6 Million?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
Kaiser
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 09:38
Location: Fifth Circle of Hell

6 Million?

Post by Kaiser » 19 May 2002 17:52

In Rudolph Hoss's autobiography 'Death Dealer', which he wrote in prison in Poland before his execution, he claimed that as the commandant at Auchswitz he greatly inflated the figures of those gassed in order to meet the impossible 'quotas' demanded by Berlin. He also added that all commandants at all camps did the same thing, then went on to describe in detail how the physical size of the gas chambers would make it impossible to kill 6 million people. I beleive the magic '6 million' number came about from the allies reviewing these records that were sent back to Berlin.

There is no doubt that there were mass executions and suffering at the hands of the Germans, but why is it that when someone (David Irving) tried to b rech this subject they are crucified?

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 19 May 2002 19:16

No serious historian of the Holocaust has asserted that 6 million were killed in gas chambers, nor that 4 million were killed at Auschwitz, as the former Polish government, under the control of the USSR in the former Soviet bloc, did for whatever reasons (propaganda, sympathy, etc.). As I recall, Hoess's "official" figures was approximately 2.4 or 2.5 million at Aushwitz which Hoess testified was actually around 1-1.1 million.

Even early writing on the Holocaust, at the end of WWII, historians were calculating the numbers. At Nuremberg, the number was 6 million dead. This figure is the total, including deaths in the camps by various causes, and the shootings.

Hilberg is widely respected as historian on the Holocaust, and his calculation is ca. 5.1 million, but he does not include Jews killed in Russia because of the difficulty of obtaining source information.

At the end of the second Zundel trial, Irving openly embraced the Luechter Report and basically stated that because of it, his fundamental view of the Holocaust immediately changed, and no one was gassed at Auschwitz. He later changed his mind on the validity of the Luechter Report. It appears to me that Irving was "crucified" for writing some historical accounts that misrepresented, altered, omitted, ignored, or changed historical events.

Frankly, I find it a real loss that for myself, I find it difficult to place much credibility in what Irving writes. I don't, and wouldn't, have a problem with a historical record that places an emphasis on the German side of events of WWII; for example, the film "Das Boot" certainly portrays German U-Boat crews in a manner that shows the Battle of the Atlantic in a different perspective. Irving is a fascinating writer, and I find his prose and his work a great read. I just wish I could place my trust in his integrity to accurately portray the events he writes on.

Mark

User avatar
Hans
Member
Posts: 651
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:48
Location: Germany

Re: 6 Million?

Post by Hans » 20 May 2002 08:30

Kaiser wrote:In Rudolph Hoss's autobiography 'Death Dealer', which he wrote in prison in Poland before his execution, he claimed that as the commandant at Auchswitz he greatly inflated the figures of those gassed in order to meet the impossible 'quotas' demanded by Berlin. He also added that all commandants at all camps did the same thing, then went on to describe in detail how the physical size of the gas chambers would make it impossible to kill 6 million people. I beleive the magic '6 million' number came about from the allies reviewing these records that were sent back to Berlin.
Kaiser, I think you have misunderstood something. First of all, very few, only 3 or 4, messages from Auschwitz about the number of killed Jews have actually survived the war. Each message mentions about 700 to 1700 killed people from transports that carried 1000 or 2000 people, so about the fate of some thousand Jews. As Höss wrote they had to destroy all records after every larger operation and the SS offices did the same. Secondly, when those few messages are compared with the records for the registered prisoners (which were kept) they appear to be totally accurate. Thirdly, it would have been not very reasonable for the Auschwitz SS to inflate these figures since those offices in Berlin were more interested in exploitation of labour force than in high extermination figures. Further, Höss never wrote such things. When he made the statement about the insufficient physical capacity of the extermination facilities in Auschwitz, he was talking about his earlier statements in british and american capture that 2.5 Million Jews were killed in Auschwitz. He wrote in polish prison that this figures couldn't have been achieved and that the extermination capacity had its limit, also in Auschwitz.

What you presumably meant was that the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen who liquidated the Jewry of the occupied Soviet Union have exaggerated the figures in their reports to Berlin. But these reports list only about 500.000 killed Jews, which is far away from the "magic 6-Million". In fact, the "6 Million" was not calculated by adding up the figures for the various massacres and mass murders, but by subtracting the Jewish post-war population from the pre-war population. Obviously, the "6 Million" cannot contain exaggerated and inflated figures from SS commandants and leaders.

regards, Hans

Oswald Mosley
Member
Posts: 216
Joined: 14 Mar 2002 00:56

Post by Oswald Mosley » 21 May 2002 01:12

If the 6 million figure comes from population statistics, it stands to reason that the figure is itself highly unreliable, simply because the population statistics are themselves unreliable. This is particularly true with countries such as Poland and the USSR. There is no absolutely reliable source for the total European Jewish population in September 1939; census figures were out of date and failed to take into account the large numbers of Jews that emigrated in the last few years before WW2.

I wonder why there has been such an insistence on 6 million as being the true number of exterminated Jews; it's almost as if it has a religious symbolism. If it's impossible to agree on the total numbers of German and Soviet war dead, why is it assumed that we can calculate Jewish deaths with mathematical precision? My personal feeling is that the 6 million figure is bogus - totally groundless. The real figure is a mystery, all the more so because the subject has not been investigated thoroughly, for reasons of political correctness.

User avatar
Kaiser
Member
Posts: 122
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 09:38
Location: Fifth Circle of Hell

Post by Kaiser » 21 May 2002 02:50

Amen to that, Oswald!

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8941
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 21 May 2002 06:39

Tarpon wrote:
Frankly, I find it a real loss that for myself, I find it difficult to place much credibility in what Irving writes

As a consultant for the Defence in the Irving vs Lipstadt court action, Professor Richard Evans and two academic assistants spent a long time going through ALL of Irving's written works, and are supposed to have traced all his claims back to their sources.

Evans was able to find a number of cases where Irving had misquoted, misrepresented or otherwise misued his sources. Those cases were presented to the court, and are in the records of the trial.

I would suggest that, given the thoroughness of the investigation by Evans, those particular cases are the only points on which Irving's written work cannot be trusted. Once those particular items are removed. logic dictates that the remainder of his work can be relied on in relation to the fgenuineness of the data presented, although any reader is at liberty to disagree with Irving's interpretation of the data.

To distrust ALL of Irving's work is illogical, and demonstrates a bias rather than a rational assessment.

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 22 May 2002 14:22

Michael Mills wrote:

I would suggest that, given the thoroughness of the investigation by Evans, those particular cases are the only points on which Irving's written work cannot be trusted. Once those particular items are removed. logic dictates that the remainder of his work can be relied on in relation to the fgenuineness of the data presented, although any reader is at liberty to disagree with Irving's interpretation of the data.

To distrust ALL of Irving's work is illogical, and demonstrates a bias rather than a rational assessment.
This assumes that Evans and his assistants parsed all of the works of David Irving, and during discovery, that included his published books, articles, plus his "diaries" (if that is an accurate term), videotapes, speeches, correspondence, etc., and subjected the entire volume to the level of scrutiny found in sections of his (Evans) Report to the Court, and likewise submitted a full report (all findings) to the Court. This is an assumption, in my opinion. Plus, as you may read below, it does not matter, at least to Evans, apparently, per the credibility of Irving.

Section 1.5 of the Evans Report submitted as evidence in the trial has 13 sub-sections describing the nature of the work:

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html

1.5.13 Very few historians have actually gone to the trouble of subjecting any of Irving’s work to a detailed analysis by taking his historical statements and claims and tracing them back to the original and other sources on which Irving says they rest. This is because doing so is an extremely time-consuming exercise, and most historians have better things to do with their time than undertaking a minute analysis of other people’s historical writings. It is also because historians generally assume that the work of fellow-historians, or those who purport to be fellow-historians, is generally reliable in its footnoting, in its translations and summaries of documents, and in its treatment of the evidence at a basic level. That is, historians may make mistakes and errors of fact, but they do not generally deliberately manipulate and distort documents, suppress evidence that runs counter to their interpretations, wilfully mistranslate documents in a foreign language, consciously use unreliable or discredited testimony when it suits their purpose, falsify historical statistics, or apply one standard of criticism to sources which undermine their views and another to those which support them.


http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html
[Under Evidence, and Richard Evans]

Now, I assume I am like others: I read history because of my own ignorance. Since I do not have either the skills of research of a historian, or Mr. Irving's exceptional talents in the areas of finding new archival sources, or the broad background and likewise the specific knowledge that you, Michael, and certainly Mr. Irving has on WWII history, how do I know what I read from Irving is credible?

Credibility is completely essential to the published historian; his "word" that what he writes is what he believes to be true for what he has found. I accept that mistakes, errors, and new information may change historical views; that history is always open to interpretations, but within limits of what the evidence reveals per the event(s).

For example, Michael, you have posted on some of your interpretations of the historical record here on this forum, and while I may not necessarily agree with you, I do not ever enertain that you willfully change the source information you quote or use as the basis for your conclusions to agree with your interpretation. That is the issue of credibility.

In Section 1.6 of his Report, Evans writes:
1.6 Argument and structure of the Report


1.6.1 Very soon after we had begun our examination of Irving’s work along the lines sketched out above, it became clear that Irving did all of these things. Penetrating beneath the confident surface of his prose quickly revealed a mass of distortion and manipulation in every issue we tackled that was so tangled that detailing it sometimes took up many more words than had been devoted to it in Irving’s original account. Unpicking the eleven-page narrative of the anti-Jewish pogrom of the so-called Reichskristallnacht in Irving’s book Goebbels: Mastermind of the ‘Third Reich’ and tracing back every part of it to the documentation on which it purports to rest takes up over seventy pages of the present Report. A similar knotted web of distortions, suppressions and manipulations became evident in every single instance which we examined. We have not suppressed any occasion on which Irving has used accepted and legitimate methods of historical research, exposition and interpretation: there were none.

1.6.2 The discovery of the extent of Irving’s disregard for the proper methods of historical scholarship was not only surprising but also deeply shocking. As this Report will show, it goes well beyond what Lipstadt alleges. I was not prepared for the sheer depths of duplicity which I encountered in Irving’s treatment of the historical sources, nor for the way in which this dishonesty permeated his entire written and spoken output. It is as all-pervasive in his early work as it is in his later publications. In this respect the change of view which, as this Report will note, he underwent in 1988 with respect to the Nazi extermination of the Jews, has done no more than emphasise an already existing pattern. It is clear from all the investigations which I and my research assistants have undertaken that Irving’s claim to have a very good and thorough knowledge of the evidence on the basis of which the history of Nazi Germany has to be written is completely justified. His numerous mistakes and egregious errors are not, therefore, due to mere ignorance or sloppiness; on the contrary, it is obvious that they are calculated and deliberate. That is precisely why they are so shocking. Irving has relied in the past, and continues to rely in the present, on the fact that his readers and listeners, reviewers and interviewers lack either the time, or the expertise, to probe deeply enough into the sources he uses for his work to uncover the distortions, suppressions and manipulations to which he has subjected them. The late Martin Broszat and the American historian Charles W. Sydnor, Jr., whose work is referred to below, are virtually the only previous historians to have gone some way down this road; this Report, however, is the first full-length investigation of Irving’s work on a large scale.

[...]

[On the Report itself:]

1.6.11 Once again, it should be emphasised that these topics, numerous though they are, were not chosen as particularly egregious examples of Irving’s disregard of proper historical method. On the contrary, his account of the bombing of Dresden was selected for scrutiny because his book on the subject has been reprinted many times and did much to establish his reputation. His use of the evidence of Hitler’s adjutants was chosen for examination because his access to their private papers, and his use of exclusive interview material generated in his meetings with them, have been presented as strengths of Irving’s research not just by himself but by others as well. And finally, his analysis of the reasons for Nazi antisemitism was singled out for investigation because it seemed on the face of it that this might cast light on, or in some way modify or relativise, his insistence that Hitler was not involved in it. In every case, however, as this Report will demonstrate, Irving has fallen so far short of the standards of scholarship customary amongst historians that he does not deserve to be called a historian at all.

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html
Finally, as one reads either published books following the trial or the transcripts themselves, it is clear from the moment Evans steps into the witness chair, that he believes nothing Irving has to say, and, on numerous occasions, requests for the relevant document to examine himself prior to answering:


["Q" refers to David Irving during the trial; this is from the transcript]

< 8> Q. Professor Evans, you expressed the opinion in your report
< 9> that my diaries may have been written for some ulterior
<10> motive?
<11> A. Could you point to the page in my report where I say that,
<12> please?
<13> Q. That sounded to me as though it was a rehearsed remark.
<14> I shall avoid wasting the court's time. It is in the
<15> first few pages and I shall say, is it true that it is
<16> your opinion that I may have written the diaries for some
<17> reason other than one would normally write a diary? What
<18> are your suspicions about why I wrote that?
<19> A. Would you like to point me to the page where I -- you see,
<20> I have a problem, Mr Irving, which is that, having been
<21> through your work, I cannot really accept your version of
<22> any document, including passages in my own report, without
<23> actually having it in front of me, so I think this may be
<24> a problem for us.

[...]

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.com/ieindex.html
[Under "Transcripts, Day 18]
It would appear that Evans himself believes nothing Mr. Irving writes without the ability to source and check it. If after reading the Evans Report, a reader feels that Professor Evans's criticisms, no matter how harsh or opinionated, factually presents what he and his assistants found in the work of Irving, it then makes it extremely difficult to read Irving and not wonder if he is writing accurately or embellishing a historical record to conform to his bias.

As I have stated previously, it is for me disappointing; I enjoy Irving's writing immensely, and I used to believe that his copious footnoting was indicative of his thoroughness. I now know that, while footnoted, the text may well be altered fundamentally. And unfortunately, I do not have the resources or skills to check the work.

Best,

Mark

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

Post by tonyh » 22 May 2002 15:15

I, for one, don't entirely trust Evan's opinions. One thing. Evan's, a "nobody", was in this for the money and dubious "fame". He was paid a substantial amount of money by the Lipstadt defence to trawl through Irving's work. It was in his self interest to blacken Irving's name as much as he could.

I would really like to see an unbiased neutral involved. Both sides are content to throw as much mud at each other, until everyone is covered in crap. Thats the problem with matter's like these, isn't it. The neutral's are few and far netween.

>>how do I know what I read from Irving is credible?<<

But this very sentence can also apply the Evans too. At the end of the day it comes down to our own opinion once again. I would rather trust Irving, a man who has said that he has been wrong on many occasion and reserves the right to be wrong and to amend his past works, rather than Evan's whose sole motive was to blacken an historian's name for financial gain.

Tony

Tarpon27
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 00:34
Location: FL, USA

Post by Tarpon27 » 22 May 2002 16:14

TonyH wrote:

...rather than Evan's whose sole motive was to blacken an historian's name for financial gain.
I doubt that you can prove, or even credibly back up at that assertion, but I do agree with you that for each of us, our opinions do affect, obviously, how we evaluate such matters.

Considering Irving brought the suit, what was he in it for, if not money, and the money does not have to only come from potential damages, but in publicity and book sales?

And as far as Irving goes, one of the more surreal and disturbing parts of the trial was in cross examination by Rampton on Hitler's speech, December 12, 1941, in which Irving, using the newly available Goebbels's glass plates of his diaries the Russians had, leaves out Hitler's references to Jews in his book (_Goebbels Mastermind of the Third Reich_), as written by Goebbels on that date of the speech.

Irving initially claims he only read part of that day's entry; he is then shown were he quotes the entry much farther past the Hitler speech reference. However, Irving continues to claim that indeed, he never read that part of Goebbels's entry concerning Hitler's speech and the Jews.

Rampton is disbelieving, and presses Irving that he would not read this new source of information on an important Hitler speech in newly found source material. Rampton then asks Irving if, on December 12, 1941, in addressing Nazi leadership, this is not evidence of Hitler's declaring war on the Jews, and Irving denies it.

When questioned again, Irving then replies that Hitler's speech on December 12, 1941 was one day BEFORE he declared war on the US.

At that point, even the Judge replies, "Just pause a moment", and Rampton picks up Irving's book on Goring, and recites Irving's passage on Hitler declaring war on the US on December 11, 1941.

Frankly, if David Irving, having spent a lifetime and his energy on the Third Reich, cannot remember the date Hitler declares war on the US, I find it hard to reconcile his reputation amongst his proponents as such a serious historian. Because, frankly, in reading that passage, one is immediately struck with the impression that Irving will go to any length to distort a historical record not to his comfort level.

Irving's response, in the trial?

"Luckily I haven't lost a million quid."

To which Rampton replies, "Yet."

Is it an honest mistake? Sure, possibly. But it is a rather an odd fortune that David Irving's mistakes continually absolve Hitler of any breath of blame for the Jews and the Final Solution.

Regards,

Mark

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

Post by tonyh » 22 May 2002 17:46

>>surreal and disturbing parts of the trial<<

Hmmm...surreal and disturbing or just a plain old slip of the tounge in an extremely difficult situation? We've all slipped on our tounge, I'm sure. Why should Irving be different? :wink:

As for Irving bringing the suit, true, money was involved for him too, but also his right to have his work published without the organised opposition forced upon him. A stand I agree with without reservation. Where I differ with Irving is in the libel action law suit itself. It was a stupid mistake, but a mistake borne out of frustration and desparation, I'm sure. He spends a lot of money trying to write these books, obviously he'd like people to buy 'em. If he cannot get a publisher to publish them because of a concerted effort to blacken his name by people who don't agree with him, what is he to do?

I personally believe that he should have let Lipstadt have her say, her free speech is important too. After ten years, nobody would even remember her or her silly little book. But I think Irving's books would be able to stand on their own merrits. Now, of course, a lot of people think he just writes anti-Semetic, holocaust denial tracts in his books, which is, of course tripe. And is known by anyone who has read his work. And theres a lot of heresay and a lot of speculation flying around.

Another thing is, which other author would be able to stand up to the type of scrutiny that Irving's books have been put through. Ambrose was actually caught ripping off large passages of other peoples work, an offensie far worse than Irving's mistranlations and fuck up's in his own work. Will Ambrose's name be black listed? Will his livlihood be threatened? Will that episode be even recalled in a year? I don't think so.

Remember Irving himself has said that he doesn't have all the answers. That his work is not perfect. This is very important. In the end, I simply cannot believe that Irving is sitting there "making it all up", just to make the gerries look good. Really the only difference between Irving and other WWII authors is taht Irvings Books have been subjected to a thorough examination and flaws have been discovered and other authors have not.

Tony

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 23 May 2002 11:44

If the 6 million figure comes from population statistics, it stands to reason that the figure is itself highly unreliable, simply because the population statistics are themselves unreliable. This is particularly true with countries such as Poland and the USSR. There is no absolutely reliable source for the total European Jewish population in September 1939; census figures were out of date and failed to take into account the large numbers of Jews that emigrated in the last few years before WW2.
The inaccuracy of census figures, especially those for Poland, actually lies in that they are probably too low. The Polish censors, for instance, were interested in presenting a picture of a nation as ethnically homogeneous as possible and thus tried to keep low the numbers of ethnic minorities, including Jews. They formulated the census questions in such a way as to make the greatest numbers of inhabitants look “Polish” and maybe also jinxed the results to keep down the figures on minority populations. Official statistics on emigration of members of ethnic minorities from Poland can be expected to be too high rather than too low for the same reason. The official Polish figures, according to Zimmerman’s Holocaust Denial, place total Jewish emigration for the years 1931-1937 at 109,716.
I wonder why there has been such an insistence on 6 million as being the true number of exterminated Jews; it's almost as if it has a religious symbolism. If it's impossible to agree on the total numbers of German and Soviet war dead, why is it assumed that we can calculate Jewish deaths with mathematical precision? My personal feeling is that the 6 million figure is bogus - totally groundless. The real figure is a mystery, all the more so because the subject has not been investigated thoroughly, for reasons of political correctness.
Estimates and calculations on the Jewish death toll of Nazi genocide have little to do with “religious symbolism” or “political correctness” and a lot to do with solid and thorough research into documentary evidence and demographics. The latest example hereof is the study Dimensionen des Völkermords, edited by German historian Wolfgang Benz. The authors of the studies on the countries with the largest Jewish death toll (Frank Golczewski for Poland, Gert Robel for the Soviet Union), for instance, established the pre- and post war Jewish populations of the respective countries on the basis of various sources including but not limited to the census data. They then tried to determine how many of those missing after the war can be accounted for otherwise than as having been killed by the Nazis, the result of their research being that the number of such Jews (e.g. emigrants, post war assimilates and victims of Stalin’s deportations, in the case of the Soviet Union) is marginal (“im Bereich der Zehntausende”, i.e. “in the range of tens of thousands”, according to Robel). As the German data in fact cover only a part of the killings in the Soviet Union – mainly due to the fact that, since May 1942, the detailed reporting of the Einsatzgruppen was replaced by more vague “Mitteilungen aus den besetzten Ostgebieten” which omitted figures on the number of Jews killed - , this method must be considered the only one appropriate to establish the total Jewish death toll for the Soviet Union, which Robel calculates at 2.8 million within the frontiers as of 22 June 1941 and 2.1 million within the frontiers of 01.09.1939, including in each case the Jews who perished in the ranks of the Red Army and Jewish civilians who succumbed to hunger or exhaustion while trying to flee the German advance. Golczewski’s estimate of 2,700,000 Jewish dead for Poland (which is close to Reitlinger’s higher estimate of 2,600,000 dead Polish Jews), while based on essentially the same methodology, can rely on German documentation to a larger extent, especially the train schedules, transportation documents and other documentary evidence that allows for a more or less exact reconstruction of the number of Polish Jews taken to the various extermination camps, where most of the killing of Polish Jews took place.

These are the figures compiled by German historian Wolfgang Benz from the various chapters of the study Dimensionen des Völkermords:

German Reich: 160,000 to 165,000

Austria: 65,459

Luxembourg: 1,200

France ("including foreign nationals"): 76,134

Belgium ("including foreign nationals"): 28, 518

Netherlands: 102,000

Denmark: 116

Norway: 758

Italy: 6,513

Albania: 591 ("deportees")

Greece: 59,185

Bulgaria (deported from Bulgarian-occupied areas): 11,393

Yugoslavia: 60,000 to 65,000

Hungary: 550,000

Chechoslovakia ("Reich Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia" plus Slovakia): 143,000

Romania: 211,214

Poland: 2,700,000

Soviet Union: 2,100,000

Total: 6,276,081 to 6,286,081

The estimates of Reitlinger and Hilberg may be viewed under the following links:

http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/hil ... ountry.htm

http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/reit_stats.htm

Mensch Meyer
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: 28 May 2002 04:34
Location: MD

Post by Mensch Meyer » 20 Jun 2002 05:09

Oswald Mosley wrote: I wonder why there has been such an insistence on 6 million as being the true number of exterminated Jews; it's almost as if it has a religious symbolism. If it's impossible to agree on the total numbers of German and Soviet war dead, why is it assumed that we can calculate Jewish deaths with mathematical precision? My personal feeling is that the 6 million figure is bogus - totally groundless. The real figure is a mystery, all the more so because the subject has not been investigated thoroughly, for reasons of political correctness.
According to the Talmud and subsequent historical record - long before the holocaust, the SIX MILLION number is old and important in connection to the Jewish "God's PROMISED LAND." These three words are probably the most powerful combination of propaganda in the entire history of both the orthodox and secular Jewish world. They represent every aspiration, every inspiration, every dream, every phantasy, every illusion and every delusion of an entire race at every level of its organisation.

During Israel's 50th anniversary of the establishment of the State it is of note that nowhere in recorded history do we have a situation were an entire people/religion has the need to outwit and bamboozle their God first, in order to persue its material aims and ambitions. On three occasions, that is factually known of in modern times, an attempt to
deceive God was put into motion:

Remember, in order to return to The Promised Land, six million Jews must be sacrificed (Holocaust, the word means to be sacrificed by cremation, and it is one of the most important prophecies of the cabalistic/orthodox interpretation:

"You shall return - MINUS SIX MILLION ..."

For this reason the SIX MILLION number became important as
early as the first Zionist stirrings were reported in "The American Hebrew," NY, issue 582 of October 31, **1919** !:

"SIX MILLION men and women are dying--eight hundred thousand
children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood."

In this threatened holocaust of human life." (in 1919 !!) The reality according to Israel Shahak's "JEWISH HISTORY" was that some
100,000 Jews were massacred in the Ukrains in 1919-20, and even
then Jewish Religion needs the exaggeration of SIX MILLION figure
to taylor histiography to religious prophecy.


Since it had turned out that the return of the Jews to Palestine in the 1920s could not be politically realized after all, the Ukrainian "SIX MILLION" were dropped as a failed plan.--

However, according to our judicial and political brand of historiography, the Second Holocaust under Adolf Hitler ensured that the Torah prophecy was finally fulfilled, and that's how the SIX MILLION figure returned on the scene. It began with the Jewish book publisher Erwin Loew as early as 1937 with his book (Berlin), "Chaim Weizmann, Speeches and essays 1901 - 1936." In fact as early as November 25, 1936, in a speech before the Royal Commission in Jerusalem, (in 1936 !!)

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization and Jewish Agency of long years' standing, and who became the first President of the State of Israel in 1948, defined the "SIX MILLION" as a symbolic figure for the Jewish fate.

And then there was some years ago in "Taz"= Tageszeitung (Berlin),
May 24, 1995, p.12) another record of those SIX MILLION (quote):

"The fact that the Yad Vashem memorial site was already being planned in 1942 reveals a functionalist relationship to the Holocaust.- Thoughts had turned to the immortalization of the Shoah even while most of the victims were still alive..."

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8941
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 20 Jun 2002 08:59

However, according to our judicial and political brand of historiography, the Second Holocaust under Adolf Hitler ensured that the Torah prophecy was finally fulfilled, and that's how the SIX MILLION figure returned on the scene. It began with the Jewish book publisher Erwin Loew as early as 1937 with his book (Berlin), "Chaim Weizmann, Speeches and essays 1901 - 1936." In fact as early as November 25, 1936, in a speech before the Royal Commission in Jerusalem, (in 1936 !!)
Weizmann's reference was made in evidence he was giving before the Peel Commission. He claimed that mass Jewish immigration into Palestine needed to be permitted immediately, as there were six million Jews in Europe who were not wanted there, who were in danger, nad had nowhere else to go. When asked by the Commissioners whether those six million could be immediately absorbed into Palestine, he had to admit that they could not be.

Later, in reporting to the World Zionist Organisation on his evidence before the Peel Commission, he expressed his view that it would be impossible to rescue all the six million, that the WZO should concentrate its efforts on saving the two million youth, and that the old would have to be left to their fate.

The six-million figure seems to have been some sort of notional total of the Jewish population of Eastern Europe, not based on any hard statistics but on guesstimates. It was later adopted by German officials in their correspondence referring to the Jewish presence in the areas conquered after the commencement of Barbarossa.

The first use of the six-million figure in the context of a putative German plan to exterminate the Jews of Europe was made by the Anglo-Jewish publisher Victor Gollancz, in his pamphlet dated Christmas 1942, "Let MY People Go". The thesis propounded by Gollancz was:
1. As at the outbreak of the War in 1939, there were six million Jews in the area occupied by Germany by the end of 1942;
2. Hitler had a plan to exterminate all the Jews in the German-occupied area;
3. Ergo, if Hitler were allowed to proceed with his plans, six million Jews in total would be killed.

Gollancz's assumption of a six-million deathroll was perfectly logical according to his premisses, but only if Hitler's assumed plan were carried through to completion, ie if there no survivors. Gollancz himself obviously did not believe that Hitler had achieved complete success; in his immediate post-War pamphlet "What Buchenwald Really Means", he stated that Hitler had not been stopped and four million Jews had died (a figure corresponding to Weizmann's pre-war statement about the number of Jews who would have to be left to their fate).

It appears that Gollancz's prediction was assumed to be an accomplished fact, and his six-million figure was adopted as an actual total of dead. Since then, most historians (except a few such as Reitlinger) have massaged their calculations to make them add up to give-or-take six million.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 20 Jun 2002 09:41

A lot of empty blah-blah-blah authored by obsessed ideologues.

If the figure of six million Jews killed by the Nazis is some sort of "magic figure" embraced by those bloody Jews, how come the detailed studies of two Jewish historians have resulted in lower figures (4.2 to 4.6 million according to Reitlinger, 5.1 million according to Hilberg), whereas the far more recent country studies of mostly non-Jewish historians featured in Dimensionen des Völkermords by Benz et al add up to a death toll somewhat above six million?

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

Post by tonyh » 20 Jun 2002 11:27

Because at the end of the day nobody knows the true figure and it will always remain speculation. What people object to is having the "six million" rammed down their throats as the figure one must believe or else.

Tony

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”