Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 17

message: On a completely unrelated note, perhaps it is worth mentioning that the term "holocaust" was not accepted and ubiquitous until the 1950s and 60s. Perhaps some talk of "holocaust consciousness" is worth noting as well. The idea that the holocaust is now almost sacred in the sense that it embodies evil, and no historical event or idea can be compared to it. Perhaps this is branching too far, but if it you guys agree that 3-4 sentences on it would be worthwhile i'll gladly throw it into the etymology part. 69.157.240.152 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact it wasn't even until the late 1970s that this became the most common meaning of the word. Before that "nuclear holocaust" was the most familiar usage. This is discussed in Names of the Holocaust. Paul B 08:04, 7 November 2007 
i wasnt referring to the time holocaust=jewish solution but to the time it was first used to even mean that. American dreams and nazi nightmares by Kirsten Fermaglich proposes that the comparisons between american culture and nazi germany in the 50's and 60's were the first signs of a "holocaust consciousness." In 1959 Stanley Elkins wrote "slavery: a problem in american intellectual and institutional life" and refers to it as "the holocaust". The major point of my post was that there is nothing in this article about holocaust consciousness or its sacred place in history. Not sure if it deserves another article or should be put in here or is not relevant. 69.157.240.152 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont understand what you sare saying. Is Stanley Elkins refering to slavery as 'the holocaust'? That wouldn't be unusual at the time and it's not necessarily related to 'holocaust consciousess', or even to comparisons with the Nazis - at least the use of the word holocaust at that time would not have directly implied that then. Many things were called holocausts. It was a widely used word for large scale disasters and deaths. We'd need more on the context. Paul B 08:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I don't know the book. I've looked at some reviews, and from what I can gather the main argument is that Jewish intellectuals after the war often used the events of the Nazi holocaust as part of a wider liberal project to link other ethicity-based massacres as a general phenomenon, but that in more recent times some Jewish intellectuals, particularly those on the right, have been trying to emphadsise the uniqueness of the Nazi holocaust with respect to Jews and to deny the comparability of other events. Is that the main claim of the book and are these examples of what Fermaglich calls "holocaust consciousness"? It might be possible to link some of this to the inclusion/exclusion debate. By the way, I seem to have accidentally missed the word "not" out of one of the sentences in my previous post - which inverted my intended meaning.Paul B 14:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is this Mr Petrie author of "The Secular Word Holocaust" writing? I don't doubt you are right, but I'm not sure how that helps. The word simply means "disaster". Since the election of the Nazis in 1933 was certainly a disaster for Jews, it's not surprising that the word was used in a Hebrew language article about the fact - but it can't have been referring to the Shoah/Holocaust, since it hadn't yet happened. This does raise the wider question of when these words were first used as proper nouns, and not simply descrptively. Paul B (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust consciousness

message: The facts are simple, there were 8 million Jews in Nazi occupied Europe and 6 million died in the Holocaust a 75% death rate. There were 24 million ethinc Poles and 2 million died, a death rate of 8%, of the 30 million non Jews in the 1939 Ukraine about 3 million civilians died in the war, a death rate of 10%. There were 15 million Yugoslavs of which 600,000 non Jewish civilians were war dead, a 4% death rate. There is no comparison of Jewish and non-Jewish losses. The Christians had the chance to work for the Germans and live, most did survive because they were needed as a labour source for Germany. If Germany had won the war Slavs may have been exterminated. From 1939-45 the German policy was to enslave Slavs not to exterminate them like the Jews. One cannot compare Slavic civilian losses to Jewish Holocaust losses because the Germans had differant polices for both groups. The Jews were to die and the Slavs to work for German masters. Lets put these losses in their proper context.--Woogie10w 02:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I looked at a 1939 cencus, and it said that there were a little below 6 million Jews alive that time. 75% of THAT number died. Anyways, Ukraine had between 6.8- 10 million dead, by the way, check earilier posts. Mona23653 22:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mona, have you understood that this page is not about the total number of people who died in the war? Paul B 23:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes i know that. It was at least 7 million Ukrainians that died as a result of German genocidal policies. FYI the very first prisoners in Auschwitz were UKrainians, and they constituted the majority of the prisoners up until the final year of the war. For reference, check out witnesses, and the stories by the people who were actually there. Here's a good book, by Petro Kardash, "Zlochyn", aka "Crime", written in Ukrainian. Mona23653 14:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure it's a great book, but I don't speak Ukrainian and I suspect very few editors here do. The problem is that the Ukrainian prisoners were also Soviet prisoners, and are generally identified as such in the literature. Yes, a case can be made that the whole war in the east was 'genocidal', but it is almost unheard of, in my experience, for the term "the Holocaust" to be applied to this aspect of Nazi policy and the numbers - in terms of population proportions - don't match Jews and Roma. Hitler in the Table Talk does have grandiose schemes for repopulating the Ukraine with the 'Nordic race' ("we will attact to the Ukraine Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes...they will come from Germany, Scandanavia, the West and America") which clearly implies that the original population will be at best displaced, but this was all proposals, and other ideas and claims also circulated. Paul B 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what about 700,000 Serbs killed in Independent State of Croatia a 40% death rate in that country and 200,000 deported. All of them wold be killed few more years. Vladar86  —Preceding comment was added at 21:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'M FROM MISSOURI, YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW ME.--Woogie10w 22:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Serbian researcher Bogoljub Kočović found that total Serbian losses were 487,000  --Woogie10w 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Report by anthropologist Srboljub Živanović . But what ever total figure is, goal was clear extermination of Serbian people --Vladar86  —Preceding comment was added at 10:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website has an informative section on Jasenovac. They report Although further research may yield more exact figures, current estimates place the number of victims murdered by the Ustaša in Jasenovac during World War II between 56,000 and 97,000--Woogie10w 11:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavic War losses-Time For A Reality Check 

message: Users throw out statistics that are not checked. For example 6.8 million Ukrainians died in the war. This figure includes 1.6 million military dead and about 1.4 million dead that are also counted by Poland. Another error is the statement that 3 million Christian Poles died in the war. Historians in post communist Poland now believe the number is 2 million not the 3 million which is copied in so many worthless sources. Yugoslav losses were given as 1.7 million by the Tito regime for years. The US Census Bureau published a study in 1954 that concluded losses were 1,067,000, including 300,000 military dead. Check and double check any data that you see coming out of Eastern Europe.--Woogie10w 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page must get its numbers right

message: The discussion on the non Jewish losses is a disgrace. The claim of 10 million Ukrainian dead is not backed up with verifiable sources. If you include the Ukraine you must get the correct information for non-Jewish civilian losses, this data must be supported with a verifiable source. If the the non-Jewish Ukrainan civilians get a line we must also include non-Jewish Russians, Belerussians, Poles, Serbs and Greeks who also were victims of Nazi genocide. We cannot do our own original  research and guess the figures, we must post a verifiable source. That is the rule of the road here at Wikipedia. The discussion on non Jewish losses is degenerating to the level of a late night barroom debate--Woogie10w 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't consider the 2002 Population Studies article I quoted from to dated or biased. Population Studies is a well known source of demographic information.--Woogie10w 17:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable Sources must back up any numbers posted 

message: Vadim Erlikman, a  Russian an journalist-historian, has published a handbook of statistical data on human losses in the twentieth century. He has a critical eye and does not take for granted that official  Soviet era statistical data is the final word on losses of the U.S.S.R. during the war 
Vadim Erlikman. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. 
This is a summary Erlikman’s data for the Ukraine from 1941-45.
Population 1940:41,340,000 (includes 9 million in territory annexed from Poland & Romania)
Military Dead:
Killed in battle-1,250,000 A./F.
Wounded-3,520,000
POW Dead- 310,000
Partisan Deaths 55,000 B..
Militia Dead 35,000 B.
Total Military Deaths: 1,650,000
Civilian Dead:
Killed by military activity 250,000
Executed and murdered: 2,400,000 C/D.
Deaths in prisons & camps:  350,000
Deaths in Germany(forced labor) 700,000
Deaths due to famine & disese 1,500,000
Total Civilian Dead: 5,200,00
Refugees: 3,550,000
Emmigration:150,000 E.
Total Ukrainian War Dead- 6,850,000
Erlikman’s notes:
A.	Ethnic Ukrainian battle dead for the entire USSR was 1,367,500 15.9% of Soviet battle deaths
B.	Erlikman’s estimate
C.	“Per the overstated data of the Extraordinary State Commission 3,091,987
civilians in the Ukraine were killed”
D.	Averaged  deaths were 650,000 Jews, 40,000 Poles and 15,000 Gypsies.   
E.	According to other data the number who emigrated was 483,000.
F.      Military dead includes an estimated 30,000 with German Army. Total in German Army 180,000
--Woogie10w 15:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian WW2 Casualties, Data from a Contemporary  Russian Source 

message: Summary  detailing the estimated Ukrainian the population deficit 1939-48
A.	Excess deaths due to war(1941-45)  6,704,000
B.	Excess deaths 1939/40 & 1946/48        376,00
C.	Birth Deficit(children not born)       3,517,000
D.	 Net Emigration                                  1,993,000
Total demographic loss                          12,590,000
Notes: Excess deaths 1939/40 & 1946/48   includes 1947 famine
Net Emigration  includes persons displaced to other Soviet Republics as
well as Poles repatriated and Dp’s in the west.                              
Source:
A New Estimate of Ukrainian Population Losses during the Crises of the 1930s and 1940s
Jacques Vallin, France Mesle, Serguei Adamets, Serhii Pyrozhkov
Population Studies, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Nov., 2002), pp. 249-264
--Woogie10w 16:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Demographic Population Losses 1939-47, Data from a Contemporary  English language Source 

message: Historians of the Holocaust in the west have included losses in Galicia with Poland rather 
than the U.S.S.R. This territory was formally ceded by Poland to the U.S.S.R. by treaty in August 1945. Soviet and Ukrainian sources however, include war dead from annexed Galicia with Soviet
losses. We must take this into account in order to avoid a duplication . 
Lucy Dawidowicz in her ‘’ War Against the Jews’’ lists the deaths of  900,000 of the 1,500,000 Jews in the prewar 1939 borders of the Ukraine, not including Galicia and Bukovina. 
The Polish government in exile published a Statistical Handbook in London 1941. The number of 
Jews in occupied Galicia was estimated at 794,000.  Since this region was occupied by Germany
in June/July 1941 most Jews were trapped there and had no chance to evacuate with Soviet forces.
About 90% perished in the war 700,000.
Estimated Jewish Holocaust Victims  in Ukraine(postwar borders)
1939 Ukraine- 900,000
Galicia- 700,000
Romanian Bukovina-100,000
Total 1,700,000 
Estimated 1939 Jewish population in Ukraine(postwar borders)
1939 Ukraine- 1,500,000
Galicia- 800,000
Romanian Bukovina-100,000
Total 2,400,000 
--Woogie10w 16:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Holocaust Deaths in the Ukraine within postwar 1945 borders 

message: This doesn't even belong here. There was minimal Ukrainian collaboration, unlike biased sources say. The so-called Petliura days never did happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mona23653 (talk • contribs) 
::This is the text from the main article, I believe that it should remain as is.
Thousands of people in these countries actively collaborated with the Nazis. Ukrainians and Latvians joined SS auxiliary forces in large numbers and did much of the dirty work in Nazi extermination camps--Woogie10w 17:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II 

message: Ukrainian WW2 Losses a Summary
In millions
Population 1940 : 41.3
Less: 
Ukrainian Jews     (2.4) 
Military personnel (5) 
Balance
Ukrainian Civilians (non Jewish) 33.9
Losses: 
Jews 1.7 million of 2.4 million 71%
Military 1.6 million of 5 million 32%
Civilians(non Jewish) 3.6 million of  33.9 million 10%
Total 6.8 million of 41.3 million 16 %
Note well that the total of 6.8 million dead includes 1.4 million also counted with Polish and Romanian losses by most western historians.  Population of 1940 includes 9 million in annexed territories--Woogie10w 19:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian WW2 Losses a Summary 

message: A very substantial number of people of African origin were killed as well. Before Hitler, several thousands of them lived for instance in Germany. After the war this community was almost wiped out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.202.39 (talk) 20:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this out [] --Woogie10w 20:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's not true. Yes, some mixed race Germans were sterilised but there were no murders. Ironically black Germans had a statistically higher chance of survival than white Germans because, as non-Aryans, they were not allowed to serve in the armed forces. The opposite was true in the US armed forces. See African Germans in the Third Reich by Susann Samples Paul B 00:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacks/Africans killed by Nazis 

message: Ukrains’ka RSR v velykli vitchyz’nianni viini Vol 3 Kiev 1969 P. 150
Civilians 3,898,457
Military (IncPOW) 1,366,588
Losses Crimea & ZaCarpathia 250,009
Total 5,515,104
V.V. Schherbytskyi Radianska Ukrainia 10/18/1974
Total 6,750,000--Woogie10w 10:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total Ukrainian WW2 Losses-Ukrainian(Soviet era) Sources 

message: Per the Istoriya Velikoi Otechestvenoi Voiny, Vol 6 Map 13-
Number killed of killed civilians & POW in the Ukraine- 4,497,000--Woogie10w 10:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets see the new documents, I am from Missouri, you have got to show me!--Woogie10w 17:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian Victims of the Nazis-The official Soviet Statistic  

message: The post that I just made was extracted from another Wikipedia article.Holocaust victims--Woogie10w 13:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish and Soviet Slav Victims 

message: This is for the doubting Thomas's out there.
Total War Soviet Dead-----26.5 million
Less:
Dead Annexed Territories--3.0  million
Military Battle Deaths----7.0  million
Military POW Deaths-------3.0  million
Jewish Holocaust Deaths---1.0  million
Famine Dead interior USSR-3.0  million
Balance civilian deaths--
in German occupied USSR---9.5 million
 
Total War Dead- Data from 1992 Russian Academy Science Report
Dead Annexed Territories-Already included with Poland, Baltic States & Rumania
Military Battle Deaths-Official Soviet figure
Military POW Deaths- per USHMM
Jewish Holocaust Deaths-(1939 USSR borders) per Martin Gilbert
Famine Dead interior USSR- Excess deaths in USSR not occupied by Germans per Russian Academy Science Report 1995
Balance civilian deaths(Non Jewish) in German occupied USSR(1939 borders)- Soviet citzens that died as a result of the German occupation. Killed in reprisals, anti-partisan operations, forced labor and famine.--Woogie10w 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Civilian Losses in WW2 

message: I'm not getting what is going on here.  The lead of the article clearly states, The Holocaust  is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II.  Yet the article, with what appears to be some POV-warrioring from editors, has just become a huge recounting of Nazi atrocities, with some added crap about what the Soviets have done.  There are lots of things I'm beginning to hate about Wikipedia.  But this article is disgusting.  The Holocaust is simply the murdering of 6 million Jews.  As horrible as what the Nazis did to numerous other racial and ethnic groups, they belong in very specific articles about those specific atrocities.  What this article has become is just a discussion about what Nazis did to everyone, which is not the Holocaust.  That does not follow the academic definition of the Holocaust, and, in fact, I contend can be used by Holocaust Deniers in a whole-hot of unethical ways.  Typical of Wikipedia, we discuss a consensus for a couple of days, people go off onto other articles or their real lives, and the consensus never forms.  We need to decide, get an ArbCom ruling, or something.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpg, I appreciate your take on Arbcom.  I didn't really mean that, I'm just concerned we can develop a consensus that makes sense.  Basically, most academic articles describe THE Holocaust (capitalization of the H is critical) as the murder of the Jews by the Nazis.  Whatever happened to everyone else was A holocaust, just as horrible, but deserve their own articles.  If we want this article to be about everyone murdered by the Nazis, then let's rename the article to "Nazi Genocide" or something to that effect.  Then spin off an article about THE Holocaust.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty good idea, actually. Or perhaps "The Holocaust" should be a redirect to "Shoah", which would start with a "See also Nazi Genocides or something like that. Avoid the entire issue. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The facts are very clear here, there were 8 million Jews in Nazi occupied Europe and 6 million died in the Holocaust a 75% death rate. There were 24 million ethinc Poles and 2 million died, a death rate of 8%, of the 30 million non Jews in the 1939 Ukraine about 3 million civilians died in the war, a death rate of 10%. There were 15 million Yugoslavs of which 600,000 non Jewish civilians were war dead, a 4% death rate. There is no comparison of Jewish and non-Jewish losses. The Christians had the chance to work for the Germans and live, most did survive because they were needed as a labour source for Germany. If Germany had won the war Slavs may have been exterminated. From 1939-45 the German policy was to enslave Slavs not to exterminate them like the Jews. One cannot compare Slavic civilian losses to Jewish Holocaust losses because the Germans had differant polices for both groups. The Jews were to die and the Slavs to work for German masters. Lets put these losses in their proper context.--Woogie10w 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The article follows usage by scholars. That usage, as has already been established, is "fuzzy". Sometimes it refers exclusively to the attempted genocide of Jews, at other times it also refers to other systematic killings, usually in the context of concentration/death camps, and in particular of Roma. We should describe these usages, and explain the context about the debate about the extent of the usage. I have never seen the term "The Holocaust" used in scholarly literature - or even journalism - to refer to all civilian deaths. We need to follow established usage. Vague claims that Nazis planned to exterminate Poles or Slavs will not do. What they may or may not have planned is irrelevant. The article focusses on what they in fact did. Paul B 09:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yea right, this article has the vague claim that 220,000 Freemasons were Holocaust victims with the source being "Freemasonry for Dummies". The 800,000 Soviet civilians who died in Leningrad are not mentioned. Wake up and smell the coffee, the section on non-Jewish victims is a confused mess.--Woogie10w 11:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support Orangemarlin/jpgordon proposition because we must have 1 article for Holocaust (or Shoa) and another article for other Nazi genocides/massacres ---Rjecina 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure three people are a consensus, but maybe we're the only ones who care.  Shall we be bold, and do as Jpg suggested?  I think it would work.  Let me make a proposal in a new section.  Hopefully, Woogie understands what we're trying to do.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article 

message: I do not have the time or patience to help fix this article, I will never edit here again--Woogie10w 00:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I reverted back to 11-9-07 version 

message: From Wikipedia artice on Racial policy of Nazi Germany
The main targets of the Nazi Genocide were the Jews of Europe, of whom approximately six million were killed, including 1.5 million children. Other targets included Roma, mentally ill, homosexuals, political opponents. Generalplan Ost (GPO) was a Nazi plan to realize Hitler's "new order of ethnographical relations" in the territories occupied by Germany in Eastern Europe during World War II. It was prepared in 1941 and confirmed in 1942. The plan was part of Hitler's own Lebensraum plan and a fulfilment of the Drang nach Osten ("Drive towards the East") state ideology.
The final version of Generalplan Ost, essentially a grand plan for ethnic cleansing, was divided into two parts; the Kleine Planung ("Small Plan"), which covered actions which were to be taken during the war, and the Grosse Planung ("Big Plan"), which covered actions to be undertaken after the war was won (to be carried into effect gradually over a period of 25-30 years). 
The Small Plan was to be put into practice as the Germans conquered the areas to the east of their pre-war borders. The individual stages of this plan would then be worked out in greater detail. In this way the plan for Poland was drawn up at the end of November, 1939. The plan envisaged differing percentages of the various conquered nations undergoing Germanisation, expulsion into the depths of Russia, and other fates, the net effect of which would be to ensure that the conquered territories would be Germanized. 
In ten years' time, the plan called for the extermination, expulsion, enslavement or Germanisation of most or all Poles and East Slavs living behind the front lines in Europe. Instead, 250 million Germans would live in an extended Lebensraum ("living space") of the 1000-Year Reich (Tausendjähriges Reich). Fifty years after the war, under the Große Planung, Generalplan Ost foresaw the eventual expulsion and extermination of more than 50 million Slavs beyond the Ural Mountains. 
Of the Poles, by 1952 only about 3-4 million people were supposed to be left residing in the former Poland, and then only to serve as slaves for German settlers. They were to be forbidden to marry, the existing ban on any medical help to Poles in Germany would be extended, and eventually Poles (believed by the Nazis to be Untermenschen, that is "sub-people") would cease to exist.
A Russian historian Vadim Erlikman has detailed Soviet losses totaling 26.5 million war related deaths. Military losses of 10.6 million include 7.6 million killed or missing in action and 2.6 million POW dead, plus 400,000 paramilitary and Soviet partisan losses. Civilian deaths totaled 15.9 million which included 1.5 million from military actions; 7.1 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 1.8 million deported to Germany for forced labor; and 5.5 million famine and disease deaths. Additional famine deaths which totaled 1 million during 1946-47 are not included here. The official Polish government report of war losses prepared in 1947 reported 6,028,000 war victims out of a population of 27,007,000 ethnic Poles and Jews; this report excluded ethnic Ukrainian and Belarusian losses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogie10w (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The meaning of the word holocaust has changed over time and will probably change again in future. Some people prefer to use the word holocaust only to the systematic mass murder on Jews, others use the word to all systematic mass murders on whole peoples. So, I guess the article should reflect the different uses of the word by a separation in sections. The holocaust on Jews was the first step of the Nazi regime, because the Jews formed a target in their propaganda during the twenties to come into power. The existence of Roma was for the Nazi's hardly worth to mention; they were just exterminated when there was sufficient acpacity in the murder process. If you look at the treatment of Slavic peoples, especially Poles and Soviet POW's, then there can be no doubt that these Untermenschen also had to be extinguished. Most people write here with wisdom from books, I have spoken many surviving witnesses of the concentration camps and not only survivors of mild camps like Dachau or Buchenwald, but also of very more severe ones. That the percentages of murdered of the Slavic peoples were still low has just to do with the fact that preference was given to the murder on the Jews (and Roma). The intention of Hitler Germay was to empty Eastern Europe and for instance move the Dutch people from The Netherlands to the Ukraine. The murder on the slavic peoples had just started end therefore the percentages are low. And the plans were not vague as someone writes here, but were very clear. The first steps to a colonisation of the Ukraine by Dutch people wre already set (one of the organizers of the colonisation, Cornelis Staf, became after the war a Dutch minister for agriculture for a Christian party). Robvhoorn 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the plans were vague. There was no fully worked out or systematic masterplan of what to do with populations in the east, and there were widely divergent views among the Nazi hierarchy, as is evidenced by the history of Rosenberg's constant battles and disputes as Reichminister for the Eastern Territories. Also Hitler himself said a variety of things that are difficult to clearly reconcile. We really don't know with any certainty how genocidal their actions would have been after the war and to what extent policies in the 1942-5 period were determined by wartime expediency. It's true that Rosenberg had established links with Dutch and Scandanavian groups as part of his pan-Nordicist vision, and that this was envisaged as part of the future settlement plan for the East, but he was also trying to encourage anti-Russian nationalists in the Ukraine and Baltic states with promises to them at the same time. Lots of irreconcilable plans were circulating. Paul B 11:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The fact of the matter is that 9 million Soviet slavs were killed by Nazi ethnic cleansing . The Nazi crimes in the Soviet Union were documnented at Nürnberg. You cannot deny that Slavs were also victims of Nazi genocide--Woogie10w 12:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who is "you" and who is denying what exactly? The question of whether Nazi actions in the west were genocidal turns on the definition of the word "genocide". No-one has ever denied the murderousness of Nazi actions in the east. Hitler himself said his policies would produce mass starvation, and he didn't care. Churchill also predicted immediately after the invasion that "poor as are the Russian peasants, workmen and soldiers, he must steal from the them their daily bread. He must steal their harvests. He must rob them of the oil that drives their ploughs and so produce a famine without example in human history." But it's still very difficult to define when murderous war becomes "genocide". Paul B 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe the plans were not yet completely worked out, but the colonisation by Dutch farmers started already at the end of 1942. The Dutch company Nederlandse Heide Maatschappij was indicated to organize the large scale colonisation. One of the crops that should be produced was tobacco. Dutch people, with experience in production of tobacco while employing forced labour by local people in the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia), were sent to the Ukraine. So, you should not have any illusions about the ultimate fate of the Slavic peoples. Only the lack of killing capacity kept most of them alive, but a beginning of the annihilation process was already made as the numbers of victims make clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The colonisation of the area by pro-Nazi "Nordics" and by ethnic Germans was certainly always part of the lebensraum concept. No-one denies that nor have they ever done so. The question concerns the claim that that would be accompanied by what you call an "annihilation process", and I know of no evidence for that which is in any way comparable to the evidence for the Holocaust as such: i.e. systematic murder of a defined population. What you have are general brutality and killings, proposals for population displacement, comments about encouraging famine, whacky theories to encourage homosexuality among non-Germans to reduce their breeding etc etc. Paul B 13:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I see the numbers of murdered non-Jewish people (millions), than I call it a genocide, a holocaust, although it was not yet completed. See the treatment of Slavic people in the concentration camps, they were treated much worse than the other prisoners. It was the lack of burning capacity in the crematoria that kept them alive. The intention was to murder them all. There were 8 to 10 million Jews to be killed, that job was not yet completed at the end of the war. Next would be more than 100 million of Slavic people. It was just lack of capacity (and of course the need of slave manpower for the war industry). Robvhoorn 14:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: A genocide is an attempt to eliminate a people. This article is not about whether Nazi policy in the East was genocidal. Before the 1970s the term 'a holocaust' was a common word to refer to any terrible destructive event. For example it was used to describe the bombings of Dresden and Hiroshima - quite legitimately - long before it became the commobn word for Nazi systematic murders. I think the problem here is the confusion betwen the use of 'holocaust' as a noun and as a proper noun: rather like "terror" and The Terror. The latter refers to a specific event in the French Revolution. Other examples of terror - even during the revolution - are not The Terror. The point is that scholars in English use the term "The Holocaust" in delimited ways. We have to be clear about what they mean by the term and describe the range of ways that they use it. Paul B 17:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article opens the door to a broader definition of the Holocaust by including Freemasons, Spanish prisoners and Gays. The door is opened to Slav victims when Serbs are included. My hunch is that the editors here have a very poor understaning of the subject of non-Jewish victims of Nazi Germany. This drags the whole article down and reduces is credibility. The best approch would be to include the Slavic losses but to point that the two peoples were " unequal victims" In the war 80% of the Jews perished but only 15% of Soviet Slavs and 5% of the Poles. It's your call, you can inprove it or leave it in it's current mess. By the way the US Holocaust Museum has an informative sections on it's webpage on the Nazi war crimes in the USSR and Poland.--Woogie10w 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poles and East Slavs 

message: An American POV Push is going on here. This article reflects the narrow American bias regarding the crimes committed by Hitler Germany. The Polish and Soviet victims of Nazi policies are ignored and treated with contempt. For example one sees remarks like "some added crap about what the Soviets have done"--Woogie10w 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the words of conempt I refer to "some added crap about what the Soviets have done" That indicates a depraved indifferance to the losses of the Soviet people--Woogie10w 17:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not.  What it is that international scholars have defined THE Holocaust as exclusively the extermination of Jews by Nazis.  The other "crap" means it doesn't belong in this article.  What I contend is that certain editors (how passive aggressive to say it in that manner) are attempting to hijack this article, which defines itself as the genocide against the Jews, to put in other information about other ethnic groups who were murdered by the Nazis and Soviets.  As I stated very clearly above, that is as an appalling story as THE Holocaust, and deserves their own articles to discuss how horrible it was.  To indicate that I have a depraved indifference to any travesty on any people by any group is lacking good faith in me.  Now stop the attacks and try to help.  BTW, though I hold American Citizenship, I am also a citizen of an EU country, and lived a larger part of my life in Europe than in the US.  Now stop.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not being " passive agressive " in my comments. My comments are an active agressive effort to improve the section on non-Jewish victims. An active and agressive approch is necessary here to inform the editors of the genocidal nature of the German war against the USSR--Woogie10w (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep saying that "international scholars have defined THE Holocaust as exclusively the extermination of Jews by Nazis" when you know very well that that's not true - as has been repeatedly pointed out? The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states "It is not known precisely how many Roma were killed in the Holocaust." Paul B 17:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, as with most ideas, there is never 100% academic support.  There are some people who think Evolution is wrong.  But WE have defined this article as being about the murder of Jews.  I think there is a consensus to develop this article as one about Jewish genocide by Nazis, and create an article entitled Nazi Genocides.  Moreover, let's dump the Holocaust title, redirect to Shoah, and we can develop two very good articles--one on the Shoah, one on the general atrocities of the Nazis.  Then we don't have to spend hours arguing on what ethnic group OWNS the word Holocaust.  What's wrong with a compromise?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we don't define what the article is. We report on scholarly definitions. And there is no comparison with Evolution. 'Holocaust' is just a word. It is applied to whatever hiostorians choose to apply it. No-one is debating the word evolution. They aren't arguing that the article should also discuss the 'evolution of an idea' or the 'evolution of the computer'. The limits of the word 'evolution' in this context is wholly distinct from the question of whether or not it occurred. The limits of the word holocaust in this context is also wholly separate from the question of whether or not it occurred. Legitimately both the "it never happened" arguments are deemed to be fringe and are excluded from the main article. It's a wholly separate issue. Paul B 17:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  American POV Push 

message: Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany - please expand, it's millions of deaths. --HanzoHattori 16:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We must also cover the Nazi genocidal policy in the USSR that took the lives of 12 million Soviet civilians within the 1941 borders of the USSR, 9.5 million were non Jews. This is a reality that cannot be ignored.--Woogie10w 17:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  started article on the extermination of the Soviet POWs 

message: PLEASE READ THIS LINK-IT WILL HELP TO IMPROVE THE ARTICLE
Wikipedia article on the Consequences of German NazismSee Section Effect on the Soviet Union--Woogie10w (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You do need to be reminded of the losses of the USSR caused by Nazi Germany's genocidal policy. The persecution of German Homosexuals is written up and not a word about the losses of the civilian population of the USSR. My posting is justified. I am one person you will never be abel to bully.--Woogie10w 01:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't sense any bullying whatsoever by Jpgordon, however he did make a good point, it *really* clutters up a talk page (and seems somewhat inappropriate) to post the contents of an entire article into a talk page.  We're all on the same side, just trying to make Wikipedia a better place, it's important to remember that.Newtman (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Losses [[Soviet Union]] 

message: Please read these links, they will help to improve the article
THE GERMAN ARMY AND THE RACIAL NATURE OF THE WAR AGAINST THE SOVIET UNION-"As a result of these racist fantasies, millions of Soviet civilians were deliberately killed, starved, or worked to death." 
POLISH VICTIMS-"It is estimated that the Germans killed at least 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War II-"
From USHMM –BIBLIOGRAPHIES-
Berenbaum, Michael. A Mosaic of Victims: Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. New York: New York University Press, 1990.
FREEMASONS
The actual reality with regard to the Freemason victims of the Nazis according to the USHMM
“Because many of the Freemasons who were arrested were also Jews and/or members of the political opposition, it is not known how many individuals were placed in Nazi concentration camps and/or were targeted only because they were Freemasons. Some former lodge members, as individuals, participated in or were associated with German resistance circles; and some were arrested and murdered during World War II.” 
We can't shine the spotlight on selected victims and ignore others. Our sources must be credible. The For Dummies series is not what should be on this page.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Holocaust Memorial Museum on Non Jewish Victims 

message: Where is the support for the figure of 220,000 victims? This figure must have a source. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable, no if ands or buts.(hint, take a peek at the table of losses). The USHMM says we don't have a figure.--Woogie10w (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasons 

message: Some of the list is posted above here by Stephan Schulz and here where this discussion was had before by Dna-Dennis. It was also discussed here and dsgoen points were most poignant.
This list is to determine the various common POV on the definition of the Holocaust and I'm no where near finished.
It should be noted that multiple definitions can be found at the same website in some cases as if this debate is internal or very recent.
From what I've read there are 3000 texts published on this subject now.
I'm finding some of the sources I once thought were Jewish only definitions include others in the first paragraphs.
===unclassified - just added===
===Jewish only===
*Weissman, Gary. Fantasies of Witnessing: Postwar Attempts to Experience the Holocaust, Cornell University Press, 2004, , p. 94: "Kren illustrates his point with his reference to the Kommissararbefehl. 'Should the (strikingly unreported) systematic mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war be included in the Holocaust?' he asks. Many scholars would answer no, maintaining that 'the Holocaust' should refer strictly to those events involving the systematic killing of the Jews'."
*"The Holocaust: Definition and Preliminary Discussion", Yad Vashem: "The Holocaust, as presented in this resource center, is defined as the sum total of all anti-Jewish actions carried out by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945: from stripping the German Jews of their legal and economic status in the 1930s, to segregating and starving Jews in the various occupied countries, to the murder of close to six million Jews in Europe. The Holocaust is part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and murder of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazis."
** Alexa rankings
*"Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question" (emphasis added).
*"Holocaust", Encarta: "Holocaust, the almost complete destruction of Jews in Europe by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II (1939-1945). The leadership of Germany’s Nazi Party ordered the extermination of 5.6 million to 5.9 million Jews (see National Socialism). Jews often refer to the Holocaust as Shoah (from the Hebrew word for “catastrophe” or “total destruction”)." (others definition is also listed at this website)
*Museum of Tolerance Online at the The Simon Wiesenthal Center: "The destruction of some 6 million Jews by the Nazis and their followers in Europe between the years 1933-1945. Other individuals and groups were persecuted and suffered grievously during this period, but only the Jews were marked for complete and utter annihilation."(others definition is also listed at this website)
*"The Holocaust", Compact Oxford English Dictionary: "(the Holocaust) the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II."
*The 33rd Annual Scholars' Conference on the Holocaust and the Churches defines the Holocaust as "the Nazi attempt to annihilate European Jewry," cited in Hancock, Ian. "Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview", Stone, Dan. (ed.) The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave-Macmillan, New York 2004, pp. 383-396. (others definition is also listed in this article)
*Bauer, Yehuda. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2001, p.10.
*Dawidowicz, Lucy. The War Against the Jews: 1933-1945. Bantam, 1986, p.xxxvii: "'The Holocaust' is the term that Jews themselves have chosen to describe their fate during World War II."
===Jewish and generic others===
* Encyclopedia Britannica: "Holocaust: the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II."
* Cambridge Dictionary of American English:  "The Holocaust was the systematic murder of many people, esp. Jews, by the Nazis during World War II."
* The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust:  "The Holocaust is commonly defined as the mass murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans during World War II. Not everyone finds this a fully satisfactory definition. The Nazis also killed millions of people belonging to other groups: Gypsies, the physically and mentally handicapped, Soviet prisoners of war, Polish and Soviet civilians, political prisoners, religious dissenters, and homosexuals."
* MSN Encarta:   "genocide of European Jews and others: the systematic extermination of millions of European Jews, as well as Roma, Slavs, intellectuals, gay people, and political dissidents, by the Nazis and their allies during World War II. In popular usage, Holocaust refers particularly to the extermination of European Jews."(Jewish only definition listed at this website)
* Bartleby American Heritage Dictionary: "The genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II:"
* World Encyclopedia: "Extermination of European Jews and others by the Nazi regime in Germany."
* 1944 book called “Legal Claims Against Germany,” author Morris Cohen: "Millions of surviving victims of the Nazi holocaust, Jews and non-Jews, will stand before us in the years to come." a 1944 book thought to be the first usage of the term in this context and the starting definition of Nazi Holocaust.
* "Holocaust—Definition", 'Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies: "HOLOCAUST (Heb., sho'ah). In the 1950s the term came to be applied primarily to the destruction of the Jews of Europe under the Nazi regime, and it is also employed in describing the annihilation of other groups of people in World War II. The mass extermination of Jews has become the archetype of GENOCIDE, and the terms sho'ah and "holocaust" have become linked to the attempt by the Nazi German state to destroy European Jewry during World War II … One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of  1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world."
* A Teacher's Guide to the Holocaust: "Today, the term refers to the systematic planned extermination of about six million European Jews and millions of others by the Nazis between 1933-1945."
**Alexa traffic for Teacher's Guide which surprisingly has a higher traffic count than the www.ushmm.org hit count.
**Awards received
**Resources page
*  Museum of Tolerance Online at the The Simon Wiesenthal Center: "Six million Jews and millions of others, including Gypsies, Slavs, political dissenters, homosexuals, P.O.W.'s and the mentally ill and infirm were murdered by the Nazis between 1933 and 1945."(Jewish only definition listed at this website)
*Paulson, Steve. "A View of the Holocaust", BBC: "The Holocaust was the Nazis' assault on the Jews between 1933 and 1945. It culminated in what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe', in which six million Jews were murdered. The Jews were not the only victims of Nazism. It is estimated that as many as 15 million civilians were killed by this murderous and racist regime, including millions of Slavs and 'asiatics', 200,000 Gypsies and members of various other groups. Thousands of people, including Germans of African descent, were forcibly sterilised."
* "The Holocaust", Auschwitz.dk:"The Holocaust was the systematic annihilation of six million Jews by the Nazis during World War 2. In 1933 nine million Jews lived in the 21 countries of Europe that would be military occupied by Germany during the war. By 1945 two out of every three European Jews had been killed. 1.5 million children  were murdered. This figure includes more than 1.2 million Jewish children, tens of thousands of Gypsy children and thousands of handicapped children."]
===Jewish and others with blood (genetic) basis===
* Ian Hancock quoted by Holocaust Survivors and Remembrance Network: "In my own classes on the Holocaust, I define it as the implementation of the directive(s) of the Final Solution, the ultimate purpose of which was to eradicate genetic "contaminants" in the gene pool being engineered for the creation of a "master race.The Nuremberg Laws were specifically for determining who qualified and who didn't. This does justify the inclusion of the mentally and physically handicapped, and -- if it were thought to be a genetic condition and not a social one -- homosexuality would qualify. However, homosexuals were given the option of "changing their ways," and female homosexuals in general weren't targeted at all."
** Alexa rankings not in top 100k
===Jewish and others excluding POW's ===
*Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the" 
**#94 of 2007 Booksense Bestseller list
**Best selling dictionary of 2005, 192,000 copies sold
**Excludes Soviet POW's for they were Asian and military.
===Jewish and Gypsies ===
* National Geographic Online (Support of a Jews and Gypsies statement) "Today scholars and politicians argue whether the extermination of Jews and Gypsies is historically comparable, how many Gypsies were actually murdered by the Nazis (some estimate as many as 500,000), and what kind of memorial should be erected at the Berlin Parliament in their honor.
There are ways to show how popular and wide-read these sources are on the definition of the Holocaust and I will add them where I can.  Help would be appreciated 
Ignoring sources like this in the lead-in and constant article instability seems to be why was quickfailed it for good article nomination by VanTucky. My objection to the word 'typical' is in it's numeric quality.  Paul Bs' "Some scholars only discuss the murders of Jews under the term The Holocaust, while others include Roma and other victims" seems the best NPOV opening definition I've ever read and perfect for our uses.  This is an attempt to fall in line with VanTucky suggestions to get it to good article status.  Anyone feel free to grow this list. Alatari (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  sources with POV classifications 

message: * National Geographic Online (Support of a Jews and Gypsies statement) "Today scholars and politicians argue whether the extermination of Jews and Gypsies is historically comparable, how many Gypsies were actually murdered by the Nazis (some estimate as many as 500,000), and what kind of memorial should be erected at the Berlin Parliament in their honor.
There are ways to show how popular and wide-read these sources are on the definition of the Holocaust and I will add them where I can.  Help would be appreciated 
Ignoring sources like this in the lead-in and constant article instability seems to be why was quickfailed it for good article nomination by VanTucky. My objection to the word 'typical' is in it's numeric quality.  Paul Bs' "Some scholars only discuss the murders of Jews under the term The Holocaust, while others include Roma and other victims" seems the best NPOV opening definition I've ever read and perfect for our uses.  This is an attempt to fall in line with VanTucky suggestions to get it to good article status.  Anyone feel free to grow this list. Alatari (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish and Gypsies 

message: Scroll down to Hilton's original message and see how this Wikipedia Holocaust page is a microcosm of what is occurring in academic circles.  He hits on the backround politics The Holocaust definition in a detailed manner easily predicting most all the comments and revision attempts currently happening to this article.  Wikipedia is by it's nature a battleground for interest groups and we need to realize this.  The controversy over the Holocaust definition should be portrayed to keep this article NPOV Alatari (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia as a microcosm of Holocaust Politics

message: :Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:RomanichildrenAuschwitz.jpg

message: Jewish resistance is claimed to have a POV.  I'm not seeing it but it seems to be an obstacle to getting this article to Class A.  Any thoughts on a rewrite?  Alatari (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should try to get GA for this article. First, it's largely a meaningless designation, because standards vary enormously. Secondly, the article is unlikely ever to be stable enough, because whichever course we chart, others will arrive with strong views in the opposite direction. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 21:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish resistance 

message: Paul, I think Orangemarlin just made a mistake and didn't realize those words were part of the quotes. I almost made the same mistake myself when I first looked at it. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 07:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. But OM has shown no sign of actually even listening to the POV he dislikes. Paul B (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the AGF SV;  I missed the quotes.  But no thanks to PB.  But many thanks for the personal fucking attack.   OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep it civil, or take it elsewhere. Newtman (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is civil.  Don't threaten me.  Deal with the personal attacks, not your perception of what may or may not be civil.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, you think that was a threat?  Thanks for putting a smile on my face, needed that ;) Newtman (talk) 09:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a long history of responding to comments on talk pages with bullying, insults and personal abuse. You have also shown that you are totally unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion on this page, since you simply ignore or attempt to suppress evidence that has been repeatedly presented here. It is difficult to assume good faith when the very quotations you were claiming to be OR have been posted and discussed on this page over and over. You should have been familiar with them. Paul B (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot, you're just so perfect.  Man, let me bow to your superior intelligence, knowledge, and overall greatness to the project.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I forgot. Sarcasm too. Paul B (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston): holos, "completely" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as Ha-Shoah (Hebrew: השואה), Churben (Yiddish: חורבן), is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II" is the very first sentence in this article.  The second sentence is where other groups are defined in most every definition that includes others.  This article reflects that trend and the sources are listed verbatim of their first paragraphs again showing the trend to give Jews in the first sentence and others in later sentences.  I don't understand how anyone has lost here.  If this article gets to Class A status it's message should be able to reach even further than it does now.  So how about we work on raising it's status?  Alatari (talk) 09:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the big ironies of this discussion is that I first raised this issue because I was worried that the centrality of Jewish victimhood was being swamped by a tendency to add one group after another in a long list of victims. I thought that it would be better to have a section discussing the history of the use of the term and the debates about why and how groups have come to be seen as "included". There is increasing literature on this, and much of it shows a degree at least of wariness about the inclusivity. Two books I read recently were Donald Bloxham's "The Holocaust: critical historical approaches" and Sue Vice's "Representing the Holocaust", both of which are wary of the tendency for memorial events and educational institutions to constantly increase lists of victims by group-identity. Bloxam points out that only a tiny fraction of German homosexuals were sent to the camps, and Vice's book contains a good chapter on the distorting effects of excessive inclusivness (especially a tendency to include black people because of the Rhineland sterilisations). I'd rather see a separate article engaging in a detailed way with this issue (which holocaust victims may become) and drop the whole section in which victims are listed by groups, since this ineviably leads to statements like "why are group X not mentioned? This is antiXism". I think it would be better to describe the unfolding of the process as it occurred. When were decisions made to send various groups to camps - including groups who are never listed as victims such as prostitutes and street-gang members?; how they were treated in the camps?; how were groups were separated and when were decisions were made regarding them? That way it will clear that Jews were always singled out for brutalisation and murder; that experience in Auschwitz and other camps could be quite dramatically different depending on what group you belonged to, and so on. We would get a much clearer sense of the true "texture" of the events than just an "either victim or not" model. Paul B (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe putting the word "Aryan" anywhere in the lede will meet strong opposition from the majority of editors.  Even in the non-X form. The current form is nice.  Getting every possible victim group into the second sentence will make that sentence unwieldy and this fight will never end.  The word 'others' is used most frequently while 'Roma' is mentioned next most often in the above sources. Alatari (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term Aryan is far too problematic. Firstly Slavs are Aryan, as are Poles and even Gypsies/Roma; secondly the Hungarians - close allies of the Nazis - are not (and that's not even mentioning the Japs!). The term had a meaning to the Nazis, which was derived from 19th century ethnolinguistic theories, but is far from coherent in practice. Paul B (talk) 00:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summary

message: A possible solution to the dilemma of the other victims of Nazi persecution would be to present  a brief outline of the Nazi policy toward each group and the actual losses compared to the total population. The article as it stands now does not clarify these issues 
Jews
The policy of Hitler Germany was the total annihilation of all European Jews. In the territory under direct German occupation over 90% of all Jews perished in the Holocaust. A tiny percentage survived as forced laborers. Others survived in countries that refused to cooperate with German deportation requests, Romania  and Bulgaria Source Raul Hilberg Destruction of the European Jews
Roma
30% of the 1,000,000 Roma perished in the war. The Germans targeted the nomadic Roma and spared the sedentary Roma. This policy cannot be compared to the German 
policy to annihilate all Jews. Source Columbia guide to the Holocaust
Disabled Germans
150,000 disabled Germans were murdered by the Nazis in 1940-41 before the Christian churches interceded on their behalf to end this barbarity. The Christian 
Churches did not intercede to stop the killing of the Jews Source Columbia Guide to the Holocaust
Gay Men
50,000 of the 1,5 million Gay German men were arrested in the Nazi era. 15,000 were
sent to concentration camps where ½ -7,500 perished. That is 1 out of 200 Gay German
men, compared to 9 out of 10 Jews killed. The vast majority of Gay Germans kept their sexual orientation a secret and evaded Nazi persecution Source Columbia Guide to the Holocaust
Freemasons
The actual number of Freemasons persecuted by the Nazis is unknown according to the
USHMM. In any case they could have renounced their beliefs and avoided persecution.
Jews were not given this option. Source USHMM website
Jehovah Witnesses
About 3,000 Jehovah Witnesses perished in the camps. In any case they could have renounced their beliefs and avoided persecution. Jews were not given this option. Source Columbia Guide to the Holocaust
Political Prisoners:
The exact number of Germans who died in the camps for resistance activity is not known. A Russian source, Vadim Erlikman, using data from the Soviet era puts the number at 35,000. In any case they could have renounced their beliefs and avoided persecution. Jews were not given this option.
Poles
The Nazi policy toward occupied Poland was to exploit the country as source of slave labor and agricultural produce. The Germans planned to Germanize or annihilate all Poles.Source Gods Playground- A History of Poland by Norman Davies Vol 2 P 445.
2 million(8%) of the 24 million Poles perished in the war. 350,000 due to Soviet repression and 120,000 killed by Ukrainian partisans in 1943-44. The remaining 1.5 million deaths were due to the German occupation. At least 200-300,000 died in the camps, and 200,000 the 1944 Battle in Warsaw where the Nazis massacred tens of thousands of civilians. The remaining 1 million died in Nazi reprisals, forced labor and famine caused by the occupation. Source :Project In Posterum (go to note on Polish Casualties by Tadeusz Piotrowski)
Most Poles were hostile to the Jews and did little to help the population in the ghettos.  The  Polish resistance never made an effort to stop the trains to the death camps. The survivors of the Holocaust were greeted with intense anti-Semitism after the war.  There is no comparison of German policy toward Poles and Jews. Source GUTMAN, Y. AND S.KRAKOWSKI: Unequal victims, Poles and Jews during World war II, New York, Holocaust library, 1986
Soviet Civilians
The secret German Plan Ost envisaged the eventual annihilation of the Soviet people and the colonization of the USSR with Germanic peoples. During the war about 13 million out of the 70 million civilians in the German occupied USSR perished, including 2.5 million of the 3 million Jews.  Soviet sources claimed 7.4 million were killed in reprisals, 1.8 million in forced labor and 4 million due to famine and disease. Source Russian Academy of Science report 1995. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust cites sources that estimate Soviet civilian dead due to Nazi genocide at 4.5 million 1/4 of all Soviet war dead
During the war about 1 million Soviet citizens served in the German Armed forces and 215,000 were killed in battle. Source G. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 
Soviet POW
About 3 million of the 5.7 million Soviet POW died due to German brutality. It  should also be noted at many of the 1 million Soviets in the German Armed forces , including the guards in the death camps, were recruited from the POW camps. Source Michael Clodfelter. Warfare and Armed Conflicts- A Statistical Reference to Casualty and Other Figures, 1500-2000. 2nd Ed. 2002  .
--Woogie10w (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is WP:OR. Our goal here is to rely on and summarize reliable source. Crum375 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note well Crumb 375 this is not original research, the post is backed up with verifiable sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all has multiple conflicting sources. To present it without any, as you did here, is WP:OR. The only way to write that properly is with lots of high caliber sources, representing the entire spectrum of views. Crum375 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion Raul Hilberg, The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the USHMM are "high caliber sources"--Woogie10w (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Crum375 that if we went and averaged all the numbers we found from reliable sources that would be considered WP:OR. Listing only one source is WP:POV.  So we have to pick the reliable sources and list the lowest and highest number ranges (and possible list a reliable source with the closest median number at the median) for both the deaths and beginning populations.  If you need help let me know.  Alatari (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims of the Nazi regime

message: Ukraine marks 66th anniversary of Nazi massacre at Babi Yar ravine.
[]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.247.72 (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Babi Yar massicare source.

message: My proposal is as follows-
1/ That Shoa redirects to the Holocaust, which is to become a Jewish/Yiddish orrientated page. 
2/ A new page called "The Nazi genocides of World War 2" (I reckon this one renamed) would cover the issue of Nazi genocide and torture in general, with links going to the variouse sub-pages for all the specalist and indepth topics. Specialist pages already exsist for- 
Action T4
Rhineland Bastards
Polish war dead
Pink triangle
Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses 
Doctors' Trial 
Porajmos 
Extermination of Soviet prisoners of war by Nazi Germany 
The Shoa/Holocaust would be linked to the 'Nazi genocide' page likewise.
--The golden easter party man (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an encyclopedia, it seems to me, that a definition is better found among the scholars than in similar compilations such as other encyclopedias or dictionaries.  Since WWII, scholars tend to use the term, The Holocaust, to refer to the Nazi policy of the "Final Solution" From my reading, this is not the result of pressure from "Jewish organizations, particularly those established to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust." But rather from the desire to distinguish the Final Solution from the other Nazi genocides and massacres because of its peculiar nature: All Jews were to be annihilated because as the embodiment of evil they were a threat.  In Friedländer's words: "The Jew was a lethal and active threat to all nations, to the Arian race and to the German Volk." This was different from the genocidal policies about others such as the Slavs and the Roma (Gypsies) who were inferior races to be removed from the Reich, but were not necessarily a lethal threat.  Such distinctions are important in trying to understand what drove the executioners.  They certainly are not meant to imply that one genocide is more important than another, nor that someone who was murdered at Auschwitz was qualitatively different than the murder of Russian POWs in Flossenbürg.  I see nothing which implies that in the article.  There is no doubt that there are "forgotten" genocides, but the answer is to write more on them.  Thus I would agree with Crum375 that "the current system is generally OK," though I would prefer talking about "victims (or other victims) of Nazi genocides and massacres" than "non-Jewish victims".--Joel Mc (talk) 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Consensus question

message: The article uses a map which shows the concentrations camps within the borders of today (except Jugoslavia).
This is unhistoric and should be replaced quickly by a map which shows the historical facts (borders from 37, annections before the war (Austria etc.), occupied countries during the war, Vichy etc.) 82.47.217.69  —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is somewhat a matter of taste; to choose a suitable year is not clear-cut. For more info, I (and others) have responded to this here: Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: this is not a matter of taste, but of historic accuracy.82.47.217.69 (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new map is far better than the old. Still, it would be a major improvement if it used the 1938 or 1942 borders, either instead of, or through superimposition. The coloring is better, the arrows are better, the choice of data is better. Jd2718 (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your post, Jd2718! (I made the map). Since you think historical borders would be better (and you are apparently not the only one), I have decided to try to make another version of it (but keep the old one). But it will take some time, and I have a little trouble deciding how to approach it, that is, which year(s) to use. The probs with '38 is that the Holocaust hadn't started in earnest at that time (and, for instance, Poland, France etc. had not been occupied/split). And there are problems with post '38 borders too, since the borders flow quite a bit between '39 and '45. It's actually a little b*tching headache... But I will have a go at it. If anyone has any suggestions, please contact me on my talk page, I'd be very thankful. Regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A map showing historic sites but with modern borders isn't a flawed tool. You can use a map like that to plan a modern visit to such a site. You can make educated guesses about what sorts of people were in the area at the historic time and you can investigate whether the survivors and their descendants were touched with guilt from the killings. Binksternet (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhistoric map 

message: I think it'd be interesting to note how scientifically valid the human experiments were, and how well they could be used for future reference, and if that info could be implemented somewhere in the sub-article on the human experimentation, which doesn't seem to be touched upon.
Or am I wrong, is it just for the sake of morality and ethics of how much people suffered that people just don't bother even looking into how the information attained from them can be usefull.Rodrigue (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been extensively debated over the years, especially with regard to the hyperthermia research. The most notable article on this debate is Should the Nazi Research Data Be Cited? by Kristine Moe, The Hastings Center Report, Vol. 14, Dec. 1984. Here is an online discussion of the issues from the Jewish Virtual Library . Paul B (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's an extremely dangerous slippery slope to go down.  Anytime you decide to use the results of scientifically and morally dubious research, it's going to possibly encourage similar future behavior. Newtman (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimentation 

message: can anyone point to any news articles printed in mainstream newspapers in the usa or europe between 1939 and 1945 reporting that large ammounts of innocent people were being gassed in gas chambers by the nazis. i have contacted two holocaust memorials and have not recieved a reply. Ethmegdav (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You may need to put Yad Vashem in jail as Holocaust Deniers, as they are the source used for these figures in the Wikipedia article. Crum375 (talk) 20:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  news articles 

message: I think it is very important that Himmler (being the mastermind of the Holocaust) be included in the opening paragraph. Heinrich was, after Hitler, the most powerful man in Nazi Germany. He was the founder and officer-in-charge of all the Nazi concentration and extermination camps, he was the one that formed the Einsatzgruppen death squads, he was the Supreme Commander of the SS (Reichsführer-SS), Reichsleiter, and he held final command responsibility for annihilating all those that were deemed "subhumans". Since the article is about the Holocaust (which Himmler was the mastermind of), he must definitely be in the opening paragraph. His role in perpetrating the extermination of those thought to be "subhumans" is at least equal to Hitler's, or perhaps even more. I will put it back since Heinrich Himmler was the main perpetrator of the Holocaust (at least equal to Hitler). TheGoodSon 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the problem is that you seem to be promoting a particular position here, namely that Himmler was more powerful than Hitler. I notice you removed at one point that Himmler couldn't be overruled because he had Hitler's support -- you removed the part about Hitler's support. If you want to write an article about the Hitler-Himmler power issue and how it relates to the Holocaust, we could definitely link to it from here, but we can't just add hints of it here and there to the article unsourced, as though it's as plain as day. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (moved from SV talk) Hallo, your edits to the Holocaust article are unfair. Your reasoning is: "Hitler led the regime" - yes, we know that (especially I, since I am an actual German). But the article is not about the NSDAP (the Nazi Party), it is about the Holocaust. The opening paragraph states that the regime was led by Hitler, but it should also state that Himmler was the mastermind of the Holocaust. In Germany, this is the accepted fact (that Heinrich Himmler was equally guilty of the extermination of the people deemed "subhumans" as Hitler, if not more so some argue). I think it is very important that Himmler (being the mastermind of the Holocaust) be included in the opening paragraph. Heinrich was, after Hitler, the most powerful man in Nazi Germany (this is widely accepted in Germany). He was the founder and officer-in-charge of all the Nazi concentration and extermination camps, he was the one that formed the Einsatzgruppen death squads, he was the Supreme Commander of the SS (Reichsführer-SS), Reichsleiter, and he held final command responsibility for annihilating all those that were deemed "subhumans". Since the article is about the Holocaust (which Himmler was the mastermind of), he must definitely be in the opening paragraph. His role in perpetrating the extermination of those thought to be "subhumans" is at least equal to Hitler's, or perhaps even more (in Germany, many argue that Himmler was even more responsible and thus was more guilty). I will put it back since Heinrich Himmler was the main perpetrator of the Holocaust (at least equal to Hitler). TheGoodSon 1:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to get consensus on talk and don't just keep adding it back. Himmler was not the head of the regime, so your placement of it is inappropriate. There may be some other way to add it to the lead, but personally I don't see the need. The text makes Himmler's role clear enough. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Other people disagree with you. You can't keep reverting against multiple editors over that one issue. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can see four editors who've reverted you. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 03:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Can we then at least come to a compromise? I believe that mentioning Himmler in the opening paragraph of the Holocaust article is very important for obvious reasons. We could do this without downplaying the fact that Adolf Hitler was the absolute Leader of the NSDAP (that fact is absolutely not debatable). As I have mentioned, Himmler was the founder and officer in charge of the concentration and extermination camps, he formed and headed the Einsatzgruppen death squads, he was Supreme Commander of the SS, he personally visited concentration camps and witnessed hundreds of those deemed "subhumans" being executed via firing squad on a single visit, he also visited Auschwitz himself, he ordered the killings and he held final command responsibility for annihilating those deemed "subhumans". Himmler was also the only Nazi leader that had enough power and influence to ignore or over-rule Hitler's orders without facing punishment from Hitler. The relationship between Hitler and Himmler was extremely well. Himmler was Hitler's most loyal Nazi leader, and Hitler knew it. Hitler also knew that Himmler was the most meticulous, systematic, organized, and efficient member of the entire Nazi leadership - Hitler trusted Himmler more than anything or anyone else. Hitler knew that Himmler was the only one capable of organizing and implementing the Holocaust with great efficiency. Point is, Himmler's power was immense and the fact that he was the mastermind and architect of the Holocaust deserves a mention in the opening paragraph. In fact, where I am from (Germany), many argue that Himmler held more responsibility and power over the Holocaust. TheGoodSon (talk)(contribs) 03:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't really think that a reference to Himmler should be in the first para as it is an intro.  However the article doesn't really give adequate identification to Himmler.  The first mention seems to be in the last para of the subsection, Origins:  "Heinrich Himmler's right-hand man, Reinhard Heydrich...".  A good compromise might be to add  sentence before that something such as: "Heinrich Himmler, Commander of the SS and one of the most powerful men in Nazi Germany has been referred to as the "architect of genocide" (ref Breitman, Richard (2004). Himmler and the Final Solution: The Architect of Genocide. Pimlico, Random House, London. .) His right-hand man, Reinhard Heydrich, recommended...."Joel Mc (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, Joel. Any extended discussion of Himmler's role could be added to Responsibility for the Holocaust. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It is universally accepted by anyone who isn't a David Irving clone that Hitler ordered the Holocaust. See Rosenbaum's Exlaining Hitler for a discussion of this. Goebbels was more directly reponsible for Kristallnacht, true, but this article isn't about that. Paul B (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kristallnacht was the work of some other Party leaders. Goering was actually concerned about the economic impact ("They destroyed every apothecary in Germany!"), or so I was told. Of course he was too a rampant anti-Semite etc. Even if Hitler gave an order, he was not interested in the details. See Operation Anfal and how prominently al-Majid is mentioned every once and often. --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than who? You did actually read what I wrote didn't you? I fail to see any relevance to your references to Chemical Ali. Paul B (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Himmler in the opening paragraph 

message: Denis, the eastern border of Germany is post war and does reflect the actual stitution in 1942. Sorry to put you to work again!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs at all, Woogie, I'm very thankful for every heads-up! After all, I wanna get things straight! I'm copying this note to my talk page under User_talk:Dna-webmaster#New_map_-_some_ideas; if you, or anyone else have more corrections/suggestions, please state them there on my talk page. I'm currently waiting for the new map to "sink in" and be scrutinized some more, and I will probably have a new version ready tomorrow or so. Thanks again, regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I noticed that Luxembourg and Belgian Morsent was not in Germany--Woogie10w (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Map 

message: Just to remind you that one of the worst crimes of the Holocaust (and I believe the worst in the terms of killing per day) remains almost completely forgetten, and the article is merely a stub. I just linked it to the template catogorizing under Einsatzgruppen, because technically it was a "special operation" and used the same methods. Here in the article, it's not even mentioned. --HanzoHattori (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Harvest Festival 

message: A long time ago I made article on German operation to cover up Holocaust during the war, now I don't have as much time as I used to but I think it could be usefull, and somebody can expand on that in article:
Sonderaktion 1005, Also I think it would be good to link in Holocaust template.
--Molobo (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on German attempts to cover up Holocaust  unlinked-Operation 1005