Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 8

message: An anonymous editor or editors continues, once every day or so, to replace the paragraph on Croatian participation  in the Holocaust with the same incorrect (and grammatically wrong) information* (example).  The user stopped responding to my queries on the Talk page above, where I attempted to explain both why the information is wrong and suggests paths for moving forward.  I am not sure the proper resolution path for this, especially as the editor continues to come in from many IP addresses.  Does anyone have any suggestions? --Goodoldpolonius2 18:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you already tried solutions suggest at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing_with_vandalism? Personally contacting an admin about this might also help. zerofoks 19:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Repeated vandalism by  83.131.*

message: Are we really supposed to take this VfD seriously? Should we wait until it failed or remove the note immediately? Str1977 22:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a speedy deletion tag to the linked page, hopefully an admin will delete it. Ramallite (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We can remove the note immediately, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion says: Nominations that are clearly vandalism may be discarded. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VfD

message: I deleted the following clause (in bold), which was part of the reverted deletions:
:(These views are not accepted as credible by mainstream historians) and disregard a substantial historical record on the Holocaust.
The author of this clause should specify what he meant by that. Currently the connection to the rest of the text is unclear.
Str1977 19:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what the original intent was, but added substitute text, and a source, backing up the lack of credibility. --Goodoldpolonius2 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Syntax leap

message: I inserted Shoah in the intro and then thought better of it as the note in etymology appears as a first reference. Is "became the standard Hebrew term for the Holocaust" accurate or is it better to say "...for the Jewish aspect/component/etc. of the Holocaust"? Marskell 19:48, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoah 

message: I dont know about you guys, but what would you say to a Holocaust in the media section refering to over-exposure compared to any other event in human history? This much is undeniable, even for Westerners, yes?
I mean, every year you have a Holocaust Memorial Day. In Western Europe and the US. Let me tell you something. Here in China we don't care about this thing. That is part of your history, not ours. That's right, 1.2 billion people who don't care about the holocaust. Do you think the 1 billion odd people in India care about the holocaust or even know about it? What about the 800 million people in Indonesia? Or the 1 billion odd people in South America? The hundreds of millions of people in Africa? None of these people attatch such reverence to this one event yet you Westerners do. It is laughable. Ignore the crimes of all the world as evidenced by Africa and try to artificially stamp the Holocaust into history so it will never be forgotten.
Well let me tell you one last thing: most of the world never cared in the first place. And eventually, your grandchildren will not care either. It is the way of the world. Eventually, all things are forgotten no matter how many films the Jewish movie moguls make on the subject.
So: a section about media over-exposure of the Holocaust, and also, to perhaps get some perspective on this: how the Holocaust is viewed outside of Western countries. Or does that lie outside your comfort zone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.213.215 (talk • contribs) 
:The way to eliminate systemic bias is to improve other articles not dis-improve this one. If you want a Holocaust viewpoints outside of the west it shouldn't consist of something idiotic like "most of the world never cared in the first place." Nor, I think, is this place for a tirade about Jewish movie moguls.
:Indonesia has 200+ million people, incidentally. Marskell 16:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And South America some 350 million people. It's interesting to know that a person so concerned about history is so inaccurate about present-day reality. Especially the blatantly racist vandals. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore the troll -- he was doing this to a dozen articles on every subject, and has apparently already been blocked. --Goodoldpolonius2 17:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, 86.138.213.215 was responsible for the above vandalism. Superm401 | Talk 18:10, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bored of the Holocaust? 

message: Sebastian Haffner's  The Meaning Of Hitler(Wiedenfeld and Nicolson) ISBN 0297775723 of 1979  p143 concludes :
::In short, in December 1941 , within a few days , Hitler made his final choice between the two incompatible aims  which he had pursued from the outset - German domination of the world and the extermination of the Jews . He abandoned the former as unattainable and entirely concentrated on the latter. (on 30 November it had still been a a few days too early for that.) Moreover he now accepted Germany's total defeat with all the possible consequences as the price of being able to carry out at last the extermination of the Jews throughout Europe , a plan which had long made his mouth water .
I believe I had included a very brief reference to Haffner's thesis  in the Hitler article, but it is essential as understanding here ...This thesis of Haffner's  developes from German defeat at the Battle of Stalingrad , which was the turning of the tide .   Anyway , I will tell editors that there was a continuous and clear reference   by Nazi street gangs  throughout Germany  from at least 1931, of literally  "perish the Jew" .  It is artificial to consider the origin of the Holocaust from a verbal order in 1942 , as it is artificial to ignore the reality of a purely verbal order . My pennyworth aside  is that  Hitler learned some circumspection in his dealings from  powers that  existed and thrived upon purely verbal orders .  However ,  Haffner explains:
::To Hitler , during the last three and a half years of war , the war had become a kind of race which he was still hoping to win . Who would reach his goal sooner, Hitler with the extermination of the Jews or the Allies with their  military overthrow of Germany .
EffK 23:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User note: User:EffK is also User:Flamekeeper [was FK, that  cookie lost]
I do not understand the quoted paragraph to be arguing that the origina of the Holocaust lay in a verbal command in 1942, or a realization in 1941 — only that after a certain point in WWII, the war against the Jews came to take priority over the war against everyone else; this does not mean that the war against the Jews didn't exist earlier, indeed, it assumes it was already going on.  Lucy Dawidowitz I believe makes a similar argument. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I must say, I'm a little confused myself. Does this article assert the "final solution" became the main war aim only in 1941 or 1942? I don't think so, so I'm not sure what the criticism is. And I'd really dispute any author suggesting the Nazis were only doing X in Y year based on Z motivation. Neat solutions are neat, but inter-war German history is not. Marskell 23:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Now I'm more confused: Slrubenstein, I was agreeing with you. Of course, we should not 'assert' any one claim or argument. Marskell 10:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's Two Incompatible Aims

message: I see no confusion. what is the confusion ? Haffner says Hitler  had two aims. Not a second aim , that transpired  subsequently.
Haffner says  he had them from  the outset . 
Haffner says Hitler . Haffner does not say Nazis , any more than he says Germans . 
Haffner says abandoned the  G'n  domination by end 1941 .
If you are confused , is it due to retention of another interpretation ... A Nazi  interpretation ?  The import is that Hitler  is alone . The decision is his . Confusion   is artificial , & results from  earlier mis-interpretation .  Confusion  would  rest in ,say, speculation as to Generals, Reichsmarshals  or Camp Commandants  agreeing to the Hitlerian decision/analysis. 
:::O! We lost the war , but no matter, we get the Jews . [ Tho we know the  soldiery & people recognised the same as Hitler-it was lost at Stalingrad- but he retained control']
I believe herein lies the confusion of the whole Article . But, everyone is frightened of this conclusion  ,FOR to accept it is to need to analyse  first , not the collaboration of the General Camp Command Marshals or the German People , BUT require an honest understanding of the origin and nature of  Hitler's thinking  and control, even to the extent of analysing his Germanity , and where  his two policies came from . 
Maybe  our  great sense towards the injustices of Hitler's results , dissuades us from the wish to limit the  questioning  SO  to one man , in  ,or dislike against , limiting this very  same sense ?
The  holocaust IS  [under this premise] one side of one man ,  AH . Alone .[This is according to Haffner-I  just say that I have read this book, this is the premise, it is a study of AH, I quote what I can,  and I raise this to sort confusion ,  & I have not written those quotes , I have no input except the exegesis. We can disprove him , if we can ...or wish or quote .]
To clarify the  Wikipedia article , under realisation of ,say, the Haffner  quotes , ask yourselves as editors of the article, to write NOT the majority of  progressively  older history sources , say, as basis for opposing views, but  to write a Wikipedia reflection of the actual reality  . 
If the reality is that Hitler and Hitler solely and alone  decided  upon   or controlled  , the policy ( one of two ) THEN the article reflects this reality .  If you disagree ask yourselves-can you name a single other man with an input to the policy during the Third Reich , an input  SAY that persuaded Hitler  NOT  to dominate the world , or , NOT to exterminate the Jews ?''
It is impossible ,  do you agree ? 
Does the Article reflect this reality , or not  ?
THEN , Have we the guts to revisit  , given we will have the  sense/guts to agree with HAFFNER  that NOT , that  no  other man had persuasive power over AH  ,either to determine the  war as lost and take decisions  in that view' , OR that the  Holocaust was unecessary ?
We can fix the holocaust article  easy peazy, but have we the guts to understand why Hitler alone, solely in control , seduced the nation to BOTH policies. 
Haffner states: "from  the outset" ,  and the outset is 1933 , from the CONTROL - there is no 1939  barrier to this  subject we have to fix  [intellectual honesty being even] . 
ps [Im not a stmp collector-not here to write a good article, but the correct article. Anybody who believes there are two correct differing interpretations of this, is NEWS to  all] . EffK 17:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Sebastian Haffner and Correction to Wikipedia  Holocaust

message: I just noticed during the most recent vandalism revert that there is a sentence regarding Abbas randomly dropped in the article directly following the phrase "Holocaust denial is most commonly associated with neo-Nazis or anti-Semites; it has become popular in recent years among Islamic fundamentalists". This is a bit problematic, because of the following reasons:
#According to all available sources, Abbas is not a neo-Nazi, an anti-Semite, or an Islamic fundamentalist.
#There is dispute as to whether Abbas' dissertation actually reflects his true beliefs. On one hand, the article here quotes a source that claims that Abbas had to write what he did because he was at a Soviet institution, but more relevant is a Haaretz interview as follows: The question about whether he denied the Holocaust in his Ph.D. angers Abbas. "I wrote in detail about the Holocaust and said I did not want to discuss numbers. I quoted an argument between historians in which various numbers of casualties were mentioned. One wrote there were 12 million victims and another wrote there were 800,000. I have no desire to argue with the figures. The Holocaust was a terrible, unforgiveable crime against the Jewish nation, a crime against humanity that cannot be accepted by humankind. The Holocaust was a terrible thing and nobody can claim I denied it."  
In light of all of this, one could either NPOV this section by adding this information and unnecessarily elongating the article, or remove the reference to Abbas altogether because it is on very shaky ground. I'm inclined to remove it. Thoughts? Ramallite (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was a distraction.  I removed it, and inserted a direct quote from a scholarly journal instead of an assertion.  Also, I added the AHA quote. If someone wants to add an example of denial used for anti-Israeli sentiment, we can, but I don't think it is necesary to discuss denial any further in the main Holocaust article than is already present (which is probably way, way too much in any case, compared to better uses of the space, but I guess this is a case where the internet requires a different mix of content than a paper publication).   --Goodoldpolonius2 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahmoud Abbas and Holocaust denial 

message: Dear fellow editors, please have a look into this edit
and comment on whether you think the former or the latter version better or whether the explicit mentioning of Hitler is needed or appropriate here. 
EffK, this is purely a matter of style" - no one here questions the central role of Hitler in the Holocaust. The question is merely whether he should be included here. 
Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 18:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the current change makes it look like Hilter alone was culpable.  I and have changed it back, to be more in line with standard definitions. --Goodoldpolonius2 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: "...during World War II in Nazi Germany under the Dictatorship of Adolf Hitler by collaborators." Seems to mean that collaborators inside Nazi Germany, lead by Hitler did it. The Hitlerless version is clearer. I think the problem here is that "Nazi Germany" and "collaborators" are groups, trying to squeeze a single person in between them makes an awkward sentence. Perhaps he could be mentioned some other place in the sentence or later in the summary. --BadSeed 00:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adolf Hitler in "A matter of style"