The Numbers Game

[The Warden]

I respectfully disagree, especially since it took about 4 seconds to see Nordling used Sanning as a source.

Sources:

Adler, H.G.: Theresienstadt, 1941-1945. Tübingen, 1960
Encyclopaedia Judaica. Jerusalem, 1972.
Sanning, W.N.: The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry. Costa Mesa, California, 1990.
Masur, Norbert: En jude talar med Himmler. Stockholm, 1945.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v11/v11p335_Nordling.html

It's the old telephone game. One person does the work, others use it in full or partial and then add their own, and by the time it gets anywhere, it's completely different. I suspect this happens between both sides as well. It all depends on the original data being analyzed,


Also, see Section 2 - Method for Rudolf's comparison between Sanning and Benz.

2. Method

For this purpose, we will organize our analysis on the basis of the nations which, during World War Two, came under German rule either in whole or in part, and we will examine the fluctuations exhibited by the Jewish population statistics there. The sequence of the nations corresponds on the whole to that used in Benz’s work, where only these countries are dealt with. In comparison, Sanning incorporates more extensive demographic observations, taking into account non-European nations as well, for which reason no strictly defined sequence of nations under German rule can be maintained in his work.

Between 1933 and 1945, the national boundaries of the countries studied often underwent considerable changes. In the work by Benz each country is discussed by a different author, and since the various authors clearly did not agree among themselves with respect to common boundaries, there are many cases of overlap which frequently result in the populations in question being counted twice.[23] We shall point this out as individual examples occur, and total these doublings at the end. Since Sanning, being the sole author of his book, did not have such trouble in allotting boundary areas, we will subsequently follow his choice of boundaries. Since the Benz book goes into great detail where such territories as were subject to changes in sovereignty are concerned, the appropriate corrections are generally quite easy to accommodate here.

For each nation or group of nations we shall first give a brief tabular overview of the Jewish population statistics as given in each work. Only where the data given in the two books are at considerable odds will reference to the soundness of the data and their calculation be made in order to determine which author’s arguments are better. The reliablility of the sources cited by the authors will also be touched on only in cases of dispute.

This will be followed by a comparison of the sum total of Jewish losses in German-occupied Europe, as calculated in each book, as well as by a summary critique which will also address the matter of where and how the victims Benz believes to have identified allegedly lost their lives; certain contradictions will become evident.

An overview of the numbers of Jewish emigrants from the European nations under former German occupation follows, as well as a survey of world Jewish population changes before and after the Second World War. Since these aspects are discussed only by Sanning, no comparison with the Benz book can be drawn - but since Benz’s book appeared eight years after Sanning’s, this certainly gives the impression that no factual counter-arguments were possible, at least where the matter of emigration was concerned.

And finally, Sanning’s work is verified statistically; a similar test was already performed some time ago by a Swedish statistician.

To avoid a vast number of footnotes, sources will be indicated in the text by parenthetical references giving only the page number in question and identifying the book by the initial of its author/editor (S or B), and in tables by appropriate notation in the column "Ref." or in brackets. Only rarely will reference be made to the source quoted by the book itself.
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

Bad tree, bad fruit.


EDIT: It's important to read Rudolf's conclusion in section 7 in its entirety to get a real feel for the inconsistencies I'm trying to highlight.

Teaser...

7. Conclusions

In its analysis of the central and western European nations, W. N. Sanning's book rests on a somewhat shaky foundation. Benz has the better material in this instance. Neither of the two works addresses the problem of 'de facto Jews' in sufficient detail; while each of Benz's co-authors deals with the problem as far as he sees fit, Sanning touches on this matter only marginally.

[snip]
http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndstats.html

[Hannover]

Unless someone has a method for factoring in the facts that:
1: many Jews refuse to be counted
2, many Jews refuse to be counted as Jews
There is simply no reliable way in which Jews can be counted, now or before. Which makes those that claim they can count Jews woefully uninformed and naive, or intentionally misleading. In regards to the false 'holocaust' storyline, the latter is obviously the case.

- Hannover

[borjastick]

Unless someone has a method for factoring in the facts that:
1: many Jews refuse to be counted
2, many Jews refuse to be counted as Jews
There is simply no reliable way in which Jews can be counted, now or before. Which makes those that claim they can count Jews woefully uninformed and naive, or intentionally misleading. In regards to the false 'holocaust' storyline, the latter is obviously the case.

- Hannover

Hannover you and The Warden prove my point entirely. The figures are about as accurate as my efforts in secondary school maths classes. In other words totally wrong and completely unreliable.

Unless we know (by We I mean everyone on both sides of the argument) how many there were before and then after the war we cannot possibly know how many died. The figures claimed in all the AJC/WJC and other calculations are pure speculation and riddled with statistical errors from top to bottom.

This methodology or that one doesn't matter a jot if the start point is wrong, and it is. When I see tabulated sets of figures showing supposedly accurate complete world jewish populations I see lies. We now know they claimed 6m slave labourers held inside occupied germany. Then it was millions dead in gas chambers and electric conveyor belts. The six million figure is shite and old shite at that.

My guess, which is as accurate as any so called official figures is that there are now between 25m-50m jews in the world and after the war there were 12m-20m. The death toll of the european jewry was in the order of 250,000-500,000 though I cannot reasonable apply much proof to that so it could be much lower.

[Lohengrin]

The Warden wrote:

"I respectfully disagree, especially since it took about 4 seconds to see Nordling used Sanning as a source."

No. If you had taken 5 seconds, you could have seen (in the very article you quote) that Nordling took 722 identified European Jews from the German sphere of influence, all of them to be find in the Encylopaedia Judaica. This presents in every respect another kind of methodology.
One could say Sanning got his results by detailed demographic fieldwork, whereas Nordling worked statistically at random, on the basis of only 722 survivors and their families.
The strongly corresponding results of both studies can't be 'explained' away with 'same source'; that makes in this case no sense.
On the contrary, this correspondence underscores the correctness of both studies, not only methodologically, but (within unavoidable margins of deviation) also nominally.

[The Warden]

The Warden wrote:

"I respectfully disagree, especially since it took about 4 seconds to see Nordling used Sanning as a source."

No. If you had taken 5 seconds, you could have seen (in the very article you quote) that Nordling took 722 identified European Jews from the German sphere of influence, all of them to be find in the Encylopaedia Judaica. This presents in every respect another kind of methodology.
One could say Sanning got his results by detailed demographic fieldwork, whereas Nordling worked statistically at random, on the basis of only 722 survivors and their families.
The strongly corresponding results of both studies can't be 'explained' away with 'same source'; that makes in this case no sense.
On the contrary, this correspondence underscores the correctness of both studies, not only methodologically, but (within unavoidable margins of deviation) also nominally.

Some people argue for the sake of arguing. None of Lohengrin's points take away from the original points made by myself or Hannover that Jews cannot be accurately counted.

Sanning's work says 44% of the Jews emigrated beforehand. Nordling's say 33%. The only thing Nordling can come up with to explain it is empty claims and excuses, but no actual data to prove them.

The cause of the difference between 44% and 33% is easily explained by considering the special make-up of my sample group. For instance, if we look at the identified Jews born 1880-1909 and consider the whole period from 1938 to 1944, we find that no less than 51% emigrated. Those born after 1909 (i.e. about half the population) may have been even more prone to emigrate. Besides, Jews who were not renowned or in the public sector certainly had possibilities (in many cases) to change their ethnic affiliation and (in some cases) even their names and identities. By such means ordinary Jews could slip away more easily than well-known people.

If this was a source being used to support the Holocaust story, every revisionist I know would be calling "nonsense' based on an 11% differential. Not only that, we would demand a source to show that the Jews actually changed their religion or actually were more prone to emigrate. This of course supports the claim that people will use numbers to further their stance even in the face of evidence that makes it unreliable.




Then, there's the direct quote from Nordling using Sanning's numbers as a source:

Evidently, we have to consider Sanning's number of 2,847,000 Jews present in the German sphere of influence in June 1941 as the best estimate so far (certainly with margins of error). This figure will therefore be used as the base for the following comparison. With the aid of Table 1, we are now going to compare the percentages of certain significant subgroups.

Either way, the original numbers are all from Jewish sources, which Hannover and I have pointed out is the real issue.

[borjastick]

All of this proves my point, that without knowing an absolute for the start point one is simply unable to arrive at the end figure. Thus, putting aside the ridiculous 6m figure which we all know is nonsense, the number of jews who died, by any means, at the hands of the German authorities can never be known accurately.

The flip side to this is that when we are given totally precise figures from the jewish side of the fence, we know these too cannot be accurate and are most likely to be fabricated in support of their claims of mass murder and 6m dead etc.

Conclusion is that no figures of millions of dead Jews at the hands of the German 'industrial murder system' can have any credibility or be taken seriously.

[astro3]

To the nearest million -

SIX MILLION JEWS - that number has a concrete meaning, as being the number of Jews who have applied for compensation from Germany on the grounds of being a Holocaust-survivor. Over the last fifty years.

FOUR MILLION JEWS - that is the number of Jews who have actually received financial compensation from the German finance ministry, as Holo-survivors. (to the tune of a hundred billion DM paid out)

THREE MILLION JEWS - that is the total number of Jews who lived in countries ever occupied by the Nazis during WW2.

[The Warden]

THREE MILLION JEWS - that is the total number of Jews who lived in countries ever occupied by the Nazis during WW2.

That may be the total number of Jews who were willing to be counted, but it's likely that the total number of Jews is far more based on the discussion in this thread.

[Balsamo]

Borjastick said:

Conclusion is that no figures of millions of dead Jews at the hands of the German 'industrial murder system' can have any credibility or be taken seriously.

I agree
But some points have to be clarified. There is no reason to doubt the effeciency of the national census. Those have a very long history. The problem is that there are held every ten years or sometimes more, that the questions asked are motivated by the need of each State. In the case of Belgium, the language was the main preoccupation: who speaks french and who speaks dutch! Religion did not matter. In the USA, the race was important, etc.
The methodology also differs depending on who is conducting the Census.
Counting Jews in the west was based on the inscriptions in Synagogues, or by declaration; in the east the use of the language (yiddish) was also considered. It was not only feasable, but done.
The problem is that those census were held years before the war, and it is to follow population that is very difficult as a i have shown with the Belgian case.
And it is in this perspective that both approach - the Allies or Sanning's- face the same problem, and both are misleading.

Regarding the German jewish policy , there are some data that are more accurate:
The population of Jewish Gethos for instance,
and deportions from the western countries.
some transports, etc.

After all, it is the policy that matters, not the number of those who suffered from it. Data available can give an idea of the magnitude of the policy, but no real counting.
Which is something that extremists from both sides don't see: it is the policy that matters!

[Goethe]

from Balsamo:

Counting Jews in the west was based on the inscriptions in Synagogues, or by declaration; in the east the use of the language (yiddish) was also considered. It was not only feasable, but done.

"Inscriptions in synagogues"? Are you serious? Jewish law says that they must avoid being counted and you accept the nonsense of "inscription in synagogues"?
"Declarations"? Declared by who? Jews? Jews who insist they should not be counted?
Some logic, sir.
The "policy" of deporting some Jews out of Europe in no way becomes a count of Jews. And then how was it a "policy" since so many Jews were not deported? Again, you are illogical.
The above beliefs are completely lacking in credibility.

[The Warden]

After all, it is the policy that matters, not the number of those who suffered from it. Data available can give an idea of the magnitude of the policy, but no real counting.
Which is something that extremists from both sides don't see: it is the policy that matters!

That's really the point, and more than anything else, exposing the unreliable nature of the numbers can show how the policy formed on those very numbers is equally unreliable on its face.

[scythian]

How much of the camp records are available to the public? Counting jews is unreliable, but if there are reliable records to work with, those specific jews could at least be counted (assuming there are reliable records and Germany did indeed make a record of the jews arriving and departing). I know that's just the camps, but it would be interesting to compare with results from dishonest holocaust historians given the same source material to work with.

[The Warden]

It doesn't matter since all sources pre-war are tainted. They only take the amount they have pre-war and subtract the post-war numbers and voila, amount of genocide. No matter what the camp documents state, they would only be registered prisoners. Any numbers that didn't line up would be given the usual excuse of "Well the unregistered prisoners were all gassed upon arrival."

Numbers don't work unless you're trying to prove a fairy tale where you can make things up as you go and adjust the numbers accordingly.

[The Warden]

It would also be to everyone's benefit to read the following thread:
Auschwitz deaths - Official camp numbers.

[scythian]

Yad Vashem's database is occasionally referred to by exterminationists when the numbers are in question. This thread exposes Yad Vashem's unscientific methods still in use today:

http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=1540

Yad Vashem's database hasn't changed much in the eight years since the above thread was created. They're still over two million short of six million. From their website:

http://knsl.net/23607

We estimate that the number of Jews commemorated in the database to date is 4 million

From their FAQ:

http://knsl.net/23608

There are close to five million personal records in the database. However, some people appear in more than one record

Some? I get the feeling they're putting the five million up front to get close to six million for the readers, then downplaying the significance of at least a one out of four million duplication.

When will there be 6,000,000 names in the database?
Never. Some Jews left no trace. They were murdered with their entire families, so there was no one left to submit Pages of Testimony for them; or they left no documentary traces; or the traces they left were destroyed, either during the war, or afterwards. In the 1960s and 1970s, archivists sometimes burned entire collections of what were perceived, unfortunately, as documents with no lasting value.

Or maybe they never existed to leave a trace in the first place? I've heard this explanation all my life and it's always bothered me. I suppose it's not impossible for millions to die (during time of plague or war, for example) without leaving a trace. IMO, It's improbable. For various reasons the 6 million is set in stone despite orthodox 'historians' like Hillberg admitting it is fluid (and lower).

Does anyone appear twice in the database?
Yes, there are some cases of this. Generally, overlapping documentation results in a richer picture of the individual, as each source adds information that the other source did not. One problem, however, can be that names are spelled in different ways or different languages, and that different sources may contain different bits of information so that the researcher cannot always be certain if two similar records really are about the same person.

They don't seem too confident in their own "records". How do they know that only 1/5 are duplicated? Obviously they don't and are making excuses in order to misrepresent them. Along with all the other issues in the thread linked at the top.

I'm thinking the numbers game isn't really worth playing, nor is it necessary due to the lack of a reliable way to count jews. There is a 1921 census stat for Polish jews. I have no idea if it is accurate or not, it gets tossed around in holocaust literature. In 1921 there were allegedly 2,845,364 Jews in Poland. Less than 20 years later there were up to 3.5 million Jews in Poland? That's a little suspicious. When the Soviets deported Poles to Kazakhstan, were there any Jews among them? After 1945 atheism was enforced under communism. I don't know much about it, but if a jewish pole is Polish by citizenship and there is state-sponsored atheism in effect, "symbolically" this could "exterminate" Polish jews. Plus all the other variables. It's an unreliable mess.