Balsamo wrote:As a conclusion, demographical statistics are not exact science. They are subject to manipulation in some political context. Poland identified much more Jews in 31 (or 33?) than in 1921, maybe to explain and justify their "Jewish policy". That may explain the growth.
Which numbers are you referring to?
Please post them.
Balsamo wrote:Other can momentarely have dissapeared from statistics to reapper later. The mass emigration from Russia or Romania make those immigrants absent from census until they would be recounted in Argentina or Brasil...If i remember, Dalton does not look at this possibility. (I'll check it out). Census are not birth statistics.
Although this was mentioned earlier, it's common sense that unless everyone remained in one spot during the count, and the count was done worldwide at the same time, the overall count HAS to be considered estimated. However, with the amount of movement going on at the time by the people who were supposed to be counted, it's impossible to use these estimates as "proof". I believe that's the main consensus among those of us here.
Balsamo wrote:200.000 is already a hell of a camp, don't you think ? But you should add all the Gethos. On the other hand, Jewish slave labour were dispatched in various industries according to the needs.
200,00 is ONE camp, and the largest.
Also, 200,000 is less than 2% of the total "estimate" of 11,000,000. If the largest camp contained such a small amount overall, then there would need to be over 50 Auschwitz-Berkenau camps comparatively. This was not the case.
Balsamo wrote:And you don't need camps to shoot them as Partisans neither.
But you do need a way to dispose of the bodies, and a place to put the remains.
I don't recall the ghettos having mass graves or crematoria.
Besides, the ghettos would be easier to count since everyone in there was already considered a Jew.
It's the counting of Jews among the rest of the population that's in question, and seemingly unreliable.