Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
In my post I was thinking about information from the web page of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which stated in a summaries in May of 2009 that:
"According to the American Jewish Yearbook, the Jewish population of Europe was about 9.5 million in 1933 . . . "
"The Germans and their collaborators deported Jews to killing centers in occupied Poland. At the largest killing center, Auschwitz-Birkenau, transports arrived almost daily from across Europe.
By war's end, almost six million Jews and millions of others had perished in the Holocaust.
Postwar Jewish Polulation, ca. 1950: 3.5 million."
This is why I concluded that a large number to the 4 million deaths at Auschwitz were Jews and that, with a greatly reduced number, the Jewish deaths would also be greatly reduced.
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum also states that: "Many who survived (the Holocaust) were determined to leave Europe and start new lives in Israel or the United States. The population shifts brought on by the Holocaust and by Jewish emigration were astounding.
To my mind the numbers emigrating from Europe are part of the 6 million Jews absent from Europe at the end of the war. An accurate number of Jews emigrating after the war would be a key statistic.
But the great number, about 3 million, that escaped death at Auschwitz, to me is cause for celebration, because I had believed that 4 million died there.
ASMarques wrote:I have just given you a score of sources,
Not a single one of them said anything about 4 million Jews dying at Auschwitz. You're just misrepresenting what was said.
one of them for no less than 9 million people,
But not in reference to Jews alone or Auschwitz alone. It's clear from the scene that this alleged 9 million is a lower form of Simon Wiesenthal's famous 11 million. The audience is not expected to interpret this as meaning 9 million Jews, and they're not expected to interpret it as meaning 9 million dead at Auschwitz.
no public disclaimer, BTW, is known on the part of the advisers to the film, historians Henri Michel and Olga Wormser-Migot
Because, rightly or wrongly, I'm sure they would stand by the statement made in the film which says nothing about 9 million dying at Auschwitz or about 9 million Jews.
When you write "any source," am I supposed to read what you have written or to mentally edit as "any leading academic specialist source"?
No source of any type that I'm aware of or that you've managed to list so far has ever mentioned 4 million Jews dead at Auschwitz. You can find a lot of non-academic sources which give the number 4 million as a general death toll at Auschwitz among all types, i.e., Jews, Slavs, Martians and whatever else. But no source of any type which I've found or you've produced so far has ever claimed 4 million Jews dead at Auschwitz.
B is the acceptance that the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish;
That was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991. The claims of 4 million dead at Auschwitz were very definitely not made on a Jewish-majority assumption.
Get the idea?
Can you get the fact that you are simply are wrong in imagining that any of the 4 million claims were made at a time when the assumption that the majority of victims were Jewish had come into vogue? You simply are wrong on that, period. The 4 million assertions were made with the assumption that as an enemy of freedom Hitler hated all types.
Why do you place Reitlinger at one of the ends? Just because his final figure is inferior to, for instance, Hilberg's?
Just as one of many examples of an author who would be regarded (rughtly or wrongly) in academia as having somehow made a real contribution to historical work on the subject. You're welcome to replace him with Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning or a multitude of others, but you should be capable of telling the difference between such authors and, for example, Simon WIesenthal.
True scholarship should be concerned with the truth, full stop.
You've simply moved off in a different direction to a totally different topic. The issue was to what extent, if any, have those who are generally regarded within the ivory halls of orthodox academia as the leading experts ever claimed that either 4 million Jews or 4 million people in general died at Auschwitz. You're diverging off onto another topic of the general validity of such purported scholarship, which is a separate issue.
You mean those "Holocaust" articles in the Britannica were in reality trusted to the tender care of the likes of Miklos Nyisly or Olga Lengyel,
I've no idea who wrote the particular articles at that time, but there did not exist any claimed academic specialists on the subject at the time (1957) which you quote. Raul Hilberg hadn't published anything yet. Gerald Reitlinger and Leon Poliakov are the only two names which flash out in my mind as people who in the 1950s had begun publishing what modern orthodox academia would today regard as early pioneering studies of the subject. But there's no reason to believe that Britannica piece was written by them. They weren't particularly recognized at that time, as they would be today. Since there were no claimed specialists on the subject at that time, we can't say that the article was written by any.
I would have expected you to accept, for instance, that an article on, say, laser physics & engineering,
Bad comparison. Hard sciences are relatively controversy-free, and so it's much easier to reach a swift consensus. Politicized topics of recent history are often clouded by controversy and take longer for the emergence of an academic consensus, and that is not unique to the Holocaust. Try looking up (I haven't done it myself) an encyclopedia article which follows US history up to the Bush admninistration and try getting a straight answer on whether they knew that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass-destrucion ready to go off on 45 minutes notice, or whether the Bush administration simply made up the charges to push ahead with a war that it was already determined on for other reasons. It's very likely that an encyclopedia article written in the near future will have a lot of vagueness on this point, and this should be easier to get past doubt on because the whole matter was forced into the domain of public dispute by antiwar protests.
Just in case you think I was being unfair to Reitlinger, let's take your esteemed Poliakov
Your problem is not that you're a smart alec, but that you're a dumb smart alec. Since I never once said anything indicating the slightest esteem for Poliakov, you sound like a dimwit. It's just a fact that Poliakov belongs in a certain category which would include Raul Hilberg and Ian Kershaw, but would not include Elie Wiesel or Simon Wiesenthal. Recognizing such simple distinctions has nothing to do with esteem or anything else.
He does give the reader a final figure for the Jewish victims of the Auschwitz "factory of death," but do you know how he proceeds?
You're changing the subject again. See above the list of points which I made where points (1) and (2) deal with sources used and the conclusion drawn. You're getting a debate about Poliakov's methodology. That's a completely different issue.
he indicates -- to be on the safe side, as he puts it -- a minimum of 2 million Jews.
Whereas I had made the point that no academic had ever claimed that 4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz. See my point?
So much for the finest "Holocaust" scholarship.
So much for the claim that anyone in academia had ever claimed 4 million Jews killed at Auschwitz. You've simply derailed off of the subject because you couldn't find anything to address the original issue at hand.
1) The Jewish propaganda, whenever it couldn't get away with even more staggering claims, fully accepted the 4 million figure chiseled in stone, while at the same time claiming that the overwhelming majority of Auschwitz victims had been Jewish. Obviously this amounts to acceptation of the "nearly 4 million Jews" claim (at least). You don't need to articulate it in close detail, nor should you attempt to, if your purpose is mainly propagandistic and dependent, in large part, on the successful obfuscation of the whole issue.
2) The judeophile "leading academic specialists" you mention, even when under a certain number of commonsensical constraints to some of the crudest propaganda fancies, have not been noticeably uncooperative with the unremitting Jewish propaganda in general. Indeed, a great deal of their efforts have been historically directed towards the containment or postponement of many, inevitably revisionist in nature, conclusions.
This is the short reply to your perplexities. A fuller one would include the following didactic question & reply. I hope it helps.
QUESTION: Why does the professional historian community go along with the "Holocaust" hoax, and why are "leading academic specialists in the Holocaust" just a tiny handful of very silly (or shameless) individuals?
ANSWER: Here is why:
1) Non-specialist academic historians -- a historian who does not specialise in the "Holocaust" is no better equipped than anyone else to understand why the "Holocaust" is a hoax -- go along due to:
-- Ignorance (they may not know and not care).
-- Naïveté (historians are not hoax proof).
-- Prudence (debunking the myth is not a career booster).
-- Fear (they may fear losing their jobs, being assaulted, judicially prosecuted etc.).
2) Specialist academic historians who choose the "Holocaust" as their field are just a handful. So, by "specialist historians" I mean here both the handful of true historian academics (such as Cristopher Browning) and anyone who writes on, and claims extensive knowledge of, the "Holocaust" (such as art dealer Gerald Reitlinger, medical lab director Georges Weller, pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac, Walter Laqueur who never completed an university degree, political scientist Raul Hilberg, art & architectural historian Robert van Pelt, "Jewish studies" professor Deborah Lipstadt etc.) and their reasons for letting the "Holocaust" be peddled to the gullible masses may be as follows:
-- Tribalism (they may be Jews unable to professionally detribalise). 
-- Devotion (they may be "Holocaust" cultists unable to reason). 
-- Greed (they may find the platform lucrative and not too crowded).
-- Incompetence (they may be exceptionally stupid).
-- Fear (they may fear losing their jobs, being assaulted, judicially prosecuted etc.).
-- Impotence (they may have been demoralized, reduced to indigence or imprisoned).
 Compare with patriotically motivated historians who glorify their own country's history and pay deficient attention to the historical record.
 Compare with religiously motivated historians who believe in the miracles of their own religions and have a deficient understanding of such a basic concept as historicity itself.
ginger wrote:An accurate number of Jews emigrating after the war would be a key statistic.
Yes it would, but we'll probably never have anything of any exact precision on that. Regarding the American Jewish Yearbook, they are capable of allowing numbers to oscillate wildly for every other time-period but the immediate post-WWII years.
The Yearbook for 1939-40 gives a claimed world Jewish population estimate of 16,180,000. The Yearbook for 1940-1 gives an estimate of 15,757,000. It's not clear why such a drop by almost 400,000 should have occurred, since the estimates are meant to apply to the year before Operation Barbarossa began. Most likely it just represents a degree of demographic uncertainty. The Yearbook for 1947-8 now gives a revised estimate for 1939 of 16,643,120, and asserts a total for 1947 of 11,266,000. The range of estimates for the pre-war world Jewish population have here varied from the low of 15,757,000 to the high of 16,643,120, with an intermediate estimate of 16,180,000.
Now if we jump to the 1981 Yearbook we get an estimate of 14,527,150. But the 2004 Yearbook changes this again and gives revised numbers going back to 1945. For 1945 they assign a flat 11 million, which has clearly a rounded estimate. For 1950 they list an old estimate 11,303,400, and then a corrected estimate of 11,297,000. Both of these numbers are close to the estimate of 11,266,000 which the 1947 Yearbook gave. But for 1980, the 2004 Yearbook gives a revised estimate of 12,819,000, thereby dropping the old estimate by more than 1.7 million.
What is odd about the above is the consistency with which the estimates for the immediate post-war years are held to, while periods from both before and long after the war are open to major revisions in demographic estimates. One would think that the greatest margin of error in forming estimates would hold in the years immediately after the war. But this seems to be the time when the Yearbook is most confident of its demographic estimates.
ASMarques wrote:This is the short reply to your perplexities.
I'm not perplexed by anything. I've simply noted that people are wrong in making the argument that one can jump from the old Auschiwtz plaque saying 4 million to Raul Hilberg saying 1.1 million and deduce that this means that the alleged 6 million Jews should be reduced by 2.9 million. That's a false argument, and you've said nothing to contradict this point.
PatrickSMcNally wrote:ASMarques wrote:B is the acceptance that the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish;
That was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991.
Quick sidenote: I've just sent you back to your own sources (Poliakov, in his 1956 final figures note in Bréviaire de la haine), but you don't seem to pay any attention to them, so here we go again, as explicitly as I can: according to Poliakov (1956), Gypsies, Russians and Polish Aryans amounted to less than one fourth of the Jews in the Auschwitz victims figures.
Note that this is his "at best" case for non-Jews, i.e. 2,500,000 total dead, at least 2,000,000 of which Jews. You're contradicted by your own sources.
PatrickSMcNally wrote:Your problem is not that you're a smart alec, but that you're a dumb smart alec. [...] you sound like a dimwit.
Your problem, if you ask me, is you lose too much time and effort with games and name calling, instead of reading your own sources and trying to understand that claiming exactly 4 million is not significantly different from claiming nearly 4 million, more than 4 million, a many millions indistinct cloud etc.
ASMarques wrote:Note that this is his "at best" case for non-Jews, i.e. 2,500,000 total dead, at least 2,000,000 of which Jews.
Since Poliakov doesn't give the 4 million number, this is meaningless. The story I can recall having once picked up through some kind of media source somewhere was that 4 million people had been killed at Auschwitz, with Jews a significant component but not by any means the majority. When I began examining the literature to find out what was claimed by academics, it became apparent that none of them asserted the 4 million number. But the 4 million number as I had picked it up from popular culture was always predicated on the assumption that Jews did not form the majority. Poliakov never claimed the 4 million number either way. In polular culture the emphasis on Jews as the victims did not emerge until the 1970s, and the 4 million only appears in popular culture, not in any academic work.
claiming exactly 4 million is not significantly different from claiming nearly 4 million, more than 4 million, a many millions indistinct cloud etc.
Actually, claiming 2.5 million is significantly different from claiming 4 million. Specifically, 4 - 2.5 = 1.5. That's significant in itself, and if people are going to attempt to base demographic arguments on something like the change in the Auschwitz plaque, such as arguing that the alleged 6 million should be reduced by whatever the change on the plaque was, then a more careful review is in order.
PatrickSMcNally wrote:ASMarques wrote:Note that this is his "at best" case for non-Jews, i.e. 2,500,000 total dead, at least 2,000,000 of which Jews.
Since Poliakov doesn't give the 4 million number, this is meaningless.
You now seem to selectively ignore, not only your sources, but what you yourself write, namely that "[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991."
ASMarques wrote:"[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991."
In the public domain where the 4 million number could occasionally pop up in circulation, that is absolutely correct. Mark Weber has correctly noted that at the time of the Nuremberg trials the main emphasis was placed on charges of aggressive warfare and that charges about exterminating Jews were relatively incidental to the whole thing. Poliakov, Reitlinger, and Hilberg were not put in wide circulation among the general public at the time of their publication. Among popular culture the idea of Jews as unique victims didn't begin to spread until the 1970s. The change on the Auschwitz plaque represented an admission in popular culture (as opposed to academia) that the Third Reich had not exterminated as many Slavs and other non-Jewish Gentiles as had been previously believed.
PatrickSMcNally wrote:[...] people are wrong in making the argument that one can jump from the old Auschiwtz plaque saying 4 million to Raul Hilberg saying 1.1 million and deduce that this means that the alleged 6 million Jews should be reduced by 2.9 million.
True, but something of a straw-man, since hardly anyone is making that exact claim in such a simplistic form, without implying (the true fact) that "Holocaust" peddlers did peddle away both the pre-revisionist "4 million" and the "overwhelming majority of Jews" twin myths. Under that form the argument is mainly addressed to the out-and-out propagandists, not to the more prudent "Holocaust" pseudo-scholars who took refuge in their usual cloud of quiet obfuscation.
What makes every sense and should indeed be paid close attention to, whoever one is addressing, is the argument that given the 4 million pretense was so well tolerated by everyone but revisionists (including even public homages paid by all kinds of Jewish and Western official representatives at the Auschwitz stone monuments), and the claim that the overwhelming majority of dead had been Jewish (remember the hysterical controversy around the projected Carmelite nunnery at Auschwitz?), then a major revision out of the blue involving several millions ought to have visible official implications in the 6 million allegation.
PatrickSMcNally wrote:ASMarques wrote:"[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991."
In the public domain where the 4 million number could occasionally pop up in circulation, that is absolutely correct.
I can see you have a confused way of going about a discussion, but please keep your quotes clear, i.e. don't quote me quoting yourself simply as if you were quoting my words (even if you keep the punctuation quotation marks). It can add a good deal of confusion to other readers. Thanks.
ASMarques wrote:True, but something of a straw-man, since hardly anyone is making that exact claim in such a simplistic form,
I've seen people make it on the CODOH forum boards. In fact the way this whole tangent got started in this thread was that someone raised the issue of the old 4 million in connection with questions about Jewish immigration, and I simply pointed out that the 4 million claim is irrelevant as far as Jewish demographics go. If one is going to start off on questions about Jewish immigration and Jewish demographics then one is already obligated to stick "to the more prudent" representatives of orthodoxy and not base one's reasoning on the Auschwitz plaque either way.
a major revision out of the blue involving several millions ought to have visible official implications in the 6 million allegation.
Except that it wasn't really out of the blue at all. You could track the main academic publications back to the 1950s and easily see that no one ever claimed more than 2 million Jews dead at Auschwitz, with some going well below that and others making an allowance that non-Jewish deaths in the camp might have raised the number much higher. If you want to draw any demographic conclusions then you have to be basing it upon what the academic work and related sources say and not on a plaque which politicians parley around.
PatrickSMcNally wrote:ASMarques wrote:a major revision out of the blue involving several millions ought to have visible official implications in the 6 million allegation.
Except that it wasn't really out of the blue at all.
Of course it was, given the (official) public domain.
You seem to have missed an important part of my message, namely that "under that form the argument is mainly addressed to the out-and-out propagandists, not to the more prudent "Holocaust" pseudo-scholars who took refuge in their usual cloud of quiet obfuscation."
I find it a good resumé of the situation, quite clear to those who, like myself, have been around and following the "Holocaust" saga since the late 60s.
Got to go now. See you.
ASMarques wrote:PatrickSMcNally wrote:ASMarques wrote:-->"<--[the overwhelming majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish] was not accepted at the time of the Nuremberg trials and only began to slowly creep in by the 1970s, with full acceptance only after 1991.-->"<--
In the public domain where the 4 million number could occasionally pop up in circulation, that is absolutely correct.
I can see you have a confused way of going about a discussion, but please keep your quotes clear,
I thought that it was clear enough since your own quotes were included, but I've added the arrows this time just in case anyone is really slow. There's nothing confused about it. You haven't been able to produce either a work recognized in academia as having some status and claiming 4 million dead at Auschwitz, or a non-academic piece which asserts 4 million Jews dead at Auschwitz.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests