Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Auschwitz concentration camp article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 45 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles Military history: European / German / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 45 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Calling all soviet citizens 'Russians' is very simplistic and quite offensive to the victims who were not russian but still soviet citizens. Could someone please correct this oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.162.197 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a line from the Evacuation and liberation section about comments made by Barack Obama this weekend. He apparently claimed a great-uncle was part of the liberation force of this camp, when instead his relative was in the group which liberated Buchenwald. Without commenting on the notability of such a statement in the policital primary season, or the 2008 elections overall, I don't see how such claims are notable in an article about Auschwitz itself. His campaign has retracted the statement, so as I see it, no one is publicly challenging the current historical record. Please understand, this is not an attempt to "censor" any information. It's simply to keep the focus of this article where it belongs. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is back again. I know that Auschwitz is a serious business but for hilarity it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.217.41 (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the mention of Barack Obama's erroneous statement regarding his ancestors liberating Auschwitz is included in the article only in an effort to discredit him as a politician and is in fact irrevelant to the history of the concentration camp. Obama has since retracted his earlier statement and clarified that the camp his ancestor helped liberate was Buchenwald and not Auschwitz, which you can read about here: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Wikipedia is not for "hilarity". And your comment, "The fact that it was liberated by Russians is precisely why Obama's claim is noteworthy. It follows a long line of Obama's gaffes during his campaign in the "57 states." --Neil Brown (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" further illustrates your motivation for adding this information. This is already mentioned in the Obama presidential campaign article. Feel free to expand on it there. This is not the proper place. I am removing it. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. Either way this is disinformation, or a slur against Obama. It has absolutely no place here. WilliamH (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the articles section on Evacuation and Liberation - the statement that the gas chamber was blown up to coverup a crime from the Russians is followed closely by the mention of leaving behind a substantial number of witnesses for the Russians to "liberate". Any logic, documentation, "reliable" citation,... on this piece of information, it sounds really weak - almost pathetic ( not that I mind, but a citation on the exploding gas chambers, motives, etc would be nice ). 159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello may i suggest to replace text "Located in German-occupied southern Poland" with "Located in Germany after annection of former Polish territories" best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best how it currently stands. Located in Germany after annection of former Polish territories implies that Poland is still part of Germany, whereas Located in German-occupied southern Poland doesn't. True, it is unlikely for such thing to be misconstrued, but it's best to keep the prose as unimplicit as possible. Thanks for bringing this forward anyway. WilliamH (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi this territories where in poland just for few years. it is nothing special that for next few years they were in germany. be aware that poland lost after war half of its territory - to soviets. historical perspective of that part of europe is that without moving, you were able or rather you had to change your nationality several times. auschwitz was at that time in germany, under german governance, not in poland or polish occupied soil. there is also other problem. part of poland was occupied thats true, but part was annected to germany. these were two very different things. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Government and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgau and auschwitz as formerly german territory (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Silesia) was annected (directly to germany, it was not even reichsgau) not occupied. anyway next paragraph you have that it was "incorporated" - it is contradiction. please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok. i did it. i hope no one will reverse it due to above arguments. --Discourseur (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Which reliable source do you have to back your argument up? Note that in his essay "Auschwitz and the Final Solution" in the "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp" book, renowned Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg refers to the territory you are citing (bearing in mind this includes Upper Silesia) as "the central part of occupied Poland, known as the General Government" (page 84). The precedent should be where the camp actually is. WilliamH (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• did he use a map to prove that? check given links - there are some plans of borders. and "central part of general government" was 150km away from auschwitz. apart from facts, hilberg as austrian is definitely not reliable source.--Discourseur (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - I forgot that the annexed territories and General Government are seperate. In your previous message you write "part was annected to germany". The problem is that the area in question no longer isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to comment on how the camp was indeed in annexed territories (which is was already done in the second paragraph until you changed it for no apparent reason), but Located in Germany after annection of former Polish territories is ungainly and implicitly inaccurate. It inadvertantly suggests that the territory in question (and thus the camp) is still annexed to Germany because it doesn't comment on the status quo, which is completely unacceptable. WilliamH (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well there are so many contradictions in your post. the status quo of that territories was as described. so what do you want to comment. if you want to describe current territorial status of the "museum of auschwit", just do it. be aware that since 1945 it is no longer concentration camp. however from perspective of anglosaxoncentric attitude there may be some still working appliances. just check it personally. have you ever been there? and more importan contradiction if they are not annexed they are not occupied as well--77.115.21.215 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as i deduce from your contributions, as a longstanding inhabitant of germany, you have some special interest (personal?)in claiming that auschwitz wasn't in germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Terminology is not inherent to location. The site was indeed in territory annexed by the Nazis. This is not disputed and its historical context is explained, but since these territories are now neither annexations of Germany nor occupied by the SS, prose that implicitly suggests that the annexed territories are still part of Germany is completely abstract. WilliamH (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ok i agree that such a suggestion is not good idea. however i do not get how this text suggests that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Please read cautiously Hague IV SECTION III MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE (Art. 42. and later)(Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). Any territorial changes in occupied territory are invalid from the beginning. It is clear solution of international law ( parties of these conventions were in 1939 and are today both Germany and Poland).

Best regards for all participians in discussion

Andros64 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• but district kattowitz was under civilian administration, general gouvernment was occupied and kept under ss administration.--Discourseur (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I repeat - Any territorial changes in occupied territory are invalid from the beginning. It is clear solution of international law ( parties of these conventions were in 1939 and are today both Germany and Poland). If German-Nazi authorities turn part of occupied Poland under civil administration it was just another war crime ( in contrary to legal international obligations of Germany) - that's all.

Andros64 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• obviously it was war crime. but facts are not law. law does not allow killing but it doesn't mean that there are no murders.--''discourseur'' (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• the other fact is that territories of poland annexed by soviet union have never returned. according to your proposition should they be treated as polish??? it is issue of international politics not law that auschwitz is now in poland.--discourseur 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And according to a ream of sources (as opposed to your synthesis), it always was:

• Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau w Oświęcimiu EN Franciszek Piper, chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum, "Auschwitz was carrying out the guidelines of the German Third Reich’s policy in occupied Poland."

• Auschwitz maps USHMM: "Auschwitz played a central role in the "Final Solution," the Nazi plan to murder the Jews of Europe. The Nazis deported Jews from nearly every European country to the Auschwitz II (Birkenau) killing center in occupied Poland."

• Ibid, USHMM: "The Nazis established six killing centers in occupied Poland."

• "Republic of Poland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs". The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland. Hutchinson & Co., 1942.

• 1939 - 1945 timeline, Deportations to Auschwitz USHMM: "Another transport leaves Westerbork the next day. The two trains will arrive at the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland two days later."

• United States Polish Embassy: "In August 1943, Bill was deported from Westerbork to the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland.

• Teaching about the Holocaust USHMM: "Levi was deported from Turin, Italy, to the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland in 1943."

That's how sources refer to it = that's how we shall refer to it. WilliamH (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• according to many other sources auschwitz was polish not german camp. quantity does not mean reliability.--discourseur 13:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the camp authorities have made several attempts to make it clear that the camp was operated and built by Germans, not Poles, such as here, in, (surprise surprise) "...other parts of Poland...occupied by the Germans...", but this is not intrinsic to the matter at hand and extraneous to this discussion. WilliamH (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• it is not suprise because polish authorities didn't know that fact. it is new issue, but it doesn't mean false in the same way as few years ago "polish camp" was a new issue still not resolved by many sources.--77.114.25.119 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• i do not know if it makes sense because william forcing consequently one argument do not want to see whole list of arguments given, i would like to add another one. after annexation by germany auschwitz was never given back to poland. this territory was added to poland with other parts of silesia formely not belonging to poland with decision of roosevelt and stalin in Yalta Conference - as a sphere of soviet influence.--discourseur 15:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oświęcim was after the partitions of Poland part of territory of Austria, and later Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It regained to Poland after treaty of Saint-Germain between Entente and Austria. No connection with the question above.

Andros64 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• yes as described more above (you did not read discussion). but what situation before war has to do with political decisions afterwards? pleas answer this and do not change theme.--discourseur 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In no case it is the subject of post WW II decisions - for reason described above.

Best regards: Andros64 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"after annexation by germany auschwitz was never given back to poland." Incorrect. WilliamH (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• where is it described specifically? and why post-war decisions are irrelevant? they are still in force.--discourseur 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• simply- Oświęcim was never legally territory of Germany (in any state forms from 1871 till 1945) and in consequence it was never the question of post WW II regulations.

Andros64 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• again i put argument that law was not respected at that time due to political decisions. auschwitz was not legally in germany, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't due to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. and it was added after the war to poland due to yalta conference - not any law or return. why it was added to poland read citation from stalin. so what international law has to do with presence of auschwitz within poland after the war? --discourseur 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You can put forward whatever argument you like, but since it is your own thought/synthesis/understanding (something which is not allowed) as opposed to what other sources say, it's pretty much inconsequential. WilliamH (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• but it is argument in opposite to declaration of loyalty to mass-culture opinion.--discourseur 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Answering your question above- Oświęcim never till 1919 ceased to be part of Republic of Poland and in 1945 it was simply regained from war occupation of Nazi-Germany ( exactly just like Alsace and Lorraine in France ( Strasbourg, Belfort a s.o), apart from their unlegal annexation to Nazi-Germany in 1940)

Andros64 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks andros for argumenting. but historical facts go other way: auschwitz ceased to be the part of poland in 1939 due to molotov-ribbentrop pact. anyway it is not answer to question about application of international law to that case you put forward. so i ask it the other way: according to what law both breslau and auschwitz were added to poland after the war?--discourseur 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• to summarize cons against "annexation" issue:

first line of opposing it in support uses plethora of citations, however none of them is ground in any analysis, consisting only of unreflexive assumptions. standard of academic citation urges for citations of works analysing, making research etc. upon given issue, not just giving statements.
second line of opposition is using international law, however failed to show its application in that case, especially according to hague convention. it is so because, not only during 2ndww but long before (anexation of austria and most of czechoslovakia) and also afterwards, that law was not respected, and not only by nazis.

arguments for "annexation" issue show:
first, that auschwitz was during 2ndww within administrative borders of germany - district katowice, province upper silesia.
second, that historical changes to the territorial situation of auschwitz were occuring several times. it was in poland, bohemia, austria, germany - always by conquest.
third, that auschwitz became part of germany during 2ndww due to molotov-ribbentrop pact.
fourth, that aushwitz became part of poland after the war due to yalta conference decisions, without application of any international law - in the same way as breslau.
fifth, after the war the camp was destroyed and transformed into museum. so even sayin that it is nowadays within borders of poland mises the fact that it is no longer concentration camp but museum of auschwitz.

there were many concentration camps in occupied part of poland but it is not a case of auschwitz. moreover, contemporary borders of both germany and poland are not an outcome of application of any international law but an effect of political bargains between stalin and his allies - first hitler, later roosevelt.
henceforth, writing that auschwitz "was located in east Germany after annexation of territories formerly belonging to Poland" is honest way to describe its situation. --discourseur 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)--[reply]

• I have reverted the "Located in east Germany" prose because it is a) not how independent sources refer to the site, and b) its reasoning is entirely original argument and synthesis, which is completely unacceptable. It is abstract, illogical, and confusing to tell the reader that the site's precedent location is in a void; in a territory that no longer exists. We must explain where the camp is first, then explain its historical and contextual location. WilliamH (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• following argument of william above i changed paragraph to show contemporary situation of the camp. german-occupied poland still reffered to past situation not expressing present one. --discourseur 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• btw. i took a look at hague convention and... there is nothing about annexing territories. ie. hague convention is not applicable to acts of annexation of occupied territories. --discourseur 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the WP:CLEAN tag due to the excessive images and large image captions. I have also noticed that the article also has an excessive amount of links, associated names, excessive time line. Please work to reduce the amount of each to make it easier to read. Also, please consider working on condensing some of the sections for easier readability. Brothejr (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am truly suprised reading looooong second sentence about hague convention. can somebody move it elsewere or just delete? it is redundant to a content of next paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.80.103 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs cleanup, particularly the picture captions. If I may say so, the tone is sometimes inappropriate for what is meant to be an encyclopedia article and not a memorial page: for example, a phrase like "so-called 'death gate'" seems wrong to me, as I have never heard the main entrance to Birkenau being called the "death gate". Even if it is called that by some people, "so-called" is an expression deprecated by WP. Elsewhere, the picture of the rose on the stop sign seems to me to be actually irrelevant, since it tells us nothing about the camp other than people visit it and leave flowers there, and the caption is just silly; "barb wire" is a schlocky film starring Pamela Anderson, the correct phrase being "barbed wire"'; the photos of the gas chamber and crematorium in camp I should be recaptioned as such, not as photos of the memorials to same (the bunches of flowers are not the point of the pictures, and from my own visit to Auschwitz I recall that we were asked not to take pictures of the interior of the gas chamber and crematorium, so I question the appropriateness of these pictures); and "commandant and Obersturmbannführer" is wrong, since Obersturmbannführer was Höß's SS rank, not his job title.

Later on, in the excellent aerial photo of Birkenau the holes used to introduce the cyanide into the gas chambers are not visible to me, at any rate. Most of the rest of the captions seem to me OK. I don't want to offend whoever wrote the picture captions because I am sure that they feel as strongly as I do that this subject needs to be represented. But I think that a purely factual tone is more appropriate. An article on a subject this terrible does not need (as it were) invisible violins playing in the background. I will edit the captions accordingly. If anyone disapproves of my edits, feel free to discuss them and we can redraft them. Lexo (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the edit. Incidentally, there is one more caption that I think is problematic, which is the very first one. Right now it says "Entrance to" Auschwitz II, but as the photographer indicates, it was actually taken from inside the camp, at the loading ramp. Technically speaking, that makes it a photograph of the exit from Auschwitz II, but of course very few people exited the camp via this gate. I am going to replace it with "The main gate of Auschwitz II in 2006." If anybody objects, feel free to revert. I just don't want some nitpicking Holocaust denier having the slightest thing to complain about in this article. Lexo (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Tramiel founded Commodore Computers. This should be noted by his name, rather than just saying 'businessman'.

72.177.34.13 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted this photo from the article page because the photo lacks any caption. Can't tell what it's a photo of (Auschwitz I? Birkenau?). Maybe anyone who can tell could add a caption and add it back to the article. Here's the photo. Vidor (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a photo of Auschwitz I, the Stammlager. WilliamH (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey. Vidor (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this whole article doesn't need to be rewritten. Would it be better to write a more chronological article, tracing the development of Auschwitz, rather than structuring the meat of the article by talking about each sub-camp in turn? Vidor (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the above, I am now going to start rewriting the article to present the evolution of the camp in chronological order, using as my source Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. I think I will not be adding much text, but rather will organize it differently. Vidor (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major article; couldn't you at least discuss this before rewriting it? I appreciate you've posted this on the talk page, but you wrote it as a question, implying you'd like responses. Ironholds 08:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major article with a tag on the top saying it needs to be cleaned up. In any case I don't think the article needs as many changes as I thought on first looking. I've made a few edits indicating the chronology better. Am thinking of adding a section on the medical "experiments" by Mengele and others. And of course going through and trying to eliminate factoids that are repeated in different parts of the article. Vidor (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do not know why there is this hollywood driven annotation about schindler. he did not have direct connections to auschwitz, he was working in cracow. there were many other persons, who saved the lives of much more jews eg Irena Sendler. i propose removing this. --discourseur 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created a section with all the information about medical experiments; included more detail about the mechanics of gassing; added more information about the timeline of Auschwitz's evolution into a death camp, including a section on the Hungarian Action. Vidor (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture described as being of the execution yard clearly is the gallows erected after liberation to hang Hoss, the commandant of the camp.

The execution yard itself is a grey wall beside block 11. Bulletholes are clearly visibile where prisoners were executed. The wall is also covered in pebbles and flowers. I would upload a picture of this myself having recently been to visit the museum (Feb 08) but the page is semi-protected.

Dutch courage1990 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could call it an execution yard, but yes that is somewhat vague when one regards the wall between Block 10 & 11. Disambiguated. WilliamH (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture of it, but I don't know how to upload it. Also, it's not the original it's a reconstruction. It's what I heard on the tour, I need to find a source that I can cite.RWgirl (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/tour/Auschwitz1/Auschwitz05.html Does that count as a credible source?RWgirl (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than "Auschwitz I (...) was the site of the deaths of roughly 70,000 people, mostly Poles and Soviet prisoners of war." A large part of them died while at Treblinka back when it was an SS POW camp (which is not even mentioned). Look it up. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He escaped on the night of April 26–April 27, 1943 but his plan wasn`t accepted by Home Army and Allies don`t believed of his report about holocaust."

Was this written by someone retarded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.151.204.210 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Other controversies" there is one - that is not really a controverse. Since the middle of the 1990s the International Auschwitz Council tok the decision, that movies should not be alowed to be filmed inside the former camp. Only the documentaries are accepted. And those rules are for each filmmaker, Spielberg too. Wulfstan (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hearn Family entire mountain jew civilisation, the only living survivor is the decendent Mitch Hearn" EdX20 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the introduction

In November, 2008, blueprints were discovered in a Berlin apartment that suggest a major expansion of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was planned.

is problematic. I suggest that someone change it and update it in light particularly of the comments of Auschwitz expert Robert-Jan van Pelt. Van Pelt, an internationally recognized expert on the field (he served as an expert witness in the Irving trial), holds that there is nothing new in these documents, and moreover that, if authentic, they are not plans for building an extermination camp. According to Ha'aretz:

Van Pelt, an architectural historian, said that copies of the plans of the stages of the camp's construction were also in the archive of the Polish National Museum at Auschwitz and in an archive in Moscow. He said that the source of the new copies was unclear since, according to Bild, the plans were found in an apartment in Berlin, whereas copies that were in the SS offices in Berlin were destroyed by Allied bombing in 1944. Van Pelt said he also doubted the authenticity of the signature of the SS chief, Heinrich Himmler, since such a high-ranking officer would not have signed such plans, and none of the copies he had ever seen bore such a signature.

Van Pelt also said the words "gas chamber" on one of the drawings meant a room in which disinfection of clothing was done by means of gas, and that the sketch is not of an extermination camp established in 1942, but rather of earlier plans for a huge concentration camp in which a force of 130,000 slave laborers was intended to work.

Van Pelt suggested the plans might be fakes, motivated by the lucrative market in Nazi memorabilia and documents. ^[1]

Doktordrible (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last item in the chronology of the camp is not only in the wrong sequence, but it says that Rudolf Höß was executed in 1947. Almost everybody knows he died at Spandau 40 years later. Frank

• Did you look at the Rudolf Höß article? He's not the same person as Rudolf Heß. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: Rudolf Höß and Rudolf Hess are two different people - note that the Auschwitz commandant's execution was photographed. WilliamH (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the names looks so much alike, I am probably not the first one to get mixed up. Anyway, thanks a lot for pointing it out. Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by François Pichette (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with how to properly request this, but the current text reads,

"The three main camps were Aushwitz I, III, and III."

And should read,

"The three main camps were Auschwitz I, II, and III."

Auschwitz is misspelled and III should read II.

Thank you.

Mwgarrison (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha! Done, thanks. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this photo be removed from this article, since its inclusion here doesn't add any useful information about the camp itself (and there are arguably too many pictures in this article). What's more, it's generally considered bad form to be photographed smiling in a place like Auschwitz. I have no issue with leaving this picture in the other two articles that it currently appears in. –Signalhead ^< T > 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree. WilliamH (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I also agree. Photo should be removed.--Jacurek (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Auschwitz II (Birkenau) references "The first gas chamber at Birkenau was "The Little Red House"". Then, the next sentence is "A second brick cottage, "The Little Red House", ..." I believe the second gas chamber was called "The Little White House" and the article needs to be updated to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illepic (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see "Crematoria II", etc. Is the plural intended here, or is the singular form appropriate?--Jrm2007 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another minor thought: Could some reword "purported 'medical experiments'"? I know the intended meaning, but Holocaust deniers might interpret it to mean the experiments were only alleged to have happened, and never done. Maybe something as simple as "purported 'medical' experments", so the emphasis is on the medical aspect being purported by the Nazis, and the act of experimenting not in question.

"According to Harmon and Drobnicki,[1] relevant estimates range from 800,000 to five million people" ??

I've written a large article in the German Wikipedia about the death toll (Opferzahlen) in Auschwitz concentration camps. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opferzahlen_der_Konzentrationslager_Auschwitz

There is no doubt about the 1,1-1,5 Million researched by Franciszek Piper. I wonder why this isn't stated clear here. The work of Piper matches the work of Wolfgang Benz: Dimension of the Holocaust (Dimension des Völkermordes), especially concerning the hungarian jews, which are the main part in Auschwitz.

Harmon and Drobnicki e.g. cite Eugen Kogon "Der SS Staat" (4 Million victims assigned to Auschwitz) written 1946. Kogon don't know anything about the "Einsatzgruppen" and assigned all victims in the east areas to Auschwitz witch is completely wrong. This is often taken by holocaust deniers like Germar Rudolf to argute that number of victims differ a lot.Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:RudolfVrba2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some parts of this article have good key points regarding the camps I-IV, however other bits are fragmented, other bits are just strings badly connected facts, some bits are poorly written in conversational tones and other parts are not contextual, so just hang (like informational islands).

For instance, there is no logical order to the article. There is a chronology but it is just dropped in as a section, the chronology should in the way the article is written. From start to finish, with all key points, placed within their correct precedence.

Furthermore, there is no information actually dealing with how and why the Nazis chose this place! For instance, the only mention to this is the confusing entry:

Auschwitz I was the original camp, and it served as the administrative center for the whole complex. It was founded on May 20, 1940, on the basis of an old Polish brick army barracks (originally built by the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

What the deuce does [founded] on the basis of an old Polish brick army barracks actually mean? In plain English I would assume it should say that the occupying German forces 'took over' former Polish Brick army Barracks. Rather than as it means now, following a concept left by the Poles!

Just as additional information, when I visited the site in 2002, the reason (found within the researched literature available at the site) for placing such a camp at Oświęcim was simple expediency and German efficiency. Firstly the barracks were already there and secondly the town was on a rail hub where several lines that connected to all part of German-occupied territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.135.158 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is getting quite long. Maybe it should be removed to a separate article? –Signalhead ^< T > 21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As there were no comments, I have gone ahead with this. See List of notable inmates and victims of Auschwitz. –Signalhead ^< T > 23:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says here The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum has revised this figure to 1.1 million. So does that mean we should start being (way) more accurate when referring to the holocaust and say that 4.1 million died instead of 6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.173.131 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sowjet states had enforced the figure of four million. It comes mainly from the soviet investigation of the auschwitz concentration camps and the case against Rudolf Höß in Poland. the judge Jan Sehn has published this number and spreded it. In Sowjet-Union, Poland and so on it wasn't allowed to challenge that number, even not by historians.

You can auto translate my german wikipedia article Opferzahlen der Konzentrationslager Auschwitz (Dath toll of the Auschwitz camps) and proof the sources. In England, USA, France and Germany historians have estimated about one million. The English historian Gerald Reitlinger has published death toll of 851.000 in 1951, the American historian Raul Hilberg has published "one million" in 1961, the English historian Martin Gilbert has published maps with deportation routes. If the death toll on this maps are summarized for Auschwitz we come to 1.1 Million.

The number of 6.1 Million is calculated on the loose in specific countries. If Auschwitz is lowered down, other places must become higher. But in fact, if 4 Million died in Auschwitz the total numbers of the holocaust would be 9 Million. Many western historians had criticized the sowjet numbers of 4 Million because of that. It is accurate to say in Auschwitz died 1.1 - 1.5 millions and keep the 6.1-6.2 millions of the holocaust. Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think the medical experiments on human beings are purpoted. to doubt their existance seems somewhat anti-semetic and borders on halocaust denial, or trying to downplay the severity of what happned. Can someone please remove the word "purpoted" Eframgoldberg (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the same thing when I read that in the article. The experiments aren't "purported", they definitely happened. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They happened, but I think the "purported" may related more to their value as medical experiments. - Eron^Talk 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the Text: "The first gas chamber at Birkenau was "The Little Red House", a brick cottage that was converted into a gassing facility by tearing out the inside and bricking up the walls. It was operational by March 1942. A second brick cottage, "The Little Red House", was similarly converted some weeks later.[12]"

Correction should be made, I recently saw the documentary Auschwitz, Inside the Nazi State, put out by the BBC and I believe the second one of these houses was actually called "The Little White House"

First gas chamber was Bunker I or little red house. It was the house of the farmer Josef Wichaj, and it was used as gas chamber since May 20 1942.

The Bunker II (later Bunker V) or white house was used as gas chamber since middle of 1942. It was the house of the farmer Józef Harmata.

--Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the camp was liberated in 1945, why some prisoners were there 1946 and even 1947?Xx236 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Stage was probably filmed in the camp.Xx236 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed an edit by the user jpgordon. The views of the person whose site hosts the image used as a source are irrelevant, the image should speak for itself. It's an established fact that quite a bit of the extermination camp was demolished, as the rest of the article points out. The Poles have done an OK job of rebuilding it, but these guard watchtowers are rather marring. Tchernobog (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content again. It is unreferenced and uses POV language ("taken out of thin air," "nothing of the sort.") As to the views of the site host, they are extremely revelant as they go directly to the question of whether or not the site is a reliable source. It is a well-established precedent on this page that Holocaust denial web sites are only of value as sources about the claims that are made by Holocaust deniers. They have no value as sources of about historical fact about the Holocaust itself. - Eron^Talk 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I count 30 pictures, which is a lot in and of itself. But because the article isn't actually that long, formatting requires that the images be pushed further and further down, since there's no room for all of them otherwise. This means that many images aren't actually near their relevent sections. And when viewed on a wide-screen monitor, images appear nowhere near where they should be -- for instance the picture of Vrba appears in the "After the war" section, which obviously makes no sense. Not to mention, the edit links get completely fucked up, which is granted only a problem for editors, but still, annoying...

In any case, a lot of the images are unnescessary anyway. Having pictures is nice, but even featured articles don't have this many! LSD (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]