Talk:Eugen Kogon

Untitled[edit]

Does Kogon really meet the criteria for a Holocaust survivor? Buchenwald survivor, yes, but he wasn't Jewish. AFAIK, the Holocaust in the proper sense only connotes the systematic annihilation of ethnic groups by Nazi Germany, particularly Jews, Sinti, and Roma, and to some degree may also include other groups systematically annihilated by the regime over biological issues, particularly the disabled. And according to Hitler's table talk, in the event of Germany winning the war the Slavic peoples would've probably been next to make room for Germanic settlers in the east.

But political resistance wasn't the same as racial issues, even if Nazi biologism declared all resistance or deviation as due to any form of biological degeneration or defects in the individual. --79.193.32.123 (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to reliable sources (cf. this interview with his son, Michael Kogon: http://www.xecutives.net/component/content/article?id=620) Eugen Kogon's mother was in fact jewish. Already pregnant she came to Munich from Nikolajew at the Black Sea, Russia, to give birth to her son in 1903. There is no official information as to his father. His mother gave Eugen into a foster family which was supported by and partially financed by the Russian embassy. Two months later she moved on to Geneva where she lived for two years. Then her track disappears. Kogon always liked the thought that his mother was a medical doctor, but documents found by Michael Kogon say, she was studying languages. The Nazis considered Eugen Kogon to be a »Volljude« (fully jewish) since he could not proof his father wasn't jewish too. Does that make him a Holocaust survivor? Markus Springer, Munich, Germany 62.245.135.254 (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

but he wasn't Jewish. AFAIK, the Holocaust in the proper sense only connotes the systematic annihilation of ethnic groups by Nazi Germany, particularly Jews, Sinti, and Roma, and to some degree may also include other groups systematically annihilated by the regime over biological issues, particularly the disabled. — I'm having a hard time understanding the question but it seems to include everyone but Christians — it's sort of difficult to answer with knowing what WP:RS you have pulled this definition from, why would everyone but Christians be excluded? I have seen it limited to only Jews, but I don't think I'm familiar with this particular definition. I propose below that the way this issue is handled across articles be standardized by a community wide consensus. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust survivor?[edit]

Following up on the above comment — I am very confused about the inconsistency in articles about this. What is the community consensus about whether non-Jews were victims of the "Holocaust" or something else? I think hammering out a consistent way to deal with this — something on the level of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (West Bank) would be a good idea for editors to have clear guidelines on this, instead of chaotic debates across multiple articles — For example, the main Holocaust article includes sections for non-Jewish victims, but the lead excludes these victims from the definition of the Holocaust? — something this sensitive should have a clear community-wide consensus so we can standardize the way this issue is handled across the many articles that are effected by it. Just, yuck, what a mess. Seraphim System ^(talk) 07:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is not exactly a non-Jew, as per the Nazi blood laws he would be a Jew or a Mischling of the first degree. His mother was Jewish, and father was unknown. The question is whether the nazies knew this (or interned him due just to politics) - but in any event per the Nazi view he was a Jew or half Jew - so the question you raise here is not relevant.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was he Christian?! That is what the lede says — it should definitely be changed if it's wrong! I think if he was imprisoned for being a Jew or for resistance we would ultimately want to add what you called "per the Nazi view he was a Jew" or whatever the WP:RS for this is and make it clear in the lede that he was imprisoned as a Jew...I'm looking for WP:RS to add this now, but it would be helpful if you could post the source for what you just said Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nazies did not persecute on the basis of religion (to be precise it was a minor factor for "borderline cases"), but on the basis of race or blood. Note that Christian in sources (not here) is often "code" for not Jew/roma/etc - sort of like white in American parlance. The subject here was Christian by belief, and a Jew (or half jew - depends on his unknown father) by Nazi blood laws. As for whether he was imprisoned for being a Jew (had the Nazies known he would have - do not know if they did) or due to his politics or both - that is a separate matter - but he would still be seen as a Holocaust survivor even if he managed to keep his Jewish blood secret. This is not a unique situation - many assimiated Jews were Christians - and were treated as Jews (with exceptions possible via vast ransom - Paul Wittgenstein's sisters - but these were the exception). Jews (by blood, not religion) who survived in occupied Nazi turf are generally seen as Holocaust survivors. This is sometimes (varies by source) extended to other groups facing fatal persecution, e.g. Roma or gay men.Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I found some sources because, but since the article says he was a "Christian opponent of the Nazi Party" I am trying to find out whether there is WP:RS supporting what you are saying about this so that we can actually add it to the article? And whether their needs to be some clarification in terms of its relation to his status as a "Holocaust survivor" — regarding the above posts several WP:RS do seem to avoid referring to him as a "Holocaust survivor":

Wouldn't it better to have a clear guideline on this that editors can refer to when working in this topic area instead of having it come up repeatedly? — The question above was posted in 2012 I think it can be very confusing for editors since we have many articles about Nazi persecution of the Church and many WP:RS discuss Nazi persecution of the Church (especially clergy, who were persecuted on the basis of religion) — separate from that many Christians were part of the underground or otherwise supported resistance efforts and that you are saying were not persecuted for their religion Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With this particular subject (who is documented and source to have a Jewish mother) and was held in Buchenwald - I don't think I have issues with calling him a "holocaust survivor" (but nor do I see this label as absolutely necessary). As for exact criteria.... Good luck! The problem is that since "holocaust survivor" has become a positive label (it actually did not use to be that way - in the 50s and 60s there was shame attached) - is that the use of the label has become wider and wider (this is true also to Jews - e.g. referring to Jews who escaped (in 1939 or 41) to Soviet Russia (and were never under Nazi occupation) as "holocaust survivors" (they are referred as such by the Israeli government- partially in order to solve lack of pensions for immigrants)), and to non-Jews). And the sources themselves are divergent - one source might apply the label, others might not. You might want to open up a RfC about this (not on this article - on some wider project space somewhere) - but I suspect it won't go anywhere as we'll see different sources applying different labels to the same persons, and crafting an exact formula for what counts as a "holocaust survivor" is difficult - there are many-many variables.Icewhiz (talk) 06:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]