Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gzuckier (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 23 December 2004 (→Logistical considerations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Previous discussions on this article are archived here:

Proposal to overhaul article

My first proposal is to have an article called Holocaust, which will discuss the origins and various usages of the term, and a second article called Holocaust (World War II), which will be specifically about the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. I think that will take some of the heat out of the definitional issues surrounding the current article. Adam 05:08, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue has already been adequately addressed through the creation of Holocaust (disambiguation) which is linked to at the start of this article. I think that most people, when they search on "Holocaust," are going to go be looking for the article that we have now. I do not think this is a productive direction to take the article. Snowspinner 02:57, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree with that at all. Many other groups have had their Holocaust, and shuffling them to the side in the (disambiguation) category is downright disrespectful. Even though our media focuses more on the WWII holocaust, usually called the Jewish Holocaust, the numbers were far greater in other holocausts (e.g. the Ukrainian Holocaust). I think Adam Carr is right on target with what he wants to do, and I encourage him to go through with a proper restructuring once and for all. Sep 22, 2004 142.161.91.56

That is highly questionable (about the numbers being higher than the Holocaust). Much of the extent of the Ukrainian Famine is as many of the pertinent documents came to light during the Nazi occupation. Several historical studies are coming out now which tackle this issue, and some have concluded that many mass graves attributed to the Famine, were in fact, murders purpotrated by the Nazis during their occupation of the Ukraine, and that the Nazis then went on to claim these as casualties of the Famine a decade earlier — incidentally, if this ever proves to be the case, it would become very pertinent to the Holocaust — it would be a grave error, in my opinion, to view these studies under the prism of Holocaust denial, though I should note that my familiarity with these is lacking. At any rate though, this was not the reason why I removed your addition, that was just an aside (the manner in which it was formulated was, as well, problematic, also an aside), I did so because I also do not think this is a productive direction to take the article. Lastly, you may find it beneficial to sign your ip following your comments (or better yet, register and sign your username). El_C


How long would this "Holocaust" article be? What about the great many links to this page that intend to go to The Holocaust? Perhaps naming that holocaust 'The Holocaust' would be better. --mav 05:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It would be as long as it needed to be (what other answer can there be to that question?). I would of course accept the responsibility of fixing the redirects if I moved the World War II part of the article to a new article. Adam 00:16, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

So long as it is not a stub, or worse just a definition. --mav

It certainly won't be either of those. Adam 05:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Snowspinner that I think having this article on The Holocaust and the Holocaust (disambiguation) article for other meanings works better. john k 20:22, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that it appears to pre-judge the question of what the word "holocaust" means, when that issue is far from settled and is the subject of controversy. If people seaching for "holocaust" are taken to an article on The Holocaust, with all other meanings relegated to a disambiguation page, they will not unreasonably conclude that Wikipedia has taken a position in the debate on the meaning of the word. However, I am more concerned at present with fixing the text than the question of which article leads to which, so we can have that discussion when I have a draft ready. Adam 23:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought about this at one point, and considered moving this to a disambig page. Ultimately, though, I decided that almost anyone who was searching on Holocaust was going to be looking for The Holocaust - otherwise, they'd probably search for genocide or ethnic cleansing. And I think articles should be located so as to be the article that's being looked for the most on a search. I'd be very, very surprised if this were anything but this article in this case. - Snowspinner
In terms of article naming, given that it's a zero sum game, there's no way to do it without taking sides in one manner or another. As such, I think the consideration of "what are people looking for when they type in 'holocaust'" is the most important consideration, as Snowspinner suggests. At any rate - yes, let's postpone the discussion of location to the actual improvement of the article - which is, as you point out, pretty awful at the moment. john k 00:13, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It has taken me longer than I expected to get round to this but I will do it eventually. Adam 07:53, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I basically agree with you that for start we should move the Holocaust (disambiguation) on Holocaust; in such a case, the Jewish Holocaust should undisputedly be on the top of the disambiguation list, as it comprises the highest death toll. But note that this article doesn't just refer to the Jewish victims of the death camps; it mentions other people who suffered a similar treatment. And apart from the death camps, and when it comes to my country, Greece, there are some WWII incidents involving Christian victims which are also called "Holocausts". The "Holocaust" term is mostly used when referring to the Holocaust of Chortiatis (alternative spelling: Hortiatis, Χορτιάτης). There the whole population of a village near Thessaloniki was eradicated in a single mass execution that happened on-spot. There's some effort to increase public awareness about these facts in Germany (distomo.de), and since the reunification of Germany, Greece has been claiming compensations for the victims. (more soon) Etz Haim 01:18, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I erased one of my statements above, as this may be disputed, and some people -like the friend who posted here before me- may find it disrespectful. I think it's better this way in order not to lose focus in this discussion. Etz Haim 01:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

El C, there is also lots of evidence of the Jewish holocaust being exaggerated. There is, in fact good reason for Israel to want to have the holocaust exaggerated as it has received plenty of money in retribution. So, it would still be unfair to sweep other holocausts under the rug. Cute cat BTW.

Origin and use of the term

The article contains two different translations:

  1. Shoa ... Hebrew for "Calamity"
  2. Instead of holocaust many Jews prefer the Hebrew word Shoah, which means "desolation".

I propose to bring the section Origin and use of the term up to the beginning of the article and merge those two. Any takers? Also, should the term be prepended with the definite article? ←Humus sapiens←Talk 22:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As much as I dislike this page, the latest additions were patent nonsense. "Many people hold: means nothing. Find me a decent Holocaust scholar who says that. Danny 23:01, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wording Question

I'm confused by the end of section 2.5, "Extent of the Holocaust". It says "The following groups of people were also victimized by the Nazi regime...". The word "victimized" would normally include people who were killed, imprisoned, had their property taken away, etc. Are those the figures on how many people were killed?

Recent edits

The picture of a Jewish woman pleading for her life seems to have lost its caption. Any ideas on how to get it back? Jayjg 06:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the article version before I started re-arranging the images, the caption wasn't there, just as with two other images. I tried to use the |thumb| function but it only blew up the image and distorted it; I've just found out that |frame| is what allows for captions with already small images, and I've edited the section accordingly.
Also, two notes on the "Bibliography" - 1) apologies to whosever hard work I erased by removing ISBNs and publisher names, but as I have explained here (I didn't link it correctly in my edit remark), ISBNs and naming specific publishers, etc only limit the options of book searchers (ie they only point to one edition that may not be the one available in the reader's country, or the most recent copy, etc.) - however the years of publication still need to be added to most of the works; 2) the majority of the books focus on Western Europe, there is not enough about Central and Eastern European nations apart from Poland (Ukrainians suffered huge losses because of Nazi deportations and anti-Slav/anti-Semitic atrocities) which could probably be ironed out, though the bibliography is already rather long. -- Simonides 08:22, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Curious approach. The bibliography, in theory, could be seen as listing the works (with varying dates of publication, not necessarily the most recent) which were employed by the respective contributor(s), it isn't necessraily designed to serve as the source for the very latest edition, though that might still be desriable in some format or another, as is noting the original date of publication, which I attempted to provide with my latest revision (for example, one of the works I dated here was originally published in 1947, but the latest edition is from 2004). Bibliographically, this is probably noteworthy. As for ISBN no., it certainly could be helpful, if not pivotal (that is, we are presuming that if a reader is capabale of searching-for/reading a scholarly work, they can work around ISBN discrapencies and ambiguities). In my opinion, it is not necessary (or even pressing), but since it has already been compiled, it should be undeleted and reinserted. Likewise with publishers, though again, I do not consider it a pressing matter (not so much as having bibliographical items dated, for example). Many more thoughts on the bibiliography as well as the article in general, but I will save those for a later date. El_C

The external links section has suffered a lot of unreviewed additions, and I think the article would not be affected negatively by removing links to individual victim's sites/lists. There is no structure in the list, perhaps this can be introduced. I'll have a go at trimming this list very soon if there are no objections. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Jayjg 16:06, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Table Of Contents and Organization

Why is there so much information crammed into the opening paragraphs that the TOC doesn't even appear on the page, you have to scroll down to get to it. I thought the opening paragraph or two set the stage for the document that follows, with information organized into sections and presented logically and orderly. This is a good case of lots of people thinking their particular fact is so important it needs to be seen first, instead of creating a document of value it is a giant hair ball that one must deconstruct to understand. It is a shame given the importance of the topic that there is not better organization. Stbalbach 07:59, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. El_C

Clicking on reference [1] as of today yields this result:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P/FrontPage/FrontPage&cid=1002116796299
- irismeister 20:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
Introducing
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/20.May.1997/News/Article-2.html
inside the search box on the page where clicking the reference brings the reader yield this result, as of today:

No Articles Found

No articles were found for the search you submitted. Please try one of the following suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different search terms. Check the FAQ for info about searching. More search tips... Please click here to try another search.
- irismeister 20:42, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

Clicking on reference [1] as of today yields this result:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P/FrontPage/FrontPage&cid=1002116796299
- irismeister 20:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
Introducing
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/20.May.1997/News/Article-2.html
inside the search box on the page where clicking the reference brings the reader yield this result, as of today:

No Articles Found

No articles were found for the search you submitted. Please try one of the following suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different search terms. Check the FAQ for info about searching. More search tips... Please click here to try another search.

Please do not vandalize this page, user 82.82.52.240

http://www.webyield.net/cgi-bin/ipwhois.cgi?addr=82.82.52.240 gives the dsl-082-082-052-240.arcor-ip.net or the 82.82.52.240 vandal. We'll follow, and I already wrote a note to vandal 82.82.52.240 - irismeister 19:04, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)

Clicking on reference [1] as of today yields this result:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P/FrontPage/FrontPage&cid=1002116796299
- irismeister 20:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
Introducing
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/20.May.1997/News/Article-2.html
inside the search box on the page where clicking the reference brings the reader yield this result, as of today:

No Articles Found

No articles were found for the search you submitted. Please try one of the following suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different search terms. Check the FAQ for info about searching. More search tips... Please click here to try another search.

Clicking on reference [1] as of today yields this result:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/P/FrontPage/FrontPage&cid=1002116796299
- irismeister 20:37, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
Introducing
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/20.May.1997/News/Article-2.html
inside the search box on the page where clicking the reference brings the reader yield this result, as of today:

No Articles Found

No articles were found for the search you submitted. Please try one of the following suggestions:

Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different search terms. Check the FAQ for info about searching. More search tips... Please click here to try another search.


edits to Intro by wereit

actually, i thought that paragraph 4. he added today was kind of interesting/relevant. agree? disagree? anyone? Gzuckier 18:47, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Made a minor change to the intro, the grammar and sentence structure still needs some editing for cohesion. Ronabop

I see jayjg removed my additions w/o a comment. If people feel it should not be included, so be it. However, what was written was true, in so far, as its indentification of Germany's role in the world and its culture and Germany's turn to Nazism. This insight is definitly something that is always jarring to people but usually on a subconcious level and not fully expressed. Jayjg seems [just from a glance at a few things; may not be true at all] to be very worried and wary of additions and always more comfortable with the status quo. But the status quo is not always correct. Just because someone wrote something first does not mean that person had any idea as to what she or he was writing.

Point in case, one of the things that struck me about this article was its relative disregard for the Nazi's targeting of Jews. Although, the Nazis did massacre many other people as indicated in the article, all historical testimonies and documentation turn to the fact that the goal and attention of the Nazi regime was directed towards the Jews. Obviously, to say the least, while they were at it, they hated and murdered other groups. Just because the original writer of the article took a more detached point of view does not mean that view corners the market. Wereit [Sorry to sign like this, still getting acclimated to active participation].

I'm concerned about changes to the status quo which aren't achieved first through consensus in Talk:, particularly on controversial topics like the Holocaust. Jayjg 15:56, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well, getting off on a tangent, one of the more unusual sides to the holocaust in question was the germans' role. After all, sad to say, genocide itself is not all that remarkable, even today. People kind of expect Turks (from 100 years ago) and Somalis and Rwandans and Bosnians and Serbs to enjoy the sports of genocide and mass murder; that's kind of one reason many Jews avoided those countries and settled in the civilized, cosmopolitan, educated cities of Germany. Therefore, all the more remarkable that that's where this malignancy took root; it's hard now to imagine what it must have been like when the Nazis entered power, kind of like imagining what it would be like if the US suddenly turned to such lunacy. It serves as evidence that, in fact, no country, including the US, can ever be trusted to be so free and progressive and advanced as to be considered absolutely immune to a sudden attack of homicidal insanity. Toss in the efficiency with which bad deeds can be conducted due to modern technology and organizational management in a first world nation, then or now, and you have a scary picture. Which is kind of what you were saying, yes?

Gzuckier 22:00, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I tried a new version of the introduction, with an explicit statement that Jews were the largest group targeted. A lot of the other information was already in parts of the article, and didn't seem appropriate to the introduction. I think that adding other information to the section on Jews might be appropriate. The article seems fairly clear that anti-Semitism was a major motivating factor, and that the Jews suffered the largest number of deaths, but I'm sure it could be improved. I wouldn't be against stronger statements being added to the paragraph I wrote; I just don't think that the specific details should be added to the Introduction. -- Creidieki 03:04, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial Day

Can someone with a bit of time take a look at this please? You've got until the end of January. Dunc|☺ 15:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yad vaShem db recently gone online

The computerized portion of the archives has become available online last week at http://names.yadvashem.org/wps/portal/IY_HON_Entrance . I believe that this is the same thing that was previously accessible via the local network access for the museum visitors. Please update the article accordingly — the link has to be incorporated and the quote changed to reflect the news. BACbKA 21:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jews were the main targets

I hesitate to wade in with heavy editing of this article because I've not been involved in the discussion. But it struck me immediately that there's been almost a minimization of the fact that Jews were the largest group incarcerated and killed, and that Jews were the main targets. In the list of things that made this mass-killing different from others, there was no mention of the fact that it was a concerted effort to wipe out an entire race of people. (I have added that point, although I put it in as point 4, when I feel it should be point 1). I feel that the balance of this article needs to be changed to reflect the facts: viz. (i) the people who were killed were predominantly Jews; (ii) the ways the Jews were treated in the camps (zero privileges, compared with other groups, which meant they died sooner of starvation, lack of medical care, beatings, as well as in the gas chambers); and (iii) the fact that the Nazis specifically discussed the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. They didn't discuss the Final Solution of the Gypsy Question. That is not to minimize what happened to the other groups, but the Jewish people were the targets.

I don't know what the consensus is, so I won't edit it, but I hope some more discussion takes place around this because it's an important article. Slim 08:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose the question is was the 'apparatus' of the Holocaust established for the extermination of the Jews with the other groups included as an 'after thought', or would the mass killing of the other groups have happened anyway? I believe this should determine the emphasis of the article. Sean3000 14:16, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Number of Jews killed

I am unclear about the number of Jews killed. In the relevant section it states about 6 Million Jews were killed. The next line states that 3-3.5 Million Polich jews were killed. Is that including the six million killed or is it a seperate number?

Holden 27

I'm pretty sure the 3.5 million is supposed to be included in the 6 million. The section does seem to be formatted badly so as not to make that clear. Lemme see what I can do. Gzuckier 16:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Several editors have been changing the total death toll in the introduction, which in recent edits has been 4-6 million, or 40-60 million. I believe the accepted figures by scholars are 12-26 million all groups, six million of them Jewish victims, so those are the figures I've inserted today. Slim 17:32, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Slim, please quote your sources. What you believe is irrelevant, what reputable sources actually say is not. jguk 18:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Politeness would be appreciated.
http://veritas3.holocaust-history.org/jews-central/ for low estimate of 12 million
http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/cahr/holocaust.htm for high estimate of between 15 and 26 million. Source for high estimate on this website is "Service d'Information des Crimes de Guerre: Crimes contre la Personne Humain", Camps de Concentration (Paris, 1946), 197, though the author notes true figure will likely never be known. Slim 20:26, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
I can't seem to be able to open those links. The figure 12-26 million seems far to high I think, and approches the total number of war dead rather then the Holocaust alone. Six million Jewish victims and two million non-Jewish victims are the figures I have generally seen. Sean3000 14:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The links are working for me, but note that the word "for" isn't part of the first link, as it seemed to be before this edit. It's this [1] Slim 01:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
The links work for me as well. Jayjg 01:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I’ve managed to open those links, I don’t know what I was doing before. I couldn’t find a figure for non - Jewish victims in the first link, but I’m even more suspicious of those figures now I’ve read the second link. The thrust of his argument seems to be that some of the 6 million Jews killed were done so outside of concentration camps, and other nationalities were killed out side the concentration camps, so they should be included too; which I think is shoddy reasoning. The fact the article is written be a prospective MA student of no stated discipline should be considered too. My Britannica puts the total war dead as between 35,000,000 to 60,000,000; I suspect Karen’s Holocause figure is that minus the dead of the Pacific theatre, Britain’s, America’s and the colonies. While I didn't see a break down there, have a look at top left corner of http://remember.org/ . Sean3000 13:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here is a good summary of the relevant scholarship:

There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59-5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million. The main sources for these statistics are comparisons of prewar censuses with postwar censuses and population estimates. Nazi documentation containing partial data on various deportations and murders is also used. " [2]

The quote was pasted on the article. I have removed it, and replaced the "six million" with "between five and six million". Sir Paul 01:22, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

If this : "dead as between 35,000,000 to 60,000,000; I suspect Karen’s Holocause figure is that minus the dead of the Pacific theatre, Britain’s, America’s and the colonies." is the basis of the figure for the total victims of the holocaust, it's including the german and eastern front military casualties as well, which does not seem appropriate.

Are there "scholerly" estmates for the total number of victims, corrisponding to the estimates of jewish victims given above?

Shoka

Logistical considerations

I will state flat out that I am a holocaust revisionist. I believe the true number to have died at camps to be somewhere around 400,000 and primarly from causes of disease, starvation and old age. Before you jump on me and label me anti-semite or whatever, hear me out on this point.

Just to begin with: You've provided a reasonable factual summary of your skeptical reasoning without evident bias, which is a reasonable position. I will offer my comments in the same vein. Gzuckier 19:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why is there no section on how this supposed mass murder was actually accomplished from a logicistal point of view? You can't just say offhand 6 million people (12 including the non-Jews) were gassed to death. Most people don't immediately come to terms with just how many people that is, because it's just something they've been told all their lives.

One point: I don't think the majority would argue that all 6 million Jews, 12 million total were gassed. If you look at the detailed explanation, that's the total death toll, of which the death camps would be only a part, and the actual gas chambers an even smaller part.Gzuckier 19:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A core argument to holocaust revisionism is the fact it was technically impossible to exterminate 6 million people and leave no evidence, let alone do it in the time frame required. For one, there would be over 30,000 square kilometres of ash from the cremation of bodies alone (conservative estimate). That is enough ash to blanket Europe!

That seems excessive offhand, let me do some calculations 'out loud' here. (To begin with, note that 2 million people a year die in the US and most of them aren't even cremated, so if your numbers are anywhere near correct we ought to be one giant graveyard by now). Let's say 6 million to start with. A cremation results in about 2 kilograms (5 lbs) of remains, taking up about a gallon of volume (4 liters). So 6 million cremated would be about 12 million kilograms = 12,000 metric tons, about 24 million liters = 24 * 10^9 cc. Over 30,000 square kilometeres that would be 24*10^9cc/30000*10^6 sq meters =24*10^9cc/30000*10^10sqcm = something less than 10^-4. In other words, the absolute total ashes of everyone of those 6 million if all were cremated would cover your hypothetical 30,000 sq kilometers to a depth of 1/10,000 centimetres. Therefore, I find your estimated 30,000 sq kilometres vastly too large. Looking at it another way, if you had a pile of ashes 10 centimetre deep, about 4 inches, then it would cover an area about 24*10^8 sqcm, or about 50,000 cm on a side, or about 500 meters by 500 meters, about a third of a mile by a third of a mile. That's a far cry from blanketing Europe, even if you double it to include the entire 12 million victims of all races being every single one of them cremated. Out of curiosity, where did you get this 30,000 sq KM number?
Large quantities of ashes were apparently found. A web search comes up with references to 'In an article in the journal published by the same IHR that publishes these Q&A, the Journal's editor reported that a Polish commission in 1946 found human ash at the Treblinka death camp to a depth of over twenty feet. This article is available on [holocaust denier] Greg Raven's web site.' I haven't verified the original source myself, though. There are referenceson Raven's site to piles of ashes at Majdanek: 'One experience that deeply affected Galler was seeing a huge mound of ashes preserved next to a crematory at Majdanek. "My credibility increases," Galler said, "when I can say I've seen a crematorium ... and I've seen ashes as big as [our] school."' [3]. No explanation of why he regards this as 'remarkable nonsense'. References on Raven's site to ashes being dumped into the river at Auschwitz: 'The ashes were then collected. Bones were pounded into a powder. All of the remains were then dumped into the river'.(Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Hoess) which he dismisses as the result of a coerced confession. [4] Gzuckier 19:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Photos we see are of starvation and typhus victims at the end of the war, not victims of gassing.

With respect, I don't think starvation and typhus at the end of the war would reduce the inmates to actual literal bare skulls. [5] Gzuckier 19:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not going to go into the many other areas of evidence brought up by revisionists and deniers, but I think this one is the most important for you to address as believers, as well as from a historical point of view.

Dead people leave evidence. 12 million dead in the space of 3 years should have left a LOT of evidence.

Really? Over 3 years, 6 million people die in the US, with not only no attempt to conceal it or clean up the results, but in fact great efforts to memorialize the dead. Yet, we don't see the entire country covered in ashes, and in fact if you don't go specifically looking for the evidence of their deaths it's not very apparent. I don't think the amount of evidence that exists for the deaths of 6 or 12 million over 3 years in wartime Europe with some efforts at minimizing the evidence and reducing the clutter of dead bodies all over the place is proportionately unreasonably less than the evidence of the US death rate.
And that still leaves the testimony of those who were there. Gzuckier 19:17, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you would like to move this to the discussion page for holocaust denial, then do so. Thank you!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&oldid=8752455"