7 ms·

> The big distortion is from 4-5 million killed to 6 million killed. More thorough review of records, and tallying up survivors, showed that fewer Jews died tha

> The big distortion is from 4-5 million killed to 6 million killed. More thorough review of records, and tallying up survivors, showed that fewer Jews died than first estimated. It's a weirdly touchy subject. It's not "weirdly touchy". Holocaust denial is a relentless conspiracy theory, and those pushing antisemitism are relentlessly pushing slippery-slope arguments to push their agenda. It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolving high-level gross estimates is leveraged to deny it ever exist and fuel further hatred targeting Jewish people.

xg15 4y ago
Then why don't you correct the number, if it's irrelevant? Then there would be one less avenue of attack for holocaust deniers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- woodruffw 4y ago
  This implies that Holocaust deniers are somehow amenable to facts about the Holocaust, which is a contradiction in terms. Put another way: there's no number that is "correct" in a way that a Holocaust denier is likely to consider a valid data point. Approximately 6 million is the best number we have given the sum of public information available.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > Then why don't you correct the number, if it's irrelevant? The number is not wrong. It's an estimate. Any reasonably intelligent person easily understands that the Nazis did not operated a counter which stopped the genocide when I hit 6000000. It means nothing if you say "up to 7" or "up to 6". What makes a huge difference is the relentless effort to leverage this sort of revisionism to argue that nitpicking over estimates means the Holocaust did not happened at all.
  - gruez 4y ago
    >The number is not wrong. It's an estimate. Any reasonably intelligent person easily understands that the Nazis did not operated a counter which stopped the genocide when I hit 6000000. It means nothing if you say "up to 7" or "up to 6". This seems like a strawman. The dispute in question isn't over whether 6000000 died or 6000001. It's over "4-5 million" or "6 million". >What makes a huge difference is the relentless effort to leverage this sort of revisionism to argue that nitpicking over estimates means the Holocaust did not happened at all. Suppose we had incontrovertible evidence that it was actually 4 mililon. Would you suggest that we all pretend that the number was still 6 million, because revising the official number down would give ammo to Holocaust deniers?
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > This seems like a strawman. The dispute in question isn't over whether 6000000 died or 6000001. It's over "4-5 million" or "6 million". I that my statement is not easy to misunderstand, and only bad faith can lead to this sort of conclusion. Did you actually had any difficulty understanding the point I made? > Suppose we had incontrovertible evidence that it was actually 4 mililon. Again, this is the sort of disingenuous argument that can only originate in bad faith. Let's put things in perspective: the wikipedia article you're supposedly discussing is already quite clear in it's section on the death toll of the Holocaust. It states in no unclear terms that "The most commonly cited death toll is the six million given by Adolf Eichmann to SS member Wilhelm Höttl, who signed an affidavit mentioning this figure in 1945." Afterwards, the same article points out that "Historians' estimates range from 4,204,000 to 7,000,000.[419] According to Yad Vashem, "[a]ll the serious research" confirms that between five and six million Jews were murdered." And here you are, pushing the Holocaust denial agenda by misrepresenting what an estimate is what wikipedia actually states, and the veracity of anything that supports the idea the Holocaust happened.
      - _dain_ 4y ago
        >And here you are, pushing the Holocaust denial agenda preposterous, shameful exaggeration of what the parent comment was saying.
- bmacho 4y ago
  I am pretty sure that the best current estimation is on wikipedia. (I don't think wikipedia is biased, I've never seen any bias on it personally.)
_dain_ 4y ago
>It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolving high-level gross estimates is leveraged to deny it ever exist and fuel further hatred targeting Jewish people. The accurate number doesn't matter, but if you say the accurate number, that's bad, because the people who think the number is zero will somehow win. So don't say the accurate number. Okay.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  [flagged]
- matwood 4y ago
  We see this all the time when arguing with a side that doesn't care about the truth. Completely arbitrary, but I might say 10, and later find out 9. The other sides takes minor corrections/adjustments as fuel to say no, it must be 0 because the side saying 10 lied to you. If everyone was really looking for the truth, this wouldn't be an issue because this is how science works. But, often one side is only pushing an agenda where the truth is irrelevant.
  - karaterobot 4y ago
    What you said above could be applied to both sides of this debate, even in this thread. I hope that was your point, and not just an irony.
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > What you said above could be applied to both sides of this debate, even in this thread. I Not really. One side says "there is no way to accurately tell exactly how many died in the Holocaust, but it's estimated the number can go as high as 6 million". The other side says "the 6 million number is a lie they made up to push the idea the Holocaust happened". Let's not pretend that attacking estimates by misrepresenting them like this is an argument made in good faith.
encryptluks2 4y ago
It's irrelevant to the truth to study history and try to make it accurate? If people were trying to determine how many people died during the civil war no one would care, but simply trying to determine how many people died during WW2 is antisemitic? Yeah, keep pretending like that isn't fishy.
- TheFreim 4y ago
  It gets even worse when you find that asking questions about this specific historical event can get you considered "anti-Semitic" just because you were asking questions, inquiring about evidence presented is considered a "dog whistle". I've known many "holocaust deniers" and nine times out of ten it started out with them being presented with counter-evidence to the "official narrative" and instead of being treated like human beings they get called evil, told not to ask questions, and get shut down instead of having their concerns addressed in a kind, loving way. When getting slandered and abused it makes it much easier to justify leaps and make assumptions and go down a bad path.
  - adriand 4y ago
    Questions like what, and addressed to whom? I think it’s important to recognize that no one is responsible for educating you. You are responsible for educating yourself. If you have chosen to be ignorant about the facts of the holocaust, and then you were to communicate your “concerns” to a Jewish person about the accuracy of the historical narrative, or perhaps question whether it was as bad as most people believe it was, or even worse, whether it happened at all, then I really don’t think it’s their responsibility to address you in a kind and loving manner. And it is really, truly, absolutely not their fault if you then decide to become an antisemitic holocaust denier and/or white supremacist.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > It gets even worse when you find that asking questions about this specific historical event can get you considered (...) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
- deleted 4y ago
rendall 4y ago
> It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolving high-level gross estimates is leveraged to deny it ever exist and fuel further hatred targeting Jewish people. It's more likely that a Holocaust denier would have luck convincing someone if the commonly touted numbers are inaccurate and vociferously defended.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > It's more likely that a Holocaust denier would have luck convincing someone if the commonly touted numbers are inaccurate and vociferously defended. Why do you think Holocaust deniers are hell bent on nitpicking about these estimates? Their tactic is to use them as a wedge to push other bad faith arguments to cast doubt on all aspects of the Holocaust. Again, do you think it makes any difference if a gross estimate is 5-10% over or under? The strategy followed by Holocaust deniers is to abuse this logic to jump to conclusions like "if they are wrong about these numbers then what other lies have they been pushing?"
  - rendall 4y ago
    Who cares what these people up to? They will always quibble. Their mechanations should not affect our literal understanding of what happened. If it was actually 4.5 million no reasonable, unmotivated person would make the leap from "wow 6 million" to "0".

xg15 4y ago

Then why don't you correct the number, if it's irrelevant? Then there would be one less avenue of attack for holocaust deniers.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
woodruffw 4y ago
This implies that Holocaust deniers are somehow amenable to facts about the Holocaust, which is a contradiction in terms. Put another way: there's no number that is "correct" in a way that a Holocaust denier is likely to consider a valid data point. Approximately 6 million is the best number we have given the sum of public information available.
simplotek 4y ago
> Then why don't you correct the number, if it's irrelevant? The number is not wrong. It's an estimate. Any reasonably intelligent person easily understands that the Nazis did not operated a counter which stopped the genocide when I hit 6000000. It means nothing if you say "up to 7" or "up to 6". What makes a huge difference is the relentless effort to leverage this sort of revisionism to argue that nitpicking over estimates means the Holocaust did not happened at all.
- gruez 4y ago
  >The number is not wrong. It's an estimate. Any reasonably intelligent person easily understands that the Nazis did not operated a counter which stopped the genocide when I hit 6000000. It means nothing if you say "up to 7" or "up to 6". This seems like a strawman. The dispute in question isn't over whether 6000000 died or 6000001. It's over "4-5 million" or "6 million". >What makes a huge difference is the relentless effort to leverage this sort of revisionism to argue that nitpicking over estimates means the Holocaust did not happened at all. Suppose we had incontrovertible evidence that it was actually 4 mililon. Would you suggest that we all pretend that the number was still 6 million, because revising the official number down would give ammo to Holocaust deniers?
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > This seems like a strawman. The dispute in question isn't over whether 6000000 died or 6000001. It's over "4-5 million" or "6 million". I that my statement is not easy to misunderstand, and only bad faith can lead to this sort of conclusion. Did you actually had any difficulty understanding the point I made? > Suppose we had incontrovertible evidence that it was actually 4 mililon. Again, this is the sort of disingenuous argument that can only originate in bad faith. Let's put things in perspective: the wikipedia article you're supposedly discussing is already quite clear in it's section on the death toll of the Holocaust. It states in no unclear terms that "The most commonly cited death toll is the six million given by Adolf Eichmann to SS member Wilhelm Höttl, who signed an affidavit mentioning this figure in 1945." Afterwards, the same article points out that "Historians' estimates range from 4,204,000 to 7,000,000.[419] According to Yad Vashem, "[a]ll the serious research" confirms that between five and six million Jews were murdered." And here you are, pushing the Holocaust denial agenda by misrepresenting what an estimate is what wikipedia actually states, and the veracity of anything that supports the idea the Holocaust happened.
    - _dain_ 4y ago
      >And here you are, pushing the Holocaust denial agenda preposterous, shameful exaggeration of what the parent comment was saying.
bmacho 4y ago
I am pretty sure that the best current estimation is on wikipedia. (I don't think wikipedia is biased, I've never seen any bias on it personally.)

_dain_ 4y ago

>It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolving high-level gross estimates is leveraged to deny it ever exist and fuel further hatred targeting Jewish people. The accurate number doesn't matter, but if you say the accurate number, that's bad, because the people who think the number is zero will somehow win. So don't say the accurate number. Okay.

encryptluks2 4y ago
[flagged]
matwood 4y ago
We see this all the time when arguing with a side that doesn't care about the truth. Completely arbitrary, but I might say 10, and later find out 9. The other sides takes minor corrections/adjustments as fuel to say no, it must be 0 because the side saying 10 lied to you. If everyone was really looking for the truth, this wouldn't be an issue because this is how science works. But, often one side is only pushing an agenda where the truth is irrelevant.
- karaterobot 4y ago
  What you said above could be applied to both sides of this debate, even in this thread. I hope that was your point, and not just an irony.
  - simplotek 4y ago
    > What you said above could be applied to both sides of this debate, even in this thread. I Not really. One side says "there is no way to accurately tell exactly how many died in the Holocaust, but it's estimated the number can go as high as 6 million". The other side says "the 6 million number is a lie they made up to push the idea the Holocaust happened". Let's not pretend that attacking estimates by misrepresenting them like this is an argument made in good faith.

encryptluks2 4y ago

It's irrelevant to the truth to study history and try to make it accurate? If people were trying to determine how many people died during the civil war no one would care, but simply trying to determine how many people died during WW2 is antisemitic? Yeah, keep pretending like that isn't fishy.

TheFreim 4y ago
It gets even worse when you find that asking questions about this specific historical event can get you considered "anti-Semitic" just because you were asking questions, inquiring about evidence presented is considered a "dog whistle". I've known many "holocaust deniers" and nine times out of ten it started out with them being presented with counter-evidence to the "official narrative" and instead of being treated like human beings they get called evil, told not to ask questions, and get shut down instead of having their concerns addressed in a kind, loving way. When getting slandered and abused it makes it much easier to justify leaps and make assumptions and go down a bad path.
- adriand 4y ago
  Questions like what, and addressed to whom? I think it’s important to recognize that no one is responsible for educating you. You are responsible for educating yourself. If you have chosen to be ignorant about the facts of the holocaust, and then you were to communicate your “concerns” to a Jewish person about the accuracy of the historical narrative, or perhaps question whether it was as bad as most people believe it was, or even worse, whether it happened at all, then I really don’t think it’s their responsibility to address you in a kind and loving manner. And it is really, truly, absolutely not their fault if you then decide to become an antisemitic holocaust denier and/or white supremacist.
- simplotek 4y ago
  > It gets even worse when you find that asking questions about this specific historical event can get you considered (...) https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
deleted 4y ago

rendall 4y ago

> It's irrelevant if 6 million Jews were slaughtered by the Nazis during WW2 instead of 7 million or 5 million. The problem is how this sort of nitpicking revolving high-level gross estimates is leveraged to deny it ever exist and fuel further hatred targeting Jewish people. It's more likely that a Holocaust denier would have luck convincing someone if the commonly touted numbers are inaccurate and vociferously defended.

simplotek 4y ago
> It's more likely that a Holocaust denier would have luck convincing someone if the commonly touted numbers are inaccurate and vociferously defended. Why do you think Holocaust deniers are hell bent on nitpicking about these estimates? Their tactic is to use them as a wedge to push other bad faith arguments to cast doubt on all aspects of the Holocaust. Again, do you think it makes any difference if a gross estimate is 5-10% over or under? The strategy followed by Holocaust deniers is to abuse this logic to jump to conclusions like "if they are wrong about these numbers then what other lies have they been pushing?"
- rendall 4y ago
  Who cares what these people up to? They will always quibble. Their mechanations should not affect our literal understanding of what happened. If it was actually 4.5 million no reasonable, unmotivated person would make the leap from "wow 6 million" to "0".