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.

All jewish citizen of Bulgaria located on its territory (who were under the administrative jurisdiction of the Bulgarian government) were saved from extermination. There are a good number of historical references available to attach. Why does the article state that the victims in Bulgaria were "notably lower"? There are a good number of books written about that as well as historical publications. Please give the deserved credit to a country whose government and its official church managed to achieve something no other country did. Bulgaria is also in the official list of the countries who saved the Jews during WWII so please correct that and discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.91.45.231 ( talk) 15:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In section "Poles and Slavs", it is stated that over 1 million Serbs was killed, following some quotation. However, the official scientific data (US and Yugoslav) is quoted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

There was 1 million TOTAL victims in ex-Yugoslavia, which is inhabited mostly by South Slavic nations. Demograpic loss of 1.7 mil. pople means that there would be 1.7 mil. pople more in ex-Yu if there was no war (dead + fall of birth rate due to war) and it is not counted as "war casualties".

A terrible and tragic theme like Holocaust is not a place for propaganda, neither is Wikipedia. It is unacceptable to use an artice like this to spread Serbian nationalist propaganda, which is used as "leverage" for Serbian crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo. Let those guys open up their wiki and write whatever they want there. Wikipedia principles are NPOV and verification, as far as I know - this means scientific data, not some article in nationalistic press.

I appeal to members who watch over Holocaust articles to fix these false data, to maintain dignity of Holocaust victims, and to preserve Holocaust deniers from using examples of such false data to support their outrageous claims of "exaggerated Holocaust numbers"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.151.134 ( talk) 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME BUT WHY IS THERE SOMETHING IN THIS ARTICLE ABOUT WHAT HITLER "ALLEGEDLY" SAID TO A JOURNALIST IN 1922? Because I don't even think that hitler was sure he'd come to power in 1922, he just got out of prison. The other thing is that the link of the alleged statement is coming from a dubious website that shows the quote and a pic of people hanging with an German , soldier, which is infact not a german uniform at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.128.183 ( talk) 09:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vsosin, you're making edits that are massively increasing the number of Soviet citizens believed to have died within Nazi concentration camps as part of the Holocaust (as opposed to being part of the war).

Could you please say here of each figure in the article that you are correcting, who your source is, and what that source says exactly? If you could do it one by one, that would be easier for the rest of us to follow. The problem is that you're trying to make significant changes to the figures all at once, and at least one of your sources is a non-specialist website. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

(moved from SV talk) Please check the references. Some of them are online: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Spring_Holidays/Yom_Hashoah/yom_hashoah.html If you find anything wrong then please please remove it. But you are trying to chenge someting just because you don't like and have no desire to verify. Look, you just try to block me without making any arguments ? !!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsosin ( talk • contribs)

That website is not a reliable source, and the source it cites, Karen Silverstrim, was apparently an MA candidate two years ago at the University of Central Arkansas. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Good evening SV. I see your point and will include exact frases from the refereces that were includes. It is a very valid point. Let me just get into the libruary after holidays. Regarding, the overall civilian vicitims vs. Holocaust victims - that is not exactly what I am trying to do. Overall Soviet victims are well over 20 millions and of course do not fall under camp victims. The question of the Slavic victims of very political here in the USA. However, if you look into Nazi plans, you would see that Slavic people shared the same feature of racial inferiority as jewish in the Nazi eyes. 2/3 of their entire population should had been eradicated, so land could be repopulated by Germans. Please see [Racial policy of Nazi Germany]. The vital difference with jewish people was only that Soviet people could leave even their village; their were slaves in their own coutry (the had "propiska" - attachement to the place), designated for slauter by the goverment. Please let me grab the original so we could verify the exact wording and I even could scan and email to you part if you would wish. We should find a common groud. VS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsosin ( talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This article only cover the Jewish and European version of Holocaust, but this event effected the whole world and world politics, so i request to add the opinions of other nations about this incident. like denial of Holocaust and creation of Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farazilu ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the view that it happened is fairly international. Zazaban ( talk) 08:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then i need put the statement by Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a refrence -- Faraz Ahmad ( talk) 08:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a separate article for Holocaust denial. Ahmadinejad gets an entire section to himself. Zazaban ( talk) 08:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But i can't see any refrence about that on this page or even any link i think Wikipedia is denying new reader the chance to read that topic, i think at least a paragraph with link to that article should be given on this page -- Faraz Ahmad ( talk) 08:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in the see also section. Zazaban ( talk) 08:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope this leaves you impressed, Faraz. Wikipedia has policies and they are applied uniformly everywhere. -- Matt57 ^{( talk• contribs)} 15:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad doesn't directly deny the holocaust and never said he hates the jews (search up: ahmadinejad on youtube). All he said was that israel should be cleared from the map. You guys have a tone which leads me to believe that you think Ahmadinejad is antisemtic. Which is impossible because there are photos of him shaking hands with the Judaic people which is a universal human way of respecting each other. I never knew that Wikipedians don't look towards the positive sides of situations... -- µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

there is no dachau disco on Emule...wei is it sow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.50.140 ( talk) 01:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I certainly disagree with Faraz's view on this, would it hurt to have a short paragraph explaining that certain minorities still dispute the existence of the holocaust, although they are generally agreed to be plain wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.7.100 ( talk) 02:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What minorities? Stormfronters and troofers? 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 05:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure the views you describe are of bunch of folks not too well educated or people who want to believe in that. It is hard to imagine such ignorance in Europe and especially in Poland.-- Jacurek ( talk) 05:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the articles of which the section on Jehovah's Witnesses is a summary disagree with this article about the number of victims: the full articles base themselves on a JW reference instead. Thus I included that opinion - on which probably such opinions as of a " Holocaust Resource Center" is based to that of the secondary source. I was just going to look at a discussion about the reason of the discrepancy betwen the conflicting Wikipedia articles when Crum375 reverted with teh claim that the other one is "scolarly" and presumably more reliable. However, he/she did not correct the other artices on which that section supposedly is based, nor did he/she motivate why only the one opinion should be considered to be more reliable or authorative. At the minumum this article should be consistent with the ones that give more details. Please clarify, thanks!

Note: it may be better to not just include but specify the conflict of opinions, as this discrepancy between the opinion of the group of victims and those who write about them is quite interesting and notable. Harald88 ( talk) 21:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If we rely on a particular source, that does not mean we also accept all its original sources verbatim. Crum375 ( talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason at all to present that one source as factually true or even reliable, or to assume that it does anything else than to simply cite an older version of the same original source verbatim. This section misleadingly suggests to be a summary of a fuller account. Reading that account, I now notice that my correction was even insufficient: the only truly scholarly source suggests that the number of victims may have been as low as 635. I'll rephrase it with more precision, consistent with the full version. Harald88 ( talk) 11:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Book: ed. M. Berenbaum, "A Mosaic of Victims. Non-Jews murdered by Nazis." - the book as you may call it of the most recognized in the area. Page 117: "All this, however, would remain an idle dream unless a planned policy of colonization and depopulation are carried out. Yes, a depolulation policy..." Page 118: "Germans were true to their policies. They depopulated the Ukraine though mass execution, deportations and famine. Page 140: " the scale of German extermination of the population of Soviet Republics:

Ukraine 4.0 million
Belorussia 2.5 million
Russian Federation 1.7 millions

And finally page 147 last paragraph: "it was not part of German Army tradition to kill defenseless prisoners of war by thousands ... The popular explanation is that the entire Wehrmacht had adopted the Nazi concept that all Soviet citizent are subhumans and that German soldiers acted accordignly. "

Please correct me if I am wrong: - Slaves (sovient) were mass killed for racial reasons. - Slaves were scheduled for complete anihilation (plan Leberbaum). They just couldn't plan right away as easy to kill 150 millions as 15 millinons (they planned in case of Jewish people). It just would unfeasable to do at once. - Slaves were killned in concentration camps (even Ukrainina presiden's father), forces labor camps, starved to death, burned alive in large numbers, shot, sterilized. - Total number of Slavic Holocaust (W. Churchill) 19.7 - 23.9 millions !!!!!!!!

Please let me know your opinion. my email if you need: vkilchyk@yahoo.ca VS

VS e-mailed me asking me to look at this. It involves this edit of his, where he wants to add that 4-8 million Soviet civilians died in concentration camps -- that's civilans, over and above the POWs. He cites three sources: a website which is not a specialist site, so we can't use it, and two books, neither of which I've seen, so I'm unsure how to proceed. Is there anyone who is familiar with the Soviet figures? Note that this should not be about deaths attributed to the war, but specifically about deaths attributed by scholars to the Holocaust, though I know that distinction is far from simple. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Slim, I have the Berenbaum book, what do you need to know?-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great, Woogie, thank you. Could you look at pages 117, 118, and 140, which VS cites? Do those pages say anything that supports this article saying that 4-8 million Soviet civilians (not POWs) died in Nazi concentration camps? SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

‘’A Mosaic of Victims’’ is a series of essays that is edited by Michael Berenbaum., published in 1990. The article that user Voisn refers to with the statistic of 8.2 million Soviet civilian dead is from the essay by Georgily a. Kumanev, Chairman of the Institute for History of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. The source of the figure of 8.2 million civilians comes from the report of the Extraordinary State Commission. Copies of the records of this Soviet commission are now at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum [ [1]]. In the article Kumanev outlines the Nazi plan “ Ost” to colonize the USSR and enslave the population. He gives a brief description of the Nazi deportation of more than 5 million Soviets to be used as forced labor. Kumanev does not say that these people died in camps, they were killed mostly in reprisals taken by the Germans. A key point to remember is that the statistic includes Soviet Jews, who were not mentioned by Kumanev,
A more recent study done in 1995 by the Russian Academy of Science . Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN  5-86789-023-6. They cite figures of 7.4 million murdered civilians and 1.7 million forced labor deaths , including Jews( estimated by Raul Hilberg at 1.4million). These civilians in the USSR, both Jews and non-Jews , were victims of ethnic cleansing and mass reprisal killings, they did not die in camps. I hope this helps.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 03:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very helpful. Do you have a view as to how we should handle VS's edit -- this one? Are we in danger in the article of counting victims twice (Soviet Jews, then again Soviet civilians)? SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The chart, as it currently stands (and IIRC, this chart, and various versions of it, have been an issue for years), already does some possible double counting, and the sources being used may present some problems. As to the first problem, it's mixing creeds (Politicals, Freemasons), national identities (Serbs, Poles), personal attributes (Disabled), and battle status (civilan vs. POW), thus, a (religiously) polish catholic man, with a Jewish father, who identified as polish, had communist leanings, who was fighting out of uniform for the soviet resistance could be counted in six different groups (POW and non-POW). If he happened to also be gay, and became schizophrenic as a result of combat, that's seven categories he could be counted in. This issue, IIRC, has muddled the "Victims and death toll" section for years. As to the second issue, it's a Soviet source, from the perspective of one unified "Soviet People". For those editors much younger than me, they may not quite realize that "Soviet" has had some fairly flexible boundaries over the years, to where Polish/Ukranian/Serb and Soviet would be the same thing to some sources, but not to others. Ronabop ( talk) 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust has a section on page 49 on Polish and Soviet civilians, I would use that as a guide. It is important to point out that there are those that would not include these groups with the Holocaust. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust mentions that Bohdan Wytwycky estimates 4.5 million Soviet civilian deaths that were racially motivated.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 04:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Many people in the former Soviet Union had parents and grandparents that were gunned down or starved to death by the Germans. They would take offense if these losses are ignored or denigrated. These deaths cannot be compared to the Jewish Holocaust, they are in a different category. We should take this into account.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 04:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It's the difficulty of trying to discuss everything on one page. We end up having to make compromises, some acceptable, some not. But some people are very offended at the idea of splitting the page into subpages, which would be my preference. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're WP:NOT paper, and even if we did split into subpages, we have to contend with they underlying issue of how different editors choose to divide information out, as well as how different sources chose to divide information out. Death tolls of the Holocaust vs. Death tolls of atrocious Nazi slaughter (that some sources may, or may not, call victims of the Holocaust)? Death tolls of atrocious Nazi slaughter (that some sources may, or may not, call victims of the Holocaust) by nation, Death tolls of the Holocaust by nation, Death tolls of the Holocaust by political affiliation, Death tolls of the Holocaust by gender orientation, Death tolls of the Holocaust by ethnicity, Death tolls of the Holocaust by political leanings, Death tolls of the Holocaust by religion? It can get pretty messy, pretty fast, regardless of whether it's subpages, or on this page. Add in the issue of various groups claiming greater, or lesser, victimization, than other groups, and the issue just grows, especially when one type of group wants to point at themselves as being more victimized than another group, or. At the very least, I would suggest not mixing *types* in the same table, to avoid comparison and double counting, or make a bigger table, with some note for our readers to try and summarize the issue that the "numbers" have contended with for years. Such as, "Reported victims, by Various Classifications" and some text explaining that a gay, communist, Jewish, Pole could have been killed, and classified, in multiple ways. Ronabop ( talk) 07:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

We should use English language sources, whenever possible, that can be verified by the readers. These sources will provide support for the inclusion of Soviet civilians.
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Holocaust Encyclopedia MOSAIC OF VICTIMS: OVERVIEW [2]
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Holocaust Encyclopedia THE GERMAN ARMY AND THE RACIAL NATURE OF THE WAR AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION [3]
Niewyk, Donald L. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, ISBN  0231112009-- Woogie10w ( talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for yor useful comments on the Slavic death toll in the Holocaust Article. The small things that I wanted to clear a bit are the following: in my last comment I pointed out not the fuct of millions of Slavs killed in the concerations camps but rather that death of 4.5 - 8 millions of Slavs was racially motivated (both in the concentration camps, labor camps, their mass murders etc). All the references cited so far agreed on that. So if this fall under the definition of genocide/Holocaust this people should be included as a common group (just like jewish people not by their country of residence). I am not enforcing to the words killed in camps or Soviet people. I think Slavic victims would more correct. Now, the difference between the Jewish and Slavic people, as I see, is that the first froup was planned 2/3 killed and the rest eslaved (not just enslaved ! and most of the references along with a number of people killed stands for that), while the second group was supposed was to be completely eliminated. If you agree on that should we also say Slavic Holocaust and iclude this people in the artilce as a group ? Thank you, VSosin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsosin ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In the holocaust the nazi soldiers would also shave the jews heads and use the hair to stuff the mattress they slept on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.77.191 ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to this and not sure whether this belongs here or not but, I think that the number 11 million should be put first, then have it divided up into 6 million jews, 1 million gypsies etc. I had no idea there were like, 5 million non jewish victims and reading the opening paragraph I wouldnt have been educated at all. Sorry, I dont want to be offensive or nothing, just yeah, wondering if someone can update it maybe. 58.107.180.155 ( talk) 11:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point, can somebody provide a breakdown of that figure of 11 million? Also, can somebody provide sources for that table of victims? The "politicals" of 1.1 to 1.5 million has no source, it is blatant original research and should be deleted. I dare anybody to explain the details of that statistic of 1.1 to 1.5 million and provide a verifiable source. The figure of 600,000 "Serbs" includes Croats, Jews and other Yugoslavs as well as Serbs. The USHMM puts the number of Serb victims at 330,000 to390,000 [4]. The figure for Poles is blatant original research that needs to be corrected, the statistic is incorrect because most Polish victims did not die in camps. The USHMM puts the number of Polish victims at 1.8-1.9 million. [5] . The figure of 80-220,000 Freemason victims is backed up by "Freemasons for Dummies" The USHMM webpage says the number of Freemason victims is unknown. [6]. The Spanish victims is a plug for Spanish speakers. Why not include other nations, France, Germany, Netherlands, Greece, Italy, Belgium and Czechoslovakia? The table of victims lacks credibility and drags down the rest of the page that is basically in good shape.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Deja Vu. [7] and [8] serve to point out that the upper boundary would be 26 million victims in total, but the numbers really depend on who's doing the counting, and how they're doing the counting. For example, some scholars would exclude those who did not die in camps (though, I'm pretty sure those scholars who are advocating on behalf of those who died of starvation or disease in the ghettos, or those who were shot on sight, or those who died for lack of basic medicine, or those who died on forced marches, or.... whatever the scholars chose for their criteria, might disagree). On the more comprehensive victims page, we go into a little more detail [9], but for somebody new to the topic, (and/or this article) it's a tad challenging to summarize the whole field of research into one paragraph, as the research field still varies in its own numbers, and definitions. That's why we wind up with weasel wording, and wildly different numbers. It all comes down to the problems of using WP:RS and WP:V when those same reliable, verifiable sources have wildly different criteria when trying to address a fairly broad topic, and then we have the additional challenge of attempting to summarize all these vastly different numbers in a single lead paragraph. Ronabop ( talk) 07:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about most of what your talking about but... thanks! I only said 1 million gypsies as an example, im not sure how many were killed so sorry if i offended or anything. 58.107.180.155 ( talk) 10:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read the De Zayas's book. The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, issued reports that detailed Allied war crimes. Joseph Goebbels used The Wehrmacht Bureau on War Crimes as a source to churn out atrocity propaganda. The recent post is blatant neo-Nazi propaganda.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And so, an article about the Wehrmacht Bureau on War Crimes is automatically suspect? You'll do a lot better attacking the author of the book or the contents than working from the title... -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently you misunderstood De Zaya's book or you just lie you read it. It's true the Propaganda department used information from the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, but I did not write my addition looking at propaganda material. I read De Zaya's own summary of his book as you could see in my refs. In that summary, De Zaya considers the Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau as reliable as that of any other nation during the war, it had correct methods of investigation and no political agenda. In his summary he also explains it can be argued only few people knew about the killings. I added my part in order to show another POV instead of only Jewish authors that seemingly blame every German for helping kill Jews. As soon as people start calling others neo-nazi's for adding things about the Holocaust, it's pretty obvious they wish to make their own statements and that they are not concerned at all about writing history in a professional way. I agree with the healthy view of de Zaya that the fact that senior German officials as well as the Gestapo did not know there was any planned effort to exterminate jews shows it was NOT common knowledge that such things happened. Not everyone in the German state was convicted at Nuremberg so not everyone knew and consciously aided in murdering the Jews.

Your refusal to show there are people that think most of the Germans did not know about the Holocaust is violation of the Wikipedia:NPOV. The Holocaust has no special meaning for me so I just want that this article is fair to all groups involved. For an encyclopedian article Berenbaum is just one person with a view on the Holocaust, and for a historian possibly coloured because he is himself Jewish. For me as an academic de Zaya is equally qualified to comment on the Holocaust and cannot simply be deleted. Wiki1609 ( talk) 19:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read the De Zayas book! It is not germane to the topic of the Holocaust, it covers the topic of war crimes on the battlefield. The fact that many Germans claimed that they knew nothing about the Holocaust does not whitewash the fact that the institutions of the German state were accomplices in the execution of the Holoocaust. In the film Shoah the Polish civilian population was aware of the fact that Jews were being transported to their deaths. Don't tell me that the Germans in Poland and the USSR were unaware of the mass murder of the Jews. I knew the Germans of that generation, many were still Nazis at heart in the 1960's and 1970's. my father always said " I dont believe my father came from a country with people like that"-- Woogie10w ( talk) 21:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This material is problematic because the source is not a specialist. Also, the paragraph seems to contradict the rest of the section, so if any of it were to stay, it would have to be written differently. It says:

Although many institutions and people were involved in identifying and the deportation of Jews, there is evidence that only a select few knew that the Jews were to be systematically exterminated. The Jews themselves, German citizens and citizens of occupied countries, German Police and even the notorious Gestapo were not aware of the fact that the Jews were rounded up to be murdered. ^[1] The situation has sometimes been compared with that of the 1941 systematic evacuation of the Japanese-American population to special internment camps. No American at the time expected their Japanese American neighbours were going to be gassed. Similarly, many Europeans thought the Jews were being sent to labour camps or even to a newly created Jewish state in the East and had few reasons to think otherwise. In Der SS-Staat, Professor Eugon Kogon, a former concentration-camp inmate, argues there was a succesful effort to keep knowledge of the Holocaust very limited. Though Wehrmacht soldiers sometimes witnessed the killings of Jews by SS-Einsatzgruppen, amidst total war there would have been no reason to think these were part of an official policy of exterminating Jews. ^[2]There is evidence only special SS and other personnel directly involved in the killings knew of the systematical nature and magnitude thereof and were effectively sworn to secrecy. During the Nuremberg Trials it appeared than even persons in senior government positions had no knowledge of what was going on, like the acquitted Nazi press secretary Hans Fritzsche. Another example is the testimony at Nuremberg by SS Judge Georg Konrad Morgen. Morgen had received reports on killings of Jews by the security police of Lublin and sought to persecute Lublin commander Christian Wirth, unaware that the killings were ordered from the very top of government. ^[3]

SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It could be rewritten, but I don't see why de Zayas is not a reliable source. I see a guy named Berenbaum is considered an expert on the Holocaust, but it seems he has called Germany a genocidal state. Such an absolute statement is something I would not expect from a good historian. Also saying Germany completely agreed and helped in the Holocaust is simply faulty, there existed a lot of resistance against Hitler too. And in the thoughts of Berenbaum the Jews would be responsible for killing themselves, since Jewish organizations as well as the mentioned churches gave the Germans birthrecords etc. aiding in tracking them. If the average German knew they were going to be killed, then the average Jewish person knew as well and wouldn't cooperate in his own destruction. I think Berenbaum overlooked the considerable German propagandacampaign that tried to hide the Holocaust to both the enemy and the own people. The existance of the Führerbefehl no. 1 shows that. So wouldn't it improve the article if we add something that shows there are doubts if everyone knew? That's how it's done in the resposibility for the holocaust article. Wiki1609 ( talk) 23:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have difficulty separating the notion of Germany-the-state from Germany-the-people. It's debatable whether that era's German populace as a whole could be labelled "genocidal", but most certainly the German state was. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 23:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Afaik the German state is filled with German people, but even the notion that the entire state was genocidal is wrong. Like I quoted from De Zaya, even SS judges were unaware of the Endlösung and tried to persecute other SS for killing Jews. And the other person that didn't know was head of a Propaganda department. That shows that even people considered to be Nazi's did not know the Jews and others were systematically murdered. Wiki1609 ( talk) 02:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute 3 cents here, first to Slim virgin, de Zayas is also a Historian, he does have a PhD in history, and has specialized on Germany so I would think him to be relevant. We had a related discussion on this here

As regards what the Germans knew, there is an interesting Review of Goldhagen that brings up aspects that indicate that Goldhagen was somewhat one sided. [10]

I tried to build on a minor facet of this, and created the two subtopics in the Denazification article, I'm linking to what I feel was the last good version. [11]-- Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't see de Zayas' lack of credentials as "Holocaust historian" to be a detriment to our using his research. I object to Slim Virgin's deletions. Binksternet ( talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I read this book 11 years ago, I need to see it again and report back to this page. The discussion cannot continue unless we see what is actually in print. My memory of the book was an account of atrocities on the battlefield by the Soviets and British. Say, has anybody in the discussion read the book, except Woogie10w? Does anybody have a copy? -- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You could read de Zayas own summary on the book, that's what I did. It's available on JSTOR: http://www.jstor.org/view/0018246x/di013476/01p0343y/0 though you need an account. I can login through my university, but maybe there are other ways to see the article. And the article about Goldhagen was very interesting, Stor stark7. Wiki1609 ( talk) 01:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Like I thought, nobody has ever even touched the book, let alone read it. This page is waste of my time, good bye-- Woogie10w ( talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I take it you rest your case then. Reading De Zaya's own summary is enough to see he did not think the majority of Germans knew and there was an effective effort to keep things quiet. You're seemingly trying to say others don't know anything because others did not read the entire book, but the summary tells me enough. Wiki1609 ( talk) 02:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I undid the edit by Crum375, who stated: "per talk, it seems the only person who has actually read the book disagrees". However I am not quoting from the "The Wehrmacht Bureau on War Crimes" book, but from a 17 page article in The Historical Journal. In the article De Zayas uses his knowledge he gained from the research for his book, and summarizes what he thinks are the main points in the book. Because it is an article in a scientific magazine it should be sufficient to quote from the article, and not necessarily from the book. And there was a consensus that the new part would be included, just one person that did not recall what he read in the book. I hope the section won't be removed again or it'll become an edit-war. Wiki1609 ( talk) 12:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted this change, because any controversial view has to based on exceptionally high quality sources. In general, that requires mainstream scholarly sources who specialize in the Holocaust. Also, if there is a well sourced controversial view, it has to be directly attributed to the source, to clarify it's not the editors' view. Crum375 ( talk) 12:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wiki, even if this is a reliable source, you would still have to write the section up properly. It's controversial, and so it needs clear in-text attribution. You don't even mention Zayas once in your edit, yet everything in it comes from him, and him alone. That's fine if the material is non-controversial and the source is a Holocaust scholar, but otherwise we need clear attribution for each point.

But my view is still that this is not a reliable source for this topic. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

De Zayas is a highly controversial author who takes reports from Nazi Germany at face value and doesn't review them critically. Also he is politically involved with some organisations in Germany such as BdV. His work as his been accused as focusing solely on German fate, sometimes close to revisionism, more can be read on discussion page in the article about him. Mind that the main article has been edited by some group of editors changing nicknames, with accusations issued that this might be the person himself. Altogether this is a highly controversial and certainly not mainstream author, with strong political views.-- Molobo ( talk) 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As for support among German public for genocide against Jews and other non-Aryan people-Tony Judt gives following data from Allied polls

http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/books/judt-postwar.php In November 1946, 37 per cent of Germans questioned in a survey of the American zone took the view that 'the extermination of the Jews and Poles and other non-Aryans was necessary for the security of Germans'.

So there is no question that support for such actions existed in significant numbers even after the war. -- Molobo ( talk) 17:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is OR. What was the U.S. interpretation of those figures?

Perhaps with 3 million [12] Germans dead from the post-war ethnic cleansing the allies and Poles staged and slave labor camps, many former nazi concentration camps in Poland used to slowly kill German civilians [13] the dismantling of German industry that lasted until 1950, the mass-rapes by Russian and Polish soldiers, the "democratisation" [14], and the "collective guilt" propaganda campaign perhaps the Germans were not in a mood to give the "liberators" the answers they wanted?-- Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is just a point of clarification, but by Jews, does the article mean people who practiced Judiasm, or the nazi definition used by Eichmann that only required your grandmother to have practiced judiasm?( Lucas(CA) ( talk) 02:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Maybe the article the Jewish People will help answer your question. I think that this article tries to take into consideration the fact that Jews are also a culture as well as a heritage. Secular Judaism is also an article that is well worth reading. : Albion moonlight ( talk) 12:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight ( talk) 13:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Szymon Datner the people classified as Jews also included those who didn't view themself as such and were picked due to Nazi screening of their family background and history of up to three generations in the past-- Molobo ( talk) 19:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I also have a question. Hitler says the jews are a race but I'm confused because I think its a religion (or interchangeably: tradition). Which one is it? -- µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The rough answer is "it depends on how you define it". The Reich persecuted people on religious, genetic, and cultural/traditional grounds for being "Jewish". So, it's not really only one "thing" (like a race, or a religion) in this context. Ronabop ( talk) 07:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One neat little definition of a 'Race' is used by the former "Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander Commision" in Australia when determining qualification for Affirmative action programs. It basically went "An aboriginal is someone who considers them self to be Aboriginal, and is considered by his/her community to be Aboriginal". It neatly skirts around whacky ideas about genetics, and confusing conundrums about religion by essentially allowing people to define themselves. Just like Aboriginals, Jews know what Jews are, and their definition is as good as necessary. Duckmonster ( talk) 05:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem there is that the definition of how many Jews died during WW2 effectively is based on presuming a large number of those who died self identified as Jews, rather than simply being annointed so by the Nazi's. My own family history has its roots in Poland, where our Roman Catholic heritage should have kept (you would think) my family safe. However as ethnic slavs many in my families hometown were rounded up and executed for being "Jewish" as recounted by our sole surviving member (my own family line left the country 10 years prior to the war fortunately). Anecdotal - but it does obviously raise the question of who was 'forming' the numbers. Both the Nazi's, consensus and otherwise.-- Koncorde ( talk) 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Why there is too much "favoritism" towards the jews and why it is "THE" holocaust, whilst there were many other genocides on different people around that time and even different nations almost half the world away. Also, why is the history of the Armenian massacre and the killing of the Russian Communists ignored even though it was happening at the same time =/?

So the next time someone uses the term "the holocaust" clarify their statement by saying, "Which holocaust? The armenian massacre, the Russian Communist slaughter, the Cambodian Massacre, the Darfur Conflict, Nazi Facist Slaughterers, or just our human instinct of killing people for the sake of superiority, dictatorship, or just plain war; of which has been going on since the beginning of human tribal wars."

I'm not a neo-nazi I'm just saying that this article doesn't sound neutral to me. I do not care about the history of the naming but the article sounds to favored to the Nazi German era.

-- µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Go here: [15]. It's an ongoing discussion. It's also referenced in the first line on the page. Ronabop ( talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Holocaust is the most common usage for the Nazi Holocaust. We've debated that frequently. The page has a Holocaust (disambiguation) in the very first line to direct folks to the other pages. Alatari ( talk) 02:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not pro-nazi but there has been some skeptism about the holocaust. Many question its truthfully and say that it never did happen and it is made for sympathy and to hide the truth. There is definitely bias in the citing of the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.1.70 ( talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this article is biased too? There are even more evidence of the Holocaust than the Moon landing. And, this page has a link to Holocaust denial under "Aftermath and historiography" just as the Apollo 11 article has a link to Apollo Moon Landing hoax accusations under "See also". That's enough, until whenever any alternate account of history gets credible enough to be seriously considered by a majority of historians (and thus, a majority of wikipedians). Today, we are far, far, far from that. -- Dna-Dennis ( talk) 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Going back to the original question, it's reasonable to call this The Holocaust because the term Holocaust was coined for it. Before that, mass killings were called something else (massacre for example). Holocaust was used specifically to describe this set of killings. After that people used the term to refer to other killings (e.g. the Armenian Holocaust) as a comparison. But this is unquestionably the original. DJ Clayworth ( talk) 15:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think another point to make: strictly by numbers (est. 17 to 26 million), the Nazi's killed a tremendous amount of people from a wide margin of races, religions, and people that just didn't fit their profile. Also, you can say "Armenian Holocaust" because it was the Armenians being targeted. But you can't say the Nazi Holocaust because it wasn't the Nazis being targeted, certainly! You can say the Jewish Holocaust, but then you get into complications of 'which one?', not to mention you would then marginalize all of the other ethnic, religious, gender, disabled, and national groups that were targets. I think THE is generally acceptable for this reason. I think the very reason you are arguing that 'THE Holocaust' seems to favor Jews is the very reason it should stand: it was not only Jews. littleone ( talk) 22:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Just reading through the article, there are several bits that are worded in a Jewish POV perspective. Obviously it's a difficult issue to approach because it was such a horrible event, but I think it would be nice to have a bit of a clean up. For examle:

"The strong Jewish sense of family solidarity meant that this was not an option for most Jews, who preferred to die together rather than be separated."

- there's little sentences like these that are unreferenced and more rhetoric than useful fact (I think every culture in the world has a strong sense of family solidarity) that give a more subjective perspective of the horror etc., which I'm not sure fits in with wikipedia (not contending whether it's true, but it would be more appropriate in say, a subjective / first person narrative of events). Anyway, I'm not experienced with wikipedia and don't want to be accused of vandalism, so I'll just leave the suggestion here? ( 144.32.155.5 ( talk) 00:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

Entry: HOLOCAUST Sub-chapter: Escapes, publication of news of the death camps (April–June 1944) Under the photograph: Rudolf Vrba]] (right) escaped from Auschwitz on April 7, 1944, bringing the first credible news to the world of the mass murder that was taking place here.

My comment: the first credible news were delivered to the world by Poles:

Witold Pilecki [he became the only known person to volunteer to be imprisoned at Auschwitz concentration camp. While there, he organized the resistance movement in the camp, and as early as 1940, informed the Western Allies of Nazi Germany's Auschwitz atrocities. He escaped in 1943 and took part in the Warsaw Uprising (August–October 1944). Pilecki was executed in 1948 by the communists. (etc., see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilecki)];

Jan Karski [In 1942 and 1943 Karski reported to the Polish government in exile and the Western Allies on the situation in Poland, especially the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto and the extermination camps. (etc., see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Karski)];

and also by Jan Nowak-Jezioranski [He also served as an envoy between the commanders of the Home Army and the Polish Government in Exile and other allied governments. During his first trips to Sweden and Great Britain he informed the Western governments of the fate of Poland under German and Soviet occupation. He was also the first to report of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. During one of such missions, in July of 1944, he returned to Warsaw only a few days before the Warsaw Uprising broke out. (etc., see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Nowak-Jeziora%C5%84ski)]; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.16.18 ( talk) 17:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, Pilecki's information was not regarded as credible. The Vrba information was the first time it was taken seriously, according to the sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed changed to include a notion about ethnically motivated Slavic deaths.

It is a largely ignored fact in the US that Nazi Germany had also a special racial policies towards Slavic people. The Slavs were called subhuman. Moreover, Nazi planned depopulation of the Slavic territories with Germans Lebensraum . M. Berenbaum, "A Mosaic of Victims. Non-Jews murdered by Nazis." Page 117 Nazi speech :

"...... All this, however, would remain an idle dream unless a planned policy of colonization and depopulation are carried out. Yes, a depopulation policy..."

Page 118:

"Germans were true to their policies. They depopulated the Ukraine though mass execution, deportations and famine.

Page 140:

" the scale of German extermination of the population of Soviet Republics: Ukraine 4.0 million Belorussia 2.5 million Russian Federation 1.7 millions"

Most of Soviet (again predominantly Slavic) millitary were not taken prisoners (killed instead) or put in the sepate from other POW's camps were there were killed throuh malnutrition and hard labor or put in the gas chambers. - the result of racil policy:

Page 147, last paragraph:

"... it was not part of German Army tradition to kill defenseless prisoners of war by thousands ... The popular explanation is that the entire Wehrmacht had adopted the Nazi concept that all Soviet citizen are subhumans and that German soldiers acted accordingly"

The plan included reduction of USSR population alone from over 70 millions to 30 millions

[Alexander Dallin, German Rule in Occupied Russia, 1941-1945: A Study in Occupation Policies (New York: Macmillan, 1957) esp. p 278]

So while it wasn't the "final solution", but the fact is that the plan of depopulation of Eastern Eurpe was documented and widely publicised. Most of the holocaust historian acknowledge the fact the large numbers of victims among the Slavic were the results of "special" racial policies.

(From earlier talk, from M. Barenbaum's book:)

"The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust mentions that Bohdan Wytwycky estimates 4.5 million Soviet civilian deaths that were racially motivated."

(Racially means as Slavs not as Jewish. Some authors use Soviet civilians instead of collective word Slavic as such term was not used in the USSR towards its population that was predominantly Slavic.)

Therefore, I suggest the following changes : -At the beginning of the article to change the phrase about the combined death toll to say that the number of victims is over 11 millions.

We have that in a footnote -- that the broadest possible definition, including Soviet civilians, would place the figure at 17 million. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

-To add in the section on Slavic death toll the info on the Nazi policy toward Slavs with references to their plan Lebensraum (wiki article) and books I used before. The reference (Table) should say that some authors suggest that a large part of the civilian and military death toll (4.5 - 8 millions) was planned and racially motivated extermination of the Slavic people.

VSosin

I believe that, aside from gay men, there were also instances of women being murdered as lesbians, classified by the Nazis as "anti-socials." I remember seeing something about it specifically at Dachau. Zhankfor

• Hm. Maybe, maybe not; I'd think the following would have described some clearer cases if they were to be found.

The vast majority of homosexual victims were males; lesbians were not subjected to systematic persecution. While lesbian bars were closed, few women are believed to have been arrested. Paragraph 175 did not mention female homosexuality. Lesbianism was seen by many Nazi officials as alien to the nature of the Aryan woman. In some cases, the police arrested lesbians as "asocials" or "prostitutes.:' One woman, Henny Schermann, was arrested in 1940 in Frankfurt and was labeled "licentious Lesbian" on her mug shot; but she was also a "stateless Jew," sufficient cause for deportation. Among the Jewish inmates at Ravensbrück concentration camp selected for extermination, she was gassed in the Bernburg psychiatric hospital, a "euthanasia" killing center in Germany, in 1942. [16]

-- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 00:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Aimée & Jaguar? 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jaguar was Jewish, and died on a forced march; Aimée lived until 2006. So, not a helpful story for this issue. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 15:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Think of the little boy who cried wolf. Now on one side of the issue you have individuals saying "Zionism!" at every opportunity, on the other side "Antisemitism!" To assume (and accuse!) that any piece of information you see is biased or incorrect (on either side) will just make it harder for truthful and credible claims to be taken seriously, thus making it harder to maintain neutrality. All I'm saying is, this is an emotionally and politically loaded issue, PLEASE try to maintain a neutral POV. Peter Deer ( talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Pete's got a point here - better to go for the NPOV (although I smell a false dichotomy between 'Zionism' and 'anti-semitism'). That said, I can't see much evidence of it above (IPs and 'I'm not a Nazi but ...' types are easy to spot. -- Wikinterpreter ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The article appears when i'm logged in, but is only "hi" when not logged in. Please fix. ( Sawyer ( talk) 18:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

• Just refresh your page; some twit vandalized it, but it's been fixed. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just been reading through the section on Etymology and use of the term, and was expecting to see some mention of the phrase " Nuclear Holocaust", but it's currently not in there. I think there should be a brief mention of this related term, if only for completeness. Any opinions? -- Hibernian ( talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is in the disambiguation listing. Meowy 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Holocaust123.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot ( talk) 22:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"… they wish to toss into the Ghetto everything that is characteristically dirty, shabby, bizarre, of which one ought to be frightened and which anyway had to be destroyed.”

—Emmanuel Ringelblum on the Roma

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but doesn't this quote seem to agree that the Roma are characteristically dirty, shabby and bizarre? Is that really something you want to include? - TheMightyQuill ( talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If the holocaust refers to the genocide of peoples by means of concentration camps by the nazis, why do people immediately, and sometimes only think of jewish opression, persecution and excution. Of course it is true that around six million jews were executed during the holocaust, but people seem to forget the other five million innocent people subjected to the concentration camps. Around eleven million homosexuals, blacks, jews, disabled people and others were slaughtered, but yet 'the holocaust' only refers to the jews who died, why is this. Surely when the holocaust and it's dead are commemorated, not only the suffering of the jews and their persecution should be remembered, I am not anti-semitic and this small article is not racially motivated. I just wanted to ask why 5 of the 11 million people that died in the concentration camps were not remembered or even thought of by alot of people on the holocaust's anniversary, and I believe this is a very important issue to be highlighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarkz ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is nothing we can do. There is no mention of 100,000+ Bosniak Muslim victims of Holocaust in this article. But they have included voluntarily made and factually unsuported figure of 600,000 Serbs who supposedly perished... yeah right... Bosniak ( talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comes back to Ownership of the Holocaust, the Jews seemingly 'own' the term despite scholars clashing over the event itself. Basically you're fighting a losing battle if you want recognition for others who were murdered by the Nazis. eg the first who were gassed at Auschwitz were not Jews, they were Russian POWs, but apparently not part of the Holocaust for the purpose of this article. The way it works here is they killed 6 million Jews, and the also murdered a few others. Not the documented desire to do the same to the Slav nations of Eastern Europe. Basically fighting a losing battle if you want a valid position and one that has recieved much scholarly debate. Alexsanderson83 ( talk) 16:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

How about: Central Asia & Eastern Europeans (Hungary/Poland) under Mongols...

          Hungarians/Balkans under Turks...
          First Nations of the Americas under Europeans...
          Greeks/Armenians/Kurds under Turks...
          Tibet under China...
          Cambodians under Khmer Rouge...
          Rwanda...etc...?

Cross reference to "Genocide"...

Nemo Senki 66.213.22.193 ( talk) 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Re the first post - small "h" "holocaust" does not necessarily refer to an actual genocide, but just to large-scale destruction. Re the second post, and in order to please Bosniac, I'm sure I will be able to find the word holocaust used contemporanious accounts of the mass killings of Serbs during both WW1 and WW2, and when I do I'll add that to the article as another example of holocaust being used to describe genocide-type events before the term genocide was coined.

And as for the third post - there seem to be two issues here: firstly Jewish "ownership" of the term "holocaust" to (the extent of capitalising it and making it singular as in "the Holocaust"), and secondly, the activities of Jewish genocide denialists. As an example of the latter, we have Shimon Peres, when acting as Israel's foreign minister, stating "We reject attempts to create a similarity between the Holocaust and the Armenian allegations. Nothing similar to the Holocaust occurred. What the Armenians went through is a tragedy, but not genocide". Both these issues, which are related (in that they are are both rooted in self-interest), and which are rather delicate and difficult matters to raise, should be mentioned somewhere but I'm not sure in what manner. Meowy 02:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

An article should have both supporting and disagreeing evidence. Even if a vast majority of opinions agreed with one side, some mention should be made to those with differing opinions. There is a significant number of people who believe that the Holocaust never occured, or disagree with the extent with which it occured. The lead does seem to be too much of a one-sided argument to me. Any opinions? Herunar ( talk) 17:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no significant number of reliable sources doubting the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is distinctly WP:FRINGE, and justly so. The link in the Aftermath and historiography section is fully sufficient. We don't have evidence for and against a spherical Earth in Earth, or for and against heliocentrism in Solar System. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 17:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is essentially being a troofer! Denial is from the nutty fringe all right. " Jews did 9/11" and all that..... next thing you know the Holocaust deniers will be claiming the earth is flat and calling for the wearing of tinfoil hats. 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 05:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No not really. We may ask that the mention of fat being the fire source of the cremation of millions be reconsidered though - along with a few other items. The fat cremation "wiki fact" is citable ( www.hdot - Emory U no less, Lipstadt) but doubtful. If the same science was applied to the holocaust as say the tinfoilers or flat earthers the deniers would be overjoyed. Be careful as to who gets the nutty fringe tinfoil label in the end. You get the permits and we'll bring the shovels. 159.105.80.141 ( talk) 19:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is completely unfounded and is only done by ignorant or evil people. Yes it is OK to use the word evil. My father-in-law had his entire family murdered by the Nazis and was in several of these death camps. It is just crazy to say it did not happen., —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.67.64.10 ( talk) 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is not denial of the fact that it happened, it is logical questioning of the actual numbers of people who died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agagaga ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any truth to what the news is reporting, about Matan Vilnai threatening a "bigger shoah" against Hamas? And how are people reacting to that? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted in the aftermath that some of the concentration camps were never closed, they simply switched populations, for example those in Poland. [17].-- Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some effort should be put into getting the Madagascar_Plan in order, it is a very important aspect in the road leading to the Holocaust, by advocating a "minor" slower holocaust far from Europe. It directly influenced the building of the gettos in Eastern Europe for instance. I realize it can be a sensitive topic, as demonstrated [18]. -- Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)