1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:28 pm)

nathan wrote:Patrick Macnally writes:

--------------------------------
“The old Soviet propaganda used to claim that 4 million people of predominantly Slavic background had been killed in Auschwitz.”
---------------------------

Certainly in 1945 an assimilationist USSR wished to play down Jewish as against Soviet suffering. But the four million figure had an impact on Western interrogations and trials, where the four million were assumed and sometimes stated to be predominantly Jews. Did "old Soviet propaganda" anywhere make it clear that only a minority of the four million dead “citizens” were to be taken as of Jewish origin?

This is just more running around in circles and has all been addressed multiple times, but let's try getting back to the point of how this offshoot began.

ginger wrote:
Another thought on the reduced numbers of deaths at Auschwitz, from 4 million to 1.1 million, was that perhaps the 2.9 million emigrated from Europe after the war, rather than died.

I had pointed out that that whole statement simply rests on a misconception. Whatever the legitimate questions which exist in regards to Jewish emigration, they have nothing really to do with the change on the Auschwitz plaque. If you were going to make an argument that such a change on the plaque raises real demographic questions, then you would first have to be able to show that the most celebrated academic sources on the subject had in fact once claimed that 4 million Jews had died at Auschwitz but subsequently altered their judgment without explanation to now say that 1.1 million Jews had died at Auschwitz. If such had occurred it would indeed be noteworthy and would be an interesting starting point for asking further demographic questions. But that's not what happened and the reasoning invoked in the above quote is entirely offbase. Instead I can only recall a brief listing of distinctive points which I'd made before already in relation to someone else's post:

There are at least 4 different types of issues which you've casually mixed together in the last few posts. There are issues of:

1) Source criticism. This in itself need not imply rejection of an author's conclusions. It is actually possible to agree with an author's conclusions, but argue that they have used a poor source-base when drawing those conclusions.

2) Rejection of someone's conclusions. This has the reverse form. In some cases one may even believe that the sources which an author has used are perfectly valid, but that the author has drawn a wrong conclusion from them through poor reasoning.

3) Criticism of academics who, rightly or wrongly, are regarded as the "top experts" at major universities and colleges around the world. On the subject of Holocaust allegations, this would include Christopher Browning but not Elie Wiesel.

4) Criticism of influential publicists who don't really claim to have any academic specialization on a subject, but exert a strong influence on many people's thinking about it. Elie Wiesel would fall in that category, as would Simon Wiesenthal, Claude Lanzmann, Alain Resnais, Steven Spielberg, each of the Popes, and quite a few others.

The type of demographic argument which the poster "ginger" that I quoted above was implying would only be valid if we could cite several major cases of authors of the type listed in Point 3 as having given a number of 4 million Jews dead at Auschwitz. Since we don't have any such examples this attempt at a demographic argument based upon the change in the plaque is without foundation. The main focus of your question is on a completely different tangent and relates to Point 4, the variety of non-academic cultural influences. That has no bearing on the attempt to make a demographic argument about 2.9 million Jews having emigrated due to the change of the plaque (which is actually a wrong characterization of the plaque change, since the plaque says 1.5 million).

If you bothered to read some Soviet publications in detail, I think it would be clear that they placed emphasis on Slavs having been killed and deemphasized violence against Jews. Most readers in the west would not have read such publications in any detail but would merely have picked up confused notions about what occurred from a variety of second-hand media sources, as is quite common among the public with regards to many issues (not just the legendary Holocaust). Many of these people very well might have easily gotten the impression of 4 million people (I know that I once had that impression ages ago, though I never thought 4 million Jews), and some of them may have even gotten the impression of 4 million Jews just as a consequence of conflicting media statements, dying at Auschwitz. That could be cited as an illustration of how careless the media frequently is, but it is not a valid basis for a demographic argument which attempts to claim that 2.9 million Jews emigrated.

If you are really concerned so specifically about this 4 million number and the way the media kicked it around in ways that might have led some to believe that 4 million Jews had died at Auschwitz, then there's a simple solution which can be effected entirely within the parameters of the Holocaust Industry. Simply lobby to have high school requirements established where students are expected to read Gerald Reitlinger, Raul Hilberg, Christopher Browning and a few other authors that are generally viewed positively by academia (Ian Kershaw might be one choice). If students read through all of this they will learn that some of the earliest authors on the subject, such as Reitlinger, were as early as the 1950s giving numbers for Auschwitz which fell short of 1 million; that since Hilberg established himself on the subject in 1961 the consensus in academia has steadily moved towards his 1.1 million number, totally independent of what was featured on the plaque in Poland; that the extreme highest number ever asserted positively for Auschwitz by any source with some credibility in academia was Leon Poliakov's 2.5 million which he gave in the 1950s around the same time Reitlinger was writing, before Hilberg appeared. Set the students straight on that much and by just making them read these authors you can remove the effects of the earlier media carelessness which may have conveyed the misimpression of the Soviet figure of 4 million being a valid figure and perhaps meaning 4 million Jews.

Anyway, that's all completely different from the way that this subthread offshoot started with the comment that:

ginger wrote:
Another thought on the reduced numbers of deaths at Auschwitz, from 4 million to 1.1 million, was that perhaps the 2.9 million emigrated from Europe after the war, rather than died.

if you really have something to quibble about please bring it back to that point right there.
Last edited by PatrickSMcNally on Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:29 am)

ginger wrote:Another thought on the reduced numbers of deaths at Auschwitz, from 4 million to 1.1 million, was that perhaps the 2.9 million emigrated from Europe after the war, rather than died.

As those 2.9 million fictional fatalities were not Jewish fictional fatalities(opinions differ(ed) on whether the "missing" millions were ever claimed to be Jews,explicitly,or by implication),they can be quietly forgotten.At least,so the hoaxsters would have you believe.
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:30 am)

Thesaint wrote:As those 2.9 million fictional fatalities

Actually, this statement is already an error because the Auschwitz plaque was changed to 1.5 million, not 1.1 million. So if you were going to use the change on the plaque to compute a number you would get 2.5, not 2.9. The fact that people still toss around this misstatement of what the plaque was changed to is just another sign of how sloppy and silly people get with this. The number 1.1 million had been put into circulation by Raul Hilberg several decades before the plaque in Poland was changed. Hilberg's work had, for a long time before the change of the plaque in Poland, been the work which orthodox historians were increasingly regarding as the most authoritative work written before the late 1970s. The acceptance of that 1.1 million figure among such orthodox historians in the west was not brought about by the change of the plaque in Poland and simply had nothing to do with the fall of the Berlin Wall. That's not a difference of opinion. Any review of the academic literature will show this. If you disagree, then provide a citation to a work that is well-regarded in academia as an orthodox history of the fabled Holocaust and list the page number where it suggests something about 4 million Jews dying at Auschwitz. Don't ramble on about how "opionions differ" if you can't give a clear source of the relevant type.
Last edited by PatrickSMcNally on Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lysander_Spooner
Member
Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:13 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Lysander_Spooner » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:42 am)

ASMarques, nice job of dealing with what seems to me to be a talmudically-trained mind in Mr. McNally. It takes patience, and a willingness not to expect a concession of your being right after all. You never get that.

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby nathan » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:03 am)

I myself do not support or even follow the argument that the extra three million signified emigrants who never died. But it is not off-topic to ask PM to justify his counter-claim that it could stand for Slavs who never existed. He has obviously “bothered” to read old Soviet publications, so it will be no bother for him to name one official Soviet pronouncement which made it unambigously clear that the four million were predominantly of “Slavic” background; as against a pronouncement which merely attempted to bury Jewish identity under the rubric “Soviet citizens”.

(My own interest in the impossible mega-numbers (four million Jews, two and a half million Jews) is that they were accepted by senior prosecutors and judges in authoritative trials. Perhaps some of them ignored good evidence that the Soviets were claiming three quarters of the Auschwitz victims to be (non-existent) Slavs. I would simply like to see that evidence)

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ginger » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:26 pm)

PatrickSMcNally:

Do you consider the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum a descent source of information on the Holocaust?

They state that between 1933 and 1950, 6 millions Jews disappeared from Europe. They state that Auschwitz was the largest killing center.

Also, Eichmann and the Nazis deported Jews from all over Europe to Auschwitz.

Therefore a large number of persons killed at Auschwitz were European Jews (or a large number of 4 million using the old number).

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum does state, in another section called "Auschwitz", that 1.1 million died there, but this is not made clear in the introductory material.

If less than a million Jews perished at Auschwitz, where did the other 5 million go??? Arthur Butz theorized in "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" that many European Jews may have ended up in the Soviet Union, but I don't remember that he knew that for a fact.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:42 pm)

nathan wrote:I myself do not support or even follow the argument that the extra three million signified emigrants who never died.

Well then that probably makes this whole argument a dead duckling in the water. What makes this matter an error which wanna-be revisionists need to clear up and stop repeating is that they routinely make themselves sound very silly to the public at large by arguing that the change on the plaque somehow represents an admission by traditional academic specialists in the west on the matter of the Holocaust, an admission which is supposed to have demographic implications towards the six million number. If you don't make such a claim then this is not relevant to you.

The Nuremberg trials actually did not place a strong accent on the Jewish question, by the way. The main emphasis at Nuremberg was on charges of aggressive warfare. Beyond that, the treatment of Jew-specific issues in relation to concentration camps and what not was rather light by the standards of the post-1978 era. No one at the Nuremberg trials would have dwelled very much on whether the purported 4 million allegedly killed at Auschwitz were Jewish, Slavic or Martian. The number of 4 million victims would simply have been noted without further elaboration. Though I can't claim to have actually gone through all of the of the Nuremberg trial documents, I'm willing to guess that you won't find any judgment issued at Nuremberg which claims that 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz no matter how many documents you look through. You can find statements about 4 million being killed in Auschwitz in the context of a trial which describes war crimes against humanity, i.e. the entire human race, committed by the Third Reich, but you won't find very much from the Nuremberg trials which highlights Jews as the principal victims in general and certainly not among this claimed 4 million number.

The accent on Jews as the main victims of the Third Reich started to emerge in the west in the years after the war as many of the older wartime passions cooled down among the general population at large, while Jewish groups pushed steadily harder for recognition of their status as victims. That whole process was derailed in eastern Europe until 1991 as Jewish groups could not operate there in the same way and the Soviet government maintained a strong emphasis on The Great Patriotic War which precluded any emphasis on Jews. Since 1991 the situation in eastern Europe has been generally more complex with some attempts by organized Jewish groups to make things more similar to the situation in western Europe, but with significant differences nonetheless.

It's a general fact that the media is just careless and sloppy in reporting on most any issue. That goes well beyond any specific propaganda campaign such as the story about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass-destruction. A fairly general carelessness in reporting over and beyond such campaigns as the Iraqi WMD charges should always be taken into account by anyone who is going to look at the media at all. For example, if a reporter was assigned to report on some event in Poland relating to the Auschwitz camp before 1991, it would not be surprising for such a reporter to mention that "it is charged that 4 million people were killed in Auschwitz." If another reporter somewhere else was assigned to interview the leader of some Jewish group in the west it would not be surprising for the reporter to mention that "it is generally agreed that the majority of victims at Auschwitz were Jewish." This could lead a casual newspaper reader to acquire the misimpression that "4 million Jews were killed at Auschwitz." But if the same newspaper reader started taking an interest in the subject and began reading more standard literature on the subject, they would very quickly become aware that such is not what is claimed by standard western authors. They wouldn't have to look at anything unorthodox to simply realize that they had merely picked up a misimpression from careless media reporting. There are a lot of things one can charge about the media's overall bias in favor of the Holocaust Industry, but this "4 million Jews killed in Auschwitz" isn't really a good example of anything. I'm fairly confident that just as you will not find anything in the Nuremberg trial transcripts which makes that claim, you won't find it in the media at anytime either. What you can find are varying stories, such as those I've suggested above, which carry statements that conflict with each other but which a casual reader might misinterpret as meaning together that 4 million Jews had been killed at Auschwitz. That level of media carelessness is simply too general to have much relevance as a specific claim against the Holocaust Industry per se, and people really sound silly when they try to use this as an argument that the alleged 6 million number needs to be lowered because of the change on the plaque. There are real fundamental problems with how the 6 million number was arrived at, but this is just a strawman.

name one official Soviet pronouncement which made it unambigously clear that the four million were predominantly of “Slavic” background; as against a pronouncement which merely attempted to bury Jewish identity under the rubric “Soviet citizens”.

In the Soviet context such burying of issues of Jewish identity under the rubric "Soviet citizens" would have led any average person to presume that such people were mostly of Slavic background. You appear to be looking for a spot where the Soviet government debated Jewish lobbying groups. That was unnecessary because the latter were simply outlawed in eastern Europe. No one in Soviet Europe was ever raised with the idea that "the Jews were the main victims of the Nazis," such as became prominent in the west, and that was that.

(My own interest in the impossible mega-numbers (four million Jews, two and a half million Jews) is that they were accepted by senior prosecutors and judges in authoritative trials. Perhaps some of them ignored good evidence that the Soviets were claiming three quarters of the Auschwitz victims to be (non-existent) Slavs. I would simply like to see that evidence)

Perhaps you have evidence that the Nuremberg prosecutors and judges said something somewhere about the victims at Auschwitz being predominantly Jewish? I would like to see that evidence because it contradicts everything else which I've yet been able to find about the Nuremberg trial. As far as I've been able to determine thus far, the Nuremberg court essentially blew past such Jew-specific issues. There was some specific noting of "antisemitism," most clearly in relation to Julius Streicher, but the "Jews were main victims of Auschwitz" meme did not emerge until years later. For all I can say, the Soviet prosecutors may have produced some good evidence that the majority of victims at Auschwitz were Martians from outer space which the Nuremberg court ignored. The genealogical background of the claimed 4 million victims at Auschwitz does not appear, as far I've been able to determine, to have ever been addressed as an issue by the Nuremberg court. The later literature which developed starting slowly from the 1950s and then speeding up in the 1970s which gave a stress to Jews as primary victims has always stayed well below the 4 million number, even in the most extreme examples such as Leon Poliakov. I doubt very much that you will ever find any source which attempts to claim that 4 million Jews were killed in Auschwitz, but please let us know if you ever do.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:50 pm)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Thesaint wrote:As those 2.9 million fictional fatalities

Actually, this statement is already an error because the Auschwitz plaque was changed to 1.5 million, not 1.1 million. So if you were going to use the change on the plaque to compute a number you would get 1.5, not 1.1.

I`m not using the plaque to "compute" anything,but merely using it as an example of how millions of fictional holocaust fatalities can be erased by the flick of a (Polish government)pen.The fact that the holocaust uber-scholars such as the laughable Hilberg only ever claimed that 1.1 million Jews definitely did die does not change the fact that 3 million "holocaust victims" have been admitted to be merely figments of political imagination.
A new entrant to the revisionist field of study who learns of the changed plaques is at least entitled to start having serious doubts about the holohoax methodology,even if strictly speaking they are not entitled to use it(on it`s own)to attack the mythical 6 million figure.
As we keep being told by the hoaxsters,the alleged 6 million Jewish deaths are only part of a larger holocaust,and that larger holocaust has been openly revised downwards by 3 million at Auschwitz alone.That is a fact.
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:01 pm)

ginger wrote:They state that between 1933 and 1950, 6 millions Jews disappeared from Europe. They state that Auschwitz was the largest killing center.

That much would be fairly consistent with the orthodox version of the Holocaust fable.

Also, Eichmann and the Nazis deported Jews from all over Europe to Auschwitz.

That much by itself is just a fact which is also supported by such authors as Jurgen Graf, Arthur Butz and many others. The statement is a bit vague though since "Jews from all over Europe" has no hard quantitative measurement.

Therefore a large number of persons killed at Auschwitz were European Jews

In fact the orthodox history which has been promoted in western culture claims that a clear overwhelming majority of those who died at Auschwitz were Jews, with perhaps some Gypsies, homosexuals and a few other types tossed in on the side.

(or a large number of 4 million using the old number).

4 million is not the "old number" in the ranks of western scholarship. That's where you're confused. 4 million was the old number on a plaque which used to be maintained at the camp in Poland until 1991. It was subsequently changed to a plaque which says 1.5 million. Neither number, 4 or 1.5, is representative of what has been maintained by western academics. In the 1950s Leon Poliakov wrote a book which actually gave a number of 2.5 million, with about 2 million Jews as a subset of this, being killed in Auschwitz. In the same general time-frame, Gerald Reitlinger wrote a book which put the number of Auschwitz dead at around 1 million with perhaps 800,000 of these being Jewish. In 1961 Raul Hilberg published the first edition of his book which put the number at about 1.1 million. Over the next two decades Hilberg steadily emerged as the man who had earned his place as the pioneer in academia of Holocaust studies. Even as late as the 1970s, however, Lucy Dawidowicz produced a book which claimed 2 million. However you will not find any book written by historians living on the western side of the Berlin Wall which places the number at 4 million and any survey of the literature since the 1970s should convince you that Hilberg's 1.1 million was generally viewed as the most authoritative. There simply is no evidence that 4 million was ever "the old number" at any time in the ranks of western academia.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum does state, in another section called "Auschwitz", that 1.1 million died there, but this is not made clear in the introductory material.

Ordinarily I'd have no reason to want to plead the case of the USHMM, but in this case you're making an unjustified insinuation against them. The USHMM has absolutely no connection with the Polish government of the old Soviet bloc which had put up the 4 million plaque. Why, then, should the USHMM feel any responsibility for disclaiming the 4 million number in an introductory statement? They simply are not responsible for the fact that someone reading statements put out by the old Polish government may have gotten the misimpression that 4 million died at Auschwitz. If they have a section devoted to Auschwitz which gives the 1.1 million number then it's clear that this is their claim, whether right or wrong. They have no reason to see the 4 million number as an issue.

If less than a million Jews perished at Auschwitz, where did the other 5 million go??? Arthur Butz theorized in "The Hoax of the Twentieth Century" that many European Jews may have ended up in the Soviet Union, but I don't remember that he knew that for a fact.

Well this is obviously a completely separate issue from whether or not the 4 million number on the old plaque can be used for any substantive revisionist case. The movements of the Jewish population around Europe are hard to trace in many respects, although perhaps if the Bad Arolsen archives were made more freely available then something new might be determined by further research. But I don't expect that they will be made easily available to anyone.
Last edited by PatrickSMcNally on Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:34 pm)

Thesaint wrote:I`m not using the plaque to "compute" anything,

Obviously you did, otherwise where else did you get the number 2.9 from if not by 4 - 1.1?

but merely using it as an example of how millions of fictional holocaust fatalities can be erased by the flick of a (Polish government)pen.

Not at all. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of western scholarship, that is what one should be basing one's judgment on. Soviet publications only have relevance insofar as they produce alleged documents which at times played a role in various trials for which one is then obligated to critically reassess the evidence. But insofar as one is going to determine what has been claimed within the halls of orthodox western academia about the Holocaust story, the conclusions presented by the pre-1991 Polish government have no relevance.

The fact that the holocaust uber-scholars such as the laughable Hilberg only ever claimed that 1.1 million Jews definitely did die does not change the fact that 3 million "holocaust victims" have been admitted to be merely figments of political imagination.

More precisely, those 3 million were never a part of the western academic lore and have not been admitted to be anything at all.

A new entrant to the revisionist field of study who learns of the changed plaques is at least entitled to start having serious doubts about the holohoax methodology,

Alternatively, an open-minded person who is just becoming familiar with both sides of the debate for the first time is entitled to assume that revisionists probably don't have much of a case if their argument depends upon mixing freely the assertions published in Soviet bloc propaganda with the publications of major universities west of the Berlin Wall. Even if, strictly speaking, they decide not to assume too much one way or another, it already should sound suspicious to them when people posing what are supposed to be "revisionist arguments" have to make it sound as if plaques set up in the Soviet bloc and the difference between that and Raul Hilberg's claims somehow represent an "admission" of something or other in a way that matters for the orthodox Holocaust story.

As we keep being told by the hoaxsters,the alleged 6 million Jewish deaths are only part of a larger holocaust,and that larger holocaust has been openly revised downwards by 3 million at Auschwitz alone.

No, a change of the plaque because of the fall of the Soviet government does not have any relevance to the revision of western scholarship. Although there are historical works (some of them, unfortunately, in German which I'm not qualified to read) which discuss charges of 2.5 million Soviet soldiers dying in German captivity in the early months of Barbarossa, it has never been claimed in such sources that these deaths occurred in Auschwitz. I haven't really investigated the issue because I take for granted that the Nazi-Soviet war was a war of no mercy on either side in which Hitler's aim was to conquer the whole of eastern Europe and repopulate it with Germans as Slavs were steadily expelled. But the charge of the extermination of Jews in gas chambers has a special character to it. However, even if one wished to investigate these matters more seriously, the issue of what was said on a plaque put up old Sovietized Poland would simply have no relevance. You'd have to start looking up historical works written and published to the west of the Berlin Wall which are devoted to such a topic as the treatment of Soviet POWs and whatever else.

Thesaint
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 201
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: England

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby Thesaint » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:10 am)

PatrickSMcNally wrote:
Thesaint wrote:I`m not using the plaque to "compute" anything,

Obviously you did, otherwise where else did you get the number 2.9 from if not by 4 - 1.1?

You`re too obsessed with the plaque Patrick.
The 4 million/vague references to "Millions" Auschwitz death toll are not confined to a dusty plaque and locked away in folders in some office in a communist theme park in Poland,as you well know Patrick.They are found in the Western media archives and even in self-described "holocaust teaching" literature(circa 1999) as I showed in a previous thread(looking for it now).
The fact that Hilberg and a few other holocaust "scholars" squeal that they never authorised those figures is neither here nor there.The fact that those mythical millions were not Jewish millions,is also neither here nor there.
The fact remains that a preposterous allegation of 3 million Auschwitz deaths was discarded by the Polish government like a used snot-rag,and the western media did`nt set the record straight re their previous allegations.If you think that is not an embarrassment to the hoaxsters than that is up to you.If you think the plaque changing has no significance re the holohoax narrative,again,that is up to you.
Other revisionists have done/do disagree with your view point,which you also know full well.
Last edited by Thesaint on Sat Aug 15, 2009 1:31 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"We didn't call survivors," says Lipstadt, "because first of all we didn't want to subject them to cross-examination by this guy. He (Irving) would have destroyed them."
- Jerusalem Post 6/16/00

nathan
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 10:14 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby nathan » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sat Aug 15, 2009 12:37 pm)

A lot of what PM says is true but irrelevant to my question.

When the early British tribunals decided that millions of people had been gassed at Auschwitz they did so on the basis of testimonies describing the extermination of Jews and Gypsies. Most of these testimonies were supplied by former prisoners and subsequently echoed by SS confessions. Members of the former Birkenau prisoner elite supplied the four million figure which, by no coincidence, was the official Soviet number.

It is true that for legalistic and perhaps anti-Semitic reasons some indictments and judgements were framed for “Allied Nationals” but there was no pretence these were not predominantly Jews and Gypsies. From pre-trial depositions and unchallenged courtroom testimonies at the Belsen and Tesch trials it is clear that they were.

The IMT Judgement did officially downsize the big number to something rather greater than 2.5 million because (with characteristic carelessness) the Tribunal misunderstood the Hoess figure as pertaining only to his own tour of duty. It was still a racial number.

It is true (to answer my own question) that the Nuremberg document USSR-8 merely describes the extermination of four million “citizens of countries occupied by the Nazis” and its authors would clearly love to get Russian POWs in on the act. But whenever it comes to concrete discussions of big numbers the story that the Russians derived from survivors who remained at Auschwitz is essentially the story the British derived from survivors who were transferred to Belsen. The Russians are simply trying to describe the alleged extermination of the Jews without mentioning the Jews.

eg
-----------------------------------------------------
The former inmate, ANNA KEPPICH, a Hungarian from the city of Cluj, testified:

"...I arrived in Auschwitz camp in June 1944 with 3,000 Hungarian prisoners. After our arrival in the camp, 500 strong people were selected for work in the camp, while the other 2,500 were sent for extermination in the gas chambers."

Professor BERTHOLD EPSTEIN of the University of Prague reported to the Commission:

"Selected prisoners were sent to the gas chambers for extermination. For several months, we saw long lines of people sent to their death in the crematorium. Specially large groups were killed in May, June, and July 1944.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone would know - and the Russians knew that that everyone would know - that “specially large groups” coming from Hungary were of course Jews. .

As I read the document it is not saying that only a minority of the victims were Jewish; it wants none of them at all to be thought of as Jewish. But let readers judge

http://www.codoh.com/trials/triussr8.html

The four million has a plainer explanation than the inclusion of three million non-existent Slavs or three million secretly prospering emigrants. It is simply explained by wartime hysteria, a hysteria which invaded the postwar courtrooms of the victors and made tall tales impossible to challenge. Each new teller of a tale had to exaggerate it, first in order to get attention, then in order to enlarge home suffering and magnify enemy villainy. If you can believe that 10,000 arrivals were killed every day you can soon calculate a very big number indeed, subject perhaps to a cremation constraint.

User avatar
ginger
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 305
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 11:52 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby ginger » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:55 pm)

To PatrickSMcNally who says:


Ordinarily I'd have no reason to want to plead the case of the USHMM, but in this case you're making an unjustified insinuation against them. The USHMM has absolutely no connection with the Polish government of the old Soviet bloc which had put up the 4 million plaque. Why, then, should the USHMM feel any responsibility for disclaiming the 4 million number in an introductory statement? They simply are not responsible for the fact that someone reading statements put out by the old Polish government may have gotten the misimpression that 4 million died at Auschwitz. If they have a section devoted to Auschwitz which gives the 1.1 million number then it's clear that this is their claim, whether right or wrong. They have no reason to see the 4 million number as an issue.


In my opinion the USHMM was saying in introductory material that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Auschwitz was the largest killing center, therefore the USHMM is inviting a conclusion that many of the 6 million died at Auschwitz.

I do believe that as a United States Museum, used to educate schoolchildren, the USHMM is responsible for making clear what happened to the European Jews, and they are responsible for mitigating horror and for presenting a balanced view of history.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:22 pm)

Thesaint wrote:You`re too obsessed with the plaque Patrick.

Well actually, the change on the plaque was brought up by ginger with the assertion that "the old number" was 4 million. The plaque is the only context in which one can speak of an "old number" of 4 million. One can find careless media statements which exclaim that 4 million people (though I doubt you will find 4 million Jews given in such stories) were killed at Auschwitz. When that occurs it is worth organizing a letter-writing campaign of some sort which makes the point to whatever newspaper may publish such a story that orthodox western historians of the Holocaust have for the last 50 years or so consistently given numbers well below 4 million, with the very highest claimed being 2.5 million and with most such historians favoring Hilberg's judgment of 1.1 million. That's ditto if any schoolbook publishes the number 4 million people, get the address of any school which uses this as a textbook and organize a letter-writing campaign which recommends people to protest such a blatantly false statement in a school textbook. But the relevant point for such letters to make when writing to a school should not be to claim that "the number was 4 million until 1991 and then got changed into 1.1 million," because that isn't really true. The relevant points which letters sent to any school using such a textbook should make would be: a) The absolue all-time high among the numbers attributed to Auschwitz by recognized academics was the 2.5 million given by Leon Poliakov in the 1950s, already well below 4 million; b) in the same decade Gerald Reitlinger produced an equally recognized book which placed the number around 1 million; c) at the start of the 1960s Hilberg published his book which gave the number 1.1 million, and over the next two decades that came to be widely regarded in academia as the foundational text for further Holocaust studies and Hilberg's assessment on the Auschwitz numbers was rather widely accepted. Any textbook which attempts to claim 4 million people (and I remember looking through the pages of the book you mentioned, it did not say 4 million Jews) is already at odds with the orthodox academic view of the Holocaust, and that would be worth calling to a schoolboard's attention.

Thesaint wrote:The fact remains that a preposterous allegation of 3 million Auschwitz deaths was discarded by the Polish government like a used snot-rag,

A lot of things were discarded in eastern Europe in the same way after 1991. For example, until 1991 there were still many "legal convictions" from 1937-8 where the fate of the accused was either unknown or they might have been executed on charges of treason and the verdict still stood. Many of the these former convictions were simply discarded like used snot-rags, to use your analogy, after 1991. Precisely because such events were so common in the Soviet bloc, no one is really going to bat an eye over the change of an Auschwitz plaque after 1991. Regardless of how much someone may believe in the general Holocaust story, any honest person simply would have expected Soviet propaganda to get the story wrong and would expect that after the fall of the Soviet Union such corrections would have to be made. That is not at all on the same level as the issue of errors in Hilberg's text such as when, for example, he tends to assume that any difference between documented deportations into Auschwitz versus documented deportations out of Auschwitz must correspond to people being gassed.

Thesaint wrote:If you think that is not an embarrassment to the hoaxsters

While one may at times introduce an idea with such a general term as "hoaxsters," and I've tossed the same term around myself at times, one should be wary of letting such a general term mislead one into endlessly adopting the kind of uniform view of different types of people such as you toss around here. For example, there clearly is a difference between propaganda put out by the Soviet bloc until 1991, and any subsequent retractions of such propaganda made after 1991, versus the body of literature published on the fabled Holocaust in the domain of what is sometimes called "Western culture." Even within the latter domain, there are important distinctions to be observed between, say, Elie Wiesel versus Christopher Browning. Wiesel is best described not as an orthodox Holocaust historian (as Browning is) but as a Holocaust publicist. If Wiesel makes an idiotic statement where he claims that 10,000 were killed daily at Buchenwald then this deserves to be rebutted, but without any illusions that rebutting such nonsense represents revisionist history. The latter arises when critiquing someone like Browning, and however wrong Browning may be on many things the process of picking his work apart is at least a few steps above anything to do with Wiesel. Your whole body of phraseology has a tendency to obfuscate such points of difference among a wide variety of people who could all be made to fit, more or less, under the general terminology of "hoaxsters." Too much blanket phraseology is not very helpful.

Thesaint wrote:If you think the plaque changing has no significance

A very restrained level of significance it has, one that is too easily puffed up into far more than it deserves (such as in the initial statement by ginger which launched this little subthread.

Thesaint wrote:Other revisionists have done/do disagree

Yet practical experience has shown that this isn't a very effective argument. It probably stands out as the argument on which would-be revisionist activists have been most comprehensively rebutted by people with a knowledge of the orthodox historical literature, and yet it is repeatedly tossed out as if it were a key argument of some kind. The fact that this disparity isn't noted more often among wanna-be revisionists is mainly a consequence of how being censored out through anti-speech laws has also led many revisionists to breed a sort of insulated subculture in which the evaluation of such arguments does not follow the normal process which apply under conditions of free speech, freedom of press and what not. It's easy to blame such problems on those who promote such censorship laws, because mostly they are to blame. But the problem remains that people tend to too easily drift off into muttering about the change of the plaque without really comprehensively evaluating the argument.

PatrickSMcNally
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 4:47 am

Re: 1/3 Holocaust: Auschwitz?

Postby PatrickSMcNally » 1 decade 5 months ago (Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:36 pm)

ginger wrote:In my opinion the USHMM was saying in introductory material that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Auschwitz was the largest killing center, therefore the USHMM is inviting a conclusion that many of the 6 million died at Auschwitz.

That statement is general enough to be taken as a fair description of what the USHMM says. But surely, if the 1.1 million dead at Auschwitz were taken to be true, with most of these, say 1 million for the sake of a number, being presumed as Jewish, then that one-out-of-six fraction would constitute "many of the six million," would it not? The claim that "many of the six million died at Auschwitz" is too generic to let us know whether it's supposed to mean 1 million, 4 million, or something else.

ginger wrote:I do believe that as a United States Museum, used to educate schoolchildren, the USHMM is responsible for making clear what happened to the European Jews, and they are responsible for mitigating horror and for presenting a balanced view of history.

Well it's nice to dream. But in any event, that already goes too far afield from the issue of whether or not the change of the Auschwitz plaque is something from which we may draw any demographic conclusions about emigration.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests