that the individual paragraphs wouldn't mention guilty/untouched generals willy nilly. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, if this article (which seems to try to direct the blame as much as possible towards Rommel, using the same authors whose direct accounts I've quoted above) is true regarding this particular fact, Rauff's mission seems to have been introduced as ::Rauff and his men were empowered to "take executive measures against the civilian population", Nazi jargon for robbery, murder and enslavement.

If this was the description sent to Rommel it was no wonder a direct thinking guy would have thought extermination rumours to be false propaganda from the Allies (he was usually on the front and thus out of contact with his staff and the civilian officials) and historians wonder whether he realized the whole thing even at the end of his life. Deamonpen (talk) 20:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Government responsibility

There is a libertarian school of thought that blames governments and the ideology of statism or collectivism for the killings, while maintaining that the masses were merely being manipulated. (cf [31]). It would be good to know who are the major proponents of this thesis and its receptions in contemporary scholarship. 69.157.229.14 (talk)

Hitler- Responsibility for the Holocaust

The section Responsibility for the Holocaust#Hitler understate Hitler personal involvement. There are documents that indicates his personal involvement in setting dates and locations:

• Richard Evans reviewing "Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin" by Timothy Snyder : "Initially, Snyder argues, they were killed as useless consumers of much needed foodstuffs. But once Barbarossa got into difficulties a month after the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, Hitler began to see the mass murder of the Jews as an end in itself, an act of revenge against an imagined Jewish world conspiracy. At this point, Himmler’s SS task forces began shooting Jewish women and children as well as Jewish men; and as German forces suffered their first serious reverses in the East in December, Hitler went over to an unrestrained policy of annihilation, resulting in the creation of the death camps and the murder of virtually the entire Jewish population of the ‘bloodlands’."
• For example, in Breslau (Wroclaw). the capital of Silesia, the Jews were first evicted from their apartments in the summer of 1941 and at that time sent to remote corners of the Reich,(26) for Hitler had still not agreed to banish them altogether.
• On 18 Dec 1941: A note handwritten by Himmler referring to a meeting just held with Hitler says: 'Jewish question - exterminate as partisans.(the Guardian)

• On Dec 1941 Hitler addressed a meeting of Gauleiters. Goebbels wrote in his diary afterward: With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it.
• "Hitler would sometimes slow down that radicalisation of the anti-Jewish policy which he himself had decisively accelerated; he did this when it came into conflict with other elements of his policy. Thus in the fall of 1939 he stopped the Nisko project and in the spring of 1941 he stopped the further deportations into the Generalgouvernement because they interfered with military campaigns. However, these measures to halt the persecutions were invariably introduced as tactical manoeuvres and were of a provisional nature; they must be seen in the general context of the policy of extermination which was decisively determined by Hitler. " Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial

• on 24 July 1942 "Hitler's statements ... to deceive his listeners; for example, his remarks at his dinner table on 24 July 1942, when he tried to make his listeners ... believe that the "Führer" had nothing to do with the rumoured murder of the Jews:

  After the end of the war, he will rigorously take the standpoint that he will smash to pieces city after city if the dirty Jews don't come out and emigrate to Madagascar or another Jewish national state. [...] When it was reported to him that Lithuania was also free of Jews, that was therefore significant.169

  18.10In fact, the plan to deport Jews to Madagascar (occupied by British troops in May), had been officially abandoned in February 1942; according to the files of the Foreign Office, it was Hitler who had taken this decision.170 The fact that Hitler referred in the same statement to the fact that Lithuania had been made "free of Jews" (in fact the vast majority had been murdered, only those forced to work for the Germans had been spared171) gives us a clear idea what the term "emigrate" represented. Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial

• "What should be done with the Jews, who constituted a substantial portion of the skilled work force of the armament industry in both the Generalgouvernement and the Reich proper? ...Hitler’s decision on the matter was. “The Führer accepts Sauckel’s suggestion that for the present the skilled Jewish workers should remain in the Generalgouvernement. but he stresses the importance of removing the Jews from the armament industry in the Reich.
• On 17 April 1943 telling Horthy to send the the Hungarian Jews to camps in Poland,

• On September 23, 1943 Ribbentrop submitted to the Fuehrer a memo concerning the danish Jews with question:"Does the Fuehrer want the action against the Jews to be carried out now? ". Ribbentrop handwritten remark: "Must be implemented as ordered"

• on 1943 "Hitler's decision that the Danish and Italian Jews be deported"
• On Oct 1943, concerning the deportation of Rome's jews "The senior figures in Rome, Moelihausen, Kesselring, and probably also Kappler, had effectively formed a triumvirate to block deportation. Any prospect of a ‘clean’ round-up was fading fast in this entanglement. Hitler’s order cut decisively through the mess and made clear in no uncertain terms that the Jews of Rome were still to be deported and not to be kept in Italy on fortification work".

Responsibility via refusal to accept Jewish refugees – comparable to the Nazis’ or not?

Ever since I read Lance Selfa’s article ‘Zionism: False Messiah’ from International Socialist Review (issue 4, spring 1998; online here) it has been clear to me that considerable if not equal responsibility for the Holocaust must be born by those “remote” (i.e. inaccessible by land from Nazi Germany) nations who turned away huge numbers of Jewish refugees, or who tightened restrictions upon Jewish immigration upon the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.

In William R. Perl’s The Holocaust Conspiracy: An International Policy of Genocide and Theodore S. Hamerow’s Why we watched: Europe, America, and the Holocaust, it is illustrated the not only would no nation accept anything like the necessary number of Jewish refugees to prevent the Holocaust, but for a variety of reasons every potential “refuge nation” tightened laws against Jewish immigration upon the Nazis’ rise to power, and never considered loosening the restrictions. As a worst-case example, Canada had accepted 50,000 Jewish immigrants between 1931 and 1933, but its restrictions upon Jewish immigration became so severe that no more than 5,000 Jews could enter Canada between 1933 and the fall of the Third Reich.

Trotskyist groups like Socialist Alternative – who as Selfa notes in ‘Zionism: False Messiah’ were the only organisations anywhere pushing during the 1930s for an immediate and complete removal of restrictions on Jewish immigration – argue that not merely the Holocaust but also Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians (see Tess Lee Ack’s ‘Uprising in Palestine’; online here) would have been avoided had someone devised a plan of mass Jewish evacuation from Nazi-controlled Europe.

To me this constitutes further evidence that the refusal by every independent nation outside mainland Europe to accept Jewish refugees en masse makes their governments guilty of helping cause the Holocaust. To what extent these governments (Canada being certainly the worst culprit, but other nations outside Eurasia were little better) are guilty re the Holocaust is a difficult question which as far as I know is seldom discussed in more scholarly papers, but certainly should be. Luokehao, 5:24 (UTC), 1 December 2015

Paragraph starting "The death camps were discussed ..."

I am not sure how much of this paragraph is accurate:

The death camps were discussed between American and British leaders at the Bermuda Conference in April 1943. The large camps near Auschwitz were finally surveyed by plane in April 1944, many months after the German air force ceased to be a serious danger. While all important German cities and production centers were bombed by Allied forces until the end of the war, no attempt was made to collapse the system of mass annihilation by destroying pertinent structures or train tracks, even though Churchill was a proponent of bombing parts of the Auschwitz complex. Throughout the war, Britain also pressed European leaders to prevent "illegal" Jewish immigration and sent ships to block the sea-route to Palestine (from which Britain withdrew in 1948), turning back many refugees.

From the Battle of Berlin (air)

Night of 30/31 March 1944 Nuremberg, the main target was attacked by 572 Lancasters, 214 Halifaxes and nine Mosquitos (795 aircraft). The Germans correctly identified that Nuremberg was the target. The first fighters appeared just before the bombers reached the Belgian border and over the next hour 82 bombers were lost on the approaches to Nuremberg. Another 13 bombers were shot down by the Germans on the return flight. In all, the RAF lost 11.9% of the force dispatched. It was the biggest RAF Bomber Command loss of the war and ended the Battle of Berlin.

The RAF lost more men on the night 30/31 March than they lost during the Battle of Britain. Clearly "April 1944" was not "many months after the German air force ceased to be a serious danger".

Most of the bombing of cities was done not just to destroy manufacturing capabilities but also to destroy road and rail communications (as cities are the nodal points of transport communications) among other things. As Bomber Harris said of Dresden: "Actually Dresden was a mass of munitions works, an intact government centre, and a key transportation point to the East. It is now none of these things."

"Throughout the war" implies from day one until the surrender of Germany. Which European leaders were pressed and what pressure could Britain place on European leaders during the war to stop "illegal" Jewish immigration? It seems to me that having Royal Navy ships on patrol within bombing distance of Crete while in German hands would have been extremely hazardous, not to mention a complete wast of resources when Britain was heavily engaged in military operations which until Operation Torch started where not so one sided that "ships to block the sea-route to Palestine" would have been a priority. How many ships with Jewish refugees were interdicted on their way to Palestine after the fall of Greece and before the end of the European conflict? That would answer the question about how serious the British took such a blockade and how necessary it was to fulfil Britain's policy of prevention. -- PBS (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Spain section "the Gauleiter Frankel of Warsaw." I think it means Hans Frank.Valleyspring (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also widely acknowledged that 'Bomber' Harris, and to an extent his US counterpart were almost 'laws unto themselves'. The allied commanders had great difficulty persuading both to give sufficient support during and after D-Day, both were convinced that aerial bombardment of German cities was the road to victory. Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Churchill in 1941

How is this relevant to what the allies knew about the Holocaust (even taking 'Holocaust' in its broader, non-Jewish specific, meaning)?

"literally scores of thousands – of executions in cold blood are being perpetrated by the German police-troops upon the Russian patriots who defend their native soil."

The speech is referring to the Soviet invasion, only about 8 weeks before the speech was made and clearly refers to 'patriots who defend their native soil'. That Churchill thought the Nazi behaviour barbaric in the invasion of the Soviet Union is not in doubt, that he was in any way referring to, or knew about the Holocaust at that time is not. Pincrete (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There is perhaps another explanation for this: The historian Martin Gilbert writes that when Churchill made his speech of 24 August 1941, he had been shown British intelligence reports and was aware of the "systematic mass murder of Jews in every captured town and village.” However he refrained from mentioning the Jews “for fear of alerting the Germans that their most secret communications” were being intercepted.(Gilbert, Martin (2007). Churchill and the Jews : a lifelong friendship. p. 186). Joel Mc (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Apples and oranges by Bullock

Ukrainians and Lithuanians as well as Hungarians, Croats and Slovaks - any of the listed nations had different position and different responsibility. It's a typical British steretype about primitive Eastern Europeans.

What about the Channel Islands where British police collaborated like Eastern European ones?Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

a detailed eyewitness account from Jan Karski

It was the result of work and death of many Polish people, who collected the data and saved Karski.Xx236 (talk) 09:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Poland

collaboration did take place on an unorganized, individual level - it's true, but please remeber that Germans considered all Jewish belongings to be owned by the Reich. So Poles who murdered/robbed Jews didn't collaborate and some of the crminals were imprisoned or killed by Germans.

Germans didn't accept collaboration offered by some Poles in 1940 and killed them.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Herding and other factors

The segment "Herding and other factors" is a strange entry to this page. If the page is indeed about the Responsibility for the Holocaust - is this section implying that the Jews and other victims were responsible somehow for their compliant behavior? This is actually an offensive notion in the context of Holocaust responsibility and I am convinced that this section should be altogether deleted. It might be useful information on the psychology of victims of the Holocaust but certainly not "Responsibility". Any one have heartburn with removing this segment? --Obenritter (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and the removal. It was not well cited, either. Kierzek (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Kierzek. It has been accordingly deleted. --Obenritter (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The German people

The section on "The German people" is mostly unsourced (even the parts that have citations, they are not complete) and much of the important information is already covered under "What the average Germans knew". My recommendation is to change the name of the section ""What the average Germans knew" to "The German people" and move the photos from "The German people" there while deleting this lengthy (somewhat rambling) section altogether. Perhaps we can synopsize the dated arguments related to Goldhagen's book but certainly delete the extracted survey information about "approval" and refashion the Rosenstrasse protest and place it in proper context. Anyone else care to weigh-in here? --Obenritter (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Since there's no response or feedback, my assumption is that there is either general apathy about future edits to this section or disagreement with my suggestion. --Obenritter (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I believe they can be folded into one section. And certainly unsourced or poorly sourced can always be challeged or changed. Kierzek (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Physical presence of extermination centers had nothing to do with Poles or the Polish state, but with concentration of potential victims, existing rail, and Nazi control.

The final paragraph in the section on Poland doesn't belong at all, for the reasons mentioned in the section heading. The coverage of Przytyk also fails neutrality; most detailed accounts don't support this simplistic explanation. Anmccaff (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is not directed to the Poles or Polish authorities, and cannot be read that way; it is pointing out that in spite of everything, it was the state/area used by the Germans the most to carry out the persecution policies against the Jews and others. I don't see what you problem is with that fact. Kierzek (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever your, or other's intent, in writing it, it can be quite easily be read as directed at Poland or the Poles, or Polish authorities. It's in a grouping named "other states", most of which were quasi-indepent puppets [or] actual allies of Germany. a simple nontheless isn't enough here. Anmccaff (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Converted the observations--which come from highly respected Holocaust scholars--to a footnote to alleviate any concerns. The rest of the section clearly outlines what the Poles did or did not do, so this line of reasoning from Anmccaff is essentially a non-sequitur, but if some people are unable to make the mental distinction to differentiate the points, we'll go with the path of least resistance. It always amazes me how people come to stir controversy after so much good-faith editing gets accomplished. It's one of the reasons that most of my colleagues with legitimate credentials as professional historians generally avoid Wikipedia.--Obenritter (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, we could've prefaced that paragraph with something about the Poles having had to endure the German occupation and the commission of atrocities in their country, but hey POV tags require little to no effort.--Obenritter (talk) 21:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Obenritter: The change to footnote is agreeable; as is the tag removal, at this point. I know how it can be to put a lot into improving an article and you did a good job on this one. As for anything else, not worth commenting on. Now moot. Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

First, I think it might be better to concentrate on output rather than input; no matter how hard something is worked on, at the end, it only matters whether the work is useful to the reader, and I'd suggest the reader still should be warned about this section. The description of the events at Przytyk, while sourceable, appear to be inaccurate...although a belief in that inaccurate narrative did drive events, of course. Burying [something in a footnote isn't helpful.] The overemphasis on the location of the extermination camps, without explanation of why they were there, in an article called "Responsibility for the Holocaust" has tacit implications. Finally, note that -every- other state listed was one in which some semblance of a national government functioned locally. Poland's government in London exile was in a very different situation. Anmccaff (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your concerns have been sufficiently addressed and the POV tag has been removed again. All content is academically substantiated from leading scholars on the Holocaust. You've voiced your opinion and it was respected and the content adjusted accordingly. Please refrain from changing the content or adding tags without providing substantive academic refutation for any of the points in this sections made from here forward (using respected sources) -- to the extent of gaining consensus opinion through the Talk page about this topic. Thanks. --Obenritter (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, my concerns have barely been touched yet. As I have already mentioned, there is accessible scholarship refuting -or at least questioning- Gilbert's simplistic account of the events at Przytyk, which are readily available in the Wiki article on the same. As with Jedwabne, post-war historiography suffered from stalinist propaganda against the prior regime.

Regarding the rail net, another two crucial factors was that it was standard gauge, and that it reached far enough east for the nazis to make a plausible case they had, in fact transferred the population into Stalin's old turf, in order to use the USSR as a scapegoat. Anmccaff (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Then utilize respected sources to discuss this matter in the body of the text. This article was in terrible shape for years, so what we've got now far surpasses its previous shape. Take some time to employ academic rigor to refuting any content and refrain from drive-by tagging articles. Since you've got so much to say suddenly (since your "concerns have barely been touched yet"), then get to task and help clean the article up in places where you see weaknesses or discrepancies. Be sure to use the harv ref style that pervades the article, should you elect to actually contribute.--Obenritter (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, put in some content editing cited to WP:RS or add some here for consideration, then; drive-by tagging does nothing for the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Lithuania

The section is controversial and should be rewritten

• See Kaunas pogrom - hundreds or thousands of victims, not 50.
• The new resluts by Vanagajte, Zuroff should be mentioneed.Xx236 (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. The Kaunas incident mentioned in the article is very specific about the number and is referenced accordingly. It is clear in the rest of the text that the Lithuanians were collaborators in thousands of murders so there's no reason to adjust it. It also matches the content in the Kaunas pogrom article, which states that the most famous incident involved several dozen victims. You'll need to provide evidence where "hundreds of thousands" were killed at Kaunas, as nowhere have I (as a scholar of Nazi Germany) encountered such numbers. You're welcome to edit content, but be sure to use the appropriate citation format and use reliable academic references (preferably in English).--Obenritter (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It's exactly what I mean - you describe an incident. Xx236 (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You are not making sense. If you'd like to expound that several thousand Jews were eventually killed during the Kaunas pogrom by way of collaboration between the Lithuanians and Germans then add sentence or two to that end and cite accordingly. If you do, use the harv ref style employed throughout the article. Your comment about the article section needing completely rewritten is grossly overstated.--Obenritter (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Information added. If you have access to the Vanagajte and Zuroff work, add it.--Obenritter (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Poland

• Przytyk describes basic facts - a Jew killed a farmer, not mentioned here.
• The emigration to Israel was part of Aliyah Bet. The situation in Poland influenced the process but wasn't the only reason, as the section describes.
• Poland was the country with the most ghettos, the only extermination camps, and trains from all across northern, southern, and western Europe carried Jewish deportees into the country - Is it obvious who organized the ghettos, extermination camps and kept the trains arriving? Xx236 (talk) 13:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The information you mentioned about the Aliyah Bet has been added now. Not sure adding the comment about a single Polish man being killed by a Jew helps make the subsequent pogrom any less brutal or justified, but if you are utterly convinced that this is that important and you have a reliable source, feel free to add it using the harv ref style. Regarding your last comment—not all readers know the details about the Holocaust or Europe's geography, so it was included for that purpose—so yes it matters.--Obenritter (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Aliyah Bet refers to the illegal immigration of European Jews to Palestine during the 1930s and 1940s in violation of limits set by the British authorities, not a program of evacuation of European Jews from the Nazis. The addition of a source that merely describes Aliyah Bet without tying it to the Nazi program of the destruction of European Jews (or the Przytyk pogrom, to which it was added) constitutes impermissible original research. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pretty certain it's not a coincidence that Aliyah Bet occurred in tandem with the persecution of Jews during this period, but your argument is valid.--Obenritter (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have an issue with the way Przytyk pogrom is being used here. Our article "Responsibility for the Holocaust" makes reference to a passing comment from Gilbert (1985), The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe during the Second World War, ISBN 0-8050-0348-7, pp. 51–52, which seems cherry picked in order to stress something else. Meanwhile, an entire monograph was written about that incident, and scores of relevant articles by notable academics. The 11,596 Jews (mentioned by Gilbert) admitted to Palestine by the end of 1936 inadvertently escaped the Holocaust. Here's what Gilbert says exactly (chapter 4): By the end of 1936, a record annual influx of Polish Jews – 11,596 men, women and children – had been admitted to Palestine.[10] But even at the rate at which Britain was granting Palestine certificates, such emigration could never be anything but a minor amelioration for three million Polish Jews; and Arab hostility inside Palestine to Jewish immigration was already leading to violent Arab protests and to the decision by the British authorities to seek a drastic reduction in the number of future certificates. [32]

So, the British certificates were of significance here. I'm unable to read the Gilbert's sources in the notes for these statements, but the events in Przytyk took place six years before the Holocaust began. During the Przytyk trial no evidence was offered against the three men (known by name) accused of murdering the Jewish couple; this is what we know from the monograph by Piotr Gontarczyk (2000), Pogrom? ISBN 8386379626, p. 347. Therefore the claim (word for word) that peasants "tortured a Jewish husband and wife to death" is nothing but hearsay fearmongering. The paragraph should be removed. Poeticbent talk 18:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Let's just delete Gilbert's observation about the couple being murdered, since other scholars have refuted its accuracy (at least in terms of causality). The Przytyk pogrom certainly deserves mention with regard to the early emigration of Poland's Jews. Anti-Jewish riots took place in Minsk-Mezowiiecki, Brest-Litovsk, and Przytyk, among other places. The point of bringing up this pogrom and other measures across Europe has to do with demonstrating that a Europe-wide anti-Semitism existed and worsened, even in someplace like Poland, which was historically open to Jews. What other sinister ulterior motive are you suggesting was at play here exactly?--Obenritter (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Note 10 says Memorandum on the Development of the Jewish National Home, 1936, Geneva, June 1937, page 6. If I had to guess, I would say it was probably a status report from the British government to the League of Nations concerning their mandate for Palestine.

If reliable sources don't support what this article says, we should change it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I'd ever call Sir Martin Gilbert an unreliable source, as he was a prominent scholar of the Holocaust. If this particular aspect of the content is in dispute, then possibly delete that due to more recent scholarship or proof that what he stated was wrong.--Obenritter (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that Gilbert wasn't a reliable source, but Poeticbent suggested some facts may have been cherry-picked from his book. That wouldn't make his book less reliable, just our article less consistent with what reliable sources say. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: There's no question that Martin Gilbert is one of the greatest historians of the Holocaust. His contribution to our understanding of the Holocaust is of the utmost importance, but he is not ever-present like God and can only go as far as the historical accuracy and depth of his sources. There were some pathetic riots in prewar Poland against Jews caused by the Great Depression, ignorance, and bigotry, but also the lack of job opportunities, and rampant poverty, caused in part by the century of partitions, and the trade embargoes which lasted for a decade. Przytyk was 80 percent Jewish. All over Poland, people wanted to emigrate to improve their lives. They do it today too, crossing continents on foot, or the sea in flimsy boats. But, how does the Jewish emigration from Poland fit with the "responsibility for the Holocaust" I ask. Poeticbent talk 01:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Sadly the world is not that much the better for having experienced horrible events like the Holocaust, and here your point is well-founded. Nonetheless, the mention of Przytyk was about the prevalence of anti-Semitism across the various countries (Poland included) and how that historical fact contributed to the environment under which the Holocaust occurred. If you feel that this is completely outside the bounds of the Holocaust, then we should consider deleting every mention of other pogroms and instances of anti-Semitism prior to the Holocaust itself across Europe, which then reduces the contextual understanding of this event. What happened in the decades (in this case the immediate decade) prior has some significance, wouldn't you say? If you think additional discussion of the contributory factors bears relevance, expand the section a bit more. My concern is that people want to find excuses for the excesses, as we could say some of the same things about Germany prior to the Holocaust, right? Inflation, unemployment, disaffection with the banks, the government, etc. Why this is such a leap of logic given the context is beyond me, but do whatever you think is best. Might I suggest you read George L. Mosse, Toward the Final Solution as a primer to future discussions about how or why there is a correlation here.--Obenritter (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I might not have been fully understood, Obenritter. Gontarczyk in his monograph Pogrom? (2000), ISBN 8386379626, has proven that there was no quote-unquote pogrom there in the true sense. It was a Polish-Jewish street fight for the food market share. Poeticbent talk 22:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: That changes my perspective altogether. Sorry I don't read Polish, so I cannot decipher the source. Besides English, German is the only other language where I would be considered fluent (I can get by with reading Dutch, Danish a little, and French). If I had been able to read Polish, this discussion would be concluded. You're absolutely correct in deleting this content if the Przytyk pogrom itself has been improperly characterized. Find a smooth way to adjust the content if you can, namely since that paragraph opens the section. We're clear now Sir. Sorry for any grief this discussion may have otherwise caused. --Obenritter (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Obenritter. I very much appreciate your vote of confidence, because the subject of the Przytyk riot is extremely difficult and highly controversial in Poland. The in-depth article used by Gontarczyk in his book, is also available via the Internet Wayback Machine. It was published originally on June 4, 1936, in the Polish language by the Goniec Czestochowski magazine. The article was titled "Przytyk. The beginning of a grand court case" (Przytyk. Poczatek wielkiego procesu.) According to court records, the street fight at the Przytyk market was started by a group of young Jews. They were armed with pistols. This is a very sensitive issue, considering the horror of the ensuing Holocaust. That's why I thought that it might be better to just leave it alone. Poeticbent talk 00:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: We're here to improve the quality of the information (or we should be but the trolls abound nonetheless), so I try not to ever be deliberately contentious. As a credentialed historian, I can get miffed when amateurism or personal opinion gets in the way, but I am not unreasonable. It is only natural to yield to superior knowledge on the subject and expertise in the language/culture as well. Anything that controversial should indeed be avoided. Since I have never encountered much in-depth on Przytyk and obviously chose a poor example to cite (as it was my entry), I will concede to your better judgment. Anytime I get something wrong about Poland in the future, please feel free to make the necessary edits and inform me at once. Thanks --Obenritter (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

United States

The section describes mostly the MS St. Louis incident. The administration (and Felix Frankfurter) were informed by Jan Karski and did very little to help the victims. Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

several thousand Jews fled to Poland

Probably true but the main expulsion was the Polenaktion [33] mentioned in Herschel Grynszpan. Xx236 (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Poland - cities?

Many Polish Jews lived in shtetls, ie. small towns, which weren't cities. Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Luftwaffe was still a threat in April 1944

Most air warfare histories say that the Luftwaffe was destroyed during 1944, not that it was no longer a serious threat.[34] [35] "By the end of 1943 the Luftwaffe regarded the Reich defense mission as difficult but not hopeless"—their assessment was "cautiously optimistic."[36] The Luftwaffe was losing thousands of aircraft per month at the beginning of 1944. In March, "the German air force could still offer serious resistance" to an 8th AF bombing raid.[37] In early 1944, the "Luftwaffe fighter arm was battling with the US 8th Air Force for command of the air." [38] "The Luftwaffe's worst months [were] in the January-May 1944 air battles over Germany— air battles that finally broke the Luftwaffe's back."[39] To say that the Luftwaffe had "months earlier ceased to be a serious threat" (implying end of 1943?) is misleading if not counterfactual. Part of the problem, IMHO, is that Holocaust historians are not experts at aviation history and vice versa. Personally, I am ambivalent to the idea that the Allies could or should have done more, but, of course, that is not relevant to Wikipedia. @Kierzek and Obenritter: any thoughts? Catrìona (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

While I did not agree with the part of the edit summary that it was "dubious", I do not see it as necessary to be included herein. And the inclusion of the word "months" is debatable. No reason to get into the shape and capabilities of the Luftwaffe on either front. Kierzek (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Figuratively speaking, one could say that the Luftwaffe was ineffectual during late 1944, but to say that it was destroyed is patently incorrect as you make clear here. The date is important and the original wording was misleading after looking at this more objectively. To that end, I'll yield to a more informed opinion as to the health of the Luftwaffe. Between your sourcing here @Catrìona: and @Kierzek:'s general military knowledge on the Second World War, whatever edits you agree on to this end will be fine with me. In fact, I am going to delete it. --Obenritter (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization

I believe that the article organization could stand to be improved. Specifically, I think it would be best to organize it in a way that the perpetrators are put at the top of the list, and those of lesser responsibility discussed towards the end of the article. I propose the following structure:

• Historical and philosophical interpretations
• Perpetrators

• Hitler
• Nazi leaders
• German military

• Collaboration

• Axis states: Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia
• Eastern Europe: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Soviet Union (possibly split into Belarus, Ukraine, and some others)
• Southeastern Europe: Greece, Serbia
• Western Europe: Belgium, Channel Islands, Denmark, France, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Norway

• Functionalism vs. intentionalism
• Other parties

• German public
• The Mufti
• Allied powers (incl. Britain and US not accepting refugees before the war)
• Neutrals—Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland

• Psychological experiments
• Legal proceedings against Nazis

Any thoughts? Catrìona (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Some of your reorganization makes sense, some of it raises issues. My first concern would be that I see plenty of content in the current article (as it stands) missing herein. My other issue is how would you separate "passive" verse "active" collaborators since both occurred almost everywhere in Europe? The current neutral-tone titles, which outline the degree to which the people and governments of individual nations participated and/or took exception with Nazi policies, keep the article more objective. Once you've explained how you'll accomplish that precisely, I am certainly open to an improvement in its structure. Mind you, these are only my misgivings and others may disagree or have area of concern worth serious consideration. --Obenritter (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I've been thinking about them for the last week. First, I wasn't planning on deleting any content, but I wasn't clear enough when I made my outline. Upon reflection, I can see that making a distinction between active and passive collaboration, or ranking the various countries by degree of culpability is not possible. But I think we can do better than an alphabetical list, because there were definite similarities in how the persecution was or wasn't carried out. We could make a distinction between different geographical regions and whether they were puppet states/joined the Axis (semi-)voluntarily or were occupied—see above. I'm still not sure where Greece and Serbia would go. Catrìona (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Not sure that a hierarchy of culpability is an effective way to parse the countries out either. At least the current alphabetical listing remains neutral and objective. To be honest, this page is well researched. You could do better to find pages that need work besides a little reorganization. As you'll notice, there was not much support from others regarding reworking this page. If you're up to it, there are plenty of articles out there needing some academic content. If WW2 and Europe's woes throughout its manifestation is your thing, you could reach out to users like @Kierzek:, who has assigned me numerous project articles over the years. Just hate to see you wasting your energy and talent on a horse that's already been thoroughly beaten.--Obenritter (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry of the delayed reply; besides work, divorce proceeding is taking up most of my time. I have to agree with Obenritter that the "current alphabetical listing remains neutral and objective", per NPOV and it will avoid any argument about who should be first or where certain countries should be placed. If you wish to add some additional detail, WP:RS cited, as to "puppet states", that could be done. However, overall the article is in good shape. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that the organization isn't important. For an article that's nearly 200,000 bytes, navigability is absolutely critical to readability. I also don't see how separating by states that signed the Tripartite Pact and geographical divisions could be POV. Admittedly, Finland refused to sign the Tripartite Pact, but the fact that it was an independent state in alliance with the Axis is WP:BLUE. The list, as it stands, also is in alphabetical order: Axis powers, Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, Western Europe. Catrìona (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits for concision can always be done, for byte size and readability. But that is different than re-organization. I am aware that 10,000 words is a good rule of thumb for most articles, but also as WP:AS states: "Articles of more than 200 kB (~30 pages) exist for topics that require depth and detail". Kierzek (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@Kierzek: Sorry old friend to hear about "divorce proceedings." Not sure why this user is so focused on reorganizing an article in good shape. I was hoping to see some effort at improving any one of the legion of articles requiring academic substantiation. What I don't want to see is confusion and/or controversy as a result of hierarchical categorizations. It is very important that neutrality is maintained on this page. States came in and out of the Nazi orbit based on the geopolitical expediencies of the moment, so parsing them out risks some very negative attention to a highly sensitive topic. The seeming insistence in that direction has given me pause, and while I thought some of the content could be better arranged (not the participant states--mind you), I am now averse to this idea altogether. To that end, let's make it official.

• Do Not Support reorganization.--Obenritter (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Le Complot Juif contre L’Europe!.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

(All) Jews were diagnosed "Whiteheadsches Syndrom"

89.15.238.114 (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Masterpieces of German propaganda

Dieter Pohl

Historian Dieter Pohl has estimated that more than 200,000 non-Germans "prepared, carried out and assisted in acts of murder"; that is about the same number as Germans and Austrians. - it's a case of mixing apples and oranges. Adolf Hitler and terrorized Polish peasant are counted as one. It's irrational, crazy.Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Götz Aly

Götz Aly for instance, has come to the conclusion that the Holocaust was in fact a "European project." - he should read his book Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State, which describe German plundering of Jews and other nations including Poles.

Was the Generalplan Ost European? It included extermination and expulsion of Poles. Xx236 (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, are there specific changes you wish to make to this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Meeting at Hendaye.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Image is PD in US. Re-uploaded to en.wiki with new name, replaced in article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslavian Jews were deported from the Bulgarian-occupied territories.[

What is deported here - deported or deported and killed?Xx236 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Romania

From The Holocaust:

Dan Stone writes that, although the murder of Jews in Romania took place under the umbrella of the Nazis, it was "essentially an independent undertaking".

So listing Romania with Finlandia (and probably Hungary) is erroneous. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Religious hatred and racism

• Religious hatred - connection between Nazism and Christianity is not so obvious. Nazi leaders and SS were atheistic.
• Racism - there existed German anti-Slavic and anti-Roma racism.Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Conversion is different than extermination. The conversion assumes that Jews are human, extermination rejects the humanity.

If you write about Middle Ages -Catharism was annihilated, Judaism wasn't.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Obenritter's reverts

@Obenritter:,

I have to emphasize again that your objections are not well founded, and having the fact that you systematically remove all additons including reliable sources, heavily concerns me (as I referred, seems you invent new arguments just to remove all the information.) What makes you really unserious, is your comments by the last revert This is whitewashing history, that is ridiculous, since Tom Lantos or a Jewish-related Newspaper with Jewish authors certainly not "whitewashing history", moreover what you say further seems your POV (did you even read those sources?) Your summary anyway is not in order, I urge you to read all the sources presented, the question is much more complex; it is not about Horthy's or other people's sympathy, is is a fact this move saved the Jewry of Budapest, almost 250 000 people, that is the reason why they survived, the evaluation is another issue (btw. you may have added other sources on Horthy's or other considerations and motives). However, many Jewish families supported Horthy even in exile in Portugal and were acknowledging his efforts (Ferenc Chorin and others). Anyway, the sentence which have been added is nothing else just the statement of a fact neutrally, without any explanation, thus your argumentation fails here.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

Whitewashing Horthy

@KIENGIR: There seems to be a concerted effort by an editor to "whitewash" the known anti-Semite, Miklos Horthy, who was considered a Nazi collaborator that signed treaties with both Hitler and Mussolini and whose government instituted anti-Semitic legislation, persecuted Jews, and provided Hungarian troops to aide the Nazis on the Russian front. To this end, the editor is using Hungarian language sources and webpages in lieu of scholarly academic articles or books to support such claims that Horthy helped "save" tens of thousands of Jews at risk, when the reality was...he did this to save his own skin.

• Straight from the Smithsonian magazine webpage:

  During their rule, Arrow Cross members targeted the Budapest Jews, the only Jews who remained in Hungary near the end of the war. Horthy had spared them in his sweep, but as The Economist writes, the reason for this act wasn’t necessarily born out of compassion. Rather, Horthy had been warned that he was in danger of being tried for war crimes if deportations continued.

  See: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/holocaust-and-hungary-prime-minister-180964139/
• See the following article regarding the attempt by Hungarians and others to "whitewash" their Holocaust involvement:

Robert Rozett (2019) "Distorting the Holocaust and Whitewashing History: Toward a Typology," Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, DOI: 10.1080/23739770.2019.1638076 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23739770.2019.1638076)

• More evidence can be found here regarding Horthy: Nazi Perpetrators: Behavior of Hungarian Authorities During the Holocaust
• An article from Quillette: Seventy-five Years Later, Hungary Still Hasn’t Come to Terms with its Role in the Holocaust
• Direct quotation from the USHMM:

  In light of the worsening military situation and facing threats (from Allied leaders) of war crimes trials, Horthy ordered a halt to the deportations on July 7, 1944.

  See: Hungary after the German Occupation

For those of you who remain committed to the truth and accurate editing, I encourage you to defend this page against those who attempt to excuse the inexcusable. --Obenritter (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have to refuse your impolite name calling, becase I know the issue very well that there are also debated issues regarding it, but I kindly ask you to ract and answer to me above. However, given your point regarding For those of you who remain committed to the truth and accurate editing (considering this is my basic motivation and all of my edits have been lead ever me always) could you tell me in the added sentence which is not a fact or did not happen?

"because the first Armour Division lead by Ferenc Koszorús under Miklós Horthy's orders resisted the Arrow Cross militia and prevented the deportation of the Jews of Budapest" ?

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

I see you updated your former edit recently...could you tell me who attempted to excuse the inexcusable? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

Yes--it may have read a tad impolite.

@KIENGIR: The information should not to be included in the manner you originally wrote it. If you wish to make this statement and include the fact that "Horthy, who many historians assert should have been tried as a war criminal at Nuremberg, only stopped the deportations at the request of the Allies, the Vatican, and because he was threatened with being tried by the Allies."

If you agree to cite respected English language sources and include those additional facts--instead of trying to make it read like Horthy was some hero---then sure, we can include that information. You should also follow the citation format used throughout the rest of the page. --Obenritter (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter:, frankly, excuse me I disagree with you (I have to refuse again this tad impolite assertion, if my undesrtanding is correct, if you wanted tobe somehow sarcastic), I have to treat impolite if someone would suggest I would not be for the truth or accuracy, since everybody who knows me in WP in the past 9 years particularly do it because of these two properties of mine, heavily struggling for them always. You are still insisting imaginary assumptions ("instead of trying to make it read like Horthy was some hero"), although I just asked what is not a fact in the formerly added sentence, which does not tell an opinion about Horthy or whatsoever...if you don't answer this in a satisfying manner, I will involve Wikiproject Hungary, becase it seems you recurrently assert something that seems a continous accusation, and knowing this issue a long time, it arguable if your summarization would be the best description (IMHO, something in the middle with more details that may be substantiated from all the sources presented also by you).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: My suggestion was pretty clear and my explanation more than sufficient. You did not include the requisite information about what prompted Horthy's behavior and it read rather altruistic instead, which anyone who knows the history of the Holocaust is familiar with to the nth degree. You've encountered resistance---first for falsifying sources (when you originally entered this material)---second for not qualifying what prompted Horthy's behavior, which painted an inaccurate picture of him as having "saved" Jews when he in fact only acted to save himself. Third, you are using Hungarian sources on the English Wikipedia, which while not unheard of entirely, is not helpful or verifiable for the vast majority of English-speaking readers. Lastly, you did not adhere to the citation formatting used throughout the page. Add these variables together and you've raised red flags. Now--let me state this again. We can include the information you want to add if you find a reliable English source (RS) and if you qualify it by explaining what motivated Horthy's behavior. If you haven't caught on yet, this page is about "responsibility for the Holocaust" and by omitting Horthy's motivations for "saving" any Jews, makes it read like he was behaving altruistically, which is an equally concerning edit.--Obenritter (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter:, I disagree with your first sentence, you were quite prejudicative towards me, lacking of good faith. I added shortly a sentence without taking sides to any positive or negative POV, that may have been added later, instead I met with continous removals and not a collaborative effort. To your further argumentation:

1st - Yes, by my original entrance I made a mistake, but after realizing I corrected it.

2nd - Nope, I painted NO picture since I listed a short event chain, without any further as explained and indicated more times

3rd - The usage of Hungarian sources is not prohibited in the English WP (and I also added more English language sources)

4th - Sorry, you told this only late after, you did not draw my attention to in time

My Summary: I raised one red flag (1st) by mistake, that I corrected as soon as I noticed. The rest are definetly not a red flag, those may have been solved by a proper collaboration from your side.

Thus, I decided to involve Wikiproject Hungary in order to properly form the proposed additon of the issue, the most neutral way as possible, and the time we all agree on a final version, then we may add it to the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Let's start with the fact that you ONLY corrected it AFTER I found the SOURCE falsification following a delete/removal of the content. It is fine with me if you take this before folks in the Wikiproject Hungary group, but any information you add will be reviewed against the most recent Holocaust scholarship because this page is not about Hungary, but Responsibility for the Holocaust. Perhaps we should include the Wikiproject Israel group as well since they represent the people most impacted by the accuracy of this information. --Obenritter (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

KIENGIR, your reverted addition in relation to the events did not state full proper context of said events. In addition, this is English Wikipedia and you have been around long enough to know that English language RS secondary sources are preferred; for one, they can as cited sources be more easily checked accordingly. But, I am glad to see you are willing to work on a version by consensus of all involved, besides just a specific group, herein. Kierzek (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter:, obviously, how could I do else if I unfortunately did not realize my mistake before?? You may involve anyone you want, just drop any ad hominem argumentation or supposition, as they are not professional, and given the fact this issue is controversial and some details/motivations are debated also among scholars, it cannot be solved properly on emotions or accusations (and please be more serious and don't think I would not know this page is not about Hungary, but the coresponding section is about Hungary). Kierzek, the one who reverted why did not try to develop and expand the addition? The section is relatively short, I was not considering primarily to add overly detailed sentences at first glance, since there was one short remark about the surviving people, mentioning their number, I added as well something short to indicate why this happened. After my addition the context was more complete, than without it, because before nothing was told about the reason - bold editing cannot be condemned by any means, since primarily the process starts with shorter additions and later possibly more additons as all of us having been long here around experienced that - as also do not miss I added English sources that summarized practically the same that I added on Hungarian, so this argumentation of the Hungarian souces I may take just as a formal issue, but not decisive. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

Oh please, "bold" editing does not give one indiscriminate license on here. And the fact is, your edit was akin to speaking in Wikipedia's voice as to the truth of the matter asserted, which gave an impression that was not historically correct. And given you wanted to make the "addition", the burden first falls on you to fix it or expand it properly. But, to the real matter to focus on. There is no reason a prudent and impartial statement cannot be written, agreed upon and thereafter, included. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Horthy did nothing about the vast majority of the deportations (and other antisemitic actions), and only took action at the last possible moment to avoid prosecution. Is the point of adding this material to give an example of someone who, when they saw which way the war was going, tried to retroactively absolve themselves of their "Responsibility for the Holocaust"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Kierzek, who said that a bold edit would give an indiscriminate license? No, there is a huge overreaction on this issue, started with the unprofessional charge of whitewashing and now instead onthe content issue seems like everybody wish to explain why this huge overreaction happened, and trying to justify it...no my edit was definietly not akin as you described (impressions should not be confused with the facts), I don't think I should repeat the 3rd time the short addition did not take any side pro or contra, but was just a chain of events (as you already acknowledged, that your and other's problem was primarily the lack of collateral info behind it, so yes, let's stay on the real matter!). Ok, if the burden is on me to expand it properly, did I have time for that? No, becuase not even a primary stable edit was accepted, and always various reasons have been raised for removal, I tried as many times as possible until it had to come to the talk page. I kindly ask everybody to drop any accusations or fear, because as well when somebody starts to edit in Poland-WWII related matters, immediately the editor is tried to be categorized as Polish-accuser or if not then the opposite, but first glance nobody would consider there are editors who are not commited to any side but assessing the subject from a neutral third point of view (own experince, however I did not edit much there, on daily basis more editors are engaged on sensitive issues, all in all this overreacted suspicion and labeling is not useful also here, regardless it is a sensitive issue, we have to remain professional).

Jayjg, the issue is more complex, than this short summarization, the evaluation of Horthy are controversial, not just among the Hungarian Jews, but the Jews overall, however to assert strictly and only that his actions has been only motivated by this has no scholarly/acedemic consensus, neither may be clearly substantiated from the presented sources from either side. Better to say the old Regent tried to save the country from a bigger disaster, as he always been reluctant to fulfill all the demands of the Germans. The terminology calles it as hintapolitika (swing poitics), that started earlier the reluctance of participating in the invasion of Poland, acceptance of refugees from other countries where the deportations already started, by the time trying to fulfill step by step the demands of the Germans slowly (Jewish laws, etc.), on the other hand try to remain intact as possible, however, it could not be carried out and after the turning point of the front and the unsolved Final Solution in Hungary just intensified the German anger, especially after learning Hungary secretly started negotiating with the Allies. After the German-occupation, Horthy's hand were more tied, while the Germans wanted to keep him to legalize the formal continuity and lawfullness of Hungary and the following events, he become in custody as well later were blackmailed by the fate (kidnapping, etc.) of his family, etc. I fully understand those who argue that he was in power formally and legally when the deportations started, thus he is responsible (as well for the Jewish laws and other persecutions, etc.), however because of the German-occupation this event chain could have started and rendered, so the picture is not black or white. In this situation and the forecast of the current geopolitical events, he had only trustees by the army staff who would remain loyal to him or other politicians with whom he could organize something to avoid a bigger catastrophy, that he tried in October, by the announcement of jumping out of the war an armistice with the allies, that he had to retreat after the Germans forced him to do that and as well to keep the formal and legal continuity, forcing to sign Szálasi's appointment. The one may also argue why he did not resign or started was against the Germans after occupation, he calculated a war would be a total loss and annihilation to Hungary and it's population (including everybody), or by resigning someone else appointed by Germans could have carried out a much more bigger terror, that he could draw back or prevent this with his reduced powers, as he did the subject we argue, when there was the fear as well the Arrow Cross symphatizers along with the Germans may carry out a putch and remove him completely, etc. Given all these facts, we have to be professional enough and careful how we draw that picture, because he currently was NOT a Qusiling or somebody that unconditonally served any German demands, having the fact he calculated the Budapest Jewry is the most easy to prevent as armed forces remaining loyal to him are nearby, encircled etc. What is sure, a good summarization will not succeed in two short sentences, we have to find the most neutral and best summarization (he may have better feared the Germans kill him or any part of his family if any harsh disobedience or higher action, not what will happen in a trial personally with him, etc.) I have no problem mentioning he got warnings from the Allies what consequences him or Hungary may have face in case, but simply not just this was the point on the whole.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Jozef Tiso (Berlin).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Whitewashing the pogroms in Poland

It is shameful that what's written on this page is the well-known nationalist conspiracy theory of Jedwabne, Radziłów, Kolno, Szczuzcyn, Wąsosz, etc. having been committed by the einsatzgruppen. This has no historical basis, it is not controversial, and it's a stain upon the Wikipedia project that these pages are defaced this way with Holocaust denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.227.241.22 (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Are the subjects too difficult for you?

Hitler's Willing Executioners

• The article should be integrated, now it is not, it describes separately history of Europe and history of Germany by Goldhagen. If you call Goldhagen's thesis 'controversial', responsibilioty of the whole Europe is much less obvious.
• The book is not listed in the bibliography.
• History of Europe is a history of religious wars between Christians rather than Christian wars against Jews.Xx236 (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jews of Libya during the Holocaust

I have included this linkt into Italy section. Should Libya or Northern Africa be mentioned separately?Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning

The page should be linked here and Snyder's opinions about origins of the Holocaust quoted.Xx236 (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC) https://ideas.repec.org/a/mve/journl/v32y2006i2p1-8.html Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Is 'historian' obligatory?

Yehuda Bauer is mentioned three times, always as a 'historian'. Timothy Snyder twice, once as a 'historian', Ian kershow is a 'British historian', later shortly 'Kershow'. The British 'Historian' Nicholas Stargardt. Is there any standard?Xx236 (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Hermann Schaper and Jedwabne

I've removed the reference to Einsatzgruppe Zichenau-Schroettersburg and Hermann Schaper, and the attached reference (Dmitrów, Szarota and Machcewicz, 2004). The reason for that is that this particular claim seems dated, having had its heyday in the early 2000's and seldom been discussed since (see Jan Grabowski's 28 Feb. 2020 Gazeta Wyborcza piece,[40] or just search for yourselves). Add to that, the particular source has only been cited by ten other sources (citation count being a measure of acceptance to the consensus), and since it's not easily available and no quotes have been provided after I tagged it, it seems to be somewhere on the scale between "unverifiable" and "undue". That said, I chose to comment it out in the source list rather than delete it, since I'm generally averse to removing sources that would otherwise count as RS. François Robere (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable call to me.--Obenritter (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather see this discussed at RSN, through since it is German, it is not something I am very familiar with in analyzing. I'll note that the lack of citaitons on google scholar is likely a language issue, GS seems very bad at counting citaitons for non-English works. For example, I've often seen Polish works which are often cited by other reliable Polish sources show with very few or no citaiton counts in GS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)