General Holocaust Denial Discussion Part II

[uke2se]

"Everything you are about to see is true":

[qimg]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/7332/talesfromholowood4.jpg[/qimg]

So, making up quotes is your argument? Liar.

 

[BaaBaa]

Either route require the data, which you could not provide.

He provided sources. Would you prefer Power Point presentations or cartoons or something else as easy to digest?

"Scientifically disgusting", indeed.

 

[SnakeTongue]

You are getting desperate. To no avail, when you and I leave the planet the Holocaust will still be in the history books. You and your ilk will not change that.

Yes, indeed, holocaust in the far future will be in the religious books, which are also part of history.

Are you a self-hate Jew?

Why self-hate Jews hate themselves so much?

 

[uke2se]

Yes, indeed, holocaust in the far future will be in the religious books, which are also part of history.

The holocaust is a historical event. It's already in the history books. It seems you don't know the difference between history and religion. It's not really surprising given how dumb your posts have been in this thread.

Are you a self-hate Jew?

Why self-hate Jews hate themselves so much?

Why do you hate Jews?

 

[A'isha]

Dismissing Eichmann as "a witness [who] was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel" is one of the most stupidly desperate things I've ever seen. And that's saying quite a bit, considering this thread.

Eichmann was a direct and active participant in the events of the Holocaust. We know the Holocaust happened because he's one of the people who made it happen, and he meticulously documented every step of his involvement, and discussed those documents in rather exhaustive detail at his trial.

 

[A'isha]

Why do you hate Jews?

 

[uke2se]

Dismissing Eichmann as "a witness [who] was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel" is one of the most stupidly desperate things I've ever seen. And that's saying quite a bit, considering this thread.

Eichmann was a direct and active participant in the events of the Holocaust. We know the Holocaust happened because he's one of the people who made it happen, and he meticulously documented every step of his involvement, and discussed those documents in rather exhaustive detail at his trial.

Remember that your talking about a "person" who didn't know who Himler was yet felt he was able to lecture people about the holocaust. We're talking about one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen.

 

[A'isha]

Remember that your talking about a "person" who didn't know who Himler was yet felt he was able to lecture people about the holocaust.

Point.

We're talking about one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger I've ever seen.

His utter failure at document analysis is certainly ironclad proof of that!

 

[SnakeTongue]

For anyone truly interested in the topic, Nick's references are invaluable. For a quick freebie on the Polish context, albeit with a few pages redacted, check out Gunnar Paulsson's "Networks" chapter linked here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zh...DIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gunnar paulsson&f=false.

This book-the first detailed treatment of Jewish escape and hiding during the Holocaust-tells the dramatic story of the hidden Jews of Warsaw. Gunnar S. Paulsson shows that after the 1942 deportations nearly a quarter of the ghetto's remaining Jews managed to escape. Once in hiding, connected by elaborate networks of which Poles, Germans, and the Jews themselves were largely unaware, they formed what can aptly be called a secret city. (...)

(...) Using diaries, witness testimony, and quantitative analysis (in which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers of people in the various groups he is writing about) Paulson draws a vibrant portrait of the complexity of Warsaw life, and especially of what he calls the "secret city," a collection of 28,000 Jews not confined to the ghetto, "together with the many non-Jews who helped hide them, and the criminal element that ceaselessly hunted them." (...)

http://books.google.com.br/books?id...dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gunnar paulsson&f=false​

"Dramatic stories" and "quantitative analysis" of "which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers" is not statistics.

...and I am not willing to buy books of story-telling.

 

[dafydd]

I typed:



I mean as witness of the event called Holocaust to provide statical data.

You are reading words which do not exist.

We all know that the Holocaust happened, and that Eichmann was responsible for shipping the Jews to the death camps. Not much data needed there. The scumbag got all he deserved. It's all just statistics to you, isn't it? Human suffering means not a jot to you, all you care about are your heroes, the Nazis. You believe in a WWII that does not exist.

 

[Nick Terry]

In a world of total moral collapse there was a small minority who mustered extraordinary courage to uphold human values.

(...)

Providing false papers and false identities - in order for Jews to assume the identity of non-Jews they needed false papers and assistance in establishing an existence under an assumed identity. (...)

Smuggling and assisting Jews to escape – some rescuers helped Jews get out of a zone of special danger in order to escape to a less dangerous location. (...)

http://www1.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/about.asp​

That is the information you want to me "digest"?

There is actually no 'want' about it. Either you digest the information, or you remain hopelessly ignorant. I merely pointed you in the direction of some sources of documents which you can read and digest for free.

When the matter is to save the Jews during the World War II, forgery, falsification, fraud, treachery and deceit are presented as "human values" in "a world of total moral collapse".

Scientifically disgusting.

A source of information with no concern to ethical impartiality.

I predicted that you would try to dismiss Yad Vashem with an ad hominem argument, and obviously I was right. Unfortunately this doesn't work. The reason Yad Vashem was recommended was because it offers online sources, for free, in translation. The sources exist whether you like it or not, and it doesn't matter what paranoid bullflop you come up with to try and dismiss them.

(...) Large numbers of Jews were betrayed and even murdered by their neighbors. The state apparatus in many of Germany's satellites and allies helped the Germans, at least to some extent, in carrying out their policy of discrimination and murder.

(...)

Diaries and Letters 11
Documents 12
Lexicon Entries 68
Photographs 24
Research 10
Testimonies 1
Works of Art 2

Where is the numerical data?​

Numerical data is generally found in books after historians have processed large numbers of sources to arrive at reasonable figures, either estimates (which are not exactly uncommon in historiography) or precise figures based on whatever sources are available.

Diaries, letters, documents, lexicon, photographs, research, testimonies and work of arts are not source of numerical data.

I will remind you what is statistics:

the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/statistics?region=us&q=statistics​

And this is why your insistence on 'primary sources' is such gibberish. You skip over secondary sources, the very books and articles which would actually answer your question, playing Every Man His Own Historian while remaining wilfully incapable of digesting, understanding or analysing all the sources. But primary sources it was you asked for, so you got given some primary sources.

I guess the "single" source you suggest is the Yad Vashem Internet page...

Evidently you cannot read English properly since I wrote

The thing you'll have to get over pretty rapidly is looking for a single source since you are dealing with events that took place on the territory of 25 contemporary nation-states. It has been obvious since the 1940s that events unfolded differently depending on the territory in question, because of differences in culture, politics, economics, social structure, wartime conditions, and the degree of ideological fervour of the occupying Nazis or their local pro-Nazi collaborators, as well as the background level of antisemitism.

As it happened, I didn't recommend Yad Vashem as a sole source (database), I recommended the site as one of several possible sources of information. If you recall, I originally gave my sources for the brief summary of how Jews were identified by listing the following books

SOURCES - a small selection, needless to say
Jews in France during World War II / Renée Poznanski. Hanover, N.H. : University Press of New England in Association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ; Waltham, Mass. : Brandeis University Press, 2001
Moore, Bob, Survivors. Jewish Self-Help and Rescue in Nazi-Occupied Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010
Paulsson, Gunnar S., Secret city : the hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945. New Haven : Yale University Press, c2002.
Krakowski, Shmuel, The War of the Doomed. Jewish Armed Resistance in Poland, 1942-1944. New York, 1984
Seltzer, William, ‘Population Statistics, the Holocaust and the Nuremberg Trials’, Population and Development Review 24/3, 1998, pp.511-552
Engelking, Barbara, Jest taki piekny sloneczny dzien... Losy Zydow szukajacych ratunku na wsi polskiej 1942-1945. Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badan nad Zaglada Zydow, 2011
Grabowski, Judenjagd. Polowanie na Zydow 1942-1945. Studium dziejow pewnego powiatu. Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badan nad Zaglada Zydow, 2011

This caused you to throw a hissy fit and ask for something that was free. So I gave you some sources that were free. I didn't just recommend YV, I also recommended Googling:

The same information is available on Wikipedia in condensed form; careful surfing and following of links will arrive at the same results.

And there are also independent websites discussing the same issues. One archived site is called 'Saving Jews' and deals with Poland.

which clearly you have no interest in doing, so all of this is a waste of time that only serves to make you look sillier and sillier.

I got it:

Read the data from A which interpreted the data from B which interpreted the data from C which do not know from where the data come from.

That's only if you wander around in a maze of tertiary sources, but this is easily avoided by going to secondary sources of the kind recommended above, eg Poznanski's book on the Jews of France. Poznanski then cites documents with proper archival references, which can if you remain completely paranoid, check by visiting the archive.

No, no orders. I am not willing to financially support fictional story-telling.

You can also order books from libraries. For free.

Data from a show trial which did not have regards to technical examination of the evidence is not statically acceptable.

It's really funny, your sockpuppet on Skeptic Society Forum just posted a reproduction - not a facsimile - of a memo by Foreign Office official Martin Luther dated 21 August 1942 which was originally used in the Ministries Trial and coded NG-2586-J. So it seems that 'data from a show trial' is apparently 'statically acceptable' to you if you think it supports your case, but if you are trolling then it's not. Hypocrite.

Data from a witness which was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel is not statically acceptable.

What is 'statically acceptable' to you is irrelevant. The Eichmann trial saw more than 1,000 documents submitted into evidence. Those documents came from archives. The same archives have been used by historians - not, hiowever by deniers - who write books summarising the evidence of the documents for the convenience of readers who don't have time to go through 1,000 documents in German. The Eichmann Trial was thus recommended as source for primary sources.

The margin of error in the data of such sources is grotesque.

This is yet more meaningless gibberish. The Luther Memo which you so happily linked to exists - and belonged in a file of the Foreign Office. The same file contained many other documents relevant to the Final Solution of the Jewish Question. Indeed if I recall correctly, the same file contains the Wannsee protocol, stamped with a numbering sequence which is consistent across the file.

Either route require the data, which you could not provide.

On the contrary, I provided you with the starting points to answer your apparent questions. I am under no obligation to give you a postgraduate level education in the Holocaust on this thread.

You, however, are under the intellectual obligation to know what the heck it is you are talking about. I have suggested a few ways of remedying your seemingly incurable ignorance, but you have simply thrown petulant hissy fits. Pathetic.​

 

[BazBear]

"Dramatic stories" and "quantitative analysis" of "which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers" is not statistics.

...and I am not willing to buy books of story-telling.

I'm not surprised, as you seem to be too busy telling your own fictional alternate history stories.

 

[dafydd]

The soubriquet Snake Tongue is particularly apposite.

 

[Nick Terry]

This book-the first detailed treatment of Jewish escape and hiding during the Holocaust-tells the dramatic story of the hidden Jews of Warsaw. Gunnar S. Paulsson shows that after the 1942 deportations nearly a quarter of the ghetto's remaining Jews managed to escape. Once in hiding, connected by elaborate networks of which Poles, Germans, and the Jews themselves were largely unaware, they formed what can aptly be called a secret city. (...)

(...) Using diaries, witness testimony, and quantitative analysis (in which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers of people in the various groups he is writing about) Paulson draws a vibrant portrait of the complexity of Warsaw life, and especially of what he calls the "secret city," a collection of 28,000 Jews not confined to the ghetto, "together with the many non-Jews who helped hide them, and the criminal element that ceaselessly hunted them." (...)

http://books.google.com.br/books?id...dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gunnar paulsson&f=false​

"Dramatic stories" and "quantitative analysis" of "which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers" is not statistics.

...and I am not willing to buy books of story-telling.

Firstly, LemmyCaution recommended Paulsson precisely because so much of the book can be read on Google Books for free. Your unwillingness to 'buy books of story-telling' is thus an irrelevant objection since you are not being asked to shell out money. You were on the contrary being directed to an internet source which delivers the findings of a PhD in history at a British university, cost free.

Secondly, there is no incompatibility between a story being dramatic and also forming part of a quantitative analysis.

Thirdly, your understanding of historical statistics is hilarious. There are approximately several billion possible historical statistics which will never be known precisely, so therefore historians and social scientists routinely have to rely on other methods to arrive at best-fit approximations.

This is hardly news; palaeodemography would apparently be unacceptable to you, as would most historical demography since the information required to arrive at exact numbers is simply no longer there. Despite what you might think, this very much applies to 20th Century history, across much of the world.

Paulsson's method is actually a good example of how to arrive at better numbers than were previously available through mere guesstimates. He studied a large collection of testimonies gathered in 1945, numbering about 7,000 statements, taken in Poland from Jewish survivors, and systematically analysed every single statement in this collection from Jews who had survived in hiding in Warsaw, the subject of his book.

Because it is known from other statistical surveys and sources that more than 7,000 Polish Jews survived the war, the collection of testimonies becomes a sample. Its size means it is a fairly representative sample, especially of the Jews who were liberated in Poland or who returned to this country after the ed of the war.

Before you throw your rattle out of the pram again, Paulsson's aim was to arrive at the most probable number of Jews who hid in Warsaw during WWII. By definition, this is not a number that can ever be known precisely. We also don't know how many non-Jewish Poles lived in Warsaw on false papers, although we know it was very large and we have some indicators of the numbers of false papers manufactured for some time-periods. We will never know these absolute numbers. Ever. And that is normal in modern history, since historians are very often interested in questions which do not get registered on more systematic surveys like censuses.

Social scientists are likewise unable to arrive at precise statistics for a great many things of interest, and thus have to conduct surveys using essentially, opinion-poll methods. The survey results are thus models, and not absolute numbers.

Paulsson's findings took the results of his systematic survey of the collection of testimonies and then weighed them against other data-points from other sources independent of the collection of testimonies. He then extrapolated to arrive at estimates of the most probable number of Jews who hid during the war in Warsaw.

This estimate, which is fairly well supported, and no worse supported than 1000s of other pieces of research on other historical topics, raised the number of Jews in hiding. That rise then has implications for social attitudes in occupied Poland, especially regarding the willingness to help Jews hide from the Nazis.

The qualitative material in Paulsson's book, i.e. the recounting of examples, provides us - and you - with a large amount of data regarding how Jews were and were not identified by the Nazis. Which I believe was your original query, wasn't it? Some of the examples will be anecdotal evidence only, but as is the norm for historians of all topics, Paulsson also synthesises many examples into observations about trends. Thus, something was 'common' or 'often' or 'rare' or 'frequent'.

And trends is usually about as good as it gets in history. Don't believe me, then read a book on the social history of pretty much any decade in modern times.

 

[Nick Terry]

Are you a self-hate Jew?

Why self-hate Jews hate themselves so much?

Oh dear. Is diddums having an attack of Jew Cooties?

Tell us, SnakeTongue, which of your opponents in this discusison is actually Jewish? Go on, Name the Jew! Amaze us by showing how well your Jewdar actually works!

To calibrate your Jewdar, it may come as a horrible shock to you to learn that my background includes grandparents and great-grandparents who attended the Methodist, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and not one who attended a synagogue of any kind whatsoever.

 

[dafydd]

Oh dear. Is diddums having an attack of Jew Cooties?

Tell us, SnakeTongue, which of your opponents in this discusison is actually Jewish? Go on, Name the Jew! Amaze us by showing how well your Jewdar actually works!

To calibrate your Jewdar, it may come as a horrible shock to you to learn that my background includes grandparents and great-grandparents who attended the Methodist, Anglican, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and not one who attended a synagogue of any kind whatsoever.

It's only fair to give the attention seeking denier a hint. My background is Celtic.

 

[000063]

Yes, indeed, holocaust in the far future will be in the religious books, which are also part of history.

Are you a self-hate Jew?

Why self-hate Jews hate themselves so much?

Attempting to lead the thread astray via personal attack to get it as far as possible from 600, where you were asked to show your reasoning.

Data from a witness which was illegally kidnapped and deported to Israel is not statically acceptable.

Why not? Please present an argument against using such evidence that would stand up to logical analysis.

I'm betting if I go back and check, this will be a pattern with you. Just like you don't want to discuss the video from post 536.

I like how, when people provide books, you complain about having to buy them, and when you get a link to an index of tonne of online sources, you ignore it to answer a post from before your last one. Seems familiar.

 

[SnakeTongue]

And a follow-up to SnakeTongue/Bob

I'm pretty sure you're going to try to do one of a few things

1. dismiss sources because of who they are, eg because I recommended Yad Vashem
2. demand primary sources in some kind of weird fetishistic ritual, since you have done that before
3. insist that other people source and reference their arguments using only primary sources and dismiss everything said otherwise.

Well, sorry, the game-playing has to stop. If you resort to any of these responses you are simply trolling, and here's why.

Firstly, you have not indicated your educational background. This is important since it seems you are unaware of how the discipline of history operates. Primary sources are introduced throughout a university education in history, but they are accompanied throughout, all the way to PhD level and beyond, by an insistence on the mastery of the secondary literature. This is a standard feature of all academic disciplines. Since it's likely that you have at least some tertiary education, you should know this.

Here is not an university.

Here is the cyberspace.

You are not in a position to demand any information of my educational background.

You are not an authority here.

You are only another user of JREF forum which I have do deal with.

Secondly, you have not indicated what sources and secondary literature you have already read. You are JAQing off without conveying much sense of your actual knowledge. I am quite certain I have asked you on another forum what you had actually read on the Holocaust and you refused to answer, as seems to be standard for trolls and deniers. But unless you tell us, then you are not entitled to demand answers to your endless questions.

Your arrogance is staggering.

I no moment I made any specific demand to anyone answer my questions. I only made the questions.

Frankly, you come across like an absolute beginner in the study of the Holocaust. Like any other subject, learning about the Holocaust takes time. It happened as mentioned above across the territory of 25 contemporary nation-states the length and breadth of Europe, over the entire course of WWII, and involved dozens of major extermination sites (not just a couple of big death camps).

At the very least, to know anything about a subject like the Holocaust requires that you read a minimum of one conventional book about it. But that's a minimum. It doesn't entitle anyone to take part in an informed discussion and be taken seriously. First year university students doing history are expected to write essays of 1,500 words which might use a dozen books and articles. In my university, they write a long second year research project using 30-50 books and articles, and then an undergraduate dissertation using 50 or more secondary sources, in addition to primary sources. At masters' level the dissertation might require 100-200 secondary sources; a PhD might require 200-500 secondary sources. Again, in addition to primary sources.

All these figures apply irrespective of the topic, because there's just that much information out there, and because history doesn't function like a "textbook" discipline. On any subject.

If you want to stay in the shallows, then be aware that first year students aren't expected to use 'only primary sources'. The skill of reading footnotes properly to identify primary sources takes the best students two to three years to master, and some never do. Parsing footnotes and identifying follow-up sources is what research is all about. In the US, mastering research skills to PhD level takes years having started only in the final year of an undergraduate degree. In the UK, it would be a minimum five year process from final year of undergraduate to PhD, and it takes at least seven years of BA, MA and PhD to be fully qualified. Again, it doesn't matter what the student ends up specialising in.

You are keen to write huge paragraphs about sources, but you could no provide one single link to the statistics I asked...

So, you demand to me learn about sources but yourself do not provide sources.

You demands are based on a special pleading.

Now, I believe you have been previously recommended six online books which cover much of the subject matter of the Holocaust that seems to interest you. These are of course:

1. the reports of Browning, Longerich, Van Pelt and Evans for the Irving trial, online at hdot.org
2. Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers, online at the Holocaust History Project
3. the Holocaust Controversies critique of Holocaust deniers on the Operation Reinhard camps, which also includes a lengthy chapter on Nazi policy overall and the Holocaust in the Soviet Union, linked to in my signature

They are all free, and they are all directly relevant to the 'revisionism' debate. It stands to reason that someone such as yourself should read and inwardly digest their contents.

You can read them in tandem with

1. the IMT transcript and documents, online at the Library of Congress and Yale's Avalon site
2. the twelve succesor NMT trials, online at the Library of Congress
3. the Eichmann trial, online at Nizkor, and the documents, online as scanned facsimiles at the Israeli Ministry of Justice (link in the introduction to the HC critique)

and numerous other major databases of sources, newspaper articles from the era, testimonies and other materials.

Although Pressac was at one time a revisionist, and associated with the denier Robert Faurisson, he saw the light after undertaking an in-depth examination of almost everything to do with Auschwitz. He tells the story of his conversion in a Postface beginning at page 537 of his book.
http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/​

That is the book you recommend to me "digest"? A book of a man which had converted to the holocaust religion...

Anyway, I could not find in the Pressac's book any reference to homicidal gas chambers, but I found evidence for delousing gas chambers.

Thirdly, it is likely you're going to try and dismiss some of the sources, web, secondary or otherwise, as biased. Uh, sorry, no you're not allowed to do that, not if you want to be taken seriously. I recommended Yad Vashem in the previous post - YV's resources provide the necessary and sufficient indicators, i.e. references, to check the provenance of all the materials. The process of checking references is what research is all about. And YV provide proper references, therefore for the sake of moving things along, they are more than adequate as a source, since the same points are made in other sources that are not run by the Israeli government; the same sources are referenced elsewhere, or scanned online by Ivy League universities like Harvard and Yale.

I am not allowed to practise my critical thinking?

You are suggesting indoctrination.

You're simply not going to find the sum total of historical sources for any subject online in facsimile, so please drop that particular piece of crap. Quite a large number of Holocaust-related sources are in fascimile, at the Harvard Nuremberg project, the Holocaust History Project (including Pressac), and elsewhere. There are also a load of Cold War sources scanned in facsimile on various sites, but there are also many sites which offer merely translations of documents in Russian or offer published, printed sources for download. Foreign Relations of the United States doesn't facsimile the documents.

Which "crap" you are talking about? The document I found signs of forgery?

All the sources and websites you might be tempted to dismiss as 'biased' reference their sources. Van Pelt has footnotes, the HC critique has footnotes, Yad Vashem say where the document can be found, et cetera. You are not entitled to dismiss a source or the evidence contained in the source just because you don't like it.

What you may do is criticise the secondary sources and websites for their interpretations. Those criticisms have to be of course informed and reasoned, and not ad hominem.

You are not entitled to dictate how I discern the evidence.

Fourthly and finally, your gambit of offloading the entire burden of proof onto the opposition, and JAQing off, or engaging in Gish Galloping, is about the least effective method of online debate there is. These are tired tactics, which simply result in people dismissing you as a crank with an axe to grind, and an ignorant crank at that.

Gambit?

I am not playing chess here.

I am doing questions.

Asking questions like 'how did the SS identify the Jews' which are dealt with in literally thousands of primary and secondary sources and then feigning indignance because nobody wanted to jump through all your hoops to your apparent satisfaction, is basically like painting 'I AM KLUELESS' on your forehead. If you seriously think that hasn't been answered then you are quite mad. So the issue is, why do you raise that question on here, in this thread, in that manner. The answer is, you're trolling. There is no third alternative - either you are trolling or you are massively ignorant. If you are trolling, then you can sod off; if you are ignorant, then it is up to you to rectify this deficiency if the question actually matters to you.

Online etiquette has evolved over the past two decades, and there is of course a local etiquette at JREF. It is easy enough to find many examples of someone asking a polite question of other people on the net and being given prompt answers. What is the best hotel? How do I contact customer service? Can anyone recommend me a really good book on this subject? When it comes to the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes, the place for asking such polite questions is Axis History Forum, just as the place to ask about hotels is a forum for hotel reviews.

What you're doing is no different to a zillion other trolls who JAQ off to annoy people. But as you have seen, you are invariably given answers. You just don't like them, and move the goalposts, or start demanding ever more precise evidence from your discussion partners. Well, either this is an online discussion forum, which implies verbal discussion not a Habilitation viva, or you are going to play by the rules of scholarship in the relevant discipline. And you won't like those rules, since they dictate that both parties have to be informed, if you are debating with equals. If you are posing as a student, then you have your reading list, and you can sod off.

It's pretty unlikely you're trolling for the sake of it, since very few people pick the Holocaust without some motivation. You clearly believe in some form of revisionism. You probably even think you're getting one over some people here. It's my sad duty to inform you that if you have any serious motivation on revisionist or political or intellectual lines, then you are failing hopelessly and simply discrediting your cause. You are behaving like just another denier troll. And everyone knows it.

The answer is that you are deep afraid of my presence in this forum, so you are using a strong rhetoric with the intent to instigate a feeling of humiliation in my mind.

You are trying to shift my critical thinking into unconditional acceptance.

You failed.

 

[SnakeTongue]

Yes, and that was the mid-19th century. Give me something from 1933 and we'll have something to discuss.

Clue: Orthodox Judaism in Germany was largely a reaction to Reform Judaism, whereas in other countries, Orthodox Judaism had been and remained the norm.

That clue was interesting.

Orthodox Judaism has developed in two forms, Sephardi and Ashkenazi. The Sephardis are distinguished by their use of Judaeo-Spanish or Ladino as opposed to Yiddish (a Jewish variety of German) which is used by Ashkenazis, and also by their pronunciation of Hebrew and some liturgical customs. They were originally the Jews of Spain and Portugal, whose long and creative history ended there when they were expelled by the Christian authorities in 1492. Sephardi communities were established in Italy, Holland, Turkey, the Land of Israel and elsewhere, and today account for 61% of the world Jewish population. In Israel they have their own Chief Rabbi. The Ashkenazis are the Jews of Germany, Poland, Russia and other parts of Europe whose history was one of constant persecution and destruction, culminating in the Holocaust in which their numbers were reduced from about 9,000,000 to 3,000,000. Most now live in the United States, and in Israel where they too have their own Chief Rabbi.

http://www.philtar.ac.uk/encyclopedia/judaism/orth.html​

The orthodox Judaism of 1933 to 1945 in Europe already recognized the distinction between Ashkenazis and Sephardi Jews?

 

[threadworm]

This book-the first detailed treatment of Jewish escape and hiding during the Holocaust-tells the dramatic story of the hidden Jews of Warsaw. Gunnar S. Paulsson shows that after the 1942 deportations nearly a quarter of the ghetto's remaining Jews managed to escape. Once in hiding, connected by elaborate networks of which Poles, Germans, and the Jews themselves were largely unaware, they formed what can aptly be called a secret city. (...)

(...) Using diaries, witness testimony, and quantitative analysis (in which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers of people in the various groups he is writing about) Paulson draws a vibrant portrait of the complexity of Warsaw life, and especially of what he calls the "secret city," a collection of 28,000 Jews not confined to the ghetto, "together with the many non-Jews who helped hide them, and the criminal element that ceaselessly hunted them." (...)

http://books.google.com.br/books?id...dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gunnar paulsson&f=false​

"Dramatic stories" and "quantitative analysis" of "which he tries to ascertain the precise numbers" is not statistics.

...and I am not willing to buy books of story-telling.

Firstly, I think you'll find that quantitative analyses are statistics, and secondly as you haven't actually read the book (and seemingly do not intend to) you are in no position to determine whether or not the methodological approach is valid.