|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on 12 dates. [show]|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived.|
WP successful at complete genocide
The Holocaust really needed the invention of another name, Porajmos: apparently, this article commits the most complete genocide of even the Roma that managed to survive the Endlösung. Further reading e.g. Sabo
▲ SomeHuman 2011-07-31 06:43 (UTC)
Jews were not the first to be taken into the extermination camps: talking about 'final solution' without remembering Gypsies is absolutely immoral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"to" or "of"
I always thought it was "Final Solution to the Jewish question" instead of "of." A Google search on both versions of the complete phrase in quotation marks turns up: "of" 631,000, "to" 523,000, on Google Books "of" 75,900, "to" 24,500. Thus "of" wins, but by not a huge margin. The original German doesn't help since there's no preposition. I'm not proposing to change it, but just wondering if we need a mention of the alternative and if someone knows more about this. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
That's an interesting finding. I'm not sure what bearing or relevance it has on the actual title and paper itself, presumably none? Could it be a translation or language error, which has just been repeated? Perhaps as you say, since it's been repeated so many times, it deserves a mention on the page and there should be some clarification of which is the correct literal translation in English, just for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Proof "Final Solution" Meant "Systematic Killing Of Jews"
There is lack of reference or link to a primary source supporting the first statment of the artical:
I quote the artical: The Final Solution (German: Die Endlösung) was Nazi Germany's plan and execution of the systematic genocide of European Jews during World War II, resulting in the most deadly phase of the Holocaust.
"Final Solution" used in a letter is not evidence of "Nazi Germany's plan and execution of the systematic genocide of European Jews"
It would be greatly appreciated if this primary source would be established to back up the claim that these two ideas are indeed connected. I'm very curious to know the evidence people use to draw this connection.Kinuke (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- This is because 'Final Solution' elsewhere does not equate to 'systematic killing'. See, for example, this use in by the Czechs regarding Germans in sudetanland. Expulsion_of_the_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia. In para 2, it explicitly states 'final solution to the ... question'. In practice, the concentration on the Nazi's crimes were in part to hide a large number of crimes effected by the allies between 1945 and 1948, largely sanctioned by the US and UK. Very few accounts of world war 2, in europe, go past potsdam, while people living in east europe did not see any reason to rejoice in the manner of the west. It's not unless you start poking your nose in here that you see something every bit as horible as the nazi programs.
- What makes the Nazi-killings so large, is what made WW1 and WW2 worse than other wars: total war on an industrial scale. Because the expulsion of the germans was sanctioned by the allies, we get cases where people involved on the german/jew process are still being hunted down, while the pole/german or czech/german or pole/ukraine or ukraine/pole or russian/pole or whatever, largely goes unnoticed. Katlyn was every bit as horrible, where bodies were burried twelve deep, but goes largely unnoticed. Wendy.krieger (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
This sentence below uses a quote from "historians" at an organisation in the United States called United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It's presented as a statement of fact, without any reference to who said it. This suggests a high degree of bias on this page as this sentence appears in the first paragraph of the page:
The Nazis frequently used euphemistic language to disguise the true nature of their crimes. They used the term 'Final Solution' to refer to their plan to annihilate the Jewish people.”
Furthermore, the assertion that the term "final solution" was a euphemistic term to conceal a German government intention to mass murder Jews, is somewhat implausible given that there is a substantial amount of historic evidence to suggest that the Nazi's had made many attempts to separate, segregate and finally, relocate the Jews, from Germany and then Europe completely, before they reached the "final solution". Look at the German title to the paper again and read it carefully:
Die Endlösung der Judenfrage
In English, this translates to:
The final solution of the Jewish question
The sentence ends in "question" which suggests this was a topic of some discussion and debate, and had not been decided up until this point. We know from historic evidence that this was indeed the case. The German authorities tried a number of approaches and implemented a number of different policies for dealing with the Jews in Germany and later, Nazi occupied areas of Europe. If this article wishes to be unbiased, then it must present credible evidence to support the notions being asserted, namely that:
The Nazi's had a plan to annihilate the Jewish people, and this was their real purpose even before the "final solution" paper was published, and the wording of the title and the document, was intended to deceive readers into believing that the Germans did not have such a plan.
Even if such evidence is available, how then, would this article deal with the previously mentioned historical evidence (which is widely accepted as historical fact) that the Germans did try a number of different approaches and policies for dealing with the Jews. One of these policies pursued was the old idea of resettling the Jews on the island of Madagascar and establishing a Jewish homeland there for them. For further reading and historic evidence of this plan see the Madagascar Plan, detailed on this very site. According to the sources referenced on this page, the Germans seized upon the idea of a Madagascar Jewish homeland settlement and introduced it as official Nazi policy in 1938. The page also states that it continued to be promoted as Nazi policy in 1940. This, and all the other policies and previous approaches used by the Germans, would seem to contradict the notion that the Nazi's had planned all along to annihilate the Jews.
Here's the problem. This article seems to be attempting to present history in a way that is biased and not accurate according to how actual events occurred and unfolded in Germany and Europe, because it just makes assertions that are not supported and which are contradicted by other evidence known to anyone who has read history.
eg: How did the Nazi's go from a supporting a Jewish resettlement and homeland on Madagascar (which is obviously a humane policy and shows they cared about the fate of the Jews) to one of annihilation and "industrialized mass slaughter" to quote the term used on this article? This seems a very drastic change in policy in a very short space of time.
Since this is obviously a topic of such important and huge historic dimensions, surely this gap or disparity between the dramatic shift in policy merits some discussion on this page. Evidence should be presented showing when, how, and why, the Germans changed their policy so drastically towards the Jews and so that readers can understand the reasoning behind the "final solution".
The answer to these questions and the link is on the Madagascar Plan page, which is directly related to the British and French involvement in the war with the Germany, British naval resources, and ultimately, control of Madagascar. Yet strangely, there is not a single link to the Madagascar Plan page, nor any mention of it on the Final Solution page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Functionalism vs intentionalism
The section on origins is very weak, but I found that the issue is treated more thoroughly in the existing article on functionalism vs. intentionalism, so I've added a brief intro and a link to that article, which should be helpful to readers. --Tbanderson (talk) 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)