Talk:The Holocaust/Polls

In an attempt to localise the areas of disagreement on various issues, I've added this page. The results are informative only - I'm not proposing that we change the article based on majority view! (See Wikipedia:Straw polls.) Feel free to add additional statements / questions. If you are qualified in a related area (e.g. law), please say so in your comment. - syndicate ^talk 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust was illegal

• Disagree. This is a very difficult legal question. It would seem that there was no law explicitly legalising the killings but then again Nazi Germany was under military rule and the head of the military did authorise the death camps. If it was illegal, then why was no one convicted while Hitler was in command? - [[User:Syndicate|- syndicate ^talk 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. Yes, it is tricky, but the assertions given by Syndicate are completely wrong: Germany was not "under military rule" (at least not until the meeting of Torgau) and the Holocaust was not authorized by "the head of the military" (if you mean a general) - the Wehrmacht had no oversight over death camps (though it was involved in the killings at the frontline, e.g. according to the Kommissarbefehl. There was no legal basis for the Holocaust - why was no one convicted? Because in Nazi Germany there existed side by side two states (or spheres): the old (increasingly Nazified) legal state and the emergency state, of which the camps are the prime example and in which no legal restrictions mattered. But the existence of such a sphere does not make illegal things legal. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree it was illegal. (It would be better put as "Was the Holocaust legal?"). And Hitler was complicit in it, so why would he convict anyone else? No-one was executed for refusing to take part in implementing the Holocaust. Mousescribe 12:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect Mousescribe. Of course people were executed for "refusing to take part in implementing the Holocaust". Where ever did you get that idea? Or do you mean something else? Wallie 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree It was illegal as evidenced by the Nuremberg trials and upheld by many law institutions worldwide [1]. Really there is no doubt about it. Sysrpl 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree Of course the Holocaust was legal under Nazi rule, in Germany and countries under Nazi rule only. But a higher court, i.e., Nuremburg held that both the Nazi regime and its actions were "Crimes against Humanity", and many of the Perpetrators were sentenced to Death by Hanging. Here are some interesting notes about this topic. [2] Wallie 21:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree per above. gidonb 11:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust was murder

• Agree. The OED defines it as murder and both historians and the man on the street would call killing anyone in cold blood based on race murder. How can it be both legal and murder? Because the definition of murder should state that legalised killings are murder if it violates (contemporary) international law. - syndicate ^talk 08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. There are various levels in the definition of murder, moral/ethical as well as legel ones (both natural law, international law and purely positivist law), and according to all these definitions the Holocaust was murder (there was no German legal basis, see above). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree. (And Wiki is not an International Court anyway - see above). Mousescribe 12:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Agree See my comments above. Sysrpl 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree We all agree on this one. So debate closed. Wallie 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree the intention to kill in the Holocaust is established and the killing was illegal. gidonb 11:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)