Talk:Nazi concentration camps

❧

Wikipedia

[1][2][3][4]

  • Benz, Wolfgang; Distel, Barbara (eds.). Die Organisation des Terrors [The Organization of Terror]. Der Ort des Terrors (in German). Vol. 1. C. H. Beck. ISBN 978-3-406-52960-3.
  • Drobisch, Klaus; Wieland, Günther (1993). System der NS-Konzentrationslager: 1933-1939 [The System of Nazi Concentration Camps, 1933–1939] (in German). Akademie Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783050066332. ISBN 978-3-05-000823-3.
  • Goeschel, Christian; Wachsmann, Nikolaus (2012). The Nazi Concentration Camps, 1933-1939: A Documentary History. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-2782-8.
  • Knowles, Anne Kelly; Jaskot, Paul B.; Blackshear, Benjamin Perry; De Groot, Michael; Yule, Alexander (2014). "Mapping the SS Concentration Camps". In Steiner, Erik B. (ed.). Geographies of the Holocaust. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-01211-1. JSTOR j.ctt16gzbvn.
  • Orth, Karin (1999). Das System Der Nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager: Eine Politische Organisationsgeschichte [The National Socialist Concentration Camp System: A Political Organizational History] (in German). Hamburger Edition. ISBN 978-3-930908-52-3.
  • Stone, Dan (2015). The Liberation of the Camps: The End of the Holocaust and Its Aftermath. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-21603-5.
  • Suderland, Maja (2013). Inside Concentration Camps: Social Life at the Extremes. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-7456-7955-6.
  • Wachsmann, Nikolaus (2015). "The Nazi Concentration Camps in International Context: Comparisons and Connections". Rewriting German History: New Perspectives on Modern Germany. Palgrave Macmillan UK. pp. 306–325. ISBN 978-1-137-34779-4.
  • Wünschmann, Kim (2015). Before Auschwitz: Jewish Prisoners in the Prewar Concentration Camps. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-42558-3.

References

  1. ↑ Wachsmann, Nikolaus (2006). "Looking into the Abyss: Historians and the Nazi Concentration Camps". European History Quarterly. 36 (2): 247–278. doi:10.1177/0265691406062613.
  2. ↑ Becker, Michael; Bock, Dennis (2020). "Rethinking the Muselmann in Nazi Concentration Camps and Ghettos: History, Social Life, and Representation". The Journal of Holocaust Research. 34 (3): 155–157. doi:10.1080/25785648.2020.1782067.
  3. ↑ Lambertz, Jan (2020). "The Urn and the Swastika: Recording Death in the Nazi Camp System*". German History. 38 (1): 77–95. doi:10.1093/gerhis/ghz107.
  4. ↑ Homola, Jonathan; Pereira, Miguel M.; Tavits, Margit (2020). "Legacies of the Third Reich: Concentration Camps and Out-group Intolerance". American Political Science Review. 114 (2): 573–590. doi:10.1017/S0003055419000832. ISSN 0003-0554. Never mind: looks like it failed to replicate

Enmity between prisoner groups was encouraged by the SS and grew worse as conditions deteriorated.[1]

Many survivors struggled with physical and mental health problems.[2]

After the war, many Germans acknowledged that crimes had been committed, but they denied any responsibility and considered themselves victims of the war.[3]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2025

The first sentence of the third paragraph under the section called "Organization" reads: 'The camps under the IKL were guarded by members of the SS-Totenkopfverbände, lit. "SS Death's Head Units".'

The "Death's Head" link points to a page about Marvel comic book characters. Should this be changed to something relevant, or not link to anything at all? The "SS-Totenkopfverbände" links to the relevant article. Chinups (talk) 07:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

 Done Changed the link to point to Totenkopf. Day Creature (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing early, snow oppose. (closed by non-admin page mover) Celia Homeford (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camps → Nazi German concentration camps – Stop whitewashing and German propaganda

  1. Nazi is a party. National Socialist German Workers' Party. Camp weren't NSDAP party camps, they been German county camps, build on German and occupied by Germans soil, organized by Germans country, not on party plot of land
  2. Nazism was just a tool. Knife don't kill, knifeman does. Nazism was just a tool, tool used by Germans and the Germans do the killing.
  3. What Nazis? NeoNazis? Aryan Brotherhood? Nazis from space? Before 60s nobody heard of Nazis, is was just a crimes of Germans.
  4. This is whitewashing and propaganda removing responsibility from Germans and putting it on some mythical Nazis from Naziland. Why "Germany" is removed from title? Those where German camps and created by Germans, operated by Germans, where they wrote documents and speak in German. Actually it should be even moved to German concentration camps Amily6 (talk) 14:32, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose
  • WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE. There was never any other kind of Nazi concentration camps, but there were other German concentration camps. The phrase "Nazi German", moreover, is uncommonly used in English.
  • Moreover, this move request is filled with faulty reasoning. Just to give a few examples: the words nazi, nazis, and nazism were most in use in the 1940s, many of the camp personnel were not from Germany, and a large number of the camps were located outside of Germany's original territory.
(t · c) buIdhe 14:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Nazi Germany is very common for country, again Nazi was just a party or ideology.
Non-originally German occupied territory is still German territory, and it's operated and organized by Germans. This is exactly this German propaganda whitewashing, is the camp was on the occupied Netherlands does it make a Dutch concentration camp? No it's still German camp in occupied Netherlands.
Another whitewashing. The world "Nazi" of course existed but https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0901.html in titles there was only Germany. This whitewashing is progressing started with Germany -> Nazi Germany -> Nazi, what going to be further Nazi Dutch? Amily6 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Nazi German is much less frequently used than Nazi Germany. (t · c) buIdhe 16:11, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • oppose per buidhe, current title isn't whitewashing or unclear—blindlynx 17:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. What whitewashing? And the NeoNazis didn't build concentration camps so probably WP:SNOW. ~2025-37042-67 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Exactly whitewashing. Nazis from Naziland build it, it was run by Nazis that speak Nazianish. And Germans where first victim of bad Nazists. And like in this Template:Nazi concentration camps sidebar it was a "Russian camp" and Germans are only mentioned as prisoners, this is just whitewashing Amily6 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose unnecessary precision. Any reader familiar with the subject knows that Nazis in this context were German. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:33, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose Adding German is unnecessary considering where the Nazis originated from.
Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose - Totally redundant and unwarranted. Obenritter (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose per above. Mellk (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Before 60s nobody heard of Nazis, is was just a crimes of Germans. What a peculiar notion. I can give you citations for the phrase "Nazi concentration camp" going back to September of 1933. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:05, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Was there NSDAP camps or Nazis from Naziland that victims where Germans? There where German camps, created by Germans on German or occupied by Germany territory. Amily6 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
What does that have to do with my comment? You're uttering nonsense, and compounding it. The Nazi party and the German state were coterminous after 1933. "Just a party"? Time for a WP:SNOWCLOSE now. I'll give it another hour just in case anyone other than the OP disagrees with closure. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 22:25, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
Thanks exactly coterminous, but not the same. So it wasn't a Nazi party camp, but Nazi Germany camp. So why Germany is whitewashed from it? And you didn't provide those citations. As I provide NY Times source there Poland was attacked by Germany, not some Nazis from space. Amily6 (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
How is any of this whitewashing? No one is denying or downplaying Nazi atrocities—blindlynx 19:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
OP wants to focus on them being German atrocities rather than Nazi atrocities, and is suggesting that we are "whitewashing" the German-ness of Nazism as a whole by not specifying "German" in the article title. The very first sentence of the article, however, refers quite clearly to "Nazi Germany"; any reader will see that immediately. German concentration camps, as appropriate, contains a link to this article. "Nazi German concentration camp" is an almost invisibly rare usage. I mentioned WP:SNOWCLOSE above, but I've disqualified myself from doing it because I'm too involved. Perhaps someone else will. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:13, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nazi concentration camps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 06:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 06:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Image review

  • File:German Empire 1937 adm location map.svg: The map is not accessible for colour blind people (perhaps the chronology could be presented with the use of symbols, not only by colours). What is a "main camp"? Is the chronology verified?
    • The main camp is explained later in the article. I changed some of the symbols and added a note clarifying the sourcing.
      @Nikkimaria: I would appreciate your thoughts on the use of colours and symbols on the map. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
    The different circle colours are a MOS:COLOUR problem. That being said, COLOUR isn't among the MOS provisions that are typically applied at GA level. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Borsoka (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

  • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-78612-0004, KZ Sachsenhausen, Häftlinge bei Erdarbeiten.jpg: the source at Commons seems to be a dead link.
  • File:Concentration camp prisoners at Messerschmitt factory.png: could the publisher and ISBN be added for the source at Commons?
    • Done
  • File:Fabrikgebäude Universelle-Werke Zwickauer Str. 46 - 1 (cropped).jpg: is the caption verified?
  • File:Establishment of Nazi concentration camps timeline.png: the cited source's author is missing at Commons. Borsoka (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Commons doesn't support multiple authors, so I fixed it by swapping the template for plain text

Source review

  • I would delete the place of publication from sources mentioning it for consistency.
  • Could the two German titles be translated into English using the "translate" function? Borsoka (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    • Done both (t · c) buIdhe 01:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • References 5, 6, 7, 13, 96, 123 checked. Borsoka (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
  • The phrase concentration camp was coined to describe the camps used by the British during the Boer War... I do not find the text verifying this statement. For me, Stone suggests that the Cuban camps were first called "concentration camps".
  • The full title of the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 is The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
    Kramer says that "Although many historians, especially politically motivated Cuban historians, speak loosely of ‘concentration camps’ [in cuba], the term was not in use at the time." and " The term originated with the British, who established ‘concentration camps’ during the Second South African War (or Anglo-Boer War), 1899–1902."
    The encyclopedia series is variously given as the two above as well as "The USHMM Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945". To me the long title seems excessively wordy but I added it anyway. (t · c) buIdhe 06:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments

  • ...there were precedents in other countries... Some examples?
  • Although the word "concentration camp" has acquired the connotation of murder because of the Nazi concentration camps, the British camps in South Africa did not involve systematic murder. The German Empire also established concentration camps during the Herero and Namaqua genocide (1904–1907); the death rate of these camps was 45 per cent, twice that of the British camps. The text implies that the German concentration camps were established for systematic murder. If this is the case, this should be explicitly stated, otherwise the text should be rephrased.
  • ...during the Herero and Namaqua genocide (1904–1907)... I would clarify that it happened in Namibia in Africa.
  • ...Eastern European Jews... A link to Ostjuden?
  • Link Cottbus-Sielow.
  • Many prisoners were released in late 1933, and after a Christmas amnesty, there were only a few dozen camps left.[15] About 70 camps were established in 1933, in any convenient structure that could hold prisoners, including vacant factories, prisons, country estates, schools, workhouses, and castles. I would inform our readers about the establishment of the camps, before telling them that only a few dozen camps were left by the end of the year.
  • ...which specified draconian punishments... Some examples?
    • Done through here (t · c) buIdhe 18:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ...the camps became increasingly brutal and lethal due to the plans of the Nazi leadership... I do not understand it.
  • ...euthanasia centers... Good death centers?
    • That's wha they're called in many RS. What name do you think would be preferable?
      I do not like (=I do hate) the expression, but I do not want (and cannot) introduce new terminology.
  • ...at least 6,000 and as many as 20,000 people... Rephrase ("possibly/probably/likely/... as many as 20,000").
  • ...war industries Some example?
  • Orders to reduce deaths... By whom?
    • ...The WVHA's orders... WVHA will be introduced in the following section. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Why is not the German name of Dept. VI mentioned?
    • Removed this after checking other sources (t · c) buIdhe 18:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Corruption was widespread. Some details?
  • ...war youth generation... When were they born?
  • ...who were hard-hit by the economic crisis and feared decline in status When? Why not past perfect?
  • Perpetration by this leadership ... Is "perpetration" the best term in context?
  • ...resistance fighters... I would link "resistance" to Resistance during World War II.
  • ...Nazi population policy... A link or some explanation?
  • ...the majority of the population of some camps Some examples?
    • Rephrased but the source doesn't really allow me to say more. (t · c) buIdhe 19:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Most Jews who were persecuted and killed during the Holocaust were never prisoners in concentration camps...Extermination camps for the mass murder of Jews—Kulmhof, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka—were set up outside the concentration camp system. I would make a more direct connection between the two sentences for better understanding of the first sentence.
    • I'm open to change, but I'm unsure how to word this so it wouldn't be more misleading. A plurality ,but not a majority, of Jewish Holocaust victims died in gas chambers, with almost as many (~2 million) being killed in mass executions, and smaller numbers dying of disease and starvation in ghettos, or as registered prisoners of concentration camps. Many readers assume that most Jews died in "concentration camps" even though that's not true. (t · c) buIdhe 18:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
      • What about the following text: "Most Jews who were persecuted and killed during the Holocaust were never prisoners in concentration camps, because extermination camps—Kulmhof, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka—were set up outside the concentration camp system."
        • Partly done the sentence about "most Jews" was kept at the front of the paragraph because without it other content in the paragraph (such as Jews being overrepresented in the camps) could be misleading/misinterpreted by the reader. Is the result OK with you? (t · c) buIdhe 18:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Despite many deaths,... Could you quantify the statement?
    • This is covered later on in the "statistics" section, where it appears an estimated 200,000-300,000 registered Jewish prisoners died, but I'm wary of OR as I'm not aware of a source that makes a specific estimate on this. (t · c) buIdhe 19:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Could you expand section "Conditions" with some quantitative statements about food and water supply, population density, etc?
    • It's really hard to make quantitative statements because conditions varied so widely over time and by camp. (t · c) buIdhe 18:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Conditions worsened after the outbreak of war... Could you introduce pre-war conditions before stating that these conditions worsened during the war?
  • ...the previous hierarchy based on triangle to one based on nationality I do not understand it, especially because no previous hierarchy was presented.
  • Spanish Republicans are first mentioned in section "Conditions".
  • ...such as farming on moorland (such as at Esterwegen) Rephrase to aviod the repetiotion of "such as".
  • ...at a fixed daily cost Some examples and a comparison with wages?
  • ...the prisoner population... I would say "the population of concentration camps/the camps' population" to avoid misunderstanding in context.
  • ...a "dual strategy of publicity and secrecy"... Attribute the quote to someone in the text.
  • ...those few Germans who tried to help did not encounter punishment Why?
    • The source does not specify, but in general, the Nazi regime did not generally execute its own citizens or other West Europeans for general humanitarian activities. (t · c) buIdhe 19:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • There were 27 main camps... The map and it caption indicates fewer main camps.
    • Some are not displayed due to space limitations or being located in a place that's off screen. (t · c) buIdhe 19:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
      Yes, but the caption mentions those not displayed and the total number of the camps is less than 27. Borsoka (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)
      I think the discrepancy is from different counts in different RS. Wachsmann gives the 27 figure based on the Ort des Terrors, but the USHMM only lists 21 in the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos (unless I miscounted). Upon further consideration I think I will remove the map because the coordinates are hard to determine without original research. (t · c) buIdhe 17:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Major evacuations of the camps... This text is too neutral in comparison with the linked WP article.
    • The word "evacuation" is actually used in many of the scholarly sources we cite. The ones from the Baltic camps were done mostly by ship and train, so the term "death march" could also be misleading. Do you have a better phrasing in mind? (t · c) buIdhe 19:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ...when prisoners began to be perceived... By whom?
    • ...prisoners became viewed as a liability and a threat... I still do not understand by whom. I assume by the local population, but I am not sure.
  • ...the Western Allies in 1945 went viral around the world in 1945 Rephrase to avoid the repetition of the year.
  • Accounts of the concentration camps – both condemnatory and sympathetic – were publicized outside of Germany before World War II. Some examples?
  • ...Der Ort des Terrors... Translate the title.
  • Some reference to films depicting concentration camps or a picture from such a production? Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
    • I looked at several sources and wasn't able to find material to write a concise summary, given most didn't mention films at all or only tangentially. So I'm forced to conclude this may be UNDUE. (t · c) buIdhe 00:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

@Buidhe: I think there are a few outstanding issues. When do you think you will be able to address them? I am leaving for a short holiday today and will return on 31 December. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

I should be able to do it tomorrow or Monday (t · c) buIdhe 01:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
Borsoka I have tried to address all your comments, apologies that it took me extra time to seek out some extra sources to answer some of the points you brought up. Let me know what you think. (t · c) buIdhe 00:58, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for completing this exemplary, clear, balanced, concise and at the same time comprehensive article about one of the most tragic and important institutions of that dreadful historical period. I am also curious whether you have ever considered nominating your previous article on the Holocaust as a featured article. Borsoka (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(
)
Prisoners at Mauthausen
Prisoners at Mauthausen
Improved to Good Article status by Buidhe (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 273 past nominations.

(t · c) buIdhe 14:51, 5 January 2026 (UTC).

  • I believe the community will agree when I say that this is one of our most important articles. Thank you for investing your time and energy into bringing it to GA, Buidhe. It cannot have been a small undertaking. I am also happy to see that it has gone through a thorough review by an experienced editor. Obviously, the article is sufficiently long. I see no copyright or neutrality issues. The sources are of the highest quality. I would like us to dedicate a bit more time to working out what the best hook would be. In my opinion, ALT0 is rather duh; people are very likely to already know this. ALT1 is likely to get us bad press–we are already being hounded in certain outlets as antisemites for our Gaza genocide and Zionism coverage. ALT2 strikes me as bland. ALT3 seems promising, but a bit unclear (and not in a way that invites the reader to find out more). Would you mind proposing some more, Buidhe? Surtsicna (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
In terms of hooks I cannot agree with your assessment, for ALT0 it is a common misperception that most Germans were terrified of being put in a concentration camp (terror isn't considered the main reason that people didn't voice opposition to the regime, and the Nazi regime was more merciful with German dissidents than often believed). For ALT1 I don't see how anyone but the most ignorant and thin-skinned commentator could take offense (after all, the bulk of Nazi violence was not directed against Jews), and I do not support censoring the main page to cater to that demographic. (t · c) buIdhe 17:19, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
"Many" is not the antonym of "most". Many can approve even if most do not. I cannot imagine that it would surprise people that many Germans approved. I am not proposing censure. ALT1 fact is treated in the article as an estimate; it might work better if reworded to reflect that. Surtsicna (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
Nobody has a complete list of prisoners (or even concentration camps) so all figures are necessarily estimates. However, they are known with a solid amount of precision, so the DYK statement remains true even if the actual number are more or less than the estimate cited in the article. (t · c) buIdhe 18:58, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
I understand that. The problem is that the hook implies that a precise number is known. It says that 1.1 million registered prisoners died, while the article says "at least 1.1 million of the registered prisoners must have died". Surtsicna (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2026 (UTC)
OK (t · c) buIdhe 16:01, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Have your concerns been resolved and is this ready to be reviewed? If not, what else is needed? Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

The nomination is approved. I think ALT1 is by far the most interesting, but the promoter should know that Wikipedia is under a massive attack by (pro-)Israeli media over its coverage of the genocide in Gaza (see the media coverage banner at Talk:Gaza genocide and Talk:Zionism). A couple of days ago, this guy used his social media presence to call for Wikipedia to be dismantled, ostensibly for mishandling the page about him, but more likely as part of a concentrated media effort to discredit Wikipedia because of its Gaza coverage. Running ALT1 might fuel the attacks further. Should the promoter opt not to run ALT1, I think ALT3 is the next most interesting hook. Surtsicna (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
  1. ↑ Wachsmann 2015, p. 237, Divided Nations.
  2. ↑ Wachsmann 2015, Epilogue.
  3. ↑ Wachsmann 2015, Memory.