Jump to content

Talk:Evidence and documentation for the Holocaust/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

This article is totally undisputed

This article contains an unsubstantiated assertion about the use of term "Zionist" by Holocaust deniers.

The Zionist extremist and Palestine denier Jayjg keeps reverting any attempt to correct the false implication that anyone using the term "Zionist" is/could be a Holocaust denier, without supplying any evidence for the assertion.

HistoryBuffEr 07:48, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

First six words marked up with strikeout, because it's a personal remark. Buff, I want to work with you, not "take action" against you (see long comment on my talk page). --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Outside of Israel itself (where "Zionism" is apparently a genuine political movement on the order of "libertarianism"), the term "Zionist" is used most frequently in anti-Semitic statements by people who want to insult their opponents, engage in anti-Israel rhetoric, spout conspiracy theorists about "the Jews" and their supposed secret plan to rule the world, or outright paranoid hate by white supremacists and other losers -- especially Holocaust deniers. Hence the note in this article that Holocaust deniers frequently use the term "Zionist" to describe their opponents, or anyone they don't like.
I also see by your Wikipedia contribution that you've added "Totally Disputed" headers to several other articles having to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict. This suggests that you are less interested in adding NPOV to this article (or the others) than declaring everyone else on Wikipedia to be wrong because they don't agree with you. Please go over this on your Talk page, so that we can come to a resolution. --Modemac 09:25, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You are just repeating your article assertion without supplying any references. Merely repeating something does not make it more true. The complete lack of substantiation for your tendentious generalization is my only contention here, so provide some evidence or remove the statement. HistoryBuffEr 17:45, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
HistoryBuffEr, you are clearly makin anti-Semitic and ad homenim attacks towards Jay, and you are pushing a Nazi agenda. Your edits will be reverted. RK 17:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Robert, please leave matters like this for admins. As a famous Jewish leader once said: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." (The word I struck out in your comment above is an example of the kind of personal remark we all should avoid at Wikipedia.) --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr, its about time you start playing nice with everyone else or pay the consequences (arbitration).GeneralPatton 02:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, General, Buff has offered to cooperate with Pir, Jay and me on Occupation of Palestine. Please make it easy for him, not hard. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do Not Remove Disputed Notice

To Modemac and RK:

Removing the Disputed notice, and Protecting the page you are involved in are clear violations of Wikipedia policy.

By denying even that a dispute over this articles exists, Modemac and RK have reached a new level, level way beyond Holocaust deniers. Thanks for so obviously undermining yourself and your propaganda cause. HistoryBuffEr 20:14, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alberuni page for a look at the current dispute, of which this article is but a drop in the bucket. --Modemac 21:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking purely as an ordinary contributor, I think the "totally disputed notice" should remain on all pages relating to the Holocaust. It's the only way to prevent constant reversion wars between supporters of mainstream Western historians and those denying that the Holocaust occurred -- like that French legislator I heard about on news radio this morning. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 13:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ed, it's been generally agreed among Wikipedians that the articles here about Holocaust denial and Holocaust denial examined have been factually and historically accurate and generally NPOV; some NPOV work and additions still need to be made to the main Holocaust denial article, but the folks here are working on it. The problems only happen when a troublemaker barges in and starts edit wars of this kind (remember our friend Clutch?). On the whole these articles have been reasonably NPOV, and no "disputed" notice is needed here. --Modemac 14:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Clutch that guy from Vancouver who finally resigned from Wikipedia after I spoke to him on the telephone? I forget his username. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 14:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a first time reader of this article and its talk page I'm fascinated by people who think that "totally disputed" means what they think it means. The fact that *they* disagree with the article usually falls under the category of a NPOV in my experience. If the person wishes to flesh out the article and fill in their own views as counters to those in the article already, they're free to do so -- as long as they are properly attributed. Reading a little "how to edit a Wiki" from the main help pages is probably in order. --MtB 20:47, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)

Flawed and dishonest methods of deniers

Can anyone justify how this heading fits with the NPOV policy? Surely the heading should be "Methods used by deniers". The text speaks for itself and doesn't require a judgemental summary. To quote Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view as being correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one."

As a casual reader the rest of the article struck me as NPOV. It's just this one heading that leaps off the page as one of the most POV things I have so far seen on Wikipedia. --CloudSurfer 06:15, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, something like that doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It's just invective, not description. By that logic, we should have deluded pseudoscience used by creationists or something. --Delirium 06:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Points noted and heartily agreed with. Once this page is unprotected (which should hopefully be within the next several hours, when the current dispute is taken care of), this will be taken care of. Please be aware that this page was not protected because of flagrant POV violations throughout the course of the entire text, but rather because of HistoryBuffEr's antagonism and repeated actions over one very minor point of the article (the fact that Holocaust deniers use the term "Zionist" to describe their opponents). Other non-NPOV portions of this article such as that topic header will be dealt with quickly once this is taken care of. --Modemac 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By the way, in response to HistoryBuffEr's request for a "reference" to Holocaust deniers referring to their opponents as "Zionist," here's one: Google search of the newsgroup alt.revisionism for "Zionist" and "McVay". This refers to the number of times the word "Zionist" has been used on alt.revisionism in conjunction with Ken McVay, one of that newsgroups most well-known participants. --Modemac 11:41, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That section heading must go. Also, here is more evidence from a well-known hate site that holocaust deniers use the term "Zionist" pejoratively. Rhobite 15:23, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
The page is now unprotected; hopefully the latest dispute has blown over. --Modemac 15:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV objection removed

MtB's rephrasing makes the "Zionist" usage description more balanced. I remove my NPOV objection, subject to this, or a substantially similar version remaining in the article:

... Holocaust deniers have frequently used terms such as "Zionist Collaborator" or "Jew-lover" to describe their opponents. Please note that the term Zionist on its own can actually simply refer to those Jews who believe in returning to what they see as their homeland in the middle east; there are those Jews and jewish scholars who believe such goals are unnecessary or even wrong.

HistoryBuffEr 22:11, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

Evidence of the holocaust??

I find this brief section frankly laughable. It details existance of concentration camps, and deaths in those camps (it's well documented that near the end of the war, a typhus epidemic broke out and many prisoners also starved due to overpopulation of camps and lack of supples/food reaching them). It doesn't given any evidence of the holocaust, that is the extermination by gassing of 12 million people, whatsoever!

Actually, it was the "evidence" you provided regarding the World Almanac figures that was "frankly laughable". However, I appreciate your doing so, it actually created a textbook example of how Holocaust deniers selectively choose data and falsify information. Thanks. Jayjg 17:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposed renaming

This article does not consider arguments made by Holocaust deniers. Therefore, I propose that this article be renamed to "Arguments against Holocaust denial".

Agreed. The whole structure of this article is POV and the naming is misleading. If you are going to have an article called "Holocaust Denial examined", first you need to lay out what the arguments are (they're laid out pretty well in the article Holocaust Denial) and then you should tackle them one by one. Considering the controversy that surrounds this issue, methodical rationalism is the only option. The current article first tries to discredit the methods of Holocaust deniers, and then presents arguments against denial - without event stating what the arguments used by the deniers are. This is neither fair nor scientific. Also, it should be pointed out that simply because someone is anti-semitic, it doesn't make their arguments wrong a priori - the arguments must be considered on their own merit alone. Lets be frank - its not as though the arguments against holocaust denial are weak enough to fall down under rigorous scrutiny.... D33j4y 00:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully the latest little addition will clarify this. It specifically spells out the first three arguments of the "top ten" list in the Holocaust Denial article. Several of the arguments are already included in the text of this article (Hoess' "blood stained confession"), and perhaps one or two still need to be included. --Modemac 12:40, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'd agree also, this article by no means examines holocaust denial, it seems to be quite NPOV doing the whole 'only anti-semites doubt the holocaust', which impacts badly on the readers perception of the neutrality of the article and therefore is not a positive thing for the Wikipedia project. Jachin 20:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Such topics are simply unsuited for Wikipedia

I have read a few books and plenty of articles on the subject of Holocaust denial. I was amazed at how much excitement that topic inspired in people. When I read about the Wiki's neutrality policy, I hoped to finally find an objective research, but.... The arguments are utterly ridiculous. To prove that Nazi used scripted language the pro- use documents accepted in Nuremberg trial. N. Trial charter states that judges can take as a fact anything they want. Anti- keep on talking about jewish and other conspiracies. Pro- hint that the Lechter's report is wrong, but not only do not provide proof, they fail to come up with a counter thesis. Anti-... the list can go one for hours. And the worst thing is that independent research (also pro- claim that one has been done) is impossible due to legal prosecutions. As you can see, this topic is one that people just can not be neutral about. Which contradicts the policy and the spirit. Something has to be done, but besides removal nothing comes to my mind. Any ideas?

Delete this article

This article is pure POV. There is no article called "Holocaust examined" where the holocaust is questioned, so why should there be this one?

Because this article is spun off from the Holocaust denial article, especially so this subject can be addressed. Duh. --Modemac 13:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Critical examination of the claims made in this "article" and rebuttal

(Apologies to the readers. This paticular section was long, and it would be difficult to follow, so I've added my comments inline, but consistently indented, to allow for easier flow)

Much of the controversy surrounding the claims of deniers centers upon the methods used to present arguments that the Holocaust allegedly never happened.


Incorrect. Only parts of the 'holocaust' that are proven wrong, are disputed. The existence of concentration camps, anti-semitic propaganda, Kristallnacht, a jewish boycot and other facts are recognised by revisionists (also known as "deniers") are such.


Which parts are "proven wrong"? At most, revisionsists/deniers _challenge_ the conventional thinking. What is more usual is that they demand proof that something occured, rather then offering _any_ proof of their own.

Numerous accounts have been given (including evidence presented in court cases) of claimed "facts" and "evidence"; however, independent research has shown these claims to be based upon flawed research, biased statements, and even deliberately falsified evidence.


These actually applies to the holocaust enforcers much better than it applies to revisionists. Most revisionist claims are pretty solid.


If any of their claims were "pretty solid", you'd be writing about them, and their proof, rather then, like most revisionists/deniers, attacking other articles.

Evidence presented by Holocaust deniers has also failed to stand up to scrutiny in courts of law (see Fred A. Leuchter), further questioning its veracity.


Law suits concerning the issue of the "holocaust" have always failed to stand up to objectivity, and often resemble Stalinist show trials in many fashions.


This is somewhat amusing. Many deniers/revisionists insist history be written to the standards of a court room proceeding (which isn't normal practice) when it comes to the holocaust, but when their "evidence" isn't accepted, it's because the _court_ isn't objective.


"They'll cite a historical text: 'K.K. Campbell says on page 82 of his famous book that nobody died at Auschwitz.' Then you go to the Library of Congress and look up K.K. Campbell, page 82, and what you find he really said was, 'It was a nice day at Dachau.' They get away with this because they know goddamn well most people don't have time to rush off to the Library of Congress.


Another claim that actually applies to the holocaust enforcers much better than it applies to revisionists.
Well, at least it's a claim that applies well to this "critical analysis", when any proof is supplied at all.


For example, in the Leuchter report (see below), a lack of significant cyanide traces in some gas chambers is measured some 40 years later, after 40 years of open-air weathering. While it is indeed factual, it is meaningless as an indicator of whether or not cyanide gas was ever used there.


Not when comparing it with locations where Zyklon B actually was used, and which have seen under similar circumstances.


Hmmm. So, you consider "similar circumstances" a building that was blown up and exposed to 40 years of general weather (the gas chambers), and a building that remained intact from the war years (rooms deloused)?

A frequently-used photo shows a fairly flimsy gas chamber door. The intent is to confuse the reader into believing that gas chambers could not be practically used for extermination, because the victims would break down the door rather than be executed. While the photo is a real gas chamber door, it is not a door that was known to be used on an extermination gas chamber; it is a door likely used on a de-lousing gas chamber.


Based on what evidence?


many publications and statements by Holocaust deniers have been tainted by anti-Semitism.


Much less than the number of publications and statements by holocaust deniers that have been tainted by zionism, communism or another political concept. It is true, that revisionism does have political implications. The way revisionists look at those, can be read at this location.
The main political implication is the rehabilitation of National Socialism, better known as Nazism.


Holocaust deniers have frequently used terms such as "Zionist Collaborator" or "Jew-lover" to describe their opponents.


I haven't seen any of these terms in any revisionist publication to describe their opponents.
You aren't very well read then. Do a seach on "Ernst Zundel", a well known publisher and revisionist/denier. He's one of the better known ones, but he's just one of many.


While the term Zionist on its own can actually simply refer to those Jews who believe in returning to what they see as their homeland in Israel, some Jews and Jewish scholars believe such goals are unnecessary or even wrong.


I do not see the relevance of this statement. Revisionists -- in general -- do support those claims.


The continuing, persistent efforts by Holocaust deniers to portray such a human disaster as a mere fiction in the face of overwhelming evidence has led scholars and authorities to question their motives. "Why," it has been asked, "do people deny the Holocaust?"


Because the overwhelming evidence is NOT in favor of the official holocaust story, perhaps?!
Ah, the evidence. The stuff which is to be avoided (much like you have, in this "critical analysis")?


"Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international Jewish financiers inside and outside Europe again succeed in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and with it the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."


Translations don't always mean the exact same thing in another language. The 'Nazi' theorist, Alfred Rosenberg, who was put in charge of the administration of the occupied eastern European territories, met a similar challenge while in the box at the Nuremberg War Crimes trials. His problem was a bit simpler than that presented to revisionists; he didn't need to read anyone's mind, but simply put his own words into the context in which they were written. In addition he stated that though the word "extermination" was bandied about with regard to the Jews in Nazi circles, it was never understood to mean the murder of millions of Jews.


While true that translations don't always mean the exact same thing, word for word, in another language, that is why we have translators. German is a contextual language, and the same words can have different meanings in different context. And many _native German speakers_ have translated "ausrotten" as extermination, as in annihilation and utter destruction. But, for completeness, just what were all of these Nazi's talking about when they were using the

word "extermination"?

During the trial, he was asked to translate the German term "Ausrottung" using a standard German-English dictionary. To this Rosenberg replied:
I do not need a foreign dictionary in order to explain the various meanings "Ausrottung" may have in the German language. One can exterminate an idea, an economic system, a social order, and as a final consequence, also a group of human beings, certainly. Those are the many possibilities which are contained in that word. For that I do not need an English-German dictionary. Translations from German into English are so often wrong-and just as in that last document you have submitted to me, I heard again the translation of "Herrenrasse." In the document itself "Herrenrasse" is not even mentioned; however,there is the term "en fallacious Herrenmenschentum" (a false mastermankind). Apparently everything is translated here in another sense.
Likewise, the 'Nazi' propagandist, Julius Streicher was called to task over his advocacy of the "Ausrottung" of Jewry while on trial at Nuremberg. He explained he was unaware of any mass murder of Jews in the East and that he didn't believe figures being presented to him at the trial. His use of the term "Ausrottung" was purely a reflection of calls for the murder of Germany appearing in the foreign press at the time. His echoing call for the extermination of the Jews was purely rhetorical. To the surprise of his captors, at one point, while under interrogation by the Soviets, Streicher had declared himself to be a Zionist. While on the stand, Streicher also defined the final solution to the Jewish question to be the creation of a Jewish homeland after Germany had won the war.


Streicher was one of the worst and most rabid inciters of violence against the jews. He may have thought he was a "Zionist" because he wanted the jews of europe rounded up and sent elsewhere; but usually this label is for those in favour of a jewish homeland, and not the forced removal of jews from their mother countries.


Provided here is a photographic image of a report from Himmler to Hitler regarding the executions of prisoners in Nazi-occupied Bialystok, Poland.


The text of the report says "Report to the Führer about fight against gangs", which means that it is a list of casualties fallen during the first with civilian resistance or in executions afterwards. Jews were always mentioned seperately in these reports. How this proves an extermination plan, is beyond me.


Why the need to seperate them? If they were soviet, or partisans, why not list them as such? And why are the jews listed only as "executed"? The bandits and their accomplices have arrest and interrogation figures. It would seem to indicate that jews were simply found and executed, simply because they are jews.


An often-quoted document advancing this theory is the "Leuchter Report" by Fred A. Leuchter, a paper stating that no traces of cyanide were found when he examined samples taken from one of the Auschwitz gas chambers in 1988. This paper is used to further a common debating tactic, namely the suggestion that because no traces of cyanide were found in 1988, then no cyanide was used at all in Auschwitz, over forty years earlier.


These people seem to 'forget' that large traces of Zyklon B HAVE BEEN FOUND in the fumigation rooms (the so-called de-lousing chambers) intended to sterilise clothing and bed sheets. These rooms are not referred to are homicidal gas chambers be ANYONE. Both revisionists and holocaust enforcers agree on the nature of these chambers. If Zyklon B disappears in time, it would not have completely disappeared on one location and still left a lot of traces on a location of approximately the same age.


See above, about "similar conditions" in the two areas. Or is our author not aware of the physical condition of the two buildings?


Some speculate that some ash could have been used in fertilization experiments in crop fields, by the Germans.


That's just hilarious.


Or true. Other information is that the large amounts of ash were distributed into the rivers around the camps.

The Institute for Historical Review publicly offered a reward of $50,000 for verifiable "proof that gas chambers for the purpose of killing human beings existed at or in Auschwitz." Mel Mermelstein, a survivor of Auschwitz, submitted proof, which was then ignored. He then sued IHR and won the $50,000 reward, plus $40,000 in damages for personal suffering. Revisionists have subsequently claimed that the proof offered by Mermelstein was "never released to the public," implying that it had been sealed by the court or otherwise kept secret.

If the proof is sealed by the court or otherwise kept secret, how do we know this is any better than the Stalinist show trials. If there is such proof, I'd like to see it. Don't we all deserve that?


Arno Mayer stated in Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: "Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable."


They're probably called unreliable, because the findings do not match the preconceived views.


Simply breathtaking. This is one of the best proofs of the fraud that is Holocaust denial/revisionism. From another refutation "Mayer, quite clearly, does not question the existence of the gas chambers, nor that they were employed for extermination. His words were taken out of context." Sound familiar? It should be. It's when this EXACT quote was used by another (famous) denier/revisionist.


The figure "six million" (which may actually be closer to eleven million, when counting the other ethnic, religious, and minority groups targeted for extinction)


First of all, the 6 million figure has always been a figure that only refers to the number of jewish casualties. The number of non-jewish casualties therefor is irrelevant and has no influence on this number. That number is also inflated, though.
"has no influence" ... a true point. "number is also inflated" ... with no proof, and still no relevance to the jewish figure. Something thrown in to score another point, though.
Second, the "proof" that any group other than the jews was "targeted for extinction" is even more absurd and unreliable than the "proof" for an extermination plan for jews.
Again, no proof, just more conjecture.

Numerous documents archived and discovered after the war gave meticulous accounts of the exterminations that took place at the "death camps"


No, they don't. It they did, we would not even be having this discussion here.
Or we would, except that it would be a fringe that believed the evidence to be untrue. Hmmm.
The documents do mention the numbers of people who died from disease, from execution (for criminal activities inside the camp) or other causes as well as the numbers of people who were given proper treatment in camp hospitals, the number of people who could or couldn't do work (of both groups, many people survived) and other figures. Regardless, this does not lead up to the 6 million figure.
Nope, no 6 million. The two biggest camps only account for an estimated 2 1/2 million combined. But what really matters here is mathematics, and not the mass slaughter of people, no matter the actual number, right? (There were those who were murdered on the spot (see the report above), and those that were worked to death too.)

Complicating the matter is that various instances have been reported where the death tolls of particular death camps were claimed to be overstated.


Didn't the author just state that "Numerous documents archived and discovered after the war gave meticulous accounts of the exterminations that took place at the 'death camps'"? If this statement would be true, then why this complication?
Well, there couldn't be a difference between the _meticulous accounts_ and records _detailing_ the number murdered? Perhaps there are hundreds of accounts of the various murder methods, but were there people in charge of counting how many were actually murdered?

Nevertheless, the evidence for the large death figures quoted by mainstream sources is overwhelming.


I'm still waiting for it....
I have a feeling, if we produced a Nazi who was involved in all aspects of the Holocaust, who affirmed everything that was done, and did this openly and without hesitation, that you would _still_ be waiting for "proof".


A much-quoted instance of disputing the toll is the "Breitbard Document," (actually a paper by Aaron Brietbart)(http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/education/revision/) which describes a commemorative plaque at Auschwitz to the victims that died there, which read, Four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the Nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945. In 1990, a new plaque replaced the old one. It now says, May this place where the Nazis assassinated 1,500,000 men, women and children, a majority of them Jews from diverse European countries, be forever for mankind a cry of despair and of warning. The lower numbers are due to the fact that the Soviets "purposely overstated the number of non-Jewish casualties at Auschwitz-Birkenau," according to the Simon Wiesenthal Center.


So until 1990, the official death toll of Auschitz was more than double the official death toll of today. If "Numerous documents archived and discovered after the war gave meticulous accounts of the exterminations that took place at the 'death camps'", then those documents clearly weren't used to determine the official death toll in all the camps. I'd like to add here, that ALL of the camps which are designated as "death camps" today, are located in former Sovjet territory. This rediculously high death count isn't the only false Sovjet statement acknowledged by official historians, by the way. Ever heard of the "steam chamber" and "electrocution chamber" claims? Those were accusations that were supposed to make the Nuremberg trials, but the Americans dropped the charges for being too unrealistic.
Wow, this is an old canard, but it seem to hatch again and again. The "official death toll of Auschitz" is somehow made official by a Soviet era plaque (which the author fails to note didn't mention that most of the victims were Jews), not by the numerous historians who generally agree on the 1 500 000 deaths since the 50's.
Also, nice to see the claims of "steam chambers" and other things. (Interesting that the Americans dropped the charges, as there were both Soviet and British prosecutors at Nuremberg, as they were the _Allied_ powers that brought charges). (Of course, in truth, the "steam chambers" was probably a description of the _gas chambers_ in the winter, but as these wild claims are unsourced we'll never know)

However, they ignore the facts that


the 4 million figure of the Soviets included almost 2 million non-Jews
This implicates that 500,000 jews less were killed at Auschwitz, starting from the assumption that no non-jew was killed. Still, there is no evidence to support these "facts".
Not that there is any "evidence" you've produced to show us a different figure.


claim that the 1940 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,319,359, while the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 15,713,638. In their view this makes it impossible that 6 million Jews died, even given an extremely high birth rate. They therefore claim that either the figures are wrong, or the Holocaust, meaning the deliberate extermination of millions of Jews, cannot have happened.


However, as is typically the case, the evidence given by Holocaust deniers does not stand up to closer scrutiny. In fact, the 1949 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 11,266,600. Moreover, it revises its estimate of the World Jewish population in 1939 upwards, to 16,643,120. Thus, according to the 1949 World Almanac the difference between the pre and post war populations is over 5.4 million.
This smells like a change of the figures, in order to make them match the official holocaust death toll. It still does not explain the following figures :


The Jewish world population before the outbreak of the 2nd World War:
According to
  • “The National Council of Churches”, USA, 1930……….…………………….15 000 000
  • “Jewish Encyclopedia”, USA, 1933…………………………………………………….15 600 000
  • “World Almanac”, publ.:American Jewish Committee, USA, 1939…15 600 000
The Jewish world population after the 2nd World War:
According to
  • “World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1945…15 192 089
  • “World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1946…15 753 638
  • “World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1947…15 698 259
  • “World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1948…15 500 000
  • “The New York Times”, USA, different entries 1948 (!)....………………15 700 000-18 600 000
  • “World Almanac”, publ.: American Jewish Committee, USA, 1950…11 500 000
  • “The National Council of Churches”, USA, ……… …1951 ………………....15 500 000
Interesting. Maybe our "scholar" can explain where the NYT and the national council of churches got their numbers. The "World Almanac", prior to 1949, had been using a census from the 1930's, as is stated IN the publication, but not apparent in the quoted numbers. Also, this seems to imply the World Almanac is a publication of the American Jewish Committee, when it seems to be published be New York World Telegram.


In addition, rather than using more accurate census figures and other records, Holocaust deniers rely on a popular compendium whose methodology of assessment is unknown, and whose estimates have varied significantly. For example, the 1982 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 14,318,000, while the 1990 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 18,169,000, and the 1996 World Almanac gives the world Jewish population as 13,451,000. Either 3.7 million Jews appeared unnoticed between 1982 and 1990, and then 4.5 million Jews disappeared equally unnoticed between 1990 and 1996, or the World Almanac is not a particularly reliable source for accurate estimates of worldwide Jewish population.


Looking at the figures I provided above this appears to be a modern phenomenon, consciously done or not....


the 1932 American Jewish yearbook estimate the total number of Jews in the world at 15,192,218, of whom 9,418,248 resided in Europe. However, the 1947 yearbook states: "Estimates of the world Jewish population have been assembled by the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (except for the United States and Canada) and are probably the most authentic available at the present time. The figures reveal that the total Jewish population of the world has decreased by one-third from about 16,600,000 in 1939 to about 11,000,000 in 1946 as the result of the annihilation by the Nazis of more than five and a half million European Jews. In Europe only an estimated 3,642,000 remain of the total Jewish pre-war population of approximately 9,740,000."


I guess those making the "American Jewish yearbook" beated the American Jewish Committee in changing their figures to fit the "holocaust".
Or the American Jewish yearbook actually took a survey, while the "American Jewish Committee", or the "New York World Telegram", just relied on outdated census figures?


The most telling evidence is the testimony of thousands of survivors of the Holocaust, including the testimony of captured Nazi officers at the Nuremberg Trials. Holocaust deniers discount these testimonies claiming that these witnesses were tortured, or that Rudolf Hoess allegedly signed a "blood stained confession" (which they claim is the initial source of the 6 million figure) written in a language he did not understand (English) or that the Nuremberg Trial did not follow proper judicial procedures.


Didn't Höss claim that he had 2 million people being murdered at Auschwitz, excluding those that died of other causes? I'm sure the official death toll of Auschwitz was reduced to 1,5 million for a reason. This implicates that Höss was lying about the murders he supposebly ordered. If he was lying about that, what makes you think he wasn't lying about other parts of his testimony? Similar inconsistencies have been found in other testimonies.
What did Höss claim? He actually wrote a book. Maybe our author would be kind enough to refrence the page where he makes such a claim. Or the court testimony.
Of course, in _court_, (which this author has a disdain for as being un objective), a judge/jury can consider all, none, or some of the evidence a witness gives. So, if any of the Nazis lied about anything, then all of them must be lying about everything?


They have also constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory involving a massive "Jewish plan" to plant forged documents across the continent of Europe, aided by the torture and forced confession of every captured Nazi officer, soldier, and worker who testified at the war crimes tribunal.


I never heard that one. Anyway, this article totally dismissed much of the evidence against the 'holocaust'. If you honestly believe this acticle has any value, you seriously need to question your gullability. Please check out the following websites, and read them with a mind as open as possible, but also as critical as possible. They bring forward a lot of evidence that is not mentioned in this article, which you can try to verify for yourself.
websites :
books :

--IlluSionS667 15:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) -- 01:28 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Issue

I have placed the NPOV boilerplate until the very valid issues raised in review of this article can be addressed.

Tone of this article and Holocaust denier

I come from a position of ignorance of the issues, and from a part of the world where neither Judaism nor anti-Semitism is particularly strong. I have just read through the two articles, and I have to say that the tone of both articles seems to play into the hands of the Holocaust deniers.

I guess the articles start from a difficult position: the term "holocaust denier" is inherently ad hominem. The label is attached to the individuals, rather than the arguments they put forward. The problem with an argument ad hominem is that it is a fallacy: just because a person who puts forward an argument is anti-Semetic doesn't mean that what they are saying is wrong. Bad people are sometimes right. The overall effect of the repeated term "holocaust denier" is to undermine the real criticism of the denier's arguments. Better to just attribute specific quotes to specific people.

Another problem is that the articles tend to group holocaust deniers as if they all have the same or very similar views. It may be true that they are a remarkably homogenous group. I certainly don't know enough to say. But I do know that on most issues there are a whole spectrum of points of view from the extreme to the moderate. If deniers of the Holocaust mostly hold very similar, extreme views, as the articles seem to suggest then this point should be made explicitly and supported by evidence. The current effect is similar to that of a "straw man" argument. A straw man is a person you attribute views to that your opponent doesn't actually hold. By attacking the straw man you can avoid attacking the real views held by your opponent. If you group people with widely differing views together you look like you're constructing a straw man by attacking the most extreme views from the whole group rather than the actual views held by specific individuals.

I guess that leads on to my last point which is that there isn't enough citation. An article such as this really needs a lot of citation. "X says Y... this is clearly untrue because of evidence 1, 2, 3." To critically examine the arguments someone puts forward it's good to have the actual argument in their words.

My recommendations:

  • separate the attacks on the character of the denier from the attack on the arguments used for denial, ideally address the arguments first and mention the character of deniers as a footnote toward the end
  • avoid grouping the opinions of Holocaust deniers unless the grouping can be substantiated
  • cite specific statements by deniers and show how those statements are wrong with evidence, if it comes down to plausibilty let the reader make up their own mind or say something like "mainstream historians reject this as implausible"

That's my ten cent's worth. Take it or leave it. As it stands the articles read as unbalanced, and all that does is support the deniers' innuendo that people are trying to avoid reasoned consideration of their arguments.

Ben Arnold 13:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Great stuff...

Very nice article and it removed any tiny traces of doubt of the horrific events of the Holocaust that resided as residue in the outer reaches of my mind.

I made one small edit towards the end of the 6 Million section but this was only one that I thought made it sound nicer rather than factual. If you do not like it then feel free to edit it back.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evidence_and_documentation_for_the_Holocaust/Archive_1&oldid=961722423"