The Numbers Game

[Moderator]

Balsamo:
You made specific statements and claims that were challenged. Heretofore, you have not provided the requested information and cannot continue in this thread until you provide that information. That guideline is not an unusual one, it is a standard feature in debate. That particular guideline and all the others are posted on our 'Guidelines' page which you agreed to when you registered at this forum.
see:
Rules/Guidelines for Holocaust Revisionism Forum
M1

[Moderator]

Balsamo:
You continue to repeat what has been challenged. IOW, you fail to give the specific information to support your specific claims about Revisionists and Sanning. Either give the specifics that have been requested or do not post to this thread, that's it. No dodging.
M1

[Balsamo]

Ok, let's call it my last chance in this topic.

Here is a response i gave to the Warden, like two years ago about Sanning's work, right here on Codoh:

I would not rely too much on Sanning's work, as it flawed by loads of misleading assumption, notably concerning the Jewish immigration to the USA during the 30's, which flirts with complete non sense at times.
the conclusion is about the same, it is easy to get lost in speculation in the demographic field.
Another things is that regarding to the Holocaust, there is a tendency on both side (i regret to say that is more common among Revisionsit) to use the sources selectively to "prove" something that appeared to be unprovable under academic standards.
Sanning in this regard commits the very same "error" that most revisionists accuse the "Hoaxter" to do.

A first example, Sanning madkes no mention of the 1936 survey organized in Poland...which at least should be quoted when pretending to analyse the growth of Jewish population in Poland. (the survey was ordered by an Antisemite government, btw)

Just a second example, in chapter 7 : (the link you provided is in french, so translation is mine)
Sanning points out descprepencies between the data regarding the number of Jews in the US : 4081242 in 1926 and 4641184 in 1936, based on communities with a Sinagogue. Fine (1)
then he quotes a study done on a broader base reaching 4,228,029 in 1927 and 4,770,647 in 1937...but those data come from two different sources!

So he rightly conclude that " On ne peut dire exactement quelle part l'immigration et quelle part l'accroissement naturel ont dans cet accroissement de 543,000 sur dix ans" ( ONE CANNOT SAY EXACTLY WHICH PART OF THE GROWTH COMES FROM IMMIGRATION AND WICH PART COME FROM NATURAL GROWTH"
So if Sanning is honnest in this sentence, the rest of his arguments is only guessing, assumptions and suppositions.

And to go back to point (1)...other explanations could and should be included in those assumptions and suppositions
- More Synagogue could have been build, so more communities could have been included is one example
- As Census is always based on free declarations of faith, it also could be that more jews declared themself to be Jews in a form of Sympathy to the faith of eastern european Jews (German included)?
Again, i insist on the fact that those are like the rest suppositions.

If he wanted to be scientific, he would have had to give explanations about the sources used for the countings above!

he continues in admiting that natural growth could have brought the Jewish population to 4,444,000 in 1937. Of course, for the sake of his goals, he will compare the number with the highest number at his disposal (the 4.77, not the 4.6, to an immidiate gain of 113.000 suspects) an economy useful in regard to the 82.212 Jews that were granted a Visa during the period.

I could go on, especially regarding the immigration to France and Belgium...which has its own history and a complex one...Complicated by the fact that Poland used to lease its workers to both countries from 1920 to 35...for term contract that could be renewed...As a matter of fact, a great number of Jews that were present in both countries were Polish...and most of them would be later deported anyway...

Another fact is that his only goal is to prove that Jews were not killed but escaped somewhere, somehow...at a time were mobility were quite restricted...

My conlcusion, is he prooves nothing by using the descrpencies between the statistics, other that the fact that one can conclude any bullshits out of them.

[The Warden]

Indeed. I started a thread a while back to show just how unreliable ANY population numbers can be when trying to prove either side of the story. There's such a wide range of "proof" and claiming one side is right using those numbers is blatant ignorance of the real issue. It's the typical technique (cherry picking fallacy) used by some on both sides where they find something to match their beliefs and use it to further them and try to convince others of them. I think the OP in this thread was basically stating the same thoughts, but perhaps had a different methodology. Either way, discussion is always good.

The link to the other thread:
Population Statistics/Demographics

[hermod]

A good example of the complexity of the matter is shown by the case of Belgium (which is the only i know well):
the Korherr report stated that 44000 Jews were living in Belgium, when only a few thousands (3.000) of them were Belgian citizens...the vast majority of them were Poles who were working there.

The Belgian case illustrates the Holohoax. The situation was similar in France (many more Eastern European jews than French jews) and probably in many other Western European countries. Why would Eastern European Jews come back and live in Belgium when they were offered more interesting emigration opportunities in the immediate post-war? Why would they have chosen to live in a country that had put them in trains for expulsion and where they had no strong ties over Palestine, America, England, Australia, etc? Senseless. Most of the ones who hadn't died from typhus and war just emigrated to more friendly places when they were given that opportunity. Many of them even changed their name when they arrived in their new home and so vanished from the surface of the earth. That was a usual practice. For instance Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion's real name was David Grün (or David Gryn) when he was living in Poland.

[Lohengrin]

Balsamo wrote:

I would not rely too much on Sanning's work, as it flawed by loads of misleading assumption, notably concerning the Jewish immigration to the USA during the 30's, which flirts with complete non sense at times.
the conclusion is about the same, it is easy to get lost in speculation in the demographic field.
Another things is that regarding to the Holocaust, there is a tendency on both side (i regret to say that is more common among Revisionsit) to use the sources selectively to "prove" something that appeared to be unprovable under academic standards.

Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense, both for the unsubstantiated 'critic' on Sannings study, as for not mentioning one serious alternative study from any Holocaustian (I don't hope you come forward with Wofgang Benz' miserable deceit). There is also no "both sides" in this matter. The Holocaust "side" is non-existenting in serious demographic studies, so it's very easy for you saying "selective proving is more common among revisionists"! Your 'arguments' have a high level of verbal contamination, an unworthy element in each discussion.

About "unprovable under academic standards":
It's important to refer in this discussion also to the study of another revisionist, Dr. Carl Nordling, who came independently at practically the same conclusions as demographer Sanning, by way of a different science, namely Statistics. Nordling studied groups of 'survivors' and their families and descendents on a statistical basis, and nothwithstanding the fundamentally different method of Sanning, both studies came out on practically the same results.

I think that confirms the relative correctness of either Sanning's study and the highly probability of the revisionist outcomes. Maybe this is no "proof" (which in this case is impossible to give for 100%), but sure beyond reasonable doubt, even under under "academic standards".

[hermod]

Something makes the matter even more complex: counting jews is prohibited in the Talmud.

To actually count Jews directly is forbidden (Talmud, Yoma 22b), as the prophet says: "And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall neither be measured nor counted."

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... g-Jews.htm

So there was/is probably a number of orthodox jews refusing to take part in any census based on religion.

[The Warden]

Yes, it's called Halakhah or "Halakhan Law. "

It's just another reason to understand using population figures to make a case one way or another is nothing but fruit of the poisonous tree.

Although the methodologies such as the ones Lohengrin stands by might be foolproof, unless you know the data/statistics being analyzed is collected properly, it's a waste of effort. You're only as good as the numbers you're researching, and in the case of the Holocaust, nothing is certain when it comes to demographics.

[Hannover]

Knowing that Jewish law prohibits them from being counted, it's a wonder that anyone can claim that the numbers alleged at anytime are correct. Especially when it's in their financial, political, and social interests to be under counted.

The tide is turning.

- Hannover

[borjastick]

This counting of jews issue is quite important. Figures from the WJC etc are accurate down to the last person or digit. On the basis to the Talmud instruction where do these figures come from? Who complies the figure that there are, for example, now just over 6m jews in Israel? The most extreme jewish place on the planet happily gives an accurate figure in direct contravention of the Talmud law.

As Hannover says on this basis no figures of jews counted or supplied at any time should be considered accurate, the opposite is probably true. They are made up, fabricated, manipulated. Not only is the tide turning but I'm glad I am wearing my wellies!

[blake121666]

I've suspected that the Jewish population figures have been seriously fishy for the last 2 centuries at least for a number of years but haven't ever stated so because, like borjastick, it's only a gut feeling w/o a sensible demonstration that I could make. Like the Warden said, the data is pretty dirty in this particular area and so it's difficult to not look like a quack with any serious analyses.

[Sargeist]

I think this thread is relevant to this discussion:

Revisionism in 1946/ an article claims 1.5 million victims

[borjastick]

Not sure these pictures will show up clearly enough but they are from, I think, the WJC and AJC or similar. I wonder how these 'official' figures can be so accurate, especially when one considers the desire of many jews not to be included in lists or according to the Talmud reference, be counted at all.

Any fans of the great US TV series, The West Wing will perhaps remember the deputy chief of staff Josh Lyman (a jewish character) saying something along the lines of 'why would any Jew want to be on any list'.

[The Warden]

Just so everyone is aware, I don't want anyone to think Halakha is some be all, end all to the numbers game. It's just a set of rules to live by, a "path", which people either abide by or not. We all know religions have aspects similar, and we all know a lot of people don't necessarily follow them to precision. Take it with a grain of salt, and add it to your arsenal for refuting numbers, but don't rely on it. It's not like the Jews haven't broken the "path" by forever perpetrating the Holo-Industry anyway. Lying isn't a sin under Halakha.

[Lohengrin]

The Warden wrote:

Although the methodologies such as the ones Lohengrin stands by might be foolproof, unless you know the data/statistics being analyzed is collected properly, it's a waste of effort. You're only as good as the numbers you're researching, and in the case of the Holocaust, nothing is certain when it comes to demographics.

I agree, but since the most important question in this context is: "were there 6 millions murdered by the Germans?'', and either Sanning, Nordling and Benz all used the same (whether or not correct) basic data/statistics, it is clear that Sanning's/Nordling's outcomes are methodological correct. This clearly does not apply to Benz' and other Holocaustians. I think that's an important determination.