Three years ago a monument was inaugurated in Rotterdam to the Jewish children of the city who perished in the Shoah. A website gives the data about the children who are named on the monument: http://kindermonument.net/english. This got me interested in the subject and I noticed a puzzling thing.
First, some scoping: the monument is concerned exclusively with Jews transported to a camp and subsequently killed (that covers a very high proportion of all Dutch Jews who died); a citizen of Rotterdam is defined as someone whose last home address before transportation was in the city of Rotterdam; a ‘child’ is a person under 13 at death.
With those definitions, the number of children on monument and website is 686.
There is a companion ‘Kaddish’ website which lists Rotterdam victims irrespective of age, using the same scope criteria (apart from ‘child’, of course): http://www.loods24rotterdam.nl/kaddisj. This contains 6318 names.
The children’s monument (physical and electronic) contains an exact subset of the Kaddish list, ie all and only those persons under 13 at death. I’ve checked this and I’m pretty sure it is so.
686 is 11% of 6318. My problem is that 11% seems a very low figure
Why low? Well, it is generally known that the Germans killed about 75% of the Jews in the whole country, and there is no reason to think that Rotterdam was any different. They did so primarily by transporting whole families or households. (True, they sometimes picked on a Jewish old people’s home, but then sometimes on a Jewish orphanage. I can’t think that such exceptional cases much affect the whole picture.)
Therefore one would expect that the group of those killed was a fair sample of the whole Jewish population. If x% of those killed were of, say, a certain blood group or a certain hair colour, then one would expect that to be true of the whole Jewish population.
So then, the Rotterdam figures given above imply that 11% of the Jewish population were under 13 in 1942-43 (when the great majority of deaths occurred).
But this seems to me impossibly low: 11% of the population under 13, and 89% 13 or over. Consider it and I think you will agree that is difficult to believe! Intuitively I’d have expected the under-13 figure to have been 15% or greater.
So I am stuck with a problem. On the one hand I don’t doubt the correctness of the lists of cases on the websites. On the other hand they seem to lead to an impossible conclusion.
So there may well be some special factor involved that confounds the above analysis. But if so, what is it?
I raised this mater with the people who run the websites but I didn’t get anywhere.
Does anybody have any ideas?
Bart
Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
If there were refugees from Germany, Austria among them their children could have been in Britain thanks to the Kindertransport.
Additionally the Jews to be transported frequently left their small children with locals, as they were much easier to conceal from authorities than adults.
Additionally the Jews to be transported frequently left their small children with locals, as they were much easier to conceal from authorities than adults.
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
It is not impossible. The Jews on the Netherlands, like those of Germany, were an aging population with a very low birth rate, below replacement levels. In such populations, the youngest cohorts, eg children under the age of 13, are considerably smaller than the older cohorts, such as those over the age of 60, who were born when the birth rate of those populations was a lot higher.But this seems to me impossibly low: 11% of the population under 13, and 89% 13 or over. Consider it and I think you will agree that is difficult to believe! Intuitively I’d have expected the under-13 figure to have been 15% or greater.
For example, today 25% of the Japanese population is aged over 65, and in Germany the proportion is 21%. By contrast, in both Germany and Japan only 13% of the population is aged 0-14.
It is probable that the age-profile in 1939 of the Netherlands Jews, who were a demographically advanced population, was similar to those of Germany and Japan today, so the proportion of that population under 13 being as low as 11% is what one would expect.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
They shouldn't be different from the general population in this regard . So a comparison would be useful.
Unless there were orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews among them. Those people knew (and still know) how to make children...
Unless there were orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews among them. Those people knew (and still know) how to make children...
-
michael mills
- Member
- Posts: 9000
- Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Actually, the demographic profile of the European Jewish population throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries was different from that of the European population as a whole, in that the Jewish population was demographically more advanced.They shouldn't be different from the general population in this regard .
That is to say, the demographic dynamics that have affected all advanced populations, eg fall in death rate followed by a fall in birth rate, resulting first in a population explosion and then a rapid slowing in the rate of growth, leading to an aging of the population, all occurred earlier among the Jews than among the majority population of Europe.
That is the reason why the Jewish population of Poland grew much faster during the 19th Century than the Gentile population; it had a lower death rate, particularly a lower infant mortality rate, while its birth rate was as high as that of the Gentile population.
By the early 20th Century the birth rate of Jews in Western Europe had also fallen to a level lower than that of the majority population, and in some cases had fallen below the death rate, so the Jewish population of Western Europe was rapidly aging and declining.
Thus, it is likely that by 1939 the Jews of the Netherlands had a population profile similar to that of Japan today, with the result that their proportion of children aged under 13 was somewhat less than that of the population as a whole.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Thank you both for those truly sensible comments – especially after the completely useless reaction I got when I tried to discuss the matter with somebody associated with the monument and websites.
Refugees. The refugee factor could well be relevant in principle, but not, I think, in this particular Rotterdam case. In 1940 there were a substantial number of Jewish refugees living in camps in Rotterdam. But well before the deportations started in 1942 these refugee camps had been closed and the people had been sent to other parts of the country. Thus they were no longer citizens of Rotterdam, and so not relevant to this problem.
Children in hiding. If many parents sent their children into hiding elsewhere that sounds like a possible factor. But I don’t see how that would work in practice in Rotterdam. You see, the authorities kept a meticulous Population Register. The Germans would turn up at an address and say ‘We’ve come to take away the two adults and two children who according to the Population Register live here.’ If the two children were not there, the parents would be asked where they were. I can’t see that kind of situation ending well.
Long-term decline in Dutch Jewish population. This factor, if correct, seems a powerful solution to the problem. First question: Is it valid to treat the Dutch Jews as a distinct population group perhaps with a demographic trend not necessarily the same as that of the population of the country as a whole? I think the answer is Yes. I have come across data that in May 1940 there were about 140,000 full-Jews in the Netherlands and only about 17,000 half- or quarter- Jews. That suggests very strongly that the Dutch Jews were a distinct population group.
So, given that the Dutch Jews were a distinct population group, is it in fact true that this group had a demographic trend of longterm decline in the decades before 1940? Michael, could you perhaps give us some reference to documentation that records this phenomenon?
Anyway, as I said, I’m glad to have found people with whom I can have a rational discussion.
Refugees. The refugee factor could well be relevant in principle, but not, I think, in this particular Rotterdam case. In 1940 there were a substantial number of Jewish refugees living in camps in Rotterdam. But well before the deportations started in 1942 these refugee camps had been closed and the people had been sent to other parts of the country. Thus they were no longer citizens of Rotterdam, and so not relevant to this problem.
Children in hiding. If many parents sent their children into hiding elsewhere that sounds like a possible factor. But I don’t see how that would work in practice in Rotterdam. You see, the authorities kept a meticulous Population Register. The Germans would turn up at an address and say ‘We’ve come to take away the two adults and two children who according to the Population Register live here.’ If the two children were not there, the parents would be asked where they were. I can’t see that kind of situation ending well.
Long-term decline in Dutch Jewish population. This factor, if correct, seems a powerful solution to the problem. First question: Is it valid to treat the Dutch Jews as a distinct population group perhaps with a demographic trend not necessarily the same as that of the population of the country as a whole? I think the answer is Yes. I have come across data that in May 1940 there were about 140,000 full-Jews in the Netherlands and only about 17,000 half- or quarter- Jews. That suggests very strongly that the Dutch Jews were a distinct population group.
So, given that the Dutch Jews were a distinct population group, is it in fact true that this group had a demographic trend of longterm decline in the decades before 1940? Michael, could you perhaps give us some reference to documentation that records this phenomenon?
Anyway, as I said, I’m glad to have found people with whom I can have a rational discussion.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
At that time the Jews were more socially conservative that the rest of the population. The should have had more children.
I think it would be useful to find the percentage of the population under 13 among not-Jews. I have a suspicion the could have had even less children than the Jews.
I think it would be useful to find the percentage of the population under 13 among not-Jews. I have a suspicion the could have had even less children than the Jews.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Doesn't your link already give the answer?
"children of between one month and 12 years old whose names are known to us."
If the name is not known to the monument-people, then it is not included.
Thus many unknown children have perished. But how many? I do not know.
"children of between one month and 12 years old whose names are known to us."
If the name is not known to the monument-people, then it is not included.
Thus many unknown children have perished. But how many? I do not know.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Danielle, the names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews who were sent to their death at Auschwitz and Sobibor are known with a high degree of completeness. My puzzle is that of those with a Rotterdam address only 11% were children under 13, and this is not because the Germans deliberately spared children.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
That is not true. The other link you provide says:Bart150 wrote:Danielle, the names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews who were sent to their death at Auschwitz and Sobibor are known with a high degree of completeness. My puzzle is that of those with a Rotterdam address only 11% were children under 13, and this is not because the Germans deliberately spared children.
"Om hoeveel mensen het ging en wie het waren, is nooit precies vastgesteld. "
(My translation: how many people and whom they where, has never been astablished)
So the monument is only for the children who for sure came from Rotterdam and who's name is known.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
As I said, the names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews who were sent to their death at Auschwitz and Sobibor are known with a high degree of completeness. The reason for this is that the record-keeping by the Dutch and German authorities was meticulous and enough of the relevant records have survived.
Of course, with such a large-scale, complex phenomenon some inaccuracies are bound to arise: confusion over people with the same name, a person being booked out of one camp but dying en route to another camp without being booked in there, a page of a camp register being spoiled by rain etc. So the data can’t be said to be perfectly complete. That is why websites like the one you cite always include some kind of caveat.
The names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews are on https://www.joodsmonument.nl/. As far as I know, nobody who has studied the subject believes that any substantial number of names are missing from the set of data on that site.
Of course, with such a large-scale, complex phenomenon some inaccuracies are bound to arise: confusion over people with the same name, a person being booked out of one camp but dying en route to another camp without being booked in there, a page of a camp register being spoiled by rain etc. So the data can’t be said to be perfectly complete. That is why websites like the one you cite always include some kind of caveat.
The names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews are on https://www.joodsmonument.nl/. As far as I know, nobody who has studied the subject believes that any substantial number of names are missing from the set of data on that site.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
At the start of this thread I set out a certain puzzle in quite a careful way. That puzzle can be put much more briefly like this: Of the Rotterdam Jews murdered by the Germans the percentage who were younger than 13 seems remarkably low. How come?
Michael Mills has put forward the following theory (expressed in my words). The percentage of those murdered who were younger than 13 is remarkably low because the percentage of the whole Jewish population – whether murdered or not murdered - who were younger than 13 was remarkably low. This was the consequence of a very low birth rate in the Jewish community during the first four decades of the century – a demographic trend which, if continued, would have led to an ever-declining Jewish population (except of course for the counter-effects of any immigration).
I want to split this concept into two theories: one, a demographic trend as above for the Jewish community of the whole country, including Rotterdam; two, a demographic trend as above but for the Rotterdam community only, irrespective of trends elsewhere.
It would pleasant if one or other of these theories was correct. That would solve the puzzle. So I went Googling in search of some site somewhere that provided some reason to believe that one or other of the theories was true. But after a couple of hours I had found nothing. Here are some of the sites that looked as if they might well provide what I sought, but did not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... etherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... omparisons
http://www.jhm.nl/cultuur-en-geschieden ... /rotterdam
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/educatio ... _croes.pdf
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... ports.html
So I ask anyone who knows of any evidence supporting either version of the demographic-trend theory stated above to let me know. Otherwise I suppose my next step should be to write off to the relevant museums and documentation centres.
Michael Mills has put forward the following theory (expressed in my words). The percentage of those murdered who were younger than 13 is remarkably low because the percentage of the whole Jewish population – whether murdered or not murdered - who were younger than 13 was remarkably low. This was the consequence of a very low birth rate in the Jewish community during the first four decades of the century – a demographic trend which, if continued, would have led to an ever-declining Jewish population (except of course for the counter-effects of any immigration).
I want to split this concept into two theories: one, a demographic trend as above for the Jewish community of the whole country, including Rotterdam; two, a demographic trend as above but for the Rotterdam community only, irrespective of trends elsewhere.
It would pleasant if one or other of these theories was correct. That would solve the puzzle. So I went Googling in search of some site somewhere that provided some reason to believe that one or other of the theories was true. But after a couple of hours I had found nothing. Here are some of the sites that looked as if they might well provide what I sought, but did not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... etherlands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... omparisons
http://www.jhm.nl/cultuur-en-geschieden ... /rotterdam
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/educatio ... _croes.pdf
http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org ... ports.html
So I ask anyone who knows of any evidence supporting either version of the demographic-trend theory stated above to let me know. Otherwise I suppose my next step should be to write off to the relevant museums and documentation centres.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
The Jewish fertility ratio was declining, but from very high level. Even today the average number of children among the religous Jews (Hasidic or Hareidi) is almost 7.
For this reason Borough Park, Brooklyn is experiencing a sharp population growth, entirely thanks to the Jews.
According to the Joods Historisch Museum:
Additionally they say: "Although the economic emergence of Rotterdam attracted Jews, poverty remained rife amongst the city's Jewish population." This again means lots of children.
Was is needed is the birth rate, fertility rate, child-woman ratio (whatever they were using) among the general population of the entire country, or maybe Rotterdam, if available.
The same statistics can be easily calculated for the Rotterdam Jews as it seems the age of every murdered person is known.
For this reason Borough Park, Brooklyn is experiencing a sharp population growth, entirely thanks to the Jews.
According to the Joods Historisch Museum:
This means lots of children, for two reasons, because the Eastern European Jews were religious, and because they were poor. There is generally an inverse correlation between income and fertility.The Jewish population of Rotterdam grew fourfold over the course of the nineteenth century. This mainly was due to the economic emergence of Rotterdam which attracted many Jews to the city. Their numbers were augmented by Eastern European Jews emigrating to America via the port of Rotterdam, quite a number of whom chose to remain in the city rather than travel onward.
Additionally they say: "Although the economic emergence of Rotterdam attracted Jews, poverty remained rife amongst the city's Jewish population." This again means lots of children.
Was is needed is the birth rate, fertility rate, child-woman ratio (whatever they were using) among the general population of the entire country, or maybe Rotterdam, if available.
The same statistics can be easily calculated for the Rotterdam Jews as it seems the age of every murdered person is known.
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Are you aware, Bart, that the joodsmonument -wesbite doesn´t call them Dutch Jews but Jews persecuted in the Netherlands. I assume because not everyone sent to the extermination and concentration camps from the Netherlands was a dutch citizen.Bart150 wrote:As I said, the names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews who were sent to their death at Auschwitz and Sobibor are known with a high degree of completeness. [...]
The names and addresses of the c100,000 Dutch Jews are on https://www.joodsmonument.nl/[...]
Aside from this I found out on the kaddisj -website there are numerous errors in the locations, not only on the place of birth list but also in the place of death list. Eg. Gusen is mentioned as being in Austria, but Mauthausen in Germany? Another man was born in Oswiecim (Galicia), the Polish name for Auschwitz and perished there 40 years later. Others are mentioned as "born in Auschwitz (Poland) and perished there" too.
Also there are several city names as "located in Austria" but they are withoubt doubt Hungarian. And why are there people listed as "died in Austria" or "died in Eastern Europe" with a precise date but without a location?
Re: Jewish Children of Rotterdam
Thanks, History1. I was just using 'Dutch Jews' as quick, though admittedly imprecise, way of saying 'Jews resident in the Netherlands at the time of their deportation or murder.' Indeed some were refugees without Dutch citizenship.