Talk:Judenfrei

This article was nominated for deletion on June 14, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jewish history Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany Low‑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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Actually, Judenrein was a more common term. Beit Or 20:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be a Wiktionary entry rather than a Wikipedia article? Digwuren 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if such compound words even need Wiktionary article. This not even an official term. Suva 10:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any reasons to believe that declaring Estonia Judenfrei was not part of Holocaust in Estonia? Could you shre those reasons, please, instead of rapid-fire vandalism accusations? 206.186.8.130 15:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digwuren, could you explain how declaring Estonia Judenfrei is not part of history of Holocaust in Estonia? TIA. 206.186.8.130 15:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious -- this declaration was a part of the all-Europe Nazi campaign. A PR announcement, if you wish. The category is for Estonia-specific Holocaust articles, and this concept certainly is not one. Otherwise,

Holocaust

itself would be in [[Category:Holocaust in Estonia]] -- obviously absurd.

It was part of Nazi campaign, but I consider it part of history of Holocaust in Estonia too. Your sarcasm about [[Category:Holocaust in Belgrade]] or [[Category:Holocaust in Berlin]] is valid, but obviously no wikipedians found it worthwile to create those categories. You see, Estonia is a country, and Belgrade and Berlin are cities. You are more than welcome to create those categories and I'll add links to this article immediately.206.186.8.130 18:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're deliberately misunderstanding my point -- and it's not the first time, either.

I'm saying that of the region-specific Holocaust categories, the only one applicable to this term is Jews and Judaism in Europe. I won't create useless new categories. Digwuren 10:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, will you explain why not [[Category:Holocaust in Belgrade]] or [[Category:Holocaust in Berlin]]? Are these territories too insignificant for your tastes? Digwuren 17:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think the [[Holocaust in Berlin]] happened in Berlin. It seems that it was outsourced to Estonian collaborators. -- Petri Krohn 22:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting. What kind of remote death systems were used? Digwuren 10:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As month has passed and most encyclopedic content has already been merged to other appropriate articles and this article shows no signs whatsoever of getting out of the stub status I would think it should be appropriate to make this page a redirect instead. Comments? Suva 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "Holocaust in Estonia", instead it is "The Holocaust", the categoy is totally fake. All the articles tagged here are done so by User:Petri Krohn, known anti Estonian POV pusher. There are no articles-categories "Holocaust in Latvia", "Holocaust in Belarus" or "Holocaust in Lithuania". This is simple Original Research and POV pushing and without whatsoever notability or reliable sources.

Belgrade was the first city of a New Europe to be Judenfrei and was the only European capital that had concentration camps exclusively for Jews(Sajmiste and Banjica). Schedule of rules of the military commander in Serbia no. 7-8, May 31, 1941" are the "Orders relating to Jews and Gypsies", among which, among other things, state:

1. Jews (...) Paragraph 2. Jews must report two week to ... the Serbian police registration authorities. Paragraph 3. Jews ... must wear a yellow band on their left arm with the word "Jew" written on it. (...) Paragraph 4. Jews may not be public servants. Their removal from all institutions must be immediately performed by the Serbian authorities. Paragraph 5. Jews cannot be allowed to practice the professions of lawyer, physician, dentist, veterinarian and chemist. (...) Paragraph 7. Jews are forbidden to visit theatres and cinemas.

2. Gypsies Paragraph 18. Gypsies are considered equivalent to Jews.

Even earlier, in the "Community news" (Opstinske novine) it had been proclaimed that "jews are forbidden to appear henceforth without a yellow band".

3. The duties of the Serbian authorities Paragraph 21. The Serbian authorities are responsible for the carrying out of the commands contained in this Order.

4. Penal Measures Paragraph 22. Whoever resists... shall be punished with imprisonment and a monetary fine. In aggravated cases the punishment will be penal sentence or death. Belgrade, May 30, 1941. (Printed commands of the Military Commander in Serbia, No. 7-8, May 31) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taulant23 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Germans bombarded Belgrade on April 6th 1941 and then ocuppied Yugoslavia, Serbia was devided between Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and Albania, and reduced to 1/3 of it's pre-war size (or 1/9, if we count the whole Yugoslavia, which was de-facto a Serbian state).

Sajmiste and Banjica concentration camps were created by Germans primarily as a measure of punishment for Serbian people, and were by no means exclusively Jewish. The rest of your text is also questionable, as it is a quote from hate-motivated Croatian book (Ljubica Stefan: From fairy tale to holocaust).

Snorvald (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Status section has been deleted as it is not neutral POV and does not appropriately relate within the context of anti-semetic Nazi Germany policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.235.42.133 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a number of references are the url to a Google Book link. I though editors might be interested in a tool which takes a link as input and creates a (usually) properly formatted ref.

Wikipedia citation tool for Google Books

I used it to improve one such reference.

It really helps creates a much cleaner list of references. I hope you will try it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the date that Turner made the claim, it is mentioned in several books. That is why both dates need to be left there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the IP who removed the reference to the August date for Serbia becoming Judenfrei has edit warred to remove that detail yet again without discussing here. There are four reliable sources that use the August date for Turner's declaration that Serbia was judenfrei; Cohen p. 83, Manoschek (although a page was needed), Cox p. 92–93 and Benz p. 86. There is also Haskin p. 29–30, and J. E. Pečarić p. 140. Lebel p. 329 even states that December 1941 is the appropriate date for Belgrade itself. Reliable sources that differ should be compared and contrasted, not deleted. This is central to the WP verifiability policy. And stop editing while logged out. It is transparent, and it can only be assumed you are socking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, both should be there - by which I mean both assertions. According to the Christopher Browning source, Emanuel Schäfer made his Belgrade-specific Judenfrei comment in May 1942. The Turner comment presumably applies to the whole of German-occupied Serbia. This is not actually made clear in Peacemaker67's edit, whose wording implies that there was just a single "Judenfrei" assertion but that there is doubt as to when it was made. Cohen is not a suitable source, nor a needed one. If Manoschek is suitable for the Schäfer assertion, he should be enough for the Turner one too. Cox also appears to cite Manoschek. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of Cohen as a source is irrelevant. I'm not a huge fan of Cohen, but I use him where it is reasonable to do so. I object to people trying to remove him from Wikipedia. He has his biases, like many sources (including members of the Serbian Academy of Sciences). What I object to is POV warriors on either side trying to whitewash things. That is what is behind removing Cohen and other sources, and unsupportable interpretations of Begovic and others elsewhere. Belgrade (and occupied Serbia) didn't become judenfrei on one day because one guy said so, it happened over a period, probably from December 1941 onwards until August 1942. It is the fanatical insistence that only May 1942 is correct, and deletion of all sources that say something else, that I object to. We compare and contrast sources, we don't just delete ones we don't like because they don't fit our worldview or what we were taught in school. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the other editor's/editors motives, but for the subject you could probably say the same for all of the declared locations. We can only add the dates sources detail the declaration was made, and this article is just about that specific claim of completeness, not a history of what actually happened. Personally, I think the May 42 claim is realistic for what was claimed for Belgrade, given that the victims were being murdered under reprisals for Germans killed by resistance fighters and the Germans actually ran out of suitable (in their eyes) or easily accessible people to kill in those reprisals. I admit I have not got access to the Cohen book, but based on the content excerpts I've seen, and the reviews of it, and what I see as a similarity in methodology to parts of some Turkish and Azeri works intended to deny the Armenian genocide, I do not think it is a work just with some biases, I think it is a work written to deceive. Given the book's controversy if there are sources that say the same thing, better to use them, esp for something uncontroversial like a statement date. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judenfrei. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003632/http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x07/xr0707.html to http://motlc.learningcenter.wiesenthal.org/text/x07/xr0707.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The language is redundant and clunky. That this was a German sign is made abundantly clear by the article itself and by the caption itself - which has "The German inscription reads:". Captions are supposed to be short - not repetitive - "German-occupied ... German" is repetitive. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly unheard for countries to have captions/etc. in foreign languages. You noted that an uninformed reader may not know what country Bydgoszcz was in. They might as well assume that German is spoken in Poland (some people in Asia or Africa know very little about Europe), or that it was a multi-language caption we are showing only part of, put on the by Polish government (which presumably has jurisdiction over things we describe as 'in Poland'). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poland is a region, not just a state. Holocaust in Poland is clearly not a Polish government thing. Nor is Polish history 1800-1900. But stating this is a German sign, it is abundantly clear that this isn't a Polish government sign (which would generally be described as "Polish" both in language and in belonging to the Polish government). Icewhiz (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, as I see, the photo is from September 1939, roughly one month before the city was annexed to

Bezirk Bialystok, i.e.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC))[reply

]

Remember that few people who read this are exerts or even relatively well versed in history. I read something recently aboout average Jewish schoolchild in the US associating Warsaw Ghetto's hardships with stuff like 'only black and white TV was allowed'. I think that clarifications are almost always helpful; this is not a 'sky was blue' type of common knowledge for an ordinary reader. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but we have to tend to some accuracy, since the unconditional support of the common knowledge of the ordinary reader is not always the best option, rendering in many complicated historical context bigger fallacies then a little bit more accuracy would lessen it. Regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Argh - we don't have to repeat ourselves in the caption. We could just do - diff - no "German occupied", but German replaced with Nazi. Is this sufficiently clear? Icewhiz (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Icewhiz, read it again, so it was Poland then, however German-occupied.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Which could lead uninformed reader to conclude this was done by some "Polish Nazis"... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Misread. @KIENGIR: Is there a way we can get rid of the clunky repetition of German? Crafting - "Synagogue in German'-occupied Bydgoszcz, Poland, 1939. The German inscription..." into a form that mentions "German" once? Icewhiz (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask it generally, I offer the same above...after an average month mostly, but in time sooner or later the German-occupied Poland was annexed/incorporated by Nazi Germany, so to get rid-of this phrase is not so heavy as it covers a short time (the exceptions not incorporated to Germany, but administered, etc. you may read above, may be treated differently), however such reference is very common and especially Poles may feel hurt instead of "German-occupied Poland" they would be generally presented as territories of Germany, however somehow we should stick to the status quo (the Soviet side of the occupation is as well complicated, since it was in a year shortly overcome by Germany, etc.). Locally here, I will introduce a bold edit to your request, decide if you like it or not. Best regards!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

If the double German irks you so much, I'd suggest removing the second 'German'. The language of the inscription is less relevant; we translate it to English anyway from whatever soruce language is. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It irked Icewhiz, however I've already have done what you have suggested before.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Bydgoszcz was annexed to the Reichsgau Danzig-West Prussia, not occupied. Thousands of local Poles were murdered, see Bloody Sunday (1939), so certaily they didn't declared anything.Xx236 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, please read above, by the time of the photo it was occupied, and after one month it was annexed.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

It's a German picture published by "Der Angriff" end of October. Bromberg was declared Judenrein in December.Xx236 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The uploaded photo dates it to 15 September.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Doesn't the fact belong here? https://www.uni-muenster.de/news/view.php?cmdid=2628Xx236 (talk) 11:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems yes.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

de:Bäder-Antisemitismus - German hotels were Judenfrei. Xx236 (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The USA too: https://mws.hypotheses.org/37236 Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book describes arrival of Jewish prioners to Judenfrei zones in 1945.Xx236 (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: We have sources which speak about Serbia as first or only Judenfrei country (Harald Turner statement). What is your opinion about it? Mikola22 (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reported in the SS-Standartenführer Emanuel Schäfer cable sent to the Reich Main Security Office in Berlin; Schäfer was the Der Befehlshaber der SIPO und des SD head at that time in Belgrade, What this citation speaks and which is purpose of existence of this information in the article. If someone can detect what it is all about. Thanks. Mikola22 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AmbivalentUnequivocality:

Jews in hiding, half-Jews (

Mischlinge), and Jews married to non-Jewish spouses continued to live in Berlin throughout the war.^[1]

The second source is better in that it actually mentions Judenfrei. The source included in the edit I reverted did not make any mention of Judenfrei, so even if the statement was technically accurate, placing it in such a way that it is being used to explain how the declaration of Judenfrei was incorrect is synthesis of sources,

WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". I wouldn't object to a mention being made of the declaration being premature and intended to coincide with Hitler's birthday, sourced to the Boyd book. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 11:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply

]