Talk:The Holocaust

---

Archives of previous discussions (earliest first): ... /Archive 1 ... /Archive 2 ... /Archive 3 ... /Archive 4 ... /Archive 5 ... /Archive 6 ... /Archive 7 ... /Archive 8 ... /Archive 9 ... /Archive 10

---

Why

If they are so confident about the holocaust, why is it illegal to deny it? In European countries, you face jail for simply denying the holocaust? That is dictatorial and un-democratic to the fullest. If you take time to do extensive reasearch in University Libraries as I have, and go through old newspapers, you will realise Zionist lobbyists passed the laws through for the banning of holocaust denial and Meinf Kamp.

There are clear reasons for this happening which is often denied by professors and educated ones. Recently an English journalist was jailed for 3 years in Austria simply for denying the holocaust. The best way to find some answers is to read Meinf Kamp which justifies to an extent anti-semitism, but never called for the death of the jews. By the way Meinf Kamp is banned aswell. It seems the history regarding this matter has been locked by higher authorities in fear of some truth leaking out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.95.29 (talk • contribs)

I didn't find anything about what was the cause...

I was just thinking that as I was reading the article. In college I took a class on the Holocaust, and over half of the semester was spent discussing the many causes of WWII, and, specifically, the Holocaust. I came to the talk page to suggest a causes section, but find someone else has already pointed out its absence. I may add a causes section later, but there are some problems with that. The article is already quite long, too long I think, and a lengthy discussion of the causes would not help it any. Moreover, I think there is a lot of stuff in the article that could be added, removed, or changed, to make this a much better article and that including a causes section is only one part of the massive amount of work that I see this article needing. Finally, to be quite frank and honest, it's a depressing subject and I'm not sure I want to put enough thought and effort into something so depressing as to really do a good job at it at this time in my life. However, this article is really not complete at all without SOME discussion of the causes. ONUnicorn 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever come up with a true cause for any war other than the fact that it is somehow part of our nature, a nature that is often at odds with itself. "So many layers of evolution" is the best descriptor I have heard of the human condition. BTW, What is the status of the Holocaust article? Why is it not available for editing? Muttley-Media 20:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apt two-line poem by Robert Frost:

FROM IRON

Nature within her inmost self divides

To trouble men with having to take sides.

Muttley-Media 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

So why is this article protected? Or is it? 69.109.180.114 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I see above it is "currently disabled". 69.109.187.228 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Communist victims

About 100,000 communists were killed. There had been earlier attempts at sterilizing them using X-rays.

Please give a reliable source for this statement and an explanation, a) when, b) where, c) who exactly was killed d) by whom, e) where the sterilizing took place etc. To whom is the figure related to: prosecution of German communists before the war? Mass killing of soviet partisans, prisoners of war supposed to be communists after 1939? In both cases the figure seems wrong to me. Jesusfreund 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Scary how the run up to WWII in Germany is so eerily similar to the last few years here in the US. Patriot act anyone?

Holocaust Denial

This statement, "In short, the Holocaust deniers are hucksters that want to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" may be true, but I'm wondering if it isn't NPOV. As I said, I agree with the statement, but it doesn't seem to fit in with the overall academic tone of the rest of the article. --Danahuff 01:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Hbackman 04:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The sentence is a colloquialism (and a hackneyed one at that). It has no place in academic writing. Blastfromthepast 04:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Strong agreed. This is definitely unencyclopedic at best and does not need to be said in Wikipedia pages. Many Wikipedia pages suffer from conversational writing, as opposed to informational writing. The word "hucksters" is obviously not an accurate word in any situation. Miquonranger03

Date?

til recently, Germany refused to allow access to massive Holocaust-related archives located in Bad Arolsen due to, among other factors, privacy concerns. However, in May 2006 a 20-year effort by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum led to the announcement that 30-50 million pages would be made.... It is currently April 26th 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.33.88.54 (talk • contribs) .

Good point. Can someone look up this date and fix it? Danahuff 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

World war two....?

I am aware of the timeframe it occured in, and that it was carried out by the Nazis, but the Holocaust, as I understand it, is not otherwise related to World War 2. For example, would the Pentagon causualties in the 9/11 attacks be considered part of the WTC bombing casualties? Of course not! So I doubt wether it should be part of the world war 2 series.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.157.70 (talk • contribs) .

I would disagree. The Holocaust is often one of the first things that comes to mind when one thinks of WWII. I would also argue that though the causes of the war were complex and not solely related to the atrocities of the Holocaust, it is surely a major part of the war. I think it needs to remain a part of the WWII series. Danahuff 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree as well. The Holocaust is absolutely integral to WWII. The removal/elimination of the Jews was a central component of Hitler's war aims. Blastfromthepast 05:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of the victims of the Holocaust lived in areas that came under German control because of the war, and the Holocaust was ended by Germany's defeat in the war, so they can hardly be considered separately. JanSöderback 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. No one claims that the attack on Pentagon was a part of the attack on WTC, rather that it was one out of several parts of the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, one could imagine the slave labour camps (like Dachenau etc) being used however they were used during the war even without the WW2. Knutars 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Some statistics

I would like to read some informed comments on this professors work. Is it reliable? Can it and its sources be used for Wikipedia articles?

Democide and Genocide

What say yee? One excerpt:

No one knows or can give the precise democide figure. Probably even that for the Jewish Holocaust is wrong. Experts who have painfully sifted through the Nazi archives, extensively interviewed survivors, and taken detailed depositions of witnesses have been unable to agree among themselves on the final total. In his thoroughly documented and comprehensive work, Raul Hilberg concluded that 5,100,000 Jews died;8 based on her detailed country-by-country analysis Lucy Dawidowicz arrived at a figure of 5,933,900 annihilated.9 Gerald Reitlinger calculated the toll at 4,204,400 to 4,575,400 Jews.10 Taking all such studies into account and making his own calculations for his Atlas of the Holocaust, Martin Gilbert arrived at a total of just over 5,750,000 deaths.11 In the latest such work, the appendix to the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, Israel Gutman and Robert Rozett estimated total losses at from 5,596,029 to 5,860,129.12

Just among these five thorough studies of the available evidence and statistics, the variation from the lowest to the highest figure is 41 percent. This is for a genocide carefully administered by a regime that was better than most about keeping records and statistics, whose surviving archives and secrets were completely available after the Nazi defeat, and about which there has been for nearly half a century many historians dedicated to uncovering the truth. If then the estimate of the Jewish Holocaust can vary so much, we should hardly expect to get the true figure on other genocides or mass murder; nor, of course, the overall democide.

The statistical problem is clear, if not easily resolvable. It is how to determine within some range of error the most likely Nazi democide, given different published estimates, different kinds of killing, different events, and different time periods. The approach has to be one of reasonable approximation. This involves successively narrowing the range of estimates to what a hypothetical, reasonable analyst would arrive at from the available information, and then defining within this range a prudent figure that somewhat reflects the central thrust of the statistics and historical events.

Stor stark7 22:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the Jewish population of the affected areas of Europe just prior to the war? I have read that the entire Jewish population was about six millionm so this argues that virtually ALL European Jews died in WWII, which is clearly not the case. Many came to the US, many fled to Russia, and many started over in Israel. Anybody have the numbers? 69.109.122.251 23:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See Examination of Holocaust denial#Jewish population for a detailed discussion of this. Seems to be around ten million. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the discussion you linked doesn't really provide any authority to the European population and relies on some unsourced Nazi estimate. The discussion you refer to mainly deals with world population numbers. It must be easy to find out the population figures for Europe circa 1939. 69.109.124.59 14:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is only 10 million if you include Russia and Britain. Even at a stretch. I'd say the numbers given in this article are a little out of whack. 69.109.187.228 16:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The "unsourced Nazi estimate" is from the minutes of the Wannsee Conference, as shown at the Nuremberg Trials; a good source of that is Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals - Washington, U.S Govt. Print. Off., 1949-1953., Vol. XIII, p. 210 (as shown at nizkor.org). If it's easy to find out more precise or differently sourced population figures, please let us know how, as it would be one more piece of truth to shove in the face of Holocaust deniers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously I'm confused because, at a glance, the Nizkor website statistics citing Wannsee include about a combined 5 million in USSR. 11 minus 5 equals 6 -- thus six million Jews in Nazi-occupied territories. Actually less because Britain had 330,000, and there may have been other countries unaffected. Could you engage in a little more substantive dissussion than just telling me to look elsewhere? I'm hoping you can shed some light. 69.109.187.228 18:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not sure what your point is; do you think somehow Germany never occupied any of Russia? Something over a million Russian Jews perished in the Holocaust.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The number of Serbian victims are overblown

• "The exact number of war victims in Yugoslavia during World War II may never be known due to fifty years of intentional disinformation by the Yugoslavian and Serbian governments, Serbian exile groups, and others. However, it is likely that approximately one million people of all nationalities died of war-related causes in all of Yugoslavia during World War II and that as many as 125,000 Serbs died of war-related causes in Croatia during the War. The question of war losses during World War II represents the most divisive, heated and emotional issue among all of the nationalities of the former Yugoslavia during the post-War period. The bloody multi-sided War in Yugoslavia involved the German, Italian, Ustashe, Partisan, Domobran, White Guard, Slovenian Guard and at least four different; Cetnik armies. The multifaceted war pitted Serbs against Serbs, Croatians against Croatians, Serbs against Croatians, and Serbian Orthodox against Catholics and Muslims. The loss of life was heavy and difficult to document. As the war progressed and even long after the war ended, the mythology of the numbers of victims continued to grow ".[1]

• "More conservative and realistic estimates demonstrate that Montenegrins suffered the highest wartime losses (10.4% of the population),

followed by Serbs (6.9%), Bosnian Moslems (6.8%), and then Croats (5.4%).53 However, these overall percentages do not give the complete picture as the majority of Serbian losses occurred on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia (16.3% in Croatia; 14.6% in Bosnia).54 According to a leading Croat demographer, when those Serbs who died in combat and/or asìcollaborationistsî are taken out of the picture, the ethnic Serb victims of ìfascist terrorî on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia number 217,000, i.e., somewhere on the order of one fifth of Yugoslaviaís total wartime losses (estimated at lying somewhere between 950,000 and little above one million).55 Here, apparently, the tradition of Croat ìintegrationismî did little to live up to its historical promise, as the ethnic violence unleashed against Serbian civilians as- sumed a grotesquely brutal character. Undoubtedly, significant atrocities were visited upon others as well, and especially on Bosnian Moslems by Serbian Chetnik forces.56 Nevertheless, it is obvious that ìgreater Serbian chauvinismî was hardly the sole culprit in the story of twentieth- century Yugoslav ethnic victimization. " pp 14 -15 [2]

• "he Yugoslav losses represent 34%, thus more than a third of all allied losses.”4

The number of war losses was officially set at 1.7 million, a figure which, as we shall see, has later been the cause of much debate. There was no attempt at internal reconciliation, as all guilt of war crimes and suffering was laid on the occupying powers and the so-called collaborationists: primarily the Croatian Ustaša regime, The Serbian Chetnik movement led by Draža Mihailović, and Serbia’s pro-Nazi administrators. The stigmatisation of traitors and collaborators was elaborated and widely published, as was the case with the reports of the trial against Bishop Stepinac and other representatives of the Catholic Church in Croatia and that against Draža Mihailović and other Chetnik leaders, who were collectively found guilty of national treason and numerous “crimes against the peoples”, amongst this mass murder, massacres, and torture in concentration camps.5 " [3], pp2

• "With regard to the Serbs, Žerjavić's calculation ended with a total of 197,000 Serbian civilian victims on the territory of the Independent State of Croatia: 50,000 in the Jasenovac concentration camp, 45,000 killed by the Germans, 34,000 civilians killed in battles between Ustashas, Chetniks and Partisans, 28,000 killed in prisons, pits and other camps, etc. Another 125,000 Serbian people from NDH were killed as combatants, raising the total to 322,000.[2]

Most international agencies have accepted Žerjavić's (and Bogoljub Kočović's) calculations as the most reliable data on war losses in Yugoslavia during WW2. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reports:

"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac."[3] A notable exception still seems to be the Simon Wiesenthal Center." [4]

Miroslav Filipović was a Catholic friar

Well Miroslav Filipović was excommunicated from the Catholic church, and the main article states he was a Catholic friar, which in the sentence claims he was at the time he was the head of the conc camp. Well Stalin was in a school to become an orthodox priest... This reference needs to be modifed, it has no relevance. The Serbian Orthodox church was active in the killing of Jews in Serbia, Serbs murdered 40k Jews, Belgrade was Judenfrei.. what about that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.227.1.53 (talk • contribs) .

Croatophobia

Looks like this is a rather infectious disease, attacking mainly Serbian populace whose immune system has been down due to the long exposure to Greater Serbian intense radiation causing, among other things, malignant mental disturbances. Keywords: ustaše, Jasenovac concentration camp, Ante Pavelić,...Possible antidote(s): Vladimir Žerjavić, long solitary walks in the clear air..Mir Harven 16:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Night

I you have read the book NIGHT you have seen how the Jews were treated then and there. Well Hitler was a very cruel man and did not know anything about the Jews, he just wanted them dead. And he got his wish by having the Nazis work them to death. But, thankfully, some had survive and very few still live today. I wish I could meet Elie Wiesel. I liked the book he wrote. It's very heart warming. Thanks Elie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.231.203 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments at Talk pages to discussing the content of the article and see WP:NOT. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dora Mittelbau Mass grave.jpg

I saw this image at army.mil, and it therefor is in the public domain, so I uploaded it to wikipedia. I'm sure someone who is more of an expert on the various articles relating to the holocaust can find a use for it. Cornell Rockey 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

My memory says that Endlösung was the German term for what has become known as the Holocaust. Therefore, AFAIK the Holocaust was the effectuation of the ideas presentaed as Endlösung. Shouldn't we merge the two articles and describe this more accurately? Nomen Nescio 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nomen, please read the definitions at the beginning of both articles. Their topics are quite different. Regards, gidonb 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Many Holocausts in History

The term "the Holocaust" is not truly an accurate term. There were hundreds of holocausts in history, the term the 'last Holocaust' is a more accurate description of the "the holocaust", or a better term would be the Nazi holocaust. The Holocaust implies that there was only one holocaust in history. This is not accurate. The word holocaust comes from the latin word holocaustum (spelling is not correct), to holocaust (reference ommitted). This is a very old term. It is extremely important to be aware that several holocausts exist in history, the nazi holocaust was not original, it was only the largest scale. Another 20th century holocaust occured in Turkey in the 1910's.

• That's why the article is called "The Holocaust" rather than "Holocaust". "The Holocaust" is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust, as opposed to the other disasters. It might be unfair to the memory of (say) the Armenian genocide, but it is the way the word is used; hence, it's the title of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's nonsense there have been other cases of genocide but there has been only one holocaust - the Nazi persecution of the Jews. Though this is probably not a good term since it means "burnt sacrificial offering" - personally I'm not convinced that that is at all an appropriate word to describe the Nazi genocide of the Jews & others. "Shoah" would be better but given that "Holocaust" has gained widespread acceptance amongst the public it's probably too late to change. Roydosan 09:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the term "holocaust" has been used several times before WW2. One example is in this article from 1919. A proper term would be The WW2 Holocaust Knutars 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Starting a new article?

There has been some sentiment that the article is getting too long, a sentiment I share. How would authors / editors feel if we were to address this? My own sense is that section 8 on interpretations could be moved with benefit into its own article, and developed further from there. That would keep the focus on The Holocaust in the present article. (The same move is one I would recommend were the final sections--on art and the Holocaust, etc.--to be beefed up a little. These are all important, further topics that a reader of "The Holocaust" would likely want to continue with that seem to deserve their own space and place, and that contribute to less focus on The Holocaust itself in a lengthy article. --raw

Article too long, (but I am a hypocrite)

I agree that this article has become to long, but just added to the problem in the Obedience section by sighting references to the "experiments" conducted by Jane_Elliott and Ron Jones (The_Third_Wave).

The psychological reasons or explanations for the blind obedience to such horrific actions could be a section all to itself, and could be eliminated as a link to Mob_psychology if the Mob_psychology stub were expanded by some experts (which I am not).

I added the Jane Elliott and Third Wave experiments to the Obedience section because both experiments are relatively recent, try to answer the perplexing obedience question, and when I saw these experiments as films they sent a chill down my spine.

ALSO... As Roydosan points out, there are many Holocausts in history. This article should probably be re-titled. I have difficulty however with "The Nazi Holocaust" or some other name. This is difficult because if you call it the "Nazi" or "Arian Holocaust" then you emphasize the people responsible for the Holocaust in the title. If you call it "The Jewish Holocaust" then you exclude the other victims.

the article has proper title THE Holocaust. Please, sign your contribution. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

PURE EVIL

There should be NO controversy whatsoever that the killing and torture of millions of innocent people was PURE EVIL. The Holocaust HAS to be one of, if not THE worst, events conducted in the history of man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.73.73 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• That comment is POV. Read the guidelines before posting please. Knutars 18:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• • As should you; NPOV is the policy for article pages, not for discussion pages. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • Please, come on now. Be serious. Do you honestly support the PURE EVIL point in Wikipedia? I suggest we tell users to behave accordingly to policies and delete unneccesary posts of to help keep the discussions clean, neutral and scientific. Knutars 21:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I suggest we do not delete non-disruptive posts from talk pages, period. Discussions don't have to be neutral or scientific; the results of discussions (that is, the article pages) need to be neutral. I usually answer posts like that with, "What suggestions do you have to improve the article?" It's part of not biting the newbies. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Endemic vs. epidemic

Minor change, but "endemic" means the exact opposite of its usage on the caption for the picture of the child dying in the street (ie. specific to a particular group, or as in a species existing in one region and nowhere else in the world). Meant to explain that in the edit, but accidentally hit Enter too soon. MoriyaMug 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Politically Correct

The Holocaust is a term used to describe the Nazi system to eliminate all Jewish men, women and children in all territories that they controlled. The fact that there were other poor folk killed too, and non Germans helping with these crimes is true too of course. But there is a problem with being politically correct. that the definitions become too complex, and no one can agree anyway. The problem with non Jews is the aspect of genocide and systematic extermination. I am not attemping to say that these crimes are any less serious, for example the dreadful and wholesale murder of Slavic peoples, but they are really outside the central definition of "The Holocaust". Wallie 18:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Slavic peoples were killed in the same gas chambers, worked to death in the same concentration camps, perhaps shared the same barracks, but for YOU, they are outside of The Holocaust. During WWII, 27 Million Russinas were systematically slaughtered by nazis, but only jews matter. Nobody is commemorating the Russian victims in February and now in May, nobody stops for a minute of silence, no international ceremonies are held to remember Slav victims. No TV programs constantly educate us about any Slavic Holocaust. One only wonders why? --71.247.39.213 14:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Does one have a suggestion why? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know what you are saying. And naturally I will be criticised for what I am saying here. The Soviet Union and Germany were at war, however. Russians and Slavs were not singled out for extermination in every country the Germans conquered, eg, France. The Jews were. The Slavs were victims, as they were the enemy. Note that the Slavs also got their revenge in Germany. The Jews were enemies because they were Jews. Naturally the case of the Serbs arises, but this was an internal problem in the old Yugoslavia. As for my own personal opinion. I think what happened to the Serbs was attrocious, and I can well understand how they feel even now. Wallie 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the factual basis for the notion that "27 Million Russinas were systematically slaughtered by nazis"? It seems here again somebody is playing with the numbers. The Wiki article on Stalin can't even come up with a solid figure of more than 4 million deaths during Stalin's regime. Frankly, I find this tossing about of such impossible figures to be somewhat disturbing as it makes all of us jaded to the horror of what truly took place. Perhaps you could explain yourself. 69.109.120.65 20:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess what bothers some people about the Holocaust and the Bosnian War is that Europe (according to themselves)is supposed to be the civilized region. They are the rich and upstanding. They were supposed to (so they thought back then)to conquer the world to spread their ideas of their society. Then, Germany, one of the most powerful countries in the world, kills millions of people because of their backround. Serbia, sippoedly the rightful heir to the Yugoslav kingdom, kills Bosnian, Muslims, Macedonians, Albanians, etc. These were the people that called themselves the model for the world. They did it from Alexander the Great to Milosvec. Don't think this is supposed to be anti- European. Africa and Asia now have the ideas of democracy in their mindset. But "civilized" people don't kill people for the backround.

Religious Meaning of the Holocaust

Since the article provides almost no religious interpretation of the Holocaust, I will try to make one, that is, to share my opinion. It is a well-known notion in the (Christian) Bible that the love of God towards his people invokes Satan's hatred, a fact well proved in the Holocaust, as well as in numerous other events in the history of the Jewish people. A history which for some 2600 years was practically a list of killings and persecutions. Well, the question why does God allow such terrible things to happen remains, and there can be many correct answers to it, I have a dozen but maybe not the best ones. I also want to say that the New Testament contains some predictions about the fate of the Jews and their time of exile among other nations, which were made by Jesus Himself. Jesus also made an appeal to the Jews, in certain times which they will know, to abandon Jerusalem and run for their lives. These warnings are believed to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, certainly they also refer to the time of the Holocaust, except that it wasn't to run FROM, but TO Jerusalem (this is my interpretation!). The words of Jesus (why did He cry when He entered Jerusalem?) also foretell another mass persecution of the Jews, which is still to come and will actually be bigger than the WW 2 Holocaust, by no-one else but by the Antichrist. Surely I'm not saying anything new. Still, I guess this part would be rejected by the Judaism, I heard it from Protestant theologians. Actually, I am Bulgarian, an Orthodox Christian, but don't know what is the view of the Orthodox Church on the matter.
As for the question how could one nation, in our case the German nation, carry out such atrocities, I think that this act could have happened anywhere in the world. The German people, who are probably abhorred of the word "Holocaust" and avoid even reading this article, were just an instrument, you see, it wasn't only them, it was everybody, all gentiles and all nations against the Jews. Some participated actively, some turned a blind eye... Paradoxally, after WW 2, the Arabs and the Muslims, who for 1500 years were so tolerant toward the Jews, turned against them and became their most "vicious" enemies. A circle of hatred which will never stop... Or God knows, may be it can stop for a while? We saw during the 90-es in Yugoslavia, that former victims (the Serbs, but here I don't underestimate the cruelties of the Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians) were easily seduced by the hatred and created the fertile soil needed for the worst war crimes in Europe after WW2 to happen. Let's hope that the lessons of the Holocaust will be rightly learned by the Israelis themselves, and they will never become mass killers of Palestinians, no matter what the cause is!

This stuff here is truly disingenous, closing with this notion of Israelis as a group as mass murderers. As usual there appears to be this expectation of a standard applied to Israel that is higher than to any other nation in the world. We don't presume that isolated incidents of massacres by Americans define all Americans, but there is a tendency to damn Israel in the face of the situation vis a vis the Palestinians. Israel is not perfect, and Israelis themselves in past and in the present, writers and leaders have stated that the occupied territories could be and are a detriment to Israel.Finding a religious context to the Holocaust is like trying to define God. It is beyond comprehension in that context. The holocaust is understandable from a historical context and is the result of thousands of years of both anti-semitism, and the human tendency to identify in groups. One doesn't need to go very far to see how this is still expressed when insurgents in Iraq stop a bus of students and kill all those of one Muslim sect - all the Shi'ites. It is no different than the Serbs slaughtering Bosnians, or vice versa. It always stems from fanaticism. Unfortunately, religion has long been the fomenter of fanaticism - not only religions of God, but also religions of nationalism, and ethnocentric attitudes (my group better than all the rest). The same sort of fanaticism that enables a Taliban murderer to decapitate a school teacher in front of his family because he was enabling education of girls. All leaders in the world - including religious leaders must disavow themselves of these evil fanatics. You want to find Satan.. that is where you will find it.. and it is in people.. not in space or hell or anywhere else,, it is in human nature.. the elements of that "beast"... And in our mental capabilities, it is where humans must struggle between nature and the abilities of the human mind and spirit..

85.11.148.77 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any suggestions toward improving the article? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Expand the religious and philosophical part, if its possible 85.11.148.77 22:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

• Might be a good idea. We can't put in any of our own ruminations, though; we'd need verifiable reliable sources; otherwise it would constitute original research and probably violate our neutral point of view policy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Total count

I'm not confident enough to do this myself, but could someone add near the start of the "Death Toll" section an estimate of the total number killed? Or is such a number not possible for some reason? Mrjeff 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Very WRONG Serbs killed

It is highly unlikely that half a million or even 1.2 million Serbs was killed esspecialy all of them by Croat Nazi as is written in the article. This needs immediate attention. I am from Serbia, so I know a lot of stories about this, there were Serbs killed in Croatia but this figure is too much. What about all the soldiers and civilans that died in germand bombings and in fighting? I lack exact numbers but will try to find it and change it (if i can get good source) Genius82

Murder

Is the term Murder not POV? It's mentioned everywhere in the article. (I'm VERY new to Wikipedia.) Paulus Caesar 02:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the term Murder not POV, (in a nutshell). And I'm not new to Wikipedia :) Imacomp 12:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem POV - why not use "killed" which includes murder in any event? The article losed credibility IMO by use of the word murder.Michael Dorosh 16:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's POV: the POV that wrongful killing is murder, or perhaps the POV that the killings were wrongful. Only the very tiniest fringe of humanity questions that conclusion, and they need not be represented under WP:NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiniest fringe of humanity? What about the thousands of people who actually commited the crimes, or the millions who witnessed them and were complicit? You can't tell me the thousands of people actually conducting mass shootings or feeding the ovens regarded themselves as criminals...See Browning and Goldhagen for evidence of how these guys felt about themselves. I suspect there may be millions of people in the middle east who might feel differently than your average European or North American. Ask the president of Iran, eh...POV indeed.Michael Dorosh 13:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes but some do not think that the Holocaust killings were wrongful killings. I.e. National Socialists. I agree with Michael. Paulus Caesar 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course some do not think that. What did I just say? Only the tiniest fringe... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Quite. I think the reader should be able to decide for themselves whether or not "murder" applies. Surely a right thinking person can come to that conclusion themselves without being beaten over the head with it.Michael Dorosh 18:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure it was murder. Not just murder: mass murder. Leave it alone. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with Humus sapiens. In many other cases, if there was less public consensus and the issue was more ambivalent, I'd be likely to agree with Michael. However, the public consensus is overwhelmingly that the extermination committed by Nazi Germany was mass murder and a crime against humanity. I would not hesitate to estimate a figure of 90% at minimum for this overwhelming consensus. This being the case I do not feel there is the slightest NPOV issue with describing the Holocaust as murder. Respectfully, Kasreyn 17:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The intention to annihilate the Jews of Europe and other populations has been established. Therefor the term murder is npov. Killing may be used to alter, but the exclusive use of killing would be pov. In fact, the same user who tries to delete the murder instances in the article marked as unsummarized minor edits also claims elsewhere that The Holocaust article uses exclusively killing and therefor that would be the npov term. Traditionally the article uses both and the conclusion of previous discussions also was that this is the proper terminology. gidonb 13:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

History of the Jews during World War II

Found that article in a bad shape. IMHO, it should be expanded (I'd prefer that option) or merged. What do you folks think? For now I called it a stub. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Help requested for a newbie to debunking deniers.

I'm fairly new to the tumults of this debate, so I'd like to ask for assistance. An editor going by Overthrow has claimed, on the article Prussian Blue (duo), that this source fails to disprove the group Prussian Blue's claims, cited in the article, regarding the chemical Prussian Blue in gas chambers. (Specifically, the group claims that there was insufficient Prussian Blue (the chemical, not white nationalist bubblegum pop) present in the gas chambers for them to have been used for their widely accepted purpose.) I am of the opinion that the document at Holocaust-History.org, which I understand to be a scholarly site for the purpose of debunking Holocaust denial, does indeed debunk that claim rather effectively. However, I am definitely not a chemist by training, and rather than go about reinventing the wheel in arguing this with the editor in question, I wonder whether this exact issue has not been dealt with before on this talk page, or the talk page of an associated page. If so, an editor more experienced in these matters than I might be able to help me understand the issue better. I am also interested in finding a way of citing both the claims of the band, and the debunking of those claims, in a more NPOV and effective manner. Can anyone provide me with some guidance? Kasreyn 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn. You know and I know that you are not a "newbie", and would debate that black was white. This is not the time nor the place to bring up this sort of irrelevancy. Wallie 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. I'm aware that Prussian Blue is not particularly notable on this talk page. However, I had a very reasonable assumption that editors knowledgeable about debunking Holocaust deniers' claims would hang out here, since this article must draw more Holocaust deniers than any other. And I thank you for your backhanded compliment on my debating skills; I will take it in a positive light. However, no matter how good I am at rhetoric, if I don't have an underpinning of knowledge, I can't construct any really effective arguments. I've never actually gone toe-to-toe with a Holocaust debunker before. I wouldn't want to botch my first time at bat, which is why I'm here asking for a coach. In any case, it's beginning to appear moot, as Overthrow seems to have fallen silent and is no longer replying. Kasreyn 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not particularly worth arguing with Holocaust deniers; if their intellect was suited to logical discussion, they wouldn't be Holocaust deniers in the first place, since Holocaust denial is built on lie after lie. (Of course, they'll say that about their opponents too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that they still must be argued with, in order to prevent their numbers from growing through convincing the ignorant. Some deniers, like some "intelligent design" pushers, are highly skilled at projecting the appearance of being scientific. The solution is to arm oneself with the facts, which are what I came here for. Kasreyn 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. A quick look through the archives shows I've spent more than my share of time arguing with them. In this case, I'd think that "who gives a shit what two addled 12-year-olds' opinions about the Holocaust are?" should suffice, but I know it won't. Literally, however, the paper does not disprove what the girls said about the absence of Prussian Blue in the gas chambers; what the paper (as well as others) does prove is that the absence of Prussian Blue does not mean they were not gas chambers. Here's another article, same guy, less technical: [5]. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm amazed that all these scientists base all their experiments on scraping the walls of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Maybe there's something I've missed, but wouldn't replication be simpler? Build a replica of the chambers, down to the same materials of bricks, paint, pipes, floor, everything. Get some Zyklon-B and fill the empty room with gas for however much time it would have taken to murder millions of people. Then measure the walls. Even taking into account the necessity of calculating the effects of age and decay on the real walls, how hard could it be? Kasreyn 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Pretty hard. How could you calculate the effects of age and decay? Further, the gas chambers weren't filled continuously; they were emptied between loads, and were also (I think) scrubbed down to get rid of the disgusting stuff that newly dead people sometimes leave behind. And that disgusting stuff (as well as simpler matters like respiration) would change the chemistry of the air in the room, further confusing the issue. I don't think current science is really up to doing a simulation of this sort. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  I see... I guess it's back to the paint-scrapings then! Thanks for the article, I found it very interesting, though to be honest my chemistry isn't good enough to follow it that well. Kasreyn 00:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I might be missing something here, Kasreyn. But you introduced these people, these "holocaust deniers" as you call them, into the equation. Why? Are you trying to start a debate with yourself? I do not know what your agenda is to even talk about this on this discussion page. Wallie 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have already explained adequately why I came to this discussion page: to seek help in dealing with Overthrow. I feel that a proper reading of my remarks would indicate this, and I know you're a bright guy, so the only reason I am left with for your incomprehension is that you did not read my remarks carefully enough. Kasreyn 02:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Why bother? Those that are inclined to disbelieve will disbelieve anyway no matter what evidence is presented.Michael Dorosh 21:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If the deniers are lying, and they claim that non-holocaust deniers are lying, one objective question comes to mind. Who stands to benefit most from the lies they tell? 147.10.24.157 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)R

Since Holocaust deniers are lying and they lie that the non-liars are lying, technically only one side can benefit from lies. 67.165.155.235 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Um...

Shouldn't we stop Jews from editing this page? I mean, it's going to be filled up with POV if you allow them to say whatever the Hell they want about the Holocaust.

(gets shot)

(gasping for breath) It was just a thought... Max W. Gore 05:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If that was a joke, it was in extremely poor taste. Racial remarks are considered personal attacks on Wikipedia, and if you keep it up you will be banned. --DLand^TALK 05:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it was in poor taste. And it wasn't a trolling attempt. I'm just saying that people like that get shot. For better or worse. You realize that because we won WW2, we don't know anything about Nazism. Not anything. All we know is that they were Racist and killed a lot of Jews. I'm fine with that point of view. But it is a POV. And what the Hell was that about that being Racist? What if we found conclusive evidence that the Jews killed Jesus Christ? History is Racist. And so is Evolution. Max W. Gore 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Max W. Gore: I believe that by now, you have exhausted a reasonable credit of good faith, so proceed with extreme caution. Read WP:RULES and keep WP civil. Consider this a friendly warning. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok. You don't have to yell at me. I'll remove the comments. Max W. Gore 07:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

My God you're an idiot. Why don't you try reading the numerous actual books that historians have written about the Nazis before you say that "we don't know anything about Nazism." Nazism and the Third Reich has probably been the subject of more historical study than any other comparable topic in world history. The vast majority of those scholars have not been sympathetic to Nazism, but that doesn't mean that we "know nothing" about the subject. What on earth are you trying to say? john k 17:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that no matter what a person has said, it's not productive or civil to sink to namecalling. Refer to WP:BITE; Max W. Gore appears to be a newcomer to Wikipedia and may not yet understand that such joking is not appropriate here. Kasreyn 21:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't care about the "joke." I care about the stupid arrogance behind the "joke," which allows Mr. Gore to claim, on the basis of his own ignorance, that nobody knows anything about Nazism. If a person is completely ignorant of the subject matter at hand, and uses their ignorance as a bludgeon in debate, I don't see any particular reason to treat them with kid gloves. But you're right that calling him an idiot was out of order, and unproductive. john k 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kasreyn, I believe that you have deliberately set a climate which encourages these sentiments. You start this sort of a debate, and then you step back and take a holier than thou attitude, when others carry on from where you started. Wallie 22:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me Wallie, but if you have problems with Kasreyn's behaviour, please take them to his talk page. Thanks. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? What I am saying has direct relevance to this talk page. Or are you in agreement with his approach? Wallie 23:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What approach? In the previous section, he asked a good question: how can he refute the claim another editor made, that one scientific document does not contradict what a couple of 12-year-old idiots-with-a-fan-club said (e.g., that there's no Prussian Blue on the gas chamber walls.) Considering how complicated and nuanced the answer is, it's a very good question, albeit a little bit misplaced. I'll assume your good faith, and that your response to him was based on a misreading of his header: "Help requested for a newbie to debunking deniers". I parsed it (and I'm sure it was meant) as "(Help requested) for a (newbie to debunking deniers)", while you seem to have parsed it as "(Help requested for a newbie) to (debunking deniers)." That is, he was claiming to be a newbie to debunking deniers, not a newbie on Wikipedia. Then, in this section, he quite correctly (as any editor might do) chides john k for calling an editor an idiot. And you find fault with that. Since reading his comments solely in context of this talk page provides no clue to the vehemence of your personal responses to him, I can only conclude that you have some other issues with Kasreyn -- which I ask you to take to his talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am trying to establish. I did a search on this page for "Prussian Blue", and the first mention of it was from Kasreyn. Which editor made the claim and who are these 12 year olds? All I can see is people getting sucked into this "debate", and now I am in the position of having to defend myself. I am also unsure as to Kasreyn's motives. Either he is trying to start a debate about holocaust denial. Or he is a holocaust denier himself, and is trying to enlist support for his theory. I did try to ascertain this earlier and my question was responded to by another question, a typical delaying/avoiding tactic. An honest person would have given an honest response. Wallie 00:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just read everything Kasreyn posted on Talk:Prussian Blue (duo), never having had any interaction with him before, and your characterization of him as possibly a holocaust denier makes no sense at all, and could easily be construed as a personal attack. As have your other comments. You're way out of line here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this discussion has soured our relationship. However, I am sure that there are others who will understand. Wallie 01:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, I'm very confused. Why are you so mad at me? I had thought we buried the hatchet a long time ago over our differences on the Paris Hilton article. Since then, the article has largely gone your way with very little interference from me. I don't know why you're suddenly taking me to task, and worst of all, calling me things I am not. I do not appreciate your interference or the aspersions you cast on my character. Let me reassure you that I do not have an "agenda" here; this page was not even on my watchlist until I made my original post requesting some education, which Jpgordon provided. Even the original purpose of my question - my debate with Overthrow - has vanished, since Overthrow has stopped responding and essentially ceded his position by default. I have no further reason to participate on this page, so I fail to see how I could have an "agenda". Besides, if you study my remarks on Prussian Blue (duo) I don't see how you could draw any such inferences from them. I'd like you to do that - to read my remarks on Prussian Blue - and let my words speak for me. I have no interest in pursuing this further. Kasreyn 02:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am not mad at you personally, and never have been. It is just that we all have to remember which page we are on here. As far as I am concerned, you are also very welcome to add/change this article or contribute to any discussions, or any other article. The debate with Overthrow should really have remained on the Prussian Blue page though. To mention it here on this page gives credence to their nonsense, but I am now sure this was not your intention. If you were concerned with "holocaust denial" it is best to add a well referenced piece of text, or say that you intend to add it, and discuss this. The effect is the same, but then your intentions are then open clear, and these Prussian Blue individuals do not get a mention. As far as your character is concerned I was really trying to bring your true feelings out into the open, which you have now, and all is OK. The way it was, many people would not say anything, but could think a lot, and come to the wrong conclusions. My mind was completely open, and I thought it was important enough to find out exactly what you mean't. On this sort of talk page, you have to be very clear. Otherwise some will get the wrong idea. Wallie 05:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oh dear. Kasreyn came here where he knew there would be people experienced in refuting Holocaust deniers, and asked for assistance. The only better place he could have asked would have been at Talk:Holocaust denial. In what way does that "give credence to their nonsense?" --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see the template now: "To discourage bigotry, editing of this page by Jews has been disabled". : ) --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 12:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Gordon. Credence is given by discussing the topic on this page. By the way, I find your attitude most unprofessional. Wallie 19:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The person here who has most clearly been guilty of not discussing the topic of this page has been you, Wallie. Your comments about Kasreyn have no relevance whatsoever to the discussion at hand. john k 00:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

That is quite incorrect. I have repeatedly pointed out that the "Prussian Blue" people and any discussion related to them have no relevance on this talk page... quite frankly, the mere mention of them on this page is a gross affront. How can I be any more direct? The fact that Kasreyn introduced it also has no bearing. I would have said the same to anyone else too. Wallie 21:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How does that have anything to do with Kasreyn's justified rebuke of me for violating civility? And the Prussian Blue thing was an effort by Kasreyn to find people to help him out on that page with an issue specifically relating to the Holocaust. I don't see how that is a "gross affront", and has "no relevance" to this page. You're totally out of line here. john k 11:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

If I have to be called a few names in order to protect this page and the memory of the six million, it is a small price to pay. Wallie 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

An admirable goal, Wallie. However, if it's your contention that what you claim is my misuse of this talk page in some way constitutes a threat to that memory, I think I should point out that your endless defenses of your actions and aspersions on my character have wasted at least twice as much space as I used in my attempt to defeat a debunker. Kasreyn 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Unfortunately that's what sometimes happens when a discussion from one talk page spills over onto another. As with a bomb, it takes longer to clear up the damage than to drop it. Wallie 18:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The term genocide

The article states that the term genocide was coined during the Holocaust. Wouldn't it make sense to link it to the genocide entry which explains who actually coined the term and why?

• Sure, and it's linked in the very first sentence in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Murder continued

The Holocaust and other examples of ethnic cleansing does not fit the current definition of mass murder. The current definition states "Mass murder (massacre) is the act of murdering a large number of people...". Murder in itself is defined by virtually every encyclopaedia and dictionary as the unlawful killing of a human being.

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has been careful not to use the word murder in its definition of genocide: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group...".

Oxford of course defines the Holocaust as "the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis" but its lack of internal consistency is no execuse for this article to conflict with murder.

I feel that Holocaust was murder in the vernacular sense of the word. The definition of murder should somehow be changed to include 'immoral legal' killing such as genocide but still exclude legal abortion, euthenasia, execution, assassination, collateral damage, etc.

- sYndicate ^talk 13:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was illegal. See Eichmann Trial and Nuremberg Trials. Wallie 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust was state sanctioned by the Reich (meaning 'empire' - under military command) and as such was not illegal in Nazi Germany. - sYndicate ^talk 16:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Nazi Germany was illegal too. See Denazification. Wallie 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis were in control of Germany and hence made the laws governing the country. I am not saying that what they did was right or moral, but it certainly was not illegal. Citing denazification as proof that "Nazi Germany was illegal" is nearly as asinine as using anti-communism as justification that the USSR was illegal. - sYndicate ^talk 21:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of the killings didn't take place in Germany, though... --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see from this picture all the extermination camps were in Greater Germany and occupied territories. - sYndicate ^talk 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The Nazi Regime was an explicitly and purposely lawless one. The killings were obviously state sanctioned, but there were never any explicit laws which made it legal to kill Jews. As far as I'm aware, the conventional legal system remained theoretically in operation throughout Germany. Mass killings of Jews were not within the bounds of German law, except insofar as German law was subordinated to the will of the Führer, which seems dubious. But, in any case, all of the extermination camps were within the Government-General of Poland, which was occupied territory. Behavior of the Germans in occupied territory would have to follow the tenets of international law, which certainly doesn't allow mass killing of civilians. john k 22:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Another stupid debate we had before. The shoa was murder plain and simple. Just because murder is organized by the government doesn't make it any less so, especially if they don't pass a law authorizing the murder (if they did, you might be able to argue your point, but -heck- they didn't). So could we please stop it until you come up with a law from Nazi Germany supposedly legalizing the shoa. Ah, and please not "Hitler's word was law" nonsense. Finally, yes, it is nonsensical to say "Nazi Germany was illegal" (whatever Nazi Germany is supposed to mean here), but that doesn't prove your point, Syndicate. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany was illegal" may be more or less meaningless, but I think it would be fair to say that "Nazi Germany was a criminal enterprise." Trying to discern what is "legal" and what is "illegal" in a government run by a bunch of gangsters is nearly impossible. john k 22:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, John. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I agree that the Holocaust was murder and that debating it is senseless. However, murder is defined as being unlawful. Nazi Germany did have laws and (to my understanding) never had any sanctioning the extermination camps.

However, the country was controlled by an absolute ruler (see the article on Fuehrer) who obviouly superceded any laws and did directly sanction the killings. Was this illegal? No. Should the Holocaust be called mass murder? Yes. Are you saying that if they find a document tomorrow proving that there was a law allowing the Holocaust that it would suddenly no longer be murder? Surely not. The Holocaust, and any ethnic cleansing, should always be considered murder regardless of where it was committed and regardless if there was a law in place to legalise it.

A simple modification to the definition of murder will allow us to have our cake and eat it too. As john k suggested, we should just include a reference to international law. This would imply that killing, whether legal or not in the country it was committed, is still murder if it violates international law.- sYndicate ^talk 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...as I meditate on this, I fear that we seem to be moving in the direction of original research. Wouldn't the thing to do be to see if our sources describe it as "murder?" If specific legal issues of "murder" have been raised, we should refer to them. But we shouldn't include our own legal arguments in the text. john k 23:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that WP is not the place for original research. Nearly all other sources do call genocide 'mass murder'. Definitions of murder never elaborate on what they mean with 'unlawful', 'illegal' or 'without legal excuse'. The only way for reconsiling the two ideas (legal genocide being mass murder and murder being illegal) would be to bring in a reference to international law. Are you proposing that we leave the definition for murder as is and live with the inconsistency?- sYndicate ^talk 09:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying to refer to it as murder, and not worry about whether there's an inconsistency unless we can find actual sources discussing the issue. john k 13:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think WP would be better off without inconsistencies.- sYndicate ^talk 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Syndicate, you are basing your point on several questionable assumptions:

• insisting on murder being "unlawful" is problematic, as long as the law referred to is unclear - there is more than merely positive law, the legal definition of murder I know of is defining it as killing with intention and for "lower" motives. A moral definition would also take into account the killing of innocents (thus distinguishing it from capital punishment)
• You wrote "However, the country was controlled by an absolute ruler (see the article on Fuehrer) who obviouly superceded any laws and did directly sanction the killings", but that is simply not right. In the Nazi state the Führer's will superceded any legal requirements but that didn't change these legalities unless a law was passed or changed. Hitler pondered and prepared issueing a law legalizing Euthanasia but in the end backed off, preferring to act "quietely". There was no law sanctioning the Holocaust and hence it cannot be described as legal, even under the law of the time. Also, we still don't have (and probably never will) direct proof of Hitler ordering the Holocaust, which doesn't mean that he didn't do it or that he didn't willed it, but it widens the gap between Holocaust and Law even more. So "Was this illegal?" - Yes, certainly.

"Are you saying that if they find a document tomorrow proving that there was a law allowing the Holocaust that it would suddenly no longer be murder?"

The moral character of the act would not be touched by such a document, and the legal one only if one subscribes to legal positivism (which unfortunately is again very popular these days). But still, we won't find such a document because there are no "secret laws" (one reason why there was no law - no one should know) - a law, even under Hitler, came into effect by promulgating it to the public. If there was such a law, we'd know it.

Returning again to the moral issue, I agree with your last point: murder remains murder, even when sanctioned or legalzed by the state, even when committed in the name of progress or other absurdities. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response Str1977. My last point is the only point I want to make; the current definition of murder would incorrectly exclude the Holocaust from being murder if it had been legalised.

- sYndicate ^talk 17:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The death penalty in Nazi Germany was accepted and legal. The mass killings of the Jewish population could be seen as the death penalty on a larger scale, and therefore it was legal. All executions do not have to be open to public. I don't think the mass killings were murders at all since I go by the definition of murder being an illegal act. Paulus Caesar 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Not Genocide

Don't get me wrong, the Holocaust was a condemnable and terrible thing (that really happened). The word genocide is used a lot, but doesn't genocide imply that ALL of the Jews/Polish/"Undesirables" were murdered? Isn't this technically attempted genocide. By the same token what happened in Rwanda was attempted (thankfully it wasn't successful). You see what I mean? It's a question worth asking. If it is a question of definition... who's do we accept? Angrynight 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

From genocide: Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) Article 2 as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

I'd say the Holocaust fits this definition. Extinction implies that all members of a species has died off. - sYndicate ^talk 23:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the word "species" but that makes sense to me. Angrynight 23:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)