![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Does anyone disagree that this page should be merged with Extermination camps in the Holocaust? AdamBiswanger1 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My request for documentation was reverted by HanzoHattori who does not seem to grasp the need for and requirement for documentation. The above two requests for documentation is reinstated and I ask this new and apparently inexperienced user to please avoid labeling colleagues as "trolls" or "vandals" as this is both off-putting and can quickly lead to troubles.
I will restate what is needed: Documentation of what transpired at the camps under Soviet control and buttressing of the claims of mass fatalities. These are not trivial claims and can not be included in any encyclopedia without documentation. Please refer to credible websites, journals or books that originally provide this information.
I ask also that HanzoHattori respond on this Talk page to concerns before arbitrarily deleting requests for documentation.
Thank you. Skywriter 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The subsection titled: Use of Nazi German concentration camp facilities after the war lacks documentation. Will someone fill in the cites? Skywriter 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
HanzoHattori responded to this request for documentation by inappropriately labeling the request "vandalism" and, surprisingly enough, reverting the request to an earlier version that lacks documentation.
The request for documentation and proper citation stands. Thank you. Skywriter 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Whole article lacks documentation, not this. What's your problem, you don't belive it? Why? -- HanzoHattori 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Appearently for the former SS and their families (30,000 at Dachau). [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorpio-88 ( talk • contribs) 12:27, September 24, 2006
Thanks, Skorpio. The link is helpful.
Skywriter
17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not have the information ready to write a piece, but why is there no mention of the concentration camps that were set up in North Africa? There was a book written about this last year, there was at least one in Tunisia. The author of the book pointed, as a sidenote, to the reference in Casablanca to the concentration camps in Africa. 71.203.169.248 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that the picture of what purports to be "concentration camp" money was actually issued or valid at concentration camps. The large-scale picture is clearly legible and the money is self-identified as POW (kreigsgefangener) money, intended for use at POW camps and issued by the Wehrmacht, instead of the SS. COuld it be that the same currency was used at both, or is the poster of the picture mistaken?
Pat Payne
22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone add more info on the extended use of many concentration camps by the Soviets after the war? To my knowledge, the deadly regimes of the camps continued for some time, only with German victims and a different totalitarian system in charge. Something like 2 million Germans were murdered in the 18 months following may 1945, and the now-Soviet run concentration camps played their part in this relatively unknown piece of genocide.
This can be found in the text: "The Nazis were the only political party in Germany with paramilitary organizations at its disposal, the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Sturmabteilung (SA), both of which perpetrated surprise attacks on the offices and members of other parties throughout the 1920s."
and is not correct. The SA was not the only paramilitary organization (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund - Rotfrontkämpferbund) - also note that the SS was very small in the 1920 and got only important after 1934. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.234.57 ( talk) 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What is "14f3"? It is under "Camps during the War". If it is not needed, then somebody please remove/delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.163.155 ( talk) 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is also information about the camps which could be valuable: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/ccfacts.html I don't know if nowaday's mainstream view is correct, the view expressed in the mentioned link, or a mix of both views. Nowowiejski ( talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I can not find any articles about specific prisons (Gefängnise) and penitentiaries (Zuchthäuse) in Nazi Germany. Though not at the scale of the camps, there were also brutal and also the site of numerous executions, typically by decapitation, hanging, or shooting. Before I start an introductory article, let me know if it's redundant with something else. -- Leifern ( talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any info concerning "youth concentration camps" meaning concecntration camps where youths were interned and killed. See [ [2]] Johnny2323 ( talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
File:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png Isn't that map better for the job? Also the French Wikipedia is working on an updated SVG of that map in French which can then be translated into English as needed fr:Wikipédia:Atelier_graphique/Cartes#Camps_de_concentration_nazis. gren グレン 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
List of Nazi-German concentration camps has camps labeled as: prisoner and Nacht und Nebel(which may be hostage camps). Internment camp, Collective point and subcamp are also mentioned in the List of Nazi-German concentration camps. It might be good if the two articles listed the same types of camps. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware UNESCO only use "German Nazi" to describe a camp which was in Germany for its entire operational life. However, it may be that a self-proclaimed doctor knows better. I find it ironic that a particular editor insists that the official name of a single Nazi camp should be used for an article about all Nazi camps but he also insists that the official name of a particular event should not be used for the article about that event (details here [3]). Varsovian ( talk) 14:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
...Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps claims Varsovian. How many of more than 20 millon ethnic Poles? A dozen of Polish prizoners transported to Kulm by Germans? Were they obliged to run away through annexed Wartheland without money and documents? Xx236 ( talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is important to be clear that Nazi concentration camps, where victims of the master race had died in millions, were set up and financed by the Nazi German State. This fact should not be manipulated.-- 24.182.186.67 ( talk) 06:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the word Nazi commonly imply Germany, just as Khmer Rouge implies Cambodia?
Nazi redirects to
Nazism, which begins with:
If it can be assumed (I would so) that the well-educated English-speaking reader knows that the Nazis have been a German political movement, you can omit the word "German".
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Renaming to "Nazi-German concentration camps" would make it appear as if articles on "Nazi-Polish concentration camps", "Nazi-Croatian concentration camps" etc. could be found somewhere on Wikipedia. Cs32en 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nazi concentration camps →
Nazi-German concentration camps — Per the opening line. The proper naming of the Nazi-German (rather than Nazi) concentration camps – in terms of their numbers, built mostly in occupied Poland during
WWII – was already explained by various international bodies including
UNESCO,
Yad Vashem,
Institute of National Remembrance and two different governments. Please see the reasons given by UNESCO for renaming
Auschwitz into "Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)" featured in the
"Polish death camp" controversy article (the last two paragraphs). It is to discourage the intentional (or accidental) misuse of the term Nazi. —
Poeticbent
talk
17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Please compare the number of hits for "Nazi concentration camps" and the number of hits for "Nazi-German concentration camps" on the Google news archive. I'm quite sure that a closer look at the sources, weighing each source's reliability, reach and notability, will not lead to a fundamentally different result. Cs32en 22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Loosmark 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This is the first time I have come across the peculiar term "Nazi-German" even if a few bodies use it. "Nazi concentration camps" is probably the most common term, we should stick to it. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
German should be added to all the above categories as per UNESCO that adopted the new name for Auschwitz to capture the historical truth and the fact that these places refer to the Nazi regime in Germany. The new names would also have an educational role for the younger generation of readers.-- Mamalala 06:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If the proposed move (i.e. to Nazi-German concentration camps) is accepted, we'll need to remove the link to Jasenovac concentration camp and remove that camp from the article about extermination camps (as that too will be renamed Nazi-German extermination camps). That camp was not German run. We'll also have to remove mentions of Stara Gradiška concentration camp and Sisak children's concentration camp, among others. I for one find this prospect less than appealing. Any other thoughts from anybody? Varsovian ( talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this discussion was all moot anyway: the proposed move failing to pass has nicely solved the problems raised in this discussion. Varsovian ( talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I find it this bit confusing.
Could another editor rewrite it? I suggest concentration camps are explained then extermination camps rather than have extermination in the middle e.g.
Second can I suggest the following is removed?
This article is about concentration camps and inside the article the extermination camps are listed. Having it twice seems unnecessary Jniech ( talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The current version states “which were camps established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination of the Jews of Europe” hence I will simply trying to make it clearer. How about
Again Gypsies is the current wording in the article hence my usage. Provided others support your wording, I have no problem with it. Below is another version for consideration. Does anyone know where the disabled were murdered? My impression is it wasn't in the camps but willing to be told I am wrong. I will step out for now to see what other editors think. Personally the current wording is confusing hence my hope someone will come up with a better version.
Article is in order as it is. Amendments proposed by Varsovian are completely not needed.-- 24.182.186.67 ( talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The Auschwitz camp combined several types of camps, it wasn't an extermination camp only.
From
Majdanek: Although conceived as a forced labor camp and not as an extermination camp ...
Xx236 (
talk)
13:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm all against the proposed change. I don't like it when wiki uses the Nazi racial theories in its' articles and decides who is a Jew, who is a homosexual or who is a Pole. From Polish point of view Poland lost ca. 6 million Poles in concentration camps of all types. It were the Nazis to brand them as Jews, politically-dangerous elements, Gypsies, homosexuals and whatever else category they had. From Polish perspective they were just Poles, regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, sexual or political preference. Besides, even in Nazi terms Jews were not the only victims of the extermination camps (even if we limit their number to three or four "factories of death", as someone called them). // Halibu tt 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't make sense of this sentence (I included the second sentence in the paragraph for context):
First, it says "six largest groups", then only lists two groups in that sentence. Also the phrasing "groups containing prisoners in the camps" is not processing for me... I can generally tell what it means but it seems very garbled. Can anyone help here? I am not an expert on this subject and don't really know how the sentence should be worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 ( talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is quite neutral, only description of Labour camps says: "under inhumane conditions and cruel treatment". At the same time Expulsion of Germans after World War II informs about "sadistic practices" after the war. If "sadistic practices" is a correct description, the words should be used here and in many similar articles, if not - they should be removed from the other article. Xx236 ( talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Without knowing anything about it, a visual look supports the front two are Jewish and I suspect the first one behind them. The rest there is no way to know. I suggest the wording should be “Roll-call of Jewish prisoners and possible non-Jewish, 20 July 1938”. Jniech ( talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) The original description says "vermutlich" - "probably". Xx236 ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The article’s intro, where it mentions groups targeted by the Nazis for internment, is not discussing absolute or even relative numbers; the Jehovah’s Witnesses were targeted for internment as a group—as evidenced by the Nazis’ marking them as a specific group inside the camps (they got the green violet triangles, didn’t they?).
In contrast, protestants and Catholic priests who were interned were done so not because of they were protestants or priests, but because the Nazis considered them undesirables for other reasons.
That the Jehovah’s Witnesses were targeted is clear from numerous sources, so there’s no reason for this to be repeatedly deleted—and even less reason for the abusive and uncivil remarks, whether directed at other editors or the JWs themselves.
Jim_Lockhart
14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In May 1933 the Gestapo searched the house of Ewald Vorsteher, who had been disfellowshipped from the society in the 1920s for refusing to accept the new leadership following the crisis sparked by Pastor Russell's death in 1917. The writings found in his home were highly critical of Hitler's regime, and were used as a basis for condemning the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Society reacted by strongly rejecting Ewald Vorsteher and his opinions.
Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to serve in military organizations, citing the principle they call Christian Neutrality. They understand Jesus' words , "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world," to mean that they should take a neutral stand concerning political and military controversies.[62]
I understand what you’re saying, but none of it changes the history that the Nazis had a policy of interning JWs (Bibelforscher) for no other reason than that they were JWs. They were not interned because of their individual, personal beliefs (i.e., directly because of their refusal to serve in the military); but rather because they were members of a specific group that the Nazis had identified as an enemy. That’s why they got thrown into concentration camps and were assigned a specific identifying mark (the violet triangles: see
Nazi concentration camp badges#Table of camp inmate markings). The point about mentioning them here was neither their numbers, nor why they were interned; it is that they were targeted as a group for internment, just as were the other groups specifically mentioned.
As I wrote above, protestants and Catholics (clergy or lay) who were interned, were interned as political and other similarly classified prisoners, not because of their being members of a specific, targeted groups (i.e., because of their being protestants or Catholics); JWs, in contrast, were interned because they were JWs, regardless of their personal political or other beliefs or actions. The number of JW deaths, or even whether they were executed, is irrelevant here (further, the article is not claiming that they were sent to extermination camps nor that they were killed in great numbers—though it might be more relevant to cite what proportion of JWs were killed as opposed to the absolute number: there is no argument about whether they were a small minority). Best regards,
Jim_Lockhart
16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: if what you’re so worked about about is “Large numbers ... of Jehova’s Witnesses”, couldn’t this be easily resolved by changing “Large numbers” to “Varying numbers”? You certainly are correct in objecting to “large numbers” also modifying JWs if their numbers were so relatively small to those of other groups! Jim_Lockhart 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Your final point, about “large numbers”, is certainly valid; but the rest of your arguments are specious at best. The Jehovah’s Witness’s organization was banned by the Nazis as early as 1933 and they were hated initially because of their alleged connections to the Jews and subversive political movements:
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses#In Nazi Germany (1933-1945). The Confessing Church was not outlawed in this way, and its persecuted members were not persecuted because of their affiliation with the church, but because of their personal political activism. I stand by may arguments about why JWs were persecuted by the Nazis, and by my argument that they are worthy of mention (albeit perhaps without the “large numbers” qualification, and certainly at the end of the enumeration and not in a separate sentence, which would give them too much prominence), and that such mention is historically accurate and accepted by mainstream historians.
On another matter, and although I have no desire to be seen as defending JWs per se, it is factually and sematically inaccurate to describe JWs as “draft dodgers” or “draft resistors”, since these are negatively loaded terms that ignore JWs’ theological justification for their being
conscientious objectors.
I strongly suggest you find a way to work mention of the JWs into the introduction as one of the groups singled out by the Nazis for persecution and internment in KZs. How you do it, with all the numbers and such, is up to you; but in the interests of Wikipedia’s credibility, I suggest you do it, since you seem unwilling to allow anyone else to. Best regards,
Jim_Lockhart
23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that Jehovah's Witnesses should be included as a distinctive group targeted by the Nazis. They should not be described using the term "draft dodger" as this insinuates cowardice and cast them in a negative light. According to Jesus words there is no greater love then to give ones life in behalf of ones friends. Most Witnesses would gladly give their lives so that others may live. They will not however take a human life to support a worldly government siting "We must obey God rather then men." Acts 5:29 Jehovah's Witnesses have made a commitment to take a neutral stance in political matters. By simply denouncing their faith and pledging allegiance to Hitler they could have been released from imprisonment, the vast majority of Witnesses refused and remained captive. It would also be against this neutrality to, as a group, openly scathe, or actively resist any ruling government up to the point of matters where the government's law or actions conflict with God's laws. Witness respect the authorities in their relative positions of power but these authorities are not above God's authority.
As far as numbers are concerned they are relative to the number of Witnesses living in Nazi Germany to those imprisoned or killed in concentration camps. The fact that Witnesses would do their best to not resist and obey their captors up to the point that an order given to the Witnesses conflicted with God's laws may have helped save many of their lives as the guards knew they would not resist or try to escape. Because of this many captive Witnesses where chosen of special work assignments such as housekeeper for German officers.
This is in no way meant to diminish the atrocities inflicted on the Jews or any other group. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do not condone the horrors inflicted by the Nazis or any others upon fellow human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfxcasey ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} There is no mention of Jehovah's Witnesses included in the victims list. I feel they should be noted as a group to honor the memory of those who lost their lives. Most all holocaust museums list Jehovah's Witnesses as victims so I think it would be appropriate here as well. Thanks.
Rfxcasey ( talk) 21:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Commonly, the term 'Polish concentration camps' is used, though the responsibility for that is Nazi German. Please, find several links attached:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Poland_controversy http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/27/us-auschwitz-name-idUSL2776311720070627 http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TAD5JTSSBQGU9D4I8
I understand that for you it is clear that Nazi Germans were responsible for Holocaust, but some people do not know European history that well, especially those from outside the continent. This is not because of their ignorance, but rather distance to Europe or the focus of their education systems on other fields of knowledge than history. Also, believe me or not, holocaust is being denied: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4
From the year 2007, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the biggest concentration camp's name is as following: 'Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp'. This is stated by the United Nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31
Do you agree the change from 'Concentration camps' into 'Nazi-German concentration camps' or 'German Nazi concentration camps' is a need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is this entry necessary in addition to List of concentration camps for Poles? Moncrief, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The whole list was copied over from the Polish law. I think the list was created by some historians working for Polish government, to verify retirenment rights of former prisoners. Somebody can claim, i.e. that he was imprisoned in concentration camp Washington DC, but then he can be verified by the list of actually existing camps. Logically derived conclusion says, the list should include all existing camps. Cautious 08:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No objections on Mark's move of this particular page, but I have to notice that is is done formally, without putting the content into accordance with the tille, leaving a possibility for a next best wikipedian to come, read the article, and move it somewhere else. Mikkalai 19:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)? who?
Commonly, the term 'Polish concentration camps' is used, though the responsibility for that is Nazi German. Please, find several links attached:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Poland_controversy http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/27/us-auschwitz-name-idUSL2776311720070627 http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TAD5JTSSBQGU9D4I8
I understand that for you it is clear that Nazi Germans were responsible for Holocaust, but some people do not know European history that well, especially those from outside the continent. This is not because of their ignorance, but rather distance to Europe or the focus of their education systems on other fields of knowledge than history. Also, believe me or not, holocaust is being denied: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4
From the year 2007, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the biggest concentration camp's name is as following: 'Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp'. This is stated by the United Nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31
Do you agree the change from 'Concentration camps' into 'Nazi-German concentration camps' or 'German Nazi concentration camps' is a need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding proposed title change see WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SNOW. Google Scholar searches for
Would you like to continue your argument, Rivertorch? I'm afraid that 'no' is not enough. I aappreciate Google, but I do not think it is established enough to decide about an article's title. I would stick to UN, actual names of camps and specific terminology.
To argue more: Nazi camps - 90 k http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nazi+concentration+camps#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22nazi+camps%22&aq=o&aqi=g-c5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e32ce17df88e0213 German camps - 75 k http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nazi+concentration+camps#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22german+camps%22&aq=f&aqi=g-c5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e32ce17df88e0213 Nazi German camps
Common sense is important, but it must not prevail reason. -- Rejedef ( talk) 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand it. This is true until 2007. Facing confusion of historical facts, the United Nations agreed to convey new, more precise term. This is understood by scholars from HArvard University: http://books.google.com/books?id=-QMMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22german+nazi+concentration+camps%22&dq=%22german+nazi+concentration+camps%22&hl=en&ei=aR6sTZjML8qr8APT7-W4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA and those editing Merriam-Webster Encyclopaedia: http://books.google.com/books?id=V2d12iZkgOwC&pg=PA244&dq=%22german+nazi+concentration+camps%22&hl=en&ei=aR6sTZjML8qr8APT7-W4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22german%20nazi%20concentration%20camps%22&f=false -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nazi-German relates to the PART of the German society which belonged to the party ruling, supported or led Nazi Germany (or 3rd Reich). Nazi Germans doesn't mean Germans. It means actually NAzi German as a relation to the name of the state: Nazi Germany. Nazi standing itself is confusing see: 'Polish camps' controversy -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh god. What else Nazis ever were? -- HanzoHattori 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And what else "Nazi" state ever was? It's like "stinky stink". -- HanzoHattori 08:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just check the google hits: 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps". 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What's the death toll of Nazi concentration camps? This should be mentioned in lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I find that there is no information about the "history" of the discovery of existence of the nazi concentration camps and their real purpose by the allies. AFAIK, there were even some of the camps that were visited by the Red Cross. - João Jerónimo ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that whipping is not discussed much in the article, yet I'm fairly certain that it was an incessant practice. Hoops gza ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a bit shocking to see missing in the File:Majorcampseurope.gif the Jasenovac concentration camp which was from far the most deadly and brutal camp in former Yugoslavia and entire South Eastern Europe. Everyone can check its importance at the List of Nazi concentration camps. An IP already asked about it at file´s talk page, but seems that here is the proper place. Regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we please remove homosexuals from the list of victims. It is true that there were homosexuals in the camps, but they were not there just because they were homosexual, and most homosexuals in Nazi Germany never saw the inside of a prison much less a camp. Many were high ranking nazis. They were as much victims as men standing 5'6.73324" tall. Yes there were men 5'6.73324" tall in the concentration camps. Yes this fact was recorded by camp personel. But there were plenty of men 5'6.73324" tall outside the camp or even acting as guards. 88.155.171.247 08:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is nonsense, a vile little piece of holocaust denial in its own right. Homosexuals were targeted as a group, like the other group victims of the Nazis, and thus deserve a mention.
--Homosexuality, by the time Hitler (a conservative Christian candidate) was elected, was at the point of being decriminalized, and same-sex marraige was in the works. Hitler was elected on his platform of bringing back the death penalty for homosexuals and abolishing the seperation of church and state. At the time Hitler was elected there were 1,500,000 gay men in Berlin compared to 500,000 Jews in the entire country. Jews suffered a 60 +/- % mortality rate compared with 90+ % for homosexual prisioners. The major role of homosexuals is downplayed because while contemporary Evangelicals and Protestants can no longer justify anti-sematism (as the post war formation of Isreal "confirms" Biblical prophecy) they can easily justify the persection of "immoral" homosexuals. Most Christians believe that a majority Christian country simply "experimented" a little "paganism and socialism" all of the sudden for over a decade and ignore the anti-semetic teachings of Martin Luther, the treatment of Jews during the HRE, and the fact that those targeted by Evangelical NAZIs are those who can be characterized as sinners and people who God didn't love (mentally disabled, different ethncity) and should be punished for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.186.254 ( talk) 19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Nazi concentration camps → Nazi-German concentration camps — Per the opening line. The proper naming of the Nazi-German (rather than Nazi) concentration camps – in terms of their numbers, built mostly in occupied Poland during WWII – was already explained by various international bodies including UNESCO, Yad Vashem, Institute of National Remembrance and two different governments. Please see the reasons given by UNESCO for renaming Auschwitz into "Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)" featured in the "Polish death camp" controversy article (the last two paragraphs). It is to discourage the intentional (or accidental) misuse of the term Nazi. (Rationale as used by User:Poeticbent on 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC), reused by -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
STRONG SUPPORT I find it hilarious that we don't follow new, clearer definitions used by established institutions (I know some people might not like them, but they are authority and they are organisations of PEOPLE, usually supporting their views). I suggest to stick to: United Nations, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz Concentration Camp. If they use the Term: Former Nazi German, we should stick to that, because actually it's a very good term. I believe this is very good way of putting things into words. It shows that: -it is former, so it is no more, -it is Nazi-German, so it's related to the country called Nazi Germany.
Also, it shows that it is not German, but it goes specific: Nazi German to underline it was German Nazis who run concentration camps, not all Germans.
Also, the term prevents from confusing history. -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
To me it is absolutely clear but overseas it is not that clear. Facing accuse of Poland and anti-Polish sentiment, the difference is NOT minimal. The responsibility for Holocaust is Nazi-German. Please not Polish concentration. The Nazi-German occurs more often, because it's an abbreviation, usually in articles where Nazi German was used at some point. Nazi German suggests that the responsibility isn't Polish but Nazi-German. People who didn't study much history may come to the conclusion that if concentration camps are in the territory of Poland, they were build by the Polish State. Of course Nazi is an unclear term because it relates to an ideology, rather than a state which paid for their construction, Nazi Germany. The term is new, therefore academic papers still may contain terminology freely chosen by the authors. Please note that many of them call concentration camps German, while responsibility is Nazi-German, actually. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and subscribe to the idea that the change is needed. Just check the google hits: 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps". 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps" -- Rejedef ( talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. We are just to make an encyclopaedia up-to-date, therefore we should follow new term 'Nazi-German'. The argument is about that. I want to challenge that consensus because I think too many people want to change it (please see the previous move request).
I understand that google hits are not compelling at all but this is the argument of those who are opposing changes.
I support them, because it's the name used by the United nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1306 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31 Even Britannica underlines Nazi German in its article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/198928/extermination-camp The name nazi German is used by several concentration camps, including the most important one, Auschwith-Birkenau: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=436&Itemid=19 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4863026.stm I hope it is enough for your satisfaction. you can subscribe to my argument, if you like. -- Rejedef ( talk) 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/medien/433050/Polnisches-KZ_Polen-will-Zeitung-Die-Welt-klagen -- Rejedef ( talk) 03:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Could we move the article to Nazi German concentration camps? -- Rejedef ( talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the page due to extensive vandalism - almost every edit for the past month has been vandalism or a reversion. If anyone does need to edit the page and can't, please either leave a comment here including the text:
which will alert an admin to take a look, or let me know on my talk page. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Does the "Glossary of terms used at Auschwitz" really belong to this article ? -- Lysy talk 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/world/europe/poland-bristles-as-obama-says-polish-death-camps.html-- 80.28.119.254 ( talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I am assuming that those of you who regularly edit Holocaust related articles are actually familiar with this recent study, summarized by the New York Times here. And from my understanding of what this particular article is discussing, it's possible that the study won't pertain to this page specifically. But since this is way, way, way outside my wheelhouse around wikipedia and my cursory layman's glances at obviously related articles didn't show evidence that the information had been included yet, I thought I'd drop it here for you guys to work with or take to other pages in your related projects, as appropriate. Cheers. I hope it's helpful. Millahnna ( talk) 00:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Concentration camps in the second para of the intro redirects to... this article. Why? Concentration camps are a broader concept: this article is about one type of them. This BBC article tells how they were invented in Cuba by the Spanish, used by the US in the Phillipines, before being made famous by the Brits in South Africa during the Boer War (usually this latter war is mentioned when blame is apportioned for their invention). So, with such a history of development, why does "concentration camp" redirect here? Malick78 ( talk) 18:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sensing a general feeling of anti-nazi views in this article. Please do your best to get this fixed.
It's hard to make information sound neutral when the facts are not only so horrifying, but have been proven. You won't find any reputible source that doesn't sound anti-Nazi, and for good reason. The article stays the way it is.
Why are the Japanese camps in Canada and America not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.225.90 ( talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article misspells an ethnical group name, it is not Romani, but Rromani. Popescu.a.adrian ( talk) 21:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User Scholar792 ( talk · contribs · count) (today's 4 edits, total) is and SPA created to promote a brand new website http://www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/ teaching and learning resource based on text by Nikolaus Wachsmann, Professor in history at London University’s Birkbeck College, author of recently published KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps (2015, 865 pages). [6] — Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University (paid per view, at Wall Street Journal) describes Wachsmann as a 'revisionist' from "the best of the German and the British schools of grand World War II history." [7] Please keep an eye on it. — Thomas Laqueur wrote that "Wachsmann estimates there were 560 [satelite camps ... meanwhile]; a survey in 1990 based on an earlier report by the Allies has a much higher figure and runs to nearly 700 pages of small type." [8] The numbers don't add up. — Professor Ferenc Laczó of Maastricht University writes that "while pointing to institutional and organizational connections between the KL system and the three Globocnik death camps, Wachsmann discusses the latter sites only briefly ... some of KL’s emphases may also be debatable" such as the insistence on their uniqueness. [9] Poeticbent talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Site moved because of below discussion. Segatt ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps someone familiar with German or the subject at hand could explain. This page and the German version of the article abbreviate Konzentrationslager as KZ, but I've seen many contemporary sources refer to the system as KL (Konzentrationslager). The Inspektion der Konzentrationslager is referred to as the IKL, and many camps were known by their KL designation (e.g. KL Lublin). Nikolaus Wachsmann's new book is called KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps. Why the use of KZ here? Mahhon ( talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Breslau-Dürrgoy concentration camp and probably other small camps were founded before Dachau KZ. Xx236 ( talk) 06:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Nazi concentration camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nazi concentration camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, is this article about German concentration camps during the WW2? Not clear. It mentiones only some Nazis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.49.4.35 ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The entire first paragraph under the heading of "Pre-war camps" is not sourced. The absence of a citation for the alleged use of the term by Valeriano Weyler is especially noticeable. In addition, referring to "concentration camps" during the U.S.-Indian Wars is an historically inappropriate anachronism. NicholasNotabene ( talk) 07:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I undid the recent revert, as changes have been sufficiently explained in edit summaries. For example, this section was correctly removed: [10]. Much of this content was confusing or incorrect, i.e. extermination camps were not concentration camps as was claimed by the earlier version of the article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition [to the Nazi concentration camps described in Volume 1], over the course of their 12 years in power, the Nazis would establish a bewildering array of other persecution sites: killing centers, ghettos, forced labor camps, prisoner- of- war (POW) camps, resettlement camps, “euthanasia” centers, brothels, and prisons, among others. Not just the SS, but also the military, private industry, and several governmental and quasigovernmental agencies would run their own camp systems. Germany’s allies, satellites, and collaborationist states, from France to Romania and Norway to Italy, would add still more.
— E. C. & G., p. xxv
Current header image is unsatisfactorary due to low resolution, being difficult to identify what the picture shows, and showing a scene that is highly atypical of the camps' 12 years of operation. An ideal photograph, in my opinion, would show some common aspect of the camps' daily existence, be immediately recognizable, and be reasonably high quality. I've placed some suggestions at right in case anyone cares to weigh in. b uidh e 09:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I put an example below but I am not in favor of it. At lower size it's hard to tell what's going on in the images, so I think it would be better to pick one image for the infobox, then show other aspects in the article. b uidh e 03:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Durchgangslager. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Durchgangslager until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
10:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Transitcamp. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Transitcamp until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
04:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Übergangslager. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Übergangslager until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
04:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
List of Nazi camps that detained Poles. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#List of Nazi camps that detained Poles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
04:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Nazi slave labor camp. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Nazi slave labor camp until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
05:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
WWII concentration camps. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#WWII concentration camps until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Konzlager. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Konzlager until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
05:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is not a "phenomenon", it is a propaganda campaign by those who seek another opportunity to commit genocide. Describing it as a phenomenon denies that it is a willful act (which incidentally is recognized as a criminal act in many European countries.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.203.20.170 ( talk • contribs) I am so cool
Look at the articles of Dachau and Zentrumspartei. Dachau was founded at 23 March 1933, the Catholic party das Zentrum was in the government coalition until it dissolved itself at 6 July 1933. It is obvious that das Zentrum was in the government at the moment of foundation of Dachau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn ( talk • contribs) 21:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A million people died only in Auschwitz-Birkenau. How can you say that the total for all concentration camps was one million?????? omg 62.197.243.193 ( talk) 09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Quousquetan ( talk) 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)--
I wrote the German language article de:Bericht der 7. US-Armee zum KZ Dachau about a historical holocaust document which is on Commons as a PDF (see right), in the German Wikipedia together with author Schreiben. We have translated the whole German article including 'everything' and adapted it to the formalities and customs in the en-WP, which is factually finished. The complete new article is still in my userspace as User:Pittigrilli/Dachau, but I would like to move it to the en-WP article space soon. First we need a title... Straightforward would be: Report on Dachau concentration camp by the 7th US Army. Any comments and recommendations welcome. Please also feel free to make corrections, eliminate errors etc. on your own in the article where it is now. Pittigrilli ( talk) 19:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the list of camps in the overview template should be separate with commas to so it doesn't look like one huge single name for each line. TheEditor1974 ( talk) 19:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
separated* TheEditor1974 ( talk) 19:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
actually I've confirmed that it's a mobile UI bug with drop down lists, is it possible to fix it somehow? TheEditor1974 ( talk) 20:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd post screenshots to demonstrate but don't know how lol TheEditor1974 ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thanks! TheEditor1974 ( talk) 21:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
First section, third paragraph, currently reads "1.65 million people were registered prisoners in the camps at one point. Around a million died during their imprisonment."
The totals were many times higher (the other Wikipedia pages such as /info/en/?search=The_Holocaust#Death_tollsuch as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belsen-Bergen give more accurate figures) and the equivocation of 'died during their imprisonment' minimises mass murder and genocide.
I presume the contributor's deniability will be that "at one point" denotes some kind of snapshot in time - but that is not clear, or a justifiable approach in a generic page about Nazi Concentration Camps. The false impression of totals and the minimising language should have set alarm bells ringing in such an important page of Wikipedia - and near the start too. Dashdotdash ( talk) 10:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The death camps were also concentration camps, and what is understood by the term. Who is the senior editor on this page? How is this obvious and misleading equivocation allowed to be published in the first section of a page entitled Nazi Concentration Camps? It should be removed instantly - it's inaccurate, misleading, minimising and dangerous for that reason. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 18:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
THIS IS HOLOCAUST DENIAL PLEASE TAKE IT DOWN What source? There is no source cited for the figures given. Minimising atrocities through the use of equivocation is a form of Holocaust denial. There were few records of registration remaining after the war however accurate figures were estimated and are available - see this from the United States Holocaust Museum. [1] The contributor knows exactly what they are doing with the deniability of "at one point" (really, what point was that then?) and the figures are unsourced because they are untrue. You must take it down. No excuses - it needs to happen today. Dashdotdash ( talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
References
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY - THE FIGURES MUST BE CORRECTED. WHAT BUIDHE WRITES IS FALSE AND VERIFIABLY SO. In the citation I posted from USHM you can see for yourselves the figures are:
Auschwitz - approximately 1 million Treblinka 2 - approximately 925,000 Belzec - 434,508 Sobibor - 167,000+ Chelmno - 167,000+ Other Nazi contration camps - 150,000 TOTAL 2,843,508
The citation for the figures is easy to check [1]. Buide gives none for his.
There is no justification to say camps outside Germany are somehow not Nazi Concentration Camps - of course they are. Or for not using totals, or for describing the victims as merely 'dying during their imprisonment'. This is misrepresentation and inaccuracy. How did this Buidhe become the gatekeeper for this page? Wikipedia must act urgently to replace the fake figure with the actual figures as they have been estimated by USHM. How has this been allowed to happen and for how long? How did this person get control of this page? Dashdotdash ( talk) 01:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
References
All Nazi concentration camps are Nazi concentration camps. It is not justified only to count German camps unless this was a page about the distinction between the concentration camps located in various countries. This unjustified distinction minimises the atrocity and young readers in particular will be misled. Dashdotdash ( talk) 10:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Your own link says (and by the way these are Jewish death so the totals are even higher)
Auschwitz - approximately 1 million
Treblinka 2 - approximately 925,000
Belzec - 434,508
Sobibor - 167,000+
Chelmno - 167,000+
Other Nazi contration camps - 150,000
TOTAL 2,843,508
All-caps demands |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
TAKE BUIDHE'S REDUCED FIGURES DOWN PLEASE. WHO ARE THE OTHER EDITORS ON THIS PAGE? THIS IS URGENT. Dashdotdash ( talk) 01:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
The key issue is where do these numbers come from? Wikipedia demands sources - and quite rightly so - but there is no source for the numbers on the page. Why is there no citation? 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
If that citation were to be conveyed at the point at which the figures are first given the reader could instantly ascertain the source of them and find out exactly what two historians were referring to. In the latter section containing the citation the editor quite rightly goes out of his or her way to state in the body of the text that Auschwitz for instance is not included in these figures. Would it not be wise to make that equally clear, in the body of the text, in the opening paragraph, and to position the citations where they belong - with the figures in their first iteration? 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 14:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The question is: why is the citation not given with the figures in the first section? 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not suggesting it should be cited twice - I agree that would be senseless - but the natural place for the citation is when the figures are first given at the start of the page. That would be in line with Wikipedia practice everywhere else. I don't remember the last time I personally read an entire Wikipedia page, but I have always read the opening section. Logic dictates this is where the citation needs to be in order to be accessible to all who read the opening section. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 00:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 18:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
To second comment - I see some do, some don't. I just don't think most people do read whole Wikipedia pages - people do not have time - and it is often used as a quick reference point. Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained why a distinction is being made between those murdered on arrival and those murdered the following day, or later. I mean what is the purpose behind splitting these numbers? It is quite a specific thing to do and not made clear enough at all in the opening section in my humble view. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 18:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The question of the purpose of the distinction has only been asked once (18.46 18 September 2021) so that reference to Ididnthearthat does not apply. You have chosen not to answer it - and nobody is stopping you from making that decision. It has not however been asked twice. It was asked once. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does "Acroterion" want me to create an account and why are they so angry? If you can't comment without an account then I am sorry but that is *not* at all clear and surely Wikipedia would programme the site to make it editors only? Confused. Giving up. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 10:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
to:
GommehGaming101 ( talk) 17:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Does anyone disagree that this page should be merged with Extermination camps in the Holocaust? AdamBiswanger1 16:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My request for documentation was reverted by HanzoHattori who does not seem to grasp the need for and requirement for documentation. The above two requests for documentation is reinstated and I ask this new and apparently inexperienced user to please avoid labeling colleagues as "trolls" or "vandals" as this is both off-putting and can quickly lead to troubles.
I will restate what is needed: Documentation of what transpired at the camps under Soviet control and buttressing of the claims of mass fatalities. These are not trivial claims and can not be included in any encyclopedia without documentation. Please refer to credible websites, journals or books that originally provide this information.
I ask also that HanzoHattori respond on this Talk page to concerns before arbitrarily deleting requests for documentation.
Thank you. Skywriter 18:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The subsection titled: Use of Nazi German concentration camp facilities after the war lacks documentation. Will someone fill in the cites? Skywriter 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
HanzoHattori responded to this request for documentation by inappropriately labeling the request "vandalism" and, surprisingly enough, reverting the request to an earlier version that lacks documentation.
The request for documentation and proper citation stands. Thank you. Skywriter 22:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Whole article lacks documentation, not this. What's your problem, you don't belive it? Why? -- HanzoHattori 20:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Appearently for the former SS and their families (30,000 at Dachau). [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skorpio-88 ( talk • contribs) 12:27, September 24, 2006
Thanks, Skorpio. The link is helpful.
Skywriter
17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I do not have the information ready to write a piece, but why is there no mention of the concentration camps that were set up in North Africa? There was a book written about this last year, there was at least one in Tunisia. The author of the book pointed, as a sidenote, to the reference in Casablanca to the concentration camps in Africa. 71.203.169.248 04:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that the picture of what purports to be "concentration camp" money was actually issued or valid at concentration camps. The large-scale picture is clearly legible and the money is self-identified as POW (kreigsgefangener) money, intended for use at POW camps and issued by the Wehrmacht, instead of the SS. COuld it be that the same currency was used at both, or is the poster of the picture mistaken?
Pat Payne
22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can anyone add more info on the extended use of many concentration camps by the Soviets after the war? To my knowledge, the deadly regimes of the camps continued for some time, only with German victims and a different totalitarian system in charge. Something like 2 million Germans were murdered in the 18 months following may 1945, and the now-Soviet run concentration camps played their part in this relatively unknown piece of genocide.
This can be found in the text: "The Nazis were the only political party in Germany with paramilitary organizations at its disposal, the Schutzstaffel (SS) and the Sturmabteilung (SA), both of which perpetrated surprise attacks on the offices and members of other parties throughout the 1920s."
and is not correct. The SA was not the only paramilitary organization (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotfrontk%C3%A4mpferbund - Rotfrontkämpferbund) - also note that the SS was very small in the 1920 and got only important after 1934. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.234.57 ( talk) 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
What is "14f3"? It is under "Camps during the War". If it is not needed, then somebody please remove/delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.163.155 ( talk) 00:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is also information about the camps which could be valuable: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/ccfacts.html I don't know if nowaday's mainstream view is correct, the view expressed in the mentioned link, or a mix of both views. Nowowiejski ( talk) 22:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I can not find any articles about specific prisons (Gefängnise) and penitentiaries (Zuchthäuse) in Nazi Germany. Though not at the scale of the camps, there were also brutal and also the site of numerous executions, typically by decapitation, hanging, or shooting. Before I start an introductory article, let me know if it's redundant with something else. -- Leifern ( talk) 12:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find any info concerning "youth concentration camps" meaning concecntration camps where youths were interned and killed. See [ [2]] Johnny2323 ( talk) 02:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
File:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png Isn't that map better for the job? Also the French Wikipedia is working on an updated SVG of that map in French which can then be translated into English as needed fr:Wikipédia:Atelier_graphique/Cartes#Camps_de_concentration_nazis. gren グレン 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
List of Nazi-German concentration camps has camps labeled as: prisoner and Nacht und Nebel(which may be hostage camps). Internment camp, Collective point and subcamp are also mentioned in the List of Nazi-German concentration camps. It might be good if the two articles listed the same types of camps. Geo8rge ( talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As far as I am aware UNESCO only use "German Nazi" to describe a camp which was in Germany for its entire operational life. However, it may be that a self-proclaimed doctor knows better. I find it ironic that a particular editor insists that the official name of a single Nazi camp should be used for an article about all Nazi camps but he also insists that the official name of a particular event should not be used for the article about that event (details here [3]). Varsovian ( talk) 14:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
...Poles are all known to have taken part in the running of the Nazi camps claims Varsovian. How many of more than 20 millon ethnic Poles? A dozen of Polish prizoners transported to Kulm by Germans? Were they obliged to run away through annexed Wartheland without money and documents? Xx236 ( talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is important to be clear that Nazi concentration camps, where victims of the master race had died in millions, were set up and financed by the Nazi German State. This fact should not be manipulated.-- 24.182.186.67 ( talk) 06:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the word Nazi commonly imply Germany, just as Khmer Rouge implies Cambodia?
Nazi redirects to
Nazism, which begins with:
If it can be assumed (I would so) that the well-educated English-speaking reader knows that the Nazis have been a German political movement, you can omit the word "German".
-- Abe Lincoln ( talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Renaming to "Nazi-German concentration camps" would make it appear as if articles on "Nazi-Polish concentration camps", "Nazi-Croatian concentration camps" etc. could be found somewhere on Wikipedia. Cs32en 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Xx236 ( talk) 14:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. — Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Nazi concentration camps →
Nazi-German concentration camps — Per the opening line. The proper naming of the Nazi-German (rather than Nazi) concentration camps – in terms of their numbers, built mostly in occupied Poland during
WWII – was already explained by various international bodies including
UNESCO,
Yad Vashem,
Institute of National Remembrance and two different governments. Please see the reasons given by UNESCO for renaming
Auschwitz into "Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)" featured in the
"Polish death camp" controversy article (the last two paragraphs). It is to discourage the intentional (or accidental) misuse of the term Nazi. —
Poeticbent
talk
17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Please compare the number of hits for "Nazi concentration camps" and the number of hits for "Nazi-German concentration camps" on the Google news archive. I'm quite sure that a closer look at the sources, weighing each source's reliability, reach and notability, will not lead to a fundamentally different result. Cs32en 22:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Loosmark 22:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oppose This is the first time I have come across the peculiar term "Nazi-German" even if a few bodies use it. "Nazi concentration camps" is probably the most common term, we should stick to it. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
German should be added to all the above categories as per UNESCO that adopted the new name for Auschwitz to capture the historical truth and the fact that these places refer to the Nazi regime in Germany. The new names would also have an educational role for the younger generation of readers.-- Mamalala 06:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
If the proposed move (i.e. to Nazi-German concentration camps) is accepted, we'll need to remove the link to Jasenovac concentration camp and remove that camp from the article about extermination camps (as that too will be renamed Nazi-German extermination camps). That camp was not German run. We'll also have to remove mentions of Stara Gradiška concentration camp and Sisak children's concentration camp, among others. I for one find this prospect less than appealing. Any other thoughts from anybody? Varsovian ( talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like this discussion was all moot anyway: the proposed move failing to pass has nicely solved the problems raised in this discussion. Varsovian ( talk) 06:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Personally I find it this bit confusing.
Could another editor rewrite it? I suggest concentration camps are explained then extermination camps rather than have extermination in the middle e.g.
Second can I suggest the following is removed?
This article is about concentration camps and inside the article the extermination camps are listed. Having it twice seems unnecessary Jniech ( talk) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The current version states “which were camps established for the sole purpose of carrying out the extermination of the Jews of Europe” hence I will simply trying to make it clearer. How about
Again Gypsies is the current wording in the article hence my usage. Provided others support your wording, I have no problem with it. Below is another version for consideration. Does anyone know where the disabled were murdered? My impression is it wasn't in the camps but willing to be told I am wrong. I will step out for now to see what other editors think. Personally the current wording is confusing hence my hope someone will come up with a better version.
Article is in order as it is. Amendments proposed by Varsovian are completely not needed.-- 24.182.186.67 ( talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
The Auschwitz camp combined several types of camps, it wasn't an extermination camp only.
From
Majdanek: Although conceived as a forced labor camp and not as an extermination camp ...
Xx236 (
talk)
13:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm all against the proposed change. I don't like it when wiki uses the Nazi racial theories in its' articles and decides who is a Jew, who is a homosexual or who is a Pole. From Polish point of view Poland lost ca. 6 million Poles in concentration camps of all types. It were the Nazis to brand them as Jews, politically-dangerous elements, Gypsies, homosexuals and whatever else category they had. From Polish perspective they were just Poles, regardless of their beliefs, ethnicity, sexual or political preference. Besides, even in Nazi terms Jews were not the only victims of the extermination camps (even if we limit their number to three or four "factories of death", as someone called them). // Halibu tt 21:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't make sense of this sentence (I included the second sentence in the paragraph for context):
First, it says "six largest groups", then only lists two groups in that sentence. Also the phrasing "groups containing prisoners in the camps" is not processing for me... I can generally tell what it means but it seems very garbled. Can anyone help here? I am not an expert on this subject and don't really know how the sentence should be worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.229.88 ( talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
The article is quite neutral, only description of Labour camps says: "under inhumane conditions and cruel treatment". At the same time Expulsion of Germans after World War II informs about "sadistic practices" after the war. If "sadistic practices" is a correct description, the words should be used here and in many similar articles, if not - they should be removed from the other article. Xx236 ( talk) 11:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Without knowing anything about it, a visual look supports the front two are Jewish and I suspect the first one behind them. The rest there is no way to know. I suggest the wording should be “Roll-call of Jewish prisoners and possible non-Jewish, 20 July 1938”. Jniech ( talk) 18:40, 25 September 2010 (UTC) The original description says "vermutlich" - "probably". Xx236 ( talk) 12:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The article’s intro, where it mentions groups targeted by the Nazis for internment, is not discussing absolute or even relative numbers; the Jehovah’s Witnesses were targeted for internment as a group—as evidenced by the Nazis’ marking them as a specific group inside the camps (they got the green violet triangles, didn’t they?).
In contrast, protestants and Catholic priests who were interned were done so not because of they were protestants or priests, but because the Nazis considered them undesirables for other reasons.
That the Jehovah’s Witnesses were targeted is clear from numerous sources, so there’s no reason for this to be repeatedly deleted—and even less reason for the abusive and uncivil remarks, whether directed at other editors or the JWs themselves.
Jim_Lockhart
14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
In May 1933 the Gestapo searched the house of Ewald Vorsteher, who had been disfellowshipped from the society in the 1920s for refusing to accept the new leadership following the crisis sparked by Pastor Russell's death in 1917. The writings found in his home were highly critical of Hitler's regime, and were used as a basis for condemning the Jehovah's Witnesses. The Watchtower Society reacted by strongly rejecting Ewald Vorsteher and his opinions.
Additionally, Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to serve in military organizations, citing the principle they call Christian Neutrality. They understand Jesus' words , "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world," to mean that they should take a neutral stand concerning political and military controversies.[62]
I understand what you’re saying, but none of it changes the history that the Nazis had a policy of interning JWs (Bibelforscher) for no other reason than that they were JWs. They were not interned because of their individual, personal beliefs (i.e., directly because of their refusal to serve in the military); but rather because they were members of a specific group that the Nazis had identified as an enemy. That’s why they got thrown into concentration camps and were assigned a specific identifying mark (the violet triangles: see
Nazi concentration camp badges#Table of camp inmate markings). The point about mentioning them here was neither their numbers, nor why they were interned; it is that they were targeted as a group for internment, just as were the other groups specifically mentioned.
As I wrote above, protestants and Catholics (clergy or lay) who were interned, were interned as political and other similarly classified prisoners, not because of their being members of a specific, targeted groups (i.e., because of their being protestants or Catholics); JWs, in contrast, were interned because they were JWs, regardless of their personal political or other beliefs or actions. The number of JW deaths, or even whether they were executed, is irrelevant here (further, the article is not claiming that they were sent to extermination camps nor that they were killed in great numbers—though it might be more relevant to cite what proportion of JWs were killed as opposed to the absolute number: there is no argument about whether they were a small minority). Best regards,
Jim_Lockhart
16:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: if what you’re so worked about about is “Large numbers ... of Jehova’s Witnesses”, couldn’t this be easily resolved by changing “Large numbers” to “Varying numbers”? You certainly are correct in objecting to “large numbers” also modifying JWs if their numbers were so relatively small to those of other groups! Jim_Lockhart 16:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Your final point, about “large numbers”, is certainly valid; but the rest of your arguments are specious at best. The Jehovah’s Witness’s organization was banned by the Nazis as early as 1933 and they were hated initially because of their alleged connections to the Jews and subversive political movements:
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses#In Nazi Germany (1933-1945). The Confessing Church was not outlawed in this way, and its persecuted members were not persecuted because of their affiliation with the church, but because of their personal political activism. I stand by may arguments about why JWs were persecuted by the Nazis, and by my argument that they are worthy of mention (albeit perhaps without the “large numbers” qualification, and certainly at the end of the enumeration and not in a separate sentence, which would give them too much prominence), and that such mention is historically accurate and accepted by mainstream historians.
On another matter, and although I have no desire to be seen as defending JWs per se, it is factually and sematically inaccurate to describe JWs as “draft dodgers” or “draft resistors”, since these are negatively loaded terms that ignore JWs’ theological justification for their being
conscientious objectors.
I strongly suggest you find a way to work mention of the JWs into the introduction as one of the groups singled out by the Nazis for persecution and internment in KZs. How you do it, with all the numbers and such, is up to you; but in the interests of Wikipedia’s credibility, I suggest you do it, since you seem unwilling to allow anyone else to. Best regards,
Jim_Lockhart
23:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that Jehovah's Witnesses should be included as a distinctive group targeted by the Nazis. They should not be described using the term "draft dodger" as this insinuates cowardice and cast them in a negative light. According to Jesus words there is no greater love then to give ones life in behalf of ones friends. Most Witnesses would gladly give their lives so that others may live. They will not however take a human life to support a worldly government siting "We must obey God rather then men." Acts 5:29 Jehovah's Witnesses have made a commitment to take a neutral stance in political matters. By simply denouncing their faith and pledging allegiance to Hitler they could have been released from imprisonment, the vast majority of Witnesses refused and remained captive. It would also be against this neutrality to, as a group, openly scathe, or actively resist any ruling government up to the point of matters where the government's law or actions conflict with God's laws. Witness respect the authorities in their relative positions of power but these authorities are not above God's authority.
As far as numbers are concerned they are relative to the number of Witnesses living in Nazi Germany to those imprisoned or killed in concentration camps. The fact that Witnesses would do their best to not resist and obey their captors up to the point that an order given to the Witnesses conflicted with God's laws may have helped save many of their lives as the guards knew they would not resist or try to escape. Because of this many captive Witnesses where chosen of special work assignments such as housekeeper for German officers.
This is in no way meant to diminish the atrocities inflicted on the Jews or any other group. Jehovah's Witnesses certainly do not condone the horrors inflicted by the Nazis or any others upon fellow human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfxcasey ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} There is no mention of Jehovah's Witnesses included in the victims list. I feel they should be noted as a group to honor the memory of those who lost their lives. Most all holocaust museums list Jehovah's Witnesses as victims so I think it would be appropriate here as well. Thanks.
Rfxcasey ( talk) 21:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Commonly, the term 'Polish concentration camps' is used, though the responsibility for that is Nazi German. Please, find several links attached:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Poland_controversy http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/27/us-auschwitz-name-idUSL2776311720070627 http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TAD5JTSSBQGU9D4I8
I understand that for you it is clear that Nazi Germans were responsible for Holocaust, but some people do not know European history that well, especially those from outside the continent. This is not because of their ignorance, but rather distance to Europe or the focus of their education systems on other fields of knowledge than history. Also, believe me or not, holocaust is being denied: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4
From the year 2007, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the biggest concentration camp's name is as following: 'Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp'. This is stated by the United Nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31
Do you agree the change from 'Concentration camps' into 'Nazi-German concentration camps' or 'German Nazi concentration camps' is a need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is this entry necessary in addition to List of concentration camps for Poles? Moncrief, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The whole list was copied over from the Polish law. I think the list was created by some historians working for Polish government, to verify retirenment rights of former prisoners. Somebody can claim, i.e. that he was imprisoned in concentration camp Washington DC, but then he can be verified by the list of actually existing camps. Logically derived conclusion says, the list should include all existing camps. Cautious 08:43, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
No objections on Mark's move of this particular page, but I have to notice that is is done formally, without putting the content into accordance with the tille, leaving a possibility for a next best wikipedian to come, read the article, and move it somewhere else. Mikkalai 19:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)? who?
Commonly, the term 'Polish concentration camps' is used, though the responsibility for that is Nazi German. Please, find several links attached:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Fry#Poland_controversy http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/06/27/us-auschwitz-name-idUSL2776311720070627 http://www.topix.com/forum/world/new-zealand/TAD5JTSSBQGU9D4I8
I understand that for you it is clear that Nazi Germans were responsible for Holocaust, but some people do not know European history that well, especially those from outside the continent. This is not because of their ignorance, but rather distance to Europe or the focus of their education systems on other fields of knowledge than history. Also, believe me or not, holocaust is being denied: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4
From the year 2007, Auschwitz-Birkenau, the biggest concentration camp's name is as following: 'Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp'. This is stated by the United Nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31
Do you agree the change from 'Concentration camps' into 'Nazi-German concentration camps' or 'German Nazi concentration camps' is a need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 18:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding proposed title change see WP:TITLECHANGES and WP:SNOW. Google Scholar searches for
Would you like to continue your argument, Rivertorch? I'm afraid that 'no' is not enough. I aappreciate Google, but I do not think it is established enough to decide about an article's title. I would stick to UN, actual names of camps and specific terminology.
To argue more: Nazi camps - 90 k http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nazi+concentration+camps#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22nazi+camps%22&aq=o&aqi=g-c5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e32ce17df88e0213 German camps - 75 k http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nazi+concentration+camps#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=%22german+camps%22&aq=f&aqi=g-c5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=e32ce17df88e0213 Nazi German camps
Common sense is important, but it must not prevail reason. -- Rejedef ( talk) 08:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I understand it. This is true until 2007. Facing confusion of historical facts, the United Nations agreed to convey new, more precise term. This is understood by scholars from HArvard University: http://books.google.com/books?id=-QMMAQAAMAAJ&q=%22german+nazi+concentration+camps%22&dq=%22german+nazi+concentration+camps%22&hl=en&ei=aR6sTZjML8qr8APT7-W4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA and those editing Merriam-Webster Encyclopaedia: http://books.google.com/books?id=V2d12iZkgOwC&pg=PA244&dq=%22german+nazi+concentration+camps%22&hl=en&ei=aR6sTZjML8qr8APT7-W4Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22german%20nazi%20concentration%20camps%22&f=false -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Nazi-German relates to the PART of the German society which belonged to the party ruling, supported or led Nazi Germany (or 3rd Reich). Nazi Germans doesn't mean Germans. It means actually NAzi German as a relation to the name of the state: Nazi Germany. Nazi standing itself is confusing see: 'Polish camps' controversy -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh god. What else Nazis ever were? -- HanzoHattori 20:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And what else "Nazi" state ever was? It's like "stinky stink". -- HanzoHattori 08:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just check the google hits: 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps". 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rejedef ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
What's the death toll of Nazi concentration camps? This should be mentioned in lead.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I find that there is no information about the "history" of the discovery of existence of the nazi concentration camps and their real purpose by the allies. AFAIK, there were even some of the camps that were visited by the Red Cross. - João Jerónimo ( talk) 15:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that whipping is not discussed much in the article, yet I'm fairly certain that it was an incessant practice. Hoops gza ( talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a bit shocking to see missing in the File:Majorcampseurope.gif the Jasenovac concentration camp which was from far the most deadly and brutal camp in former Yugoslavia and entire South Eastern Europe. Everyone can check its importance at the List of Nazi concentration camps. An IP already asked about it at file´s talk page, but seems that here is the proper place. Regards, FkpCascais ( talk) 00:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Can we please remove homosexuals from the list of victims. It is true that there were homosexuals in the camps, but they were not there just because they were homosexual, and most homosexuals in Nazi Germany never saw the inside of a prison much less a camp. Many were high ranking nazis. They were as much victims as men standing 5'6.73324" tall. Yes there were men 5'6.73324" tall in the concentration camps. Yes this fact was recorded by camp personel. But there were plenty of men 5'6.73324" tall outside the camp or even acting as guards. 88.155.171.247 08:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is nonsense, a vile little piece of holocaust denial in its own right. Homosexuals were targeted as a group, like the other group victims of the Nazis, and thus deserve a mention.
--Homosexuality, by the time Hitler (a conservative Christian candidate) was elected, was at the point of being decriminalized, and same-sex marraige was in the works. Hitler was elected on his platform of bringing back the death penalty for homosexuals and abolishing the seperation of church and state. At the time Hitler was elected there were 1,500,000 gay men in Berlin compared to 500,000 Jews in the entire country. Jews suffered a 60 +/- % mortality rate compared with 90+ % for homosexual prisioners. The major role of homosexuals is downplayed because while contemporary Evangelicals and Protestants can no longer justify anti-sematism (as the post war formation of Isreal "confirms" Biblical prophecy) they can easily justify the persection of "immoral" homosexuals. Most Christians believe that a majority Christian country simply "experimented" a little "paganism and socialism" all of the sudden for over a decade and ignore the anti-semetic teachings of Martin Luther, the treatment of Jews during the HRE, and the fact that those targeted by Evangelical NAZIs are those who can be characterized as sinners and people who God didn't love (mentally disabled, different ethncity) and should be punished for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.186.254 ( talk) 19:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Nazi concentration camps → Nazi-German concentration camps — Per the opening line. The proper naming of the Nazi-German (rather than Nazi) concentration camps – in terms of their numbers, built mostly in occupied Poland during WWII – was already explained by various international bodies including UNESCO, Yad Vashem, Institute of National Remembrance and two different governments. Please see the reasons given by UNESCO for renaming Auschwitz into "Auschwitz Birkenau. German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945)" featured in the "Polish death camp" controversy article (the last two paragraphs). It is to discourage the intentional (or accidental) misuse of the term Nazi. (Rationale as used by User:Poeticbent on 17:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC), reused by -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
STRONG SUPPORT I find it hilarious that we don't follow new, clearer definitions used by established institutions (I know some people might not like them, but they are authority and they are organisations of PEOPLE, usually supporting their views). I suggest to stick to: United Nations, Yad Vashem and Auschwitz Concentration Camp. If they use the Term: Former Nazi German, we should stick to that, because actually it's a very good term. I believe this is very good way of putting things into words. It shows that: -it is former, so it is no more, -it is Nazi-German, so it's related to the country called Nazi Germany.
Also, it shows that it is not German, but it goes specific: Nazi German to underline it was German Nazis who run concentration camps, not all Germans.
Also, the term prevents from confusing history. -- Rejedef ( talk) 12:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
To me it is absolutely clear but overseas it is not that clear. Facing accuse of Poland and anti-Polish sentiment, the difference is NOT minimal. The responsibility for Holocaust is Nazi-German. Please not Polish concentration. The Nazi-German occurs more often, because it's an abbreviation, usually in articles where Nazi German was used at some point. Nazi German suggests that the responsibility isn't Polish but Nazi-German. People who didn't study much history may come to the conclusion that if concentration camps are in the territory of Poland, they were build by the Polish State. Of course Nazi is an unclear term because it relates to an ideology, rather than a state which paid for their construction, Nazi Germany. The term is new, therefore academic papers still may contain terminology freely chosen by the authors. Please note that many of them call concentration camps German, while responsibility is Nazi-German, actually. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and subscribe to the idea that the change is needed. Just check the google hits: 205,000 for "Nazi concentration camps". 364,000 for "Nazi-German concentration camps" -- Rejedef ( talk) 19:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. We are just to make an encyclopaedia up-to-date, therefore we should follow new term 'Nazi-German'. The argument is about that. I want to challenge that consensus because I think too many people want to change it (please see the previous move request).
I understand that google hits are not compelling at all but this is the argument of those who are opposing changes.
I support them, because it's the name used by the United nations: http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/1306 http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/31 Even Britannica underlines Nazi German in its article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/198928/extermination-camp The name nazi German is used by several concentration camps, including the most important one, Auschwith-Birkenau: http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=436&Itemid=19 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4863026.stm I hope it is enough for your satisfaction. you can subscribe to my argument, if you like. -- Rejedef ( talk) 20:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/medien/433050/Polnisches-KZ_Polen-will-Zeitung-Die-Welt-klagen -- Rejedef ( talk) 03:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Could we move the article to Nazi German concentration camps? -- Rejedef ( talk) 20:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the page due to extensive vandalism - almost every edit for the past month has been vandalism or a reversion. If anyone does need to edit the page and can't, please either leave a comment here including the text:
which will alert an admin to take a look, or let me know on my talk page. Shimgray | talk | 20:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Does the "Glossary of terms used at Auschwitz" really belong to this article ? -- Lysy talk 05:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/world/europe/poland-bristles-as-obama-says-polish-death-camps.html-- 80.28.119.254 ( talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I am assuming that those of you who regularly edit Holocaust related articles are actually familiar with this recent study, summarized by the New York Times here. And from my understanding of what this particular article is discussing, it's possible that the study won't pertain to this page specifically. But since this is way, way, way outside my wheelhouse around wikipedia and my cursory layman's glances at obviously related articles didn't show evidence that the information had been included yet, I thought I'd drop it here for you guys to work with or take to other pages in your related projects, as appropriate. Cheers. I hope it's helpful. Millahnna ( talk) 00:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Concentration camps in the second para of the intro redirects to... this article. Why? Concentration camps are a broader concept: this article is about one type of them. This BBC article tells how they were invented in Cuba by the Spanish, used by the US in the Phillipines, before being made famous by the Brits in South Africa during the Boer War (usually this latter war is mentioned when blame is apportioned for their invention). So, with such a history of development, why does "concentration camp" redirect here? Malick78 ( talk) 18:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I am sensing a general feeling of anti-nazi views in this article. Please do your best to get this fixed.
It's hard to make information sound neutral when the facts are not only so horrifying, but have been proven. You won't find any reputible source that doesn't sound anti-Nazi, and for good reason. The article stays the way it is.
Why are the Japanese camps in Canada and America not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.225.90 ( talk) 18:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article misspells an ethnical group name, it is not Romani, but Rromani. Popescu.a.adrian ( talk) 21:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
User Scholar792 ( talk · contribs · count) (today's 4 edits, total) is and SPA created to promote a brand new website http://www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/ teaching and learning resource based on text by Nikolaus Wachsmann, Professor in history at London University’s Birkbeck College, author of recently published KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps (2015, 865 pages). [6] — Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University (paid per view, at Wall Street Journal) describes Wachsmann as a 'revisionist' from "the best of the German and the British schools of grand World War II history." [7] Please keep an eye on it. — Thomas Laqueur wrote that "Wachsmann estimates there were 560 [satelite camps ... meanwhile]; a survey in 1990 based on an earlier report by the Allies has a much higher figure and runs to nearly 700 pages of small type." [8] The numbers don't add up. — Professor Ferenc Laczó of Maastricht University writes that "while pointing to institutional and organizational connections between the KL system and the three Globocnik death camps, Wachsmann discusses the latter sites only briefly ... some of KL’s emphases may also be debatable" such as the insistence on their uniqueness. [9] Poeticbent talk 16:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Site moved because of below discussion. Segatt ( talk • contribs) 01:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps someone familiar with German or the subject at hand could explain. This page and the German version of the article abbreviate Konzentrationslager as KZ, but I've seen many contemporary sources refer to the system as KL (Konzentrationslager). The Inspektion der Konzentrationslager is referred to as the IKL, and many camps were known by their KL designation (e.g. KL Lublin). Nikolaus Wachsmann's new book is called KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps. Why the use of KZ here? Mahhon ( talk) 21:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |work=
ignored (
help)Breslau-Dürrgoy concentration camp and probably other small camps were founded before Dachau KZ. Xx236 ( talk) 06:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Nazi concentration camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nazi concentration camps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, is this article about German concentration camps during the WW2? Not clear. It mentiones only some Nazis... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.49.4.35 ( talk) 00:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The entire first paragraph under the heading of "Pre-war camps" is not sourced. The absence of a citation for the alleged use of the term by Valeriano Weyler is especially noticeable. In addition, referring to "concentration camps" during the U.S.-Indian Wars is an historically inappropriate anachronism. NicholasNotabene ( talk) 07:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I undid the recent revert, as changes have been sufficiently explained in edit summaries. For example, this section was correctly removed: [10]. Much of this content was confusing or incorrect, i.e. extermination camps were not concentration camps as was claimed by the earlier version of the article. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:40, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition [to the Nazi concentration camps described in Volume 1], over the course of their 12 years in power, the Nazis would establish a bewildering array of other persecution sites: killing centers, ghettos, forced labor camps, prisoner- of- war (POW) camps, resettlement camps, “euthanasia” centers, brothels, and prisons, among others. Not just the SS, but also the military, private industry, and several governmental and quasigovernmental agencies would run their own camp systems. Germany’s allies, satellites, and collaborationist states, from France to Romania and Norway to Italy, would add still more.
— E. C. & G., p. xxv
Current header image is unsatisfactorary due to low resolution, being difficult to identify what the picture shows, and showing a scene that is highly atypical of the camps' 12 years of operation. An ideal photograph, in my opinion, would show some common aspect of the camps' daily existence, be immediately recognizable, and be reasonably high quality. I've placed some suggestions at right in case anyone cares to weigh in. b uidh e 09:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I put an example below but I am not in favor of it. At lower size it's hard to tell what's going on in the images, so I think it would be better to pick one image for the infobox, then show other aspects in the article. b uidh e 03:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Durchgangslager. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7#Durchgangslager until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
10:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Transitcamp. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Transitcamp until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
04:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Übergangslager. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Übergangslager until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
04:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
List of Nazi camps that detained Poles. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#List of Nazi camps that detained Poles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
04:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Nazi slave labor camp. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Nazi slave labor camp until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
05:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
WWII concentration camps. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#WWII concentration camps until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
05:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Konzlager. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 25#Konzlager until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
b
uidh
e
05:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is not a "phenomenon", it is a propaganda campaign by those who seek another opportunity to commit genocide. Describing it as a phenomenon denies that it is a willful act (which incidentally is recognized as a criminal act in many European countries.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.203.20.170 ( talk • contribs) I am so cool
Look at the articles of Dachau and Zentrumspartei. Dachau was founded at 23 March 1933, the Catholic party das Zentrum was in the government coalition until it dissolved itself at 6 July 1933. It is obvious that das Zentrum was in the government at the moment of foundation of Dachau. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn ( talk • contribs) 21:33, August 26, 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A million people died only in Auschwitz-Birkenau. How can you say that the total for all concentration camps was one million?????? omg 62.197.243.193 ( talk) 09:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
-- Quousquetan ( talk) 22:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)--
I wrote the German language article de:Bericht der 7. US-Armee zum KZ Dachau about a historical holocaust document which is on Commons as a PDF (see right), in the German Wikipedia together with author Schreiben. We have translated the whole German article including 'everything' and adapted it to the formalities and customs in the en-WP, which is factually finished. The complete new article is still in my userspace as User:Pittigrilli/Dachau, but I would like to move it to the en-WP article space soon. First we need a title... Straightforward would be: Report on Dachau concentration camp by the 7th US Army. Any comments and recommendations welcome. Please also feel free to make corrections, eliminate errors etc. on your own in the article where it is now. Pittigrilli ( talk) 19:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
the list of camps in the overview template should be separate with commas to so it doesn't look like one huge single name for each line. TheEditor1974 ( talk) 19:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
separated* TheEditor1974 ( talk) 19:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
actually I've confirmed that it's a mobile UI bug with drop down lists, is it possible to fix it somehow? TheEditor1974 ( talk) 20:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd post screenshots to demonstrate but don't know how lol TheEditor1974 ( talk) 20:46, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thanks! TheEditor1974 ( talk) 21:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
First section, third paragraph, currently reads "1.65 million people were registered prisoners in the camps at one point. Around a million died during their imprisonment."
The totals were many times higher (the other Wikipedia pages such as /info/en/?search=The_Holocaust#Death_tollsuch as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belsen-Bergen give more accurate figures) and the equivocation of 'died during their imprisonment' minimises mass murder and genocide.
I presume the contributor's deniability will be that "at one point" denotes some kind of snapshot in time - but that is not clear, or a justifiable approach in a generic page about Nazi Concentration Camps. The false impression of totals and the minimising language should have set alarm bells ringing in such an important page of Wikipedia - and near the start too. Dashdotdash ( talk) 10:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The death camps were also concentration camps, and what is understood by the term. Who is the senior editor on this page? How is this obvious and misleading equivocation allowed to be published in the first section of a page entitled Nazi Concentration Camps? It should be removed instantly - it's inaccurate, misleading, minimising and dangerous for that reason. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 18:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
THIS IS HOLOCAUST DENIAL PLEASE TAKE IT DOWN What source? There is no source cited for the figures given. Minimising atrocities through the use of equivocation is a form of Holocaust denial. There were few records of registration remaining after the war however accurate figures were estimated and are available - see this from the United States Holocaust Museum. [1] The contributor knows exactly what they are doing with the deniability of "at one point" (really, what point was that then?) and the figures are unsourced because they are untrue. You must take it down. No excuses - it needs to happen today. Dashdotdash ( talk) 10:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
References
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY - THE FIGURES MUST BE CORRECTED. WHAT BUIDHE WRITES IS FALSE AND VERIFIABLY SO. In the citation I posted from USHM you can see for yourselves the figures are:
Auschwitz - approximately 1 million Treblinka 2 - approximately 925,000 Belzec - 434,508 Sobibor - 167,000+ Chelmno - 167,000+ Other Nazi contration camps - 150,000 TOTAL 2,843,508
The citation for the figures is easy to check [1]. Buide gives none for his.
There is no justification to say camps outside Germany are somehow not Nazi Concentration Camps - of course they are. Or for not using totals, or for describing the victims as merely 'dying during their imprisonment'. This is misrepresentation and inaccuracy. How did this Buidhe become the gatekeeper for this page? Wikipedia must act urgently to replace the fake figure with the actual figures as they have been estimated by USHM. How has this been allowed to happen and for how long? How did this person get control of this page? Dashdotdash ( talk) 01:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
References
All Nazi concentration camps are Nazi concentration camps. It is not justified only to count German camps unless this was a page about the distinction between the concentration camps located in various countries. This unjustified distinction minimises the atrocity and young readers in particular will be misled. Dashdotdash ( talk) 10:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Your own link says (and by the way these are Jewish death so the totals are even higher)
Auschwitz - approximately 1 million
Treblinka 2 - approximately 925,000
Belzec - 434,508
Sobibor - 167,000+
Chelmno - 167,000+
Other Nazi contration camps - 150,000
TOTAL 2,843,508
All-caps demands |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
TAKE BUIDHE'S REDUCED FIGURES DOWN PLEASE. WHO ARE THE OTHER EDITORS ON THIS PAGE? THIS IS URGENT. Dashdotdash ( talk) 01:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC) |
The key issue is where do these numbers come from? Wikipedia demands sources - and quite rightly so - but there is no source for the numbers on the page. Why is there no citation? 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 17:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
If that citation were to be conveyed at the point at which the figures are first given the reader could instantly ascertain the source of them and find out exactly what two historians were referring to. In the latter section containing the citation the editor quite rightly goes out of his or her way to state in the body of the text that Auschwitz for instance is not included in these figures. Would it not be wise to make that equally clear, in the body of the text, in the opening paragraph, and to position the citations where they belong - with the figures in their first iteration? 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 14:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The question is: why is the citation not given with the figures in the first section? 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 23:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I am not suggesting it should be cited twice - I agree that would be senseless - but the natural place for the citation is when the figures are first given at the start of the page. That would be in line with Wikipedia practice everywhere else. I don't remember the last time I personally read an entire Wikipedia page, but I have always read the opening section. Logic dictates this is where the citation needs to be in order to be accessible to all who read the opening section. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 00:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 18:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
To second comment - I see some do, some don't. I just don't think most people do read whole Wikipedia pages - people do not have time - and it is often used as a quick reference point. Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained why a distinction is being made between those murdered on arrival and those murdered the following day, or later. I mean what is the purpose behind splitting these numbers? It is quite a specific thing to do and not made clear enough at all in the opening section in my humble view. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 18:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The question of the purpose of the distinction has only been asked once (18.46 18 September 2021) so that reference to Ididnthearthat does not apply. You have chosen not to answer it - and nobody is stopping you from making that decision. It has not however been asked twice. It was asked once. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 23:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Why does "Acroterion" want me to create an account and why are they so angry? If you can't comment without an account then I am sorry but that is *not* at all clear and surely Wikipedia would programme the site to make it editors only? Confused. Giving up. 86.18.238.213 ( talk) 10:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Nazi concentration camps has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change
to:
GommehGaming101 ( talk) 17:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit extended-protected}}
template. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)