Talk:Einsatzgruppen

I have undone edits

I have undone undiscussed mass changes performed on this article. I don't think these edits are improvements, and in fact may jeopardize its status as a Good Article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply to Dianaa

I disagree, this article whitewashes the killers; my edits remove the insidious crypto-Nazi undertone that glorifies the Nazis; the titles and names are continually spelt out and linked, whereas the victims are anonymous, "undesirable elements", rather than "politically unesirable people", and other examples of disingenuous euphemism, meant to obscure the facts of the Einsatzgruppen as killers, rather than soldiers; there is a difference, subtle, but real.

I am cleaning-up the Nazi pov-pushing by section, not en masse. Please, hyperbolic exaggeration is unwise in this subject, so it is unfair to accuse me of mass changes, when the editorial history indicates otherwise, by section.

Example 1:

The Nazi boosterism is blunt:

In response to Führer und Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler's plan to invade Poland, Heydrich re-formed the Einsatzgruppen to travel in the wake of the German armies.[9] Membership at this point was drawn from the SS, the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service; SD), and the police.[10] Heydrich placed SS-Obergruppenführer Werner Best in command, who chose leaders for the task forces and their subgroups, called Einsatzkommandos, from among educated people with military experience. Some had previously been members of paramilitary groups such as the Freikorps.[11]

In support of Hitler’s plan to invade Poland (1 September 1939), Heydrich re-formed the Einsatzgruppen to follow the German armies. At that time, soldiers were recruited to the task forces from the SS, the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service; SD), and the police. The commander, SS-Obergruppenführer Werner Best, chose leaders for the task forces and their subgroups, the Einsatzkommandos, from among the educated men with military experience; some of whom had been in paramilitary militias, such as the Freikorps.

Example 2:

Obscurantism: Paragraph A beats around the bush, pulls punches in stating facts; paragraph B spells out the Who? What? Where? When? and How? of the subject; no white-washing (obscuring of the full measure of facts)

(A) Numbering some 2,700 men at this point,[11] the Einsatzgruppen's mission was the forceful de-politicisation of the Polish people and the elimination of groups most clearly identified with Polish national identity: the intelligentsia, members of the clergy, teachers, and members of the nobility.[10][12] As stated by Hitler: "... there must be no Polish leaders; where Polish leaders exist they must be killed, however harsh that sounds".

(B) To facilitate the subjugation of Polish society, Hitler said that “there must be no Polish leaders; where Polish leaders exist, they must be killed, however harsh that sounds.” Although a force of some 2,700 soldiers, the mission of the Einsatzgruppen was the forceful de-politicisation of Polish society, by killing the social groups identified with Polish national identity: the intelligentsia, the clergy, teachers, and the nobility. The names of the men and women to be arrested, imprisoned, and killed as Enemies of the Reich were biographically listed in the Sonderfahndungsbuch Polen, which the SS compiled as early as May 1939.

Please, tell me how is the GA-rating endangered by removing pro-Nazi pov-pushing?

Let me know, Thanks.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

---

I disagree - the article neither "whitewashes the killers" nor hosts any "insidious crypto-Nazi undertone that glorifies the Nazis." It is well-researched, well-sourced, and well-written. Please do not accuse others of "hyperbolic exaggeration" while using this kind of language, which could be seen as a personal attack. Regards, GAB^gab 16:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Courtesy ping: @Diannaa and Kierzek:. GAB^gab 16:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear Dianaa and Kierzek,

Thanks for replying, but we are talking at each other. The tone of the writing is where the crypto-Nazism lies, the facts of the matter are not in dispute.

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

To say the article is a "white-washing" of the subject matter is disingenuous. As with any article, even a GA article, there is some tweaking which can be done, but you are not just tweaking but changing large sections and even though I have not done a lot of work on this article, I know well both the subject and the main editor who did put in the time and brought it up to GA after review. And much of what you have listed above is stating facts of the history and formation, etc. Please do not make reverts until a consensus is reached. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, I agree with each one of you. This is a Good Article for a reason. A lot of exceptional work went into it. But sometimes it takes a bold new pair of eyes to say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. I'm wondering how come I myself did not notice some of the linguistic monstrosities quoted, such as: "Einsatzgruppen's mission was the forceful de-politicisation of the Polish people..." (meaning, murder). The article can be improved without finger-pointing and bad faith accusations. Poeticbent talk 01:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the killing at that point was to remove the leaders. I have amended to read "de-politicisation of the Polish people via the killing" of intelligentsia, clergy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, please replace that torturous expression forceful de-politicisation with something more English.[1] Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done, in simple plain language: the "mission was to kill members of the Polish leadership most clearly identified with Polish national identity". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Ranks

Proposing that the use of SS ranks be reduced; the cumbersome foreign-language terms, italics and sea of blue makes the prose more difficult to read, for example here:

• Einsatzgruppe I, commanded by SS-Standartenführer Bruno Streckenbach, acted with 14th Army
• Einsatzgruppe II, SS-Obersturmbannführer Emanuel Schäfer, acted with 10th Army
• Einsatzgruppe III, SS-Obersturmbannführer und Regierungsrat Herbert Fischer, acted with 8th Army

In the example above, I believe we could lose the ranks, as well as throughout the article. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with removal "throughout" the article; and they should only be linked the first time used in the body. But await @Diannaa:'s thoughts as the main author, so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm suggesting that they be used judiciously, for example, from:

Additional Einsatzgruppen were created as additional territories were occupied. Einsatzgruppe E operated in Independent State of Croatia under three commanders, SS-Obersturmbannführer Ludwig Teichmann, SS-Standartenführer Günther Herrmann, and lastly SS-Standartenführer Wilhelm Fuchs. The unit was subdivided into five Einsatzkommandos located in Vinkovci, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Knin, and Zagreb. Einsatzgruppe F worked with Army Group South. Einsatzgruppe G operated in Romania, Hungary, and Ukraine, commanded by SS-Standartenführer Josef Kreuzer. Einsatzgruppe H was assigned to Slovakia. Einsatzgruppen K and L, under SS-Oberführer Emanuel Schäfer and SS-Standartenführer Ludwig Hahn, worked alongside 5th and 6th Panzer Armies during the Ardennes offensive. Hahn had previously been in command of Einsatzgruppe Griechenland in Greece.

References

To:

Additional Einsatzgruppen were created as more territory was occupied. Einsatzgruppe E operated in Independent State of Croatia under three SS commanders, Ludwig Teichmann, Günther Herrmann, and Wilhelm Fuchs. The unit was subdivided into five Einsatzkommandos located in Vinkovci, Sarajevo, Banja Luka, Knin, and Zagreb. Einsatzgruppe F worked with Army Group South. Einsatzgruppe G operated in Romania, Hungary, and Ukraine, commanded by Josef Kreuzer. Einsatzgruppe H was assigned to Slovakia. Einsatzgruppen K and L, under SS commanders Emanuel Schäfer and Ludwig Hahn, worked alongside 5th and 6th Panzer Armies during the Ardennes offensive. Hahn had previously been in command of Einsatzgruppe Griechenland in Greece.

References

I believe there's not much additional value that various ranks add here; indicating that these were SS commanders is sufficient, IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think they should come out. If the article was about events involving British or American military personnel and I took the article to GA without ranks being included, I would be asked to add them. It's the same here; it's a military history article, so ranks should be included. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

These were not "military personnel" and it's not a "military history" article per se. Yes, the events occurred during a war, but did not involve combat against armed forces of the opposing state. That the commanders of these units held various obscure paramilitary ranks, and which ones, does not significantly add to the readers' understanding of the topic. The ranks can be covered in the individual articles, which many of them have.

A discussion on SS ranks took place at my Talk page a short while ago and could be relevant here: SS ranks. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Well as I stated then, "SS rank should be retained to denote the separation and then military equivalent or translation of said rank in parentheses". Now, if the person is stated in the article more that once then you don't have to keep stating their rank if it has not changed. Here, even if these certain men were not in the Waffen-SS or an army reserve officer, they still should be presented by their rank or title where it is relevant, as the RS sources do. As for the linked discussion, I only agreed at the time, to letting lede sections of certain bio articles be stream-lined for concision reasons as that was the consensus for them (and their rank was listed and linked in the info box) and do not believe that should be the same for major articles of historical importance or for high ranking members. As another stated recently, "...rank (where listed and linked) helps people to navigate to information that might help them understand how he fitted into a system". Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please remove the "gas van" picture. It's not a gas van.

No gas vans have ever been captured.

http://pages.ucsd.edu/~lzamosc/chelm00.htm

37.201.77.102 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct; the caption at the Commons states it is only of the same type as those used as gas vans. I am leaving in the photo but amending the caption. Thanks for the correction. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians by Nazis

I have a question - is there a reason this article consistently avoids referring to Christians? I am using Rhodes as a source, which I see past editors have also, and see that the words "clergy" "priesthood" and "christian" seem to be deliberately avoided, instead referred to with doublespeak like "leaders of Polish society." Seraphimsystem (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I see you have added a bit of content on this to the lead, which is great, but if you look a little further in the same paragraph, "clergy" are already specifically mentioned. Clergy are also specifically mentioned in the section "invasion of Poland". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks! I missed that the first time, but I just linked to the main article in the "invasion of Poland" section - I think I added both priesthood and clergy in the lead paragraph but only cited the first one. Seraphimsystem (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The simple reason for it is that it wasn't just the clergy which were targeted but... well, "leaders of Polish society" in general. I restored previous, more accurate, lede. Volunteer Marek  08:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

On the subject, Alexander Rossino's Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity might be worth adding to this article - it has some good material on the killing conducted in Poland by the Einsatzgruppen. GAB^gab 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I will bring it in on inter-library loan and have a look. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

They did not persecute Christians due to faith, Catholics possibly but it was never proven well enough. The reason the clergy in Poland were persecuted is because they could round up the people and encourage revolt. Same reason why Soviets executed intellectuals. Torba17 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2017

Please add mention that EZG is an abbreviation for Einsatzgruppen. Thank you. 70.126.182.7 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your proposed addition. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen photo copyright

I've tracked down the photo to USHMM/LOC - I have sent them an email to clarify whether it is free or fair use. However, these photos are fair use. Fair use is allowed under WP:IUP - since they are already fair use, I think it would be burdensome to track down the formal copyright status of every photo individually, both for me as an editor and the librarians at LOC/USHMM. Seraphim System (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I removed it is because we don't use non-free images where freely licensed images are available. There's already three freely licensed images of Einsatzgruppen shootings in the article, so to add a non-free one violates our non-free content policy rule #1 which states that non-free content must not be used where a freely licensed alternative is available.

Please see the discussion at the Commons, where the photo was deleted in 2010: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Einsatzgruppe.jpg. The USHMM in most instances does not own the copyright to the photos they host and in some instances they do not even know their copyright status. Our website is a lot stricter than that. The burden is indeed on us to determine the copyright status of each photo that we wish to host (both locally and on the Commons), and it's our responsibility to use all images in a way that complies with the copyright policy and non-free content policy of this website and of copyright law. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I am currently attempting to obtain more information about the photo from USHMM and LOC. I searched the article and could not find Vinnitsa, would there be any objection to adding a subsection on Vinnitsa? I will source any additions correctly. Also, the Holocaust museum has the photo identified as Einsatzgruppe D executes Jews at Vinnitsa. Most sources I have found on short notice identify the unit responsible for killings in Ukraine as Einsatzgruppe C. There is a book by Yuri Feynberg tat mentions both the inscription and Einsatzgruppe D, but I am not sure whether it is more properly fiction or a primary source, as it is "based on" the author's life. I am waiting to hear back from USHMM. Seraphim System (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: So far I located a source for each of the following: Einsatzgruppe D, Einsatzgruppe C, Einsatzgruppe C and D, and "the Ukranian militia." I have also verified that the image has been published in several sources under the Einsatzgruppe D caption provided by the USHMM, including We Survived by Eric Boehm. Seraphim System (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

When I prepared this article for its GA review, I selected two particular events (Rumbula and Babi Yar) as representative examples of what they did. My opinion is that it's not necessary to add details of every action in this article. You might consider improving the article Vinnytsia massacre instead. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Given the conflict in secondary sources I am not entirely comfortable - because I would have to note a conflict in secondary sources and I do not want to do that without discussing it with other editors, given how widely published this photo has been, and the fact that LOC and USHMM have both attributed the massacre to Einsatzgruppe D. I am hoping the research librarians there may be able to shed some light on it. Seraphim System (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also the Vinnytsia massacre page says "the victims buried at Vinnytsia were mostly murdered in the local NKVD prison" - I think it's about a separate incident from the 1930s. Seraphim System (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, I see that now. However, my main point was that I think what we need here a couple of representative examples of massacres and not detailed descriptions of all of them. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I will expand it later, I need to do some research first. Only because there is a lot that is missing, but you should not have to do everything.Seraphim System (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen and Aktion T4

This article is misleading. Einsatzgruppen were para-military who never operated within the borders of Nazi Germany itself. Aktion T4 never applied to anything outside the borders of Nazi Germany. Einsatzgruppen were para-military forces acting outside of state control in areas where the previous state had been destroyed. Aktion T4 was first sanctioned and administered by the Nazi medical establishment and then shut down in the face of protests. The two programs could not possibly intersected directly, as this article states. Aktion T4 developed technology and techniques that Einsatzgruppen would later use but they never intersected in the manner this article describes. Straigtforward eugenics was the impetus for Aktion T4. Political and cultural annihilation, in service to military strategy, was the impetus for the Einsatzgruppen.

This is a *vital* distinction because it describes the ongoing de-sensitization to killing that allowed the Nazis, later in the war and outside of the boundaries of the Nazi state, to commit acts they would not have been able to do inside those boundaries. Conflating the two programs elides this distinction and is bad documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreebeardTheEnt (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have some sources that contradict the sourced material already in place in this article, please list them here. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There was cross-over of SS personnel, methods used and the ideology in relation to the killing/murder; with that said, it is cited to Longerich, which I cannot check as I don't have that 2010 work. @Diannaa: can you check the source for context? Kierzek (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I can access it at the library on Monday. I'll place it on hold so no one checks it out in the meantime. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The word Einsatzgruppen translates as "operational groups" or "task forces" so I think the confusion here is that the word was used in other contexts prior to the start of the Holocaust. The Einsatzgruppen that were involved in Aktion T4 were not contiguous with the Einsatzgruppen that were created after the invasion of Poland. More to follow on Monday. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, thank you D. The context is what is important and certainly the "word" is most associated with the mobile killing units, but the word did "evolve" as you state as to association. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

At the top of page 138 Longerich talks about the early days of the T4 programme. "From the end of September to December [1939] members of Eimann Special Guard Division (Wachsturmbann Eimann) - a unit made up of SS members from Danzig, ethnic German Self-Defense Corps (volksdeutscher Selbstschutz) and members of Einsatzgruppen (task forces) in the new Reichsgau of Danzig-West-Prussia - shot thousands of the inmates of psychiatric institutions, most notably patients in the Kocborowo (Conradstein) Mental Hospital." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Haberer

I see a note that a better source is required. I agree. For example, if we compare the article content cited to Haberer:

Together, Einsatzgruppe A and the Arājs Kommando killed 2,300 Jews in Riga on 6–7 July.[86] Within six months, Arājs and his men would kill about half of Latvia's Jewish population.[87]

to Situational Report #24:

In Riga, Einsatzkommando 2 sifted through the entire documentary materials, searched all offices, arrested the leading Communists as far as they could be found. These actions initiated against the Jews were headed by SS-Sturbannfuhrer Barth and were carried out in an exemplary manner. At present, 600 Communists and 2,000 Jews are under arrest. 400 Jews were killed during pogroms in Riga, since the arrival of EK 2; 300 by the Latvian auxiliary police and partly by our units. The prisons will be emptied completely during the next few days. Outside of Riga, within Latvia, an additional 1,600 Jews were liquidated by EK 2.

Haberer appears to go out of the way to diminish German share of culpability. And certainly he makes no mention that Arājs Kommando was under constant German supervision.

Additionally, Haberer's claim that Arājs Kommando killed half of Latvia's Jews cannot be correct. Arājs Kommando is estimated to have killed (under German supervision) 26,000 Jews, while the pre-war Jewish population of Latvia was some 100,000.

I appreciate Haberer is a (retired) professor of history with a focus on Jewish studies,. However, his treatment of the Holocaust in Latvia shows a lack of appreciation for its German organization, execution, and responsibility. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Audio pronunciation

Is it possible that an ogg recording of how Einsatzgruppen is pronounced by a native speaker be included in the article? 2601:8C:4102:1210:D50E:23AB:FC3F:E5F (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe an edited version of this could be added to the article? https://files.catbox.moe/om2cas.ogg 2601:8C:4102:1210:549E:1EAF:14D8:392C (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The total number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust

I'm not sure why this bit is in the lede:

The total number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people.

Is the article about the Einsatzgruppen, or the Holocaust writ large? --causa sui (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's just some background information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It is reasonable to have this background information in this article given the subject matter of the article and the large contribution these killing units made to the Holocaust and murder therein; pursuant to Nazi policy, which was mainly carried out by the SS. Kierzek (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it helps give the reader a sense of proportion as to how many people were killed by Einsatzgruppen as opposed to how many were killed at extermination camps or concentration camps. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree: when I quickly read this article, the larger numbers weren't the focus of the article. You might as well add the total number of persons killed during World War II, but it is also superfluous. Also, there is no mention of the millions of non-Jewish persons slaughtered during the Holocaust.

I think my main reason for wanting it there is because I don't want people to get the mistaken impression that those killed by Einsatzgruppen were the only ones killed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense as the last sentence of that paragraph. "Historian Raul Hilberg estimates that between 1941 and 1945 the Einsatzgruppen and related auxiliary troops killed more than two million people, including 1.3 million Jews. The total number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people." should probably be the first two sentences? Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, as the history of the Einsatzgruppen should be presented first and then the section flow into the total estimate of people killed. Now the last sentence could be tweaked to read something such as this: "In total, the number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people." Kierzek (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't have a clear topic sentence - which should help the reader figure out what the paragraph is about, especially for readers who are skimming a long article. (And it links to Wehrmacht twice). I would recommend reducing some of the bloat - something like:

The Einsatzgruppen operated under the direction of Heinrich Himmler and supervision of Reinhard Heydrich. They worked hand-in-hand with the Orpo Police Battalions on the Eastern Front to carry out various operations including the massacres at Babi Yar with 33,771 Jews killed in two days, and the Rumbula massacre (with about 25,000 killed in two days of shooting). The Wehrmacht, under orders from Adolf Hitler, cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen and provided logistical support for their operations. Historian Raul Hilberg estimates that between 1941 and 1945 the Einsatzgruppen and related auxiliary troops killed more than two million people, including 1.3 million Jews. (The total number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust is estimated at 5.5 to 6 million people).

Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The lead sentence is what is picked up and displayed by Google in their brief summary of the article on Google Search. Currently Google displays this as "Einsatzgruppen were Schutzstaffel paramilitary death squads of Nazi Germany that were responsible for mass killings, primarily by shooting, during World War II." Your change would result in this being displayed as something along the lines of "The Einsatzgruppen operated under the direction of Heinrich Himmler and supervision of Reinhard Heydrich. They worked hand-in-hand with the Orpo Police Battalions on the Eastern Front to carry out various operations". So I don't agree with that part of your proposed change, because people who only look at the Google snippet would receive virtually no information.

A second problem: For an article this size, the lead needs to be three or four paragraphs that summarize the entire article and provide an accessible overview, and the current lead does that. Your proposed version does not (if what you're proposing is replacing the entire lead with this one paragraph, and I think that's what you're proposing, since you've used bits from the entire lead section). It therefore does not follow our Manual of Style for the lead section. Following that section of the Manual of Style is a Good Article criterion, so your proposed change could result in this article losing its status as a Good Article. So I am strongly opposed to this proposed edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

This is only for the second paragraph, not the lede sentence. Especially the first sentence of the second paragraph, which is currently: Under the direction of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler and the supervision of SS-Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich, the Einsatzgruppen operated in territories occupied by the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) following the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union) launched from occupied Poland in June 1941. — I try to avoid placing wikilinks next to each other as much as possible (MOS:SEAOFBLUE) — the full German ranks could be introduced in subsequent sections — this would simplify the lede for someone completely new to the subject, and can be built on on as the article progresses.Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

We are supposed to link on first occurrence, and military history articles need to provide ranks for military personnel. If I don't provide ranks, my GA reviewer will ask me to add them, even in the lead. German words are in italics, reducing the run-on wikilink problem; it's obvious that Reichsführer-SS is a separate wikilink from Heinrich Himmler. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree there is no "sea of blue" problem there and the ranks should be kept in for the reasons stated. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The other main difference between the suggested edit and the existing version is the new version would remove the content " the Einsatzgruppen operated in territories occupied by the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) following the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union) launched from occupied Poland in June 1941." I have been thinking about it, and I don't think it's a good idea to remove that, because it gives basic where-and-when information on the operations undertaken. Remember that the main audience for this suite of articles is high school students encountering the subject for the first time. Those details are the kind of info they might be coming here to learn, so it's great to have them in the lead in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but maybe it could be condensed without losing anything — for example, the parenthetical about Operation Barbarossa could be tweaked a bit to make the sentence more manageable — maybe Operation Barbarossa could be piped directly as "invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941". And occupied Poland could be piped as "territories occupied by the Wehrmacht" Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have changed "operated in territories occupied by the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) following the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and Operation Barbarossa (the invasion of the Soviet Union) launched from occupied Poland in June 1941" to "operated in territories occupied by the Wehrmacht (German armed forces) following the invasion of Poland in September 1939 and the invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, good edit for concision. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Start of Jewish Genocide proper

August 16th, 1941, Himmler visited the east, and gave orders the Jewish children will now be shot. That was the start date of the holocaust. scope_creep (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please provide reference for your claim. This is not what the British historian Alex J. Kay (2016) says in his book. – At the Einsatzgruppen meeting in Vileyka (Polish Wilejka), on July 29, 1941, their leaders were criticized for the low execution figures. It was therefore ordered that the Jewish women and children be included in all subsequent shooting operations. The first women and children were killed along with the men on July 30, 1941, in Vileyka. Poeticbent talk 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Further information: Einsatzgruppen reports and The Final Solution § Phase one: killing squads of Operation Barbarossa

Evidence suggests that in the fall of 1941, Himmler and Hitler agreed in principle on the complete mass extermination of the Jews of Europe by gassing, with Hitler explicitly ordering the "annihilation of the Jews" in a speech on 12 December 1941, by which time the Jewish populations in the Baltic states had been effectively eliminated. This was before the Wannsee Conference on 20 January 1942, ofcourse. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Offensive terms

Under Formation and Action T4, this sentence needs to be changed "...the physically and mentally handicapped and psychiatric hospital patients undertaken by the Nazi regime." These terms are obsolete and for many people pejorative. The expressions where "the" is put in front of such labels are also not recommended. Please change to "...persons with physical and mental disabilities, and patients of psychiatric hospitals..." or something similar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.34.3 (talk • contribs) 2018-02-16

Done. Thank you for the suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the change! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.25.34.3 (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

thank you

I just read this article and saw the pictures in it, and it made me feel sick. It took me a few minutes to recover from it, and then I realised what a great job the authors of this article have done, in making sure these things are properly documented and never forgotten. So thanks very much to the authors. Dr. Vogel (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. It was incredibly difficult to research and write, especially the content on Babi Yar and Rumbula. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:16, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Photo is mislabelled

The photo is not an execution, you can tell very easily by looking at the angle of the weapons and the "victims". The soldiers in the photo are aiming at some distant target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.180.44 (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing the details on the photo at File:Jew Killings in Ivangorod (1942).jpg which gives an explanation as to why this photo is likely genuine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the original poster in this thread, but can you please elaborate? You keep saying this but never explain further. The page you keep linking simply says that this photo was stolen by a Polish network that was attempting to show the world the war crimes of Germany. Think about that for a minute. If Germany won WW2, this caption would probably say "German soldiers attempt to defend a woman and her child as she is caught in the crossfire of enemy units". Just look at the picture and zoom in, they aren't aiming at her. None of them are. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 03:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No response after years. What a surprise. 2600:4040:558F:2E00:EC29:F5C4:A1B8:E0F7 (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

"The original German inscription on the back of the photograph reads, 'Ukraine 1942, Jewish Action [operation], Ivangorod.'" — Diannaa (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Ivanhorod photograph.

That does not look like a German uniform. It would seem to me it is a Yugoslav Partisan. You can tell because the SS never wore garrison caps while in action, and the rifle is a Yugoslav "Mauser" from before the war. You can tell by the slight bend it has. The image description cites no sources, and therefore as well I'd like to contest the legitimacy of this image. Torba17 (talk) 01:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing the details on the photo at File:Jew Killings in Ivangorod (1942).jpg which gives an explanation as to why this photo is likely genuine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 08:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Einsatzgruppen or their auxiliaries - Kovno 1942.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The number of murdered jews mentioned in the article

There is a mistake, it is not 5.5-6 million, rather 6 million as mentioned at the main article about the holocaust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust 87.71.13.139 1 May 2019

No "mistake", as the number estimate used is based on WP:RS sources. It is a range, which includes up to 6 million, so it really is not in conflict. However with that said, you should be made aware that Wikipedia cannot be used for citing as a source. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And some sources list as 'low' as 4.2 million. While accurate numbers are important, the variance takes nothing away from the monstrous crime that was committed against European Jews - and others who likewise were killed, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Roma, Slavs, etc.50.111.51.247 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppe Egypt

@Diannaa: Regarding Einsatzgruppe Egypt the opinions of Mallmann and Cüppers is given for too much sway in the section about this unit. Their word is written in this article very "matter of factly" despite their research self-admitting that the word "Palestine" was not found in their archival studies and they basically just speculate that this 24 man unit would have exterminated the entire Jewish population of Palestine and Egypt. Their take should be contrasted with what the Director Haim Saadon, of the Israeli Center of Research on North African Jewry in WWII[2], has to say. --Havsjö (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Havsjö. Some of the material you added is not actually supported by the sources you provide, so I have made some amendments. I have also smoothed out the prose and improved the language and re-added a missing citation and removed some duplicate content. Also, when copying over material from Erwin Rommel, you failed to copy over the supporting citation (Shepherd 2016). Also, I have formatted the new citations in the existing style. We need a page number for Deutsche, Juden, Völkermord: der Holocaust als Geschichte und Gegenwart please.— Diannaa (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks. Also: I dont know the page actually. I didn't include the "Palestine is not mentioned" section in my edit originally, but after seeing this[3] edit as the original addition for the source and its info on the 200 days of dread article (i.e. "palestine"-not-mentioned part not being a later addition by a vandal/denier for example) I also added it to here. The whole work feels to have a certain "sensationalist" angle to me, and I thought that would be a pretty relevant fact to mention before someone tooks their claims at too much face value --Havsjö (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So, does this mean that you have not actually viewed that source and checked that it supports the content you added? You only copied the material from elsewhere on Wikipedia? We should not include material where you have not verified the source, as this is a Good Article and an important article as well. — Diannaa (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

67.191.65.220 (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please specify what should be changed. --Killarnee (T•1•2) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Liepaja December 1941 massacres 01.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Were any Einsatzgruppen ever captured by partisans?

In the 1985 Soviet film, Come and See, [4] a very realistic portrayal of the actions of Einsatzgruppen, the film ends with the capture by partisans of an Einsatzgruppen detachment and their execution. I was wondering if there is any record of an Einsatzgruppen detachment being captured during the war, cause this was the first I ever heard of it. Nobs01 (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Transition to gassing

Guys, there is a interwiki mistake in terms of Sonderaktion 1005 and/or Operation 1005 in this above mentioned section. Could anyone able to edit this piece correct that? Thx in advance, 84.59.176.218 (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't actually need a link to de.wiki as we have an article at Sonderaktion 1005 on this wiki. So I have replaced the link. Thanks for the suggestion.— Diannaa (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Thx Diannaa for fixing the mentionend link. I didn't mean to set the link to de.wiki in the first place, by reading/ browsing this article I just realized that there was an error/ typo to Sonderaktion 1005, that's all. And after replacing my hardware a couple of weeks ago due to fire loss I can't remember my Wikipedia credentials anymore to correct it by myself. ,(

Anyways, you did what I was after. Cheers (and thank you for your excellent work), 84.59.180.215 (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

“Woman attempts to shield her child from bullets”

Is it me, or is this caption flat out incorrect? If you look at the image for which the caption reads “a woman attempts to shield her child”, the weapons are clearly aimed past them and not at the mother and child. I remember seeing an uncropped photo where the person on the far left, of whom we can only see the barrel, is fully in view, and it becomes apparent that they are aiming at something far off frame to the right. What do you guys think we should do about this? I can find the full photo if necessary. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

You might consider reviewing the details on the photo at File:Jew Killings in Ivangorod (1942).jpg which gives an explanation as to why this photo is likely genuine.— Diannaa (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying the photo isn't genuine, I'm just saying they're definitely aiming at something far and off-frame. It's especially apparent if you look at the weapons sticking out of the frame on the far left. 76.179.51.51 (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. It will be given due consideration Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If they were aiming at something off camera, then the photographer would likely have also aimed their camera at this other said target. The fact that the photographer made the effort to get both the soldiers and civilians in frame suggests that the civvies in frame are the intended targets. And the description that was written on the back of the original photo supports this assertion. 194.143.178.6 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed there's a person (likely dead or injured) lying on the ground in the far left of the image. — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Small spelling mistake

In the second paragraph of the invasion of Poland section, the text incorrectly refers to the “commander of Einsatzgruppen IV” instead of Einsatzgruppe IV. 106.69.117.240 (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Good catch, edited.--Obenritter (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Jäger Report section, second paragraph, fifth sentence: "murderes". Trevorparsons (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Vinnitsa vs Winniza spelling

In the Second sweep section, there is an attached image showing the famous The Last Jew in Vinnitsa photograph. In the caption, it says Winniza, Ukraine - despite the common spelling nowadays being Vinnytsia. In the photograph the spelling is Vinnitsa. I believe Winniza is a more Polish way to write the name, but wouldn't it make more sense to have it be Vinnytsia or Vinnitsa in the caption here? Jeicex1 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen in Latvia

Holocaust denying troll

How was it possible for them to kill 80k if there were mentions of 75k jews in captivity and 30k jews in latvia after ww2? 67.80.64.41 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) I'm pretty sure these numbers are wrong, but even if not thousands of Jews from Germany and elsewhere were deported and killed in Latvia (t · c) buidhe 19:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Germany's jews that lived in Germany were deported to Isreal and those not deported were put into labour camps. "According to the population census taken in the Soviet Union in 1959, there were 36,592 Jews in Latvia SSR," so that means they picked up Jews in Western Europe who arrived from Eastern Europe, but didn't have citizenship and sent them back to Latvia to the Riga ghetto or put them to work in labor camps in the occupied zones. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exile_of_Jews_in_the_Soviet_interior_during_World_War_II#:~:text=In%201940%2C%20one%20year%20before,deep%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union. "In 1940, one year before the Nazis commenced their program of extermination, Stalin ordered the deportation of some 200,000 – perhaps as many as 300,000 -- Polish Jews from Russian-occupied Eastern Poland to Gulag labor camps deep in the Soviet Union" Again here another figure is cited, saying 1.2 million polish were deported from Poland, 300k of which were jewish. https://www.outono.net/elentir/2022/09/29/the-mass-deportation-of-polish-jews-to-siberia-an-almost-forgotten-communist-crime/ 67.80.64.41 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Latvia#Soviet_occupation,_1940%E2%80%931941 It says 1.9 million in Eastern Europe out of 2.1 million were deported by USSR On the date of the Wannsee Conference Eichmann reported that there were only 3,500 Jews remaining in Latvia. So I don't know where you got your data about 30,000 survivors?. — Diannaa (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC) They may have converted to Christianity to leave the ghetto, then reported themselves as Jewish after the Nazi's left. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/einsatzgruppen Shows a map from January 1942, approximantely 200k have been killed in all countries on this map The Wannasee Conference was held to figure out what to do with the rest of them, as the soldiers were getting PTSD from executing families and using gas vans. They then decided to do the rest in gas chambers and have the prisoners take care of the evidence in Operation Reinhard. The reported numbers are wildly inconsistent with what the Allies charged the Einsatzgruppen with in the Nuremburg Tribunals, they only charged them with 200k deaths. 67.80.64.41 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

In this phrase:

one of whom SS-Gruppenführer Otto Rasch) held

please add a left parenthesis before SS. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 04:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch-- -- Diannaa (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)