Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SebastianHelm (talk | contribs) at 17:52, 25 February 2005 (→"Concentration" or "Extermination" Nazi Camps?: Were communists and homosexuals not sent there?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Meaning of Vernichtung

I'm no expert on German language, but so much have I learned, that I believe the following sentence is quite unluckily worded:

The German term Vernichtung (literally meaning "elimination") is a euphemism for killing; hence these camps are also known as death camps.

Vernichtung is hardly an euphemism, and literally I would think that it rather means "making into nothing" or "...into dust" or something similar.

I have no other particular interests in this article. It's on my watchlist, although I don't remember why any more, and that's how I came to notice the last change. /Tuomas 01:21, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It literally means "making into nothing" (nicht). Any term used to refer to killing other that "killing" is a euphemism. Adam 04:15, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is not. Extermination is a purpose, killing is a means. Mikkalai 04:34, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, I would strongly discourage to treat German compound words "literally". For example, "Hochzeit" is literally "High time". Many think it is not. :-) Mikkalai 04:40, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I would strongly discourage you from editing articles on points of English usage when your English is not adequate for the task. Adam 01:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. But could you be more specific in this case? If you are referring to the "euphemism" issue, it is not language-related. Mikkalai 03:40, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The German term Vernichtung (literally meaning "elimination") is a euphemism for killing; hence these camps are also known as death camps.

First, vernichtung is "extermination", not "elimination", hence second explanation is spurios.

Second, it is euphemism only in your brain: Nazis called them exactly according to the purpose: extermination of jews. Killing is a too wide term. One may kill for food (Do we call "hunting" euphemism for "killing"?). One may kill to punish (Is "capital punishment" euphemism for killing?). But Nazis were killing them to exterminate no euphemis, no need to look for any other word play. You are not writing a poem or a pun here.

Third, there is no logic: the conjunction "hense" would be valid if the camps were named "kiling camps". For the previous edits I apologize. I was't thinking much. Mikkalai 18:17, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Concentration" or "Extermination" Nazi Camps?

Moved here from Misplaced Pages:Village Pump

Misplaced Pages has an article on the Auschwitz concentration camp and one on Treblinka extermination camp. There are is also a Category:Nazi concentration camps and a Category:Nazi extermination camps. The term "concentration camp", when referring to Nazi camps of the WWII, was originally a lie used to mislead the Holocaust victims, who were unaware of the regime's true intentions. Nowadays, it still serves as an euphemism. IMHO, extermination or death camp is the right word here. I strongly suggest that these articles should be renamed, and their categories merged into one, and that for the sake of historical awareness. -- Etz Haim 04:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suggest you to read carefully the articles, for the sake of historical awareness. There were concentration, extermination, labor, training, and many other Nazi camps all over Europe. With German bureaucracy they were classified as such. Of course, we can rightfully claim that labor camps actually exterminated the laborers, but their purpose was still labor, see, e.g., Mittelbau-Dora. I also suggest you to read Auschwitz concentration camp. Actually, it was a camp complex that consisted of concentration and extermination camps.

Also, I would suggest you to carry discussions on well-defined topics at the talk pages of the corresponding articles. Willage pump is for general-purpose discussions, not immediately related to specific articles. Mikkalai 04:24, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Also*, we have a policy that you are supposed to pick the most common english names - in this case, "concentration camp" is by far the most common. So your suggestion goes against policy, and will probably be shot down on that account. →Raul654 04:34, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

The reason I posted this here is because this problem (from my POV) spans several articles and categories. And just to be fair and prevent possible misunderstandings, I'm not suggesting that everyone who is using the word "concentration camps" has ill intentions; on the contrary, many decent people use this unintentionally. Honestly, I value the victims' fates and the survivors' memories of these installations more than how the Nazi regime described them in their paperwork. I'm suggesting extermination camps on basis of these facilities' aftermath, not the Reich's alleged purposes of them. Regards. Etz Haim 04:50, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article can set people straight for historical awareness, in case anyone has any doubt about what went on in these horrid places. However, most people call most of them concentration camps and look for references to them as such and will search for them as such; hence articles should be named as they are commonly called. This is not "unintentional"--that's what they're called. Second most common in my (limited) experience would be "death camp". Misplaced Pages's article titles are not the place to attempt to change the world's vocabulary. (And, incidentally, I suspect that most people automatically connect the phrase "Nazi concentration camp" with "genocide", so it's not like anyone's being misled by the terms. And for those people who stubbornly refuse to admit that the Nazis ever killed anyone--well, changing the article titles won't make a difference there, either.) Elf | Talk 05:32, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We should certainly have appropriate forwards from "concentration camp" and (if we stick with "extermination camp" for the title) "death camp". I do agree that "death camp" is more common in English than "extermination camp", and it's just a matter of translation (neither is "more correct" than the other), but I do believe it is important to distinguish the death camps from other concentration camps. The U.S. put Japanese Americans in what were essentially concentration camps, but had no death camps. The distinction is very important. -- Jmabel 21:58, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the article Auschwitz concentration camp should be renamed. Adam 01:31, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maintaining a NPOV becomes extremely difficult in such topics. As someone has said, history is written by the winners. We should not use POV terms that sugar coat the WWII U.S. Japanese internment camps, whatever they were called, or POV terms that denigrate the Nazi camps. Rather the titles should be as NPOV as possible and try to reflect common present, but within a NPOV, or better still, original usage. The facts should then be stated in the articles with any contention discussed. This is how I read the NPOV policy. If a camp was set up for the purpose of extermination (SOED definitions include "Total extirpation, total destruction" and this looks like a good translation of Vernichtungslager) then that should be the title. "Death Camp" is too simplistic as there was an entire "production line" mentality from arrival to cremation with anything of worth collected and recycled. It is also, by its simplicity, POV. If the term "Death Camp" is used (as it is in this article) then it would be helpful to say who uses this term and how it developed.

My understanding of the Nazi view of the "Jewish Problem" was that it was relatively unemotional and seen in much the same light as managing any public service or utility. For them it was a task that required attention and to which they applied "good old German efficiency". I believe this came out in the Nuremberg trials.

Having written all the above, it seems to me that this article is a bit thin on detail of what happened in the camps. One reference is given for a complex subject and the terms "war crime" or "crime" are not mentioned! This then led me to read a bit in Misplaced Pages on Nazi Germany and then Racial policy of Nazi Germany. These articles seem POV in that there is no explanation for WHY the Nuremberg Laws were enacted other than:

Jews had been disliked for years before, and the Nazi Party used this anger to gain votes. The blame for poverty, unemployment, and the loss of World War I were all placed on the Jews. In 1933, persecution of the Jews became active Nazi policy, but laws were not as rigorously obeyed and were not as devastating as in later years.

There is no mention for instance of common German concerns about the numbers of Jews in key professions such as the law and in cultural fields. Such omissions are either ignorant or POV.

I am no expert in these areas, I am neither Jewish nor German. My exhortation is to let the facts speak for themselves and try to avoid a partisan view of the issue. Let us make things understandable. If we take a simplistic view of the past (e.g. the Nazis were evil and that's why they did it) then we will be less likely to notice creeping changes that lead in the same direction. For instance, it has been argued that some of the rhetoric in the "War on Terrorism" has similarities to that used in Nazi Germany but without an understanding of the background we will not know. --CloudSurfer 03:04, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aren't extermination camps concentration camps? Were communists and homosexuals not sent there?

I'm wondering about the sentence "Extermination camps should be distinguished from concentration camps (such as Dachau and Belsen)". My understanding was that extermination camps were specialized concentration camps. Maybe inserting the word "other" after "from" can help. But my concern goes further. This whole long sentence describes what extermination camps are supposedly not. It sounds as if communists and homosexuals were not put in extermination camps. If this is a historic fact, then it should be mentioned explicitly. If not, it should be purged.
Sebastian 17:52, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

Amos Oz quote

There is a passage in David Remnick's "The Spirit Level", a recent New Yorkerarticle about Amos Oz (November 8, 2004, 82-95) that may be of some interest here; it's only anecdotal though, so I doubt it would be appropriate to cite in the article. Oz is trying to express how hard it was for anyone to believe the stories of death camps while they were happening. He is quoted talking about a witness at the Eichmann trial who, against the usual pattern, went from Ravensbrück to Auschwitz to Theresienstadt. Oz talks about how in Theresienstadt her stories about Auschwitz were not believed. Oz ends the story, "So: how could people in Jerusalem or New York believe something that even the inmates of Theresienstadt refused to believe? Knowing is one thing. Believing another. Understanding another." -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous contribution

User:67.170.131.107 keeps adding the following material after the first paragraph:

the DEATH CAMPS. Also know as Extermination camps from the Nazi’s. They were just as horrible as the concentration camps. A death camp is where the prisoners are to die or be killed. When the babies, children, adult or elderly got there they were sometimes shot, worked until they dies, or they would starve and than be shot. Sometimes they would just starve to death. Most Jews were killed through being worked to death. Death camps were designed especially for mass murdering. Death camps were known as death camps because there were a lot of deaths. the dreaded and horrific CONCOTRATION CAMP’S. At the beginning of the concentration camps, they were used just to hold Political prisoners, criminals and security risks. Now they are also used for Jewish people and Polish. A concentration camp is where the civilians who were against Hitler, political prisoners and of course prisoners of war are detained and confined under harsh conditions. The people that were there were starved, shot, beaten, caught sicknesses, or they were worked to death. Some concentration camps were built out in the middle of the forest’s where nobody knew about them. The Nazi’s would leave them there and let them starve. The acted the same to the children, babies, adults and elderly. They didn’t have sympathy for the young or old or anything in between.

I have removed this because it basically duplicates the information that is already present in the article. -Aranel ("Sarah") 02:03, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)