Talk:Double genocide theory

Concerns

It looks to me as if this new article on "Double Genocide theory" is a fairly unhistorical and one-sided account of what could properly be titled the Holocaust uniqueness debate. The new article only presents Katz' (who is a linguist btw., not a scholar of political science, genocide or communist studies or some field relevant to the comparative approach) POV and ignores all previous debate which is extensive.

Even the opening sentence is very misleading:

"is a concept about the equality of the Holocaust and alleged [sic!] Communist crimes against humanity. The theory was proposed in 2008 after the Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism"

The theory of "uniqueness" didn't even exist before 1967, see Holocaust#Uniqueness

"Adam Jones, professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, believes that claims of uniqueness for the Holocaust have become less common since the 1994 Rwandan genocide.[324] In 1997, the publication of The Black Book of Communism led to further debate on the comparison between Soviet and Nazi crimes; the book argued that Nazi crimes were not very different from the Soviet ones, and that Nazi methods were to a significant extent adopted from Soviet methods;[325] in the course of the debate, the term "Red Holocaust" appeared in discourse.[326][327] In The Holocaust Industry, Norman Finkelstein writes that the uniqueness theory first appeared in public discourse in 1967, but that it does not figure in scholarship of the Nazi Holocaust.[328]"

This is a very old debate reaching back to the days of Hannah Arendt, even back to the 1920s when comparisons between Communism and Fascism/Nazism were in vogue among the social democrats, and revived in the 1990s with the Black Book of Communism which discussed and provoked discussion of this exact issue, not something "introduced in 2008", and it seems clear that the uniqueness theory has become less in vogue in the last 20 years.

A more appropriate title for an article on this subject could be Holocaust uniqueness debate that could describe the entire debate since the uniqueness theory first appeared in 1967. If "Double Genocide theory" is a new theory introduced in 2008 (by whom? by Katz?), I question its notability as a stand-alone article, but his views could be described in Holocaust uniqueness debate. The Uniqueness debate currently has a section in the Holocaust article, but a separate article on this issue would be a worthwhile addition.

A disproportionate part of this article is currently used to attack a different article/topic, which is only tangentially relevant to the Holocaust in the first place (which is a declaration on communist crimes in general). Another relevant (but unfinished) article which already describes some of this debate is Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. Tataral (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the Prague Declaration is concerned, it does not mention "Double Genocide" and it does not claim any crimes to be "equal" or exacly the same. It says that the crimes "need to be judged by their own terrible merits". The only "equality" demand contained in the declaration is "the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination of victims of all the totalitarian regimes", which is not the same as saying the crimes were identical. Tataral (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken onboard your concerns and have attempted to fix up the article into something more encyclopaedic. --Nug (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The current title is OR, but as Tataral notes, the Holocaust uniqueness debate is a real phenomenon. The contents of the article as it stands, however, do not suffice for such a renaming.Estlandia (dialogue) 11:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The article looks much better now, but as Estlandia notes, developing it into a discussion of the very real Holocaust uniqueness debate would be a good idea . Tataral (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think both you and Estlandia make a good point with regard to Holocaust uniqueness debate, I'll have to think about the best way to approach it, whether to rename this article or get it deleted and start again. --Nug (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

By all means, create an article on the Uniqueness of The Holocaust. It is surely a notable topic. In fact I created the redirect already in July 2010 in anticipation of the article. This however is not the article on the general discussion on the uniqueness of the Holocaust or on comparison of genocides. This topic, a specific Western academic and political debate spans a limited time and involves a limited amount of people. I will explain – possible someplace else – why this specific debate is notable in itself. –- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The seems to be overlap with Holocaust trivialization debate. Are they separate topics? It seems that some writers do accept the Holocaust equivalency and therefore we could include both sides of the issue. Explain who believes in equivalency, why they hold this belief, and how the academic community and political groups have responded to their beliefs. TFD (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the Holocaust trivialization debate also includes for example the use of the word "Holocaust" in reference to other phenomena which have nothing to do with genocide (although the word was originally used for the Armenian genocide), or comparisons by animal rights groups with the Holocaust, whereas the Holocaust uniqueness debate is a debate on whether the Holocaust is different from other genocides (arguably, no genocides are identical). They appear to be related but somewhat distinct debates, but Holocaust trivialization debate could be seen as a sub topic of Holocaust uniqueness debate and might be covered in the same article. Holocaust trivialization debate is also just a stub. Tataral (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Examples from the trivialization debate: abortion holocaust, animal holocaust, environmental holocaust, tobacco holocaust, human rights holocaust, nuclear holocaust. PETA's use of Holocaust metaphors/comparisons has been a major issue in recent years for example[1][2]. Tataral (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

One possible solution could be an article on Holocaust uniqueness and trivialization debate Tataral (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources for future use

Here are some references for future use:

• Zuroff, Efraim (January 13, 2012). "Don't rehabilitate the guilty". Haaretz.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Dovilé Budryté's chapter "We call it Genocide": Soviet Deportations and Repression in the Memory of Lithuanians in Robert Frey's 2004 book The genocidal temptation: Auschwitz, Hiroshima, Rwanda, and beyond is a good source for the development of the "double genocide theory" in Lithuania[3]. --Nug (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving Lithuanian section

I have moved the Lithuanian part into Prague Declaration on European Conscience and Communism#Lithuania. I do not see how Rwanda case can be used as an argument in Prague Declaration dispute or Prague Declaration case in Rwanda dispute. Listing cases in this article automatically implies that the correctness of the "double genocide", automatically assuming that the genocide A has been much less than the genocide B while it can be the opposite. When there is no clear established view, it is possible to achieve more neutrality by discussing unrelated cases separately. Sedna2001 (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed rename

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

---

---

Double Genocide theory → Rwanda double genocide controversy – The current name is biased, it automatically assumes the right and wrong sides. Conclusions must be seen from the sources and be derived from consensus rather than putting claims into the article header. Sedna2001 (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

• I assume you meant controversy. I've edited the request accordingly. --BDD (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• Definitely needs downcasing. Tony (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose While the term either gained prominence or was developed to describe opinions concerning the Rwanda genocide, it is now used to describe similar opinions, for example in Forgotten Genocides, "Denial and Myth-making", pp. 12-14.[4] I notice that material not relating to Rwanda was removed. TFD (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Opening sentence

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the opening sentence doesn't parse correctly:

The Double Genocide is a thesis which states that comparison of certain genocides can result in trivialisation and so claimed that it is one of the tools of denialism.

It's the "and so claimed that" bit that doesn't sound right to me. Should it just be "so claims" to match the tense of "states"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.70.186 (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable source? Really?

It doesn't make sense to call Dovid Katz's blog, Defending History, an "unreliable source", since Katz is one of the main subjects of the article. I would call it a web-published periodical (it is mainly an aggregator, as far as I can tell). Calling it "unreliable" seems like a pre-emptive attempt at censorship by disallowing what Katz has to say, frankly. I hope wikipedia's policies have made some progress in their attitudes toward blogs, now that print newspapers are in (seemingly terminal) decline. 72.89.72.241 (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Split

There seem to be two things here:

1. Group X commits genocide against Group Y and Group Y commits genocide against Group X (example: X = Hutu, Y = Tutsi)
2. Group X commits genocide against Group Y and Group Y commits genocide against Group Z (example: X = Soviets, Y = Lithuanian Christians, Z = Lithuanian Jews)

Has anyone actually made a general case for either of those propositions? At the moment the article looks like two different special cases, one for the Holocaust-Soviet argument and the other for Rwanda. Has anyone suggested that (a) those two cases are similar to each other or (b) that either case is part of a wider pattern?

• If YES:

The opening...

Double genocide is an argument that the victims of a genocide in their turn committed genocide against the perpetrators

..is badly phrased in any case: it suggests that someone believes that in ANY genocide the victims are also perpetrators. Better for the above cases would respectively be:

1. A double genocide occurs when each of two groups simultaneously commits genocide against the other.
2. A double genocide occurs when a group is simultaneously the target of one genocide campaign and the perpetrator of another.

• If NO:

discussing them together merely because different people have used the same formula to describe them is WP:SYNTH; better would be a disambiguation:

Double genocide may refer to

• In the Holocaust uniqueness debate, the contention that Eastern Europe in World War II was simultaneously the victim of two genocides, one Nazi and the other Soviet
• In the Rwandan genocide, the contention that Tutsis perpetrated genocide against Hutus as well as vice versa

jnestorius^(talk) 14:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• NO - I've had a look at the literature and there isn't really anything that links the two forms of "double genocide" together, so I agree that this page ought to be made into a disambiguation as you suggest. --Nug (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• NO - Some time had passed, but no sources appeared which describe "double genocide" as an abstract concept. Instead, this article has become a synthesis magnet for various tit-for-tat killings. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Double genocide is called an "idea", a "thesis", a "theory", a "notion", a "myth", and maybe a few things more. As such it is not simply an argument that the victims of a genocide in their turn committed genocide against the perpetrators. But whereas it may be advisable to deal with the uses of the thesis of "double genocide" in Rwanda and (mostly) in Eastern European countries seperately, a disambiguation page which only links to Holocaust and Rwandan genocide is not the solution, because there exists sizable literature specifically dealing with double genocide as a thesis. Therefore the content has to be preserved.--Assayer (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with the proposal to make this article into a disambiguation page as proposed. The entire article is really original research, WP:SYNTH and POV; in fact the article is itself a form of genocide denialism, by its denial of genocides committed by the Soviet Union and its smearing, quite in the Putinist tradition, of all efforts to come to terms with communist crimes in central and eastern Europe. There now appears to be consensus to implement the disambiguation page option. --Tataral (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Seventy Years Declaration of 2012

I have pov tagged this section. It is full of completely unacceptable pov language, like " alleged" and "glorification" and "collaborationist nationalist war criminals" and "their supposed fight against Communism" and "advocates for ongoing genuine Holocaust education" (does that last one weasely imply that current education is not "genuine"?). Possible overemphasis issues too, since it appears to be an unofficial, privately produced "declaration" and the source for the endorsements is the declaration's own website. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, " has been signed by 70 parliamentarians from 19 EU countries,", so it does not matter how it was produced. Hardly an overemphasis, because it caused quite a stir among high-level politicians. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As for pov language, some of it may have come directly from the declaration. We may analyze them one by one. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• "alleged" - correct word, because it is an adjective to the quoted text: its alleged "attempts to obfuscate the Holocaust... and indicates that it is the allegation of the authors of the 70YD.
• "glorification", "collaborationist" - the language/opinion of the authors; expresses their POV (it is wikipedian's POV which is forbidden in wikipedia)
• "their supposed fight against Communism" - that's exactly right. It was a major pretext of Nazi Germany: "protecting Europe from Jewish Bolshevism" It is possible that Lithuanians fought to free their country from Soviets, but killing off Jews and Gypsies and Poles along this way is hardly "fight against Communism".
• "genuine" - I agree sounds weasely, but makes sense in the context of the author's opinion about the alleged trivialization of Holocaust.

Conclusion: yes, the language of the section looks POV, but it is POV of the authors of the declaration. And the solution of possible WP:NPOV issue is to make it more prominent that nearly whole text of the section is the opinion of the 70YD. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

None of those words are correct. If it is the declaration's opinion that such-and-such is such-and-such, then the content has to be worded to make that clear. The content cannot be worded as if it were an undisputed fact that such-and-such is such-and-such. Nor is Wikipedia a press release for the advocators of this declaration (or of any organization). If, basically, even if it were to be correctly worded, almost all the content in that section comprises a reproduction of the assertions of the declaration, then this would be overemphasis. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what I wrote: And the solution of possible WP:NPOV issue is to make it more prominent that nearly whole text of the section is the opinion of the 70YD. As for "overemphasis", no it is not; it is the representation of the declaration. Re None of those words are correct -- prove it. re Nor is Wikipedia a press release how it that "press-release"? comprises a reproduction - noit reproduction, but summary, which is what wikipedia does. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia content should not represent extreme viewpoints or assertions made by others as if those viewpoints and assertions are true. Since you appear to want this content to remain, please convert it into quotations. If not, I will delete the offending content. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we do not overuse quotations. Instead, we summarize and make an attribution. Attribution of all statements in the contested section are clear. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Do we have a source for this being a conspiracy theory? (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, well, we say "[t]he theory, which minimizes or excuses local participation in the Holocaust as a form of revenge against perceived Jewish complicity in Soviet repression, first became popular in the Baltic States during the 1990s", cited to a source whose quote says "[s]upporters of this theory, which became very popular in the mid-1990s, claimed that Lithuanian Jews actively participated in the repression of the local population, and therefore the collaboration with the Nazis and participation in the Holocaust were merely acts of revenge." Davide King (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Buidhe, this does not make anything a "conspiration theory".(KIENGIR (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2020 (UTC))

Unnecessary fork

This is an unncessary POV fork of Holodomor genocide question which presents, in a one-sided manner, only the current Russian view that the Soviets never committed any genocide whatsoever, and takes that particular POV as its starting point. While not everyone agrees that the Soviet Union's crimes should be defined as genocide, and while there is a larger debate on which crimes that should be considered genocides (not just those of the Soviet Union, but others like the Armenian Genocide, Srebrenica massacre etc.), it's a fairly mainstream perspective (not just in the Baltics) that some of the crimes of the Soviet Union were of a genocidal nature. For instance, the Holodomor is formally recognised as genocide by 16 countries as discussed in that article, including the United States which established the Holodomor Genocide Memorial in 2015. At best the claim that the Soviet Union didn't commit genocide is a highly contentious claim that many or most in the West would disagree with, at worst it's described by many in the West as Russian revisionism and disinfo, and e.g. as denial of the Holodomor, a topic we have a lengthy article on, and partially outlawed as a form of genocide denialism in some of the affected countries.

The claim that only the Baltic states have claimed that the Soviet Union committed genocide, or that the claim only surfaced in the Baltics in the 1990s, is completely wrong as for example the article Holodomor genocide question clearly shows, with discussion of scholars' views on Soviet genocide dating back decades before the 1990s. There is also no evidence of anyone actually advocating anything called "double genocide". It's essentially a strawman, and a relatively obscure term in the discussion of the Holodomor genocide question, only used rhetorically by a few people who advocate the contentious Russian perspective that the Soviet Union didn't commit genocide, a view that people in Central/Central Eastern Europe tend to view as Russian negationism.

Since we already have a far more nuanced, encyclopedic and well-developed discussion of whether the Soviet Union committed genocide in several other articles, this should be a redirect to one of them. --Tataral (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

"Since we already have a far more nuanced, encyclopedic and well-developed discussion of whether the Soviet Union committed genocide in several other articles, this should be a redirect to one of them"—if it covers content in several other articles, that is a strong indication that it deserves a stand-alone article. In fact, as discussed in sources, "double genocide theory" is more specific than "Soviet Union committed genocide AND Nazi Germany committed genocide". Please take to AfD if you want the article deleted. (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. This article goes far beyond what is covered in the Holodomor genocide question article, which pretty much covers that specific topic and little else.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If you looked hard enough, you could easily find works advocating "double genocide" in exactly those words:

Rytų Europos ir Baltijos šalių dvigubo genocido (nacių ir sovietinio) istorines interpretacijas Rusijos valstybės ideologai aiškina kaip nepriim-tiną istorinį revizionizmą, „istorijos perrašinėjimą“ ir „Antrojo pasaulinio karo rezultatų kvestionavimą“²8. Rusijoje šio karo ideologija turi antivaka-rietišką pobūdį (Nikžentaitis 2017; Koposov 2018)²9, kartu ji prikelia „fa-šizmo“ terminologiją, taikomą Baltijos šalims tokiais atvejais kaip 2007 m. Estijos „Bronzinio kario“, Antrojo pasaulinio karo paminklo, perkėlimas Talin e ³0. Karo pabaigos iškilmingi minėjimai gegužės 9-ąją, pagal Rusijos valstybinių švenčių kalendorių – Pergalės dieną (rus. День Победы), šlo-vina pergalę ir dažnai pabrėžia Lietuvos išvadavimą iš nacių okupacijos, nutylėdami arba kvestionuodami sovietinę okupaciją³¹.[5]

(t · c) buidhe 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Even if one could find occasional examples of the phrase being used in local Lithuanian debates, there is no evidence that the mainstream view that the Soviet Union was totalitarian and committed genocidal acts is systematically referred to and conceptually framed as "double genocide" by anyone else than a handful of opponents of the now-dominant EU perspective on Soviet totalitarianism. If the topic of this article is really Lithuania (or the Baltics), it should be rewritten to make that much clearer. It should also include other perspectives instead of only presenting one side of the debate, which is arguably the minority view at least in the Lithuanian, Baltic and indeed EU context. While it is appropriate to include the perspectives covered in this article (including the term), having an article that only argues the position of one side in a debate is generally not a good idea. It also overlaps fully with other articles that present a quite different perspective, so it's a textbook POV fork. --Tataral (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest working to improve the article, rather than trying to delete it. PS, what you call the mainstream view that the Soviet Union was totalitarian and committed genocidal acts is not what is referred to by the term "double genocide", rather it refers to the alleged moral equivalence of Nazi and Soviet regimes. (t · c) buidhe 17:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If it primarily refers to the "alleged moral equivalence of Nazi and Soviet regimes", we already have an article that fully covers that topic: Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. The material in this article would fit perfectly within that article, as one of the perspectives on that topic. --Tataral (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

That article is already 75kb, above the recommended article size, so I couldn't support any merger into it. It is perfectly acceptable to create articles whose subject is a specific viewpoint or theory (WP:SUBPOV). (t · c) buidhe 18:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

A WP:SUBPOV article should also have a "title [that] clearly indicates what its subject is" and be "presented neutrally". If the topic of this article is simply the views of Dovid Katz on the topic covered more broadly in Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, I don't understand why you objected to it being part of an "opposition" heading. Then there is the question of why this material isn't covered in Dovid Katz instead. Apart from that the title isn't very clear; it's both vague and a relatively obscure term that would not be familiar to most people and that has been used by a handful of people in reference to what is more commonly described as comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, or in similar terms. The title would give most readers the impression that it opposes the very idea that the Soviet Union committed genocide anywhere (including Ukraine). A more descriptive title, such as "moral equivalence of Nazism and Stalinism", would be a better title for a general (sub) article on that topic, that could also incorporate Katz' perspectives and term, and explain it in context. --Tataral (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The title does clearly indicate what the subject is; what is called in European context "double genocide theory". Sources are pretty clear about that. (t · c) buidhe 18:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, they're not. The title is a term/concept used exclusively (at least in a systematic way, in the sense of a concept or theory) by what Barry Rubin once called "a tiny group" of people, on a topic that is itself much, much larger, and that includes the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union, the question of Soviet genocide, and the issue of comparison (morally or otherwise) between Stalinism and Nazism. This is not usually called "double genocide" in the large literature that exists on this topic. It's only called that by a few people, who refer almost exclusively to Lithuania, which is only a tiny part of the former Soviet Union, and tend to ignore the broader history of the Soviet Union and Stalinism that is usually prominent in comparative studies, including discussions of moral equivalence. The title, which is specifically a theory advocated by Katz, is unsuitable for a balanced presentation of anything else than the specific views of Katz on this issue (the few others who have mentioned the term have appropriately cited Katz who proposed it), so it would be better to have a more neutral title that could serve as the basis for a more general and balanced article on the moral equivalency debate that precedes Katz' theory/term by far. Even if we were to retain this as an article on Katz' theory, we would still, in that case, need a broader article on the moral equivalency debate. Only if a general article on that debate became too long and unwieldy would it normally make sense to have an article that only discussed Katz' theory instead of the broader issue from different perspectives.

In other words, the title only offers a minority perspective on a larger topic, where other perspectives exist as well. It is not synonymous with the topic (whether understood as the equivalency debate, the broader Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism, or whether the Soviet Union committed genocide).

The best way forward in my opinion would be to give this article a descriptive title based on the model of what must be considered its parent article if the topic it concerns itself with is the moral equivalency of Nazism and Stalinism (i.e. Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism), such as "moral equivalency of Nazism and Stalinism", and retain the current content as one of the chapters in that article, and expand the article with e.g. perspectives of totalitarianism theory and other perspectives. --Tataral (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Long before Katz got involved in 2008, there was also Vytautas Berenis (2000), Algimantas Valantiejus (2002)[6], Dovilé Budryté (2004), and Hektoras Vitkus (2006)[7] writing about "double genocide"; so it's misleading to present it as "Katz' theory". There's an entire further reading section which could be used to expand the article as desired. I suggest possibly reading the sources cited in this article before summarily dismissing it. (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Lithuania, but it seems to me that Katz introduced the term in English-language discourse, and that those other sources are very local and rather obscure in comparison. If this is only about Lithuania, based only on debates about Lithuania, the article in current form is quite misleading. For instance the opening sentence defines its topic as "the idea that two genocides occurred in Eastern Europe", an idea that has wide mainstream acceptance, also among far more influential scholars (who don't use this term) than anyone cited in this article, and in the form of official recognition by many countries. If this is really about Lithuania, then Lithuanian genocide debate would be a more appropriate title, and its introduction should define its topic in a clearer way. --Tataral (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

But "double genocide theory" is the term used in sources and indeed in the ltwiki article lt:Dvigubo genocido požiūris. (Debate around genocide in Lithuania covers a much broader range of topics and viewpoints). And while some events in Soviet Union are sometimes considered genocides, I'm not sure that a significant number of scholars would agree that such crimes were of equal gravity to the Holocaust; indeed, in Bloodlands, Snyder says that 2/3 of deaths were caused by Nazis and only 1/3 by Stalinism. (t · c) buidhe 21:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The Lithuanian article talks already in the introduction (per Google Translate) about "atrocities suffered by Jews, Lithuanians". The Lithuanian article isn't very impressive and has a heavy focus on Lithuania, but at least it tries to represent more than one perspective. But that article too suffers from a vague definition of the topic of the article. Especially since we here on the English Wikipedia already have detailed articles on many of the issues that this article potentially touches upon, it would clearly benefit from having a better defined topic than "the idea that two genocides occurred in Eastern Europe". I couldn't say whether "double genocide theory" is really the dominant name of this discussion in Lithuania, but it's clearly not the common name of "the idea" that the Soviet Union committed genocide in Eastern Europe, in a broader and international perspective that takes all of Soviet/Stalinist history into account and not just Lithuania or the Baltics. --Tataral (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The double genocide theory originated in Lithuania

Unfortunely User:Buidhe is edit warring [8],[9]. The source Finkel, Evgeny (2010) states:In Search of Lost Genocide: Historical Policy and International Politics in Post-1989 Eastern Europe. Global Society. 24 (1): 51–70. doi:10.1080/13600820903432027. "In the Baltic States—Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia—many people view the communist era, and especially the 1940s, as the period of Soviet genocide against the local population. Furthermore, some Baltic intellectuals and political figures, such as the prominent Lithuanian writer Jonas Mikelinskas [lt], argued that the region was subject to 'double genocide'—the one perpetrated by the Soviets, and the Holocaust committed by Nazi Germany. Supporters of this theory, which became very popular in the mid-1990s, claimed that Lithuanian Jews actively participated in the repression of the local population, and therefore the collaboration with the Nazis and participation in the Holocaust were merely acts of revenge."

In other words Finkel is saying:

1. many people in the Baltic states view the communist era as the period of Soviet genocide against the local population
2. some Baltic intellectuals and political figures, particularly Lithuanian, went further and argued the 'double genocide' theory
3. the 'double genocide' theory with the claims of Lithuanian Jewish participation in repression became very popular in the 1990.

Obviously the claims of repression by Lithuanian Jews is not held by Estonians or Latvians, and to say otherwise is WP:SYNTH. User:Buidhe's reverts are conflating the Lithuanian originated viewpoint of 'double genocide' with a non-'double genocide' viewpoint held in the other Baltics states, so Buidhe should self revert. --Nug (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

It's incorrect to say that this is just a Lithuanian theory when in fact it is popular in other countries:

In a nutshell, the “double-genocide” theory places the Gulag and its local derivative on par with the Holocaust. In its more benign form, it calls for “symmetry” in condemning the two, equally repulsive in its eyes, atrocities of the last century, and calls for a similar “ symmetry” in applying punishment for those guilty for them. In its (rather common) aggressive form, it insists on the role played by Jews in communization, which should exculpate, in the eyes of the theory’s partisans, local collaboration with the Nazis. This latter form has elements common with deflecting the guilt for the Holocaust onto the Jews themselves. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.26613/jca/1.2.12/pdf

Indeed, at its worst, fuelled by the stereotype of the Judaeo-Bolshevik, the ‘double genocide’ argument blames the victims for their own suffering in the first genocide (the Holocaust) and then blames them for causing the second (the ‘genocide’ brought about by Communism, which is associated with Jews). 10.1080/0031322X.2015.1048986

The Double Genocide
As both the Latvian and Lithuanian laws illustrate, Nazi crimes are often bundled together with the crimes committed by Communist regimes and are equated with them. This has come to be known as the “Double Genocide” thesis. The foremost purveyors of this notion are from the former Communist bloc countries.... Moreover, the historical record indicates that a great many citizens and institutions in former Communist countries were complicit in the murder of their Jewish neighbors in the Holocaust, whereas the claim that this is equally true in reverse for Communist-era crimes is pure antisemitic rhetoric. The canard that the Jews as a group are responsible for the crimes of the Communist regimes, especially during the Soviet occupation of eastern Poland, the Baltic States, and parts of Romania early in the war, is based on the false premise that Communism is Jewish, and if not all Communists are Jews, all Jews are Communists. This false assertion goes to the issue of responsibility for the Holocaust in a formulation like this: We may bear some responsibility for the murder of Jews, but it is cancelled out by the responsibility the Jews bear for the murder of our people. In other words, it becomes an excuse, for those who accept the equivalence, for not addressing the responsibility of local people in the persecution and murder of their Jewish neighbors. 10.1080/23739770.2019.1638076

(t · c) buidhe 04:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You are not addressing the issue with respect to the current sentence "The theory first became popular in the Baltic states during the 1990s." which is not supported by the source you posted or the source I posted. I don't know if you noticed, but in the previous discussion above, the sources you posted are all Lithuanian [10], [11], have you wondered why? The "Baltic states" isn't some kind of homogeneous area, they have different histories, languages, ethnicities and attitudes, and unfortunately some people assume if something it true for Lithuania it is equally true for the other Baltic states. The factually correct sentence that is supported by the sources is The theory first became popular in Lithuania during the 1990s., that doesn't change the fact that it also became popular in other countries later. --Nug (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe the Finkel source says that it first became popular in the Baltic states, although that's not incompatible with the possibility that it started in Lithuania. What I object to about your edits is that they make it seem like it's exclusive to Lithuania, by changing "Jews" to "Lithuanian Jews". That is not supported by the sources, which specifically state that this canard is also found in other countries. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

No, the Finkel source doesn't say that, see my first post. I changed "Jews" to "Lithuanian Jews" because that's what the cited Budrytė, Dovilė (2018) source says: Memory, War, and Mnemonical In/Security: A Comparison of Lithuania and Ukraine. Crisis and Change in Post-Cold War Global Politics: Ukraine in a Comparative Perspective. Springer International Publishing. pp. 155–177. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-78589-9_7. "According to this 'theory,' there were two major genocides in Lithuania, the Soviet one (consisting of deportations and repressions) and the Holocaust. Both were extremely tragic events, and, according to some defenders of memory, they should be even viewed as equal. Yet some proponents of this 'theory' took the argument even further than merely asserting that there were two equally tragic developments in Lithuania. They argued that some Lithuanian Jews supported the occupying Soviet forces, and those Lithuanians who were participating in the Holocaust, were retaliating for the losses experienced during the first Soviet occupation. In other words, some Jews were participating in the 'Soviet genocide' against the Lithuanians. Needless to say, this 'theory' is flawed on many different levels. However, it did reflect a relatively popular way of thinking in the mid- and late 1990s."

You yourself just a couple of days ago added text to the lede attributing Alexander Karn statement about Lithuanian participation[12], and my edits were consistent with that. --Nug (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Uhhh... Alternate history here since the content in question was added a year ago.

Budrytė's article is specifically about Lithuania. Karn is writing about Lithuania as well. But the canard is also popular in other countries, as you can see from the sources cited above. Your preferred wording contradicts these sources. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Opps, still haven't got my head around being in 2022. Yes, Budrytė article is specifically about Lithuania, and that was the existing ref used for the sentence where I changed the wording, to align the text to the Budrytė. WP:VERIFY matters, so don't use sources specific to Lithuania to make general statements, that's WP:SYNTH. Just checked the Shafir paper you mentioned, it states: "The double-genocide theory was first posited in Lithuania, soon after the fall of communism. Hungary was the first state to grant double-genocide institutional recognition.“ which is consistent with Finkel. I don't see how "The theory first became popular in Lithuania during the 1990s." contradicts those sources. --Nug (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, just saw your change, thanks for that, all good. --Nug (talk) 06:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Should Lithuanian recollections about 1940s genocides be covered in a legacy section of The Holocaust in Lithuania, or is it out of topic? Dimadick (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, depends on the sourcing. I would look for sources specifically on the holocaust in Lithuania and see what is covered in such sources. (t · c) buidhe 10:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You might take a look at these sources (t · c) buidhe 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

"conspiracy theory"

Carlp941 although there may be some sources that call the double genocide thesis a conspiracy theory, I'm not convinced that this is the most common descriptor in reliable sources. Could you provide quotes from the sources cited because I'm having trouble verifying that they support the "conspiracy theory" descriptor? (t · c) buidhe 20:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Happy to provide quotes! I am also open to another term, but I believe that term should reflect that "double genocide theory" is not taken seriously outside of a few shrinking Eastern European nationalist circles.

From "Varieties of Antisemitism", labelled as page 203 and 204 in the linked citation. I believe the whole chapter is relevant to the citation and provides important context and background, so cited the whole chapter.

"The largely-shared perception of “Jews having brought communism” – the żydokomuna in Poland, theiudeo-comunism in Romania –is automatically associated with figures such as Jakub Berman in Poland,Mátyás Rákosi in Hungary or Ana Pauker in Romania. Even if the generalisation is verging on the absurd – as Prizel showed for the Polish case and as it can be extended to every single country in Europe that fell under Soviet domination – it must be borne in mind that its acceptance is nearly axiomatic. Hence a “competition” has emerged about who did more wrong unto whom: the local perpetrators or even bystanders during the Holocaust or the Jews who had allegedly imposed or profited from the Gulag. This has

been called the “double genocide” or the “symmetry” approach and has three temporal aspects. First, it is past-oriented in the sense that it ‘explains’ antisemitism by alleged large-scale Jewish collaboration with the Bolsheviks both on the eve of World War II and after the imposition of communism. But at the same time and to no lesser extent it is present-oriented, inasmuch as it serves to reject either local or foreign (Israeli, Western) pressure to either launch a process of Vergangenheitsbewältigung or to compensate victims, or both. Finally, it is also future oriented, since it strives to establish a model of society that is genuinely perceived as no longer haunted by the spectres of the past, regardless of the ethnicity of those ghosts. In an inverse Leninist equation, therefore, the “double symmetry” approach poses the question of Kto kogo and either comes up with the reply that both sides have equally sinned towards one another (the beginning version of “competitive martyrdom”) or concludes that the balance weighs heavily against those “responsible” for the Gulag."

From "Memory, War" on page 170:

"This resistance to “indiscriminate rehabilitation” of the anti-Soviet resistance fighters may have been linked to the rise of the so-called double genocide theory. According to this “theory,” there were two major genocides in Lithuania, the Soviet one (consisting of deportations and repressions) and the Holocaust. Both were extremely tragic events, and, according to some defenders of memory, they should be even viewed as equal. Yet some proponents of this “theory” took the argument even further than merely asserting that there were two equally tragic developments in Lithuania. They argued that some Lithuanian Jews supported the occupying Soviet forces, and those Lithuanians who were participating in the Holocaust, were retaliating for the losses experienced during the first Soviet occupation. In other words, some Jews were participating in the “Soviet genocide” against the Lithuanians. Needless to say, this “theory” is flawed on many different levels. However, it did reflect a relatively popular way of thinking in the mid- and late 1990s."

The use of quotes around "theory" reflects the unacademic nature of the theory, and the text is placing this "theory" in the context of attempts to rehabilitate anti Soviet insurgents that participated in the Holocaust. "Double genocide theory" is often used to push holocaust trivialization - a form of antisemitic conspiracism.

Finally, from Jews and the Left, page 234:

"Most recently, the Lithuanian government has initiated a campaign which attempts to equate the victims of Nazism and communism as having both experienced genocide, the so-called ‘double genocide’ theory. This campaign blurs the distinction between perpetrators and victims, deliberately downplays the widespread collaboration of Lithuanians with the Nazi Holocaust, and implies – with echoes of the Judeo-Communist theory – that Jews who joined Soviet partisan groups fighting the Nazis were involved in war crimes that may be subject to prosecution. In fact, the Lithuanians have attempted to investigate a number of former Jewish partisans including the ex-director of Yad Vashem in Israel, Yitzhak Arad" Carlp941 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I notice that none of the provided quotes above actually say it is a conspiracy theory, which has a specific meaning beyond not being a widespread view. Therefore, I've removed the claim from the article. Also, there is evidence that some Jewish partisans were involved in incidents that could be considered war crimes (not that such crimes occurred on anything resembling the scale of the Holocaust, or that Arad was personally guilty of them). Making such an argument is different from saying that there was a Jewish conspiracy behind the Soviet Union. (t · c) buidhe 20:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I can live with your changes! I think we differ here but there's an argument to be made I am engaging in WP:SYNTH, and leaving it as "alleges" covers my primary concern - that there is any real academic acceptance of this idea. Later I'll do some more reading to see if there's a stronger case to be made for adding "conspiracy theory" to the lede. Carlp941 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

frankly, this whole article is kind of a mess to read. Would you be okay if I made some bold changes? I will not add "conspiracy theory" to the lede without sources that explicitly call it that. Carlp941 (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Please be my guest and improve the article! (t · c) buidhe 04:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

“You are with us – if not, then you're against us”

WP:NOTFORUM

This theory, at its core, is an example of "moral unluck" or "moral bad luck" (contrasted with "moral luck"). On one hand, you have the core Holocaust Studies, covering the interwar period and WWII. Post-WWII is known as Secondary Antisemitism. On the other hand, you have the core Anti-Communist Studies, covering 1917 up until 1991 with the downfall of the "Iron Curtain". An emphasis on the Soviet Union's wars of aggression, annexation, and ultimately conquer of Eastern Europe turning into the Eastern Bloc is underlined. The obvious overlaps are known, yet the "moral unluck" is essentially the inherent accusations of one, over the other, which holds importance based upon with whom you hold the discussion(s) – or the proverbial eye of the beholder – that spans into a competition of [modern] suffering and the consequences still felt nowadays. Due to the geopolitical implications of WWII, the [main] Allies were comprised of: The United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom (UK), and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). I cannot say with certainty when the change has happened but, more and more, I see a historical revisionist change still ongoing in the making, trying to dislodge the Soviet Union from the US & the UK, from within the Allies faction. This did not used to be this way. Something like, when talking about the Western Front, it's presented as: “The Allies landed in Normandy on June 6th 1944, known as D-Day.” When talking about the Eastern Front: “The Soviet Union pushed into Berlin, Nazi Germany's capital, since April of 1945” – when, in fact, it must be “the Allies pushed into Berlin”. The Soviet Union was an Allied country, despite the separation in rhetoric. For historical [moral] judgement, Nazism has been deemed the superior (ultimate) evil than Communism when compared to it, given that: A. Both the UK (a capitalist constitutional monarchy) and the USA (a capitalist constitutional liberal republic) incommensurably helped the Soviet Union (a totalitarian communist federation) to repel and, eventually, reach Berlin, into defeating Nazi Germany (a totalitarian fascist country); B. The UK and the US knew that Nazi Germany started the war with the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent & enabler. June 21st 1941 conveniently erased that happenstance nuisance. C. The Capitalists never really had a problem with Communists enslaving, torturing, and killing their own, as long as the mines, sweatshops, metal forges etc delivered on their quotas to be further sold, with added-value, on Western & Western-aligned countries. More so emphasized with approaching China in the 90s, 2000s, up to this day, and still counting. D. Former fascist countries are under a veiled supervision structure undertaken by the United States & the former Allies. They'll never be trusted, with good reasons. E. Fascist secret police & KL personnel were executed/ostracized to social extinction after WWII, Communist secret police & GULAG personnel were left to die of old age, happily surrounded by friends and family, with their family members perpetuating their names & legacy. In terms of historical evilness, Jewish people will never topple anything else as evil as Nazism & the inflicted Shoah (Holocaust) against them. It's understandable & demonstrably understandable. Why would a Holocaust survivor or a descendant of Holocaust survivors equalize the Sonderkommando with the Cheka/NKVD/Smersh/KGB? Why would a Holocaust survivor or a descendant of Holocaust survivors equalize Auschwitz (and the rest of the Nazi concentration camps) with the Soviet GULAG? Why would a Holocaust survivor or a descendant of Holocaust survivors equalize the suffering, torment, torture, death, and injustices, of millennia-old Anti-Semitism culminating with the Shoah, with that of the Eastern European peoples' temporary inconvenience, between 1947 and 1991? Especially since the former accuses the latter in perpetrating the Shoah with and for the Nazis? Especially since, on their own admission, the Communist system helped them urbanize, industrialize, transforming from an agrarian society to an industrial one? Why would the Jewish people condemn the Allies that liberated them from concentration camps – no matter whether the Allies wore on their uniforms the bald eagle, the royal crown, or the red star? The bald eagle, the royal crown, and the red star decided to stomp on the swastika, together. The bald eagle & the royal crown didn't had a problem with the bloody-soaked red star then and it doesn't have a problem with the various red stars now – the most prominent being on mainland Asia. A little bit more and the centenary of WWII will be commemorated, the centenary of the Shoah will be mourned, and the centenary for the founding of the State of Israel will be celebrated. Does anybody expects, especially Eastern European peoples, for Israelis to bash the Allies? Or bash the Communist origins of Mapai's party cadres, the first Israeli political party of the first couple of generations of Israeli Jews, that weaved Israel into existence against all odds surrounding it? Moral bad luck – that's all there is, with this theory. Trexerman (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

IDL rollback

treating seven (7) nuanced and carefully explained edits as vandalism is an abuse of tools, especially when repeated. I eagerly await a coherent explanation of what exactly is supposed to be wrong with them. And please be aware that Lithuania is now a CT subject to enhanced sourcing requirements per an Arbcom decision in December. Elinruby (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Elinruby,

I reverted the edits because of:

1. Adding a POV tag without a current talk page discussion or explanation of current POV issue with the article
2. Incorrectly adding a cn tag for sourced info—for example you flagged "After the fall of the Soviet Union, many post-Soviet states, particularly the Baltic states, built memorials to victims of the Soviet occupation,", even though there is a source cited a few sentences later, that also covers the first part of the paragraph.
3. Introduction of a typo—you changed a book titled "The World Reacts to the Holocaust" to "The World Reacts too the Holocaust". You also added a page needed tag to this source, although it specifies a page range.
4. Dovid Katz's academic career focused on linguistics, not history, so it is better to refer to him as scholar than historian
5. Unexplained removal of mention that Ventura's criticism of DGT extended to other publications besides that mentioned
6. Snyder's book received acclaim in the general press, but severe criticism by many scholars of the time period in question. Thus mentioning the scholarly criticism is essential

You did fix some overlinking issues, which I've restored (t · c) buidhe 06:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

oh let's see. First of all, none of that is the sort of vandalism that would make it appropriate to roll back seven (7) edits, each with a detailed justification. I will get to my own issues with the article but first let's address your points.

1. You assumed I was never coming here. I should not have not remind you to AGF, but then I should not have to point out that these edits are far from vandalism
2. I am fairly certain this happened under the Soviets. Possibly I am wrong about that and if I am mistaken then so be it, but I would like to see a source that isn't from the popular press, please. I do not dispute that this happened, nor the rest of the sentence. There is nothing "incorrect" about this.
3. Re typo: of so my bad but this is not an excuse to rollback seven (7) edits. Re page range: yes, a range is specified. A very large range. This is hand-waving.
4. Call him a linguist then. "Scholar" is an appeal to authority and thus fallacious
5. this text amounts to "etc", which I always remove per MoS. If they are important mention them also, at least in a note.
6. I am very familiar with the book. I will get to the due weight issues but for now I will just say that academic criticism should be cited by academic sources, which are in any event required by the December Arbcom decision.

The mobile interface tends to scramble the text window if a post gets too long so...there is my answer to your post. I have more comments that I would have posted but I will come back to those. Elinruby (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Also:

• June Uprising in Lithuania is about neither the "fog of war", nor directly about the Holocaust
• Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy#Lithuania does not support the text you linked it to.
• Holocaust in Lithuania contains some egregious source misrepresentation, to the point that I feel the need to investigate attribution. See my last edit summary there. This will take some time to unravel and it would be better not to link to it in the meantime.

I am on the wrong device for source verification but just for a start it would be better to link to Slate directly rather than through a portal that requires a login. If it were an academic source, which it is not. I am very familiar with that article however, and believe it is accurate in at least its broad strokes. But it requires an academic reference, which I am fairly certain will be available.

planning to use that Arad story in another article but haven looked for it yet because, well, other stuff happened. Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Blink. Did you just revert the tagging for a third time? Why would you think that this is acceptable? Neither issue has been addressed. Elinruby (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where to start with this. Articles are linked because they are relevant, not as an endorsement of their current content. At least you have stated your opinion on the article's POV, which you were supposed to do before adding a tag. No action can be taken unless sources support your viewpoint, and you haven't cited any. (t · c) buidhe 18:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no requirement that I ask your permission, Buidhe, nor did I know you were involved. Not that that matters.

What we are not supposed to do is go away and leave the tagging unexplained. Which I hadn't; you rolled back my edits as I was making them. Elinruby (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I really don't have time to look at this right now, but Carlp941 and K.e.coffman have been major contributors to the article and I doubt they agree with the changes. (t · c) buidhe 15:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Ooh another appeal to authority.

They can speak for themselves if they so choose, but most people consider it mandatory to comply with Arbcom decisions. Even for editors too busy to discuss but not too busy to use vandalism tools on very reasonable changes.

But apparently we need to discuss your refusal to allow updates before that work can happen, and perhaps also why your final warning for edit-warring is not being enforced for some reason. In the meantime there are other articles about the Holocaust in Lithuania; I am in no hurry and have plenty else to do. Let's see if the good folk at the edit-warring notice board want me to take this to AE or can handle it themselves. Both AE and Arbcom are rather busy right now though. Can you find the time to address any of my attempts to discuss this before I went to a notice board? Elinruby (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Asking other editors for their opinion is not an appeal to authority. It's basic wikipedia policy. Be civil. I'm not going to reply to everything here, I am going to keep the discussion going in the "misrepresentation" section. I just thought it was important to note that buidhe is acting in good faith by any reasonable metric. Carlp941 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the historiography

This article omits some honest and nuanced discussions of the history of the Holocaust in Lithuania and repeats some tropes that are likely of Soviet origin. The double Holocaust narrative exists but it is not ascribed to by any serious modern historian that I am aware of, nor have I *ever* seen it called a theory. Possibly this did happen around 1992 I guess but overall this article is...extremely one-sided, not to mention poorly sourced. It needs major work at a minimum. But we are still working on the article ownership issues, which will have to take priority. Elinruby (talk) 08:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Evidence? Sources? Or is it just your opinion? (t · c) buidhe 17:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Now you want sources. But you don't want to provide any? I mean, you aren't even letting me say that the article needs them.

Why would you assume the above is just my opinion? As I mention, your refusal to allow the most innocuous of edits - like removing the conflation of the June Uprising with the Holocaust - has of necessity had to take priority over actual work, or you might still be reverting.

This is not an edit request. I do not need your permission to edit this article and I have tried to discuss. You are welcome to build on what I add, and to use the adversarial BRD approach if you must.

But for the benefit of bystanders, I do happen to have a short introduction to the field handy [13]. Arar himself has, I believe, written on this subject. Then there's the Herder anthology. I'll write something up once I can do so without being reverted like I'm some IP vandal. Elinruby (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Put simply, stop acting a like IP vandal and you will not be treated like one.

The double Holocaust narrative exists but it is not ascribed to by any serious modern historian that I am aware of, nor have I *ever* seen it called a theory. Possibly this did happen around 1992 I guess but overall this article is...extremely one-sided

Those two sentences cannot exist beside each other. Either we missed all the reliable sources that argue in favor of this theory, or it does not exist. Pick one. Besides, your source bemoans the unbalanced nature of debate by both sides, and explicitly argues against double genocide theory, and calls it A THEORY. So your little diddy of "never seen it called a theory" is either uninformed or an outright lie. I will assume good faith and say: please actually read your sources.

From the source you cited:

"Furthermore, the welcoming response of the German invaders by Lithuanians in June 1941 has become a staple in documentaries, but Lithuanians can reasonably claim that the egregious behavior of the Stalinists during 1940-1941 explains in part the rage of many countrymen in the first days of the German occupation. Unfortunately, this has led to a kind of "two genocides" theory: Lithuanians were victims of the Soviet genocide, while Jews were victims of the Nazi murders. This connection is viewed in the West as a thinly veiled attempt to justify collaboration in the murder of the Jews. And any research on the question of the relationship of Jews to Soviet power in 1940-1941, even when conducted in a meticulously scholarly setting, raises hackles."

"In the end, unanimity of views among Jewish, Lithuanian, American and German scholars working on the Holocaust is neither possible nor desirable. Unless they wish to exist as chroniclers for established views, productive historians must be ‘revisionists' to some extent. To hold differing perspectives based on honest scholarship, accepted scholarly method and a judicious use of the sources can only contribute to solid academic research. These sorts of exchanges of opinion are all to the good. This interaction is fundamentally different from clashes of views based on stereotypes, dogmatic assertions, beliefs based on hearsay, and intransigence founded on untested or outmoded notions.

Perhaps, more important than the work of the Commission, is the gathering momentum of Holocaust research in Lithuania, especially among the younger generation. The time is approaching (if not already here) when the most innovative research on the Holocaust in Lithuania will be carried out by Lithuanians, whose research on the Holocaust will develop in ways that will not simply duplicate Western perspectives. It will not please everyone, nor will it answer all questions. There can be no closure concerning a crime as massive as the Holocaust.

But one can hope that the journey by what were once but a few open minds will attract ever more travelers in a changing land."

I get how someone not versed in academic historiography might read this as an endorsement of the theory, or "the other side" - but it's pretty clear that he is bemoaning the state of affairs in the study, and is hopeful for future of holocaust studies in Lithuania, even if it brings up uncomfortable truths. He is reasonably upset the historiography is primarily led by western, english language sources - which is why this article includes Lithuanian sources. If your quibbles were with the articles framing of local Lithuanian nationalists taking a leading role, that is a discussion worth having and is genuinely contested history. But based on your edits, its seems your issue is that this theory is being discussed at all. You are engaging in the kind of smears your cited source dislikes. Carlp941 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I've read that source multiple times and I don't know what you are talking about apparently you either think a) It supports this article's contentions about "Lithuanians" and what they think or b) that I am some sort of crazed IP vandal that doesn't read sources. Take it to AE if you think that. Or strike it. Why would you post a wall of text from a link I just posted? I seriously have to go and don't have time to answer any more bludgeoning, but you asked for sources: there is a more fleshed-out and better-formatted version of my bibliography here all of which meets the sourcing requirements that this article does not.

Now please strike your unfounded personal attack. I am not remotely acting like an IP vandal. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a paragraph length version of "actually you're doing the things you accuse me of" - maybe supply evidence of my alleged bludgeoning? Supply evidence that you have read the source instead of merely asserting it? Linking an article that you made other contested edits to is not a proper reply to my discussion points. The talk page of the article you link is filled with objections to your edits and personal attacks. Even if wikipedia took other articles' formatting as ironclad law - which we don't - that article is poor representation of your point. Stay on topic.

You are not being constructive. I'm not striking anything. You don't get to post walls of sarcastic, insulting text in multiple places accusing me and other editors of engaging in propaganda, logical fallacies, violations of wikipedia policy - then play it off like you're a victim of a bludgeoning. You misrepresented a source, I posted text from the source as evidence you clearly didn't read it. My suggestion is to back off of editing these types of articles for a while. You are clearly heated, and should cool off. Carlp941 (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Carl. You are the one calling names. Marcelus is a whole other story. Check his block log.

Let's focus here. You are the one calling names. You have accused me among other things of its seems your issue is that this theory is being discussed at all which is not what I said and which you should also strike btw.

You have now been notified of contentious topic requirements and I am asking you to abide by them rather that portray a request for compliant sourcing as some sort of affront to your personal honor.

You asked for sources and I gave you sources. I intend to use those sources

bludgeoning and edit warring to the con Now I also intend to get to my appointment so have a nice day. Elinruby (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Marcelus has a block log unrelated to the article you were talking with him in. Don't attack other users to make your point. Stay on topic. additionally, you've opened multiple discussions on my talkpage to bludgeon me. My personal honor is not offended, calm down. Stop being dramatic because you've received understandable pushback on your edits and interpretations of policy. Go to your appointment and cool off, please come back prepared to engage in proper discussion. I will be asking for third party intervention in the meantime.

You aren't engaging with me and are just going "nuh-uh" at my points, opening a ton of discussions to drown me in notifications, and that is not discussion. Prove you have read the source you cited. I contested your characterization of it, showing that it proves my point, and may be worthy of inclusion in the article. Engage with that. I will include my main point again to maintain the discussion.

[Your source] is reasonably upset the historiography is primarily led by western, english language sources - which is why this article includes Lithuanian sources. If your quibbles [are] with the articles framing of local Lithuanian nationalists taking a leading role, that is a discussion worth having and is genuinely contested history. Carlp941 (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Heh. Look i am not going to be baited into discussing any user including you. You want to talk content let me know. I think you're the one that needs to stop bolding insults. I am not really available right now and may disappear at any time but I suggest you calm down and reflect on what part of "this is definitely true but it should be cited" you object to. Source requirements that are simply policy. I am sorry you find them insulting.Elinruby (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources or are you upset that the current academic consensus doesn't match your priors? I was pretty balanced when approaching this article, and am pretty offended that I'm being accused of doing "tropes that are likely of Soviet origin" - an unserious smear. I will not respond to smears. Come up with something constructive. Carlp941 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

sigh. Was your name mentioned? I don't think the article is very balanced myself, but I haven't gone into attribution. I suggest you read a little further maybe? I do have things to do today but I'll check to make sure I have given correct directions to my bibliography before I go. Note that its topic is "Holocaust in Lithuania", not what the Lithuanian equivalent of Fox News has to say about the Holocaust in Lithuania, but the double genocide narrative is in fact a thing that academic sources do discuss, so most academic sources do mention it and there is no need to use the consumer press. Elinruby (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently only a subset at that article, but here are some further sources. The Voren mentioned above is also frequently cited, not sure whether it's in this subset. Formatting is still a bit rough sorry

===Secondary sources believed to meet Eastern Europe criteria ===

• Sužiedelis, Saulius (2006). "Lithuanian Collaboration during the Second World War: Past Realities, Present Perceptions: Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust: Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania". The Mass Persecution and Murder of Jews: The Summer and Fall of. Vol. 158.2004. pp. 313–359. This presentation is in part a modified summary and collation of my studies presented in earlier venues: *;My reports **Foreign Saviors, Native Disciples: Perspectives on Collaboration in Lithuania, 1940–1945, presented in April 2002 at the "Reichskommissariat Ostland" conference at Uppsala University and Södertörn University College, now published in: Collaboration and Resistance during the Holocaust. Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, ed. David Gaunt et al *;My articles in Vilnius at the conference Holocaust in Lithuania in Vilnius 2002: **The Burden of 1941, in: 'Lituanus' 47:4 (2001), pp. 47-60; **Thoughts on Lithuania's Shadows of the Past: A Historical Essay on the Legacy of War, Part I, in: 'Vilnius (Summer 1998), pp. 129-146; **Thoughts on Lithuania's Shadows of the Past: A Historical Essay on the Legacy of War, Part II, in: 'Vilnius' (Summer 1999), pp. 177-208...
• Piotrowski, Tadeusz (2007). Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947 (illustrated ed.). McFarland. ISBN 978-0786429134. ** despite the title, this source contains several substantive mentions of Lithuania's circumstances. While Lithuania is not its primary topic, the histories of the two countries are closely interrelated and the mentions are well beyond passing references; several are three or more pages long
• Full text available online
  • {{cite book

|title=The Litvaks: A Short History of the Jews in Lithuania - Berghahn Series

|author=Dov Levin

|edition=illustrated

|publisher=Berghahn Books

|year= 2000

|isbn= 9653080849

|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p23svLo1fOMC&pg=PA6

|doi=10.1163/9789401208895_005

|pages=283

}}

• {{cite journal

|title=The Tragedy of the Holocaust in Lithuania: From the Roots of the Identity to the Efforts towards Reconciliation

|first1=Edita

|last1=Gruodyte

|first2=Aurelija

|last2=Adomaityte

|website=repozytorium.uni.pl

|url=http://repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/Content/131194/PDF/109_Gruodyte_E_Adomaityte_A_The_tragedy_of_the_holocaust_in_Lithuania.pdf

}} Elinruby (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Please reply AFTER we get third party mediation, I am trying to reply to your barrage of notifications and new discussion topics in a constructive way. Please stop making that difficult.

Please include the parts of the sources you wish to include as part of the article - these are good sources on the historiography but I see nothing in them that supports your notion of this article being one sided and doing tropes of soviet propaganda. It's really hard to tell by this formatting what pages you would like me too look at and what point you're making. Two of them are about Poland? This article mentions Poland once, it's primarily about Lithuania. They mention a lot of soviet propaganda - which we made pains to avoid. I'm not seeing any mention of a double genocide theory on a cursory read. Is your point that the double genocide theory is now largely discredited? Accusing editors of propaganda then responding by throwing un-contextualized text at us is kind of hard to take seriously. It's insulting. Carlp941 (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC)