Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Deaths

Under DEATH TOLL, it says about 6million Jews. Then under the heading The Tragic Outcome it says 5.1-6million Jews. I've always had a problem with this number, I know it's hard to find an accurate number, but that is a million people difference. But I am sure there will never be a way to find a more acurate quote, but should they both not read 5.1-6million??

What about the Non-Jewish poles?? Who were they? I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass, but what if a person was a Non Jewish Pole? would he be counted as one of the 80,000–200,000 Freemasons or one of the 1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles..or both??

Why is there two polls? The DEATH TOLL and THE TRAGIC OUTCOME..The numbers don't match up, and the Masons and communists are not mentioned in the TRAGIC OUTCOME.. ~Tydamann

Vandalism and nonsense on this page!!!=

THIS REQUIRES MAXIMAL ATTENTION: THE PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED. COULD A REGISTERED USER PLEASE CHANGE THE ARTICLE TO THE LATEST VERSION BEFORE THE ACT OF VANDALISM?

Please sign your posts. What is the vandalism? What do you object to? Just comment on the proposed change below. Repentance 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone seems to have erased the whole page and insted replaced it with the message "it never happened". Which is an opinion of course. I'd revert it back, but the problem is, I'm not registered and I'd have to wait a while until I could revert it.

So could someone fix it, please? 65.101.84.72 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I merged both he the vadalisum articles. --Homer slips. 05:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm merging some similar section on this talk page to remove the plethora of hedding in the index box. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homer slips. (talk • contribs) 05:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC).

There have been some significant edits to this article in the last two days, including this image. That appear to be censoring the contents of this article, that this has occured at time when other editors are knowingly not going to be active is also a concern. I also note that the article has been populated with the same map a number of times, and a large number of new external links have been added some of which fail WP:EL. Then to say that consensus on the changes to the article that has always attracted alot of discussion has been reached within hours from basically new editors is extremely troubling. As an assumption of good faith I'm not going to make any further reverts to the article but only draw attention to occurance of these edits. Gnangarra 12:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There is now one, not 3 of that repeated map. --Homer slips. 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It tought it was best to move and srink the stiffs, but not remove them. --Homer slips. 20:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged in the bit about bad edits. --Homer slips. 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Those 3 Smithsonian maps with dodgey coppyright licences.

I will start replacing them with ones with better coppy wright tags tonight. Mass deportations is the first to get replaced. Sorce- the maps in question. Licence- my own coppys and so no coppywright- Action startd at 05.00 U.T.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homer slips. (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC). --Homer slips. 19:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I've started! --Homer slips. 06:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've finnished! --Homer slips. 04:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"mentally disabled"?

this term does not appropriately or correctly describe mentally ill or "retarded" "mentally challenged" people, i only put the last two in quotations because i only know mentally disabled is incorrect but can't procure an accurate term.

Martin Luther's Specific Call for Violence Against Jews

Noticably absent is documentation here of Martin Luther's (famous German leader of the Reformation) specific written call for harsh persecution of the Jewish people, including that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayerbooks destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. Luther argued that Jews should be shown no mercy or kindness, should have no legal protection, and that these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. It is widely regarded by scholars as a significant work in the development of modern anti-Semitism. Four centuries later, the Nazis used quotations from this pamphlet, which was cited by the publisher of the Nazi newspaper Der Stürmer during the Nuremberg trials, to justify the Final Solution. Here is the Wikipedia link "Martin Luther's Jews and Their Lies".

Adolf Hitler wrote of his admiration of Martin Luther in Mein Kampf, and Krystalnacht occurred on Luthertag (Luther Day), Martin Luther's birthday.

I am new user here, so I will leave it to others to decide if this can be included in the Holocaust article. Repentance 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Religious hatred and racism" section looks like the appropriate place. Any comments? 72.235.15.131 23:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Martin Luther's comments were based upon the persecution that Christians had suffered at the hands of Jews in the early Church. Luther states, "Jerusalem was destroyed over 1400 years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about 300 years… During that time they held us captive and killed us… So we are even at fault for not avenging all this innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then… We are at fault in not slaying them." Luther observed that Jewish hatred of Christianity had not abated and was calling for Christians to take action in order to avoid another persecution like the early church suffered. Luther's remarks should be viewed within that light and understood that they are not representative of Lutheran Churches even in the 20th century. Jtpaladin 00:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What Martin Luther may have believed and what is true are not the same thing. I must object to the tone of your post, which treats the claim that Jews persecuted Christians for more than 300 years as true. You are perpetuating anti-Semetic propaganda. -- Donald Albury 11:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Donald, what Martin Luther believed is what he thought was true. That's why he wrote it. It wasn't a piece of stuff he made up. As for the facts regarding persecution of Christians by Jews of the early church, may I refer you here: [1].

• Also, "With their churches and houses in flames around them, the Christians were indiscriminately massacred, some by the Persian soldiery and many more by the Jews." -- "A History of the Crusades" by Steven Runciman.
• And, "Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies."-- "The Position of Jews in Arab lands following the rise of Islam" by Merlin Swartz. This part of history has been swept under the carpet so that's why people like you are surprised when they find out that these persecutions did happen. Additionally, I'm not even including the Jewish Revolts that happened here: [2].

So, regardless of your opinion of my "tone", persecutions of Christians by Jewish authorities did happen and it was upon this fact that Luther wrote his complaints. Your Christophobic comments are sorely unncessary in a time when Christians and Jews are working together to keep Israel independent. Jtpaladin 15:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of your comment was, "Martin Luther's comments were based upon the persecution that Christians had suffered at the hands of Jews in the early Church." This was not given as a quote or a statement of Luther's beliefs. This was stated as a fact. If that is not what you meant, then please edit your comment to correct it. -- Donald Albury 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have provided nothing to support Luther's hyperbolic claims. Your two quotations have little relevance, and second one says nothing about persecution at all. The first refers to the struggle between the Christian/Byzantine empire and the Zoroastrian/Persian empire for control of the Levant. Jews were in the middle, and thought they'd be better of under Zoroastrian rule - after all it was Cyrus who'd freed them from Babylon. This is not a case of religious persecution, but a massacre in wartime, in which Christian communities were identified as supporters of the Byzantines. That's doesn't make it any less of a crime of course, but it's a pretty poor basis on which to support Luther's claims. Anyway, Luther's booklet has a Wikipedia page of its own. This page can't cover the whole history of antisemitism. Paul B 00:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless you consider the New Testament as recorded proof of such persecution and the link that I gave above (here it is again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitos_War) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians), feel free to remain in denial of this tragic part of history. Either way, this did happen but it is the Christian Churches, i.e. Evangelical Churches that are the biggest supporters of Judaism and Israel so I rather look forward rather than backwards. Jtpaladin 13:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Testament records proof that Jews persecuted Christians for 300 years? Wow, I don't remember any of that from my Bible study classes. -- Donald Albury 15:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Donald, are you purposely being difficult? If you would merely do some basic research you will find when persecution of Christians ended. What makes you think the Pharisees stopped their persecution of Christians after the last letter of St. Paul? In fact, persecution of Christians by entire Jewish communities continued into the Byzantine Empire with Jewish zealots aiding Persians and Muslim armies at every chance to kill Christians. How you can not know this shows that you haven't wasted any time actually reading Wikipedia, rather spent your time making comments. Please take my advice and read up before further comment. Jtpaladin 14:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments have almost no relation to the topic of this article - the Holocaust. If you wish to discuss the actions of Jewish communities during the Byzantine-Persian wars do so on one of the relevant pages. Paul B 16:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, if you actually took the time to read from the top of this thread, you would see that I was merely responding to the person who originally suggested that Luther's book should be included as some support to those that perpetrated the Holocaust. My response is that the book was written in a particular context which was no longer the case and that it did nothing to enhance the article. And here's a simple truth: Not one single Christian was involved in the extermination of the Jewish people in the Holocaust. Anyone that participated, did so either "under orders", i.e. Nazis and fellow camp inmates or did so because of hatred towards Jews. You can't be a Christian and kill innocent people. Jtpaladin 17:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I so wish that were true. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, I'm referring to somebody who really lives his life as a true Christian. Not someone who calls himself a Christian and then goes out and does things that violate his faith.

I think the history of Christianity rather contradicts your claim. The point was that you are meandering way off topic. The central question in this section is whether the history of antisemitism - Christian, Aryanist or whatever - should be discussed as part of the cause of the Holocaust. Luther's text is one such much-cited example, already cited in WP articles on Hitler and antisemitism. Defending Luther's rantings doesn't address the issue of its influence on "eliminationism" or relevance to this article. Paul B 00:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, regarding Christians, see my response to jpgordon above. As for my comments in this topic, I tried to make a case as to why Luther wrote what he wrote and how irrelevant it was in context to the Holocaust (at least the aspect of the Holocaust that applied to non-Jews because obviously this article includes Christians and others who died in the Holocaust as well). Now, if you're looking for a better place to cite that article, it's better suited to something like what someone above said and that is, the "Religious hatred and racism" article. Jtpaladin 17:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The upper side

There is no proper section dedicated to the history of the rescues, that is, how and when the first steps and measures were taken to save whom and which of the victims of the holocaust and, in general, the Nazi control of the government. It gives little to no enviroment to the fact that heroes existed that did their best to save the dying.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.185.213 (talk • contribs) I agree. --Homer slips. 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added the XXth convoy. --Homer slips. 05:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this article Biast and NOT from a Neutral Point of View?

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

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

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

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

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

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

am German. am not spawn of the devil. doesnt change the fact that your argument is stupid. (sorry dont know how to sign) -deguerra

The argument that eyewitness testimony of a huge number of witnesses, whether Jew, Gypsy, Homosexual, Communist, German Nazi, German non-Nazi, Pole, Ukrainian, Russian, American, or British, plus a ton of corroborative physical evidence is probably more or less correct is "stupid"? Anyway, most Jews today don't consider most Germans today to be "spawn of the devil". Ironically, most Jews have forgiven the Germans for the Holocaust more than some Germans have forgiven the Jews for the Holocaust. Gzuckier 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Guten tag, Deguerra amd Gzuckier.

Gzuckier, I believe that Deguerra was deriding 201's argument, not your response. Given the context, the derision seems to be towards the anonymous comments. Justin Eiler 19:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Jutin. Yes Gzuckier, I was indeed attacking not your comments, but those of the original poster. The argument that eyewitness testimony is FALSE is stupid, not to mention that of physical edvidence. Similarly, the "spawn of the devil" comment was only pointed at the anonymous users last sentence. I realize very much that most Jews have forgiven us. I am unsure as to HOW we need to forgive them. I know that we have not yet necessarily forgiven ourselves, and believe that to be a good thing. we need not spend our lives feeling guilty, but we should work hard to prevent it from ever occuring again. -deugerra

Well put. Sorry for the misidentification. Gzuckier 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

no worries mate :D on the bright side, our little argument seems to have shut up the original poster :D Deguerra 15:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)deugerra

This subject heading is the most unbelievable piece of dreck I have seen in a long time. There is a vast testimony of survivors, of American and Russian troops who liberated camps, of German documents speaking of the horrors, and not the least, of survivors who either were there in the death camps themselves, or who having fled to Russian or other sanctuaries, lost their entire families. The revisionist credo of trying to turn truth into a lie is nothing new. I know a survivor who somehow managed to live through 5 years in Auschwitz. He still cannot fathom how he managed to survive through wiles and skills. The utter horror is how the German military and industrial complex could use their organizational and technical skills for this horrific undertaking. It is a nightmare for good Germans to know of this and to wonder "what did my grandfather do in the war?". It is hoped that the German experience, including the suffering of German people as the war was lost, can live as a lesson of what happens when people are enthralled by symbols of nationalism and ignore tyranny and evil.Szimonsays 22:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the holocaust did not take place is not tenable. There is a more viable question about whether the holocaust page, and accounts of the holocaust in general, should deal so exclusively with the attempted genocide of the jews. Once again let me immediately accept that the attempted genocide was real, it did happen and it certainly merits its own page. Sadly it is an undeniable fact that some, a very very few, jews did collaborate with the Nazis to redirect their murderous energies elsewhere for a time. Yes this was done under the most extraordinary pressure - we are talking about a time when, according to survivors, the living envied the dead - but it was done and for that reason if for no other the holocaust should not be allowed to become a Jewish only 'possession' (for want of a better word) {unsigned|208.51.44.100}}

I beleve this artical is neutal and unbias. --Homer slips. 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

There is too much by the way of evidence in ruined biuldings, witness testomny and filmed news-reel footage for this to be a hoax. The Holocaust was real! As for Aktion T-4 and the Porajmos, this just hepls prove that the Nazis were generaly genosidal by nature to ethnic and social groups they opposed. The other old agument, that it was a Zionist plot to get a homeland in the Middel-east is also false, since gatting 6,000,000 of there own killed to achive this goal would be absured; anyhow, the disabeled and Gipsys were slaughtered to, but they have no homeland. Holocaust denile carrys littel factual wieght in reality!

--Homer slips. 06:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Read this proof-

• http://www.justiceatdachau.com/bio.htm
• http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/BergenBelsen08.html

I would like to put a {fact}, {biast} and {Hoax} tag on the idea of Holocaust denile once and for all. It's now in a nut-shell, I rest my case!

--Homer slips. 01:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I did'nt find any proofs there that gas chambers existed, except rumours. But hearsay is'nt proof. Everybody heard about Nessy, but there are no proofs. The situation with gas chambers is the same. Wartime propaganda is obsolete now. Anyone who learn alitle abut this matter doesn't believe in tales about 6,000,000, gas chambers, human soap and so on. Please, respect people little bit more--Igor "the Otter" 08:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What were you looking for, testimony from people who were gassed to death? Gzuckier 15:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Blueprints of gas chamber will be enough.--Igor "the Otter" 19:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't have them on me, you'll have to do a little more leg work than you're apparently used to doing to find them, but lucky you, "The evolution of the Auschwitz concentration camp is capture in the hundreds of architectural plans the Germans forgot to destroy and the Poles and the Soviets preserved in archives in Oswiecim and Moscow. A unique historical source, these materials are part of the archive of the Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei, Auschwitz O/S" (from Auschwitz, by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt, chapter "Plates; Blueprints of Genocide", which has, as you might guess from the chapter title, black and white plates of 20 of the most interesting design documents reproduced for you, should your desire for truth not be so strong as to induce you to go check the originals).

Also, try Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp by Israel Gutman, Michael Berenbaum, and Yisrael Gutman, where you can see the historical diagrams of such nifty items as the Topf double-muffle crematory furnace (page 193, photo on page 192) (patented, mind you; another source of contemporary diagrams for you being the German patent office), a diagram of Auschwitz crematorium I drawn Dec. 9, 1940 on the basis of Topf blueprint D, Nov. 30, 1940 (page 194), a diagram of the modification to that crematorium drawn Feb. 3, 1941 (page 195), etc. etc. And that's just two books, readily available. Really, next time, you should do your homework before asking, we're kinda busy, or go ask at the Wikipedia reference desk.

For instance, if you would have looked at the Judge's summation in the Irving vs. Lipstadt and Penguin trial, just the section pertaining to "Documentary evidence relating to the design and construction of the chambers", you can read a nice summary of the contents of that archive:

7.58 The Defendants assert that there exist contemporaneous documentary records which, on detailed examination, evidence the construction of gas chambers at Auschwitz. The most important Auschwitz archive that survived the war was that of the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz. The main archives of the camp Kommandantur had been destroyed by the Germans before they evacuated the camp in January 1945. The Construction Office was 300 yards away and through an oversight was left intact.

7.59 The first and most significant body of such evidence is the blue print material, which consists of a series of architectural drawings which depict the adaptation of crematoria 2 and 3 and the construction of crematoria 4 and 5. None of these drawings refers overtly to any part of the buildings being designed or intended to serve as gas chambers whether for fumigation or extermination purposes. In particular the drawings for Leichenkeller (morgue) 1 in crematorium 2 make no provision for ducts or chimneys by means of which Zyklon-B pellets might be inserted through the roof. However, van Pelt sought to illustrate by means of detailed analyses of certain features of the drawings that it reasonable to infer that certain chambers were designed to function as gas chambers.

7.60 The principal feature identified by van Pelt is the redesign of the double door to the supposed gas chamber in crematorium 2. When in 1942 the drawings were executed for the adaptation of this crematorium, this door in common with others in the same building was designed to open inwards. Careful scrutiny of the drawings reveals, however, that the drawing of the inward- opening door has been scratched out. A fresh drawing dated 19 December 1942 was made by Jakob, the chief of the drawing office, who rarely undertook drawings himself. It provides for the door to the supposed gas chamber to open outwards. There is no apparent reason for this. To van Pelt the obvious explanation is that the chamber was to be used as a gas chamber. If the door opened inwards, it would be impossible to open it after the administration of the gas because of the crush of corpses against the inside or the door of those who struggled to get out when they realised what was happening to them.

7.61 The next feature identified by van Pelt relates to the entrance to crematorium 2 and the means of which access was gained to the morgue below. In its original design, the entrance was situated to one side of the building. Inside the entrance there was a slide down which corpses would be tipped to reach the level of the morgue. But the drawing shows that this design was changed in late 1942 so as to move the entrance to the crematorium to the street side of the building. At the same time a new stairway to the morgue was designed to replace the pre-existing slide. Van Pelt pointed out that the original design apparently contemplated that only corpses would need to be transported down to the morgue. The new design on the other hand is consistent with a wish to enable people transported to Auschwitz to proceed from the railway station through the new entrance, then to walk downstairs into what is alleged to have been the undressing room and thence into the supposed gas chamber. The stairway has been redesigned in such a way that it would be extremely awkward to carry corpses down to the morgue on stretchers. Van Pelt concludes that the object of the redesign of the stairway was to enable living people to walk downstairs rather than for corpses to be carried down.

7.62 The drawings further provide for the ventilation of the supposed gas chamber in crematorium 2. Van Pelt infers that the purpose of the system for extracting air was to extract poisonous air and so speed up the removal of the corpses to the incinerators.

7.63 Crematoria 4 and 5 were new buildings. The initial drawings are dated August 1942, not long after the visit paid to the camp by Himmler, which the Defendants say marks the inception of the accelerated extermination programme. According to van Pelt the design of these crematoria incorporated undressing rooms (although not so designated on the drawings) and morgues which were to serve as gas chambers. The drawings of the morgues make provision for several windows measuring 30 x 40cms. The size of these windows corresponds with the size of windows referred to elsewhere in construction documents as being required to be gas proof. The windows were to be above eye level. Van Pelt draws the inference that the purpose of these windows was to enable Zyklon-B pellets to be inserted through them into the building (a process which was observed by Sonderkommando Dragon, as mentioned above).

7.64 Van Pelt agreed that the drawings for crematoria 4 and 5 show a drainage system which appears to link up with the camp sewage system. He disagreed with Irving's suggestion that this would have been highly dangerous because large quantities of liquid cyanide would have found their way into the sewage system. Van Pelt claims that the gas would evaporate rather than turn into liquid.

7.65 In addition to the architectural drawings, there are other documents which, according to the Defendants, lend support to their contention that there were gas chambers at the camp which were used for genocidal purposes. I shall not itemise all the documents identified by the Defendants as belonging in this category. They include a patent application for multi-muffle ovens made by Topf. Although the patent application does not in fact relate to the ovens supplied to Auschwitz in 1942/3, it is said that the principle is the same. The two features of the application on which the Defendants focus are, firstly, the method of employing fat corpses to speed promote the rate at which corpses can be burned and, secondly, the claim that no fuel is required after the initial two day pre-heating period, no more fuel will be required because of the amount of heat generated by the burning corpses. Van Pelt noted that both these features are reflected in the account given by Tauber of the way in which the corpses were incinerated.

7.66 Another allegedly incriminating document is the record of a meeting held on 19 August 1942 between members of the Auschwitz construction office and a representative of the engineers Topf to discuss the construction of four crematoria. The note of the meeting refers to the construction of triple oven incinerators near the "Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen" ("bath-houses for special actions": the words are in quotations in the original).

7.67 In a different category is a report dated 16 December 1942 made by a corporal named Kinna, which made reference to an order that, in order to releive the camp, limited people, idiots, cripples and sick people must be removed from the same by liquidation. Kinna stated that the implementation of this order was difficult because the Poles, unlike the Jews, must die a natural death.

7.68 The Defendants relies on a letter dated 29 January 1943 from Bischoff, Chief of Central Construction Managemnent at the camp, to SS Brigadefuhrer Kammler in which there is reference to a Vergasungskammer (gas chamber or cellar). There are also documents from February 1943 referring to the provision of gastight doors and windows. In a letter dated 31 March 1943 Bischoff presses for the delivery of a gastight door with a spyhole of 8mm glass, with a rubber seal and metal fitting. There is a timesheet of a construction worker which makes reference to fitting gastight windows to crematorium 4. Van Pelt pointed to a letter dated 6 March 1943 from Auschwitz to the Topf company which contemplated the use of hot air from the ventilators for the incinerators to pre-heat the Leichenkeller 1. Why, he asked, heat a morgue, which should be kept cool. Answering his own question, he claimed that Zyklon-B evaporates more quickly in high temperatures, so the killing process would be speeded up. (Irving answered that there is nothing sinister about heating the morgue: it was a requirement of good building practice in relation to civilian morgues).

7.69 Finally under this head the Defendants rely on a letter dated 28 June 1943 from Bischoff to Kammler (the authenticity of which Irving challenges) setting figures for the incineration capacity of the five crematoria, according to which their total capacity is 4756 people in every 24 hours. The Defendants' case is that this capacity was at that time deemed to be necessary to burn the bodies of the Jews who were to be brought to Auschwitz to be gassed. Basing themselves on the evidence of sonderkommandos such as Tauber, the Defendants say further that the rate of incineration was broadly in line with the estimate in the letter of 28 June 1943. The Defendants suggest that the apparent urgency of the installation of the ovens, together with their huge capacity which, according to van Pelt, was far in excess of what could possibly have been required to cope with future typhus epidemics, reflects the policy adopted following Himmler's visit to the camp in July 1942.

Although you didn't ask, the judge's summary contains, of course, other corroborating sections, i.e. drawings of camp structures by inmates and architectural drawings, which match the blueprints, as well as the eyewitness testimony:

7.24 Among the sketches Olere produced were architectural drawings of Crematorium 3 which show the basement level with the underground dressing room and the gas chamber, and the ground floor with the incineration room the ovens and the chimney. Arrows indicate the functional relationship of the rooms. They show how people were directed to the gas chamber; how bodies were moved to the corpse elevator; how they were taken to the incineration room and how coke was brought to the ovens in the incineration room.

7.25 In his drawings of Crematorium 3 and its environs Olere depicted people filing into the compound from the road and moving into the dressing room. A sketch from 1946 shows the dressing room, the benches and the hooks for clothes. Another sketch shows the Sonderkommandos collecting gold teeth and hair from the women. One of the wire mesh columns is visible in the background. Van Pelt commented that the information in these drawings is corroborated by the testimony of Tauber (see below). He also pointed out that none of the drawings could have been made on the basis of published material as there was not any available at the time.

7.26 Other sketches by Olere show Bunker 2, which was a peasant cottage converted into a gas chamber. Van Pelt noted that the undressing barrack is correctly positioned vis-à-vis the cottage. He pointed out the small window with the heavy wooden shutter through which Zyklon-B was introduced. Another sketch portrays the murder of women and children with Crematorium 5 in the background. Van Pelt claimed the representation of the crematorium to be architecturally correct save for minor inaccuracies which can be ascribed to the fact it was drawn from memory.

7.27 Van Pelt noted that Olere's sketches are corroborated by plans that the Russians found in the Central Construction Office, save that Olere depicts vertical wire mesh columns in the gas chamber (through which the Defendants allege that Zyklon-B was inserted) which are not to be found in the original architectural plans for the site. Olere's arrangement has the mesh columns attached to the west side of the first and fifth structural columns and on the east side of the third and seventh structural columns in the gas chamber.

And of course, the judgement contains over 300 pages of similar summary of the photographs, eyewitness accounts from staff and inmates, evidence from Nuremberg and other trials, etc., both that presented by David "Don't-call-me-biased-or-I'll-sue-you" Irving and that presented by the defendants, all of which together were enough to convince the trial judge, as follows:

13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings.

The documentary evidence

13.75 Vulnerable though the individual categories of evidence may be to criticisms of the kind mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it appears to me that the cumulative effect of the documentary evidence for the genocidal operation of gas chambers at Auschwitz is considerable.

13.76 The nature of the redesign in 1942 of crematorium 2 appears to me, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 7.59 to 7.63 above, to constitute powerful evidence that the morgue was to be used to gas live human beings who had been able to walk downstairs. Few and far between though they may be, documents do exist for which it is difficult to find an innocent explanation. I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen (“bath-houses for special actions”) and the so-called Kinna report (paragraph 7.67 above). As to Muller’s letter about the incineration capacity of the ovens (see paragraphs 7.69 and 7.106 above), it does not seem to me that, despite its unusual features, a dispassionate historian would dismiss it out of hand, as did Irving, as a forgery. Van Pelt believed it to be genuine. He pointed out that there are two copies in different archives (in Domburg and in Moscow, where it has been since 1945). It was used at the trial of Hoss in 1948.If it had been forged before 1948, it would have been unlikely that the capacity would have been given as 4,756 corpses per day since that is a lower figure than the figures published by the Russians and the Poles at the end of the war. I accept the reasoning of van Pelt. If the Muller document is authentic, it is further cogent evidence of genocidal gassing because the capacity to which Muller refers cannot have been needed to incinerate those who succumbed to disease. Finally, there is the scientific evidence gathered by the Polish Central Commission in 1945-7 (paragraph 7.2 above) and the evidence of the Markiewicz report (see paragraphs 7.73 to 7.74 above).

Conclusion

13.91 Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

By the way, I hope you're not going to do anything, shall we say, rash with this information.Gzuckier 22:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's obvoise on the news reels lots of people had died there. They were starving wrecks unlike the guards, who were just thin. Typhoid, nah, that would kill every one, so it's either death by neglect, slavory or murdur by some means. --Homer slips. 12:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

May be historian must not doubt that, but I'm not historian so I'm doubt much because it is silly to believe official point of view which lied many times. Human soap, for example. Look also at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuchter_Report Is Leuchter an expert or not? Those are his words that there are no proves. I think he is an expert.--Igor "the Otter" 17:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Lies about alleged lies are a rather standard holocaust denier technique, and the soap one is perhaps the most classic -- and the most easily punctured. The source of the noise is that one single British POW testified that he had heard rumors of soap making at Auschwitz: German civilians would joke among themselves and threaten prisoners with being turned into soap. That's it: one piece of testimony about a rumor. The judgement at Nuremburg was, After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilize the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap. On the other hand, it's recently been proven that the Nazis indeed did make soap from human remains at the Danzig Anatomic Institute[3]. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Nizkor project are proven liars. So they can not be trusted in any case. Even I caught them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Holocaust_denial ("This articcle is,nt neutral") Igor is me. I think it is not kind of sockpuppet.--Igor "the Otter" 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• (No, no sockpuppet, just you before you had a registered account.) So even if you don't trust Nizkor, you can still go to the primary sources they cite. Here, is this better? http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=131784&region=3 --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If somebody's remains were used for such experiments, that does'nt proves that somebody was killed SPECIALLY TO MAKING SOAP from him like it was presented. Like conveyer-like industry. This is VERY different.--Igor "the Otter" 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Why, yes, it is. Entirely different. And if someone had actually claimed somewhere or somehow that people were killed for the purpose of turning them into soap, you'd have a real strong point. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So it wasn't "crime against humanity", right? That is about desecration, not about atrocities. Do You want to tell me that propaganda didn't even claimed that there was industial turning of people in to soap? Come on. I can point more specific example of propaganda's lie against nazis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre I mean part "Trials". Soviet goverment hanged seven german officers for one's own atrocity.--Igor "the Otter" 08:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Did propaganda claim that? Please show us where -- I've only heard of it as rumor of rumor, not of any propaganda claims; perhaps you're confusing this with the WWI Belgian babies. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, those were false rumours which propaganda did not debunked. Will be acceptable such? Those rumours are that I call the tales about human soap.--Igor "the Otter" 09:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Not good enough. You claimed you wanted blueprints to convince you; I told you where the blueprints were stored, what books you could see pictures of the blueprints in, descriptions of what was depicted in the blueprints, and what other evidence matched the blueprints, and your response? You immediately dropped the subject and got on the soap thing. So, turnabout is fairplay; I want to see the documentary evidence of "the Jews" claiming the Nazis made soap out humans. Not to mention evidence of "the Jews" claiming the soap was a key part of the Holocaust which, if disproved makes the whole thing come apart. Otherwise, you're just here trying to screw up factual articles for some screwy purpose of your own that only God understands. Gzuckier 19:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't seen any link on the blueprint still. You shown documents of the suit Irving lost. There is written about "blueprints and sketches". I can draw sketches too. But he also won some such suits. So what? IHR offered award for such blueprints. And award remains untaken, as I heard. Seems like there are no such blueprints. If it is wrong, I'll believe You that chambers existed. Fair?--Igor "the Otter" 20:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you want blueprints? OK! "The evolution of the Auschwitz concentration camp is capture in the hundreds of architectural plans the Germans forgot to destroy and the Poles and the Soviets preserved in archives in Oswiecim and Moscow. A unique historical source, these materials are part of the archive of the Zentralbauleitung der Waffen SS und Polizei, Auschwitz O/S" (from Auschwitz, by Deborah Dwork and Robert Jan Van Pelt, chapter "Plates; Blueprints of Genocide", which has, as you might guess from the chapter title, black and white plates of 20 of the most interesting design documents reproduced for you, should your desire for truth not be so strong as to induce you to go check the originals).

Also, try Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp by Israel Gutman, Michael Berenbaum, and Yisrael Gutman, where you can see the historical diagrams of such nifty items as the Topf double-muffle crematory furnace (page 193, photo on page 192) (patented, mind you; another source of contemporary diagrams for you being the German patent office), a diagram of Auschwitz crematorium I drawn Dec. 9, 1940 on the basis of Topf blueprint D, Nov. 30, 1940 (page 194), a diagram of the modification to that crematorium drawn Feb. 3, 1941 (page 195), etc. etc. And that's just two books, readily available. Really, next time, you should do your homework before asking, we're kinda busy, or go ask at the Wikipedia reference desk.

For instance, if you would have looked at the Judge's summation in the Irving vs. Lipstadt and Penguin trial, just the section pertaining to "Documentary evidence relating to the design and construction of the chambers", you can read a nice summary of the contents of that archive:

7.58 The Defendants assert that there exist contemporaneous documentary records which, on detailed examination, evidence the construction of gas chambers at Auschwitz. The most important Auschwitz archive that survived the war was that of the Central Construction Office at Auschwitz. The main archives of the camp Kommandantur had been destroyed by the Germans before they evacuated the camp in January 1945. The Construction Office was 300 yards away and through an oversight was left intact.

7.59 The first and most significant body of such evidence is the blue print material, which consists of a series of architectural drawings which depict the adaptation of crematoria 2 and 3 and the construction of crematoria 4 and 5. None of these drawings refers overtly to any part of the buildings being designed or intended to serve as gas chambers whether for fumigation or extermination purposes. In particular the drawings for Leichenkeller (morgue) 1 in crematorium 2 make no provision for ducts or chimneys by means of which Zyklon-B pellets might be inserted through the roof. However, van Pelt sought to illustrate by means of detailed analyses of certain features of the drawings that it reasonable to infer that certain chambers were designed to function as gas chambers.

7.60 The principal feature identified by van Pelt is the redesign of the double door to the supposed gas chamber in crematorium 2. When in 1942 the drawings were executed for the adaptation of this crematorium, this door in common with others in the same building was designed to open inwards. Careful scrutiny of the drawings reveals, however, that the drawing of the inward- opening door has been scratched out. A fresh drawing dated 19 December 1942 was made by Jakob, the chief of the drawing office, who rarely undertook drawings himself. It provides for the door to the supposed gas chamber to open outwards. There is no apparent reason for this. To van Pelt the obvious explanation is that the chamber was to be used as a gas chamber. If the door opened inwards, it would be impossible to open it after the administration of the gas because of the crush of corpses against the inside or the door of those who struggled to get out when they realised what was happening to them.

7.61 The next feature identified by van Pelt relates to the entrance to crematorium 2 and the means of which access was gained to the morgue below. In its original design, the entrance was situated to one side of the building. Inside the entrance there was a slide down which corpses would be tipped to reach the level of the morgue. But the drawing shows that this design was changed in late 1942 so as to move the entrance to the crematorium to the street side of the building. At the same time a new stairway to the morgue was designed to replace the pre-existing slide. Van Pelt pointed out that the original design apparently contemplated that only corpses would need to be transported down to the morgue. The new design on the other hand is consistent with a wish to enable people transported to Auschwitz to proceed from the railway station through the new entrance, then to walk downstairs into what is alleged to have been the undressing room and thence into the supposed gas chamber. The stairway has been redesigned in such a way that it would be extremely awkward to carry corpses down to the morgue on stretchers. Van Pelt concludes that the object of the redesign of the stairway was to enable living people to walk downstairs rather than for corpses to be carried down.

7.62 The drawings further provide for the ventilation of the supposed gas chamber in crematorium 2. Van Pelt infers that the purpose of the system for extracting air was to extract poisonous air and so speed up the removal of the corpses to the incinerators.

7.63 Crematoria 4 and 5 were new buildings. The initial drawings are dated August 1942, not long after the visit paid to the camp by Himmler, which the Defendants say marks the inception of the accelerated extermination programme. According to van Pelt the design of these crematoria incorporated undressing rooms (although not so designated on the drawings) and morgues which were to serve as gas chambers. The drawings of the morgues make provision for several windows measuring 30 x 40cms. The size of these windows corresponds with the size of windows referred to elsewhere in construction documents as being required to be gas proof. The windows were to be above eye level. Van Pelt draws the inference that the purpose of these windows was to enable Zyklon-B pellets to be inserted through them into the building (a process which was observed by Sonderkommando Dragon, as mentioned above).

7.64 Van Pelt agreed that the drawings for crematoria 4 and 5 show a drainage system which appears to link up with the camp sewage system. He disagreed with Irving's suggestion that this would have been highly dangerous because large quantities of liquid cyanide would have found their way into the sewage system. Van Pelt claims that the gas would evaporate rather than turn into liquid.

7.65 In addition to the architectural drawings, there are other documents which, according to the Defendants, lend support to their contention that there were gas chambers at the camp which were used for genocidal purposes. I shall not itemise all the documents identified by the Defendants as belonging in this category. They include a patent application for multi-muffle ovens made by Topf. Although the patent application does not in fact relate to the ovens supplied to Auschwitz in 1942/3, it is said that the principle is the same. The two features of the application on which the Defendants focus are, firstly, the method of employing fat corpses to speed promote the rate at which corpses can be burned and, secondly, the claim that no fuel is required after the initial two day pre-heating period, no more fuel will be required because of the amount of heat generated by the burning corpses. Van Pelt noted that both these features are reflected in the account given by Tauber of the way in which the corpses were incinerated.

7.66 Another allegedly incriminating document is the record of a meeting held on 19 August 1942 between members of the Auschwitz construction office and a representative of the engineers Topf to discuss the construction of four crematoria. The note of the meeting refers to the construction of triple oven incinerators near the "Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen" ("bath-houses for special actions": the words are in quotations in the original).

7.67 In a different category is a report dated 16 December 1942 made by a corporal named Kinna, which made reference to an order that, in order to releive the camp, limited people, idiots, cripples and sick people must be removed from the same by liquidation. Kinna stated that the implementation of this order was difficult because the Poles, unlike the Jews, must die a natural death.

7.68 The Defendants relies on a letter dated 29 January 1943 from Bischoff, Chief of Central Construction Managemnent at the camp, to SS Brigadefuhrer Kammler in which there is reference to a Vergasungskammer (gas chamber or cellar). There are also documents from February 1943 referring to the provision of gastight doors and windows. In a letter dated 31 March 1943 Bischoff presses for the delivery of a gastight door with a spyhole of 8mm glass, with a rubber seal and metal fitting. There is a timesheet of a construction worker which makes reference to fitting gastight windows to crematorium 4. Van Pelt pointed to a letter dated 6 March 1943 from Auschwitz to the Topf company which contemplated the use of hot air from the ventilators for the incinerators to pre-heat the Leichenkeller 1. Why, he asked, heat a morgue, which should be kept cool. Answering his own question, he claimed that Zyklon-B evaporates more quickly in high temperatures, so the killing process would be speeded up. (Irving answered that there is nothing sinister about heating the morgue: it was a requirement of good building practice in relation to civilian morgues).

7.69 Finally under this head the Defendants rely on a letter dated 28 June 1943 from Bischoff to Kammler (the authenticity of which Irving challenges) setting figures for the incineration capacity of the five crematoria, according to which their total capacity is 4756 people in every 24 hours. The Defendants' case is that this capacity was at that time deemed to be necessary to burn the bodies of the Jews who were to be brought to Auschwitz to be gassed. Basing themselves on the evidence of sonderkommandos such as Tauber, the Defendants say further that the rate of incineration was broadly in line with the estimate in the letter of 28 June 1943. The Defendants suggest that the apparent urgency of the installation of the ovens, together with their huge capacity which, according to van Pelt, was far in excess of what could possibly have been required to cope with future typhus epidemics, reflects the policy adopted following Himmler's visit to the camp in July 1942.

Although you didn't ask, the judge's summary contains, of course, other corroborating sections, i.e. drawings of camp structures by inmates and architectural drawings, which match the blueprints, as well as the eyewitness testimony:

7.24 Among the sketches Olere produced were architectural drawings of Crematorium 3 which show the basement level with the underground dressing room and the gas chamber, and the ground floor with the incineration room the ovens and the chimney. Arrows indicate the functional relationship of the rooms. They show how people were directed to the gas chamber; how bodies were moved to the corpse elevator; how they were taken to the incineration room and how coke was brought to the ovens in the incineration room.

7.25 In his drawings of Crematorium 3 and its environs Olere depicted people filing into the compound from the road and moving into the dressing room. A sketch from 1946 shows the dressing room, the benches and the hooks for clothes. Another sketch shows the Sonderkommandos collecting gold teeth and hair from the women. One of the wire mesh columns is visible in the background. Van Pelt commented that the information in these drawings is corroborated by the testimony of Tauber (see below). He also pointed out that none of the drawings could have been made on the basis of published material as there was not any available at the time.

7.26 Other sketches by Olere show Bunker 2, which was a peasant cottage converted into a gas chamber. Van Pelt noted that the undressing barrack is correctly positioned vis-à-vis the cottage. He pointed out the small window with the heavy wooden shutter through which Zyklon-B was introduced. Another sketch portrays the murder of women and children with Crematorium 5 in the background. Van Pelt claimed the representation of the crematorium to be architecturally correct save for minor inaccuracies which can be ascribed to the fact it was drawn from memory.

7.27 Van Pelt noted that Olere's sketches are corroborated by plans that the Russians found in the Central Construction Office, save that Olere depicts vertical wire mesh columns in the gas chamber (through which the Defendants allege that Zyklon-B was inserted) which are not to be found in the original architectural plans for the site. Olere's arrangement has the mesh columns attached to the west side of the first and fifth structural columns and on the east side of the third and seventh structural columns in the gas chamber.

And of course, the judgement contains over 300 pages of similar summary of the photographs, eyewitness accounts from staff and inmates, evidence from Nuremberg and other trials, etc., both that presented by David "Don't-call-me-biased-or-I'll-sue-you" Irving and that presented by the defendants, all of which together were enough to convince the trial judge, as follows:

13.71 I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in these proceedings.

The documentary evidence

13.75 Vulnerable though the individual categories of evidence may be to criticisms of the kind mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, it appears to me that the cumulative effect of the documentary evidence for the genocidal operation of gas chambers at Auschwitz is considerable.

13.76 The nature of the redesign in 1942 of crematorium 2 appears to me, for the reasons summarised in paragraph 7.59 to 7.63 above, to constitute powerful evidence that the morgue was to be used to gas live human beings who had been able to walk downstairs. Few and far between though they may be, documents do exist for which it is difficult to find an innocent explanation. I have in mind for example the minute of the meeting of 19 August 1942 (paragraph 7.66 above), which refers to Badenanstalten fur Sonderaktionen (“bath-houses for special actions”) and the so-called Kinna report (paragraph 7.67 above). As to Muller’s letter about the incineration capacity of the ovens (see paragraphs 7.69 and 7.106 above), it does not seem to me that, despite its unusual features, a dispassionate historian would dismiss it out of hand, as did Irving, as a forgery. Van Pelt believed it to be genuine. He pointed out that there are two copies in different archives (in Domburg and in Moscow, where it has been since 1945). It was used at the trial of Hoss in 1948.If it had been forged before 1948, it would have been unlikely that the capacity would have been given as 4,756 corpses per day since that is a lower figure than the figures published by the Russians and the Poles at the end of the war. I accept the reasoning of van Pelt. If the Muller document is authentic, it is further cogent evidence of genocidal gassing because the capacity to which Muller refers cannot have been needed to incinerate those who succumbed to disease. Finally, there is the scientific evidence gathered by the Polish Central Commission in 1945-7 (paragraph 7.2 above) and the evidence of the Markiewicz report (see paragraphs 7.73 to 7.74 above).

Conclusion

13.91 Having considered the various arguments advanced by Irving to assail the effect of the convergent evidence relied on by the Defendants, it is my conclusion that no objective, fair-minded historian would have serious cause to doubt that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and that they were operated on a substantial scale to kill hundreds of thousands of Jews.

Enjoy!Gzuckier 22:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

So You failed to give any links for the blueprints, probably because where no such things, but repeating the same. I'm not surprised. Do You expect me to believe You because Irving lost that suit? There were many such suits, understood? http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gclipstadt1.html The Non-Existent “Auschwitz Gas Chambers” of Deborah Lipstadt, Part I By Paul Grubach

copyright 2006

I In her 1993 critique of the Holocaust revisionist movement, Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, prominent Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt labeled British historian David Irving a “Holocaust denier” and “one of the most dangerous spokespersons of the denial movement.” In response, Irving sued Lipstadt and her publisher for libel. The subsequent trial in London, beginning in January 2000, received worldwide coverage, as the media spotlight fell upon the ongoing battle between traditional and revisionist views of the Jewish tragedy in WWII. After a ten-week trial, Irving lost his case and Lipstadt’s victory was front-page news worldwide.

The Irving-Lipstadt saga continued well into 2005. In the early part of the year, Lipstadt published her version of events, History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving.1 The book was generally favorably reviewed and widely hailed as a “publishing event.” In her tome, she put forth in laymen’s terms that everyone could understand, straightforward reasons as to why one should reject Holocaust revisionist theories and accept the existence of the homicidal Auschwitz gas chambers.

As most readers of this essay are already probably aware, Irving was arrested in Vienna, Austria, in November 2005, and will stand trial for “denying the Holocaust.” According to a British press report, "Irving's Austrian lawyer claimed that his client has recanted and now asserts belief in the existence of the Nazi gas chambers."

Let us assume for the sake of argument that David Irving has recanted, and now believes the gas chambers were for real. Does this mean that Deborah Lipstadt has finally and conclusively won the Irving-Lipstadt war? Does this mean that she has proven the Nazi gas chambers actually existed?

In view of this ongoing, headline grabbing story, we should investigate exactly what “proof” Lipstadt has offered her readers in History on Trial to show the Auschwitz gas chambers actually existed.

II

In January 1988, the second trial of Ernst Zundel began in Toronto, Canada. The intrepid, German-born revisionist was charged with spreading false news; he published a booklet that challenged the prevailing view that six million Jews were killed by the Nazis, primarily through the use of gas chambers that used hydrogen cyanide (HCN) as the killing agent.

Fred A. Leuchter specialized in the design, construction, and maintenance of execution hardware such as gas chambers. He was a consultant to several states and penitentiaries, had worked on and designed facilities used to kill condemned criminals with hydrogen cyanide, and in the late 1980s designed the new Missouri State Penitentiary Death House and gas chamber. It would not be stretching the truth a bit to say that at one time he was America’s foremost expert on gas chamber technology.

Zundel contracted Leuchter to prepare an expert opinion on the alleged murder facilities at three sites in Poland. In early 1988, the American execution hardware expert carried out the first-ever forensic investigation of the alleged extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau, and Majdanek. His sensational conclusion—that these structures were never used as gas chambers to kill people—set off an international controversy that is still continuing.

Leuchter took forensic samples of brick, mortar and sediment from the alleged extermination gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau, as well as a control sample from a camp delousing facility. It is agreed that no one was ever gassed at the latter location; it was used only to delouse clothing and other belongings. Here is Lipstadt’s description of Leuchter’s activities: “Leuchter chiseled chunks of concrete from the walls of the gas chambers. He also took samples from the walls of the delousing facility in which clothes and objects were fumigated. Leuchter intended to compare the amount of gas residue in each facility.”2

Leuchter smuggled the samples out of Poland, and back in Massachusetts he had a chemical lab test them. Lipstadt reports on Leuchter’s findings: “The lab found there was more gas residue in the delousing chamber samples than in the gas chamber samples. Based on this, Leuchter concluded that no humans were gassed at Auschwitz.”3

Lipstadt’s description of Leuchter’s findings is very misleading. The amounts of gas residue found in the alleged homicidal gas chamber samples were minuscule (!) as compared with that found in the non-homicidal delousing facility sample.4

Concerning Leuchter’s findings, Lipstadt again writes: "Leuchter had made a number of fundamental mistakes that destroyed the validity of his conclusions. In the fall of 1944, as the Soviet forces approached Auschwitz, the Germans blew up the gas chambers in order to camouflage their genocidal activities. The piles of rubble had been exposed to years of rain, snow, sun and mud. The water-soluble HCN residue on the chambers' exposed walls and floors had been severely diluted by the time Leuchter arrived with his chisel, Baggies, and running commentary."5

In other words, she is saying that one reason that Leuchter found minuscule HCN residue in the alleged gas chamber samples is because over 40 years of harsh weather--sun, rain, snow, heat, cold, wind, mud, etc.,--washed virtually all of the residue away.

The revelation of the late Jean-Claude Pressac disproves her claim. French pharmacist Pressac--one of the major researchers in Lipstadt’s ideological camp, whose work attempted to prove the existence of the Auschwitz gas chambers--has been described by Lipstadt’s allies as “one of the rare research specialists in gas chamber extermination technique.”6

In his widely hailed, 1989 tome, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, he published the picture of the outside wall of a non-homicidal, HCN delousing chamber. Referring to this structure, he wrote: "[F]rom ground level to just below the chimney, bluish stains can be seen on the bricks of the wall, showing that hydrocyanic acid [HCN] was used there (in 1942-1944), for delousing purposes."7

Thus, the findings of Pressac discredits Lipstadt’s claim that all or even most of the HCN residue on the alleged gas chamber walls would have been "severely diluted" by the elements or "weathered away." Despite being subjected to over 40 years of weathering, the highly visible HCH residue is still very much present. (There are other examples of visible HCN residue remaining despite many decades of being subjected to harsh weather.8)

Furthermore, it is not true, as Lipstadt claims that all of Leuchter’s samples had been subjected to years of rain, snow, sun and mud. Leuchter took some samples from the inside walls of the alleged homicidal gas chamber of Crematorium I. As Pressac pointed out, these inside walls were protected from the harsh, outside elements: “[The] morgue/gas chamber inside walls have never been exposed to sun, rain, or snow (factors which contribute to cyanide content diminishing) as the other [alleged gas chambers] were and are.”9

The important point here is this. The findings of one of the most prominent experts on the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers can be used to discredit the theories of Deborah Lipstadt! Pressac’s evidence contradicts Lipstadt on these points.

Lipstadt again explains another alleged consequence of Leuchter’s supposed most serious “error.” She writes: “He assumed that because he found higher levels of HCN residue in the chambers for delousing clothing and objects than in the homicidal gas chambers, humans were not killed in the latter. But vermin are far more resistant to cyanide than humans. Therefore, in order to kill them, far higher concentrations of gas are needed for substantially longer periods of time. Therefore, there should be more gas residue in a clothes delousing chamber than in a homicidal gas chamber. Furthermore, when humans are packed tightly into a room—such as they were in the gas chambers—lower amounts of the gas will kill them more rapidly than in other circumstances. Given these conditions, it is surprising that he found any gas residue at all in the homicidal gas chambers.”10

Once again, an assertion of Pressac undermines the claim of Lipstadt. Pressac claimed that twelve to twenty grams per cubic meter is the concentration of the HCN allegedly used in a homicidal gassing; two to five grams per cubic meter was the concentration used in a non-homicidal disinfestation/delousing.11 Contradicting Lipstadt, Pressac is claiming that a greater concentration of gas would have been used to kill humans in each gassing than that used to kill vermin in each delousing. Pressac’s claim contradicts Lipstadt, which suggests that she and her fellow promoters of the Holocaust ideology change their story according to the propaganda needs of the moment.

In all fairness to Lipstadt, though, Pressac does claim that the gas was in contact with the delousing chamber walls for much longer periods that it was in contact with the walls of the homicidal gas chambers.

Before we can proceed with our critique of Lipstadt’s claims, we must understand a few facts about the Holocaust story and the properties of HCN.

The standard Holocaust story insists that large numbers died in each gas chamber. Allegedly, approximately 400,000 were gassed in Crematorium II, 350,000 in Crematorium III.12 And it is still a part of the standard Holocaust history that the alleged gas chambers were in operation for long periods of time. Crematorium II allegedly functioned as a homicidal gas chamber from March 1943 to November 1944; Crematorium III was supposedly used in a similar fashion from June 1943 to November 1944.13

Enter Dr. Robert Jan van Pelt, professor of architecture at the University of Waterloo, Canada. In connection with Lipstadt’s defense at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, van Pelt testified as an expert witness on the alleged execution Auschwitz gas chambers.

Dr. van Pelt points out that “Hydrogen cyanide is very soluble in water.”14 The authoritative Nuremberg document, “Directives for the Use of Prussic Acid [Hydrogen Cyanide] for the Destruction of Vermin (Disinfestation),” also confirms that HCN is water-soluble and has extraordinarily great penetrating powers.15 Dr. van Pelt estimates that 350,000 people were killed in the alleged gas chamber of morgue I. At 2,000 people per gassing, that comes out to 175 gassings, or approximately 117 hours of the gas chamber being exposed to HCN.16

For the sake of argument, let us give Lipstadt and her allies the benefit of doubt and assume what they say about the alleged operation of the gas chambers is 100% correct. That is, let us assume A) far less gas was used in a homicidal gassing than in a non-homicidal delousing; B) the gas chamber ventilation systems insured that the HCN was in contact with the gas chamber walls for only short periods of time during each homicidal gassing; and C) the chambers were washed down after the gassings with water.17. Most importantly, Lipstadt is claiming that the main reason there was no long-term buildup of cyanide residue in the “gas chambers” is because only small amounts of the HCN were in contact with the walls, pillars and ceilings for only very brief periods of time.

Even if we assume all of these to hold, the conditions would still have been conducive to the development of the long-term buildup of cyanide residue.

Since HCN has great penetrating powers, at least some of the gas used during the mass gassings would have penetrated far enough into the brickwork to escape being washed away after each gassing. Furthermore, HCN is water-soluble. After the hosing down, numerous water droplets containing dissolved HCN would have remained on the walls, floors, and ceilings to react with the iron in the walls, ultimately leading to a cyanide residue buildup. Finally, the natural moisture in the damp mortar and brickwork would have dissolved the gas, thus keeping even more of the HCN within the chamber, ultimately leading to even more of a cyanide residue buildup.

We repeat: Lipstadt’s allies claim that the gas chamber of morgue I, for example, was exposed to HCN for approximately 117 hours and it was hosed down with water after each gassing.18

Enter Germar Rudolf, a former Max-Planck Institute chemistry doctoral candidate. Correcting the deficiencies of Leuchter’s pioneering study, he undertook a far more thorough forensic study of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers. Certified chemist Rudolf uncovered the case of a German church that had visible hydrogen cyanide residue staining after only one (!) fumigation with HCN gas.19

Considering all of the aforementioned facts, one is justified in concluding the following: if the structures in question were actually used as homicidal gas chambers, the conditions would have been conducive for the long-term buildup of considerable hydrogen cyanide residue. The point is not that the cyanide traces at the alleged homicidal gassing sites are “somewhat less” than those found at the non-homicidal delousing sites, but that they are negligible or nil in comparison. As Rudolf points out, if the structures in question were actually used as homicidal gas chambers, there would have been a considerable and significant cyanide residue buildup.20

It is important to note that Rudolf, in his forensic analysis of the alleged Auschwitz gas chambers, found this: “Quantities of cyanide on the order of magnitude of those found by Leuchter in the alleged ‘gas chamber’ can apparently also be found in the wall material of the inmate barracks.”21 In other words, the amount of cyanide residue found in the alleged gas chambers is similar to that found in the inmates’ barracks—where no homicidal mass gassings ever occurred! If the structures in question were actually used as homicidal gas chambers, one would expect to find a significantly greater cyanide residue buildup in their walls than in the walls of the inmates’ barracks. This is further evidence that supports the revisionist claim that the alleged “Auschwitz gas chambers” never existed.

Further on, Lipstadt makes an important concession to Holocaust revisionism, confirming that at least one of its claims are indeed correct, while simultaneously, she undermines the testimony of one expert in her own camp. Her rebuttal to Dr. James Roth is most certainly revisionist in nature.

As stated earlier, Fred Leuchter took samples from the alleged gas chamber walls. The laboratory that evaluated his samples pulverized them for the tests. When Roth, the chemist who conducted the tests, learned the samples were from gas chamber walls, he declared that Leuchter’s findings were meaningless because hydrogen cyanide only reacts on the surface. Roth said that the HCN “would probably not…penetrate more than 10 microns. Human hair is 100 microns.”22 Ergo, according to his viewpoint, by pulverizing Leuchter’s samples, the laboratory had diluted any HCN residue.

In a footnote, Lipstadt undermines Roth’s claims, and implicitly admits that at least one of the findings of Holocaust revisionist chemist Germar Rudolf is indeed correct. She writes: “[T]he HCN most likely penetrated far deeper than 10 microns.”23 This is precisely the point that Rudolf demonstrated elsewhere.

Rudolf pointed out that there are blue hydrogen cyanide residue stains on the outside walls of the Auschwitz delousing facilities. This shows that “hydrogen cyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar.”24

So let’s get this perfectly straight. Establishment chemist Dr. James Roth, who now apparently agrees with Lipstadt’s view of the Nazi gas chambers, was wrong about how far the HCN gas would have penetrated into the walls of the gas chambers. But the so-called Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf was actually correct on this issue.

Thank you Deborah Lipstadt for bolstering the credibility of Holocaust denier Germar Rudolf and undermining the credibility of Holocaust true believer James Roth."

Enjoy --Igor "the Otter" 11:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, You asked me to proove use of human soap legend in propaganda. Here is the one: http://www.historiography-project.org/nonsense/20050210soap.html --Igor "the Otter" 12:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Your grasp of facts seems rather shaky at best. You say: IHR offered award for such blueprints. And award remains untaken, as I heard. The rest of the world says,

Mermelstein wrote a letter to The Jerusalem Post claiming he could prove that Jews were gassed in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The Institute for Historical Review wrote back, offering him $50,000 for proof that Jews were, in fact, gassed in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Mermelstein, in turn, submitted a notarized account of his internment at Auschwitz and how he witnessed Nazi guards ushering his mother and two sisters towards (as he learned later) gas chamber number five.

Despite this, the IHR refused to pay the reward. Mermelstein subsequently sued the IHR in California Superior Court for breach of contract. On October 9, 1981, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Thomas T. Johnson ruled in favor of Mermelstein, finding that he had provided sufficient evidence to prove his claim that Jews were gassed in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. The Court issued a judgment requiring the IHR to pay Mermelstein $50,000, plus $40,000 for personal suffering, and write a public apology to Mermelstein.

You say: Seems like there are no such blueprints. If it is wrong, I'll believe You that chambers existed. Fair? I provide you with the location where you can find the blueprints, books where you can find pictures of the blueprints should you not be bothered enough to go see the originals, and descriptions of the blueprints by a judge who reviewed them, and you say You failed to give any links for the blueprints, probably because where no such things. You give us your link to support your purported You asked me to proove use of human soap legend in propaganda, and you provide us with a link to Yad vashem DISPROVING a claim of human-soap. You claim But he [Irving] also won some such suits and as support, provide a bunch of crap which mentions the Irving's suit of Lipstadt and his criminal trial in Austria, which he both lost, his lawyer's statement "Irving's Austrian lawyer claimed that his client has recanted and now asserts belief in the existence of the Nazi gas chambers", and a bunch of hypothetical handwaving regarding Leuchter having nothing to do with Irving. Go peddle your craziness elsewhere, there are plenty of venues for you here where the normal rules of logic and factual accuracy have been suspended. Gzuckier 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked for gas chamber blueprints on Nizkor site. There are blueprints of crematoria, the ones of morgue and so on. But not of chambers itself. If You don't believe me, go to their site and look yourself. I hardly believe they wouldn't have it if such blueprints existed. Do You think I don't know about Mermelstein suit? Mermelstein didn't showed any BLUEPRINTS. Yes, Mermelstain can hire costly lawers, so what? So Mermelstein doesn't counts. Irwing indeed won libel suit with english newspaper before Lipstadt suit. He also offered Lipstadt $1000 or so for photocopies of original blueprints with holes in the roof, as Lipstadt claimed. He gets nothing. On Irving's site I've read his letters to the friends from austian prison. He doesn't changed his mind, somebody tricked You. Yes, different zionistic group not agreeing between themselves. It's propagandistic action, Soap-burial, understood, or not?. Nobody including me doesn't owe to believe any bullshit You claim. --193.17.208.226 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC) --Igor "the Otter" 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Your friend beleves right. Trust him.--Igor "the Otter" 07:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

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

This is Lewis, i did not once say that i thought the Nazi's were cool, if you make this statement again i will chopp your head off.

You are aware that this discussion is taking place on the internet, right? You are aware that probably more than half of us are an ocean or two away from wherever you and your unspecified chopping instrument are, right? Kasreyn 00:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As you can see, Lewis is not a diplomat. 195.194.86.166 13:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing else to do in Solihull today then? Paul B 13:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey' im only the go-between, im just saying hes a little eccentric, if you agree with him he wont hurt, if you disagree, well you should watch out

While it can be neutral, there is need to go further in the details about the event, as there is some major omissions. Year after year there are new elements about the Holocaust cited by sources that are starting to search more profoundly about the event. However, in my course, I've heard of plenty of FACTS (although not mentionned in books) that are pretty harshed to plenty of other actors other then the Axis and Russia. From what I heard Apparently, everyone was aware about Hitler's racial policy well before that, but there's plenty more that I wasn't even aware before my course. I've heard, that the U.S and Canada had barred access to some Jews to enter America. Also, it appears that the aviation of several western countries (Allies) had received orders by their own country not to bombed Germany industries and the Nazi camps. One of the reasons I've heard is that they didn't want to destroy the production in order not to weaken the country this in context of the U.S rivalry against the Soviet. A second reason I've heard is that the extermination camps were equipped with computers provided by IBM.

We need to get some further research to reveal some of the details, while keeping the neutrality policy but sources are so scarce outside of the basic. I can tell plenty of details including the nuclear bomb, where I can reveal some shocking details from what i've learned.--JForget 18:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, Yes, it was known that the Nazis were persecuting the Jews, after all, a number of Jewish intellectuals left Germany for Britain and the US to escape that persecution. It has never been a secret that the US and other western countries tried to limit or exclude Jewish refugees leaving Germany before the war started; see SS St. Louis. Remember, however, that this was before the Nazis started trying to exterminate the Jews. The general American public was not fully aware of Hitler's antipathy to Jews, however. When Alan Cranston and others tried to publish an unexpurgated English translation of Mein Kampf to show American readers what Hitler's plans were, Hitler took them to court for copyright infringement and blocked the publication. Also, as I recall, German factories were bombed all the time, although the Germans were efficient about getting them back into production. One of the frustrations to the allies was that bombing factories didn't seem to slow German war production very much. Finally, IBM data tabulating equipment was used by Germany, but not computers. What we now know as the computer was still under development during WW II, and IBM did not get into the computer business until after the war. -- Donald Albury 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, there's some wacky stuff here. Yes, of course everyone was aware of Hitler's racial policies. He didn't keep them a secret, but before the war they were not openly murderous. And of course pogroms were nothing new. Jews in Eastern Europe had suffered from them for decades. Yes there were restrictions on Jewish immigration. This was a period when Western European countries were obsessed by being "swamped" by immigrants, and America was also preoccupied by the issue (see Yellow peril for example) and had race-based immigration legislation of its own. The Allies bombed German industries very heavily! There are some conspiracy theorists who claim that they deliberately didn't bomb some factories ownerd by US based businesses, but I don't think these theories are widely held. There is ongoing debate about whether it was possible or desirable to bomb death-camps (see Auschwitz bombing debate). IBM computers in the death camps? What did they use them for? Paul B 19:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Artical is neutral. --Homer slips. 05:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I merged all 3 articals claming this section was either biast or neutral. --Homer slips. 05:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Jtpaladin

I've only recently started looking at this subject in a detailed fashion but reading between Holocaust affirmers and Holocaust Deniers is confusing me.

May I ask some questions?

1. Are there any number of Nazis that have confirmed that they participated in gassing Jews in Death Camps? I'm looking for non-forced confessions.
2. Also, I heard that one camp had recently lowered its' numbers on the number that were killed there, if this is true, what is the accepted amount of Jews killed during the Holocaust?
3. I have been a student of military strategy for over 20 years and I know the problems that the Germans had in fueling their warmachine plus their civilian vehicles. How was it possible to expend such enormous amounts of fuel to not only move victims around but to burn their bodies? To burn one body, it takes a considerable amount of gas. Ask any crematorium. And if so, have such an enormous amount of ashes and skeletal remains been found?
4. As for Zyklon-B, my reading of it is that it is a terrible way to try and kill a group of people and then prepare the room for the next group. Zyklon-B is such a toxic pesticide that it would kill the German soldiers doing this work.
5. Are there any plans of death camps showing rooms where people were murdered that were not supplied by the Soviets and Poles, who we all know are liars and created their own show trials in the 1920's and 1930's?

I have more questions but these are the main questions to start.

Any help on these items would be great. Thank you all for your time. Jtpaladin 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've numbered your questions for ease in answering them.
  1. Sure. Rudolf Höß. Deniers will claim his confession was forced, but there's no evidence of that other than rumor and a "secret document" that Robert Faurisson is not at liberty to reveal.
  2. The Auschwitz numbers that were lowered were never used in calculating the five- to six-million figure; they were recognized all along as being inflated. Please read [4], [5], [6], and the appropriate section in the Auschwitz article.
  3. Seems to me (personal opinion) that the Nazis placed as much importance in the extermination of the Jews as they did in prosecuting the war as a whole. And yes, ashes and skeletal remains have been found -- twenty foot deep pits full of them at Treblinka, for example.
  4. In older gas chambers they used gas masks, and in newer ones there were extensive ventilation systems
  5. Irrelevant. Since the death camps were liberated primarily by the Soviets, that's where the blueprints and such would come from.

If you have more such questions, please study the answers to these and many more here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

jp, thanks for the info. The only reason I'm loathe to use any info supplied by the Soviets is because of their well-known distortion of so much of history. Regardless, thank you. Jtpaladin 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

1) Give us a detailed definition of what you mean by non-forced confessions. Many people would feel that a confession which earned the confessor leniency might be forced, but one which earned the confessor a death sentence could not be considered forced, but in the Bizarro world of Holocaust denial, any confession by any Nazi is considered to be forced, without any evidence whatsoever.

2) Give us a detailed definition of what you mean by "accepted number". Accepted by whom? IHR? Yad Vashem? Your grandmother? You?

3) As a self-proclaimed "student of military strategy for over 20 years", you are bothered by the Nazis injuring the war effort by wasting fuel to cremate the bodies, but not with the injury to the Nazi war effort from killing and chasing out the Jews including the most advanced physicists in the world, thereby preventing themselves from having the nuclear bomb first, rather than the US with its haven for persecuted German Jewish physicists? Where did you study military strategy that that little item never occurred to anybody? As for the fuel efficiency of cremating the bodies, you may want to investigate the Topf double muffle oven; it was patented during the war, so you can find it in the patent archives. If you share with friend Igor an understandable (from his viewpoint) reluctance to actually go look up documents which disprove his POV, you could otherwise just check out the print of Topf's blueprint D of Nov. 30, 1940, on page 194 of Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp by Israel Gutman, Michael Berenbaum, and Yisrael Gutman, with the attendant text describing how the continuous feed process eliminates the need for further fuel once the installation is at operating temperature, for instance; or one of the numerous other places where this information, placed in the public domain by the patent process to benefit all of us, is reprinted. All of which is corroborated by the testimony of concentration camp staff and inmates, as well as the managerial documents describing the desired cremation rate, and that actually achieved, many of which are, again, described in the judge's summation in Irving's lawsuit, wherein he imitated the Nazi tendency towards self-destructive obsessive psychosis.

3) This does not actually constitute a question by you, but I gather that the question you intend is, basically, how is it possible to use a toxic compound to kill people; and, even further, that your "reading" suggests that such a toxic compound should, instead, be reserved for use as a pesticide in inhabited areas? No wonder you are reluctant to formulate it as a question. Are you speculating that at some point, a hypothetical German general who might have been asked "should we kill the Jews with Zyklon-B?", would have obviously replied with "No, it's too dangerously toxic, let's just keep it as a delousing agent"?

4)You've apparently missed the large posts of the past few days detailing where the original architectural plans and drawings from Auschwitz are available, a couple of books (not that I am suggesting that these are the only ones) which have reproductions of the diagrams, and descriptions of the documents and their import by the judge in Irving's lawsuit, so perhaps you could reread them just above here, or would you wish me to repost them yet again? Gzuckier 23:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gzuckier, I appreciate your effort to help answer my questions but a comment like "...you are bothered by the Nazis injuring the war effort by wasting fuel to cremate the bodies, but not with the injury to the Nazi war effort from killing and chasing out the Jews including the most advanced physicists in the world,..." is sorely lacking in understanding and is simply insulting. You are under no obligation to help me better understand the topic. My efforts to learn more about a topic that I believe to be very important and to be able to intelligently respond to Holocaust Revisionist's claims or their inability to prove their point is something I take seriously. I have noticed a streak of paranoia among some people who post here when someone merely asks relevant questions. Relax. I don't believe the Revisionist beliefs, but I have to be able to handle their questions and comments when I debate them. Make sense? Does that ease your mind a bit? Jtpaladin 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Questions for Jtpaladin

1. What is the purpose of your questions?
2. Do you imagine Wikipedia Talk: pages are the place for holding debates on the veracity of the Holocaust?
3. Do you imagine that these questions have not been asked before on a dozen Holocaust denial websites, or are you pretending that they are unique to you?
4. Have you mistaken Wikipedia Talk: pages for a Stormfront message board? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

End this squabeling about the holocaust, this is not a Blog page, reinactment of the Warsaw ghetto up-rising or an letters page in a Holocaust denile magazine. I rest my case. --Homer slips. 07:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, here, here! --Lilidor 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg:

1. Knowledge. I use it to debate idiots who think the Holocaust didn't happen.
2. No, I don't. I just asked some questions and jp was kind enough to answer.
3. Stop being paranoid. I believe that the Holocaust happened but I am not up to speed on the mechanics of how it was put into effect.
4. That's just stupid and you're merely being insulting. Jtpaladin 18:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Read Lucy Dawidowicz's book, The War Against the Jews. Hitler devoted precious resources to the crematoria (as opposed to the Eastern or Western Fronts) because he was also at war with the Jews and, arguably, saw the Jews as a greater enemy and threat than the Allies. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Archived

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While applauding Turkey's self-interest actions in taking in Jewish exiles as outlined in the aforementioned book, sadly, that's only part of the story. I think it's important to note how Turkey was an ally of Germany in WWI (causing the death of many British soldiers and other allied troops and civilians) and made it possible for the Nazi war-machine to march forward during WWII. Turkey changed sides and declared war on Nazi Germany only a very short time before the end of WII.

Some very interesting articles regarding "Nazi Gold" hidden in Germany (yes, this includes the gold stolen from Jewish Holocaust victims). Consider:

U.S. State Department [Eizenstat] Report on U.S. and Allied Wartime and Postwar Relations and Negotiations With Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey on Looted Gold and German External Assets and U.S. Concerns About the Fate of the Wartime Ustasha Treasury (June 1998) [7]

U.S. State Department [Eizenstat] Report on Allied Relations and Negotiations With Turkey One quote from this report is particularly disturbing: The principal source of gold in this latter category was the "Melmer" account in which the SS deposited gold bars, coins, jewelry, and dental fillings that it robbed from its Jewish and non-Jewish victims at the killing centers and concentration camps. [8]

U.S State Department Preliminary Study on U.S. and Allied Efforts To Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen or Hidden by Germany During World War II (Includes Finding Aids to Records at the National Archives) (May 1997) [9]

U.S. State Department Holocaust Assets [10]

PBS Frontline Nazi Gold [11] PBS Frontline Turkey [12]

Also, related International Press articles: The Daily Telegraph Neutral countries accused over Nazi gold (Jun. 2, 1998) [13] CNN Report: Neutral nations' trade kept Nazi war machine going (Jun. 2, 1998) [14] CNN Solidarity lacking as conference on Nazi gold ends (Dec. 4 1997)[15] CNN World War II allies attacked at Nazi gold conference (Dec. 3, 1997)[16] CNN 'Harsh report' critical of Swiss-Nazi gold (May 6, 1997) [17] CNN 'Nazi gold' settlement mixes intangibles with money (Aug. 21, 1998) [18]

Turkey has yet to acknowledge, apologize, and make amends for not only the Armenian Holocaust but also for the WII Holocaust. Jtpaladin 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Death Camp definition

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

A better definition can be found

• • • DEATH CAMP(Legal Definition -

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

11 million

This is a retarded argument, however, the numbers do need to coincide. There are various numbers throughout the article which are inconsistent. They should all be given in ranges until a more positive number or narrower range can be agreed upon (never?).

The other issue is the denial of a holocaust. This should have a complete section on it, reasons and quoted studies as to why it exist, what evidence this theory presents... seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to puke out your nutball theories. -me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soyloquequieres (talk • contribs) 07:27, November 8, 2006(UTC).

Soyloquequieres: For Holocaust denial, look here (inside the article) or here (this is its own article). Also, you might want to consult this policy about commenting in a more friendly tone. Thanks! -- weirdoactor ^t|c -- 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

no, becasuse 11 million didnt die. keltik31

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

if you look for the truth, you will find it. the figure is an absurd lie when you look at the facts. i even contacted two holocaust museums to ask for photos of the alleger dead childen. they couldnt provide me with any. i asked for photos of gassed adults. there are none. the dead adults died of typhus. you want to believe that while germany was fighting a war on two fronts, he had millions of gallons of fuel to run creamatoriums and all the other crazy things that you believe happened? you are crazy if you think it happened the way the zionists say it happened. why does the european census have more jews living in europe after the war then before? do the math, it doesnt add up. keltik31—Preceding unsigned comment added by Keltik31 (talk • contribs)

Uh... Well, Jews got so scared of extinction, that they started breeding like crazy. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 21:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually if you add up all the numbers given in the article - it gives you a top figure of 20 million. The Nazi's killed 20 million people while fighting a war on two fronts? 20 million people! the numbers seem unreal on a rational plane of thinking. 8.7 million people were killed in the idiotic trench warfare of World War I - how did the nazi's find time to kill off 20 million people and fight most of europe, russia, and the US ? THis bears more research.Subotai 5 November 2006

Er... yes, somebody should research the Holocaust. maybe even write a book about it... Gzuckier 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

restructure massively

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

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

Book Suggestion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of Holocaust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivrit

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

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

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

That picture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holocaust redirect

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

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

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

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

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

Holocaust Cruelty fork

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

The Causes of Hate

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

• • Judea_Declares_War_on_Germany may be of help.

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

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

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

Holocaust Cruelty Redirect/Merge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 million Polish Jews

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

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

Western Ukraine and Western Belorus were conquered by Poland in the Polish-Soviet war. They did not have a Polish majority in population, and, while the Commonwealth controlled those lands prior to partitions of Poland in XVIII century, before that they were part of the Ancient Rus. Ukrainians and Belorussians met the RKKA as liberators, which is illustrated well by minor casualties sustained by the Soviet Army - 1377 killed in action/died of wounds/missing (source: G.F. Krivosheev - Russia and USSR in wars of the XX century).

I would have to agree with the statement that disproportionate emphsis upon Jews in not right. Sometimes one gets a notion that Jews were the only ones who died in the war. However, there is more. I think that we should mention of the connection between the Nazis and the Zionists. (source: Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld - Holocaust Victims Accuse). With respect, Ko Soi.

My previous comment, and the comments of several others arguing against anti-Semetic sentiment, have been deleted by vandals. This is what was deleted:

Excuse me, "a Zionist Jewish interpretation of World War II Jewry"? Anti-semitism[1] has no place in the wikipedia. The concept of "Neutrality" loses all reliability if taken to absurd extremes, such as allowing the "point of view" of anti-semites to be presented on wiki pages unopposed; such allowance gives their claims a certain credibility. Just because an organization supports a theory does not mean it is legitimate (the Flat Earth Society).

This was deleted as well as a comment by another who linked to an article about the soap made from human remains. Commantary is allowed to be POV to discuss the article before the sentiments become NPOV entries. STOP DELETING COMMENTS YOU DISAGREE WITH. If anyone knows how to start a ban, and how to see who this person is who is vandalizing pages, please do both. --Natezomby 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also hered of the human fat soap and human skin Lampshades to, Natezomby! --Homer slips. 04:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Lack of Controversy Section

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

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

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

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

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

I'm ivestigating the soap and lampshade affairs, I think the latter was actuly real. --Homer slips. 04:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust: Limited to Jewish Peoples?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge - International response to the Holocaust

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

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

Semi-protection

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

WikiProject Jewish History

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers and groups included or excluded

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least 500 thousand people perished in Soviet labor camps during the war, due to shortages of supplies experienced by the whole country (in Gulag history there were 3 particularily nasty years - two of them during the war (1942 and 1943) - in each of those years up to 20% of the prisoners died, which, for 1942 for example meant that over 200 thousand people have died since there were more than a million prisoners in that year. However, those people are not victims of Holocaust, just as civilians killed in the cross fire are not victims of Holocaust - they were not killed deliberately. I wonder though, whether the number of Poles killed in Holocaust includes Poles that were killed by Soviet crossfire (up to a million civilians were killed in Europe by the actions of the RKKA - source:V.Kozhinov). I don't think that Poles or Russians are a minority group, thus the opening sentence needs change. Also, the Death Toll section is quite biased - I happen to believe that the only reason for putting Soviet losses into a separate category is that those numbers don't overweight the numbers of Jews killed (if we take a high soviet number and a low jewish number, the soviets lost more). The USSR lost about 20 million civilians in the War - and it is impossible to count how many of them were "holocausted" and how many simply could not cope with harshness of war and succumbed to disease and starvation. The Soviet POW's that died include civilians (Germans would arrest most young male civilians and send them to die in POW camps), but how many? With respect, Ko Soi.

This question is constantly raised. I feel that The Holocaust and the attempted genocide of the Jews are separate but linked topics and that The Holocaust should refer to the deliberate and systematic murder of groups of non-combatants. Those who died, for example, in the London Blitz would not be included, recaptured prisoners who were killed contrary to the rules under the rules of the Geneva convention would. As I have said elsewhere the Genocide, which I have heard called The Third Genocide - and sadly I do not know why but would be interested to know - should be the topic of a separate article. Apart from anything else this may help stop this page becoming subject to so much vandalism by anti-israeli elements{unsigned|208.51.44.100}}

Very long tag

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

Can we change the article so no headings are questions?

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

Other Holocaust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The extermination camps section is crappy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK. I've had a quick look round. Yes, it seems that some holocaust deniers claim that the poison gas was part of a disinfectant programme to check the spread of disease.[20] However, I very much doubt that the person who uploaded and added the image intended, by some sort of "Kuleshov effect", to suggest any such message. However the evidence that head shaving was done on arrival is clear.[21] [22] [23]. That the procedure arose from the spread of typhus is discussed here. [24] Paul B 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

We all know prisoners had there heads shaved and there gold fillings riped out by the Nazis. --Homer slips. 04:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted edits by User:207.200.116.74

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

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

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

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

The cause of the Holocaust

This contribution was removed by User:EliasAlucard:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of cause I've got all the references on a Word document but you won't be able to see them till I place it in the article. The citations are from the Vatican site. [25] --WikiCats 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Switzerland and the Holocaust

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

I agree. --Homer slips. 20:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemasons

Re-added the 80 to 200,000 Freemasons "airbrushed" out of this History. Generic Character 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Vichy France

Is it accurate to say that "In France, the Vichy government, a puppet government put in place after the German Invasion of France, led by Philippe Pétain...", particularly the phrase "put in place after the German Invasion of France"? In reality, the government was in place *before* the French surrender and Philippe Pétain was also in power before the surrender. The phrasing of the sentence gives the impression that Germans forced the French government out of power and replaced with an all new regime. That's not what happened. How about the following change, "In France, the Vichy government, which effectively became a puppet government after the German Invasion of France, led by Philippe Pétain..."? Or since this is an article about the Holocaust and not Vichy France, how about simply, "In France, the Vichy government led by Philippe Pétain..."?

Yes, latter is best. Vichy was not installed by Hitler. Paul B 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But...it doesn't say "put in place after France surrendered to Germany", it says "put in place after the German invasion". I won't argue the "put in place" part, but Pétain came to power a month after the invasion. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be made clearer that Petain was able to replace Reynaud as premier after Paris had fallen to the Germans because of a general mood of defeatism in the country and the government, and Petain, who was pro-Nazi, then asked the Germans for terms. The Germans did not install Petain, but he served their purposes very well. -- Donald Albury 13:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article Second Attempt

Hey there. I nominated the article for a second time for featured article status. People appear to be objecting, although very reluctantly. It is clear from the posts I've read that wikipedians see the Holocaust as a very important topic which deserves FA status, however, the people assessing the article have made some suggestions on how to improve thw article. I will make a list of these suggestions as below, and when they have been completed, hopefully The Holocaust will be a featured article.

• Object: Not ready for FA. I wouldn't even approve it as GA because it has a merge tag, inconsistent ref formatting, external jumps, and citation needed tags. I didn't get to reading it. It is also 110K long. Suggest consider splitting some off into sub articles. Lead is too long, it should summarize the article without going into lots of details. Rlevse 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very reluctant Object: As per Rlevse. Because this article is so very long, it would be difficult to address all of the problems that need correcting while it is being discussed as a FAC. It is my understanding that at least one citation is needed per paragraph, and citations are mandatory for any assertion of fact that might be challenged. There are multiple paragraphs that are unsourced, and some of the prose needs copy editing badly (that paragraph about the baby springs immediately to mind. The subject is so powerful already that (IMO) a dispassionate tone is necessary so as not to appear overwrought.

Lets all try and sort out these apparent faults with the article so as to make it featured. Thanks, Ahadland 12:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Baltic Collaborators

Baltic collaborators Lithuanian and Latvian auxiliary military units (Schutzmannschaft) with Nazi Einsatzgruppen detachments participated in the extermination of the Jewish population in their countries, as well as assisting the Nazis elsewhere, such as deportations from the Warsaw Ghetto. The Arajs Commando, a Latvian volunteer police unit, for example, shot 26,000 Latvian Jews, at various locations after they had been brutally rounded-up for this purpose by the regular police and auxiliaries and was responsible for assisting in the killing of 60,000 more Jews.[33]"

This is a quote from the main page. I am currently researching Latvian participation, especially the Arājs commandos, I guess I do not know enough to give much specifics, but when I read that it seem to contradict what I have thus far researched. So I followed the reference and read the essay by Ezergailis. Whether the statement of Arājs Commandos is true or not is not for me to say at this point. But my point is this: no where in the referenced article does it assign the death of 26,000 Latvian Jews to the Arājs Commandos. The author has either quoted another reference, or as my opinion is, misread (even fabricated) the article.DrDisco

Purely on your own speculation, you appear to be charging one or more Wikipedia editors with fabricating part of this article. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It would have been sufficient to point out that the citation does not support everything in the section and request a citation of the particular facts you questioned. I would point out that the cited article does state that the Arājs Commandos killed up to 1,000 Jews a day, so it would not have taken them long to reach a total of 26,000. In any case, your unwarranted attack on the editor or editors of the 'Baltic collaborators' section is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please do not repeat such attacks. -- Donald Albury 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The footnote was added by User:Goodoldpolonius2, a generally reliable editor. If you wish to discuss it with him, leave a note on his page. It is important to point out that The Holocaust in Latvia is a book of over 400 pages in length. The web link is merely to its preface. There will, obviously, be lots on information in the book that is not covered in the preface. Paul B 10:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay well I want to apologise for any offense caused by my fabrication remark. I meant "fabrication" in more terms of original research than a personal attack, ie, he read the statistics and crossed it with some other knowledge thus had fabricated the numbers by himself and not from the article. Again, I realise how it sounds and am sorry, and will be more careful from now on. Thanks for the additional information Paul Barlow I will bring it up with the editor you mentioned. DrDisco

Denial issues at Wikinews

Can someone who knows about dealing with Holocost denial take a look at this. Thank you, JeffBurdges 12:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust Denial has no merit, as has been established on the main holocaust page and the main holocaust denial page. (Well okay to be fair, one of their claims is obviously true, that Soviet historians wildly exaggurated the amount of Jewish deaths) I think Paul Barlow has done a good job summing up.Disco

What exactly is Denial

Why do seemingly reasonably people and Parliamentarians, get worked up because someone has stood up and denied something? I am a Christian but if someone says they do not believe, I just wish they believed but I do not victimise the person. Bringing out an array of weapons against someone just because he has said he does not believe sort of makes the one who believes just a bully and nothing more. You do not advance anything by targetting those who do not see your point of view.

So what is the reaiul problem? Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mai Chibwe (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

2006 Iran Holocaust Conference

I just created the article 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and was hoping some people here would help me by fleshing it out. It is a bit of a stub at the moment. Maybe a link to this confrence could be added to this page too!! Thanks!Sup dudes?[[User:Kitler005]] 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why there's no article on the Soviet POWs?

About 3-5 million were exterminated, placing them along the main victim groups (possibly second only to the European Jews and the Polish citiziens of all nationalities). They should be also added to the box, too. --HanzoHattori 01:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have published reliable sources to cite, start the article yourself. It certainly is worth coverage. However, while some authors might include Russian POWs in the totals for the Holocaust, I think most do not. There was no systematic massive effort to kill Russians comparable to the attempt to wipe out Jews, Romi, ect. -- Donald Albury 16:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

There wasn't? Hundreds of thousands were executed in the concentration camps - shot dead, gassed en masse (including the very first gas chamber killing at Auschwitz!) or otherwise outright murdered. Rest were starved or worked to death, or died from the epydemics. Read more on Wikipedia. As I said, millions were exterminated - figures I know range from 2.5 to 4.7 million Soviet POWs dead (for all the Jews - up to 6 million). Not Russians - Soviets, and survivors were often sent to GULAG (being taken prisoner equaled desertion in the Soviet Army). They are listed as the victims in the Holocaust article, but they don't have their own (and so are not in the box). Something's not right there. Compare to Jehova's Witnesses - only 2,000 died! -HanzoHattori 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

While the treatment of Russian POWs by the Germans often amounted to war crimes, there is still a qualitative difference. The Jews, Romi, Jehovah's Winesses, etc. were civilians, men, women and children, rounded up and killed with the intention of wiping out the entire populations of those people, in other words, genocide. The crimes against Russian POWs did not amount to genocide. -- Donald Albury 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A quick note from someone who is currently studying the Holocaust from a Soviet (and Baltic) perspective - Donald Albury is completely correct. Crimes against Russian POW's was terrible but technically not genocide. Therefore they should not be included in the Holocaust article. Disco

Your "therefore" implies that who is included the holocaust depends on "technical" definitions of genocide. Firstly, the term holocaust is not synonmous with "genocide", secondly the technical definition you quote is merely an text created after the war to create international agreement about unacceptable acts. I think it would be rather worrying if it led to the inclusion of one group here because a smallish number were sterilised and the exclusion of another because millions of deaths were not technically against an "ethnic" group. Anyway, as I say below, we should not be thinking of manichean inclusion/exclusion, but rather of discussion of the imprcision of the term and the reasons for it. The distinction you point out between war dead and so-called "undesirables" killed for other reasons is important, but is far from clear-cut. Paul B 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you. Killing millions of people (majority of them), placing them along other concentration camp prisoners, gassing them in a gas chambers (including the first Zyklon B gassings, before the Jews), this is "not Holocaust"? But, at the same time, persecution of a male homosexuals is? Homosexuals were not even gassed as such, they're not "ethnic, national or religious group", why were deaths of them "technically genocide" and "should be included"? Hello? --HanzoHattori 01:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry you don't understand. "The Holocaust" is not about victims of war -- it's about victims of genocide, a deliberate attempt to eliminate the Jews, Roma, homosexuals, etc. Lots of people always get killed in wars; what was exceptional about Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is that the killing was happening despite the fact there was a war going on, not because of it. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There are strong arguments that there was no deliberate attempt to "eliminate" homosexuals. Policies regarding gypsies were also ambiguous. Yes, the Balkan Roma population was treated in an eliminationist way, but not as systematically as Jews. Some little while ago I put forward a detailed argument here that we should have a section on this very topic of arguments for inclusion and exclusion of various groups. It was ignored. There are real difficulties and paradoxes here. Currently, for example, "Blacks" are listed as victims, despite the good evidence that black people in Germany were not targeted for elimination. Indeed some black people lived openly and unmolested in Germany throughout the war. (see Hans Massaquoi). Some were sterilised under race laws, but that's not the same as mass murder. Paul B 08:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No it is not the same but sterilisation is still technically genocide according to article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide Disco

It was a delibirate attempt (and mostly accomplished) to "eliminate" the Soviet POWs in the Nazi concentration and extermination camps, by shooting, gassing and starving them to death, by thousands and millions. The true "final solution" of the Soviet POW "problem". (There was NO attempt to exterminate homosexuals.) Thus, they were victims of the Holocaust - to argue otherwise would be cynical and/or unwise. To cite Wikipedia:

• Other groups deemed by the Nazis to be "racially inferior" or "undesirable" included (...) Soviet military prisoners of war (The Holocaust)
• Auschwitz I, the original concentration camp which served as the administrative center for the whole complex, and was the site of the deaths of roughly 70,000 people, mostly Poles and Soviet prisoners of war. (...) September 1941, the SS conducted poison gas tests in block 11, killing 850 Poles and Russians using cyanide. The first experiment took place on 3 September 1941, and killed 600 Soviet POWs. The substance producing the highly lethal cyanide gas was sold under the trade name Zyklon B (Auschwitz concentration camp)
• Although not technically an extermination camp, summary executions of Soviet prisoners of war took place at Buchenwald (Buchenwald concentration camp)
• Following the outbreak of the Soviet-German War in 1941 the camps started to receive a large number of Soviet POWs. Most of them were kept in huts separated from the rest of the camp. The Soviet prisoners of war were a major part of the first groups to be gassed in the newly-built gas chamber in early 1942. (Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp)
• During World War II, the German army turned tens of thousands of Soviet prisoners over to the SS for execution. More than 1,000 Soviet prisoners of war were executed in Flossenbürg by the end of 1941. (Flossenbürg concentration camp)
• Common criminals wore green triangles, Soviet prisoners of war, German and Austrian Communists had red triangles and members of the Jehovah's Witnesses were labeled with lavender triangles. (Ravensbrück concentration camp)
• At least 152,000 people were killed in the camp, mainly Jews from the Łódź Ghetto and the surrounding area, along with (...) Soviet prisoners of war. (Chełmno extermination camp)
• Although 1,000 inmates were evacuated on a death march, the Red Army found thousands of inmates, mainly POWs, still in the camp and ample evidence of the mass murder that had occurred there. (Majdanek)
• Members of other groups whom the Nazis wished to exterminate, such as (...) Soviet prisoners of war (...) were also killed in these camps (Extermination camp)
• At the end of June 1941 a number of Jews were sent to the concentration camp at Auschwitz as punishment for giving bread to Soviet prisoners of war marching through the town. They were among the first Jewish victims to perish in Auschwitz. (Biała Podlaska)
• Soviet prisoners of war, 300,000 after the battle of Minsk alone, were either killed in concentration camps, or literally starved to death in prison camps, mostly nothing more than fields surrounded with barbed wire in the open. (Army Group Centre)

Etc. --HanzoHattori 07:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet soldiers were executed, but the were 'soldiers', this was a human rights violation but not genocide becuase they were not an a "national, ethnic, racial or religious group". You cannot stretch the definition to include military prisoners.Disco

What? At the same time, the homosexuals were (are) "national, ethnic, racial or religious group", according to you guys - since when homosexuality is a nation or religion? What a weird double standards here? The Soviet Union was a nation. Soviet soldiers were citizens of the country - and a non-Soviet regular soldiers were NOT gassed or otherwise exterminated by the Nazis as a matter of national policy (the other sole exception was Italian POWs after the country switched sides). Ergo, they were exterminated because they were Soviets, not because they were soldiers. It was based on the Commissar Order and other orders from the very top of Nazi heriarchy.

• "After the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the Einsatzgruppen's main assignment was to kill Communist officers and Jews on a much larger scale than in Poland." Einsatzgruppen
• "In Minsk, the battalion shot about 9.000 Soviet prisoners of war, in Slutsk, it massacred 5.000 Jews." Non-German cooperation with Nazis during World War II
• "Originally built in the summer of 1941, on the site of a Soviet kolkhoz, as a concentration camp to house Soviet prisoners of war" Maly Trostenets extermination camp
• "Between the launching of Operation Barbarossa in summer 1941 and the following spring, more than two million Soviet prisoners of war died while in German hands." War crimes of the Wehrmacht
• "Perhaps around 3.5 million Soviet prisoners of war (of 5.5 million) died in German camps." History of Russia
• "Along with Jews (...) Soviet prisoners of war, Jehovah's Witnesses, anti-Nazi clergy, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed. This industrial-scale genocide in Europe is referred to as the Holocaust" Adolf Hitler

You know guys, I think what you stand for is new version of the old Holocaust denial regarding Jewish victims.

• "In contrast Germany treated Red Army prisoners with neglect and brutality. The Nazi Government regarded Soviet POWs as being of a lower racial order, in keeping with the Third Reich's policy of "racial purification". As a result Soviet POWs were held under conditions that resulted in deaths of hundreds of thousands from starvation and disease. Most prisoners were also subjected to enforced labour under conditions that resulted in further deaths." Prisoner of war

--HanzoHattori 16:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the pointer; Prisoner of war is almost devoid of citations. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's arguable whether the treatment of Soviet prisoners was racially motivated. The Soviets were also very brutal to German prisoners and the Geneva convention was not accepted by the SU. Racial theories did not affect US and UK prisoners. For example the Nazis did not murder Jewish POWs from the UK and US. Paul B 17:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The Geneva convention was in fact accepted by the Soviet Union. A statement to that effect was made. They simply refused to follow the procedure that the League of Nations imposed on them to ratify it - probably because they considered that treated them like one of the losers of the first world war. On the other hand, we also know that at the start of Barbarossa, Adolf Hitler told the German General Staff that the German Army would not follow the Geneva Convention ON THE EASTERN FRONT. No official declaration was made, but it was soon known to everybody concerned. One of the immediate results was the Commissar Order (also about Jewish POWs, by the way), that every German soldier soon knew about - and which he must have known was contrary to the convention. Note that both during the war, and after, officials in a number of neutral countries agreed that Germany did not have the right to disregard the Geneva Convention in its war against the Soviet Union. And why did I capitalize "ON THE EASTERN FRONT"? Because we know that the Free French pilots who participated in the war on the eastern front and who were captured by the German Army, were executed on the spot. There was some racial motivation in that the nazis (not necessarily all German generals) were convinced that the Russians, being subhumans, would never be able to retaliate. --Pan Gerwazy 11:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I agree with you in part, but accusing people of "Holocaust denial" is not going to help. I think we need to avoid the manicheism of either including or excluding, and instead consolidate material into an NPOV section on the debate about why the inclusion of some groups is disputed. In that way we can summarise the arguments for excluding/including homosexuals, blacks, Soviet POWs etc, so that everyone's pointy of view is represented. The article is long, so this will mean moving and pruning as much as creating text. We could also have a related sub-article on this issue. Paul B 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant an article about the Soviet POWs. In style of History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (even if the gays were, as I said, not subjected to the "special treatment", that is extermination). And adding this to the box, among "other victims" (like the Serbs or Gypsies). I was thinking people here would create one right away (I was wrong). --HanzoHattori 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to debate at length on this page then it should be about the content of this article. Anyone can create an article about Soviet POWs in WW2, including you. Go ahead. I generally dislike these lists of victims, since it creates a kind of "inflation" as people clamour for their preferred group to be included. Paul B 17:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist on this issue (I'm not expert on the Soviet history) - practically all things I quoted here are from the already existing Wikipedia articles. What I know, for sure, is just simply this: "Nazis shot, gassed, starved to death, or otherwise exterminated most of fomer Soviet soldiers in their custody" - and most people don't know even this (this while most people do know that the Nazis shot, gassed, starved to death, or otherwise exterminated most of the Jews in their custody, at the same time and even in the same camps and gas chambers). Also, former Soviet soldiers were never my "preferred group" - it would be the Poles, but (in my opinion) they are represented here just enough, while the POWs are not. --HanzoHattori 17:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

- At this point I agree with Paul B when he said "Anyway, as I say below, we should not be thinking of manichean inclusion/exclusion, but rather of discussion of the imprcision of the term and the reasons for it. The distinction you point out between war dead and so-called "undesirables" killed for other reasons is important, but is far from clear-cut." but think that the fact it is not clear but means coming up with a solution that satisfies all will be impossible.

- Also Hanzo keeps rebutting my arguments like "What? At the same time, the homosexuals were (are) "national, ethnic, racial or religious group", according to you guys " I'd just like to point out that I have never once discussed homosexuals in terms of the holocaust because simply I do not know enough about the topic. I am simply stating the (simplistic but at the same time best fitting) idea Soviet POW's were not part of the holocaust because the official definition of genocide does not include them. I honestly believe for wiki's sake sticking to official finite defitions will do better than us rewriting history but including Soviet POW's.

- Lastly I think that genocide is synonymous with holocaust, by definition (even this page's first sentance on the subject) holocaust was about genocide of minority groups. And just because the definiton was created after the war doesn't mean it should not apply. Definitions are created all the time to describe past events. Disco

For the first time, I am obliged to agree with Hanzo. Soviet POWs were not treated by Germans as humans (like American or British POWs were). They were ruthlessly exterminated. It is a shame that the wikipedians involved into editing these subjects keep and expand all sorts of nonsense (like NKVD massacres of prisoners) and close their eyes on some really BIG issues in the history of WWII. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the millions of Soviet people murdered by the Nazis, the fact is that the Soviet themselves acted no better towards those they viewed as enemies, as the NKVD massacres of prisoners and other articles illustrate. All such tragic events should be represented on Wikipedia, and calling one 'nonsense' is very disrespectful.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Piotr, this "no better" illustrates that you don't know what you speak about. When pursuing your anti-Russian agenda, please stick to the facts. I might compare the treatment of Russian POWs in Berioza and other Polish concentration camps (hundreds thousands people were killed there by hunger and torture) to Auschwitz, but I won't, because I know that nothing compares to Nazism. Please read up on the subject of German and Polish concentration camps and then return to discussion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla, please don't repeart outdated propaganda. We have a well referenced article on the subject of Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924): there were no 'hundreds of thousands' (even official propaganda never went above one hundred), and modern Polish-Russian research shows the death toll at around 20,000 due to natural causes (Spanish flu pandemic, mostly). And there never were Polish concentration camps. As for Detention Camp Bereza Kartuska - Three of the inmates died during its operation (including one suicide). Yes, indeed, the Polish terror was immense...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly indeed, the "Soviets no better than Nazis" revisionism is being propagated even, ironically, to pages like "talk:Holocaust". What a shame! --Irpen 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, tendentious editors at first distort history in order to paint black legends for others, but then they inevitably start to believe in their propaganda themselves. When you write every day that Nazis and Soviets (and Russians) are all the same, you will believe whether you want it or no. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

'Soviets no better than Nazis' is clearly illustrated by well referenced articles, such as The Black Book of Communism, Katyn massacre or Treatment of Polish citizens by the occupants: 'inhuman policies of both Hitler and Stalin were clearly aimed at the total extermination of Polish citizens, both Jews and Christians. Both regimes endorsed a systematic program of genocide.'-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not even bother to respond to this horrendous slur especially taking into account the page Piotrus dared to use to continue his crusade. --Irpen 20:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think such kind of aggressive and revisionnist behaviour should be dealt with as such. I'm sorry Piotrus, I had a far better opinion of you... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So did I. Ghirla starts this digression by calling Soviet crimes 'nonesence'. I point out English academic sources which compare Soviet and Nazis crime and mention several well referenced articles we have with plethora of other sources. You call my post(s) 'horrendous slur' and 'aggressive and revisionnist behaviour'; and of course ignore Ghirla's offensive comments. This, indeed, is disappointing, but I trust other readers will weight our arguments for what they are worth.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Awesome. Would you all Russian editors stop discussing the Bereza Kartuska internment camp (which you appearently know nothing about, except the "camp" part), and, like, maybe, do the article? Case Study: Soviet Prisoners-of-War (POWs), 1941-42] [26] sums up everything in this time period quite "nicely". --HanzoHattori 21:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Such article would be in order but the point in question now (and a matter of this discussion) is whether the case of the Soviet prisoners in Nazi custody is worth a mention in the article. Whatever Piotrus is saying here is related to his general crusade and is irrelevant to this issue. And in my personal opinion, such historic revisionism is appauling, but that's also a side issue. --Irpen 21:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it? To quote Gendercide Watch: "Given that the bulk of the gendercide took place in just eight months, it was, together with the genocide in Rwanda, the most concentrated mass slaughter of all time, eclipsing the most exterminatory months of the Jewish holocaust. It was also without doubt the greatest single act of gender-exclusive killing in human history." Oh, I guess it's unworthy an article. --HanzoHattori 22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hanzo, please don't get upset. Irpen's not saying this subject is not worthy of an article (I think most people will agree it does), however the main subject of discussion at the moment are the revisionnist attempts to compare the Holocaust to something else. Which is, of course, impossible, because it cannot be compared to anything else.

And let me know if your create an article/chapter about Soviet POWs, I'll be glad to help :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the treatment of Soviet POWs (and civilians) by the Nazis deserves an article; I was just ponting out that arguing that Soviet crimes are less deserving of editors attention may be considered offensive. As for comparing Holocaust to other events, I don't see why it cannot be done: for example, when people often say it was '(one of) the greatest tragedies in human history' they are obviously comapring it to other tragedies. By classifying it as genocide we are automatically inviting its comaprison with other genocies, and so on.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100% Piotrus, Soviet crimes were compareable, equal, and superior to Nazi crimes in many respects. Right now I am studying Baltic History in Latvia (Baltics being occupied by both Soviets and Nazi's) and any research shows clearly how bad the USSR was during Stalin's time. Comparing camps: Nazi's were designed to kill, Soviet's were designed to break humans. The main difference is that Germans accept and apoloigise for Nazi crimes, Russia denies theirs. Debate what you want, the fact that Russia maintaining Baltic states chose to be a part of the USSR despite video footage and their own records showing the red Army marching into the capital gives a good indication of the current attitude of Russia. In short - Germans raw killing numbers cannot be eclipsed, neither can Soviet cruelty.Disco

I believe they are the Holocaust victims. Everyone seems to agree the Poles or the Gypsies were also victims, because they (too) were gassed. The editors also agreed the German gays were as well holocausted, because... I don't know, beats me (they were incarnated as prisoners for the Arbeit Macht Frei nonsense - like the German criminal prisoners, and they were actually kept as prisoners after the war to complete their sentences). I think it's quite outrageous that the first people to be killed by the Zyklon B, for example, should be excluded from the Holocaust (not the Shoah, I understand it's the exclusively Jewish thing). As for the homosexuals, their high mortality rate was due to the actions of the individual guards AND a fellow inmates (prejudice), not the Nazi state policy. The state wanted them to live (and procreate the "Aryan race"). --HanzoHattori 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole debate should be called off. Hanzo is not contrbiuting anymore than he is repeating the same things over and over. Hanzo: if you want your point considered give examples of published research backing up your claims. Note this does not just mean numbers of Soviet's killed. This means historians claiming that Soviets were part of the Genocide. Disco

Now, are you kidding me? Look above, I quoted Wikipedia on how the Soviet prisoners of war were incarnated in the Nazi concentration camps (including Auschwitz) AND the Aktion Reinhard extermination camps (including Majdanek and Chelmno) during the Holocaust, and how they were killed there (and in "their own" camps as well) by MILLIONS, including by mass executions, including by gassing, including in the first Zyklon B gassing EVER - and most of them were exterminated, which was planned and executed. Many of them were Soviet army or police servicemen (including of the Jewish nationality), but there were also civilians among them (like in the Einsatkommando killings of Communist activists as well as the Soviet Jews). It was part of the same campaign as the attmept to eradicate "Jewry", in the same time, by the same perpetrators, and using the same methods. And it was (now quoting something different than Wikipedia) "the most concentrated mass slaughter of all time" besides Rwanda (of which I'm not quite sure of, because there's a competition, like Holodomor).

What else would you want? A "historian claiming"? I am a historian and I "claim".

Also, it's interesting the Russian editors seem to be more interested in the Bolshevik victims of the Spanish Flu after the WWII (up to 20,000 out of up to 100,000,000 dead worldwide) than in the millions of victims of the Hitler's concentration camps. Well, they were "cowardly traitors", according to their own country (up to 25 years of the GULAG for the survivors), weren't they? --HanzoHattori 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"What else would you want? A "historian claiming"? I am a historian and I "claim"."

Great, reference your published work so we can examine the proposed changes.Disco 10:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but wouldn't it be "my original research"? :) --HanzoHattori 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but if it is published, and someone else (say, a regular contributor to this article) is the one who actually reads it, decides and makes changes I don't see a problem. Disco 15:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's published then it isn't "original research" in the wikipedia sense. The point of the OR ban is to stop people using wikipedia to present personal theories that would not get past a normal peer-review process. If I do original research and publish it, then it isn't OR anymore, it's a published source. Paul B 18:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming it's a reliable source. :-) Self-published is still OR. -- Donald Albury 12:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm probing about on Google. --Homer slips. 01:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote 69.156.78.50 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

inaction in saving jews by allies

i think it would also be an interesting addition about some of the inaction of the aliies in saving refugees from the nazis. for example the fact that the aliies could have repeatedly bombed auswitch, yet refrained from doing so while bombing an oil refinery not 5 miles away. or the fact that the us state department threw up many bureaucratical obstacles in saving jews.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.36.248 (talk • contribs)

Bombing Auschwitz would certainly not have "saved" the Jews. The point about the US state department is indeed relevant, but the article is already 115 kb long--perhaps such information would be best placed in a different article? Justin Eiler 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

There is already an Auschwitz bombing debate article. However, it could well be improved. Paul B 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the worst thing that the Western Allies did was purposely delay Western troops from pushing quickly through Germany because FDR had agreed at Yalta to Soviet desires to take over eastern Europe. Eisenhower purposely would not refuel Patton's tanks just to fulfill this give-away to the Soviets. How many more people could have been saved from the concentration camps if this delay did not occur? Jtpaladin 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting question. How many of the extermination camps were in areas of Eastern Europe that Patton could have gotten to first? By the way, The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis (ISBN 0415212499) is an interesting, albeit controversial and contentious take on this issue. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Eisenhower did not want to waste US and British lives for either Patton or Montgommery's greater "glory" when the zones of occupation had already been determined. None of this has much relevance to saving concentration camp inmates. Paul B 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the western front had pretty much collapsed and Patton's tanks were not being refueled even before the zones of occupation had been established. Eisenhower was slowing down the Western Allied advance on purpose. The sell-out at Yalta was disgusting considering FDR was giving the Soviets control of the very area that Hitler had given him as part of the deal to start WWII. And, yes, this issue does have relevance to saving concentration camp inmates since that's what we're talking about. Jtpaladin 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Image text

The image text for the picture at the top of the article, showing selection of Hungarian Jews, says that it is taken at Auschwitz camp. Actually, the photo is from Birkenau (Auschwitz II). Also, "the entrance to the main camp", which is visible in the background, is actually the entrance to Birkenau, seen from the inside. The term "main camp" is a bit ambiguous - the leadership of the Auschwitz complex resided at Auschwitz I, which would make that the "main camp", but Birkenau (Auschwitz II) was the camp where most Jews were killed.

I think the image description should be reworked in accordance with this -- I can't do it myself since the page is semi-protected. More details about the Auschwitz camp system are in the article Auschwitz concentration camp. 193.217.242.140 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

section headings

Someone above asked if the section heading that are questions (i.e. Who was directly involved in the mass murder?) could be rewritten. I'd like to re-make that request - these sound kind of childish, and definitely un-encyclopediac. I would just go ahead and rewrite them, but would like suggestions about what they should be instead. Also, it might be time to archive again. Natalie 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust and half-truths.

Holocaust and half-truths.

To those who understand that the holocaust did exist, there is a political manipulation of this in terms of half-truths.

A Mr. Weinberg, a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust, told me as he showed me his numbered tatoo, that the Holocaust involved many other people besides Jews; political opponents and others.

While the modern day Holocust is normally viewed as a only Jewish experience we should appreciate that this involved people from many other countries as well.

To those who understand the deceptive nature of true yet false half-truths, we should appreciate that the Holocaust was part of the second world war and in terms of loss of life, the Russians and Germans suffered the most.

The explotation of victimization, throught the use of half-truths and related half-truth logic, or black and white generalized logic is polarizing to humanity.

War is a crime against humanity !

--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

never a truer word spoken. i think we need to hear more about the german point of view in ww 2. we never seem to get that. Keltik31 17:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Changing of wording in Paragraph 3: Victims

I'd like to propose to change something in the wording in the 3rd paragraph, about Holocasut victims. In the 2nd sentence it reads: "Roma & Sinti (also known as Gypsies)". Both Roma and Sinti can not be classsified as 'Gypsies'. Some Gypsies are Roma and Sinti, but not all Roma and/or Sinti are Gypsies. So I'd like to change it to: "Roma, Sinti and Gypsies" instead. WietsE 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=93673274 WietsE 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand you. What is your definition of gyspy? Paul B 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding Gypsie is a slang term used to describe a large amount of people. Roma, Sinti, yes, but also Irish Travellers or even Lyuli. But this means that every Roma and Sinti is a Gypsie but not every Gypsie is a Roma or Sinti. Therefore the current wording seems alright to me. Disco 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was bemused by the claim that "not all Roma and Sinti are gypsies". Of course Gypsy is used loosely for many people who adopt an itinerant lifestyle, but I don't think that's relevant here - it would be like saying "not all bohemians come from central Europe" becasue Parisian artists were referred to as "bohemians". Paul B 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chronology

I propose to make a section "Holocaust Chronology." The we'd compose a chronological list of events that took place during Holocost. And link each event to the article about it. What do you think ? Igoruha 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea - it would undoubtedly help those unfamiliar with the Holocaust get a better impression of what actually happened. However, do not limit it to the Jews who were massacred during the event, but try to be inclusive as possible if you get around to it. Always bear in mind that the Holocaust was not specifically aimed at Jews, but that they fell under the groups to be persecuted. Good luck.

Name Etymology

The word "holocaustum" appears in reference to the expulsion of Jews from Britain in the late 12th century by Edward I, am currently trying to find an internet source for this (original source is Simon Schama's "A History of Britain").82.5.217.129 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

If it would be of any help, here is what Etymology Dictionary says on that topic:

"c.1250, "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering," from Gk. holokauston, neut. of holokaustos "burned whole," from holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)) + kaustos, verbal adj. of kaiein "to burn." Originally a Bible word for "burnt offerings," given wider sense of "massacre, destruction of a large number of persons" from 1833" -Igoruha 12:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with discrepencies between my watchlist and history of edits

Can anybody help? Or point me in the direction where I might find help? When I look at the hist of edits for this page, I find that a number of edits are not picked up by my watchlist? Responses can be posted on my talk page. Thanks Joel Mc 07:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Open 'My preferences' at the top of the browser page, then click on the 'Watchlist' tab and make sure none of the boxes there are checked. -- Donald Albury 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you reply, I only saw today. None of the boxes were/are checked, yet I seem to have the same problem. Am I alone?Joel Mc 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Waldheim, Filbinger, Kiesinger, Koch and Grese

Listing those people in a sentence with major war criminals is grossly inappropriate. None of them ever was in a position to take part in, nor did do, the Holocaust. All three were members of some party affiliated group basically to just get along.

There have been real ugly political battles in Europe over this. Someone is setlling scores here.

I suggest at least to give it a seperate heading and note their actual status. Wefa 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Remenber those 2 Women prison guards Irma Grease and Ilsa Koch? If were naming names then thay can be tossed in as well!

--Homer slips. 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Merged with the above article. --Homer slips. 05:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This should be restricted to confirmed war criminals. You can legally prosecute someone for crimes, not for a poltical ideology - supposed I should say as there were also people included that never were Nazis. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Gelhen ??

And another one: The claim that Gehlen (founder and longtime president of Germany's postwar intelligence service) created or helped create ODESSA is pure speculation and belongs into the realm of conspiracy theory. Gehlen was military intellignce during the war, and there was no love lost between them and the SS. If someone has decent sources for this, it might be the time to provide them now. If not, I'd suggest to remove that claim.

Problems

"Some scholars do not include the Nazi persecution of all of these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, rather limiting the Holocaust to the genocide of the Jews. However, taking into account all minority groups, the total death toll rises considerably; estimates generally place the total number of Holocaust victims at 9 to 11 million, though some estimates have been as high as 26 million.[2]"

Nearly ALL scholars count the Jews as well as Roma, Sinti, Jehovah's and all other groups covered under the definition of genocide. I thought this was established. Also, I thought it was established on this page already we would need decent sources to claim Russian POW's etc. Disco 11:18, 18 December 2006

"...as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)"

Okay, but as the source says, these people were victims of the Nazi regime not the holocaust. " Subtracting 3 million Polish Jewish victims, the report claimed 3 million non-Jewish victims of the Nazi terror, including civilian and military casualties of war." - This is not the Holocaust.

Half the facts in here are about victims of war rather than the holocaust. Disco 11:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC) PS. The Baltic collaborators section is still incorrect.

Remove the pile of corpses

I'm removing the top right picture from the article it is disgusting and is much too horrific.It is not suitable for top of an article.Pl consider this as vandalism.ThanksYousaf465

Wikipedia is not censored. It is important for everyone to know what really happened , in order to prevent such things to happen again. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

i think the image should stay, but partly because i can stomach it. however let us examine what the wikilink says:

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Anyone reading Wikipedia can edit an article and the changes are displayed instantaneously without any checking to ensure appropriateness, so Wikipedia cannot guarantee that articles or images are tasteful to all users or adhere to specific social or religious norms or requirements. While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

so i think it is not exactly clear that there are no limits to non-censorship, or it is not an absolute rule that every image should stay. wp merely cannot guarantee that a reader will find something to his distaste. but that should not stop us from removing the image if it has not much value. in this case, i think the picture is necessary, presupposing it is not doctored etc. Chensiyuan 14:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is extremely upsetting (as the entire tragedy of the genocide). I don't think we need to make it more shocking that it is. Let's move it a little down, to Cruelty section. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the necraphilc piles of stiffs is going too far and may cause youger child readers of the Wikipedea to commit suacide! This is why it is now below the monochrome image of the Nazis hurding the prisoners and is substantialy smaller! It should only mean that only a adult or youth would readly notice it and will have to click up it's elargement to see the gastly, but undenyable immage!

--Homer slips. 05:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I first saw similar pictures (of bodies piled into pits) in a book about the Holocaust when I was about eight years old. That was about 55 years ago, and I seem to have survived all these years without damage. I do not think we are serving our readers well by trying to soften the impact of such images. -- Donald Albury 03:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It nearly made me throw up when I saw it today!

--Homer slips. 05:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it just a couple screens down, to Cruelty section. Hope this is acceptable to all. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I object the image though it shocks is result of the Holocaust and theres no doubt to its authenticity. Additionally dont claim it has consensus until there has been a reasonible chance for comment as such I'm reverting it removal. Gnangarra 05:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it from top back down, but this time with the 'Victims' section. --Homer slips. 07:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

MY POv was similar to this "The image is extremely upsetting (as the entire tragedy of the genocide). I don't think we need to make it more shocking that it is. Let's move it a little down, to Cruelty section. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ну?". User talk:Yousaf465

About the article's supposed bias

Let me just say this: the only bias this article has is towards the truth. There is an overwhelming body of evidence testifying to the Holocaust; it is probably one of the most documented events in history. Any person considering the Holocaust to be a "hoax" or a "lie" is required to suspend all rational thought. I suggest that this talk page not be used for trying to convince people. I respect that the people working tirelessly to try and prove the Holocaust to its deniers on this page have the best of intentions and only want to help. But you can only help someone to change if they want to change. No amount of evidence is going to be enough for these people, it will all be faked. They have it set in their minds that the Holocaust never happened, and therefore anything that contradicts them is obviously faked or misrepresented. These are people who have passed beyond the realm of rational, logical thought. About the article: Here's the deal: the Holocaust happened. That is a fact. It is not an opinion and, according to the US courts, it is a matter of historical record and is not open for any kind of serious debate. I respect that everyone is trying to follow the Neutrality policy; but I wish to caution against being too accomodating and politically correct. I mean, if I want to suddenly claim that Bill Clinton was actually assasinated in 1995, and his cousin has been filling in for him ever since, that's my right. But it doesn't mean that all of a sudden the Clinton article should be expanded to include "it is noted that there is a possibility that Clinton was actually killed in 1995" or that the article should start referring to him as the "alleged" BIll Clinton. Just because there is a controversy doesn't mean that there is a legitimate claim to be presented side-by-side the truth. I'm not attacking anyone; I feel that you guys have done a great job keeping the Holocaust page balanced. I'm just saying, don't try to overbalance.Phoenix Song 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Balanced? I doubt anyone can call articles in this vein balanced. The documentation on the holocaust is so meager and spotty that even the wikipedia article on "holocaust denial" has been shutdown ( discussion page ) due it appears to embarrassment. Rank amatuers are more than able to hold their own in arguments with pepole manning watchlists ( who I assume are as knowledgeable as they come ). Wikipedia even has articles pertaining to holocaust information that contradicts wiki's own stand - if we all know what wiki's stand is then it does seem odd to call an article balanced doesn't it. ( One obscure wiki article, trying to beef up its significance - says that "code words" were used to deceive Hitler about death camps. A related article ( actually the orthodox view ) says that Hitler knew about the death camps. Pick one or the other dear wikians - you can't have it both ways.) The holocaust is too big - big as in too many details that seem to keep reproducing more little details that don't match up - to keep together much longer. Several "scholars" - yours not mine - are getting exasperated and are on the verge of giving up - as they have "given up" many of the old "known" details in recent years.