How [many] Jews were killed for real?

[Kajtmaz]

not very fair to divide the victims in victims First and second class.

If I would been murdered ( by Gestapo or NKWD) it would not very interesting for me, that the reason is "class-struggle" or "Race-struggle"...

I agree

[michael mills]

but by and large humanity seems to consider crimes committed for discriminatory and persecutory reasons to be particularly odious.

A debatable point.

I would think that it is politicians who have decreed "crimes committed for discriminatory and persecutory reasons to be particularly odious", rather than the mass of humanity, and they have made that decision not because of general community demand but because of pressure from fairly small politically active groups.

The crime that the average person considers most odious is the one committed against him or her rather than someone else. An average person in a prosperous Western country would be more outraged by having his house burgled than by the violent deaths of a million people in the distant Congo. The average person in Slovakia would most probably consider being pickpocketed by a Gypsy a more odious crime than a Gypsy being beaten up by skinheads.

[David Thompson]

Let's get back on topic.

[PFLB]

I am not referring to a specific instance of crime in which particular persons have a specific interest or bias. How particular people view specific crimes will always be affected by various factors, including that it is committed against them. I am talking about how people generally view crimes based on their motive, all other things being equal. Instead of giving straw man examples which you have transparently chosen to favour the position you argue for, why not give examples where the judgment is being made by someone with nothing to lose or gain from the crime and no preconceptions about those involved in it:

- What would a person from Tahiti consider to be more odious - a Slovakian being pickpocketed by a gypsy or a gypsy being beaten up by Slovakian skinheads?
- What would the average person in Canada regard as more odious - the burglary of a house in the Congo or the violent killing of a million people in the Congo?

[David Thompson]

For the second time, let's get back on topic.

[ovd1965]

If there was only one thing in nazi mind : to kill every jew (on spot or KL ) how can you explain that :

http://startext.net-build.de:8080/barch ... 1c1c50.htm

[Sergey Romanov]

If there was only one thing in nazi mind : to kill every jew (on spot or KL )

Ugh. Without even looking at your link: that's a strawman, you know that? No, there was not "only one thing in Nazi mind", and if it were, it would not be immediate killing of every Jew. And no historian claims that.

[David Thompson]

ovd1965 -- You asked:

If there was only one thing in nazi mind : to kill every jew (on spot or KL ) . . . .

The topic of this thread is how many?, rather than what? For an open thread on the subject you want to discuss, see:

The Final Solution: Why not kill them immediately?
viewtopic.php?t=69369

[antfreire]

Nineteen pages of arguments about how many Jews were really killed during the Holocaust. Does it make a different if it was one or two millions more or less?

[Sergey Romanov]

Yes, it makes a historical difference.

[antfreire]

Yes, it makes a historical difference.

Was it more or less of a crime? I am not looking for an argument, but I am not clear myself about this.

[David Thompson]

antfreire -- You asked:

Yes, it makes a historical difference.

Was it more or less of a crime? I am not looking for an argument, but I am not clear myself about this.

Let's stay on the subject -- how many? A discussion of different schools and views of moral philosophy is off-topic here, and ultimately a matter of subjective opinion.