From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humph (Talk | contribs) at 23:26, 1 June 2009. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

The "Criticism" section could be a major black eye if it's not carefully watched. --John 22:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Where is Darwin?

I think we should add a section on evolution and how it caused the holocaust. A picture of Darwin should also be added. --All4Him 11:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

Not evolution per se, eugenics as that was more relevent at the time. KatanaGeldar 21:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Learn how to spell "relevant", and then admit that eugenics was based on the theory of evolution.--Aschlafly 21:24, 4 October 2008 (EDT)


You can revert back to the biased version if you insist, but you could at least have kept the correct spelling of "occurrence". AppliedFaith 16:13, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Why were some of the following Conservative facts removed? Surely no one is of the opinion they are not true?
Jews stood virtually alone against the Nazi war machine and those who collaborated with them, receiving no aid or assistance from outside, as well as having no access to arms with which to defend themselves because the Nazis first disarmed their victims through use of gun control they were left defenseless. "Genocide would be impossible, or nearly impossible, against an armed group of millions of victims". [1].
CillaHunt 14:48, 24 December 2007 (EST)
It was reverted because you're inserting today's subject of gun control into a period of time and place where that wasn't an issue. It's also speculation; it is fine for the talk and debate pages, but not for the main article. Karajou 14:54, 24 December 2007 (EST)
Andy is adamant that it is true, and certainly not speculation. Surely you're not saying he got it wrong? CillaHunt 15:32, 24 December 2007 (EST)


I think (from a pedantic view of English grammar) that there is a small contradiction between the wording that the number of those killed is an estimate because incomplete records have been recovered and the fact the holocaust denial is unjustified because the Germans kept accurate records. Perhaps someone could reword this. Erasmus 16:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Total Dead

I've changed the upward value for loss of life from 12 million to 14 million, the value provided by the Encyclopedia of Military History. I thought I better state this in case someone gets upset, as this whole subject can have a tendency to be more touchy than most. Learn together 19:30, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

We need to decide if we are going to apply the term "Holocaust" to non-Jewish vicitms. RobS 20:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
Traditionally it has been that way. It's only over time that the non-Jewish dead started to be, for lack of a better word, forgotten. I would say keep it to include everyone who died under Hitler for no reason other than their inconveniance to him. Learn together 21:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
This may need some research on what various respected historians on the Holocaust have said. Simply because it's so-called "common usage" is no reason for us to repeat. RobS 21:17, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Expanding the article

As you can see, I've begun expanding it today, and will be done by tomorrow. Karajou 19:02, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Very nice. But why does it only mention Gypsies, Jehovas witness and homosexuals? More Slavs were victims than all these groups combined.Bohdan Talk 19:04, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
It isn't done yet, but it should list the groups of people who were targeted for slavery as well as those targeted for extermination. But as a rule, holocaust as a term should be restricted to the persecution of the Jews in Europe by the Nazis. Karajou 19:22, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
No argument there.Bohdan Talk 19:25, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Glad my suggested article improvement drive is working! Conservative 19:31, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Yer welcome! Now for the rest of the articles on the list... Karajou 19:41, 24 May 2007 (EDT)


Here is the citation moved from the Adolf Hilter page. This link is from the Simon Wiesenthal Center and reads,

Postwar historians of the Holocaust, especially those asserting the exclusivist view that the Holocaust was a historical experience unique to the Jewish people, have taken a similar position. Thus Lucy S. Dawidowicz, a leading exclusivist, has dismissed as not worthy of mention the "prostitutes, homosexuals, perverts, and common criminals" incarcerated by the Nazi.2

with the footnote

Lucy S. Dawidowicz, The Holocaust and the Historians (Cambridge, MA, 1981), p. 8. Ironically, this stance echoes the alibi voiced in crypto-Nazi writings of the postwar period that the inmates of the concentration camps were mainly black marketeers and other criminals who later posed as innocent victims of the regime; for example, Brigitte Pohl, Fastnacht der Damonen: Erlebnisse einer Wienerin (Leoni am Stamberger See, 1963), p. 45 [published by the Druffel-Verlag]. Pohl is a frequent contributor to the farright monthly Nation Europa, published in Coburg.

Dawidowicz is the Author of A Holocaust Reader, and The War Against the Jews, two definitive works we certainly will be citing in this article. Dawidowicz's credentials are impecable. RobS 21:49, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Use that as a reference, and add material as appropriate. Karajou 15:38, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

So far I have touched the beginnings of World War II. As it stands, what I have put in is merely an article in general terms; detail can be added as needed. Karajou 15:41, 25 May 2007 (EDT)


The structure is pretty basic, but ready for new material. Karajou 11:35, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Bombing the railroad

Many historians have debated the question of why the Allies did not attempt to stop the operations at Auschwitz by bombing the railroad into the camp - or whether they could or should have. Is that relevant to this article? Sevenstring 12:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is. Perhaps a new subsection called "Allied responses" or something similar, in which it is described what the Allies did, could have done, or didn't do during the war. Karajou 12:41, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Your edit of the word Nurnberg is fine, however it's spelled. What I wanted to do is to get as close as possible to the German spelling, but the mark above the letter "U" in the word is a bit of a trouble to insert. Karajou 15:49, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Found the German version of the word, with the inflection. Karajou 15:54, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

This is an excellent article

This is a very well done and researched article. DanH 13:33, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Someone has posted a photograph on top of the statistics in the Aftermath section of the article. Can this be removed?Needleman 12:01, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I see once again someone has pasted a photograph on top of the statistics in the Aftermath section of the article. Can this be removed?Needleman 21:08, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand; I don't see a photograph there. DanH 21:14, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

It's 12:35 PM on August 31, 2007. Take a look again at the statistics box. It's partially blocked by a photograph.Needleman 12:37, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

Two changes I would like to offer

I'd like to second the comment by DanH on the quality of this article. Well done, editors!

That said, I'd like to make two comments:

1) Purpose of article The article begins with "The Holocaust is a word...". This suggests that the article is one discussing the word itself, rather than the event related to the victims of Nazi Germany, which is actually the main thing being discussed.

A decision seems necessary on whether the article discusses the word (under which the definition and etymology is important) or the historical event. I think the more likely reason people visit this page is the later.

I believe the etymology should be moved to its own section farther down in the article. I also think there should be a deliberate reference to the Genocide article, rather than just having a category.

2) Displaced gravity of the article The end of the definition contains the following language: "when Jews were ... and ultimately targeted for extermination". My problem is only with the use of the word "targeted", which suggests that extermination may not have actually occurred. The actual subject should be front and center, and not left as an item to be discussed in the body of the article.

NepotisMonachus 13:43, 30 November 2007 (EST)


let's be historically specific: The Holocaust was about the elimination of European Jews. Nanking/Nanjing was an atrocity, but besides a broad temporal association, it had nothing to do with the Holocaust.BillyR 13:23, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

textbooks often group together the Holocaust and other wartime atrocities, and students should know about both. RJJensen 15:45, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
That is true, but the Holocaust is specific to European Jewry. What would be appropriate here would be separate articles connected by the "see also" subtopic, including the Sudan genocide, the rape of Nanking, Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge, etc. Karajou 16:02, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
! Part of this article was copied from Conservapedia and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site. Conservlogo.png
RJJensen 13:42, 10 November 2008 (EST)

I am a new member, but a very big WWII/Holocaust history buff and was wondering if I could add some information on Operation Reinhard, an expansion of the Einsatzgruppen section, an introduction and explanation of the Sonderkommando and a brief overview of the different camps, especially the differences between labor/transit/extermination camps. This article is well written, but I believe there is a variety of information available that could improve it. I took a number of classes in college on the Holocaust and WWII even though it wasn't my major. The war between Germany and the Soviet Union has always fascinated me and I would like the opportunity to add more about that conflict as it is covered briefly in the WWII article on here. Thank you!

Yes, go ahead (but please sign your name here). RJJensen 21:59, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

Two More Things

I find the last line of the "Vatican" subheading to be very biased, I would like to see a link to a reference there, and if not, it should be removed or reworded. Perhaps "many argue that" would be appropriate somewhere.

I find it fascinating Anne Frank is mentioned nowhere... maybe we should add her? --Humph 19:26, 1 June 2009 (EDT)Humph