Talk:The Holocaust

{{ to your network administrator for . Please keep comments about the Holocaust to yourself. Thank you for your appreciation and cooperation, due to the nature and content of this emotional topic or sensitive subjects related to the Holocaust.}}

Archives

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

abuse reports

may be forwarded

further investigation

Judenräte

A distinguishing feature of the Holocaust, according to historical analysis and the concensus of the article's editors, and what separates it from other genocides during WW2 (and other genocides in history), was the "efficient" manner of its implementation by the perpetrators (2.1) Yet there is no mention anywhere in the article about the role of the Judenräte in the deportation of the Jews under their watch to the camps. The leaders of the various Judenräte had different approaches to the job of providing slave labor to the Nazi regime -- distributing rations to the occupants of the Ghettos, deciding who would get on the trains, and other tasks -- but it's clear that they played a fundamental role in the organization of the round-ups and deportations. It's also clear that many of them knew that the trains were bound for extermination camps in the end, not just labor camps. Various sources also state the corrupt nature of councils, citing how it was possible, for example, to avoid deportation with a payment or bribe. Resistance was futile, of course, but the cooperation must be noted because it contributed to the "efficiency" of the Final Solution. If we omit this due to sensitivity, or because we read into the accounts that such actions must have been performed reluctantly, we risk damaging the credibility of the article; among the other entries in the "collaborators" section there is no such defense given. Where does this discussion belong: 2.1, 7.1, 7.3, 8.1, 10, and/or 12? I propose 10 and 12 among these because some Zionists argued for a sovereign state precisely because of the compromised role Jews were forced to play, the logic being that as sovereign constituents they would never again be forced to participate in their own destruction. Patrekursson 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

(I injected some Umlauts into the preceding paragraph to make it's heading less ambiguous Wefa 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC) )

Archived

Nothing much about the actual article was going on, so I figured it was a good day to archive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Jpgordon, other than personal attacks on me for trying to learn more about the Holocaust so I can debate Revisionists, you're right that archiving it was the right thing to do. Jtpaladin 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

rewording

24.68.157.4 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) "Incineration was at first considered infeasible until it was discovered that furnaces could be kept at a high enough temperature to be sustained by the body fat of the bodies alone."

Might that read better as "Incineration was at first considered infeasible until it was discovered that furnaces could be sustained at a high enough temperature by the body fat of the bodies alone."? It's a bit confusing first time around.

Any record that this was a German idea - self-cremation with the deads' own body fat. A link on this would be good. I thought the idea of body fat cremation developed after the war to explain the lack of fuel that was available to the Germans to cremate the victims. I have never heard of any actual German document even remotely mentioning what would have been akin to cold fusion. Is this a witness testimony idea, if so, from what year? I have never heard of this technolgy being used before or since the 1940s, and in no other place but Poland. Could McDonalds, beef processors, Perdue, etc use this same technique - why don't they - would it work in the US or is this a Poland specific thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.219 (talk • contribs) 12:56, January 9, 2007 (UTC)

• I dunno about present-day uses. The invention of the multiple muffle incineration furnace was certainly German -- the documentation of the invention and delivery of these is available -- and is a necessary part of such an assembly line operation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the documentation on the capacities of these furnaces available? Link? Dates on the first mention of bodies burning from their own fat? I actually thought the burning with their own fat involved outdoor cremations, but maybe I am mixing up camps. If this technology was so highly advanced in Germany in the 1940, what happened since - no current use? lost knowledge?

• (a) Please sign your posts with ~~~~. (b) Well, there's not a lot of use for high-capacity 24-hour crematoriums. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Topf double-muffle furnace is well documented, it was patented, variations on it were patented, construction diagrams were left in Auschwitz, I have seen reprints of the above in three books just in the past week since this has been "debated". As Jpgordon suggests, the on-site cremation of huge quantities at a time is not something that is profitable at the present time, and building a portable one to ship around to sites of mass disaster doesn't seem feasible. Makes one wonder just what conditions there might have been in the 1940s in Germany which would have made Topf find a good potential market for designing, patenting, and building such devices, hmm? (And why in the world would MacDonalds, Perdue, etc. want to efficiently cremate the animals they slaughter for resale as food????)Gzuckier 16:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The US Agricultre Dept could use this technology ( or at least have it ready ) when they have to dispose of livestock, disease etc. I am sure there would be found many uses for this technology, to say nothing of the offshoots of it. ( We the scare we are always told about - pandemic flu - millions might die - being able to cremate millions would be necessary. Fuelless cremation would be more than a minor benefit. Finding the documentation would not be a sensless endeavor - maybe someone knows whwere to look, I have far too little expertise in thermaltechnology to find it but some wikipedian must have, or know someone who does. A scientist could be a good first step, maybe someone know a scientist who will vouch for the idea. )Do you have a link as to the scientific basis of this? Link? Whether it is of use or not, it can't be documented ( citation needed unless we have a link to something scientific ) without some link. PS Reading the main article over again I noticed that there are many places that continue to need citations. They appear to be issues that are virtually uncitationable ( a new word? ). What is eventually done when no citation can be produced or the citation is a circular reference? Wiki policy - can the uncitated section continue that way forever? 159.105.80.219 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway all science is worthy of pursuit, particularly scientific events that have multiple witnesses. I have never seen a "scientist" venture forth on this subject or maybe I just haven't seen the link yet. 159.105.80.219 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This would probably be a more fruitful discussion at Talk:Cremation. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there appears to be little fruitful discussion at Talk:Cremation. The modern science seems to be centered at a temperature way higher than open air burning or fat can produce - forced air with lots of high BTU fuel seems to be the modern trend. Other methods - India etc - seem to require lots of time and lots of wood and then it appears the job is only partially done, at least for the poor. The modern times are also very slow compared to the German 1940ish technology. Since this technology seems to have only been used in Poland in the 1940s - by the Germans - and is a lynchpin of the extermination camps - it appears to be a Holocaust subject. Is the Topf company still in existence?159.105.80.219 20:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Well -- the purpose of these pages isn't for general discussion about the topic; it's for discussing the content of the pages. Anyway, the Topf company no longer exists, though it did have some post-WWII existence. If you can read German, this is a pretty good history of the company. (The automatic translation is a little silly, as always.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Incineration using human body fat is in the body of the main article. That statement deserves a citation if you have one. The article has created the discussion - particularly when it is such a dubious claim ( unless of course you have a citation - preferably of some scientific weight ).

PS The wiki article "Holocaust denial" after discussing "Censorship" seems to have been closed - wiki does have a sense of humor - abruptly. Any info on why the locking of the discussion page - maybe the watchlist participants got exhausted or ran out of ideas. The "Censorship" section of the page is particularly funny/appalling/???/(can't think of a good term).

RE "the purpose of these pages ....... it's for discussing the content of the pages." I agree completely - however the article seems to keep uncited material, ie cremation using mysteriuos undocumented methods - self burning using your own fat for just one example. If you are going to keep this kind of information in the main article then maybe you should lock the entire article and leave it like it is. If the holocaust survives as an historical event with( or in spite of )this kind/quality of evidence then of what use is it. Your enemies/friends must all be metally ill and/or ( and more likely) retarded. Do this article the same favor/honor you did to holocaust denial - close it.

Your inability to force yourself to exert the vast effort needed to use Google to check the widely available articles on a topic doth not "mysterious undocumented" make it. Gzuckier 19:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have finally exerted myself and found a near original source - jewishgen.org, a place you probably know and trust. Did you know that according to jewishgen.org ( or the witnesses ) that blood also was found to be a good fuel - new one on me. A strange thing happened with the fat fuel however. Instead of burning up it was found in the pits as a layer at the bottom. The fat fuel seems to have caused the cremation and instead of being consumed like all other fuels it reappears and deposits itself beneath the ashes, not on top after it has done its thing. Of course it deposited itself at the bottom of pits that our old friend Krege couldn't find. Google didn't help much on the patent thing though - any links?

Jewishgen as an organization does not do any research itself, it is more like Wikipedia, it collects information provided by its members. It cannot be cited as a source. Please give us the exact source of the information above, i.e. on what kind of web page it was found (discussion archive? yizkor page?) and what was the original source of information.  Andreas  ^(T) 14:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Google really does work - H Tauber, F Mueller, R Hoess( camp commandant), wikipedia articles ( Bergen Belsen footnotes I believe lead to a women witness who testified at Nuremberg or one of the other trials), ..... Raul Hilberg quotes Mueller a lot for one impeccable citation ( I hope Hilberg is still on good terms with everyone). Hoess - either at Nuremberg or in later writings ( in pencil ) was persuaded to tell his story, including the fat for fuel version. Tauber seems to be a well qouted eyewitness - too easy to find to need much citation. He's the one who ate his sandwich in the gas cahmber I believe, scooped up fat to feed the fire, etc. - Pressac' Auschwitz. Most of this stuff - testimony - made it to the big time , court transcripts, scholarly books, Vad Vashem, etc.

Cheer up, http://www.cremationassociation.org/html/article-weight.html has some information on cremation and fat content. The self-cremation story it turns out does have a slight scientific basis. If the person to be cremated is morbidly obese then caution has to be used in the initial stages of cremation - the fat BTUs can cause heat ( even self-sustaining cremation can occur for a short period ) that can harm the oven. However, in a prison camp the likelyhood of many 300+lb bodies is probably remote and having enough of them to maintain the whole operation is unlikely. After the initial stage, however, the process requires considerable fuel and time. Not all good news but there is a kernel of truth to the story - I hope that someone with a kernel of knowledge hasn't lead everyone down a path that ends poorly. Fat can't do it but coke/coal/wood/etc could. I believe the problem may be that the availible supplies of fuel are not sufficient to handle the stated victim counts, probably why this straw was grasped at by a non-technical type ( unless of course someone can come up with the patent of the purported technique and demonstate to modern science/crematorium operators how it is done ). PS The BTU in fat, at 17 times tissue BTUs, still only are able to partially consume their(fat) mass.

Really cheer up - coke as is said to be used for the cremations has always been ribbed(ridiculed) because it was stated that only 3.5kg per body was avaiilable is actually a possible fuel. At 12,400 BTUs per lb 3.5 kg of coal coke could consume 95.48+- lbs of animal waste ( rendering plant data - all I could find ). If my arithmetic is okay then, discount the bones and assume most victims were skinny then 3.5kg could work for an average sized man/big woman/couple of children/..., more or less ( if the operation was more or less continuous - no cool down except for repairs/iffy ). Does anyone have the BTUs of fat or flesh ( 17 times more BTUs in fat )? Some witness may have seen the cremation of an unusually large body that ( if the BTU formula works out ) could have consumed or largely consumed itself or at least the flesh. It is however unlikely that fat cremation is a viable overall procedure - but it may work in unusual circumstances. PSPS Can't work - 3500 calories per lb of fat

                                              - 252 calories = 1 BTU, gives 14 BTU/lb fat
                                              - with 1000 BTU needed per lb of flesh
                                              - would need 71 lbs of fat for 1 lb of flesh to
                                                burn yourself
                                              - 98.6% fat is awfully fat.

During Irving's suit vs. Lipstadt and Penguin, which is a delightful repository of well-documented and discussed evidence pro and con, the defense introduced German patent application T58240 for a "Continuous Operation Corpse Incineration Furnace for Intensive Use", applied for by Topf and Sons, and read into the record from an engineering report on the application: "After ... preheating the oven will not need any more fuel due to the heat produced by the corpses. It will be able to maintain its necessary high temperature through selfheating."

Also, try Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp by Israel Gutman, Michael Berenbaum, and Yisrael Gutman, where you can see the historical diagrams of the Topf double-muffle crematory furnace (page 193, photo on page 192), a diagram of Auschwitz crematorium I drawn Dec. 9, 1940 on the basis of Topf blueprint D, Nov. 30, 1940 (page 194), a diagram of the modification to that crematorium drawn Feb. 3, 1941 (page 195), etc. etc.

Auschwitz oven builders scrutinized at new Berlin exhibition

Thursday, July 21, 2005

BERLIN, July 21 - Hartmut Topf has spent a lifetime trying to comprehend why family firm Topf & Soehne agreed 64 years ago to build crematoria for Auschwitz and enable industrialized mass murder.

He knows there can be no satisfactory answer.

A new Berlin exhibition sheds light on Topf, one of countless largely forgotten small firms to provide the technical know-how for the Holocaust. It tries to trace why this eastern German furnace maker became entangled with the Nazis, despite sensing what the ovens were being used for.

Fresh archive evidence shows the brothers who ran Topf, cousins of Hartmut's father, were not fanatic Nazis and faced no personal risk for declining orders for furnaces from Hitler's elite SS guards.

Nor were they in it for the money. Crematoria and ventilation systems for the concentration camps comprised only two percent of their turnover, and the SS paid late.

Rather a picture emerges of a firm of meticulous technocrats, motivated by the "challenge" of perfecting and installing incinerators capable of burning thousands of corpses daily, and blinded by the detail to their moral crime.

"It is unthinkable," says 70-year-old Hartmut Topf.

"It makes me furious that these were my relatives . . . they were no anti-Semites, no evil Nazis. They were normal people, in a completely normal firm, which only makes it harder to understand," he adds.

A fifth of the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust were killed at Auschwitz, along with homosexuals, Gypsies, Polish political prisoners and Soviet prisoners of war.

The Nazi death camps employed hundreds of contractors to provide equipment and expertise for the "Final Solution".

While the collaboration of German industrial giants such as IG Farben, which provided deadly Zyklon B for the gas chambers, is well documented, the role of smaller firms and the extent to which they escaped unpunished after World War Two has faded from view.

Loaded name

"I was proud as a child because Topf was a successful, world-renowned firm," Hartmut Topf explains.

This pride evaporated when as an 11-year-old he watched footage of the camps in cinema newsreels, and saw the "Topf" name plaque, borne by all the firm's products, on the crematoria of Auschwitz and Buchenwald.

Later Topf determined to establish the details and atone for the past.

"I went to Auschwitz and greeted an old man there, telling him my name was Topf. 'Your name has a bad ring here,' he told me. 'I know. That is why I am here,' I answered."

Topf & Sons was founded by Hartmut's great-grandfather in 1878, in Erfurt, as a customized incinerator and malting equipment manufacturer. The firm was close to the Ettersberg hill, later the site of Buchenwald concentration camp.

With the expansion of cremation in Germany as a burial rite in the 1920s, the firm's ambitious chief engineer Kurt Prüfer pioneered furnaces which complied with strict regulations on preserving the dignity of the body.

Naked flame could not come in contact with the coffin, and cremation was to be smoke and odour free.

Aware of the firm's reputation, the SS approached Prüfer in 1939, with an order for a crematorium for Buchenwald after an epidemic killed hundreds of prisoners.

Prüfer designed crematoria resembling incinerators for animal carcasses, knowing the dead were not to be burned individually or in coffins, nor were ashes to be separated.

The orders came rolling in, as Prüfer strived to create more efficient furnaces. Firm documents in the exhibition prove he visited Auschwitz several times and saw his ovens close to "the bathhouses for special operations".

Rather than feel disgust, Prüfer merely deliberated the practical problems of extermination. Transcripts of his 1948 interrogations by Russian forces show he never felt remorse.

"Prüfer threatened to resign at one point over lack of salary, they (Ernst-Wolfang and Ludwig Topf) should have let him go . . . but they didn't. They continued to show this stupid loyalty to the regime," Topf says.

After the Nazis abandoned Auschwitz in [January] 1945 Prüfer even suggested to the SS they could reassemble parts of the furnaces in Mauthausen concentration camp in Austria.

"It sends shivers down my spine," Topf adds.

Aftermath

Topf name plates on the ovens couldn't have made it easier for the Allies to trace the firm.

The Americans released Prüfer after a few weeks, but once the Soviets arrived in Erfurt he was sentenced to 25 years and died in 1952 in a Russian gulag.

Ludwig Topf killed himself in May 1945, claiming his innocence in a jumble of excuses left in a suicide note.

His brother Ernst-Wolfgang fled to western Germany and was put on trial by the Americans. He talked his way out of the charges, maintaining the ovens were "innocent", and founded a new incinerator business, operating until bankruptcy in 1963.

He even tried unsuccessfully to secure a patent for a "monster four-storey" furnace designed during the war, Hartmut Topf explains.

"There was no historical insight at the time. Only excuses and pleas that people could have done nothing else. It makes me sick."

Today, Topf & Sons former Erfurt premises stand empty and dilapidated. The firm was nationalized by the Communists and survived until 1996. Authorities plan to buy the site and set up a permanent exhibition and memorial.

Gzuckier 18:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems there is a bit of confusion on historical argument here. One question is whether human fat as fuel is an efficient fuel or not--this is in part a technical issue, and frankly, of limited interest here. It may be interesting only in conjunction with the analysis of other fuels. But what is important is whether it was believe at the time of the Holocaust that fat could help in the burning of bodies, whether practices consistent with this belief were put in place in the crematoria, and whether the witnesses and documentation corroborate the *existance* of these practices. And, as far as I know, it was, they were, and they do.--Ninarosa 19:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe the patent referenced above was files 8 years after WW2. Most important it doesn't work. If Germans and Jews believed it worked in WW2 and used it and it can't work then we would have a huge pile of unburned bodied. ( What a stupid argument - if they believed it worked.. unless you are saying the eyewitness/es were wrong.) If you want to leave garbage in your article - unreferenced - then be my quest. As a matter of fact it is good to have revisionist arguments buried in the main article - immortalized as it were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.63 (talk • contribs) 12:57, January 29, 2007 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, why do you believe that patent T58240, filed on November 5, 1942, was filed 8 years after WW2? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 13:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain better. For centuries, physicians believe that bleeding patients with leeches would release the "humors" that made them sick. HOw do we know it? well, a number of physicians wrote about the success of the technique. Patients described it. We have drawings of people been treated with leeches. All these descriptions and documents are corroborating evidence of a practice that... didn't really work to heal much. Patients got better for some other means. Some died. But the evidence, from many different sources, tell us that people believed it worked and invested time and resources and technology. That is what I am saying. If body fat helps or does not help in the burning of bodies is a technical question, and must be understood in a larger context, analyzing other fuel sources used in conjunction, and the fuel expenditure made for different periods, as well as the number of new arrivals (it was a technique used mostly when new victims arrived to the camp, not yet emaciated by starvation). But the fact that victims and perpetrators described independently these techniques, corroborates, as I said, *the existence* of these practices--corroborates also the *concern* of the nazis on how to burn huge amounts of corpses with the most efficient use of fuel. It is NOT a denier argument--just the opposite.--Ninarosa 16:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

PS.: Anthropologists have long discussed cremating practices in different societies, and adding fat to the pyre is a common technique, observed since 1906. That body fat increases the speed of cremation has also been observed, and not necessarily related to obesity. Reference: H Williams, Death Warmed up: The Agency of Bodies and Bones in Early Anglo-Saxon Cremation Rites, Journal of Material Culture 9 (3): 263. However, reading better your question regarding the sentence, I would also feel more confortable with a good reference that showed that incineration was thought "infeasible" at any point. I understand that Germans were constantly concerned about fuel efficiency, but not that they believed incineration was "infeasible". I may be wrong, of course, but I have just reviewed the article by Zimmerman on body disposal (whre there are references to testimonies on this subject) and did not find anything sustaining this idea (i.e., that "incineration was thought infeasible"). The testimonies on the other hand support the idea that fuel efficiency was an issue, and that the use of body fat was thought to be a solution. See http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/body-disposal/ --Ninarosa 20:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

T58240 - I thought you were referring to a 1951 Topf patent - more relevant to the fat issue but still far off the mark. By the way do you have a link to the T58240 - my understanding is that it is an improvement on older types but not a quantum leap forward - maybe it is - link? Germans could/can be concerned about fuel efficiency but contradicting laws of nature is even beyond them ( creating matter and more heat out than heat in is unlikely - if it can be done call up Al Gore, global warming and all. The #12 archive has a blurb from the Irving trial where I believe the judge mentions the patent ( I assume T58240 ) but concedes that it has not much to do with the actually in stalled ones - "same principle" was as close as he came, how he knows much about thermodynamics is beyond me but he obviously thinks he does. Prufer - the Topf engineer - in 1946 testified about a "firnace" that had a conveyor belt that carried bodies continuuously. However, I have never heard that it was ever constructed. This particular type of contraption is the only way that cremations on the scale of a holocaust could have happened. The fat burnig myth seems to be one that is going to die a long slow death - My suggestion is to keep it in the article, as I said before an historical memorial to where the issue stood in the early 2000s. PS Please post the T58240 link even if it is irrelevant, it seems to be a document that is rarely mentioned ( this discussion page and 1 other sentence is all I could find, hopefully the entire text is available ) and never quoted.

• (a) Please sign your comments with ~~~~. (b) I don't have the source for the patent itself. However, [1] refers to J.A. Topf & Söhne, Erfurt, Patent Application, "Kontinuierliche arbeitender Leichen-Verbrennungsofen für Massenbetrieb," Archive Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, BW 30/44. Possibly you'll need to do some physical document research (perhaps in Oswiecim) to view the full text; as far as I can tell the German online patent database only goes back to 1967. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have the patent document then I assume everyone who uses it as a source probably doesn't have it and probably never has even seen it. So much for using the patent pro or con ( maybe someone who lives in Germany can obtain it ( I doubt that it is available - just a hunch - and I wouldn't suggest that anyone, without strong proholocaust creds try to get it ). It seems to boil down to what was there couldn't work and what could work wasn't there - the surviving crematoria are not even near Prufer's statement ( four stories tall - unless he was giving a description of the chimney which would have been more than a little disingenuous on his part ). Just down the road were blast furnaces and producer gas but no the story has to stick to a couple of small crematorium and insecticide - who would have guessed.

Assume what you like; it's all a giant conspiracy with fake patent documents, fake blueprints, fake eyewitnesses, fake census data, fake history of Topf and Sons, etc. etc. etc. Get back to us when you've looked for the document and found it absent. Too bad Irving's lawyers when he sued Lipstadt et al didn't have your perspecacity, he might have won.

As for your mysterious disbelief in the flammability of the mixture of diverse flammable hydrocarbons known as the human body, what drives this Chemistry Denial? The human body, like any living body, is composed of lipids (oils and fats), carbohydrates (sugars and starches), and proteins (carbohydrates, with added nitrogen). I assume you don't object to the concept of lipids burning, having seen gasoline, kerosene, etc., which have the same empirical formula. Carbohydrates also burn, having the same empirical formula as cellulose; a piece of spaghetti makes a good fireplace match, for example. Proteins burn since they have the same empirical formula as carbohydrates, except for the stink of the added nitrogen. In fact, if you weren't denying during biology class, you might have learned that your body is fueled by the oxidation of the lipids, carbohydrates, and proteins of the living creatures you place in your orifice. There's plenty of energy available, as any diet book will tell you; 9 kcal/gram for oxidation of lipids, 4 kcal/gram for carbohydrates or protein. Try lighting a potato chip sometime, to see what a mixture of carbohydrates and lipds can do. The only obstacle to ignition of this combination of flammable compounds is the large volume of water in which it is suspended, which prevents reaching the ignition temperature. To remove this water it is sufficient to heat the body; luckily, the heat to do so can be found in a large, continuously operating furnace. What part of this do you consider "what couldn't work"? Do you have anything further to add, above infantile nihilism; "No it isn't!" "Prove it!! "I don't believe you!"? There are many other fora for you to air this gestalt, while Wikipedia has goals to achieve other than your airing your indefatigable Pseudoskepticism. Gzuckier 19:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Gzuckier, without getting to the denial/not denial dilemma, I do think we should focus on the idea of editing the sentence: "Incineration was at first considered infeasible until it was discovered that furnaces could be kept at a high enough temperature to be sustained by the body fat of the bodies alone. With this technicality resolved, the Nazis implemented their plan of mass murder on its full scale."

I am not convinced, without a reference, that "incineration was at first considered infeasible". I am not convinced that the use of body fat was hailed as *the* solution for this problem, although I *am* convinced that the Nazis instituted practices to take advantage of any energy gains that could be derived from the use of body fat. We remember that Nazis tried to bury bodies in Auschwitz, in the beginning, and because of the underground water and fears of contamination, they gave up (in fact, I believe they had to dig out bodies). As far as I understand, the use of body fat might have been developed over time, as they were concerned with energy efficiency. I also would like to have a better quote for the fact that fat sustained the cremation of the bodies alone. That was what the Sonderkommando Henryk Tauber said:

"Conversely the corpses of people gassed on arrival, not being wasted, burned better in the center muffle. During the incineration of such corpses, we used the coke only to light the fire of the furnace initially, for fatty corpses burned of their own accord thanks to the combustion of the body fat."

Another Sonderkommando Filip Muller, only said that fat bodies were burned together with emaciated bodies and that, "Members of these groups [SS men and civilian visitors to the crematoria] were especially interested in the amount of coke required to burn corpses of any particular category," which supports the idea of experimentation (instead of a previous solution to a certain problem deemed "infeasible"). He confirms Tauber that body fat increased the efficience of the furnaces, when he said:

"Thus it was decreed that the most economical and fuel saving procedure would be to burn the bodies of a well-nourished man and an emaciated woman, or vice versa, together with that of a child, because, as the experiments had established, in this combination, once they had caught fire, the dead would continue to burn without further coke being required."

Hoess only mentioned at Nuremberg "that three bodies would be burned simultaneously and that the bodies of fat people burned faster"--he did not say if coke still had to be used or not, of if "fat alone" could sustain the cremation. (All the testimonies are from the Zimmerman article.)

Basically, there is still much that we DON'T know about the Holocaust. I am not ready to stop asking questions just because deniers love to point these obscure points to cry "Jewish conspiracy". But this is beside the point, and it is NOT the goal of Wikipedia to do original research, if I understand correctly. Our point here is to edit the articles to the best of our capacity and to the best of scientific knowledge. I am just not conviced that this particular wording is good enough, for the reasons pointed above.--Ninarosa 08:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No patent I guess. By the way Hoess said alot of things that were not true - he appears to be telling anything you wanted to hear. He would give any death count you wanted, names of all the camps, even make up names for places that didn't exist. I wouldn't go too far out on the Hoess limb. {unsigned|159.105.80.63}}

So there's no patent because we can't make the original document materialise in front of your eyes via the internet? Have you ever done any historical research? Paul B 14:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the Denialist's Creed:

If informed of something, I shall not believe; if something is pointed to, I shall not follow; if something exists, I shall not look for it; if something is shown to me, I shall not look at it; if forced to look at something, I shall not see it; if forced to see something, I shall refrain from understanding it. For my intellect is greater than that of those who disagree with me, and thus my knowledge of Truth is not susceptible to alteration by the mere existence of evidence.

Gzuckier 16:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Considering some of the concerns here, I rewrote that particular paragraph. I am just not sure it now fits well in the text. Please feel free to improve my grammar! --Ninarosa 23:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

60 minutes

60 minutes said that 17.5 million were killied in the holocaust and since 60 minutes knows what they are talking about it should be changed

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/main2267927.shtml

Rollaround 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the number was 6 million. 60 Minutes is getting off the reservation, no? 159.105.80.219 14:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The records show 17.5 million people killed in the holocaust and out of those 6 million had some hebro connection that is where the origianl 6 million comes from that is what the nazies own records show that now have beome avalible for all people to read, beofre only people with permision were able to read. Rollaround 15:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The report says that the documents "hold the records of 17 million victims", including slave labourers, political prisoners etc. Among them, it states, are the people who worked in Schindler's factory. Of course, we know they survived, so the 17 million is not the number of deaths, merely the number of people whose names are recorded in the documents, many of whom survived. Paul B 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw the show anyone can see it 17.5 million is the numbers of DEATHS, stop trying to white wash the nazi crimes. Rollaround 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whitewash the Nazi crimes? Excuse me??? "Anyone" can't see from the link you provided that 17.5 million is the number of deaths. I did not see the show, but the site you posted makes it absolutely clear that the number refers to the people who are listed in the documents. In any case, not all deaths in the war were the result of the holocaust. It's also clear from the comments posted on the site that the show was not very accurate in several respects. Paul B 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What some poster writes on the internet page about the show does not matter, all that matters is what they said on 60 minutes which unlike you and any other person has a burden of proof if they were to say a lie then they would be sued and they would lose their license, if you read real history books you can see that the numbers are correct. 60 minuts has real reporters and can dig up real information. The number 17.5 million is of who died in the holocaust. Do not forget that the total civilian losses of Poland was 6 million and the Soviet Union 20 million plus around 10 million military dead so 17.5 million dying in the holocaust is a very correct number Rollaround 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read some books. 60 minutes is not a very authoritative source. Historians take priority over TV journalists. Paul B 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Rollaround, just be careful. The 6 million figure for Poland does include 3 million Polish Jews. There is some overlapping here. I think the Nikzor Project mentions something around 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews). Most historians believe that this number of 5 milion non-Jews is quite a low estimate (specially considering Russia), so 17 million is not too far from an acceptable figure, regarding orders of magnitude. The problem, however, is to define WHO is a victim of the Holocaust. If it is only civilians, then the soviet soldiers who were gassed in the camps would not be included? Should we include the Russian peasants who starved when the Germans invaded? Or were those only civilian victims of conventional war, as it happened in previous wars? Historians tend to very careful in general estimates for this reason. I think if we can find a written source for a 17.5 number of deaths, it could be included, provided that the text makes clear it is an estimate, and mentions the problems of quoting any figure.Ninarosa 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If Jews make up 6 million then the Holocaust was primarily a nonJewish operation. I thought - have read - that it was primarily to exterminate Jews - were there other Wannsee type directives to exterminate other groups?

I do not know, due to my ignorance, of existence of any Wannsee Conference type documents, but, off the top of my head, the following groups faced total extermination as well: Roma (gypsies), homosexuals, communists, people with mental deficiencies, etc. Also, a whole family of ethnicities, namely Slavs, were considered "Untermenschen" (sp?) and were often discriminated, conscripted for Slave labor, cleansed, etc. Goliath74 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

among those, however, the Jews were the larger singular group, and the propaganda associated to them makes the Jewish, the Roma and the people with mental deficiencies, very central to the idea of the Holocaust. There are the documents for the T4, with directive to eliminate people with mental deficiencies, and there were documents agains the Roma, as well.Ninarosa 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting comment above - "historians take priority over". Does science take precedence over historians? If something is shown to be scientifically impossible can it be historically accurate?

Yes, but first you have to show it. You don't. Paul B 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations.

Hello all. I've recently checked out a book about the Holocaust and have been using information to cite anything I can find. However, I'd like to ask a question.Please see the Experiments section, the last sentence. It lists a bunch of concentration camps that once were not cited, but I already did. However, in my book, it did not state specifically in the book those camp names, but it did say so in the Index section of the book. Simply, the camps weren't majorly stated (as in their own articles in the books, only in small excerpts, such as timelines). See, let's use Dachau as an example:

Dachau (Germany)

concentration camp 119,

138, 144, 191, 193, 495

555-56, 665, 696

administration tried, 634
bread distributed at, 634
commandant of, 428
Communists sent to, 59
corpses in, 609

.....and it goes on and on. So, what I'm asking is... are those cites okay? Again, they do come out in the index. But they are not stated majorly as in their own pages and stuff, just mentioned in those pages above (for example, page 119 is mentioned in a section about a Jew named Martin Niemöler who was sent to concentration camps like Dachau and Sachenhausen). Thanks in advance. Uh, I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with questions or confused you, I just want to know whether I'm doing the right thing or not. Cheers! --♥Tohru Honda13♥^Talk 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

color photo of corpses??

in the victims section of this article, there is a photo of a pile of corpses. i was just wondering if color photography was available at the time--STANE 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Stane,click on the image. It is not exactly a color photography, but comes from "a historical political poster, button, flier or banner". Probably the color was added later. But I agree that there should be a reference.Ninarosa 07:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Babi Yar photo - I clicked the photo and was surprised to see what I had thought to be a photo of bodies - bad eyesight - was actually what appeared to be sorted piles of clothing. Any info on this photo? The background seemed to be ambiguous. No way to place it by landmarks that I could see.

This photo looks fake to me, added for effect. Only other place I have seen this photo is on encyclopediadramatica. Saintrotter 26 January 2007

The first colour photos were made in France during the 1920's. Both Germany and America were exsperimenting with colour movies in the 1930's. --Strento 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the source of this photo? Where do it say they come from Auschwitz? Where do it say they are Jewish? Where do it say this photo was even made in 1940s? Saintrotter 2 February

More Maths

The 6,000,000 total dead in German-run concentration camps is a combination of Jews, Germans, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. It is not accurate to assume all 6M were Jewish. I think the article should reflect this information. Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be an exact total for the carnage of WWII. Rough estimates will always have to be pulled in and analyzed and a "best guess" prepared. As such, we shouldn't rush to forget the other peoples who died. Please advise before I change the article--Legomancer 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• What part of the article are you proposing to change? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Legomancer, the estimates for the death toll of Jews during the holocaust is between 5 and 7 million--and they are NOT all in concentration camps. See Hillberg or Wolfgang Benz (both are listed in the references), or here http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/deaths.shtml I don't have the numbers for the deaths in the camps (combining Jews, Germans, Poles, Roma & Sinti, communists, etc), but that is not what the commonly quoted figure of 6 millions refers to. --Ninarosa 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I hered on RTE that 6,000,000 Jews, 2,000,000 Gipsys and 50,000 Fremasons were killed in the holocaust! --Longend. 02:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hilberg gives a surviving population of 18,265,601 and a revised death total of 1,003,392. The World Centre of Contemporary Jewish Documentation gives a 1962 population of 17,583,057 and a death total of 1,593,292. Oddly both sources somehow still hold to the 6,000,000 total - this appears to be beyond the realm of debate and research.

(159.105.80.63 please sign you comments ). I am afraid you are wrong. I can consult Hilberg directly if you want, but if I recall correctly, the death toll of little over 1 million deaths is for AUSCHWITZ ALONE. His total death toll is 5,109,822 (with is of course a sum of recorded numbers and estimates). I don't remember Hilberg giving any figure for an estimate of the total surviving Jewish population, and I would thank you if you give me a concrete reference for that, with page number. But I found this hight number to be quite unlikely, since there are not this many Jews today. I would appreciate also to see a reference for the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation with the figures you quote. I would be quite surprised.--Ninarosa 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It did happen!

It is a globaly documented fact, in both film, books, photos and eye-witness accounts; so it can't be dined! The holocaust did happen! --Lilidor 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So is the Loch Ness Monster. Saintrotter 27 January 2007

If you have useful information, queries or proposals, add them. Please don't bore us with asinine remarks. Paul B 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"us" Do you speak for everyone? Something like the Borg of wiki? Do you deny the Loch Ness Monster is globaly documented fact, in both film, books, photos and eye-witness accounts? If you're right I am very sorry for my stupid (asinine) remarks. Saintrotter 27 January 2007

Apology accepted. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out Ironic Jpgordon Saintrotter 27 January 2007

Check out Holocaust (resources), Saintrotter. --GHcool 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I know holocaust resources very well, pity I can't post the other side of the coin without being branded (if not already) as a nazi and losing my account. Check out Bias GHcool. Saintrotter 27 January 2007

Check out Historical method, Saintrotter. --GHcool 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also well documented that the Nazis killed off the Gypsys and Disabeled in the Porojomas and Aktion T-4 respectivly. Nazi newsreal and alied footage bare testiomy to this. I have seen the Aushwitz memorial in Poland and beleve it to be true! --Lilidor 12:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also been there. 15 of the ovens still live on! --Strento 01:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Even some of the German guards working at the camps have confessed to there exsistance! --Homer slips. 03:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion section is not a general forum, but a place to discuss changes in the article. Goalie1998 04:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Uniqueness

I apologize if this has come up before. Currently, the article states "The Nazi Holocaust had several characteristics that, taken together, distinguish it from other genocides in history." Obviously, all genocides have had features that distinguish them from other genocides. The uniqueness of the holocaust is an issue that has been relatively controversial within genocide studies. If we are going to make the claim that the holocaust was especially unique (rather than just describe the attributes that made it unique) it seems that we should reference the fact that this is a controversial claim. Ethan Mitchell 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I partially agree. If we want to be picky, every historical event is unique. But the claim is not that the Holocaust is "unique". The sentence is preparing to list the characteristics that distinguish THIS genocide from others--in the entry for the Armenians, there will be listed the characteristics that distinguish THAT genocide from others. --Ninarosa 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but the philosophical/political/theological uniqueness of the holocaust is a fairly well-known point of contention within genocide studies, and this sentence easily reads as supporting one POV. Ethan Mitchell 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The holocaust was unique in it's blend of eugenical/anti-Semitic/anti-Gipsy/homaphobic psudo-ideals. --Longend. 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust denial

I edited the explanation for the popularity of holocaust denial among Muslim critics of Israel. There is no need to say that "it is a baseless claim" (the whole article makes this point!), but it is important to explain why it has become popular. On the ohter hand, to be fair, it would also be important to say that many Palestines and many Iranians (mostly Iranians in exile) have disassociated themselves from the "conference" in Iran, and denounced it as the political event it was. But I wonder how much Holocaust denial should be developed here, since there is an article on this topic.--Ninarosa 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The Holocaust → Holocaust — As per WP:NCD, we should avoid the use of the word "the" if it is not an official name or a title of a work ("the" is usually not capitalized). As well, we should avoid "the" unless it turns what would otherwise be a general term into a specific one. This works for pentagon vs. The Pentagon, and crown vs. The Crown, where the generic terms gain some meaning with "the", but in this case, 99% of Google searches for "Holocaust" (without "the") refer to the World War II Holocaust. The term is also sometimes used without the word "the" (e.g. "Holocaust survivors"). Finally, Holocaust already redirects here. Bssc81 04:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support as nom.- Bssc81 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

   Weak support I can understand where the nom is coming from but after seeing it referred to as The Holocaust, it's hard to give full fledge support. I think a large part of my conflict is that the term holocaust (with a little "h") is one that can be used to describe any mass ethnic killing, not just the 20th cent European one. Part of the usage of The Holocaust is as a signifier of magnitude of this event. But again, I would say that policy is on the nom's side and hence my support. It just doesn't quote feel right. After further consideration, I just can't support this. 205.157.110.11 06:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2. Support. This is a textbook case for WP:NCD. See arguments and examples in discussion section below. —  AjaxSmack  01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support. The fact that "Holocaust" already redirects here suggests that there is no debate as to whether there might be confusion between a generic vs. specific use of "Holocaust". This is analogous to Punisher (rather than The Punisher). Yes, "punisher" could be a generic term, but given that 99% of uses refer to the comic hero, there is no need to add "the". The same is happening here (as AjaxSmack points out). If people were worried that "Holocaust" (without "the") might be considered a generic term, then Holocaust would be a disambiguation page, and would not redirect to The Holocaust. The fact that there is a redirect indicates that "the" is superfluous here. 74.100.100.142 02:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. AjaxSmack examples are very persuasive. Daizus 07:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Yes What's the big fuss, it happend 60 years ago and was a big, boaring 'yawn'!}} --Elspeth Monro 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. No. "Holocaust" is a generic term, especially nowadays; it's used for a wide range of horrors. "The Holocaust" means one thing and one thing only. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
2. No. In addition to the categorical use of holocaust to refer to other genocides, it's feasible that at some point we'll have an article about the original concept of "holocaust" as a burnt offering, or whatever, and in that case we will be double-parked. Ethan Mitchell 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose. The definite article makes it clear that we are referring to a specific event (it's comparable to the pentagon example given below). It helps minimise fruitless debate on the Talk page about whether the "X holocaust" and the "Y holocaust" should be included in this article. Paul B 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - "The Holocaust" is a proper noun. That's determined by popular use - official names don't enter into it. --Yath 19:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - "The Holocaust" is unique in it's size and intent. It is also as, far as I can tell the only genoside that was called a "Holocaust". Also note that "The Anthal" of the Kurds in 1990's Iraq is aparently the only "Anthal" of Kurds. --86.29.249.148 06:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
6. No, it's most definatly one of a kind and unique both in it's political and raceist crarictor.--Strento 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose; we should have an article on holocaust, in general; I don't feel like writing it today. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose per jpgordon, Paul B and Yath. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
9. Oppose I've been mulling on this one since I gave my weak support and I agree with Septentrionalis that there should be an article on "holocaust" (little "h") to better distinguish the magnitude of the 20th cent. European Holocaust. It is its own singular event that is separate from the concept of "holocaust". 205.157.110.11 03:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
10. Oppose — I agree that we are referring to this event in history and only this event in history. Besides, it's rather known as The Holocaust than just Holocaust. ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 03:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
11. Weak oppose — The difference between "holocaust" and "The Holocaust" is the difference between "civil war" and "The Civil War" (in American usage). --GHcool 05:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
12. No We must not foget and succome to to anti-Semitisum again!--86.29.248.52 06:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose I have never come across in any serious history book any other reference than "the holocaust". Take for example Professor Bauers address to the German Bundestag [2] and remove "the" from the term "the holocaust" to see why making the change is not only confusing but strange. Likewise, I don't remember ever seeing a reference to the "German holocaust" or the "European holocaust".Joel Mc 08:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Do not agree with the discussion below; "the" is only dropped when the term is being used as an adjective, and this is not an adjective. "A Holocaust survivor" is equivalent to "a survivor of the Holocaust", not "a survivor of Holocaust". Dekimasuが... 13:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Here are the points laid out in a better format in favor of this move:

• As per WP:NCD, we should avoid the use of the word "the" if it is not an official name or a title of a work ("the" is usually not capitalized).
• As well, we should avoid "the" unless it turns what would otherwise be a general term into a specific one. This works for pentagon vs. The Pentagon, and crown vs. The Crown, where the generic terms gain some meaning with "the".
• But in this case, 99% of Google searches for "Holocaust" (without "the") refer to the World War II Holocaust.
• The term is also sometimes used without the word "the" (e.g. "Holocaust survivors").
• Finally, Holocaust already redirects here.

---

For those who say the "The" is an integral part of the name, please test these:

David Irving is considered a The Holocaust denier.

Many The Holocaust survivors live in Israel.

The name "Montreal Holocaust Memorial Centre" should be changed to "The Montreal The Holocaust Memorial Centre."

All othe pages about The Holocaust like Holocaust memorials and Holocaust museum should have their names changed too.

—  AjaxSmack  01:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• If people were actually worried that Holocaust would make it a generic term, then as I said above, Holocaust would not already redirect here. Besides, as is the case with major shared names, the most prevalent or "base" case gets the main article. (For example, Casablanca points to the city - it does not need further disambiguation despite other prevalent uses of the word.) 74.100.100.142 02:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Or test these:

• Osama bin Laden is considered a The Pentagon attacker
• Many The Pentagon officials live in Washington
• The list of "Former Pentagon Officials" should be changed to "Former The Pentagon Officials".

Paul B 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just to counter AjaxSmack I have tested a couple of your examples and came up with the following:

David Irving is considered a denier of The Holocaust.

Many of The Holocaust survivors live in Israel.

Not saying i neccesarily disagree with you but i am just playing devils advocate. Deckchair 16:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe in English you would write "a denier of the Holocaust" and "many of the Holocaust survivors". Daizus 22:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples distract from the issue. No-one says "I am a The Beatles fan". They say "I am a fan of the Beatles" or "I am a Beatles fan". That does not help us to decide whether their article should be called Beatles or The Beatles. Paul B 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The examples don't distract from the issue; they merely expose me as incorrigibly opposed to extraneous articles in titles (including Beatles) and there are still other issues that Bssc81 points out, e.g., generic Holocaust without the article already redirects here thus destroying the ambiguity argument. —  AjaxSmack  19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Your examples distract because, as I have attempted to show with my Pentagon and Beatles examples, they do not distinguish between legitimate and inappropriate uses of the definite article according to the policies you quote. They simply create the false impression that the use of the definite article is somehow absurd. It's mystification. Paul B 19:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say this to finish, as it seems there are too many opposed for it to matter. What all the examples prove is that "the" is not mandatory when referring to the Holocaust, and is EXACTLY why it should be removed here (just as it should be in "Beatles". Consider when "the" must stay - when it is officially part of the title. For example, "the" should not be eliminated when discussing The Hague, or The Old Man and the Sea. However, there is no reason that Beatles should be treated any differently than Punisher. Wikipedia created a special rule for situations like Pentagon vs. The Pentagon, because the name without "the (in this case, "pentagon") had its own article. Thus "The Pentagon" is better than Pentagon (U.S. government). Similar issues exist with crown vs. The Crown. This issue does NOT exist here, because Holocaust already redirects here. Had Holocaust been a generic article about what "a" holocaust is, and examples of holocausts, that'd be one thing. But it doesn't. Just like why Punisher is not about generic "punishers" in history, but rather "The Punisher". - Bssc81 03:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Beatles page in fact retains the definite article in its title because that is the name of the group, just as The Old Man and the Sea is the name of the book. (Beatles is a redirect). It's horses for courses. The group "Queen" did not have a definite article in its name, so to distinguish it from the word "queen" their article is called Queen (band). If I say "I am a fan of Queen" that means something other than "I am a fan of the Queen", which would probably be taken as a reference to Elizabeth II, not to Freddie Mercury. The sentences were demonstrating that even though The Beatles is the name of the group, we drop the definite article in sentences like "I am a Beatles fan". Paul B 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks like whenever a term is used as a modifier ("a Pentagon official"), "the" is dropped. Since that is not the role of the article title, however, Paul B's examples don't bear on the current discussion. --Yath 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My examples were intended to counter those given by AjaxSmack precisely to demonstate that they are irrelevant. "The" is retained in The Pentagon to avoid ambiguity. Paul B 13:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that the use of X is a sentence is the definitive measure of whether or not X should be the title of a wikipedia article. For example, we have an article entitled "Charles, Prince of Wales", but there are many sentence constructions that do not refer to him in that way. Again, I don't think it is germane that "holocaust" redirects here. We could, quite easily, have a stand-alone article about the phrase "holocaust." That we do not is probably an omission. Ethan Mitchell 23:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! I am dumb. --Yath 20:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

We have two, Names of the Holocaust and Holocaust (disambiguation). A case could be made that the latter should not be marked as a disambiguation page, since it is really an article in its own right about the history of the word. Paul B 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Odd sentence

Under "Resistance of Jehovah's Witnesses" this sentense appears:

Unlike Jews, homosexuals and Gypsies, who were persecuted for racial, political and social reasons, Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted on religious ideological grounds.

Jews are not a racial, political or social group, they are the members of the Jewish religion. This sentense might thus benefit from a rephrasing, since it seems to imply otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mercury271 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

The word "race" has historically legitimately been used to mean something similar to "extended family". Look it up. Also, try typing "Jewish race" on google and see how many hits you get. More to the point perhaps, Judaism was defined by the Nazis themselves in genealogical terms, not in terms of religious affiliation. Their policy was defined by their conception of race. Paul B 16:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Barlow. I don't see this problem--Jews were "seen" as a racial group, so much that even secular Jews, or converted Jews, i.e., Jews who had abbandoned their religion, were persecuted. Like with Roma and disabled people, they were persecuted for what *they were*, not because of what they did or believed. What is odd in the sentence is the "homosexuals". They were first arrested in common jails for anti-social crimes, ordinary law--and then often moved to the camps. I am not sure, but I believe that male homosexuals who married women, or Jehovah's witnesses who repudiated their faith, could avoid persecution. Roma, Jews and disabled did not have any choice.

Also, I believe that "racial, political and social reasons" could refer to the Nazi reasons, not whatever was done by Jews, homosexuals or Roma (please let's avoid the word Gypsy.)--Ninarosa 17:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Races are just whatever people think they are. And while there may be many people who do not think of Jews as a race, there are many (including Jews) who do. More to the point, the Nazis did, so the language is entirely appropriate for this context. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Biblical implications

Did the holocaust have any biblical impact? i.e. was it predicted it would happen? --Rebroad 15:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Gittin 57b. Claims that four billion Jews were killed by the Romans in the city of Bethar. Gittin 58a Claims that 16 million Jewish children were wrapped in scrolls and burned alive by the Romans. Saintrotter 3 February 2007

Holocaust of Greeks

The Greeks have been using the term 'holocaust' at least since the 19th century to refer to the destruction or extermination of Greek communities. It should be briefly included in the main article as part of the background to the word and the emergence of the concept. Politis 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust day transformation

I think some elements from this article on the changing of the Holocaust Day in G-B to a Palestinian Genocide day should be talked about. People should be aware of "dhimmitude" capitulation from governing bodies in the West and the rewriting of history by Radical Islam, like portrayed in this article:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015049.phpVincentG 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)