Talk:Holocaust victims

Citation for 5.7 million Soviet civilans figure does not list that figure?

In the table "Classes of Holocaust victims", the entry "Soviet civilians" gives a figure of "5.7 million (excl. 1.3 million Jews)" citing https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution. But that page (as of 13 October, eg. http://web.archive.org/web/20231010071124/https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution) does not seem to give that figure, or any figure, for a number of Soviet civilians. (It does list 3.3 million Soviet POWs.) Can the citation be fixed, or another one found? If no citation can be found, should the figure be removed? Daekharel (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1071011/holocaust-nazi-persecution-victims-wwii/

It is clearly where the numbers came from, and prior to the edits by User:Tpbradbury on 25 October 2023 what the consensus on the page reflected. Claiming only 4.5 million non-Jewish Soviet civilians died is Holocaust denial, and erasing any mention of the fact that 1.3 million of the 6 million Jews were Soviet citizens is historical revisionism. The figures need to be corrected and the source added as soon as possible. I would make the necessary changes myself but I do not have 500 edits. Patriotparty1776 (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

statisa.com isn't a reliable source wp:rsp: "Statista...should not be cited directly. It may be useful as a research tool to find sources..." Please provide a reliable source, Tom B (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

https://web.archive.org/web/20201130211526/https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution

This is the source that Statista cites, as of December 2020, when the data was compiled. There has obviously been changes to the page since then, resulting in the discrepancy which started this thread. It clearly states "Soviet civilians | around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews)." Please update the page with the information and source provided. Patriotparty1776 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Definition and scope

Holocaust victims were people targeted by the government of Nazi Germany based on their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, and/or sexual orientation.

I find this definition weird. The Holocaust is about the extermination of the Jews. You better find really good sources that define the term "Holocaust victims" (I see none in article). Otherwise the article title must be Victims of Nazi crimes. - Altenmann >talk 21:47, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You are correct that this is not the correct definition. In fact, it's quite wrong insofar as it includes "political beliefs."

The article as currently written is essentially a WP:POVFORK of The Holocaust - it lists different groups of Nazi victims and says what happened to them, and it's a POVFORK because it describes (in Wikivoice) all the victim groups as victims of the Holocaust, when WP:RSes do not describe them in that way. The worst example is the table at the top of the article.

What this article could be is a historiography article that explains the ongoing scholarly debate regarding Who are the victims of the Holocaust? This debate breaks down into three basic groups:

• Most scholars hold the traditionalist view, that the Holocaust was limited to Jews, e.g. Waitman Wade Beorn, Paul R. Bartrop, Donald Bloxham, David Cesarani, John Connelly, Abraham and Hershel Edelheit, Jack Fischel, Günter Grau, Peter Hayes, Timothy P. Jackson, Alex J. Kay, Peter Longerich, Stephen D. Smith, and Dan Stone, among others.
• Some scholars who argue for expansion of "Holocaust victims" to include certain non-Jews, though they do not all agree on which non-Jews should be included. For example:
  • Ian Hancock - Roma/Sinti
  • Samuel Totten - Roma/Sinti, disabled, LGBT
  • Charles King - Roma/Sinti, disabled, Slavs
  • Paul E. Wilson - Roma/Sinti, LGBT, Jehovah's Witnesses
  • Jonathan C. Friedman - Roma/Sinti, disabled, LGBT, Soviet POWs
  • Doris Bergen - Roma/Sinti, disabled, LGBT, Soviet POWs, Polish elites
  • John J. Michalczyk - Roma/Sinti, LGBT, Jehova's Witnesses, "and others"
  • Estelle Tarica - Roma/Sinti "and others"
• Some scholars argue that the terms "Holocaust" and "Shoah" should be retired altogether, and we shouldn't differentiate between victim groups, for example Christian Gerlach and to some extent David Cesarani
• There are some scholars who have mixed views or take a "both sides" approach, for example David M. Crowe, David Engel (historian), and A. Dirk Moses.

Alternatively, I'd be fine with moving this to Victims of Nazi crimes rather than having it be a historiography article. I guess until we figure this out, I've added the {{disputed}} tag to the article and linked it here. Levivich (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear that the article scope doesn’t reflect the academic consensus, which is either for Jews only, or Jews and Romani/Sinti. The inclusion of others constitutes a minority view, but I don’t think that we should be reflecting that minority view when determining scope for articles about the Holocaust. It should be mentioned, but excluded from the scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider that research in the past on this topic was limited in scope, however today we have much better picture of Nazi genocides. 220.107.189.119 (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Waitman Wade Beorn should be removed from your list of those embracing traditionalist viewpoints, as he offers the exact opposite view in a tweet and has no idea where you got the notion that he supports the idea that the Holocaust only refers to the murder of Jews. Barefootwriter (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

This comment appears to be referring to this tweet specifically, in which Beorn writes I don't recall expressing that viewpoint in reply to Levivich's comment. However, Beorn writes this on page 4 of The Holocaust in Eastern Europe (2018):

I will use the term "Holocaust" to refer mainly to the Nazi attempt to murder the Jews of Europe; however, I will also use the more inclusive term "Nazi genocidal project" to capture the larger murderous vision of which the Jews were such a large part. This includes Sinti/Roma (gypsies), the handicapped, political "enemies," Soviet prisoners of war, and—particularly in the East—entire ethnic groups such as the Slavs. One cannot understand the Holocaust in Eastern Europe without placing it in the context of this larger Nazi genocidal project that foresaw murder and demographic engineering on a colossal scale.

So I'm not sure that Beorn's comment is totally accurate. Malerisch (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yup, that's where I got the notion. Levivich (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the paragraph that comes before that. This is seems like a disingeuous use of a paragraph setting conventions (that seem designed to sidestep critique from traditionalists) to paint his views as other than they actually are.

Already, we can see subtle differences in definition. In popular usage, the term has often come to be interpreted more broadly, including non-Jewish victims as well. Indeed, when US president Jimmy Carter established the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, he referred to “eleven million innocent victims exterminated,” including some five million non-Jewish victims. More expansive definitions led some to turn to the Hebrew word for “catastrophe”: Shoah. This term clearly limits its coverage of Nazi crimes to those committed against Jews. Steven T. Katz represents the most extreme version of this, contending “that the Jews alone were targeted for genocide, or total physical annihilation.” I will, however, avoid such a narrow use of the term. Not only is it historically imprecise, but it also implies a sense of “competitive suffering” that is simply unhelpful.

Barefootwriter (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So... he says in his 2018 book that he's not using the term "Shoah," instead he's using "Holocaust" to refer "mainly" to the Nazi murder of Jews and "Nazi genocidal project" to refer to other victims of Nazis. And he's said the same thing in works other than the 2018 book (see below). Maybe his views have changed since 2020?

Btw when Beorn asked you on Twitter what the citation was, you replied "'making shit up' I guess? lol." so I'd appreciate it if you told him what the actual citations are (Beorn 2014 p. 4, Beorn 2018 p. 4, Beorn 2020 p. 98 n. 1) cuz I am not making shit up. Levivich (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Beorn also repeats this view on page 4 of Marching into Darkness (2014), so the 2018 book wasn't a one-off:

I define the term "Nazi genocidal project" as a much larger Nazi nexus of racial and demographic decimation, extermination, and resettlement, while I understand the Holocaust to be largely the murder of Jews by the regime.

...

I will, therefore, attempt to be as clear as possible in delineating the Wehrmacht's role in the Holocaust (the murder of the Jews of Europe) as well as in the Nazi genocidal project (the murder of Soviet POWs, killings of civilian noncombatants, participation in starvation policy, etc.).

And Beorn also makes the same point on page 92 (Note 1) of Understanding and Teaching the Holocaust (2020). Malerisch (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No it wasn't. The historical record does not bear out that Jewish people were the sole victims of the holocaust. Other ethnic minorities, homosexuals, the handicapped, etc. were all rolled in and put in the same camps. Many of us have studied this subject for decades. A massive argument on who gets to have the Holocaust all to themselves and discount the identical suffering of millions of other people seems in very bad taste. 146.115.242.10 (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Suffering has nothing to do with the definition, all the more "the discount". Anyway, wikipedia is not a forum. In article talk pages we discuss article content, and the discussions must be based on references to reliable sources. - Altenmann >talk 16:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, many of us have studied this subject for decades. Did I miss any major 21st-century Holocaust scholars in my list above? Please tell me if so. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems pretty comprehensive. Christopher Browning? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh man how did I forget Christopher Browning! Thanks for that. Happen to have a quote in my notes from another scholar talking about Browning's views on this:

Rather than one big thing, the Holocaust might now be described as an array of event categories. In Christopher Browning’s terms, the Holocaust involved three separate “clusters of genocidal projects”: euthanasia and “racial purification” directed against the disabled and Sinti and Roma (at the time referred to collectively as “Gypsies”) within the Third Reich; the eradication of Slavic populations living in countries east of Germany; and the Final Solution proper—that is, the attempted mass murder of every Jew residing anywhere within Germany’s sphere of influence (Browning 2010, 407). (The list of persecuted categories—people targeted by the Nazis in ways short of genocide—would of course be longer.) Pulling apart the many threads of the Holocaust allows scholars to understand the origins and evolution of policy and practice in ways that thinking of it as a single happening does not.
— Charles King, "Can—or Should—There Be a Political Science of the Holocaust?", in Jeffrey Kopstein, et al., eds., Politics, Violence, Memory: The New Social Science of the Holocaust, Cornell University Press (2023)

So I would categorize Chris Browning as "Jews, Roma/Sinti, disabled, Slavs". Levivich (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm also missing Omer Bartov and Marion Kaplan, both of whom I'd put in the "unclear" category simply because I don't have any notes on them (they may have expressed an opinion on this, I just don't know it). Levivich (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Also Raul Hilberg and Martin Gilbert. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Gilbert I'd categorize as "Jews-only"; Hilberg I don't know. Levivich (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Add: this book by Bashir Bashir and Amos Goldberg: The Holocaust is an extreme genocide in which five and a half to six million Jews were murdered by the Germans and by others during World War II in harsh persecutions, shootings, and gas chambers (during the same period many millions of people from other targeted communities and ethnic groups, such as Roma and Sinti, Poles, homosexuals, communists, Soviet prisoners of war, political dissidents, and the disabled, were also exterminated). Levivich (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just looked and there are 219 currently in Category:Historians of the Holocaust, and I think about 119 of them are 21st-century [1]. Levivich (talk) 05:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Mss83 (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Good sources that define the term "Holocaust victims" will never be found as the definition of the term Holocaust (in itself both a variable and singular noun) is still contentious. Paul Mojzes in his book Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth Century discusses this dilemma quite well. Extermination camps across occupied Europe were not segregated and victims of all religious denominations and races were exterminated in them. Having two separate articles Holocaust for Jews and Victims of Nazi crimes for others, separates victims into different categories and enters a dangerous territory as it could be perceived as marginalizing non-Jews. It has been 77 years since the end of World War Two and if scholars are still debating the term, then I am sure a consensus will not be made any time soon and as such, we should leave it as is. ElderZamzam (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It's probably my tendency to lump things, but I tend to agree with this comment that we should have an article about "Victims of persecution(/democide/whatever better word) by Nazi Germany and collaborators", without distinction. Artoria2e5 🌉 06:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten completely or renamed. The Holocaust article clearly gives the definition of the Holocaust to be the destruction of European Jews, yet this gives a contradictory description that the Holocaust includes all of the other groups as well. I believe Victims of Nazi Germany would be a better title, and a clarification that 6,000,000 Holocaust victims are included in the 11,000,000 death count. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Jewish people are not the only victim of the nazi regime. Many died from the Nazis in concentration camps,but when Russia was invaded a policy of starvation was implemented because sending Russians to camps wasn't as efficient as starving them. This hunger plan was implemented during the invasion of Russia which killed millions of civilians. Zionists employed the same hunger plan tactics in Israel and cut off food water and electricity to Gaza in 2023 it is a highly effective way to eliminate large populations. Despite the UNs explicitly saying food and water should be allowed into Gaza Israel implemented an unnecessarily complex sprocess for aid to enter Gaza refusing entry to all but a few aid lorries, this led to widespread malnutrition before Israel continued it's racist elimination of Palestinian. 2A04:204:2644:600:8AED:2E52:EB8A:1A85 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

In the section "Scope of Usage", change "...the mentally or physically disabled, mentally ill" to "people with mental or physical disabilities"

/2023-12-11 94.255.242.74 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ertal72 (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is no agreement that the article should be retitled as proposed, therefore we remain with the status quo ante. Per the "non-arbitrary break" at the bottom, it seems there are some bigger questions about scope to be worked out, and perhaps that should take place following this disucussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Holocaust victims → Victims of Nazi Germany – As per the discussion at "Definition and scope," the definition of the Holocaust in the very first line of this article contradicts that of the article for The Holocaust.

Whether or not the millions of non-Jewish people, such as gay men, the disabled, Romani etc. should be considered Holocaust victims is a point of contention even if there is broad historical consensus that they are people murdered by Nazi Germany. We do not need to identify the other groups as "Holocaust victims" as that is an academic debate in itself, nor excise their inclusion in the article if we just rename the article and make it clear that the Holocaust is mostly specifically used for the destruction of Jews. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — mw (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is a massive jumping to a conclusion, not carried by the discussion mentioned. The Banner talk 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - it's a more NPOV title for this topic. Whether these groups targeted by the Nazis were part of the Holocaust or not is secondary to the point that these groups were targeted by the Nazis. Scholars don't agree about which groups besides Jews (if any) should be considered victims of the Holocaust, but scholars do agree, very broadly, about which groups were victims of the Nazis. To maintain NPOV, Wikipedia should call the article about these groups by the name that most scholars agree on (victims of Nazi Germany) and not by a name that most scholars disagree about (Holocaust victims). As it stands, Wikipedia is taking a significant minority position (that everyone killed by Nazis were victims of the Holocaust, including Soviet POWs) and stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if it were the uncontested mainstream position. It contradicts the main The Holocaust article, which gives the mainstream position. This article has been a POVFORK of the main one for long enough; let's fix it finally with a rename. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose , many victims of Nazi Germany were not "Holocaust victims". The Holocaust is defined as the genocide of European Jews during World War. The topic of Holocaust Victims is notable enough to have its own article distinct from The Holocaust . Victims of Nazi Germany can be created as another parent article of this page (while The Holocaust is also a parent of this page). Marokwitz (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz Should the non-Jewish victims of Nazi Germany be removed from this article and mentioned as non-Holocaust victims in the lede? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The main article, "The Holocaust," begins with, "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." Although "Holocaust" sometimes refers to the persecution of other groups targeted by the Nazis, it would be inconsistent to choose different definitions (which are indeed used in reliable sources) in different articles. Marokwitz (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

But you're opposing this move? I don't understand. Levivich (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I suggested this article scope should be fixed, and a parent article Victims of Nazi Germany created... Unless what you are suggesting is to create a new article about Holocaust Victims instead of a redirect? In that case the result would be the same Marokwitz (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Right except not the same result, because of article history. The content of this article is about a different topic than its title. So let's fix the title of this article so it stops misinforming readers. If someone wants to then create a Holocaust victims article they can do so. But more to the point, can all of us who agree that this article is a pov fork of the main article please agree on a solution at long last :-) Otherwise the problem will persist. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The topic of Jewish victims of Nazi Germany is significant enough for a separate article. A scope change as Marokwitz suggested is a good solution for the currently discussed issue. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose of course. No valid reason to rename. Holocaust victims ≠ victims of Nazi Germany and the overlap is only partial. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Would like to see some more policy-based comments on this. — mw (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I am not happy with the proposed title change because many of the victims currently listed in this article were not victims of Nazi Germany. Most victims of mass murder in Yugoslavia during the war were killed by the Ustasha puppet state or other factions like the Chetniks. Yes, some were killed by the occupying Germans (mostly Jews, captured Partisans and perceived sympathisers, although the Ustashas also murdered all of those groups as well), Italians (Partisans and sympathisers), Hungarians (Serbs and Jews mostly) and Bulgarians (Serbs, although they handed thousands of Jews over to the Germans). The 300,000 or so Serbs killed by the Ustashas are not considered victims of the Holocaust by the majority of historians of the Holocaust or of the genocide of the Serbs in the Ustasha state, so they should not be in an article about the Holocaust. So, we should not be calling all of these people "victims of the Holocaust" in wikivoice in the article title when that is the case, as Levivich wrote above, because that is misinforming readers. The content of this article should probably be Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators or something like that, if the content is going to remain roughly the same. Otherwise, this will remain a clear POV fork of the Holocaust article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is a good point, but I'm not entirely sure if the distinction should be made. While many of the people here are counted as being killed by Nazi collaborators and their allies, keep in mind that most historians consider these individuals as still being categorized as those being murdered by the Nazis due to the status of such entities as puppet states of Nazi Germany. The same way the murder of Jews is considered to be the crime of both a soldier who commits it and Hitler himself, the thousands killed by pro-Axis puppet states propped up by Nazi Germany are considered to be victims of both Germany proper and the puppet regime.

  And tagging @HilbertSpaceExplorer @Oleg Yunakov @Marokwitz- I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to the existence of a new article called "Holocaust victims." This article would focus on the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and clarify who is and isn't considered a Holocaust victim. That has plenty of justification for an article for itself- what I mean is that this current article, which details all of the groups murdered by the Nazis, should be renamed. Therefore, this article would not have to completely rewritten to fit its title but rather would correctly be identified for its actual contents. In other words:

  This current article: Renamed to Victims of Nazi Germany, an overview of all the groups targeted for extermination by Nazis.

  A new article will be created with the title "Holocaust victims" that follows the destruction of Jews.

  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your perspective, and it is logically sound. What if we begin by drafting the proposed second article and then assess whether a renaming would be appropriate? It's just that currently renaming looks a bit misleading (before your explanation). Plus perhaps a name "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" might be more precise as overall in various countries victims were not just killed "in" and "by" Nazi Germany if you see what I mean. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would just make the point that murderous actions of the Ustashas, despite the state only existing because the Germans and Italians set and propped them up, were matters they decided. Would those people have been murdered if the Axis hadn't created the state? Probably not, but calling the 300,000 dead Serbs "victims of Nazi Germany" obscures the very real agency the Ustashas had to take action independently of the Germans and Italians. The Germans actually claimed to be appalled at what they were doing (for a range of reasons, mostly because it was generating an insurgency). They weren't "murdered by the Nazis", the academic consensus doesn't support that, and we shouldn't categorise them that way. My view is that "this" article should be renamed as Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators. If other articles are needed (I'm not sure about that), they should be created, but this scope of this article should either be limited to those that the majority of Holocaust scholars say were Holocaust victims (and the others removed, with a short explanation remaining about why they aren't here and which scholars might include the other groups), or be retitled as I've suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone agree that there should basically be two articles: (1) one about Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and (2) one about non-Jewish victims of war crimes during WWII? If so, then the question is do we (a) rewrite this article into #1 and create another article about #2, or (b) rewrite (and rename) this article into #2, and create a new article about #1? Am I misreading the consensus here? I would support either option A or B, I just think B is easier. Levivich (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This is what I was trying to say above. Marokwitz (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The appropriate course of action is b), because the article history of this article has been about that subject. If it is considered necessary to create a content fork of The Holocaust to specifically cover the victims in greater detail, as suggested, it should be created as a new article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I believe that everyone here agrees that a new article should be created for Holocaust victims in particular. I believe the best title for this article now should be "Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators" after hearing the objections to the title only including Nazi Germany. (We should not replace Nazi Germany with 'Axis Powers' as this would include Imperial Japan). All groups participating in the war crimes described in this article are considered to be directly under the command of Germany or groups collaborating with Germany. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Would (2) be an article exclusively about non-Jewish victims, or would it be an article about both Jewish and non-Jewish victims (this article's current scope)? The proposed "Victims of Nazi Germany" article mentioned above would seem to include both Jews and non-Jews, but this proposal only mentions non-Jews. Malerisch (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Malerisch It would include both Jews and non-Jews. Everyone covered in the new article for Holocaust victims will technically be already covered in this renamed article, but there's enough sources out there and content that two articles is warranted.

Also, I'm likely going to go ahead and move this article to Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators and then start the seperate Holocaust victims article in the next few days if there's no substantial objections. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sitting on the fence I am still sitting on the fence at this point, as I am uneasy with the term "war crimes". A death camp like Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp was not part of the Holocaust but is horrifying in its own right. And you had Oradour-sur-Glane massacre (retaliation, war crime) and Malmedy massacre (battlefield war crime). To throw them into one article seems odd at least. The Banner talk 17:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I see the concern about "war crime," a term that I used loosely in my comment above. I wasn't sure what term to use ("atrocities"? Just "crimes"?). But the dividing line being "victims of the Holocaust" and "victims not of the Holocaust" (commonly referred to in the literature as the "other groups," meaning other than Jews). Levivich (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something incorporating "Crimes against humanity" conform Crimes against humanity#Nuremberg trials? The Banner talk 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that both "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" are legal terms, whereas RSes describe some "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" whose cases may not have been legally adjudicated as war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., so I think I prefer the broader scope of "victims." Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I still oppose the renaming of this article as proposed. But I would support a split as proposed. With a referral article named "Victims of Axis states and its collaborators" pointing to Holocaust victims, something with a better title than "Non-Holocaust victims of the Axis and its collaborators" plus an article about the atrocities in Asia. The Banner talk 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not thought through. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the proposed title better reflects the scope of the article, which includes those groups who were not victims of the Holocaust, such as political prisoners, Spanish Republicans, enemy nationals, etc. "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" is a good choice for the scope. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The article is clearly larger in scope than the Holocaust proper. But "Victims of Nazi Germany" is just a very bad alternative. Everyone on the other side of the war could be called a "victim of Nazi Germany". The scope could be made a little more precise with something like "Victims of Nazi genocide", which is wide enough to include a variety of groups targeted for extermination. Walrasiad (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that they're not all victims of genocide. LGBT, Jehova's Witnesses, Slavs, etc. were persecuted, victims of atrocities, but not genocide. Whereas other group, like Romani, were victims of genocide (but not nec the Holocaust). Levivich (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, let's leave "genocide" out of it. "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" is broad and inclusive, and doesn't claim "Holocaust" nomenclature for various groups that no-one includes as part of the Holocaust. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC);

The article explicitly says Poles, Homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses were targeted for extermination (as a group, even if individuals are left alive). If the term "genocide" seems too strong, then it'll have to be something in that ball park. That is, something that captures the idea of intentional and systematic policy of eliminating these groups. Because the proposed "Victims of Nazi Germany" definitely doesn't cut it. It would include everybody victimized by war, e.g. London Blitz survivors, occupied Danes, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Putting aside that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this article in particular doesn't accurately sum up RSes) I'd be fine with "Victims of persecution by Nazi Germany [or Axis] and its collaborators..." although that title would not be concise. Levivich (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Victims of Nazi persecution" would be more concise. Although there is still the 'group' element missing (this is not a list of individuals, but groups), it would be better than the proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Groups persecuted by Nazi Germany and its collaborators"? Levivich (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Not really concise. I would prefer to omit the whole "persecuted by Nazi Germany and its collaborators" as too long, and simply replace it with "Nazi persecution". Maybe "Groups targeted by Nazi persecution"? Or maybe just leave it simple "Victims of Nazi persecution", and let the article explain it in terms of groups. Not perfect, but better than current. Walrasiad (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support any of those, and I support not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good :-) Levivich (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a move to Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators (for clarity for the closer). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As HadesTTW mentioned above, the Axis powers includes the Empire of Japan. Do you think this article's scope should be expanded to include the victims of events like the Nanjing Massacre, the Manila massacre, Sook Ching, and the Bataan Death March? Nobody else in this discussion has suggested anything along those lines. Malerisch (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW my 2c is that it would be OK to have multiple levels of parent/child articles, e.g. one article for all "Axis powers", separate sub-articles for Nazis+collaborators and Japan+collaborators, separate sub-articles just for Nazis and Japan and for (each of?) their collaborators, etc. Just on WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:SIZE principles, there is enough RS material about this to probably have an article about every single country in the war, and so also for various levels of parent articles "up" from there. However, the content of this article as it's written right now, doesn't cover Japan, hence my preference for moving this to "Nazi+collaborators" but with no prejudice against someone creating a broader "Axis+collaborators" article as suggested by Peacemaker. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support This article should be moved to any reasonable title that doesn't contradict Wikipedia's definition of the Holocaust. Malerisch (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite what is currently written on Wikipedia, there is no academic consensus on which victims are covered by the term Holocaust. However for the term Shoah, there is definite consensus that this term is exclusively used to describe the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Of the total number of Holocaust victims, Jews make up 35% of those killed by Nazi Germany and/or their puppet allies. By separating victim groups into Holocaust and non-Holocaust victims, you create content forks that confuses readers as you have doubling up of articles. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe there exists even one modern scholar who says Jews were 35% of the victims of the Holocaust, which suggests there were 18 million victims of the Holocaust, which is another number that I do not believe even a single modern scholar says. I have seen multiple scholars explicitly reject this suggestion, though, some of which I've listed in another thread on this page. I haven't read everything though of course so I'd be interested to know if there are any modern scholars that give the 35%/18 million numbers. Levivich (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I obtained 35% solely from the Estimates of victims table on this Wikipedia page, 6/17 million being 35%. ElderZamzam (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP is not a reliable source. The table is wrong, and is one of the primary reason I put a {fact} tag on this article. The misinformation that you just believed to be true needs to be fixed (via a page move/rescope/rewrite) and is why I support this move request, so that others aren't similarly misinformed. Levivich (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  The death toll table is well sourced by reliable sources so I am not sure why you have come to the conclusion that it is factually wrong. We may be misunderstanding each other (death toll vs which deaths are considered part of the holocaust). If you believe the death toll itself is debatable then that is beyond this talk page discussion and needs a dedicated discussion itself. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is sourced adequately, but the problem is that the weight of academic sources do not consider most of them victims of the Holocaust. That is the fundamental problem with this article that we are trying to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: combining multiple RSes to support a novel conclusion that none of the RSes support. The sources say some of those groups were victims of the Holocaust (though they don't all agree on which ones, except Jews), but none say that all those groups were victims of the Holocaust. Levivich (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

non-arbitrary break

Seems to me that the above discussion boils down to two distinct questions:

• First question: move-and-recreate or split?
  • A) Move-and-recreate: move this article ("Holocaust victims") to a new title (about non-Jews), and then recreate/rewrite "Holocaust victims" (about Jews) - this option moves the history of this article to the new article
  • B) Split: create a new article (about non-Jews), and move content about non-Jews from the current article "Holocaust victims" to the new article - this option keeps the history of this article at this article
  • C) Neither: always an option
• Second question: what should the new article be called? Options supported so far:
  • 1. Victims of Nazi Germany
  • 2. Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators
  • 3. Victims of Axis states and its collaborators
  • 4. Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators
  • 5. Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators
  • 6. Victims of Nazi persecution
  • 7. Groups targeted by Nazi persecution
  • Something else?

Have I accurately summarized the discussion so far? Should we vote on A/B/C and 1-7 to see if we have consensus, and possibly ping participants? Levivich (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Question 1: B. But not in two articles but in three: Jews, non-Jews (European focused) and the victims by Japan and allies/collaborators. Japan was an Axis power too. The Banner talk 19:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• (C) & (6)

Question 1: (C) there is already an article on the Holocaust, another separate article about Jewish victims would be duplicating that;

Question 2: (6) "Victims of Nazi persecution" is most concise and precise (i.e. excludes victims of Nazi-fomented wars, and includes all victims of Nazi state policy). Walrasiad (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

C & Opfer der NS-Vernichtungspolitik

I recommend keeping this article, it's an eye-opener.* As for the title, it would be quite straightforward if in German: Opfer der NS-Vernichtungspolitik – escaping the confusion of how the Holocaust should be defined. I'm not able myself though to translate it concisely. Opfer der = victims of (or Opfergruppen, victim groups). NS = Nazi Germany, the entire killing machine, including collaborators under its command. Vernichtungspolitik = policy of annihilation, genocide; a total war against targeted civilian populations.

A quick, qualified estimate of the stats presented here, and in related articles, gives that 94% of all civilian victims of the Nazi terror came from areas east of Germany, and that 92% of all Jewish victims lived in Eastern Europe. 35% of the victims in Eastern Europe were Jewish, 65% were non-Jewish. Basecam (talk) 09:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

True number of Slav ww2 victims

Holocaust monopolised by Jewish lobby. Misrepresentation of Slav victims of ww2. Number of Slav victims diminished and Jewish numbers inflated for political reasons/interests. 61.69.130.129 (talk) 02:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Evidence? The Banner talk 10:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Estimates of victims table

Should the category "Soviet civilians" be labeled "Soviet non-Jewish citizens?" No political angle here - I just think it's important that it be clear that some of the 6 million Jewish people murdered were Soviets. Perhaps there is a better way to make this distinction. 45.26.61.142 (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

They are already sorted under Gentiles. The Banner talk 22:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Albanians victims of the holocaust

Please also add the 28,000 Albanians killed by the Nazi army to the list of Holocaust victims.

This is confirmed by many sources such as the following:

• Pearson, Owen (2006). Albania in Occupation and War: From Fascism to Communism 1940–1945. Albania in the Twentieth Century. Vol. II. I.B. Tauris. p. 418. ISBN 978-1-84511-104-5.
• https://memorie.al/en/there-were-517-albanians-in-the-zemun-nazi-camp-where-132-died-from-epidemics-some-cooperating-with-the-germans-such-as-rare-confession-of-a-former-prisoner/
• Fischer, Bernd Jürgen (1999). Albania at War, 1939–1945. Hurst. p. 268. ISBN 9781850655312.

Please add Albanians as victims of the holocaust. TheIllyrian (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't access the first source, but the second and third don't appear to have the word "Holocaust" in them. The third source, p. 268, says 28,000-30,000 is one estimate of the number of Albanian casualties in the war. Of course not everyone who died in the war was a Holocaust victim. The Holocaust in Albania gives the number of Albanian Holocaust victims as 600 (cited to a Haaretz article and Paul R. Bartrop's encyclopedia). But those are already included in the count of Jews given in this article, and this article doesn't give a breakdown of Jews-by-country (which it probably should); there's a little bit of that in Holocaust victims#Jews. Levivich (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Capitalists?

The addition of "capitalists" to the list of politically persecuted victims of the holocaust was added by user [[2]] on revision [[3]] without adding any referenced material. None of the previous nor subsequently added references supports that claim.

Someone please either remove "capitalists" from the list or add a reference to a credible source.

91.126.156.12 (talk) 15:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Text conflicts with source re: number of Jews killed in Poland—leading to edit war

Here is the source given, which gives two sets of numbers for Jewish deaths in Poland:

• from U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum: Pre-War Jewish Population 3,350,000; Number of Jews Killed 2,770,000-3,000,000; % of Jewish Population Killed 90%
• from Yad Vashem: Pre-War Jewish Population 3,300,000; Number of Jews Killed 2,900,000-3,000,000; % of Jewish Population Killed 90%

The text stated:

the Nazis murdered 3.3 million Jews, or 90 percent of its Jewish population.

Which is obviously incorrect. I corrected the text, but The Banner has reverted it twice, asserting "the quote was accurate", which it objectively is not

I don't know how to deal with this. This is as black-and-white as it gets. Surely there is an admin watching this page, as it's been locked? 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

So, what is wrong with the original text?

Original text: (...) the Nazis murdered 3.3 million Jews, or 90 percent of its Jewish population

New text: (...) the Nazis murdered 3 million of its 3.3 million Jews, about 90 percent of its Jewish population.

The only change is that the text is more complex IMHO. The Banner talk 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The original says 3.3 million died. The corrected text says 3 million. Are you saying you didn't even read the text before reverting it twice?

The corrected text should actually say "up to 3 million", as the source gives a range of 2,770,000-3,000,000. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Are your arguments so flimsy that you need personal attacks straight away? The Banner talk 22:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ADMIN INTERVENTION, PLEASE.

The Banner is not engaging in good faith, and seems bent on trying to provoke something. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I can say that of you too. With my last edit I simplified the text, correcting it the desired 3 million. What do you want more? The Banner talk 08:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There was nothing even remotely "confusing" about it, and it took calling for an admin for you to finally give in. Now we have you on record admitting that my correction was correct.

You show no sign of contrition, and every sign that your trigger finger is ready to revert anything else you don't like. Looking through your talk page history, you appear to have a history of this behaviour. Perhaps you're used to people backing down when you make a scary face? Perhaps you should waste people's time elsewhere, like Reddit or 4chan. Your "contributions" here today have been infuriatingly negative and damaging to the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

And again your arguments are so flimsy that you need personal attacks. The Banner talk 09:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the shit I'm talking about. You were black-and-white wrong, and even after admitting it, you're still spewing horseshit about "flimsy arguments". You are obviously going to be a continuing disruption at this article.

Do you get off on fucking with people? Because there's nothing else you can achieve with this disruptive manure. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)