Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:07, 28 April 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Holocaust article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

The Holocaust was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result March 9, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 19, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 5, 2006 Good article reassessment Kept November 16, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 3, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted June 11, 2007 Peer review Reviewed October 3, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former good article nominee

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Discrimination Top‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New Zealand Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

'Hear-Say in subarticle 3.2.3'

In the subarticle 3.2.3 'South and East Slavs' there is hear-say statement of a former Nazi official which is taken as true, or at least trying to imply something for a fact.

Quote: Hitler's high plenipotentiary in South East Europe, Hermann Neubacher, later wrote: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs (including babies, children, women and old men) were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. End quote:

The objective data is at the end of the subsection.

Quote: The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac. End quote:

Instead of the quote from Neubacher I suggest putting a list of WW2 casualties in Yugoslavia of all nationalities not just one.

The following link contains one such list. It is an online version of the paper number 69 in the quote list. Table 5 of the paper has a column named 'victims in camps' which should indicate victims in concentration camps. http://www.hic.hr/books/manipulations/p06.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mljk (talk • contribs) 23:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Disabled and mentally ill - grammar issue

"...head of Hitler’s private chancellery (Kanzlei des Führer der NSDAP) and Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician." -> That should read "...(Kanzlei des Führers der NSDAP)" using correct German grammar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.56.6 (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

British POWs in the Holocaust

Although the Romanies and Jews were the largest group killed by the Germans, British POWs also were sent to the gas chambers. My aunt's fiance, RAF bomber crew, was sent to Bergen Belsen and killed.

Nicholas1951 (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

There were no gas chambers in Bergen Belsen. Paul B (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

7,310 of the 142,319 UK POW died in the custody of Germnany & Italy according to a source cited by R. J. Rummel in his book Democide. 23,000 German POW died in UK custody ,out of 3,640,000, according to Rudiger Overmans. The numbers should br treated with caution because these deaths include wounded men who were captured. This does not belong on the Holocaust page. There is a double standard with regard to POW deaths, the fate of Soviet POWs is mentioned but the deaths of Germnan POWs is ignored --Woogie10w (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The Soviet POWs were systematically murdered, which is why they are sometimes included in the holocaust. British POWs were not. Neither were German POWs in British custody. Paul B (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that German POWs were systematically murdered by the Soviets and that this is ignored by politically correct historians. In 1943-45 the Soviets treated German POWs just like they were treated in 1941-42, an eye for an eye.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not ignored by any historians. The heavy death toll of German soldiers in Soviet custody is well known. But Soviet war crimes are not part of "the holocaust". Paul B (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote It's not ignored by any historians-get real, brew up some coffee--Woogie10w (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

You get real. The statistics are well known. Nevertheless, it is very dubious to call the deaths of German soldiers systematic murder in a way that's comparable to the gassings and other killings committed by the Nazis. However this is not the relevant article is it? Try adding content to German prisoners of war in the Soviet Union or Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs if you have strong opinions on the matter. Paul B (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Check John W Dower's War Without Mercy, 80,000 Japanese POW died in Allied(non Soviet) hands. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of the US, UK and France the German POW received decent treatment in most cases, only about 1% died in custody--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

When I say politically correct, let me be specific. That means one never ever mentions the deaths of German civilians in allied air raids, the barbarous treatment of civilians during the 1945 Soviet offensive, the famine after the war under Allied occupation and the expulsion of the Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia. --Woogie10w (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No-one ever mentions the deaths of German civilians in air raids? Oh please. Have you never seen any of the several movies made about Dresden? You are living in a strange world if you think that the rapes commited by Soviet troops are unknown. The famine was a result of the devastation of Europe, not a deliberate act. The Allies more or less successfully minimised its effects. Of course these things are much less well known than the Holocaust, but they are of a different order. Paul B (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is now an obviously an off-topic thread per WP:FORUM. I'm going to ask that the next editor who posts here provide some kind of explanation of what this thread has to do with improving the article. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an off the topic thread, in fact in Germany today there are persons who refer to a Bombing Holocaust and an Expulsion Holocaust. de:Holocaust (Begriff) Even though you you may find this offensive and disagree, it is still a fact. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is refering to the attack on Dresden, not anything about allied prisoners. As Steven mentioned, this thread is completely outside scope. Wallie (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Not so, because in Germany there are persons who do in fact equate the genocide of the Jews with German civilian deaths in the war. You may disagree with this POV, however some Germans believe this to be true. I agree that this may be completely outside scope for some persons only in the English speaking world. That is why on German Misplaced Pages the Holocaust deals only with the genocide of the Jews.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Check this link on German Misplaced Pages de:Holocaust (Begriff)--Woogie10w (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust - definition of the term

The text says "Most scholars, however, define the Holocaust as a genocide of European Jewry alone, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." "

Is this still the case? Is the meaning of the word changing over time? Even some of the references attached in the article indicate otherwise - that other non-Jewish people are included. To me, the Holocaust certainly relates to the defined period around WW2, and that the Jewish people were certainly the main victims as a group. However, should everyone else be excluded? Wallie (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is entitled, "The Holocaust," and its lead paragraph currently defines the death of only jews to be part of the Holocaust. This was not always the case. In fact, for most of this article's history, from the time it was first put up in 2001 until January 2006, the Holocaust was defined as an event that included "various groups," of which jews were one. In an edit dated January 2006, this changed radically; quietly and without debate, the article suddenly excluded from the Holocaust all groups except jews (oddly retaining other groups, in the margins, as somehow affected by the event). We were left with an article that remains inconsistent, at best. To correct the situation, all other peoples subjected to Nazi genocidal policies should be removed from this article or the definition of the Holocaust should be returned to the original as it was for most of the article's history.Tobit2 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been around[REDACTED] for a bit (check my edit history), and have watched this unfold. In order to understand the magnitude of the problem, it helps to understand that there are a few topics "in play".

1. 'holocaust', or 'burnt offering', meaning the mass destruction of a people.
2. 'Holocaust' as a proper noun, which, depending on the group, was about their destruction.
3. 'The Holocaust', which generally referred to the destruction of people in the 30's and 40's by Nazi regimes in Europe, with people differing on what groups should be counted.

In addition, because of cultural traditions, different groups focus upon, and emphasize, or claim, their culturally related terms. Shoah, Porajmos, (etc.), see Names_of_the_Holocaust

Adding complexity to the question is an issue of "primacy", which is to say the issue of "who was targeted the most", or "who died the most", or "who suffered the most". These are very important issues to people who are emotionally involved in the articles (which number in the millions).

Getting back to your original point, as long as I have watched this article, there have been issues about death tolls, suffering tolls, and who should, and should not be, included in the articles, and the numbers.

So, to summarize, there are a large amount of factors to think about, and those factors constantly change and re-shape the content. The advocates involved are also heavily emotionally involved, and that makes this an especially challenging article to work on. Ronabop (talk)

Many or most scholars, are weasel words that do not belong on Misplaced Pages.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I propose we should use this introduction:The Holocaust is the state-sponsored systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945. Jews were the primary victims -- six million were murdered; Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), people with mental and physical disabilities, and Poles were also targeted for destruction or decimation for racial, ethnic, or national reasons. Millions more, including homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, and political dissidents, also suffered grievous oppression and death under Nazi Germany. Source; The US Holocaust Memorial Museum --Woogie10w (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009

I, also, have been around Misplaced Pages for a while and have various cycles operating on The Holocaust page. I would be the first to admit that the article is confusing, messy, and even misleading at times. I put this down to editors operating with different points of view about the definition. I have written about this before, but rather than go back and hunt up what I wrote, let me try and sumarize:

We all agree that the Nazis carried out a series of genocides and massacres which include:

• The Final Solution to the Jewsh Question,
• the genocide of the Romani,
• the genocide of the handicapped,
• the massacres of Poles, Russian POWs, and other sub-sets.

Now many of us including those who have edited the article have our own preference for incuding various subsets in the definition. However, for an encyclopdia article, we need to use a common definition which is supported by historians and scholars. There is no doubt that today most historians and scholars use the Final Solution as the definition of The Holocaust. (In this case, "most" is not a weasel word as a list of historians and scholars can be established and counted, proving or disproving the statement. If we took only the references in the footnotes to the article, we would quickly see that most of the referees use either implicitly or explicitly the final solution definition. I suspect that even most holocaust deniers use the word in a similar way.) Several authorities also add the genocides of the Romani and handicapped to the definition--Niewyk and Henry Friedlander (not Saul) are the only ones that come to my mind. The reason for such classification by historians is not a value judgement about who suffered the most nor an attempt to leave out peoples and groups that also suffered, but rather to distinguish the final solution with its own distinctive features (mentioned in the article), which it seems to me makes it easier to learn from the past. I have written before that including all the other groups actually can obscure their own case which would be better highlighted in a separate entry. I would suggest that everybody would benefit by establishing a new page entitled something like Nazi Genocides and Massacres, with individual paragraphs linking to specific entries, i.e. Polish massacres, Russian POWs, The Holocaust, etc. I know that this is probably a controversial suggestion and has a fat chance of floating--we are probably stuck with with unwieldly page which easily confuses the general reader.(UTC)--Joel Mc (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Joel. A Nazi Genocides and Massacres would alleviate the pressure. We could start by renaming the Holocaust Victims article to the title suggested by Joel. Woogie's idea for a new lead paragraph would allow us to distinguish well between the Holocaust article and the Nazi Genocides article too.Tobit2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC).

Strictly speaking, only two ethnic groups can be considered the Holocaust's victims: Jews and Roma. Nazi's policy towards them was simple: they refused to recognize their right of existence, so the ultimate goal was to exterminate them completely. In addition, extermination of Jews and Gypsies was not dictated by any military need.
By contrast, other ethnic groups or nations were more "lucky": according to Nazi plans, they were allowed to exist (although only partially: the plans were to decrease their population to the "reasonable" level, and to transfer them to the areas less suitable for life). Moreover, although I am aware of plans of Germanisation of some fraction of the Poles, I cannot even imagine a possibility of any attempt to germanise Jews. In addition, sometimes military or economic needs affected Nazi's policy towards the ethnic groups belonging to the "outer circle" of Holocaust. For instance, mass murder of Polish or Belorussian population was partially associated with German anti-partisan warfare; Soviet POW were treated much better during the second part of the war, because Germany needed in slave labour force, etc.
Therefore, it seems to me that two definitions of Holocaust are possible: a strict definition (Jews, Gypsy, homosexuals and disabled), and more wide one (+Soviet POWs, the Poles etc). The second definition poses some problems, because it is hard to determine the difference between "ordinary" mass murders and that associated with Holocaust. For instance, why the Poles are included, but the Belorussians (that lost about a quarter of population) are not. Why starvation of Warsaw getto is the example of Holocaust, but starvation of Leningrad citizens (some sourses state that Hitler ordered to starve all Leningrad population to death even if Leningrad made an attempt to surrender) is not? Therefore, the Joel Mc's suggestion (if I understand it correct) seems reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert is correct. The professional Holocaust historians have ignored the fact that the Nazis intended to annihilate the Soviet people. Historians in the English speaking world really need to have a better understanding of Hitlerite genocide in the USSR--Woogie10w (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is just one example of the civilian losses in the USSR. In 1995 the Russian Academy of Science published a report on USSR Human Losses in WW2. On Page 128 they list the civilian dead in the Stalingrad region at 555,700, 30.1 % of the population. They noted that in one single day in August 1942 40,000 were killed in a German air attack on the city. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The same source reported that 4.1 million civilians died from famine in the occupied USSR, the Nazis looted the food to intentionaly reduce the population.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Joels's suggestion has been tried before, on some level: Holocaust_victims, with sub-articles for the different peoples who suffered. Of course, renaming that article to "Victims of Nazi Genocides and massacres" might be met with some resistance, as "ownership" of being part of the Holocaust (with a capital H) set of victims is important to some groups. Both Paul Siebert and Woogie10w, I think, are also accurate in that different scholars, coming from different angles, languages, and cultural norms, consider different aspects to be "part" of the Holocaust. That being said, perhaps we could further tune the opening paragraphs to include this variety of opinions, without giving or denying ownership to/from any specific group. Ronabop (talk)

Has everyone here looked at the sources attached to the sentence, which clearly define The Holocaust as the genocide of the Jews? Have they reviewed the first source in particular, which specifically states "many scholars", thus removing the "weasel word" concerns? Jayjg 21:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Many" is not "most". Perhaps a minor quibble, or perhaps a cited phrase choice we could use, without getting into a citation match of different scholars and opinions being used? Ronabop (talk)

From the text of the already existing citations: "Not everyone finds this a fully satisfactory definition." "and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II".. Ronabop (talk)

Per Ronabop suggestion for tweaking the led. Here is a possibility:

The Holocaust is the term commonly used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jew’s during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the Nazi Party regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Some scholars extend this definition to include the Nazi's systematic murder of Roma; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; the disabled; homosexual men; and political and religious opponents. Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the total number of victims would be between nine and 11 million.

Scholars continue to debate whether the term Holocaust should be applied to all victims of the Nazi mass murder campaign equally, with some suggesting it be applied solely to Jewish victims.

Thoughts? Tobit2 (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Which scholars extend the definition to include "the Nazi's systematic murder of Roma; Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war; ethnic Poles; the disabled; homosexual men; and political and religious opponents."? Jayjg 03:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Group/aggregate sources: "Encyclopedia of the Holocaust", by Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, and the OED. Both argue for an expansive view.

On an individual level (those arguing for varying levels of expansion), we have (I pulled these from the text of the Columbia Guide):

Michael Niewyk, Michael Burleigh & Wolfgang Wippermann, Donald Kenrick, Grattan Puxon, S. Totten, Alan S. Rosenbaum, Ian Hancock, Henry Friedlander, Bohdan Wytwycky, Christian Streit, Jurgen Forster, Richard C. Lukas, Richard Plant, F. Rector.

While the above list of scholars includes different groups, depending on the scholar, no single one flat out says that all groups should be included, so to edit Tobit2's suggested intro:

The Holocaust is a term commonly used to describe the genocide of approximately six million European Jews during World War II, as part of a program of deliberate extermination planned and executed by the Nazi Party regime in Germany led by Adolf Hitler. Scholars have variously extended this definition to include the Nazi's systematic murder of other groups, including: Roma, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, ethnic Poles, the disabled, homosexual men, and political and religious opponents. Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the total number of victims would be between nine and 17 million.

Scholars continue to debate whether the term Holocaust should be applied to all victims of the Nazi mass murder campaign equally, with some suggesting it be applied solely to Jewish victims.

I used the 17 million number from Niewyk's most expansive estimate (because the phrase implies a range, depending on levels of expansion), and tried to add wording that indicates that different scholars add different groups. A perhaps more improved revision might not only link to the Columbia Guide, but instead link to the individual texts by each scholar. Ronabop (talk)

I agree with the intro as put forth by Ronabop. Tobit2 (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, but Nazi's should Nazis' (apostrophe after the s). Paul B (talk) 13:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I guess the above confims my fears that it would not be an easy task to clean up this article. The proposal is reasonable in itself, but it doesn't help us move away from this confusing patchwork of an article. A couple of points before I move on:

• Even though he favors a more expansive definition, Niewyk makes the statements: "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the mass murder of more than 5 million Jews.." and further on "most people still understand it" as the genocide of the Jews.
• there are scholars as well as others who feel other groups should be added to the definition, but in editing an encyclopedia entry we need to make a distinction between what is, and what should be. What is commonly understood and what most think should carry most weight in making a definition than what some people think should be included.
• Perhaps I was not very clear about my proposal. It was not to rename the article, but rather to establish "a new page entitled something like Nazi Genocides and Massacres, with individual paragraphs linking to specific entries, i.e. Polish massacres, Russian POWs, The Holocaust, etc." The Holocaust entry would remain, but it would refer to the Final Solution while the material on it relating to other genocides, i.e. Romani and massacres would be moved to new pages i.e. entitled something like Nazi genocide of the Romani, etc. --Joel Mc (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

We can't unilaterally decide that "The Holcaust" is synonymous with "The Final Solution" and that other deaths are part of some other "event". We have to report on how the word is used. That is Misplaced Pages policy. Even academics are inconsistent, nor is there even a clear debate as such, but rather a de facto "fuzzy" usage. Some books use the term interchangably with Final Solution or Shoah. Others use it to refer to the general process of systemetised incarceration, brutality and murder which swept up various groups. All we do is report on the varied usages with proper citation. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there are two differnt POV on the topic we should present both, let the readers decide. --Woogie10w (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The German Misplaced Pages article:de:Holocaust has an interesting solution to our dilemma, the main article overs only Jewish victims, the second entitled Holocaust-definitions de:Holocaust (Begriff) covers all others persecuted by the Nazis, those who read German should view the articles. --Woogie10w (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either way personally the specific names of articles in which the description of Nazi atrocities are placed, but this "Holocaust" article on English Misplaced Pages should probably comport with usage of the term in English. Dictionary definitions limited to the World War II context on various "Holocaust" definitions listed at dictionary.com appear to define it as:

---

Random House Dictionary:

hol·o·caust /'h?l??k?st, 'ho?l?-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation –noun 3. (usually initial capital letter) the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II (usually prec. by the).

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language:

hol·o·caust (hol'?-kôst', ho'l?-) n. 1. Holocaust The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II: "Israel emerged from the Holocaust and is defined in relation to that catastrophe" (Emanuel Litvinoff).

Princeton wordnet.com:

holocaust - noun 2. the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime from 1941 until 1945

The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition:

Holocaust

The killing of some six million Jews by the Nazis during World War II. To the Nazis, the Holocaust was the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem,” and would help them establish a pure German master race. Much of the killing took place in concentration camps, such as Auschwitz and Dachau. (See Adolf Eichmann and Heinrich Himmler).

Online etymology dictionary:

holocaust 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. The Holocaust "Nazi genocide of European Jews in World War II," first recorded 1957, earlier known in Heb. as Shoah "catastrophe." The word itself was used in Eng. in ref. to Hitler's Jewish policies from 1942, but not as a proper name for them.

"Auschwitz makes all too clear the principle that the human psyche can create meaning out of anything."

---

Perhaps this "Holocaust" article should focus upon the particular campaign amongst the Jews, and be linked in broader articles about overall Nazi attrocities to all groups.

As mentioned, I don't have strong feelings on it either way. In fact, I drafted a proposed Lede below that has it drafted more broadly, assuming that the definition of the word was generally viewed more broadly. But perhaps it is not, and it instead more generally views the term "Holocaust" as the campaign against ethnic Jews, while a minority view it in broader terms.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article should include a broader definition of the term, including pre-war meanings, and others. As the centre of the world is now shifting from Europe to Asia, we often find references to the 10-30 million Chinese holocaust by Japanese (e.g. . Kentavros (talk) 11:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello: I read your link, The Chinese Holocaust refers to the Cultural Revolution in the 1960's not WW2--Woogie10w (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash of Anti-Semitism in this Article

Omitting the history of anti-Semitism in teaching about the Holocaust permits mostly Christian's to avoid unpleasant encounters with their religion's history--Woogie10w (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Woogie. Nearly all of us are well aware there are some anti-Semitism with people having the underlying intention to, as you say, trivialize the Holocaust. Nearly everyone here, including you and me, would also immediately jump on any such form of anti-Semitism. I do not agree, however, that to mention that a debate exists on whether or not other groups should be included in the Holocaust is anti-Semitism, or indeed trivialization of what the Jewish people suffered. As far as Christian historical or current guilt is concerned, I am unsure as to which article this should be discussed in. However, you are very welcome to introduce this topic. I would hope that people would want to represent the truth, no matter how unpleasant it is to their own kind. Wallie (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie, isn't the Anti-semitism article, which is already on Misplaced Pages, the best place to cover the history of this topic? Why not link the Holocaust article to the Anti-semitism one?Tobit2 (talk) 01:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in Europe laid the foundation for the Holocaust; the Nazis were able to invoke the deep rooted dislike of the Jews. This is discussed in depth by Hilberg and Davidawicz. In the US today this is not taught in the schools in order to avoid offending Christians. Many Americans cannot accept the fact that deep rooted Anti-Semitism was a contributing cause of the Holocaust. Note well my grandfather was baptized in a Lutheran Church in Prussia in 1875. I should know, read my lips.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the article you mentioned and found it insightful in some cases. Although I am not familiar with every variety of educational program in the US, I would still be shocked if a high-schooler failed to see anti-semitism as a root cause of the jewish genocide. Whether this root, however, stems solely from Christianity or even deeper psychological and cultural issues is a difficult question and far from settled.Tobit2 (talk) 02:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The history of European Anti Semitism is being swept under the rug in the article, Christian antisemitism ultimately played a dramatic role in the Nazi Third Reich, World War II and the Holocaust. Please see the following Misplaced Pages articles that support my position-Martin Luther and antisemitism and Christianity and antisemitism.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest linking the Holocaust article to the Christianity and antisemitism article. It is a C-class article since this is a difficult question, full of polemic. Nevertheless, that article remains the proper place to describe any link between the two.Tobit2 (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Just like I said, you want to sweep anti-semitism under the rug--Woogie10w (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10W I think you are acting in good faith. But to say that linking this article to another is to sweep anti-Semitism under the rug is to misconstrue Misplaced Pages as a whole. One of the main virtues of an internet encyclopedia, over textual encyclopedias, is hypertext - our ability to use links to show how different topics and fields of knowledge are connected. You seem to think hypertext makes knowledge disconnected. That is absurd. We strie to use hypertext carefully to make precisey the point you wish to make: to show how one thing is connected to another.

Now let me share with you an alternate dilemma to the one you are concerned with. Many people think that an anti-Semite is only someone who advocates genocide e.g. the Holocaust. What this belief does is to make al other forms of anti-Semitism okay, and any criticism of those things is just hyperensitivity. So we have a dual dilemma: to show how the Holocaust is connected to a history of anti-semitism in Europe, AND to make clear that anti-Semitism takes many forms most of which seem innocuous when compared to the Holocaust. Do you understand?

This page is to propose specific improvements to the article. bearing in ind what I just wrote, can you make some specific proposal we can discuss? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that you read The War Against the Jews by Dawidowicz and the Destruction of the European Jews by Hilberg and then you will understand. There is no dilemna, this page is a whitwash of European Ant-Semitism and needs to be updated--Woogie10w (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I read them. Now, you either did not read what I wrote, or you did not understand it, but I will repeat the main point: propose a specific improvement to the article. f you can't, go away - this page is for serious editors, it is not a chat-room. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not chatting, I want to incorporate the research of Hilberg and Dawidowicz in this article to improve it, I will not go away, you can't bully me. Do you understand? I have made 135 edits to this page, you have only 10 to date.--Woogie10w (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "anti-Semitism takes many forms most of which seem innocuous when compared to the Holocaust. Tell that to the face of a person who survived the Nazi camps and lost members of their family.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

You know nothing about who I am or my family history, and it is none of your business. Now please explain to me how my asking you to propose a specific edit is bullying you. How do you know I will not support your edit? How is asking you to be specific in any way an attempt to drive you away? I only say, and I say again, you should go away if you have no specific proposals. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To improve this article I recommend the following.
ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner. The article as it stands now implies that the Holocaust occurred with the advent of the Nazis, without a discussion of the deep rooted European Antisemitism. I recommend the editors read Raul Hilberg’s The Destruction of the European Jews which has a good overview of the Christian persecutions of the Jews over the centuries. Lucy Dawidowicz In her book The War Against the Jews draws a line of "anti-Semitic descent" from Martin Luther to Hitler, writing that both men were obsessed by the "demonologized universe" inhabited by Jews. This article as it stands now is a whitewash of the problem of European Antisemitism and promotes historical revisionism.
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. The Slavs were indeed victims but their persecution cannot by any stretch of the imagination be compared the Jews. Also, anti-Semitism in Poland during the war needs be addressed in the article, I recommend that the editors read Unequal Victims by Israel Gutman for a discussion of this sensitive issue. Why does this article ignore the ugly issue of anti-Semitism in Poland during the war that was documented by Israel Gutman in Unequal Victims? I contend that the editors have chosen to ignore this historical reality in order to avoid the noisy denials of anti-Semites who wish to promote historical revisionism.
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world. The editors of this page rely mainly on English language sources found on Google books. A Russian language source in print is dark matter to them. There is no question that one should also include non Jewish victims in the USSR if you include Poles as Holocaust victims. In fact the losses in the USSR far exceeded those in Poland. Shining the spotlight on Poles as victims and sidelining East Slavs is a glaring distortion of historical reality that goes way over the heads of the editors of this page.
FOUR- The central problem with the article is that other groups besides Jews are included in the Holocaust. This article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. By including the Poles and Roma they have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s. German Misplaced Pages should be our guide, de:Holocaust, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page.
Prior to the Holocaust (TV miniseries) in 1978 the term Holocaust was hardly ever used. Since then the genocide of the European Jews has been trivialized and commercialized. The article reflects this sad state of affairs. ----Woogie10w (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific. Lt me point out that you are an editor and if you have already read Dawidowicz and others, you can add information yourself - when you speak to "the editors," you are speaking to yourself as this page is only for editors (like you). I certainly have no problem with adding more inormation about the roots of the Jewish Holocaust in European anti-Semitism as long as it does not violate WP:NOR, by the way I am surprised you do not mention Yehuda Bauer. I believe there is very good English-language literature on the role of non-Germans/non-Nazis in the Jewish Holocaust, but be tht as it may, if there are good Polish or Russian sources (I mean, by Russian and Polish historians, they have to meet our WP:V and WP:RS standards) I am all for adding that, so in general I agree with your suggestions 1 and 3. But to be clear, we cannot add information that is just on European anti-Semitism (that belongs in a linked - i.e. connected article); we have to add information by historians and other scholars who explicitly link European anti-Semitism to the jewish Holocaust. I have to say I am confused about 2 and 4 which seem to be the same point. We have discussed this on this page and I encourage you to check the archived discussion to catch up on what you missed - once you have done that you may wish to reopen the discussion. But we would need to have discussion to make the change you propose. Misplaced Pages's policy is to accept all significant points of view. If there is a significant POV that there was a Gypsy Holocaust, or Bosnian Holocaust, this article has no choice but to represent that. I fail to see it as a problem. You seem to identify this with anti-Semitism but I do not understand how. If I tell you my sister was raped, wouldn't you agree tht was an awful thing? Now if I told you five other women were raped, would you suddenly think what happened to my sister was alright? I really do not understand what kind of person you must be to think that way. As to the Holocaust not being discussed prior to the 1978 TV series, you are wrong and also being unfair and unjust to Eli Wiesel and Simon Weisenthal and many others who did much to educate people about the holocaust before that TV series. Also, you say that this article commercializes the Holocaust, I fail to see how. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The term Holocaust was hardly ever used prior to the 1978 TV series,One would refer to the “Final Solution” or “Auschwitz”. The April 1978 broadcast of the TV movie, Holocaust, based on Gerald Green's book of the same name, and the very prominent use of the term in President Carter's creation of the President's Commission on the Holocaust later that same year, cemented its meaning in the English-speaking world. These events, coupled with the development and creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum through the 1980s and 1990s, established the term Holocaust (with a capital H) as the standard referent to the systematic annihilation of European Jewry by Germany's Nazi regime. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I and veryone I knew refered to it as the Holocaust. No one I knew ever called it the Final Solution unless one was explicitly quoting the Nazis. Since being a Jew is not a problem, there is no solution. Calling it "the Final Solution" is just what an anti Semite would call it. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to 1978??--Woogie10w (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"the Final Solution" was the title of of an early history of the Holocaust by Gerald Reitlinger, the book was a standard history back in the 1950s and 1960's. In college classes back then (1967-71) I remember Auschwitz being used, never the Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But surely you had heard of the Holocaust before you went to college. The TV people called the series "The Holocaust" because that was the word non-TV people used for it at the time - and before. The AJC published and distributed Yehudah Bauer's They chose life: Jewish resistance in the Holocaust in the early 1970s. I read Frederick Forsyth's popular action novel, The Odessa File when it came out in 1972 and he refers to "the Holocaust" extensively. Leon Uris's novel Exodus (made into a movie with Paul Newman and Eve Marie Saint) came out in 1958 and talks about "the Holocaust." I think if popular novelists like Forsyth and Uris knew to call it the Holocaust it is because that is what it was called back then. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thats water over duh dam. Re: my edit today, what is your opinion? can you reccomend any changes?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Such usage strongly influenced the adoption of holocaust as the primary English-language referent to the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry, but the word's connection to the "Final Solution" did not firmly take hold for another two decades. The April 1978 broadcast of the TV movie, Holocaust, based on Gerald Green's book of the same name, and the very prominent use of the term in President Carter's creation of the President's Commission on the Holocaust later that same year, cemented its meaning in the English-speaking world. These events, coupled with the development and creation of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum through the 1980s and 1990s, established the term Holocaust (with a capital H) as the standard referent to the systematic annihilation of European Jewry by Germany's Nazi regime.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Misplaced Pages articles should include all significant views from reliable sources. I do not believe - in general - it is a good idea to have a view and then hunt for sources that support it so it can be put in. i think it is better to find the major sources, and then put whatever views they hold in (to any article). So - I am not opposed to your adding a Kung quote. I did not revert it. But there is a whole field of Holocaust Studies and professional historians (which Kung is not) studying the data to provide explanations. Frankly, I would like to see a whole section on "Explanations" that surveys all major scholarship, including functionalists and intentionalists. Certainly many of these sources will mention a history of anti-Semitism. But they will also explain why it started in Germany (not the most anti-Semitic of European countries, historically) and why in the 1930s, and these explanations will lead to other factors. I just want an honest encyclopedia article that draws on the major sources, whatever they say. I do not have the time to research this but I wish someone would just google "Holocaust Studies," take the first three or four hits, and print out any bibliographies they provide, and then look for any book and article that is on all the bibliographies, and then tells us what they say. I would not rely at all on the content of websites, which are not written to conform to high academic standards - I would prefer books published by academic presses or articles in peer-reviewed journals (although yad VaShem and the US Holocaust Museum are also important publishers of research). That is how I learn new things. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This edit was necessary in order that the credibility of Misplaced Pages be maintained. An adequate exposition of the problem of anti-Semitism in European history is absolutely essential to understanding the Holocaust. Besides Kung, we can cite Hilberg, Dawidowicz and Bauer to support this POV. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

doesn't seem like you are responding to anything I wrote. Fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I read your post, you and I both lack the time to research the topic in depth.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Woogie10w's ONE to FOUR:
ONE - support. Without any doubts, it is absolutely necessary to show that the 1933-1945 events had deep roots coming from medieval times. In addition, it is quite necessary to demonstrate that antisemitism was a phenomenon common for Europe as whole, not for Germany only. I can provide reliable academic sources demonstrating that during the first year of German occupation of western Sovet Union, significant part of Jews were killed by local peoples, not by Nazi paramilitary units.
TWO - support: it is quite necessary to write about persecution of the other groups, to show the real scale of presecution and killing of non-Jewish population, but one cannote equate extermination of Jews and persecution of Slavs.
THREE - absolutely support. However, I don't think the problem is in unavailability of English sources: I believe it is possible to find reliable western sources telling about mass killing committed Stalin's and Hitler's regime. I know at least one reliable source that compares these numbers and states that Hitler's activity fits the definition of mass murder in far greater extent.
FOUR - sorry, it is generally a repetition of TWO. In addition, you cannot equate the fate of the Poles and Roma for at least two reasons: (i) there was no big difference between the fate of the Poles and other Slaws; (ii) not only it is quite possible to equate the fate of Jews and Gypsies, but it is necessary to do: if I am not wrong, Roma, like Jews, were also planned to be exterminated completely. Therefore, no Pandora box is open if we include Roma people, although it definitely will be open if we include the Poles.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell my concern is that young readers get the facts, we have a responsibility to be make sure that Misplaced Pages maintains a NPOV. We should inform not propagandize. Look at the page view statistics, about 180,000 per month. One must assume many are kids doing their homework. First and foremost the issue of anti-Semitism, which is ignored in our schools, needs to be addressed in this article. Secondly, we must not equate the fate of the Jews with other groups persecuted by the Nazis, this is a gross distortion of what actually happened. Thirdly, the Nazi war against the Soviet civilian population needs better coverage by English speaking scholars, and on Misplaced Pages. The Nazis were responsible for 17 million deaths, 11 million on Soviet territory. The war in the Soviet Union still remains the “Unknown War” for too many in the west and on Misplaced Pages. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

"Anti-semitism is ignored in our schools"... where is this? You might want to address this with your local school board, rather than trying to change it in wikipedia, I'm sure that addressing the matter at a school level will reach more people in your area (it's certainly not ignored in schools here). Secondly, equating the varying degrees of persecution is problematic, as is differentiating, which is why there isn't a universal definition. As far as your 11/17 numbers go, I'm wondering where they came from. Ronabop (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1-"Anti-semitism is ignored in our schools"... where is this?-Read this article in the journal Social Education -Holocaust Fatigue in Teaching Today
2-Secondly, equating the varying degrees of persecution is problematic- Not so, Read Unequal Victims by by Israel Gutman . 90% of Polish Jews perished in the war compared to 6% of Polish Catholics
3-Thirdly-As far as your 11/17 numbers go, I'm wondering where they came from. Do the math- 6 million Soviet civilians, 3 million Pow and 2 million Jews Total 11 million.(including eastern Poland, Besserabia and the Baltic states in USSR in 1941)--Woogie10w (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronabop-we cannot compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma. Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 which is a collection photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality. In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians. At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day.
German Homosexuals were persecuted, about 10,000 (1%) of the estimated 1,000,000 German Homosexual population died in the camps, compared to 160,000 of the 165,000 German Jews who were sent to the camps
The handicapped were persecuted by the Nazis, 200,000 were murdered. Let us not forget that the German Protestant churches protested this barbarity and the executions were halted. They did not make similar protests to save the Jews.
The fate of Soviet POW was tragic. About 3 million of the 5.7 million captured perished in German hands. But we must not forget that 800,000 Soviet POW were released from captivity to serve in the German military. 215,000 died in the German uniform and 285,000 were sentenced by Soviet courts after the war for collaboration, another 180,000 of these collaborators found refuge in western countries after the war.
--Woogie10w (talk) 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a category

Look at categories Category:Operation Reinhard belongs to. I think we need a category for German operations that were targeting military populations (Jewish and otherwise), not military. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

unclear what you mean here.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Serbs don't deserve their own section, only Jews were victims of the Holocaust

Neubacher's alleged statement was reported as following: "When leading Ustaše state that one million Orthodox Serbs were slaughtered, this in my opinion is a boasting exaggeration. On the basis of reports I received, I estimated that three quarters of a million defenceless people were slaughtered." Then, Edmond Paris who quoted this statement in his book inserted the following sentence that is not part of the original statement, quote: "(including babies, children, women and old men)." That's his opinion, not the part of the original statement by Neubacher. First of all, if anybody read Edmond Paris' book would know that he is similar to Edward S. Herman. He is siding with Serbs based on their socialist values. Neubacher's sentencing was in Belgrade. He was tortured and humiliated by Serbs, and no wonder he would sign that statement. But, what Edmond Paris did, he inserted into brackets info about children and babies to make these crimes more glamorous. A shame, pure politics. True, about 50,000 Serbs at most died in Jasenovac, as USHMM reported, plus Muslims, Jews, Croats, and Romas. We were all victims of Jasenovac. Remember, after the war, Serbs in Croatia remained majority on about one third of Croatia's territory. How did that happen if Croats killed at least 600 Serbs? Hmmm... If Croats killed 600,000 of Serbs in WWII in Croatia, then Serbs would certainly not be ethnic majority in areas where they claimed genocide. But, I understand, WWII is based on estimates and politics, not on facts. Only Srebrenica genocide is based on solid facts and DNA forensics. Everything else is politics.Bosniak (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Your assertions are completely inappropriate. This is not a place for discussions of opinions (WP:SOAPBOX), and your racist comments will not be tolerated. Tad Lincoln (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Time out, we need to maintain a NPOV on Misplaced Pages. Please no Waving the bloody shirt on this page. Yugoslavs of every group were victims of Fascism. Read the section Casualties in the attached link, 501,000 from all groups perished in cities and camps, our source is professional demographer who researched population losses in the war. . We cannot tolerate a POV push by a single ethnic group from the former Yugoslavia here on English Misplaced Pages.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bosniak. There is a debate mentioned in the lede as to whether or not the Holocaust definition applies to Jews only. The fact is that Serbs are mentioned here in this article, meaning that it is certainly included in Holocaust discussions. Everyone recognizes that Serbs were very badly treated in the war. However you describe it, decent people, in particular Jewish scholars, take it very very seriously the fact that so many Serbian people died in this way, especially up to 600,000 of them. It is considered by Jews and non-Jews alike to be a catastrophe. This also applies to other ethnic groups slaughtered for their race or religion, like Muslims or Croats. As far as numbers are concerned, these can also be political, as you say. All we can do is try our best to research based on references to get as close to the facts as we can. Wallie (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead and scholars

The lead's discussion of scholars disagreeing about what the term Holocaust should apply to is bugging me. Although it is an important topic that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, what's more important for the lead is not what the Holocaust should mean to people but what it does mean to people. If reliable sources state that in general the term Holocaust is understood to include the murder of non-Jews let the lead say so, but if reliable sources say that in general the Holocaust is understood to refer to the murder let it say that. But scholarly disagreements about hypothetical ideals do not belong in the lead.--Anewpester (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For some scholars, it does mean an inclusive view, for others, it doesn't, and for yet others, it's a matter of should but doesn't. We don't have unanimity of scholars saying should, but doesn't. We do have many factions claiming pluralities, and we're navigating WP:UNDUE, across the many cultures that speak English, and have different perspectives on the topic. Do you have a different lede you would like to propose (See prior attempts on this page for examples) that can navigate these waters? Ronabop (talk)

It would be highly misleading if equate the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. Nazi policy was to eliminate the Jews of Europe. 78% of Jews in German occupied Europe were killed compared to 6% of Poles, 15% of Soviets, 20% of Roma, 1% of German homosexuals. The Germans ended the policy of killing the disabled because of protests by German Protestant churches. Nazi Germany had up to 2 million citizens who were bi-lingual Polish-German, 800,000 Soviet citizens served in the Wehrmacht.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. This discussion is about what scholars say - not your personal POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

@Ronabop: The lead should only state what The Holocaust is commonly understood to mean. If scholars have opinions about how is is commonly understood their opinions belong in the lede but not their opinions of what the Holocaust should mean.--Anewpester (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages includes all significant views from reliable sources. If there is a notable debate about what the Holocaust "should" mean, we have to provide an account of that debate in the article and introduce it in the introduction. the only question is, is the debate notable? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deja Vu. Above in the talk page I posted a list from Columbia of various scholars who used more inclusive definitions. There is some variance in the English speaking world about what the word Holocaust actually does mean. Do you have a suggestion for improving the wording? Ronabop (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do the scholars claim that "Holocaust" has a more inclusive definition or do they claim that it should have a more inclusive definition?--Anewpester (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Columbia scholars set forth a more inclusive definition in their work and provide their rationale. Please refer to the archived discussion page (Jan. 2009, "Lead Paragraph") which gives a list of each cited source and the various definitions used.Tobit2 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 20#Lead Paragraph, wherein one editor argues to change the lead based on one scholarly article. The article in question The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, in its opening sentence states that "he Holocaust is commonly defined as the mass murder of more then 5,000,000 Jews by the German during World War II." The article then goes to argue that the definition should be more inclusive, but never moving away from its initial assertion that the Holocaust is commonly defined by the murder of the Jews.

This one article should not be given equal weight to the scholarly consensus that the term Holocaust is exclusive to the murder of the Jews. Moreover, the lead of an article should not be the place for advancing new ideas and theories. Although important, the ideas promulgated by Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia should best be placed somewhere else on Misplaced Pages, like in an article entitled The definition of the Holocaust.--Anewpester (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such "scholarly consensus" and there are numerous academic articles which discuss the killings of gypsies/Roma in "the holocaust". . There are also many sources that discuss extended usage to include other groups. For example we have Teaching and studying the Holocaust‎by Samuel Totten and Stephen Feinberg, who write, "Other groups that are commonly cited as Holocaust victims are Soviets, particularly prisoners of war (POWs), the Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals" p.35. There is also Israel Charny's Encyclopedia of Gencide . This is five minutes of looking on google books. In reality there are numerous books and articles which use or discuss this extended usage. German[REDACTED] has no authority just because it's German. Indeed the majority of scholarship is in English. No one is disputing the centrality of Jewish experience, but it is a fact that extended usage is common. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the murder of gypsies and homosexuals is discussed in the context of the Holocaust. There's also an article out there about the "Holocausts effects on the environment". Nobody will claim that the term Holocaust includes the environmental damage caused by the Nazis. Not to god-forbid compare the murder of groups to environmental effects. Point is, just because the murder of others besides for the Jews are mentioned in the context of the Holocaust does not mean that the term Holocaust is understood to include all Nazi murder victims. Are there any reliable sources or accepted scholarly material that state that the Holocaust means the murder of others besides for Jews? So far all we have is one article by scholars (notable?) arguing that Holocaust should include other murder victims. On the other hand, we have multiple sources that say that the Holocaust means the murder of the Jews.--Anewpester (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that argument is preposterous. The effects of the holocaust on the environment or on anything else are quite different from the assertion that a particular group is included as a victim of the holocaust, which is what we are discussing. Did you even read the examples I linked? All the examples specifically include groups other than Jews. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the provided links supports the claim that the term Holocaust refers to all Nazi murder victims. They support the claim that others were murdered during the Holocaust, which is not in dispute. --Anewpester (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing the argument. It begins to look like disingenuousness. No-one has said that "all Nazi murder victims" are included in ther holocaust. The statement that they were killed "during the holocaust" is meaningless. No-one is using "holocaust" to refer to a time period. Otherwise everyone who died in 1942-5 could be said to have been killed "during the holocaust". You are playing with words. It is very clear that these authors are discussing the inclusion of specific groups as victims of the holocaust. The exact quoted phrase was "Holocaust victims". Paul B (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is being changed. Not one reliable sources has yet to be presented that states that the term Holocaust refers to "murder of Jews and gypsies", the "murder of Jews and homosexuals", the "murder of Jews and Poles", the "murder of Jews and Freemasons", the "murder of Jews and Russians," or the "murder of Jews and others". We have one scholarly article that claims that the term should include other victims but admits that the terms is exclusive to the murder of Jews. --Anewpester (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No we do not. It is pointless discussing this further with you because you are simply ignoring plain evidence. We have several sources that refer to victims of the holocaust which includes groups other than Jews. 'Holocaust' is just a word. It means what people use it to mean, and that meaning varies and changes over time and between different scholars. It's very very clear. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the "o we do not" referring to the last assertion, that "we have one scholarly article that claims that the term should include other victims but admits that the terms is exclusive to the murder of Jews?" If yes, please see the opening sentence of this article by Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia, which is being used a source for the lead's arguments. There has been an ocean like amount of ink spilled on the Holocaust, yet there isn't one reliable source out there supporting the lead's claims that some scholars maintain that the term Holocaust refers to other groups that were murdered by the Nazis.--Anewpester (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This "one article" thing is a red herring. What matters is that a view is significant from a notable source. If we have only one source, but it provides an account of significant views, we use it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true. However, the article apparently doesn't make the claim that anyone mainstream considers the term Holocaust to refer to the murder of any of the other "undesirable" groups. The article's point is only that the Holocaust should begin referring to the genocide of other groups. The validity of this argument is inconsequential for the lead's purposes. The lead is not the place for new proposals nor for etymological analysees of the name of the article. The lead should only summarize the main parts of the article. --Anewpester (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read this link from the USHMM which defines the Holocaust. This pretty much is in agreement with our lead--Woogie10w (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The USHM is one view. It is not the truth." NPOV demands tht we include all notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in agreement with out lead except for our lead's unsourced tangent about how "Some scholars have extended this definition to include the Nazis' systematic murder of other groups" and "Scholars continue to debate whether the term Holocaust should be applied to all victims of the Nazi mass murder campaign equally with some suggesting it be applied solely to Jewish victims." --Anewpester (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The header points this out as it is. What do you want to change? Pointer, Germans in public treat the topic far more seriously than in the US. Americans do not trivalize Slavery, however the Holocaust has become a political football in the US. The Holocaust has become synomous with any and all genocides in history.

I am not suggesting changes. I am replying to someone who is. Please be clear. Also your personal opinions about America are irrelevant and, frankly, often difficult to make sense of. Your last sentence is wholly false. The Holocaust is what the Nazis did. The only issue for this article is who we discuss as the victims of this specific event. The fact that other events can be called "holocausts" is beside the point. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By Executive order 12169- the "Holocaust" is the systematic and State-sponsored extermination of six million Jews and some five million other peoples by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II This is the politically correct definition of the Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

not trying to be difficult here - but that is the US definition - what about the majority of the rest of the world - in particular - how is the term used in Germany itself? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. By including the Poles and Roma we have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s.
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR in this article reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be clear: which view dos not come from a significant notble source? Your opinion about which views you prefer is not the issue. You have to call to our attention views in the article that are unsourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, on this page I have argued in vain-German Misplaced Pages should be our guide, de:Holocaust, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page--Woogie10w (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we should write our article following our own policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter turned the Holocaust into a political football that we live with today The White House wanted a group of people who were geographically and ethnically diverse. This issue unearthed the question of who true victims of the Holocaust referred to. Were the six million Jews killed by the Nazis the only group being memorialized? What about the other five million people (Gypsies, homosexuals, Ukrainians and others)? Elie Wiesel, the first chairman of both the commission and the council, wanted the memorial to, first and foremost, remember the Jews. Because the Jews were killed due to biological identity, rather than societal identity, many people considered them pre-eminent victims. Other groups felt that equal representation was necessary and the politics of representation on the Memorial Council were intense. The White House was the focus of lobbying from all sides, ranging from foreign governments concerned about the depiction of their citizenry to survivors who were resentful of any attempt to dilute the magnitude of suffering by the Jewish people.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The English article goes into more depth than the German one. The Roma and Sinti are included in the Holocaust in the German article (no debate). The others like Slavs and handicapped just "fall through the cracks" and they appear not to be part of any holocaust, and fall outside the scope of the other article "Holocaust (begriff)", which describes all sorts of mass murders, from way back in history, to the present time, and including the Holocaust. I think we a better to stick with the English article, and improve that one. Maybe the English article also influences the German one! Wallie (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is turning into discussion of the Holocaust, rather than a discussion of this article. The only purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, so make a proposal or go away. Permitted proposals must comply with NPOV, V and NOR - it does not matter what any editor thinks. Nor can an editor synthesize from different sources, or promote his or her own argument based on sources. Any argument must come from a significant authority in a reliable source. If you do not have time to do the research, go away. This is not a chat room. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think so? I do think we sometimes have to discuss things to clarify things in our own mind. If any one person is confused about anything in the article, you can be sure that other readers are also confused about the same thing. I cannot see how discussing any article's content is outside the scope of improving that article. We all have our viewpoints, which can hopefully change, once we learn more. NPOV is an abstract ideal. By discussing things, hopefully both people (if there are two) can become closer to this ideal of NPOV. I do agree that some of the two way "chats" can become protracted. It would be helpful if some of these could be taken off line. Wallie (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat is fine, if it improves the article. A great deal of the talk page, as it is, consists of the flogging of opinions, with calls for the article to be changed (somehow), but without any actual constructive textual changes being suggested by the same parties complaining about the content. Since I've worked in the[REDACTED] Scientology project, I'm fairly used to this debate tactic, but others may not be as used to it. In short, the "victim" screams that "the truth must be told", and then issues demands. The demands can never actually be met, because that removes attention from the person issuing the demand.

So, what happens is a broken cycle of attention-seekers with a constant stream of demands, trolling articles by always being unhappy, and asking others to "fix it". In F/OSS terminology, I would say this is an issue of 'patches welcomed'. The subtext being that anybody willing to do the hard work is accepted.... but complainers, who complain for ego gratification, or fame, or whatever, are not rewarded. Ronabop (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ho Hum, it is more than obvious that some folks around here have never bothered to read even a basic history of the Holocaust. The research tool of choice is a quickie search on Google books.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to this material in the lead:

Eli Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer contend the Holocaust should include only Jews because it was intent of the Nazis to exterminate all Jews, the other groups were not to be totally annihilated. Simon Wiesenthal maintained that although all Jews were victims, the Holocaust transcended the confines of the Jewish community. Other people shared the tragic fate of victimhood.

I have two problems. First, I have no objction to this material in the body of the article - but thislevel of detail (naming names) belongs in the body; the lead should summarize the body (e.g."there is a debate as to whether the Holocuast in unique, and a debate as to whether it is exclusively Jewish") with an account of the debate in the body. Second, as an account of th debate this is very anemic. Woogie just added the line about Wiesel and Bauer, with no citations. In addition to citations, we need to know why they hold this view (as is the case with Wiesenthal). This is an encyclopedia. Saying that x holds a particular view is not really educating anyone; what matters is their reasons forholding that view. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

the line about Wiesel and Bauer are quoted directly in the Barenbaum book, get the book and read it, the presentation is correct. We need to add the names of the persons to back up our arguments, rather than "some scholars" wesel words in my opinion. We are detailing the reasons why "some scholars" have X POV. The post is necessary to avoid the endless row over the lead. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are responsible for content you add. Are you saying that it is better not to have a citation? Are you saying it is better not to provide their reasoning? Please explain how this is better? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
BUT THERE IS A CITATION, BARENBAUM HAS AN ESSAY ON THE TOPIC WHERE HE EXPLAINS THEIR POVs. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Eli Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal are well known figures, people will recognize their names, contrasting their POVs back up our lead with credible sources. Tell me "some scholars should replace this.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"some scholars" wesel words in my opinion--Woogie10w (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Since this is such a contentious issue it is best to back up the arguments with the opinions of respected and well known figures. Readers will know up front that there is a debate and what are the main arguments. This was not done previously.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now here is excess detail in the lead that needs to be cut ASAP before being transported hundreds of miles by freight train --Woogie10w (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We could quite quickly add all positions from all major scholars, with appropriate citations, but that would likely turn the lede into a citation pissing match. I like the idea of a few positions being represented, with jumping off points for further research. That being said, it could use some editing (Other people shared the tragic fate of victimhood is redundant in the current context). Oh, and a note to other editors: There is no Holocaust expert named Barenbaum, don't waste your time looking for him, look for Berenbaum instead, specifically Michael_Berenbaum. Seems to be a frequent typo. ;) Ronabop (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Other people shared the tragic fate of victimhood but the other groups were not to be totally annihilated. These words contrast the two opposing POV in a nutshell. The lead now has a NPOV, the readers will decide the correct definition not us.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The real scary thing about this page is that editors tend to rely exclusivly on Google Books for sources, the very idea of taking trip to the local library never ever crosses their minds. Please get the Bernbaum's book A Mosaic of Victims and read it--Woogie10w (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will totally confess that I don't get on a horse, and ride (or walk) to a document station called a "library", to read texts printed on paper (really? no, really? that's completely insane IMNSHO), by the light of kerosene lanterns, because I don't fetishize about dead 20th century technology. I do still buy and read tree-books (about 3-5 a week), but I prefer to not use document sources where my reading habits are stored, tracked, and used by law enforcement (I live in the US). Ronabop (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which timeline? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In New York City where I live we have an excellant library system that I take advantage of. I have depended on the internet for all my news since 1998, but have yet to read an E book from cover to cover. My point was to encourage editors to do some basic research on the topic of the Holocaust. The same folks that monitor our reading habits determine what is taught in our schools regarding the Holocaust. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When we edit this article we should recognize that the Holocaust is a topic that is not exclusively in the academic domain, hence the views of experts outside the academic community are relevant here. Prior to the 1978 TV mini-series Holocaust the topic was for the most part in the domain of professional historians. Since then the Holocaust has become commercialized and trivialized in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to 1978. The Holocaust is taught in our schools in order to conform to the current point view of the general public; the views of the academic community are not always taken into account when the curriculum is formulated. The article should reflect this reality.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Prior to the 1978 TV mini-series Holocaust the topic was for the most part in the domain of professional historians." Really? And your source is? And you think Leon Uris was a historian? Earlier, you said you do not have the time to do research ... so, are you just making these things up? Look, no encyclopedia article has room for a POV pusher. If you want to edit an encyclopedia article, don't you want to do research?

As for sources for Weisel and Bauer, why not cite the book in which Weisel wrote what he wrote, ditto Bauer. If you care about the Holocaust, don't you want to read books by Weisel and Bauer? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote-If you want to edit an encyclopedia article, don't you want to do research? Yes I have; Berenbaum has an extensive discussion of the views of Bauer, Wiesel and Wiesenthal in the book that he edited which was published by an academic press. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion of the impact of the 1978 TV series I recommend Popular culture and the shaping of Holocaust memory in America By Alan L. Mintz. Prior to 1978 the Holocaust was not part of popular American culture. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, you have repeatedly pushed this POV. And I accept it as a significant POV. But there are others. Exodus and the Zionist movement did much to bring the Holocaust to general attention in the US. As for points of view, Berenbaum may be great, but surely he would explain why they arived at the views they hold, and anyway, I still do not see why you would not want to read Weisel and Bauer directly. Both had long careers and wrote many things (Weisel for example was vociferously opposed to the 1978 TV series; he didn't want it shown and did not like the effect it had). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no itention to argue. I have read Bauer's Holocaust but none of Wiesel. In the 1970's the Holocaust was just not well known in America. There is no comparison with today. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen the TV series, I refuse to watch it, I agree with Wiesel on that point. In any case it has no direct relation to the content of this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my edit today readers did not have a clear explanation as to why some scholars include only Jews in the Holocaust; not even in the footnotes. I am sure that we can elaborate on this topic in the future. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Berenbaum, Wiesel, Bauer and Wiesenthal are top notch well known respected sources that will be recognized by the average reader. We could list lesser known academics in the footnotes. Berenbaum is a heavyweight, it will be difficult to assail his credibility. Besides the edit does not push just one POV, it explains "Why some scholars include Jews and others don't" , its a mere statement of the actual facts backed up with credible sources, it's not my POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

woogie. I know what you are saying. You did mention prior to 1978... Immediately after the war there was absolute shock about what happened to Jewish people. It was not called the Holocaust then, but known as "the Camps" etc. However the name is not so important. The events are, whatever they are called. In the mid 1970s, these attrocities may have possibly waned in the public mind - I am not so sure though. Holocaust the TV series certainly bought the matter to the public's attention is a very effective way. It could be certain argued that the Shoah was attributed the name "the Holocaust" in the wider public mind partly as a result of the series. The series certainly had a profound impact on people at the time. It is important to keep the memory in front of peoples' mind for all time, especially after those who had first hand experience are all dead. Wallie (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Holocaust Unique?

The Misplaced Pages Holocaust page should in theory have a NPOV presenting the full range of scholarly opinion. Our problem in a nutshell is that editors tend to push their own POV, in good faith. With regard to the uniqueness of the Holocaust there seem to be three schools of thought. The first being those like Eli Wiesel who view the Holocaust pertaining only to Jews. The second and middle of the road POV found on the website of the USHMM, which has prevailed on this page; by including other defined groups in the scope of the Holocaust. The third POV found in the depths of cyberspace includes any and all groups that they define as Holocaust victims. We need to have a better exposition on this page of the question Is the Holocaust Unique? A clear and concise presentation of the arguments backed up by reliable scholarly sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

History is a Point of View. History is never objective. Consequently, good historians always check into the background and biases of a secondary source's author. As editors, we bear this responsibility. The Holocaust has become contentious over the last two decades with scholars and amateur historians staking out different POVs (based on their biases) of whose mass murder qualifies as a holocaust. The best we can do is call out the author's POV and reflect the range of opinion. We should not answer whether the Holocaust is Unique; it will only interject another POV.Tobit2 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am away from my books, but surely one of the best scholarly discussions about the uniqueness of the genocide of the Jews is in Bauer, Yehuda. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2001. I don't know of any historian that has taken issue with him, nor one who has come up with a genocide which is similar. In his address to the German Bundestag, he said: "The Holocaust has assumed the role of universal symbol for all evil because it presents the most extreme form of genocide, because it contains elements that are without precedent, because that tragedy was a Jewish one." Bauer Bundestag--Joel Mc (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry Friedlander takes issue with Bauer's view. I believe the clash is covered in Misplaced Pages.Tobit2 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am far from my books, but I believe that H. Friedlander takes issue with including the Roma or not rather than the uniqueness issue. Personally, I find HF less than convincing as the Nazis claimed that the Roma were an inferior race but to the best of my memory never claimed that they were an evil conspiracy etc.--Joel Mc (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jews have debated, on and off again, whether the Holocaust was unique, since at least the 1960s. I think most Jewish leaders believe that it was not unique, for obvious reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Out, lets stop the blog and cite some sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Aong others, Philip Lopate, Richard Rubenstein, Michael Lerner. I am pretty sure Emile Fackenheim. Commentary magazine had an issue asking Jewish leaders about this back in the 1960s I think. Israel W. Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, describes them as self-appointed "high priests." He strongly objects to what he calls their "fetishistic" efforts to "establish the exclusive 'superiority' or unique form of any one genocide." Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we distill these opposing POV into a readable passage that can be inserted the article?--Woogie10w (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the debate among Jews has to do with this. The debate among historians seems to me more relevant. I doubt the Charny was referring to Yehuda Bauer who is well-known as one of the foremost historians of the Holocaust. Bauer is expressing more than his POV, but as a historian he lists a number of characteristics which as far as he can tell are not found in any other genocides in history. That seems to me to be a rather objective definition of what is unique. It has nothing to do with ownership, exclusive superiority, nor a fetishistic effort. It is well worth reading him on the issue.--Joel Mc (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should focus on presenting both POV supported by reliable sources. It is not for us to decide whether the Holocaust is unique or not. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is not for us to decide that one view is more objective than another, or that an objective view is better than a subjective view. Our task is only to provide a clear account of all significant views from notable sources. For many scholars, the issue is not simply whetehr they choose to call "x" another Holocaust, or write of "x's" Holocaust, or provide a list of criteria for defining the Holocaust (that can easily get circular - once I say my criteria for identifying the Holocaust is (1) it must have started in Germany (2) it must have coincided with WWII and (3) its victims must have been Jewish then of course I end up "proving" that there was only one Holocaust ....), it involves more nuanced reflections on the nature of the Jewish Holocaust. Hannah Arendt for example concluded it did not have to do with european anti-Semitism. A controrsial view, but definitely significant, and merits more coverage here. Tikun is a reliable source; their May/June 1989 issue was dedicated to essays by significant thinkers on the Jewish Holocaust many of which addressed the issues we are discussing here. I do not have access to this magazine, but maybe one of you can get it from your library, I would think this would be a valuable source for this article too. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ITYM Tikkun, Tikkun_(magazine)? Ronabop (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Certainly not the only reliable source, but also certainly one good source for significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Genocide of Poles

"All Poles", Heinrich Himmler swore, "will disappear from the world"...(in the current article). Genocide was not limited to Jews or Roma, Poles were slated for elimination as well. Ronabop (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to have a reality check, time to brew up some nice hot coffee. Some Scholars argue that Poles and Jews were unequal victims. There were no Nurnberg laws against Poles that were used to classify Jews. 90% of the Polish Jews were rounded up and killed by the Nazis, 94% of the Polish Catholics, in Poland, survived the war working for Germany. There should be no comparison of Polish and Jewish victims on the Holocaust page. We need to put the issue in a proper perspective on this page. Also it must be mentioned that there were 2 million ::German citizens of Polish ancestry living in pre war Germany who were treated as other Germans as long as they used the German language. Ethnic Poles from pre war Germany(within 1938 borders) were considered Germans in the Third Reich

Gerda Christian was in the Bunker with Hitler in 1945, Christian, Gerda, née Daranowski, born on December 13, 1913 in Berlin, since 1937 Hitler´s Secretary, until May 1, 1945 in the bunker, successful escape to West Germany.

Walter Krupinski was a top fighter ace of the Third Reich.

Erich KempkaHitler's Chauffeur

Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was a notorious SS war criminal.

The grandfather of Donald Tusk was a soldier in the German Army during WW2.

The facts are quite clear, on the Holocaust page, one should not compare the fate of Jews and Poles--Woogie10w (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of the top of my head I don't know about Gerda or Krupinski but both Bach-Zalewski and Tusk's grandfather were Kashubians and considered Volksdeutsche. The same was probably true of the other two. Hence, not ethnic Poles. Also, I don't know why Ronabop brought this up as the article already has a section on Ethnic Poles and other groups are included in the lead. So I don't see what the problem is. Having said that I disagree with Woogie quite a bit here - while there were no Nuremberg laws for example, they were plenty of Nuremberg-like laws. And while Ethnic Poles and Jews were unequal victims in that Jews suffered far more, that doesn't make Poles non-victims. Anyway, this part of the article is fine as is, so no need for OT discussions.radek (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kashubian language is closly related to Polish, Kashubs are ethnic Polish. Volksdeutsche spoke German, an unrelated language-Many Kashubians would have learned the German language in German schools prior to 1919-Woogie10w (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how we see it and that's how it is. But that's not how the Nazis saw it - they considered Kashubians to be sort-of-Germans, hence, they didn't extend the prosecution of Poles to Kashubians (with some exceptions). There were actually various levels of "Volksdeutsche" with Ethnic Germans of Polish citizenship at the top of the list. But groups like the Kashubians or Gorale (also closely related to Ethnic Poles) could also sign up for the VD lists (to their credits the Gorale didn't do so all that much). Again, this is going off topic. But to add to your statement below, the persecution and murder of Roma was actually comparable to that of the Jews, they just constituted a smaller fraction of the overall European population and were much more of outsiders so it was less noticeable. Again, let me emphasize that I think the article is fine as is.radek (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronabop-When we edit this page we should not compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma. Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 which is a collection photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality. In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians. At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day--Woogie10w (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You raised a great point Ronabop. Percentages are meaningless when intent is evident and the action began. Moreover, most people who died in the camps were not Jews. Their deaths are no less a tragedy and the plan behind their deaths, no less diabolical.Tobit2 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In this article we should not ignore the differences in Nazi policy, percentages are relevant because they alert the reader to the fact that Poles and Jews were indeed Unequal Victims to use the words of Israel Gutman.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tobit, you are proposing to edit this article that describes the Holocaust as the Nazi mass murder of 17 million persons, of whom 6 million just happened to be Jews. That trivializes the Holocaust and should not be part of this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To my opinion, any attempt to define the subject of the article in few words would be a trivialisation of Holocaust. Therefore, (i) it is quite necessary to state explicitly that, according to the Nazi plans (and their actual actions) European Jews were condemned to complete extermination, whereas other ethnic groups (probably, besides Roma) were not planned to be exterminated. For instance, the Poles, as well as other Slavs, were planned to be displaced, and their population was planned to be diminished; in addition, the plans existed of partial assimilation of some Poles. Therefore, it was a huge difference between the Slavs and Jews under Nazi's rule. (ii) A considerable part of Slav population was killed as a result of anti-partisan warfare: for instance, whole villages in Belorussia were being destroyed and their population murdered in 1942-44. The Poles were expelled from their best agricultural lands to provide territories for the Germans. One way or the another, these actions, despite their brutality, had some rational explanation. In contrast, persecution of Jews wasn't dictated by any military and economic needs. That is another distinctive feature of the Holocaust.
My conclusion is: one has to differentiate between deliberate mass murders, mass death of civilians as a collateral consequence hostilities and mass death due to criminal neglect. In other words, we must state that during WWII (i) Nazi planned and almost accomplished complete extermination of Jews (and, probably, Roma), and that was what people used to call "the Holocaust", and (ii) In absolute numbers, Holosaust victims were not the most numerous category of civilian killed during WWII. In connection to that, I think it make sence to mention not only the Poles and other Slavs, but also the Chinese, the most numerous category of WWII victims. However, although the "(ii)" definitely belongs to the article, the major focus should be made on "(i)".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese; I agree, but if I make such a post, it should be deleted as OR--Woogie10w (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a well established fact, therefore no one can delete it. Once again, I didn't propose to include Slavs or Chinese into the Holocaust's victims category. My point is that, although the Holocaust was a unique and extreme form of genocide, its victims weren't the most numerous category of Allied civilians killed during WWII. And that fact must be presented in the separate article's section (and, probably, in the introduction).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul, you need a reliable source before you can even think about posting on Misplaced Pages.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be an established fact that more Chinese people than Jews were killed in WW2, but that does not make it relevant to this article. Are we going to add "more chinese were killed" to every article about WW2 deaths? Shall we add this fact to the articles on the Siege of Leningrad, the Blitz and the Bombing of Dresden? Paul B (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Blog- basta--Woogie10w (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an intelligible comment. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI the ultra right wing in Germany use the term “Bomben Holocaust” de:Holocaust (Begriff) when referring the Allied bombing of Germany. In public German neo-Nazis never use the term Holocaust as we understand the term , implying denial which is illegal in Germany. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Woogie10w, I don't think it would be a problem to obtain the reliable source supporting my statement, namely, that about 20 million Chinese civilians died during WWII as a result of Japanese actions. For instance, one can find the references in the "WWII casualties" article, the article you meticulously maintain and develop.
To my understanding, the major problem is that the cliché exists among the Western public that "WWII genocide = the Holocaust". As a result, form time to time, one or another editor rises the quite reasonable question about genocide of others, non Jewish ethnic groups, and proposes to include them into the definition of the Holocaust. This leads to a confusion: if we include the Poles, why don't we include the Serbs, or the Byelorussians? If we include Soviet POWs, why don't we include non-Jewish Soviet civilians? Et caetera, et caetera...
Therefore, the solution may be (i) to propose a strict definition of the Holocaust ("primarily it was an attempt to completely exterminate European Jewry") and (ii) to explain that the Holocaust was neither the only, nor the greatest WWII genocide.
The "(ii)" is needed for two reasons: because it is true, and because it will allow us to avoid inflation of the list of the Holocaust's victims.
I agree with Paul B that the phrase about killed Chinese is irrelevant to the Siege of Leningrad article. Nevertheless, it may be relevant here, because many, probably majority Western people think that the Holocaust was the major, if not the sole WWII genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointer-Scholars of the Holocaust refrain from mentioning WW2 casualties because it trivializes the Holocaust. Prior to 1979 the Holocaust referred only to the genocide of 6 million Jews. Jimmy Carter in 1979 under political pressure included another 5 million victims, without naming the groups. Currently the academic community, which is all knowing and infallible, defines these other groups as Roma, Poles, Soviet POW, the disabled and homosexuals.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10w, could you please explain me in few words, what is, to your opinion, trivialization of the Holocaust?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of non-Jews--Woogie10w (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class European history articles
• Unknown-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• B-Class Germany articles
• Top-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• Top-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class Discrimination articles
• Top-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• B-Class New Zealand articles
• Top-importance New Zealand articles
• WikiProject New Zealand articles