Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia

Plans for the article

My plan for the article is to take it to A-class, and then FAC, after it passes GA review. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 23:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

• Convenience link: Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/Sources check. buidhe 20:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holocaust in Slovakia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 01:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Giving this article a look. —Ed!^(talk) 01:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria) (see here for this contributor's history of GA reviews)

1. It is reasonably well written:

   Pass External links, dup links and dab links look good. Copyvio detector returns green.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable:

   Pass Offline references accepted in good faith. Cursory check of Google Books shows references that back up source material here.

3. It is broad in its coverage:

   Not Yet

   • "and resulted from stereotypes demonizing Jews as the enemy of Christianity and the economic opponent of Slovaks" -- Would it be useful here to explain they were a minority and the religous and ethnic makeup of the county at the time? In a footnote, I'd think.

   • Added footnote

   • Of the population of Jewish people in the country, any word on where they were concentrated? Would be helpful context.

   • Added some information on that.

   • "Tiso-led autonomous government began to fire Jewish civil servants and restrict the Jews' rights." -- Any specifics about the rights?

   • No. I assume Ward was referring to the government actions surrounding the 1938 deportations, but that would be OR. Instead, I've mentioned the establishment of the Propaganda Office.

   • "the first such law was passed on 18 April 1939." -- Same question here.

   • This was the numerus clausus law mentioned at the beginning of the Aryanization section. I've edited so it's not mentioned in the overview.

   • " the authors of some of the more egregious articles and caricatures were prosecuted" -- Would also be good to indicate here some examples.

   • Loncikova states that "many journalists, employees and chief representatives of the PO fac[ed] justice". Unfortunately, she does not mention any individuals who were tried for their actions. Propaganda chief Alexander Mach was given a lengthy prison sentence but on other charges. She does give the names of several Slovaks who were tried for broadcasting from Austria in 1938, but I don't think any of them are notable.

   • Timeframe needed here: "In total, 1.1 billion Ks was stolen from Jews ..."

   • Done

   • "Jews serving in the army were segregated to a special unit" -- Any estimated number of military or what the unit was they were sent to?

   • It was a labor unit. I do not have the number of Jews affected, but I did find a source for the size of the Sixth Labor Battalion and added that information.

   • "Opposition" -- Slovakia during World War II mentions some armed resistance to the overall occupation, any of relevance that should be included here?

   • There was no armed resistance in 1942, nor was Slovakia occupied. In 1944, the Slovak National Uprising broke out, which is discussed later in the article.

   • " the Working Group tried to bribe Himmler with $3 million" -- I assume I know who you're talking about; full name needed on first reference.

   • Done

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   Pass Contentious subject to be certain, though the use of a variety of sources, I'm seeing quite a few as recent scholarship, meets this criterion as well as I believe it can be met.

5. It is stable:

   Pass No problems there.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate:

   Pass Spotting CC, PD and FU tags on all images used in the article as appropriate.

7. Other:

   On Hold Overall a very even-handed work on a very contentious and difficult subject. Holding for some clarifications. —Ed!^(talk) 02:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for your work on this--another tough subject to be sure. Seeing no other major concerns, going to Pass the GA now. —Ed!^(talk) 01:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

https://simon.vwi.ac.at/index.php/simon/article/view/35

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:

• Antisemitic graffiti in Bratislava, c. 1941.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Copyright status of USHMM photos

Two USHMM photos are tagged {{external media}}, which ordinarily means that they can't be fair-use. However, the USHMM webpage doesn't seem to be copyrighted. Can they be shown with a FUR? All the best, Miniapolis 01:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Previous reviewer

@Buidhe:,

could you link and point who and when requested what you refer in the edit log? (that seems quite amateurish, since it is obvious what is Hungary that time, why would anyone consider if Germany invades Hungary, would make a distinction of some territories of itself?, etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

• I don't care to dig through all the reviews right now, but I think it merits an explicit mention because many of those Jews deported from what was "Hungary" in 1944 had been "Slovak" Jews until 1938. buidhe 01:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:,

I don't see the connection, the fact many Slovak Jews escaped to Hungary earlier 1944 had not necessarily any connection to the former territorial acquisitons of Hungary, since they fled from the Slovak state which never held those territories (in fact, those Slovak Jews you'd refer in the territories Hungary earlier recovered were Hungarian Jews in reality, only by citizenship Czechoslovaks Jews until 1938/39, but earlier 1920 still Hungarian...they were mostly different from the Slovak Jews who fled to Hungary around 1942 (although many of them still were Hungarian Jews...). You should once show the review you are referring to, until I cannot exactly argue on that, but this explicit mention is weird otherwise better we link to Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) or simplify this, Slovak Jews from the Slovak state are not to be confused with Hungarian Jews from Hungary just because some territories have been recovered earlier (considering the article contains good maps of contemporary Slovakia), etc.)(KIENGIR (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

Compare the Norwegian article,[1] which is rated "good article" on nowiki and includes a full discussion of the 1944 deportations from the ceded territories that are in modern-day Slovakia. I haven't gone down that road, but I do think it merits an explicit mention. There was never a sharp border between Slovakia and Hungary if you're talking about language and culture. It would be news to the Jewish citizens of southern Slovakia that they were all "Hungarians" who didn't identify with the Czechoslovakia, see nuanced discussion in this book: Klein-Pejšová, Rebekah (2015). Mapping Jewish Loyalties in Interwar Slovakia. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-01562-4. IIRC, in his paper on the subject, James Mace Ward wrote that it isn't clear if the Jewish residents of southern Slovakia would have voted for Hungary or Czechosolvakia if there had been a plebiscite instead of the First Vienna Award. buidhe 04:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:,

Maybe you misunderstand me, the sidewide discussion about Jewish identity or adherence has not really connection to my concern, it just came from your remark about Slovak jews, there is no problem if an article - also this - discusses the events in the territory what is present-day Slovakia, anyway my argue was not about any clearl-cut borders of langauge or culture, I referred besides the clear legal reference (-1920 Hungarian, 1920-1938/39 Czechoslvak, 1939-1945 Slovak/Hungarian citizenship) the fact that in language or culture mostly these Jews adopted the Hungarian one (mostly raised in the Kingdom fo Hungary, speaking the language, etc. not really connected to a possible choice between countries), but it does not matter in this case, it would matter the reviewers ask that I still don't know....IMHO (one possible alternative), the reviewer should not think Germany in 1944 had a time machine and would have known what will be the borders in 2020, thus they decision upon Hungary's occupation would have been relevant inside Hungary they especially include in the occupation the former southern Czechoslovak territories or not, because it has been not by any means relevant then how Hungary's current territory then were formed before, Hungary meant all in one. (i.e., also in an article about the Austrian Empire in the 19th century we don't add including Carniola, South Tyrol or similar, because it is obvious, as well I do not compare in 1885 the German Empire in contemporary conditions with present-day Germany, since then the people also did not have clue about future events (then obviously Eastern Prussia included, etc.)...

So a kind of rephrase and/or new linking is needed, like the including Carpathian Ruthenia and the areas ceded by Czechoslovakia in 1938. is deleted the place now where it is now, but to expand a sentence later below including many Slovak Jews in the country, also from Carpathian Ruthenia and the areas ceded by Czechoslovakia in 1938. This is one proposal, it would solve my concern, and the information would also remain.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC))

@Buidhe:,

I am sorry that you did not react, would have been easier, you say I need a source, although you argued like this (= Slovaks Jews has to be inlcuded into the deportees in Hungary, including the formerly annexed territories, etc.), on the other hand you claim the original addition was not by source, but a request from a reviewer (= means it could be deleted as unsourced as well). So please clarify or provide at once what, when and how the reviewer requested or propose another, mutually satisfiable option (although I think this would be one of the best). Thank You!(KIENGIR (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC))

Currently the text is supported by the two footnotes, but your addition isn't. Also, I'm not convinced it is an improvement. I will ask at the FAC. buidhe 17:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this did not contain your previous argument, anyway the discussion is about better common sense, as I said, it is obvious Germany would occupy all the territories of Hungary (since it was irrelevant when and how it was gathered before, the same way like other countries in similar situation, so emphasizing partial matters in nonsensical, etc., explained above) My proposed solution would keep what you stick to (or the reviewer's ask you claim but did not provide yet). It would have good if you'd as well propose an own solution my concern.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC))

Misleading?

@Buidhe:,

this the very situation when we agree all of the details, despite, we don't understand each other. Similarly what you deny in the edit log I never said (highlighting now, I never said such like Slovakia was founded in 1918. Please do not put your own assertions to me.

Please check the First Czechoslovak Republic article, where it is written:

1918–1923: Different systems in former Austrian territory (Bohemia, Moravia, a small part of Silesia) compared to former Hungarian territory (mostly Upper Hungary and Carpathian Ruthenia): three lands (země) (also called district units (kraje): Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, plus 21 counties (župy) in today's Slovakia and three counties in today's Ruthenia; both lands and counties were divided into districts (okresy).

From this you may see the administrational forms were different, but me may speak about regions. If you claim something misleading, in reality Slovakia became part of the new country of Czechoslovakia, that is at least misunderstandable, since the whole sentence assumes what you even deny namely; it was not an administartive unit/state - which I agree - thus it could not became part of anything, i.e., then the sentence has to be rephrased, as I explained to you in the edit logs...is it clear now for you?

Or, would it solve for you like "the territory of present-day Slovakia became part of the new country of Czechoslovakia"? Or?

Again we have to make clear Slovak administrative unit/state did not exist before as you said...so come up then with a viable solution...Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC))

• I think the current wording—"Slovakia became part of the new country of Czechoslovakia"—is perfectly good. I can't see how adding more verbiage will help clarify it. From the context it's clear that we're referring to Slovakia as a region rather than a country/state. A bit of ambiguity is'nt terrible as this is not the article to get bogged down in details such as exactly how Slovakia as a unit was legally separate or not from Czechoslovakia as a whole. buidhe 10:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe:,

It may be good, but after World War I before would suggest if Slovakia would existed before as an administrative unit/country/state, and the context is not necessarily fully clear about this, also have in mind the so-called region did not have clear-cut boundaries, and the end result included pretty much lands with other's than Slovak-inhabited. I offer you then a shorter and clear verbiage, to avoid to get bogged into too much details: After World War I, the new state of Czechoslovakia was proclaimed, inluding Slovakia. This would solve all the concerns, considering anyway the clear boundaries and the state itself has been reocgnized only in 1920. You cannot say now this would be too long and detailed. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC))

@Buidhe:, any thoughts, comments?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

I don't see how the current version suggests anything incorrect and I don't see how the proposed version is an improvement. buidhe 00:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I just explained it...(KIENGIR (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC))

Header image

A Slovak propaganda poster exhorts readers not to "be a servant to the Jew".

During all its reviews, no one challenged this as the header image, and Peacemaker suggested it as the best to use for its TFA appearance. I don't think it promotes antisemitism at all. However, it is important in showing the Slovak State's responsibility and countering revisionist views that it was benevolent towards Jews. Unfortunately, I cannot find any images of Hlinka Guard abusing Jews that are in the public domain, otherwise I would use that as the header image. (t · c) buidhe 07:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

US embassy

From the article:

The United States embassy organized protection for some 300 Jews with foreign citizenship, housing them in a castle in Marianka. Brunner raided the castle on 11 October; all but three of the prisoners were taken to Sereď and deported to Auschwitz on 17 October.

According to [2]:

The United States did not recognize the establishment of a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, or the establishment of the state of Slovakia.

On September 4, 1941, Anthony J. Drexel Biddle Jr. was appointed Minister to the Czechoslovakian Government in London. He presented his credentials on October 28. Biddle was also commissioned to the governments-in-exile of Belgium, Greece, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and Yugoslavia. Biddle was promoted to Ambassador on June 4, 1943, and presented his new credentials on July 12. He left London on December 1, 1943.

Vladimir Hurban, the Czechoslovak Minister to the United States since 1936, was promoted to Ambassador and presented his new credentials on June 14, 1943.

How could there be a US embassy in Slovakia protecting Jews? Marianka mentions nothing about Jews or Americans. --Error (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• The source is ambiguous about whether this protection was organized by the United States, so I removed this claim. (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Henri Dunand

From the article:

Henri Dunand of the Red Cross provided funding for a clandestine group led by Arnold Lazar, which provided money, food, and clothing to Jews in hiding in Bratislava.

Is that right? Henry Dunant was certainly in the Red Cross but died in 1910. The edition which added it also mentions a Georges Dunand. Is it a typo then? --Error (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• No typo. Source says "Der Delegierte des Internationalen Komitees vom Roten Kreuz, Henri Dunand, unterstützte diese Gruppe mit einem größeren Geldbetrag. Häufig wurde Hilfe nur gegen Bezahlung geleistet." (t · c) buidhe 19:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Curious. Nomen omen, maybe. --Error (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)