Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 4

message: I reverted the change of Roma to Rroma because Rroma is a redirect to Roma --Silas Snider  (talk) 19:40, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
In recent years there has been a movement towards use of the "double-R" spellings of "Rroma" for the people and "Rromanes" for the language, as in the Romani language, "r" and "rr" represent two different phonemes.
see: Roma people article
:Ah. Thank you. Gzuckier 18:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Roma]] vs. [[Rroma]] 

message: It should be made clearer that concentration camps are a different thing from death camps. The purpose of the concentration camps was to make life very unpleasant for the inmates (so unpleasant in fact that by 1939 50% of the people in the concentration camps were dying), but the purpose of the concentration camps was not to exterminate the people there. The purpose of the deaths camp was extermination. 
There were Jews in the concentration camps right from their founding in 1933, but there were a minority. The majority of the people in the concentration camps in 1933 were political opponents of the Nazis, mostly Social Democrats and Communists. The Jews sent to the concentration camps in the 1930s were there usually there because they were SPD or KPD members or because they had broke the Nuremberg Laws. I'm not trying to defend the Nazis in any way, but the general princple for most of the 1930s was that a Jew would have to do something first like breaking the Nuremberg Laws before being sent to a concentration camp. Just being Jewish was not sufficient enough. The first time that Jews were sent to the concentration camps just for being Jewish in large numbers was in 1938. By contrast, when the death camps opened in 1941, being Jewish was considered sufficient grounds to be sent there. 
:OK, but also clarify that most people use the words interchangably.Gzuckier 15:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Concentration Camps vs Death Camps

message: Jez has changed the word "targets" in the intro from: "The Jews of Europe were the main targets of the Holocaust in what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" to "main victims." I prefer targets because the Final solution was aimed at Jews. They didn't just end up being its victims. They were its targets. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree.  Also main "victims" almost minimizes the other victims who were equally victims once they were victimized.  The main "targets", however, were indisputably Jews. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 19:32, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
::That's a good point, Mperel. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:56, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:::OK - hadn't thought about it like that. Targets it is, then. Jez 21:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Targets to victims

message: I want someone to prove 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust right now, I want hard evidence to back it, a list of 6 million names with definative proof that they died due to Nazi involvement. 
:The task of Wikipedia is not to respond to individual queries. What you read in the article is the mainstream historical account, which you are free to disagree with, but you will have to find your own source material.
:The Nazis themselves kept pretty good records of the people they killed in concentration camps, and most of these records are accessible to serious researchers. The Einsatzgruppen kept less accurate records, but that would lead to an under- rather than an overstatement of the death toll. If you dispute the veracity of the Nazis' own record, there is probably little that will convince you. JFW | T@lk 13:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 6 million?

message: I added blacks to the list of groups targeted by Nazi Germany and receive an inquiry from another Wikipedian.  I've reproduced my response below.  More information about the treatment of blacks also should be included in the article.
Just as Jews were throughout Europe, so, too, were blacks -- but in far smaller numbers. Most were "mixed-race." They were discriminated against and marginalized and segregated from mainstream German society. Most were forcibly sterilized, but it is estimated that at least 400 German blacks were sent to concentration camps. African-American woman jazz musician Valaida Snow was arrested in Denmark while living in and touring Europe and survived 18 months in Wester-Faengler, a Nazi concentration camp. She was released, along with some Allied troops, as part of a prisoner swap. And there were others. A relatively quick search on the Internet should yeild at least spotty information. Here's one web site w/a blurb. Just as non-Jewish victims of The Holocaust are continually overlooked, its black victims are almost never mentioned.  deeceevoice 20:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 400 blacks in total? Jayjg (talk) 21:00, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacks and The Holocaust

message: Removed the sentence In Poland, before the WW II, Jews and non-Jews had very uneasy relations and anti-semitism was rampant. During the German occupation, many Poles actively collaborated in rounding up the Jews by Nazis and others closed their eyes when their Jewish countrymen were taken to the concentration camps and the eventual death. It was not a coincidence that Auschwitz was set up on Polish soil. for extreme POV. --Ttyre 19:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that sentence has overwheling bias, but I hope it gets resurrected in some more neutral form. In both Poland and Ukraine the local feeling towards jews was very negative and many people were willing to help in the killing of Jews. --Cypherx 17:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not saying the entire populations of Poland and Ukraine took part in the killing of Jews, or that the anti-semitism in those countries was entirely unique. However, the hatred of Jews was stronger and more common. Pogroms weren't that distant of a memory. I'm not a holocaust scholar and I haven't researched the issue extensively, but from what I've read it seems there was less resistance to, and greater willingness to participate in, the extermination of local Jews. Perhaps it seems this way because Poland and Ukraine had greater Jewish populations than other countries...I'm not sure. --Cypherx 00:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you quantify "...stronger and more common..." as well as "...less resistance to, and greater willingness to participate in..." to support your point? Could you cite a source(s)? Otherwise it's your POV. --Ttyre 12:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborators 

message: The acticle starts from the premise that all the dogmas concerning the 'holocaust' are true, even though many of those are highly controversial. This clearly does not fall within the objectivity status. The same way, is it utterly incorrect to state that revisionists reverse the proper methodology for historical research OR that they generally have an ideological agenda behind their findings. Several revisionists are liberals or libertarians, and a very prominent revisionist even is jewish. What agenda could they possibly have? Also, few of the historians defending the official views ever prove their claims, while revisionists tend to come up with an abundance of proof, which is usually ignored.
Some resources on the revisionist view are :
websites :
*Intstitute for Historical Review
*VHO.org
*Holocaust Historiography project
books : 
* Holocaust Affirmers (Alexander Baron)
*The Hoax Of The 20th Century (Arthur Butz)
* The Rumor of Auschwitz (Robert Faurisson)
* The Giant With Feet Of Clay : Raul Hilber and his standard work on the "holocaust" (Jürgen Graf)
*Holocaust or Hoax? (Jürgen Graf)
*The First Holocaust: Jewish Fund Raising Campaigns with Holocaust Claims During and After World War One (Don Heddesheimer)
*The Myth of the Six Million (David Hoggan)
*Auschwitz: The End of a Legend (Carlo Mattogno)
*Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research, and History (Carlo Mattogno
*Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
*Concentration Camp Majdanek: A Historical and Technical Study (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
*Concentration Camp Stutthof and its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy (Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf)
* The Drama of the European Jews (Paul Rassinier)
* The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein (Henri Roques)
*Dissecting the Holocaust (Germar Rudolf)
*The Rudolf Report: Expert Report on Chemical and Technical Aspects of the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz (Germar Rudolf)
*The Holocaust Story and the Lies of Ulysses (Paul Rassinier)
* The origins of the Second World War (AJP Taylor)--[[
:(a) Stop spamming those links on holocaust-related articles; anyone who wants them can just go to vho-land anyway. (b) Consensus will knock out that  notice; you're hardly the first one to put it in. It will be removed every time; don't waste your energy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about neutrallity? --IlluSionS667 19:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rehashed POV baloney. None of those are neutral sources. NPOV does not require that false views be given equal time with true views. Now go away. --FCYTravis 18:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Then what makes a source neutral? Is a source only neutral when it is n compiance with the official story? Each of the books provided is neutral, in the way that they use objective historical methods to come to their conclusions, and in the way that they do not promote any opinion whatsoever. This is NOT the case for this article. --IlluSionS667 19:11, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a section noting that some people do not believe the Holocaust happened, and linking to the article on that belief - Holocaust denial. That is all the space such a belief merits on this page, which is about a widely accepted historical fact. --FCYTravis 19:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Being widely accepted, does not make it a fact. It used to be widely accepted that the earth was flat. It used to be widely accepted that black people were an inferior, more primitive kind of man. It used to be widely accepted that there was something called an "ether". All of these things have been disproven be science. Why not allow these so-called facts about the so-called 'holocaust' to be objectively researched and discussed? Why still claim that something is fact, when there is an abundance of evidence that disproves those so-called facts? --IlluSionS667 19:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Because the so-called evidence is bullshit, it's repeatedly been demonstrated to be bullshit, and it's a waste of time and finger movements for sane, intelligent, well-intentioned people to debate with dedicated deniers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What makes it BS? The evidence is solid and has NEVER been disproven whatsoever. Your claim that is it "a waste of time" to discuss with revisionists, merely shows how little evidence you guys really have. Revisionists don't shun debate, because they are backed up by evidence, which is something those defending the official story are not. --IlluSionS667 19:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've talked with an American soldier who liberated a Nazi concentration camp. That was evidence enough for me. You can deny everything you want, but you can't deny the memories of those who were there. Pity that as their generation passes into history, it will become easier for your ilk to pretend the greatest mass murder of all time never happened. --FCYTravis 19:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: What did the American soldier see, that can not be explained by revisionist history? I'm not the denier here. You're the one denying all the available evidence, by clinging on to old war-propaganda and the testimonies of the few Elie 'Weasel's and the Primo Levi's  out there, who use their lies either to make profit, for revenge or to promore an agenda, while the majority of testomonies is perfectly in line with revisionist history. That's true denial ! ! --IlluSionS667 19:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: One shudders to think of our narrow escape. 100 white supremacist/antisemitic edits in 8 hours..... Gzuckier 22:54, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you calling my edits white supremacist/antisemitic? That's funny.
All I have to add, are the following quotes from famous people who do know what they're talking about, unlike you guys :
*"There are two histories : official history, lying, and then secret history, where you find the real causes of events"  (Honoré de Balzac, 19th century French novelist)
*"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."  (Friedrich Nietzsche, 19th century German philosopher, philologist and psychologist)
*"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."  (Arthur Schopenhauer, 19th century German philosopher)
*"Only the winners decide what were war crimes."  (Gary Wills, Pulitzer Prize winner and current Adjunct Professor of History at Northwestern)
*"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even capable of forming such opinions."  (Albert Einstein, 20th century German theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner)
*"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists."  (J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924, until his death in 1972)
*"These Holocaust deniers are very slick people. They justify everything they say with facts and figures." (Steven Some, Chairman of the New Jersey Commission on Holocaust Education)
*"In general it should not be forgotten that the highest aim of human existence is not the preservation of a state, let alone a government, but the preservation of the species. ---- The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and spiritually similar beings. This preservation comprises first of all existence as a race, and thereby permits free development of all the forces dormant in this race. ---- For in the long run systems of government are not maintained by the pressure of force, but by faith in their soundness and in the truthfulness with which they represent and advance the interests of a people."  (Adolf Hitler, leader and imperial chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945.)
....... IlluSionS667 out .......
Good riddance. john k 22:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sided