Auschwitz Museum Director Reveals 'Gas Chamber' Hoax

ejmaztec

gizmo555 wrote: »

Could you be a bit vaguer, by any chance?

Why the unfounded sarcasm?

If you look really closely, you might find that I mentioned posting a link when I relocated the source.:rolleyes:

marcsignal

gizmo555 wrote: »

There is no concern expressed in the article expressed in the article you reference about the "launch" or the "marketing" of the book. There is some robust and in my view deserved criticism of the book itself, but I repeat, that is a completely separate point.

Hold on, let's just slow down a bit here. The article I posted was not the one I was originally looking for, but I clearly remember reading an article at the time that book was launched in the States, that spoke about confusion in the US as to whether 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' was a true story. I'm digging around for the said article, but it was a long time ago. As soon as I find reference to it I will post it. However, I didn't surprise me at all, because I've met plenty of people in Ireland who were under the impression it was a true story, and like you, I couldn't believe anyone could be so stupid.

gizmo555 wrote: »

As for Blech's claim that "indeed for many students it will be the definitive and perhaps only Holocaust account to which they will be exposed", well if that is the case, it's hardly John Boyne's fault. That's more a criticism of wilfully ignorant readers than Boyne and how anyone could take a book which is described on its title page as "a fable" as being factual is beyond me.

Jewish people are very touchy about gentiles writing anything about the Holocaust, I'd call that concern, that's why I posted that article, and imo thats why Rabbi Blech said : "indeed for many students it will be the definitive and perhaps only Holocaust account to which they will be exposed" but I totally agree, It's certainly not John Boyne's fault.

However, I will continue digging around for the original article I mentioned , or similar, that's closer to the point. I think this is just a case of crossed wires here.

.

Fuinseog

marcsignal wrote: »

Hold on, let's just slow down a bit here. The article I posted was not the one I was originally looking for, but I clearly remember reading an article at the time that book was launched in the States, that spoke about confusion in the US as to whether 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' was a true story. I'm digging around for the said article, but it was a long time ago. As soon as I find reference to it I will post it. However, I didn't surprise me at all, because I've met plenty of people in Ireland who were under the impression it was a true story, and like you, I couldn't believe anyone could be so stupid.

.

they did try at first to market it as a true story. there was another story about a guy falling in love with his wife to be in one of the camps. brilliant stuff and an excellent memoir. unfortuantely he made the while thing up and when it was exposed sales dropped. i guess they did not want to risk the same thing happening with the stripped pyjamas

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

they did try at first to market it as a true story. there was another story about a guy falling in love with his wife to be in one of the camps. brilliant stuff and an excellent memoir. unfortuantely he made the while thing up and when it was exposed sales dropped. i guess they did not want to risk the same thing happening with the stripped pyjamas

There have been so many stories written, and movies made about the subject, it's hard to keep track "The Grey Zone", "Sophies Choice", "Triumph of the Spirit", "Schindlers List", the 1970s series "Holocaust", "Escape from Sobibor" are just a few. However with all due respect to gizmo555, I will continue searching for the article I mentioned earlier, as I think with such a serious subject like this, all claims made by any poster really need to be backed up with references, because there seems to be enough confusion and disimformation out there about the Holocaust, as it is.

There are a few things I mentioned so far that, for me anyway, don't add up about this, so I think the easiest one to approach first is the 'basic maths' one.

When I was growing up in the 70's, watching 'The World at War' the accepted Holocaust figure was always 6 million Jewish victims, along with 5 million others (who were hardly ever mentioned) So the 'given' figure was always 11 million victims in total.


This is a picture of the plaque that was laid in Auschwitz by the Russians, claiming the Nazis murdered 4 million in that camp alone...


In 1989, this plaque suddenly appeared, with the figure reduced to 1.5 million.


Then these articles started to appear in papers around the world form 1990 reducing the total to just over 1 million.

Now I'm no Maths major, but I do know, that 11 million - 2.5 million doesn't equal 11 million.
Today, in 2009, the figure cited universally for Holocaust victims is still, 6 million Jews and 5 million others, as in, Holocaust victims = 11 million in total.

see where i'm going with this ??

.

Fuinseog

when I was in school one spoke about an estimated 6 million, actually the holocaust wasn't that big an issue until the nineties.

i came across a few holocaust photos online that are clearly fake. one of the most famous ones is the picture of the german soldier with a rifle shooting a mother and child. unfortuantely i didn't save the site address.

victims of the holocaust are those who were in the camp and died (whether that be pre or post 1945). thus the numbers increase every year.

I find it frightening that this issue can never be debated publicly, least of all in this country.

Fuinseog

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/30/holocaust.hoax.love.story/index.html

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

when I was in school one spoke about an estimated 6 million, actually the holocaust wasn't that big an issue until the nineties.

There were many reasons for that, the Cold War being one, but is is strange that it's the only historical event that you seem to hear more about, as time moves on.

Fuinseog wrote: »

i came across a few holocaust photos online that are clearly fake. one of the most famous ones is the picture of the german soldier with a rifle shooting a mother and child. unfortuantely i didn't save the site address.

that photo is on this thread somewhere, the original and the 'cropped' version used later.

Fuinseog wrote: »

victims of the holocaust are those who were in the camp and died (whether that be pre or post 1945). thus the numbers increase every year.

According to 'Holocaust Scholars' (most of them Jewish), anyone who had to flee Europe between 1939 & 1945 is, by their definition, a Holocaust survivor.

So, that considered, anyone who got out before the war, with most or all of their material posessions, is a Holocaust survivor. Henry Kissinger is one well known living example, even though he has even been heard to say, that there is too much focus put on the event as a whole.

Fuinseog wrote: »

I find it frightening that this issue can never be debated publicly, least of all in this country.

there are plans afoot to make it an EU wide law. What will be next ? Questioning your taxes, to become a crime ?? Asking questions about political corruption, to become a crime ??

Something tells me Bertie, for one, will welcome that law coming in.

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

Good example, the funny thing is, if that was an original photograph, taken at the Top end of the Ramp in Auschwitz, the smoke would be BEHIND the photographer, not in front of him, because that's where the crematoria were located in relation to where the photo was taken.

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/30/holocaust.hoax.love.story/index.html

Very tactful of CNN to include a link to 'The real horrors of Buchenwald Concentration Camp' in that article. After all, they wouldn't want to be accused of printing something pertaining to 'Holocaust Denial' would they ??

.

Fuinseog

it never ceases to amaze me how emotional Irish people, especially the younger generation get about the holocaust.
they couldn't care less about Cambodia, Rwanda or Serbia or even the potato Famine but the mere mention of the holocaust unleashes an irrational reaction.

marcsignal

Fuinseog wrote: »

it never ceases to amaze me how emotional Irish people, especially the younger generation get about the holocaust.
they couldn't care less about Cambodia, Rwanda or Serbia or even the potato Famine but the mere mention of the holocaust unleashes an irrational reaction.

Whenever I'm out for a few pints, my mates, and strangers that end up in our company are always asking me questions about the war, so much so that my mates all call me 'Deutsch Marc' , but I'm very reluctant to discuss the Holocaust socially, for 2 reasons. Either you are dealing with someone who doesn't like Jews and they're looking for reassurance to justify their Anti-Semitism, or you're dealing with a 'Germanophobe' who thinks it's chic to hate Germany and all things German, or saw 'Inglorious Bastards', or dare I say it 'The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas' and think they're for real.

I've actually turned and politely walked away, from some of the people you describe above, tbh, I've met plenty of them.

.

Fuinseog

i persoanlly never discuss the holocaust in public. its something I would not dare touch upon. it would ruin a good evening and my job would be at risk. do so at a public debate and the crowd would lynch you.

bigeasyeah

This was a good thread until the debate about a film/book.
I dont anyone is denying the holocaust but for the sake of history disturbing questions must be answered.

gizmo555

marcsignal wrote: »

However with all due respect to gizmo555, I will continue searching for the article I mentioned earlier, as I think with such a serious subject like this, all claims made by any poster really need to be backed up with references, because there seems to be enough confusion and disimformation out there about the Holocaust, as it is.

I couldn't have put it better myself. Which is why my hackles are raised when claims are supported by nothing at all or "I remember reading on some website sometime . . ." That said, I don't have any problem with anyone having a healthy skepticism about the received wisdom in any area.

This is a good example of why it's important to insist on references - so one can judge for oneself their reliability:

Fuinseog wrote: »

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/fake/SWCsmokeFake.html

fpp.co.uk is the website of David Irving, of whom UK High Court Judge Gray said in his judgement in the failed libel case Irving brought against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books:

Irving is anti-Semitic. His words are directed against Jews, either individually or collectively, in the sense that they are by turn hostile, critical, offensive and derisory in their references to Semitic people, their characteristics and appearances ... Irving has made claims that the Jews deserve to be disliked; that they brought the Holocaust on themselves. He speaks regularly at political or quasi-political meetings in Germany, the United States, Canada and the New World. The content of his speeches and interviews often displays a distinctly pro-Nazi and anti-Jewish bias. He makes surprising and often unfounded assertions about the Nazi regime which tend to exonerate the Nazis for the appalling atrocities which they inflicted on the Jews. He is content to mix with neo-facists and appears to share many of their racist and anti-Semitic prejudices.

The charges which I have found to be substantially true include the charges that Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/apr/11/irving1

Tony EH

marcsignal wrote: »

There have been so many stories written, and movies made about the subject, it's hard to keep track "The Grey Zone", "Sophies Choice", "Triumph of the Spirit", "Schindlers List", the 1970s series "Holocaust", "Escape from Sobibor" are just a few. However with all due respect to gizmo555, I will continue searching for the article I mentioned earlier, as I think with such a serious subject like this, all claims made by any poster really need to be backed up with references, because there seems to be enough confusion and disimformation out there about the Holocaust, as it is.

There are a few things I mentioned so far that, for me anyway, don't add up about this, so I think the easiest one to approach first is the 'basic maths' one.

When I was growing up in the 70's, watching 'The World at War' the accepted Holocaust figure was always 6 million Jewish victims, along with 5 million others (who were hardly ever mentioned) So the 'given' figure was always 11 million victims in total.


This is a picture of the plaque that was laid in Auschwitz by the Russians, claiming the Nazis murdered 4 million in that camp alone...


In 1989, this plaque suddenly appeared, with the figure reduced to 1.5 million.


Then these articles started to appear in papers around the world form 1990 reducing the total to just over 1 million.

Now I'm no Maths major, but I do know, that 11 million - 2.5 million doesn't equal 11 million.
Today, in 2009, the figure cited universally for Holocaust victims is still, 6 million Jews and 5 million others, as in, Holocaust victims = 11 million in total.

see where i'm going with this ??

.

Yes, but the caveat these days is that nobody ever believed the 4 million figure at Auschwitz, so therefore the 6 + 5 = 11 stills stands. However, a cursory glance over some holocaust books from before 1990 shows that up to be false. One of the darlings of holocaust study, Martin Gilbert clearly states the 4 million figure in his book 'Auschwitz and the Allies'.

The problems with the 6 mil figure are numerous, for a start, it was first stated just after the war ended. Which, in opinion, is grounds for concern right away. There couldn't possibly have been the research needed to come up with a figure of any real accuracy, yet it was already being spouted at IMT in Nuremburg.

Also, I've heard that there probably wasn't 6 million Jews within the Third Reich territory even at the height of its power. Not so sure about that though, but it is interesting none-the-less.

Bottom line though, is that numbers are bunkum when first hand evidence is so hard to come by, no matter what the area of study is and the insistance on the 6 million mantra should be a cause of worry for everyone. Why must it be 6 million? Especially, when holocaust scholars don't even agree on the figure. Raul Hilberg said it was 5 million. Is he right or wrong.

Mahatma coat

The one that gets me, I've seen a few of the survivors of the camps, they have numbers tatooed on their arms, these numbers corespond to records kept by the Nazis, surely it would be fairly straightforward for someone who was sent to the camps in the last months of the war to come forward and show their tatoos, if 11 milion were killed then at leaast 5 more million survived, thats an eight digit number, the most I've seen on survivors is 6 digits, and in some cases digits and letters but still no one has the '10 millionth serial number', surely an organisation as ruthlessley eficient as the Nazis would have taken pride in their clerical skills

ejmaztec

gizmo555 wrote: »

I couldn't have put it better myself. Which is why my hackles are raised when claims are supported by nothing at all or "I remember reading on some website sometime . . ."

If you're referring to my comment, my hackles are raised when People half-read my posts before launching into hyper-criticism.

gizmo555

ejmaztec wrote: »

If you're referring to my comment,

I am, but not exclusively to your comment - here's a couple more prime examples since my post which bothered you so much:

Fuinseog wrote: »

they did try at first to market it as a true story.

(Who are "they"? How did "they" try to "market it as a true story"? Could you give us an example Fuinseog, or else withdraw this claim?)

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, I've heard that there probably wasn't 6 million Jews within the Third Reich territory even at the height of its power.

(Where did you hear this Tony? How was the figure arrived at? If there weren't six million, how many were there?)

ejmaztec wrote: »

my hackles are raised when People half-read my posts before launching into hyper-criticism.

Hyper-criticism? Hyper-sensitive would be nearer the mark. If you're going to make unsupported claims on such a controversial topic, you'd better grow a thicker skin. (Still waiting for the link you've promised twice now!)

marcsignal

I'm not taking any sides on this one lads, but I do think, and I've already said so, that all claims, made by any poster, including me, really need to be backed up with an acedemic, or even a Wiki reference, where possible, or at least a link to a site, even if it's a site that some may consider, bias, for or against the arguement, or any point raised. In my opinion, it's the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Let's be honest with each other here, there's a lot of shit on the interweb about the Holocaust, coming from both sides of the divide, and if we don't agree on this, then to anyone else reading this thread, we're just going to sound like a gang of 'Jew-Hating Stormfronters' slapping each other on the back.

Between us, we may disagree on figures here, but nevertheless, millions of people did die.
It's a serious business we're discussing, let's treat it with the respect it deserves.

Lets just keep it civil, and factual, That's just my feeling on it anyway

.

ejmaztec

marcsignal wrote: »

I'm not taking any sides on this one lads, but I do think, and I've already said so, that all claims, made by any poster, including me, really need to be backed up with an acedemic reference, or at least a link to a site, even if it's a site that some may consider, bias, for or against the arguement, or any point raised.
In my opinion, it's the only way to seperate the wheat from the chaff.

Let's be honest with each other here, there's a lot of shit on the interweb about the Holocaust, coming from both sides of the divide, and if we don't agree on this, then to anyone else reading this thread, we're just going to sound like a gang of 'Jew-Hating Stormfronters' slapping each other on the back.

Between us, we may disagree on figures here, but nevertheless, millions of people did die.
It's a serious business we're discussing, let's treat it with the respect it deserves.

Lets just keep it civil, and factual, That's just my feeling on it anyway

.

I'll get back to my usual civilised self when I've finished sending God knows how many tax returns to the Revenue before the 31 Oct deadline, after which time I'll try and track down the links.:D

marcsignal

ejmaztec wrote: »

I'll get back to my usual civilised self when I've finished sending God knows how many tax returns to the Revenue before the 31 Oct deadline, after which time I'll try and track down the links.:D

LOL

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

(Where did you hear this Tony? How was the figure arrived at? If there weren't six million, how many were there?)

Nothing concrete I'm afraid gizmo, which is why I said that I wasn't sure on it.

But, it was from a Ch4 documentary many moons ago, I don't even think it was about the holocaust. Some demographer chap was commenting on how difficult it was to gain truly accurate information in a population census for a single country in modern times, so gaining an overall view on numerous countries in Europe would have been impossible. He then said something along the lines of even at the point in 1942/43 when Germany controlled an area from France to North Africa to Stalingrad, that A. there wasn't the time needed to round up 6 milion Jews or B. there possibly wasn't even 6 million Jews within that territory to begin with. I don't recall any other figure being offered though.

I'm paraphrasing now, of course, but it was something that struck me as I'd never even thought of that before.

Like I said, I can't place too much credence on it. But, I do take his point about accurate census taking and the extreme difficulty it presents.

Either way, I really couldn't care less if the number was 3 million, 4 million, 5 million, or 6 or 10. But, what I do find suspicious (and objectionable) is the absolute insistance on a particular rounded figure. Why is unquestioning belief of this figure so central to the holocaust tenet?

As I also said earlier, numbers are bunkum and they are usually part of a political take on things. Accurate numbering is such a difficult task, that I find anyone that clings to an absolute figure to be somewhat foolish. It's incredibly difficult to say with absolute certainty how many "x" died in "x".

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Either way, I really couldn't care less if the number was 3 million, 4 million, 5 million, or 6 or 10. But, what I do find suspicious (and objectionable) is the absolute insistance on a particular rounded figure. Why is unquestioning belief of this figure so central to the holocaust tenet?

As I also said earlier, numbers are bunkum and they are usually part of a political take on things. Accurate numbering is such a difficult task, that I find anyone that clings to an absolute figure to be somewhat foolish. It's incredibly difficult to say with absolute certainty how many "x" died in "x".

Well, first of all it's overstating the case to say there is an unquestioning belief in the figure of six million. The generally accepted number is in the range of about five to six million.

In fact, one of the earliest sources for a figure of six million came from the Nazis themselves. The SS officer and Nazi party member Dr Wilhelm Hoettl in an affidavit to the Nuremberg trials in November 1945 said:

In August 1944 at the occasion of a visit in my apartment in Budapest, Eichmann told me that he had to make a report for Himmler on the number of Jews killed, and that he estimated the sum-total of the Jews killed as 6 millions. Of those 4 million had been killed in the extermination
institutions in the East, while the additional 2 millions were killed by shootings -- mainly by the Einsatzgruppen of the SIPO and the SD during the campaign in the East.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/documents/ftp.py?documents//nuremberg/ps2615-hoettl

Hoettl repeated this claim in an affidavit to Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem in 1961, although it should be said that Eichmann himself denied ever having said such a thing. (But then he would, wouldn't he . . .)

Raul Hilberg in The Destruction of the European Jews, the first comprehensive history of the Holocaust, originally published in 1961,came up with a figure of 5.1 million.

http://www.amazon.com/Destruction-European-Jews-Set-Third/dp/0300095570/ref=cm_cr_dp_orig_subj

According to the main Wikipedia article on the Holocaust:

Hilberg's estimate of 5.1 million [Jews murdered], in the third edition of The Destruction of the European Jews, includes over 800,000 who died from "ghettoization and general privation"; 1,400,000 killed in open-air shootings; and up to 2,900,000 who perished in camps. Hilberg estimates the death toll of Jews in Poland as up to 3,000,000. Hilberg's numbers are generally considered to be a conservative estimate, as they typically include only those deaths for which records are available, avoiding statistical adjustment.

British historian Martin Gilbert used a similar approach in his Atlas of the Holocaust, but arrived at a number of 5.75 million Jewish victims, since he estimated higher numbers of Jews killed in Russia and other locations. Lucy S. Dawidowicz used pre-war census figures to estimate that 5.934 million Jews died.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll

Tony EH

Hmmmm, doubt of the 6 million can see you brandished as a "holocaust denier" (and all that that subsequently entails) in certain places and jail in others.

Also, I'd take anything Martin Gilbert says on any subject with a pinch of salt these days. Gilbert wrote of the 4 million Auschwitz figure in 1981, which has been demolished and reduced to a generally accepted of 1 million in more recent years. And while I don't accept "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", if he was wrong on that, he could be wrong on other parts of his arithmetic as well. Either way, I've long since abandoned Gilbert as a credible historian. He's in the bin, alongside Steven Ambrose. He's populist historian, that writes cash-in work. Sure, he'll make loads of money, but the worth of his efforts isn't up to much.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

Hmmmm, doubt of the 6 million can see you brandished as a "holocaust denier" (and all that that subsequently entails) in certain places and jail in others.

It is absurd to say that even in those countries where Holocaust denial is an offence one could be jailed for publicly "doubting" whether six million Jews died. Would Hilberg have been prosecuted for his estimate of 5.1 million?

I'm not in favour of criminalising Holocaust denial myself, partly because I'm against abridgment of free speech in principle, but also because it allows people like Nick Griffin to imply that there are truths being suppressed which they can't reveal for fear of prosecution. This is exactly what Griffin did on the BBC last week.

Tony EH wrote: »

Also, I'd take anything Martin Gilbert says on any subject with a pinch of salt these days. Gilbert wrote of the 4 million Auschwitz figure in 1981, which has been demolished and reduced to a generally accepted of 1 million in more recent years.

It is simply untrue that the figure of 4 million deaths in Auschwitz was generally accepted until recent years. For example, Hilberg's overall estimate, going back to 1961, included an estimate of 1 million killed at Auschwitz and so is unaffected by this change. You can see from the figures above that his total estimate for all deaths in the camps is 2.9 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Destruction_of_the_European_Jews#A_destruction_of_5.1_million_Jews

Brian Harmon also quotes Gerald Reitlinger deriding the four million figure as "ridiculous Soviet propaganda" as far back as 1968:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/four-million-01.html

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is simply untrue that the figure of 4 million deaths in Auschwitz was generally accepted until recent years.

You need to read what I wrote again.

Mahatma coat

If I said to you

I've got 10 million dollars spread across four bank accounts, 4 mil 3 mil 2 mil one mil, then you'd say show me, so I show toy the first bank account which I say has a million in it and lo and behold when I bring up the balance theres 1.2 million dollars in it

then I show you the next one whic I say has 4 million in it, only wnen I open it theres 0ne million, would you believe me if I said that even tho the money wasnt in that account the total of 11 million was still correct or would you like to actually physically check each of the remain accounts yerself.independently of me.

gizmo555

Mahatma coat wrote: »

If I said to you

I've got 10 million dollars spread across four bank accounts, 4 mil 3 mil 2 mil one mil, then you'd say show me, so I show toy the first bank account which I say has a million in it and lo and behold when I bring up the balance theres 1.2 million dollars in it

then I show you the next one whic I say has 4 million in it, only wnen I open it theres 0ne million, would you believe me if I said that even tho the money wasnt in that account the total of 11 million was still correct or would you like to actually physically check each of the remain accounts yerself.independently of me.

Well, to use your analogy of an audit, Hilberg's figures with regard to the number of Jews murdered at Auschwitz - again, first published as far back as 1961 - have been "audited" in the sense that they are and always were consistent with the revised figures mentioned in this thread.

There is therefore no discrepancy between his overall estimate of 5.1 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the revised figures for the number murdered at Auschwitz.

Summary of main statistics from Hilberg:
http://holocaust-info.dk/statistics/

Summary of revised figures from official Auschwitz website:
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=13&limit=1&limitstart=3

Tony EH

So, why isn't there an insistence on 5 million as an "official figure", instead of the usual 6?

Or why isn't there any umph on Reitlinger's 4 million figure?

Why does it have to be 6?

Because there's so much discrepancy in the figures (and Hilberg doesn't speak for the entire holocaust community BTW), I'll go back to my original point and that is that figures are bunkum. People will choose, at the end of the day, to believe in what figure they wish on such matters.

The problem is, is that saying that "you don't believe" in this particular case, can see you lose your livelihood.

gizmo555

Tony EH wrote: »

So, why isn't there an insistence on 5 million as an "official figure", instead of the usual 6?

Or why isn't there any umph on Reitlinger's 4 million figure?

Why does it have to be 6?

There is no "official figure". Six million, I suppose, is the number that has been lodged in the popular consciousness since it was first put into the public domain as a result of Hoettl's testimony as to Eichmann's estimate in 1945.

By the way, Reitlinger's estimate was between 4.2 and 4.6 million - this is what he said on the matter:

Since the reading of the Nuremberg indictment in November 1945, naming the figure of 5,700,000 Jewish victims of Germany, the round number of six millions has become a generally accepted assumption in most circles that are interested in the matter. But in the course of writing this book I have been forced to the conclusion that, while it cannot be determined even within a half million degree of accuracy, the true figure may be considerably smaller . . . Whether six million died, or five millions, or less, it will still be the most systematic extermination of a race in world history. Moreover, once the principle of the murders is proved, there is no particular magic in additional millions. As a German, Walter Dirks, has written: "It is shameful that there should be Germans who see a mitigating circumstance in reducing the sum from six millions to two millions!" (My emphasis.)

http://books.google.ie/books?id=83dvJxPm--EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Inasmuch as any authority could be called "official", I suppose Yad Vashem would come closest, and this is what its website says:

There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million. Early calculations range from 5.1 million (Professor Raul Hilberg) to 5.95 million (Jacob Leschinsky). More recent research, by Professor Yisrael Gutman and Dr. Robert Rozett in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, estimates the Jewish losses at 5.59–5.86 million, and a study headed by Dr. Wolfgang Benz presents a range from 5.29 million to six million. (My emphasis.)

http://www1.yadvashem.org/Odot/prog/index_before_change_table.asp?gate=5-3

Tony EH wrote: »

The problem is, is that saying that "you don't believe" in this particular case, can see you lose your livelihood.

I don't see how merely saying you don't believe as many as six million Jews died in the Holocaust could lose you your livelihood. Be that as it may, as I've already said, I don't believe Holocaust denial should be punishable, both on general freedom of speech grounds and because it in fact plays into the hands of Holocaust deniers.

Fuinseog

Tony EH wrote: »

So, why isn't there an insistence on 5 million as an "official figure", instead of the usual 6?

Or why isn't there any umph on Reitlinger's 4 million figure?

Why does it have to be 6?

Because there's so much discrepancy in the figures (and Hilberg doesn't speak for the entire holocaust community BTW), I'll go back to my original point and that is that figures are bunkum. People will choose, at the end of the day, to believe in what figure they wish on such matters.

The problem is, is that saying that "you don't believe" in this particular case, can see you lose your livelihood.

there is also the matter of marketing. the holocaust (a term that may only be used to describe what happened to the Jews) is being marketed as the single worst tragedy to befall mankind. it was, we are led to believe, unprecedented.
the higher the number the more unique it appears. there were other acts of genocide but the holocaust must be made to stand apart.

Tony EH

gizmo555 wrote: »

There is no "official figure". Six million...

I don't see how merely saying you don't believe as many as six million Jews died in the Holocaust could lose you your livelihood.

The 6 million has been spouted continuously. In nearly everything to do with the Second World War (at least since the 70's), the "6 million" has singled out for special mention. It's mentioned so often that people who know absolutely nothing else about WWII can tell you the number of Jews supposedly killed. So, regardless of whether these days Yad Vashem says "there's no official figure", they still give it a mention.

Likewise, reduction of the 6 million figure has been touted as one of the tenets of so called "holocaust denial" and one treads into that territory very carefully. In addition, when one looks at what has happened to others when they go up against the big names in the holocaust clique, the fear of losing one's livelihood is very much a clear possibility (and I'm not talking about David Irving).