Formal Proposal - Holocaust categories

Question

This is the formal proposal, step 3 of 5 in the categorization proposal process; the only change from step 2 (initial g2g discussion a week or 2 ago) is changing "Holocaust Camps" to "Concentration Camps".

Prior discussion: Holocaust Project: Proposal for adjustment to Holocaust categories - WikiTree G2G

The Holocaust categories need a bit of restructuring; the primary problem is that it's not obvious whether to use the Holocaust Camps category stream or the Holocaust Persecution Victims category stream for those who died. Here is the draft proposal: Proposal for Holocaust categories 2023

The Holocaust Project is following the guidelines for proposing category structures as outlined here: Categorization - Proposing Category Structures This post is the Initial G2G Review.

On that page, it mentions these items to think about:

During the review process, all interested Projects and members will be given the chance to provide feedback on the proposed structure. This review will consist of the following topics for consideration:

1. Does the structure conform to the guidelines on General Naming?
2. Does the structure fit within, beside or cause any potential issues with an existing documented and approved structure and/or does this structure mirror a previously approved structure?
3. Does the structure have any potential overlap with other Projects?
4. Does the structure pose any possible DBE Categories Suggestions?

Thank you for any feedback.

Comments

Update: I hope to have an updated proposal out sometime during the week of January 7th. Everyone provided great feedback and food for thought, thank you so much.

Answer 1

Thank you very much for the change towards "Concentration Camps".

At level 3 you suggest "Concentration Camp, Buchenwald". 

1. Is there a particular reason not to use "Buchenwald concentration camp", like Wikipedia for example does?

At level 4 there would be "Buchenwald, Prisoners", "Buchenwald, Victims" and "Buchenwald, Liberated".

2. I ask myself if this isn't too short when typed in the category picker and should somehow include "concentration camp" or similar?

3. When putting myself in the shoes of somebody who just created a profile about a person, who spent some time in Buchenwald concentration camp, I would probably put the person in "Prisoners" in any case and in "Victims" also if the person died in the camp. On the other hand: people who were tortured, abused etc. in the camps, one could also consider victims. Maybe the categories should contain the words "died" and "survived" in order to make the separation a bit more obvious? Maybe even something like "Inmates of Buchwald concentration camp (died)" and " ... (survived)"?.

4. I absolutely don't know how important the aspect of liberation vs.being moved to another camp is, so I can't really judge, how important this separation is.

I'm really sorry for stating these not earlier. I think I got pretty impressed by the strong reactions to the "Concentration Camp" discussion.

Comments

Thank you! I don’t quite understand what you mean on #2.

Answer 2

1. The broad category "Concentration Camps" is, in my opinion, misleading. It needs an additional qualifier. There have been lots of concentration camps in history which had nothing to do with the Holocaust or World War II. See, for instance, this French World War I concentration camp. Should someone intend to start a category for this camp or a similar one elsewhere, how do they know that the "Concentration Camps" category in this proposal is intended for something different, or, should I say, more specific?

2 - Could it be confirmed that the categories for Camps are to be also nested in relevant location categories?

For instance, let's say Pithiviers Camp (a camp used to "concentrate" people before sending them to their final destination) has two parent categories of "Concentration Camps" and "Pithiviers, Loiret". Correct?

Comments

1) Maybe Holocaust, Concentration Camps, [name of camp]…. certainly with the comma after Holocaust. I was just thinking with nested categories, we don’t always want all the words from the upper categories in the lower category names too, but you have a point of course

2) yes

---

I was not talking about the camp categories themselves. With rare exceptions, the name of the camp should be enough to identify it.

It's only the container category "Concentration Camps" that needs a qualifier of some sort (yes, Holocaust would do).

---

That name is quite long, Elaine. Why not make it [[Category: Buchenwald Holocaust Concentration Camp]] no need for commas and it's not a three-part name. Once you add prisoners, victims, and liberated to the name, it gets rather long.

---

The name Concentration Camps is not misleading. 

*The term Concentration Camp was first introduced and used by the British and later used in and by other countries including France. Concentration Camps had different purposes, but genocide was more often than not intended, tolerated or accepted.

*There is a very limited possibility that someone who is studying the French concentration camps designed to concentrate victims of Spanish Francoism (forced emigrants) to help them, or designed to intern prisoners of war during WW I would confuse the term "concentration camp". The fact that they would want to create the category suggests sufficient knowledge of historic events (and the fact that these camps had very different death rates or were run with different intentions). If the connotation of the term concentration camp in French was widely different to other languages, than aka categories can be created.

*The camps were called Concentration Camps at their time by the Nazis and by the inhabitants. 

*The term Holocaust was attributed later.

*Other people define the genocide of non-Jews with different words than Holocaust, e.g. the Roma use the term "Porajmos", https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos - While the Holocaust project is studying all forms of genocides, restricting it to the term most commonly used in the United States or even major parts of the world makes it difficult for other researchers of minorities to find or self-identify with the categories if we add the word Holocaust. 

*The discussion about whether Third Reich concentration camps were a singularity, and attributing the term Holocaust to it, obstructs a more objective view towards other genocides committed by Western civilisations in the past. For example, instead of going over this discussion again, the participants could have already created further concentration camp categories or Holocaust victim profiles to help the cause.

The terminology was already discussed at length here https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1671728/holocaust-project-proposal-adjustment-holocaust-categories 

---

Yes, I know, and I stand by my opinion.

The work that has been done in France on the trains that took the people from the transit camps to their final destination(s) lists these destinations as "extermination camps" (https://www.yadvashem.org/fr/recherche/convois-de-france.html). The way I see it, the aim was to kill those people, not "concentrate" them; but I see we will never agree on this point. I am aware I am the only person here who disagrees with this revisionist, perpetrator-friendly vocabulary, so I'm bowing out of this conversation. Please do not reply to me again.

---

I cannot comply with your request. As noted in the other thread I would be happy with calling the camps what they were, extermination camps. I also suggested qualifying the name of the concentration camp system against the war or conflict or regime that caused the creation of such camps. This suggestion seems to have been denied.

My point was that Extermination or Concentration Camps is a better denominator than Holocaust camps. My point was not too belittle what these camps were purposefully built for.

I am all but trying to provide a revisionist or perpetrator-friendly view, so I need to make this extremely clear in defense of my own reputation, and I hope that people will see my changes and improvements to Wikitree profiles for both victims and perpetrators as very clear evidence of such views.

---

I agree with Isabelle that "concentration camp" is an inadequate name for the specific case here. The previous term "Holocaust camp" successfully avoided the terminology of the perpetrators, without being as directly triggering as "extermination camp".

---

Buchenwald was a concentration camp that was then converted into a death camp. Every death camp is a concentration camp. Most certainly not every concentration camp was a death camp. The purpose of a death camp was to exterminate incarcerated humans on an industrial scale.

I'd suggest to reach out for some help and suggestions to the experts on the subject of categorization of different Holocaust emprisoment facilities, specifically the Arolsen Archives https://arolsen-archives.org/en/contact/

---

There is a difference between concentration camps and extermination camps. In my opinion, this difference should be visible in the category name. That would then also enable the creation of other camps, simply by using a different name (e.g. NKVD camp) on the higher level.

---

I know everyone in this conversation is doing their level best and very much appreciate everyone’s input. English-only definitions presents challenges. Up til now, the Holocaust Project has had primarily American , and a few British, users and input, and I’m now trying to make sure things make sense and this work for everyone, to the best extent possible. Thank you Patrick for the idea about reaching out to Arolsen.

Answer 3

I mentioned it already in the other thread, I will mention it again here. I am aware that this thread is about the camps from 1933 to 1945. But there were also camps that were used after 1945. They had a different "master", but e.g. the concentration camp Buchenwald was after WWII used as a special camp from the Soviets. There were about 20,000 people in the Soviet special camp in Buchenwald. We should think about a precise naming of the categories, so that - when we build at some point categories for the Soviet camp - don't have to go through a renaming process over and over again.

Comments

There is that blanket category to use for concentration camps in any timeframe. Right now, it's under Category:Civilians in War but that could be tweaked because camps aren't all necessarily tied to the war years. I agree that a name should be discussed for the Soviet camps (NKVD) so that they do not need to be renamed time and again.

---

I’m fine with nesting as needed….And maybe that would be a good reason to go for Holocaust, Concentration Camps, [name of camp] like I wrote above to Isabelle, and we mentioned in the last thread. But with a comma after Holocaust, that works better than without comma (in prior thread)  (and I’ll consider what Nat said about that being too long… trying to balance ease of finding things in the category picker using keywords…. And too-long names!)

---

Perhaps we need multiple categories associated with each camp. These additional categories serve the purpose of, for example:

a) making it clear what type of camp it was/ what purpose it was built for,

b) in what period the camp existed, and the party operating it,

c) where it was located.

For example, for the camp that German Wikipedia titles  "Durchgangslager Westerbork", the camp can also be categorised as (I will use German language for the category names because that is my native language, but please consider these only as possible names/examples):

a)

a1) [[Category: KZ Sammellager]]

(for the main period of use by the Germans)

(see also: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategorie:KZ-Sammellager)

a2) [[Category: Internierungslager]] (for a brief period of use before WWII of use by the Dutch)

In the description field, one should highlight which "type" the camp belonged to during what period.

b)

b1) [[Category: Internierungslager, 2. Weltkrieg, Deutsches Reich]]

b2)  [[Category: Internierungslager, 2. Weltkrieg, Niederlande]]

c) [[Category: Westerbork, Drenthe, Niederlande]]

This way one would not necessarily need to create different names for the same camp across different periods and uses. After all, it was perhaps even the same buildings that were perhaps partially reused, or later even extended.

This way one would see and state what purpose the camp was used for.

One would also be able to see if there were significant changes in the "type of use" or "who operated it".

I think using multiple categories would allow WikiTree researchers to also navigate the context, e.g. what other camps existed in the same geographic location (if we want to create categories for "Außenlager"), or in the same period operated and what other camps were (ever) used for a similar purpose.

Answer 4

Hi Elaine and team - great work! 

I support and agree with:

1. The proposal of linking the Holocaust structure at the top level (or at another appropriate level) of other structures (if and where appropriate). In my personal view this could include a wider concentration camp -structure, and/or the WWII victims-structure.
2. Using the term "Concentration Camp" over "Holocaust Camp".
3. Renaming "Holocaust, Emigrated" to "Holocaust, Forced Emigration". I think one would potentially still want to use the existing location-based migration categories on profiles, e.g. "New York, Immigrants from German Empire" (as an example)

Note 1: Level 3 categories should also be linked to the appropriate category within the location structure, as suggested by Isabelle earlier.

Note 2: I am personally not sure if entirely removing "Escaped" is adequately covered by the new "Liberated" category, but combined with the sticker text, it seems like a good solution.

Two additional questions:

1. What is level 5 used for? Would this level be reserved to potentially add "Außenlager" to the structure?

2. Out of interest and possibly unrelated to this category proposal: how do we categorise the officers working in the camps, e.g. Lucas-8590 is categorised at the second-level of the proposed category structure. This seems odd and might be an issue on Lucas-8590's profile. Perhaps "Holocaust, Perpetrators" or similar might be an additional category, or "Buchenwald, Perpetrators" if we wanted to be more specific. 

Best regards,

Sven

Comments

Level 5 for Außenlager/subcamps- yes.

Nazi personnel goes here, Nat made it, I think…. I suppose they might need a slight name adjustment too….. https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Holocaust_Camp_Personnel_%28Nazi_Party%29

---

Thanks for clarifying, Elaine. Makes sense.

Answer 5

I support all of your hard work Elaine!

I'm going to assume the Poland Project or other projects working on locations will be able to categorize a camp as a subcategory to that particular location with no issue.

I love this aspect of Wikitree, being able to interconnect our work! :)

Answer 6

Where do concentration camps established by the British during the Boer War fit into this or another category

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War_concentration_camps

https://www2.lib.uct.ac.za/mss/bccd/

Comments

They are here: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:Concentration_Camps

---

Yes, and more specifically: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Category:South_African_Concentration_Camps%2C_British

Answer 7

May I ask regarding the Holocaust Tributes, Stolpersteine: would you envision a substructure below, e.g. by city, where the tribute was located? This would potentially allow us to link the Stolperstein category to the city, e.g.

Stolpersteine, Osnabrück, Niedersachsen

might be a possible subcategory for all tributes in that location. I am asking, because this would also be a logic entry point from the regional structure.

Comments

Yes, something like that would be great! Makes sense. Not all areas of the project have been fully developed, so good time to start out on the right foot and not have to go back and make more specific categories later!

Answer 8

As a general observation, these camps should also be under the category stream for Concentration camps as a parent, which are divided by countries thereafter.  Makes it much easier to find them for someone like me who is not particularly conversant with the subject.  

The first category under the overall parent category above would probably be named Nazi WWII Concentration Camps or something similar.  From there, the individual camps would get named, like Auschwitz Concentration Camp, which would be under the Nazi WWII... parent and also have as parent the location category for Auschwitz and also the Holocaust Locations parent outlined in the proposal page.  Sub-categories for victims, survivors etc would be under that Auschwitz Concentration Camp. That way there are several avenues to be able to arrive at and find the categories required.  

As to naming each camp by its purpose (extermination, work, transit, etc), I don't believe that is necessary, the description of what the camp was there for can be on the category page itself.  Don't need to have that in the name.