User talk:SlimVirgin/draft/archive1

Some thoughts from reading the very beginning (I'll try to get to the later part of the article shortly)

Firstly:

During the 1930s the legal, economic and social rights of Jews were steadily restricted, and many Jews, particularly political and intellectual leaders, were sent to concentration camps, where most of them were eventually killed or died.

Is this true? My understanding was that most of those sent to concentration camps in the 1930s were soon released. I'd imagine that this is strictly true - most of them eventually died - but probably not during their initial stay in concentration camps in the 30s. I'm not completely sure of this.

My other comment regards the discussion of the Nuremberg Laws, which should focus more, I think, on the sexual/family aspects of it (banning of marriage/sexual relations between Jews and non-Jews), than on the citizenship and civil rights issues, since these were purely nominal for all people living in Germany by 1935. At least, that's the focus that most books I've read on the Nuremberg Laws tend towards. Otherwise, it's looking pretty good so far. john k 18:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Further thoughts: I'd like some more attention to the different historiographical schools, especially with respect to the question of exactly how mass extermination came to be decided upon, as this is not a generally agreed upon matter - I know Christopher Browning's new book is entirely about this question. I'd rather see a bit more complexity than simply asserting a kind of light intentionalism as the objective truth, which seems to be what's going on here. Some attention to the various emigration schemes (Madagascar, and so forth) would be good, as well as of the ambiguity of the evidence for exactly how things were decided. There remains a great deal of dispute as to when, exactly, the decision for extermination was made (the closest to consensus seems to be that it occurred at some point somewhat after the invasion of the Soviet Union, while your account implies that it was already decided at that point, which, while certainly a point of view held by a fair number of historians, is not, I think, uncontroversial enough to be presented as fact) Also, I think there's too much emphasis on Wannsee. Nothing was actually decided at Wannsee - Heydrich presented what was essentially an already decided plan, and gave it to the various conferees so that they could determine the best way to put it into effect. I'll try to finish reading in a bit. john k 22:12, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

small technical matters

"an industrial gas derived from prussic acid and known by the brand name Zyklon-B" - this says that Zyklon-B is a gas, but in fact it consists of solid pellets/gunk which emit hydrogen cyanide gas (prussic acid minus the water) on exposure to air.
"Gas was pumped into the chambers" - at least in Auschwitz this was not true. Pellets of Zyklon B were manually poured through holes in the roof or the side walls of the gas chamber. Inside the chamber the pellets were contained by some structures made of wire mesh. There were pumps but they were for evacuating the gas from the chamber afterwards.

--Zero 23:49, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. On the Nuremberg laws etc, I only wanted to give a very quick survey of events between 1933 and 1939, because they are not (in my view) really part of the Holocaust, although they of course laid the basis for it. I don't think the details of the Nuremberg laws belong in this article, which is already rather long.

I will amend the sentences about Zyklon-B. Zero, I didn't include you in my initial requests for comment, although I know you are knowledgeable in this area, because I have been (as you know) very exasperated at your behavior at anti-Zionism. However, since you are interested feel free to comment further.

Adam 01:31, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Adam. Nice work. I guess I also have a few comments. As an introduction, I will say that I haven't read the article as completely as I plan to over the weekend. However, here are some things that might be considered.

Hitler's rise to power in 1933, followed by the One-day Boycott of Jewish shops on Saturday, April 1, 1933. It was the first government-sponsored anti-Semitic act of the new regime, and certainly worthy of mention.
Until Kristallnacht, most of the prisoners in concentration camps were political prisoners, not necessarily Jews. Most were there for predetermined sentences. Many were released.
The Evian Conference and the Saint Louis incident are two critical events in convincing Hitler that no one wanted the Jews. Only the Dominican Republic agreed to accept 100,000 Jewish refugess, ironically, because Trujillo thought they would lighten up the Dominican race through intermarriage.
I agree with John above that the sexual aspects of the Nuremberg Laws were essential. They will relate to the Rosenstrasse protests when I eventually get around to writing an article about that.
While Babi Yar was certainly an Einsatzgruppen style slaughter, it occured in response to certain events, and cannot be clustered as such (this is not to say that the event was any less horrible, however, it was not people just walking into a village and rounding people up to shoot them).
Skipping ahead to Jewish resistance. That's quite a topic. The origin of the "sheep to the slaughter" statement actually comes from Abba Kovner, commander of the Vilna Ghetto, who sent out a proclamation calling on Jews not to go "like sheep to the slaughter." In general, however, I have a huge problem with the question of why Jews went passively. Those that ask the question benefit from a certain hindsight that the people who were actually involved in the discussions on how to respond did not have: we know how the story ended. Caught in the circumstances, they did not know where the persecution would lead, and no one could have imagined that it would lead to attempted extermination. In fact, as an extreme case of this, Polish-Jewish historian Ber Mark cites one of the documents buried by Sonderkommando in Auschwitz who heard someone attempt to comfort the Jews in the gas chambers by saying that it really is a shower and that the Germans are civilized people and would never kill so many people. Faced with the unbelievable, many people chose not to believe it, and certainly thought it would not happen to them. (see Scrolls of Auschwitz, anonymous report)
More on resistance: I prefer to take Swiss sociologist Werner Ring's approach to European resistance to Nazism and place it within a Jewish context. Ring identifies four distinct forms of resistance: 1. symbolic (in the Jewish realm, this can include continued observance of religious ritual, refusal to wear the star, failure to comply with orders, maintaining normalcy in dire conditions, etc.--see Bauer, who cites a Chanukkah candle lighting ceremony in Treblinka as one of the two greatest examples of resistance), 2. polemic (spreading the news, to Jews (underground newspapers in the ghettos, for instance), the world (Vrba escaping from Auschwitz and informing others), and for posterity (the aforementioned Auschwitz scrolls, the Ringelblum archive from Warsaw, Anne Frank even, etc.)), 3. defensive (hiding Jews, French Jewish boyscouts smuggling them out of France, feeding hidden people, etc.), and 4. offensive (3 revolts in death camps--Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, the attack on the Belgian train, ghetto uprisings, partisans such as Bielski, the Jewish Maquis, etc.). While people often think only of the latter as resistance, Korczak's insistence on maintaining the humanity of his children, and his going with them to Treblinka is, at least to me, no less a poignant act of resistance than the butcher who bit through the jugular of one of the Einsatzgruppen at a killing pit. In brief, I think the fallacy lies in the assumption that resistance is only armed resistance.
In a philosophical vein, the narrative is Nazi-driven--something I avoid when I teach the subject. It is a story of what the Nazis did, and dates are determined by how the Nazis acted. While this is legitimate, it implies passivity among the Jewish population. In contrast, I believe that although Jews were faced with choiceless choices, and that no response could really assure their survival, Jews did respond in some way to everything that took place around them. In most instances, their efforts were doomed to failure--that was the nature of the foe they faced. However, losing in a no-win situation does not imply that there was no response, only that the response was doomed to failure. In other words, I would like to see more of the Jewish narrative and the story of Jewish responses to persecution.
Finally, a story that need not be included, but that I think illustrates my point. Nazi testimony tells of a Rabbi Daniel of a small community in Eastern Europe, who was taken with his congregants to the killing pits by the Einsatzgruppen. They were undressed and taken to the pits, when the rabbi asked the German commander if he can address his community one last time. We don't know what he said. All we know is that he pointed to the sky, and that the congregation cried. The Nazi officer asked him if they were ready, and he said "Not yet" and continued speaking. Finally, when he was done, he turned to the officer and said "Now we are ready." He did not fight back. He couldn't. He did, however, determine the manner and time of his death. To me, that is the greatest act of resistance that I know of. Danny 01:36, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Danny, thanks for your comments, which are as challenging as I expected they would be. (I'm sorry to inflict this subject on you yet again, by the way.)

I am reluctant to start expanding the narrative of events in Germany before 1939. I know it is all part of the story, but this is not a History of Nazi Germany. For the purposes of this article, I think it is sufficient to say that the regime began oppressing German Jews in various ways from the start, but did not start systematically killing them until after 1939.
I was not aware that Babi Yar differed from other Einsatzgruppe killings except in scale. How did it differ?

Later: I have written an expanded paragraph on Babi Yar. (The article Babi Yar is dreadful and needs rewriting, by the way.)

On resistance
- I made a point of quoting a Jew (Sharon) as criticising the Jews for not resisting. I don't think non-Jews have any right to make this criticism and I certainly don't make it myself.
- I tried to address the point that the Jews could not know what was in store for them and that the lack of overt resistance must be seen in that light.
- I accept that the various forms of, if you like, non-overt resistance you describe were valid forms of resistance from a Jewish religious and philosophical viewpoint. Most of them, however, did not actually impede the Nazis or save any lives, which is what "resistance" means to most people. If you have no objections will incorporate some of your comments above into the text on this point.
- I'm unaware of the Belgian train incident you refer to.
On the narrative being driven by the Nazis: well, that's what happened, I'm afraid. The Nazis did things and others responded to them. I have tried to describe Jewish responses as fully as I can without writing a book, but no doubt more can be said. There should be more on the moral dilemmas of the Judenrate, for example. But I don't see how the basic narrative structure of the first half of the article can be anything other than Nazi-driven.

On John's point about intentionalism versus functionalism, I was going to deal with that under Controversies but I have run ouit of puff a bit, and in any case theory doesn't interest me as much as narrative. It is true that I am a "soft intentionalist": I think Hitler and Himmler always intended killing Jews as and when they could, although I don't think there was any concrete plan before 1941. Whether the plan was drawn up before or after June 1941, and precisely who drew it up and when, is as far as I know not documented, and in a sense not material. I think the Holocaust resulted from the collective will of the Nazi Party, created by Hitler and imbued with his hatred of the Jews, and that once opportunity presented itself after 1941 the Party, and its executive arm the SS, carried out that will.

Adam 02:22, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments are also welcome on the spin-off article Holocaust (word), although this is not finished. Adam 03:29, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler escaped from Auschwitz in April 1944, eventually reaching Slovakia from where they were able to make their way to the west, carrying the first eyewitness account of the extermination camps to a (generally unbelieving) world." - this reads as if the news only reached the west when Vrba and Wetzler did, though I presume you didn't mean to imply that. In fact, Vrba and Wetzler prepared a written "protocol" soon after reaching Slovakia, and this was widely distributed. --Zero 11:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe theirs was the first eye-witness account to reach the west. I know Jan Karsky went to the US in 1943 but I don't think he was an eye-witness. Correct me if I'm wrong. Adam 12:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You didn't get my point. Your text says "make their way to the west, carrying the first eye-witness account". However, their eye-witness account reached the west before they themselves did. I think their written testimony qualifies as "an eye-witness account"; perhaps that is what we are disagreeing on? --Zero 12:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK I follow you now. I will amend the sentence. I am also going to move the paragraph on escapes to the Resistance section since I have found more information on this subject now. Adam 13:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Jan Karski" (a pseudonym) reached the UK in late Oct or early Nov 1942. He believed he had been inside the Belzec death camp, though Yehuda Bauer suggests that it may have been a nearby work camp. So he was an "eye-witness" to some extent, though to less of an extent than Vrba and Wetzler certainly. --Zero 12:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If Jan Karski is a pseudonym (which I haven't heard before) perhaps you could amend his article accordingly. Adam 13:47, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"In view of frequent statements to the contrary..." - I think it detracts from the quality to make such attacks on arguments that are not presented here. I think it would be better to just state the facts clearly and not get aggressive or polemical like this. --Zero 11:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are probably right, but this comes from having to correct statements of this kind several times at Extermination camp and elsewhere. Adam 12:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"They should also be distinguished from slave labor camps, which were set up in all German-occupied countries to exploit the labor of prisoners of various kinds, including prisoners of war." - my memory is lacking the details, but I think some of the labor camps were intentionally designed to work the prisoners to death; if so that should be mentioned. --Zero 11:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That is certainly stated somewhere. Adam 12:15, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg's comments

I'll just add stuff following the order of the article. Jayjg 20:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to see "Churban Europa" included as a common Hebrew term for the Holocaust. Jayjg 20:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The use of the word Holocaust in this wider sense is objected to by most Jewish organizations, particularly those established to commemorate the Jewish Holocaust, and by some historians. Jewish organizations say that the word in its current sense was originally coined to describe the extermination of the Jews, and that the Jewish Holocaust was a crime on such a scale, and of such specificity as the culmination of the long history of European anti-Semitism, that it should not be subsumed into a general category with the other crimes of the Nazis. - Is this really true? Most Jewish Holocaust museums and memorials I am aware of also mention the other deaths. In my view, the next paragraph is the real issue (broadening). However, the issue with Palestinian is not just that it is "false and offensive", but that it is politically motivated and trivializes the Holocaust. Also, you might want to mention in this paragraph "Black Holocaust", a somewhat contentious term which currently gets over 5,000 Google hits. Jayjg 20:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The word Jew should be wiki'd at various points in the article. Jayjg 20:36, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler was open about his hatred of Jews and gave ample warning of his intention to drive them from Germany's political, intellectual and cultural life. But he did not actually say that if he came to power he would attempt to exterminate the Jews. He was more explicit in private. As early as 1922 he told Major Josef Hell: "The annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jews will be my first and foremost task." He said that he would personally hang all the Jews of Munich. "Exactly the same thing will happen in the other cities until Germany is cleansed of its last Jew." copyedited to In his autobiography Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler was open about his hatred of Jews and gave ample warning of his intention to drive them from Germany's political, intellectual and cultural life. Though he did not publically state that if he came to power he would attempt to exterminate the Jews, he was more explicit in private. As early as 1922 he told Major Josef Hell: "The annihilation (vernichtung) of the Jews will be my first and foremost task." He said that he would personally hang all the Jews of Munich. "Exactly the same thing will happen in the other cities until Germany is cleansed of its last Jew." Jayjg 20:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hitler said that if they were "insufficient" in solving the "Jewish question," it would be necessary to pass a law "handing over the problem to the National Socialist Party for final solution (Endlösung). <- Missing end-quote. Jayjg 20:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although German culture was deeply imbued with anti-Semitism, most Germans, including most people who voted for the Nazi Party, probably did not anticipate that the Nazis intended to carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews. They probably assumed that the Jews would simply be expelled from Germany if the Nazis came to power. It seems likely that some Nazi leaders, however, thought in detail about a "final solution" to what they called "the Jewish question" during the pre-war years. There is no documentary evidence that Hitler ordered the preparation of a concrete plan for exterminating the Jews (although this does not prove that no such order was given). The most likely originator of such a plan was Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi paramilitary force (the SS), a fanatical anti-Semite and Hitler's most trusted lieutenant. <- Too many "probably"s in this paragraph. People will see them as weasel words, and challenge you on practically every claim in this paragraph. Links or historians confirming this would be helpful here. Jayjg 20:43, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are weasel words. I would suggest that the vast majority of Germans, Nazi voters, Nazis, and Nazi Party leaders before 1933 did not anticipate that the Nazis would carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews. It is highly questionable to say that the Nazis prior to coming to power, or for the first, say, 8 years in power, intended to carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews, at least in the sense of mass murder. I would add that probably most Germans did not even anticipate that the Jews would be expelled from Germany, although a policy of encouraged emigration would probably have seemed likely. As to the latter part, it's all speculation. Certainly there's no evidence of planning for a final solution before the beginning of the war. At any rate, I need to read the new Browning book... (I'd add that none of my criticisms should be taken to mean that I don't think this article would be a far superior replacement for the current miserable article on the Holocaust.) john k 22:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many Berlin Jews were able to survive in hiding - it is a paradox of the Holocaust that Berlin was one of the few places where this was possible. <- I think this should be expanded on a little; why was this possible? For that matter, why did organized Jewish life continue in Berlin even in 1942? Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On the first point, it was possible because Berlin was basically an anti-Nazi city and there were enough enemies of the regime, some of them very well-connected, to provide a network of hiding places for the "U-boats" (submerged Jews). On the second point, Berlin seems to have been the last place in Germany where organised Jewish life survived, presumably because it was the biggest community and was able to bribe and stall deportations to some extent. There is a detailed account of all this in a biography of Leo Baeck which I read a few years ago but now can't find. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think those are all interesting points, and important in the sense that Holocaust Deniers use the late existence of organized Jewish life in Berlin to "prove" that the Nazis didn't really want to kill the Jews. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

SS Obersturmführer Christian Wirth seems to have been the inventor of the gas chamber. "Seems to have been" is very weak, and will also look like weasel words. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It isn't a provable fact. You can delete it if you want the article to consist only of provable facts, but it will be a poorer article as a result. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be proven, so long as it can be attributed. Is there some historian who makes this claim? Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ukrainians and Latvians joined SS auxiliary forces in large numbers and did much of the dirty work in Nazi extermination camps. <- "Dirty work" seems POV, though it was dirty work. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We can probably find a euphemism if you want. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These had been used on a limited scale in Poland in 1939, but were now organised on a much larger scale.<-Awkward language and unclear. What is "limited scale" and what is "much larger scale"? Some sense of numbers, etc. would be helpful. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen numbers of people killed by the Einsatzkommandos in Poland. They operated on a smaller and more selective scale than the Einsatzgruppen in the USSR. I don't think more precision than that is possible. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, what does "smaller and more selective scale" mean in terms of victims chosen, or people involved in the killing, or some other measure? I'm just trying to get a sense of what this means. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For large-scale killing by gas, however, fixed sites would be needed, and it was decided - probably by Heydrich and Eichmann - that the Jews should be brought to camps specifically built for the purpose. "Probably" again; this should be made stronger. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, it is not a provable fact. I think a statement of probability is perfectly legitimate here. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice to know why they are the ones who probably decided it. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Although Göring's power had declined since the defeat of his Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, he still had privileged access to Hitler and had great obstructive power. copyedit to Although Göring's power had declined since the defeat of his Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain, he still had privileged access to Hitler and great obstructive power. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In view of frequent statements to the contrary, it is necessary to stress that, although members of some other groups whom the Nazis wished to exterminate, such as Roma (Gypsies) and Soviet prisoners of war, were also killed in these camps, their purpose was to kill Jews, and the overwhelming majority of people killed in them were Jews. <- I also find "In view of frequent statements to the contrary" problematic (arguing one side of an unattributed debate not present on the page). Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is present in the current Holocaust article and in other Wikipedia articles on the same subject. The Polish nationalist editors insist on inserting such statements as part of their campaign to claim equal-victimhood status with the Jews. Delete it if you want, but as soon as the article is posted, this issue will arise and will have to be fought out. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the statement itself is fine, but I just don't think that you should open it with "In view of frequent statements to the contrary, it is necessary to stress that..." Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Because they camps were in Poland<- copyedit to "Because the camps were in Poland Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The gas was then pumped out, the bodies were then removed, and any gold fillings in their teeth were extracted with pliers. copyedit to The gas was then pumped out, the bodies removed, and any gold fillings in teeth were extracted with pliers. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There were unofficial negotiations in Istanbul between Himmler's agents, British agents and representatives of international Jewish organisations, but there was no real possibility of such a deal being struck. Why not? Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a hugely complex and controversial topic as I'm sure you know. I'm not sure we really want to go into it in this article. It might be better just to say that no deal was done. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right, which was basically my point. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some Jewish commentators have expressed contempt for the passivity and fatalism of the Jewish communities of central Europe, which they blame on the "ghetto mentality." Ariel Sharon, now Prime Minister of Israel, said in a 1982 interview: "Listen, a people that gave itself up to be slaughtered, a people that let soap to be made of its children and lamp shades from the skin of its women, is a worse criminal than its murderers. Worse than the Nazis." This contempt for the failure of prewar European Jewry to save itself from the Nazis, or even to try to do so, was a powerful factor fuelling militant Zionism in the postwar years, and since 1948 has stiffened Israel's determination to do whatever it thinks necessary to defend itself, even in the teeth of world opinion, as Sharon's own career illustrates.<- I'm not comfortable with this section for a number of reasons. It focusses quite narrowly on Sharon, and the impetus for Zionism wasn't just that Jews didn't even try to defend themselves, but more often that Jews did not have the means to do so, or a place to escape persecution. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't focus on Sharon, it quotes him as a well-known example of the attitude that many post-war Jews took. I didn't say that this was the sole impetus for Zionism, I said it made Zionism more militant and uncompromising, which is true. The article acknowledges the difficult realities facing any possibility of Jewish resistance. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I remember Sharon is mentioned 3 times in this article, which seems excessive. As for the realities of resistance, I think the latter reasons should be made clearer and more prominent in relation to the former. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

even in the teeth of world opinion <- I haven't heard that phrase before. Shouldn't it be "even in the face of world opinion"? Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

who prefered to die togther rather than be separated. copyedit to who prefered to die together rather than be separated. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This did not matter: in Nazi Germany his word was quite literally law. Irving cites several cases in which Himmler ordered written reports which refered directly to the killing of the Jews to be redrafted before showing them to Hitler. But this is not surprising either. It is quite understandabe that Himmler was careful not to allow the creation of a documentary record showing that he and Hitler were about to commit one of history's greatest crimes. copyedit to This did not matter: In Nazi Germany his word was quite literally law. Irving also cites several cases in which Himmler ordered written reports which referred directly to the killing of the Jews to be redrafted before showing them to Hitler. However, this is not surprising either, as Himmler was careful not to allow the creation of a documentary record showing that he and Hitler were about to commit one of history's greatest crimes. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The most scathing attack on Goldhagen has been Norman Finkelstein and Ruth Bettina Birn's book A Nation on Trial. Finkelstein and Birn examined Goldhagen's references and concluded that Hitler's Willing Executioners was (in the words of one reviewer) "not worthy of being called an academic text." Uh oh. It's actually Finkelstein's work in this book which is "not worthy of being called an academic text. Perhaps you should included criticisms "A Nation on Trial" as well. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, the quote refers to Goldhagen, not Finkelstein. The quote is "in their book A Nation on Trial they concluded convincingly that Hitler's Willing Executioners is not worthy of being called an academic text." The review was by Neve Gordon and appeared in the October 2000 issue of Nation. Adam 02:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understand that the quote referred to Goldhagen, but my point was that it better fitted Finkelstein's criticism. And if you include Gordon's review, perhaps you should include critical reviews of "A Nation on Trial" as well. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the "Nordic" countries of Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands, they tried to recruit young men into the Waffen SS, with sufficient success to create the "Wiking" SS division on the eastern front, whose members fought for Germany with great fanaticism until the end of the war. <- "great fanaticism" seems POV. Jayjg 02:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a perfectly factual description, and one they would have happily accepted. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well I agree, but sooner or later somebody will challenge it on POV grounds. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Of those with executive responsibility, only Müller of the Gestapo got away: he vanished with trace and his fate remains unknown. copyedit to Of those with executive responsibility, only Müller of the Gestapo got away: He vanished without a trace and his fate remains unknown.' Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the course of these trials, 24 defenadants were sentenced to death, copyedit to In the course of these trials, 24 defendants were sentenced to death, Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The heart of the Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazic Jewry of central and eastern Europe was destroyed, bringing to an end 300 years of Jewish history and culture in the region. Just 300 years? Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that is odd - Jews came to Poland in the 14th century, didn't they? john k 05:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And Yiddish speaking Jews were living in Germany in the 10th century. Jayjg 14:32, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The second-largest Jewish community, that of the Soviet Union <- Israel has had the world's second-largest community for decades, and (if current demographic trends continue) soon will have the largest. Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe this is referring to Jewish communities as of 1939, not the present. john k 05:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was referring to the position in 1948. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

O.K., perhaps it could make that a little clearer. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Much of the Consequences section repeats earlier material. Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

particularly the controversy over Israel's continued occupation of the Palestinian Territories <- Use of the terms "occupied" and "Palestinian territories are far too POV. More neutral language like "control" and "West Bank and Gaza" should be used. Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how occupation is a POV term. The territories have not been annexed by Israel. As such, they are occupied territories. Whether or not they are Palestinian may, I suppose, be a matter of dispute, although I think this is dubious. john k 05:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Palestinian Territories" is now the internationally recognised name of these territories. Any other term would entail rejecting this usage, which would be a political statement and thus POV. The territories are clearly under military occupation, although the article just says "occupation." Even Israel uses the word "occupation," which has no intrinsic pejorative content. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Adam is correct. Despite claims I see nearly every day on Wikipedia, Israel does not deny that the territories are occupied except in the case of East Jerusalem and Golan. Many people confuse this question with the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, but that is a different issue entirely. --Zero 02:10, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Very well. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

and was generated almost entirely by hostility to Israel rather than to Jews as such. An extremely broad and simplistic claim, and doubtful as well. Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe it to be a correct statement. It is true that Algerian teenagers in the Paris suburbs (the people who actually carry out these attacks) draw no distinction between Israel and the French Jews they attack. But their motivation is hatred of Israel, not anything the French Jews have done or said. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fact that they draw no distinction between Israel and Jews works both ways. They are indoctrinated with the most absurd conspiracy theories regarding Israel, Zionists, and Jews (which they believe are generally interchangeable). Their hostility to Israel is hostility to "Jews as such", since they believe it is those very Jews who are running the world via their proxy the United States, and trying to commit genocide on Palestinians first, and eventually destroy all Arabs and Islam. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is there no mention in the article of the Madagascar option? Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, that should be mentioned. john k 05:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes it should. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I will resume editing on this article soon.

Actually I wasn't finished, I ran out of time. I'll add more edits above. Jayjg 02:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why does Jayjg want to delete the sentence about what Hitler said in Mein Kampf? I confess to not having read Mien Kampf, but I have never seen a quote from it in which Hitler explicitly says he wants to kills the Jews, and I'm sure if there was one it would be frequently quoted.

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not trying to delete any sentences, I'm trying to make the language clearer. Currently it is unclear, and uses sentence stubs which start with the word "But". If you have other better wording, go for it. Jayjg 03:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"It is highly questionable to say that the Nazis prior to coming to power, or for the first, say, 8 years in power, intended to carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews." I didn't say that they did. It depends, however, on what we mean by "the Nazis." I agree that most Nazis did not. After having read several Himmler biographies I'm pretty certain that Himmler did. I think he was the actual author of the Holocaust, and that his belief that the Jews should be killed predated the war, although I agree there was no plan. In this he believed he was carrying out Hitler's will, even if Hitler never stated his will explictly (although I think he did). Do you disagree with this?

You say that most Germans probably did not anticipate that the Nazis intended to carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews. This suggests that, well, the Nazis intended to carry out a policy of exterminating the Jews. Perhaps that's not what you meant to say, but I think that's the plain meaning of the text. As to Himmler, I think you're probably right, although I don't know enough about Himmler to say for sure. Browning's position in his Beyond Intentionalism and Functionalism essay, as I recall, focused on Himmler, although he argued that it was pretty clear that Himmler not only believed himself to be following Hitler's wishes, but actually was following Hitler's (possibly not articulated) wishes. Anyway, I don't so much disagree with what you say as contest some of the emphasis. I'll try to have a go at it once it replaces the Holocaust article - I don't anticipate major rewriting, just some tweaking - I do appreciate the work you've done on rewriting this. At any rate, perhaps it's time to post a notice at Talk:Holocaust to encourage comment on this version in general, so that it can then be put into position to replace the current article? john k 02:26, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find this to be a bit problematic:

Although critics have found many deficiencies in Goldhagen's book, his compilation of documentary evidence of widespread German responsibility for the Holocaust is hard to ignore.

I think this is something of a straw man. Most historians who have criticized Goldhagen have not tried to say that ordinary Germans do not bear responsibility for the Holocaust. After all, Browning's book was all about trying to figure out why "Ordinary Men" like Police Battalion 101 participated in mass murder. The criticism of Goldhagen has generally been that the answer he provides to this question - fanatical eliminationist anti-semitism of a variety unique to Germany - that is so utterly unconvincing. Plus, there's a lot of problems with the documentary evidence he compiles. For instance, he utterly ignores any account that is self-exculpatory, which seems ridiculous to me. Of course we can't simply take the word of men who were on trial for war crimes as to what their motivations were, but to a priori eliminate all evidence that disagrees with the thesis you've set out to find means that you're guaranteed to find evidence for what you're trying to find. At any rate, the Goldhagen controversy probably occupies too much space in the article - I'd suggest that Goldhagen is largely interesting for what the controversy shows about German attitudes towards the Holocaust today than for anything that it says about the Holocaust. john k 03:00, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't want this article to get bogged down in debates about Goldhagen and/or Finkelstein. They must be mentioned, but all the attendant controversies don't need to be dragged in here. If my remarks about Goldhagen are going to become the centre of discussion I will delete them. Adam 01:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, if I haven't said it before, in general excellent work Adam, and vastly superior to the current article. Jayjg 02:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. It might be better to have an article called Holocaust historiography or something, where the Goldhagen-Finkelstein stuff can be set out in detail (written by someone other than me). Adam 06:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)