Confusing and inconsistent polls about the holocaust
I have been putting off discussing the holocaust because I did not want my unpopular and heretical views about this subject to be used to make ad hominem attacks on my views about Darwinism. A lot of bigoted people are just incapable of keeping separate issues separate. But I could not forever put off discussing the holocaust.
The Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review, a holocaust denial & revisionism outfit, reported the following about opinion polls conducted in the early 1990's:
What was confusing about question 16? If it was asked as a yes-or-no question, then it would be impossible to answer, as it is really two different mutually exclusive questions in one. However, if the answer choices were "possible" and "impossible," then there should have been no confusion.
The JHR article continues,
I don't see how the second version of question 16 is different from the first. Asking "do you feel certain that it happened" is equivalent to asking "does it seem impossible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened." The great difference between the first and second poll results is really surprising.
The New York Times archives has a page with summaries of articles about these polls and other polls about the holocaust conducted in the early 1990's. However, it costs $4.95 to purchase each of the articles, which is not worth the price to me when there is no guarantee that the articles would answer any of my questions about the polls.
Also, these all-or-nothing polls allowed for no gradation of opinion. For example, I think that a poll about the holocaust should ask something like, "do you think that something like the holocaust happened but that it is possible that official figures on the total number of victims and/or the percentage that were Jews might be exaggerated?" Of course, we have pictures of concentration camp victims and we also have anecdotal reports from survivors, so we know that something really bad happened and therefore most people would be reluctant to say that the holocaust didn't happen or possibly didn't happen.
The JHR article reports the results of some other early 1990's polls on the holocaust. Two of these polls were informal call-in polls and therefore the results are unreliable. The results of an apparently formal 1993 poll were as follows:
Anyway, these polls -- conducted in the early 1990's -- are as old as the hills. I wonder why we can't have more frequent polling on controversial subjects. There is the same problem with polls of scientists' opinions about evolution -- the most recent reliable such poll that I was able to find is from 2002.
=======================================
Here is a quick review of my two previous articles on the holocaust, Holocaust mythologies and The absurd book "IBM and the Holocaust":
(1) Despite claims that official holocaust history is based on "meticulous" Nazi records, there have been wild inconsistencies, which persisted for decades, in the official numbers of deaths at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Official numbers have varied from about 1 million to 4 million. Even today, agreement is not good -- a plaque at Auschwitz gives the figure as 1.5 million but the most accepted figure is 1-1.1 million.
(2) The ability to reliably distinguish between Jews and non-Jews would have been essential to carrying out a "systematic" holocaust of Jews, but the issue of Jew identification has been almost completely ignored. "Jew" is not even a well-defined classification. A big fairly recent book that claimed to answer the question of how the Nazis identified the Jews, "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, fell flat on its face, IMO. Even a prominent mainstream holocaust historian, a former senior historian of the research institute at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, said that there was no proof that the IBM Hollerith machines were "ever used to target individuals for deportation lists."
The Journal of Historical Review, published by the Institute for Historical Review, a holocaust denial & revisionism outfit, reported the following about opinion polls conducted in the early 1990's:
In April 1993, just days before the opening of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, newspapers across the country reported "chilling" and "startling" news: 22 percent of American adults surveyed in a major public opinion poll said they thought it was possible that "the Nazi extermination of the Jews" never took place.
An additional twelve percent of adult respondents in the survey -- sponsored by the American Jewish Committee and conducted by the Roper organization -- said they did not know if it was possible or impossible . . . . . .
As it turned out, however, the "startling" results of the AJC/Roper survey were not accurate. One of the poll's most serious flaws was the confusing wording of question 16, which produced the response that generated the most media comment: "Does it seem possible or does it seem impossible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened?" The question's compound structure and double negative wording almost certainly confused many respondents. It is also likely that some of the 992 adults and 506 high school students surveyed may have believed that the Nazis exterminated millions of Jews but nevertheless agreed that it "seems" impossible.
What was confusing about question 16? If it was asked as a yes-or-no question, then it would be impossible to answer, as it is really two different mutually exclusive questions in one. However, if the answer choices were "possible" and "impossible," then there should have been no confusion.
The JHR article continues,
Responding to criticism, the AJC recommissioned the poll, changing only question 16. In the second survey, this question was worded: "Does it seem possible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened, or do you feel certain that it happened?" The results of the second, 1994 AJC poll were quite different: Only about one percent of Americans thought it was possible the Holocaust never happened, while eight percent were unsure. ("Poll on Doubt of Holocaust is Corrected," The New York Times, July 8, 1994)
I don't see how the second version of question 16 is different from the first. Asking "do you feel certain that it happened" is equivalent to asking "does it seem impossible to you that the Nazi extermination of the Jews never happened." The great difference between the first and second poll results is really surprising.
The New York Times archives has a page with summaries of articles about these polls and other polls about the holocaust conducted in the early 1990's. However, it costs $4.95 to purchase each of the articles, which is not worth the price to me when there is no guarantee that the articles would answer any of my questions about the polls.
Also, these all-or-nothing polls allowed for no gradation of opinion. For example, I think that a poll about the holocaust should ask something like, "do you think that something like the holocaust happened but that it is possible that official figures on the total number of victims and/or the percentage that were Jews might be exaggerated?" Of course, we have pictures of concentration camp victims and we also have anecdotal reports from survivors, so we know that something really bad happened and therefore most people would be reluctant to say that the holocaust didn't happen or possibly didn't happen.
The JHR article reports the results of some other early 1990's polls on the holocaust. Two of these polls were informal call-in polls and therefore the results are unreliable. The results of an apparently formal 1993 poll were as follows:
In Georgia, nearly 19 percent "aren't sure that the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews occurred," according to a 1993 survey conducted by the University of Georgia Survey Research Center. Answering a separate question, nearly 20 percent think "the number of Jews killed by the Nazis, generally estimated at six million, may be inflated." (Atlanta Journal/Constitution, June 10, 1993, p. A8).
Anyway, these polls -- conducted in the early 1990's -- are as old as the hills. I wonder why we can't have more frequent polling on controversial subjects. There is the same problem with polls of scientists' opinions about evolution -- the most recent reliable such poll that I was able to find is from 2002.
=======================================
Here is a quick review of my two previous articles on the holocaust, Holocaust mythologies and The absurd book "IBM and the Holocaust":
(1) Despite claims that official holocaust history is based on "meticulous" Nazi records, there have been wild inconsistencies, which persisted for decades, in the official numbers of deaths at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Official numbers have varied from about 1 million to 4 million. Even today, agreement is not good -- a plaque at Auschwitz gives the figure as 1.5 million but the most accepted figure is 1-1.1 million.
(2) The ability to reliably distinguish between Jews and non-Jews would have been essential to carrying out a "systematic" holocaust of Jews, but the issue of Jew identification has been almost completely ignored. "Jew" is not even a well-defined classification. A big fairly recent book that claimed to answer the question of how the Nazis identified the Jews, "IBM and the Holocaust" by Edwin Black, fell flat on its face, IMO. Even a prominent mainstream holocaust historian, a former senior historian of the research institute at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, said that there was no proof that the IBM Hollerith machines were "ever used to target individuals for deportation lists."
Labels: Holocaust revisionism (2 of 2)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 9/02/2006 03:20:00 AM
17 Comments:
> A lot of bigoted people are just incapable of keeping separate issues separate. <
So that explains your problem. You are a bigot.
> I don't see how the second version of question 16 is different from the first. <
But those being polled certainly did.
> I think that a poll about the holocaust should ask something like, "do you think that something like the holocaust happened but that it is possible that official figures on the total number of victims and/or the percentage that were Jews might be exaggerated?" <
You have always ducked the question what are "official" figures. You seem unable to comprehend the fact that exact figures are not needed.
The JHR article reports the results of some other early 1990's polls on the holocaust. Two of these polls were informal call-in polls and therefore the results are unreliable. The results of an apparently formal 1993 poll were as follows:
> I wonder why we can't have more frequent polling on controversial subjects. <
Because there is little value to them. Polls can't really change history. They only give a measure of the public's ignorance of history.
> (1) Despite claims that official holocaust history is based on "meticulous" Nazi records, there have been wild inconsistencies, which persisted for decades, in the official numbers of deaths at the Auschwitz concentration camp. Official numbers have varied from about 1 million to 4 million. <
There are no such things as "official numbers".
> Even today, agreement is not good -- a plaque at Auschwitz gives the figure as 1.5 million but the most accepted figure is 1-1.1 million. <
Are you saying that it was a crime to kill 1.5 million people but not 1-1.1 million?
> (2) The ability to reliably distinguish between Jews and non-Jews would have been essential to carrying out a "systematic" holocaust of Jews, but the issue of Jew identification has been almost completely ignored. <
Because it is trivial.
> "Jew" is not even a well-defined classification. <
I know you have always tried hard not to be identified as a Jew. That may have contributed to your current identity crisis.
> there was no proof that the IBM Hollerith machines were "ever used to target individuals for deportation lists." <
Who cares? Why is this an issue?
I assume that you will duck these questions as usual.
> Are you saying that it was a crime to kill 1.5 million people but not 1-1.1 million? <
This is one of the questions that he is continuing to duck.
Larry(?), do you really believe that anyone doesn't see through your efforts to dodge difficult questions?
Voice In The Urbanness said --
>>>>I assume that you will duck these questions as usual. <<<<<
VIU, I am kept very busy writing articles, doing research, answering other commenters, commenting on other blogs, etc., and you expect me to drop everything to answer your breathtakingly inane comments. You should just be glad that I do not censor comments like many other blogs do. Actually, I have been very generous in taking time to respond to a lot of comments on this blog.
People often quibble over little details of history, but questioning official holocaust history is considered to be verboten. When a TV program discussed the question of a connection between Darwin and HItler, the ADL's Foxman flew into a rage, saying that the show "trivializes" the holocaust because Hitler did not "need" Darwin in order to plan the holocaust. To Foxman, even discussing the issue was off limits.
I am still wondering why you, Voice In the Wilderness, Kevin Vicklund, Anonymous, and other trolls waste your time hanging around here if you think that I am such a stupid, dishonest ignoramus. You trolls say that you come here just for the laughs, but to justify that I would have to be constantly ROFLMAO side-splittingly hilarious, and I am not.
Voice In the Wilderness said --
>>>>>> Are you saying that it was a crime to kill 1.5 million people but not 1-1.1 million? <
This is one of the questions that he is continuing to duck.
Larry(?), do you really believe that anyone doesn't see through your efforts to dodge difficult questions? <<<<<<<
It is not a difficult question.
One of my goals is to discredit the claim that official holocaust history is based on "meticulous" Nazi records. I have often heard that claim whenever I challenged official holocaust history.
The difference between 1 million and 1.5 million is not particularly good agreement, and it took decades to reach that level of agreement. Some previous official numbers were as high as 4 million. I long believed that the correct figure was 3 million.
And the total number is not the only important figure. Another important figure is the percentage who were Jews.
> I have been very generous in taking time to respond to a lot of comments on this blog. <
You have been very selective in what questions you attempt to answer. For example:
> questioning official holocaust history is considered to be verboten. <
What exactly is "official holocaust history"?
Why do exact numbers matter?
There has been a deafening silence on these questions. At the same time you attempt to derail questions by changing the subject in your answers.
> You trolls say that you come here just for the laughs, but to justify that I would have to be constantly ROFLMAO side-splittingly hilarious, and I am not. <
Oh but you are!
ViW is often not here on the weekends. I don't know if that is the case now but his replies to your breathtakingly inane post can be easily predicted.
> The difference between 1 million and 1.5 million is not particularly good agreement, and it took decades to reach that level of agreement. <
Are you so dense to believe that the exact numbers make a difference? You have ducked all questions on this issue. Don't pretend that you don't have time to answer. We all know the truth. You have no answer.
> Another important figure is the percentage who were Jews. <
Another ducked question. Who cares what the exact percentage is. Only you.
Fake Dave said --
>>>>> There is no "official" history, as no one has been appointed as the "court historian". <<<<<
ADL has appointed itself a "court historian." The national holocaust museum is another "court historian." Israel probably recognizes other "court historians."
>>>>> It seems to me that you may not realize that Auschwitz was not the only concentration camp, just the largest. <<<<<<
One of the problems, of course, is how to account for the 3 million people -- and they were not just Jews -- who did not die at Auschwitz.
>>>>> BTW, Israel's Yad Vashem memorial has individually identified, by name, about half (3 million) of the victims in their database. <<<<<<
Who knows what happened to those people? Maybe a lot of them were not killed by the Nazis but disappeared by other means. Maybe some died of starvation, disease, the war, old age, etc.. Maybe some survived the war but were never found by relatives (maybe too few relatives survived the war to notice that some particular person was missing). No one knows how many Europeans died in the war -- 30 million? 50 million? With so many disappearances, a lot of people are not going to be accounted for. One thing I noticed was that the Nazis seemed to make no effort to identify those they killed. A lot of the Nazis' victims were just rounded up en masse, and I am not aware of any effort by the Nazis to identify those who were selected to be killed on arrival at the concentration camps. And a lot of any records that the Nazis kept might have been lost or destroyed. The Nazis did make an effort to cover up their crimes after the war. Hell, I don't know what happened. You keep asking me questions that no one can answer. All I am trying to do here is point out some holes in traditional holocaust history. You are trying to duck these questions by citing extraneous statistics -- so who is ducking questions here? I think that one of the biggest problems is the issue of Jew identification, something that was virtually completely ignored for decades by both mainstream holocaust historians and holocaust deniers/revisionists -- and except for recent accusations against IBM, the issue is still being ignored. And there is a gross inconsistency here -- the book "IBM and the Holocaust" claims that the IBM Hollerith machines were used to identify individual Jews and a former senior historian at the national holocaust museum denies it. You and others are trying to suppress the search for truth in history.
Voice In The Urbanness said...
>>>> > -- The difference between 1 million and 1.5 million is not particularly good agreement, and it took decades to reach that level of agreement. -- <
Are you so dense to believe that the exact numbers make a difference? You have ducked all questions on this issue. Don't pretend that you don't have time to answer. We all know the truth. You have no answer.
> -- Another important figure is the percentage who were Jews. -- <
Another ducked question. Who cares what the exact percentage is. Only you. <<<<<<<
I duck these questions because they are stupid. These numbers certainly matter to historians -- for example, it took them decades to reach a rough consensus about the official number of deaths at Auschwitz. And if it is so hard for the official holocaust historians to get such a simple number straight, how can we trust them about other holocaust numbers for which there may be even less evidence?
Maybe we should just fire a whole bunch of historians because a lot of questions about history just don't matter.
> I duck these questions because they are stupid. <
No. You are doing your neutron star impression again. You duck them because you have no answer. Here you have taken the time to post a meaningless reply and yet still not answered the questions.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter at all if the numbers are exact. The intent of the Nazis was obvious.
> And if it is so hard for the official holocaust historians <
Idiot. There are no "official holocaust historians" as has been pointed out by nearly everybody.
> how can we trust them about other holocaust numbers for which there may be even less evidence? <
Try again. The numbers don't matter. The numbers don't matter. The numbers don't matter.
You are completely devoid of debating skill. And you question why we think you are a pathetic loser?
Voice In The Urbanness said...
>>>>>The bottom line is that it doesn't matter at all if the numbers are exact. <<<<<
Right. The numbers don't have to be exact. Those historians were just wasting their time trying to decide whether the correct number for Auschwitz deaths is 1 million or 4 million.
>>>>>> The intent of the Nazis was obvious. <<<<<<
Right. Only intent matters. Like the ADL's Foxman said, Hitler didn't "need" Darwin. Hitler didn't "need" Jesus, either. He killed all those Jews just because "they were there."
Fake Larry(?) finally admitted...
> The numbers don't have to be exact. <
But then he goes on to show that, as always, he doesn't have a clue as to what the issue is:
> Those historians were just wasting their time trying to decide whether the correct number for Auschwitz deaths is 1 million or 4 million. <
What a great leap of illogic! It is no wonder why he always loses debates and legal cases. He is just as inept as he is insane.
Darn it -- I forgot to mention -- we don't even know what a Jew is! So how can Jews be counted if we don't know who they are?
Does someone who is half Jewish count as a Jew? -- or someone who is one-quarter Jewish? What about assimilated or converted Jews? Should they be counted as fractional Jews?
You keep me so busy debating trivia that I forget the fundamentals!
> So how can Jews be counted if we don't know who they are? <
With a Jewish mother and father, have no doubt. The Nazis would have counted you as a Jew.
> You keep me so busy debating trivia that I forget the fundamentals! <
No. We try very hard to get you to cover the fundamentals. You try to distract us with trivia. You are fooling nobody but yourself.
larry fafarman said...
>> Darn it -- I forgot to mention -- we don't even know what a Jew is! So how can Jews be counted if we don't know who they are? <<
By the strictest definition available, a Jew is any HUMAN BEING whose mother is Jewish. See how easy that is? Or are you still just being dense?
>> Does someone who is half Jewish count as a Jew? -- or someone who is one-quarter Jewish? What about assimilated or converted Jews? Should they be counted as fractional Jews, in the same way that slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person under the original Constitution? <<
Gotta love the desparate attempt to nickle and dime the actual toll of the Holocaust. The stricter Jewish denominations do not acknowledge converts to be Jewish all, and unless a convert publicly announces their conversion, it is quite likely that relatively few converts ended up in the camps unless it was for being a member of one of the myriad other groups targeted by the Nazis.
The whole notion of a "half-Jew" is dumb, even for you, Larry. If your mother is Jewish, so are you. If you convert to Judaism, some progressive sects will count you as a Jew (not a fractional Jew), while the more conservative sects will not (again, not fractional). Are you beginning to get the picture, Larry?
>> You keep me so busy debating trivia that I forget the fundamentals! <<
You're entire argument is trivial, Larry. And your "fundamentals" are just another in the long-running stupidity that is your attempt at proving that your existence has some purpose.
But let us recap. Converted Jews do not likely inflate the count of victims of the Holocaust. More likely, they cause the counts to be deflated because there is no real way to accurately keep track of who had converted.
But the important picture in all this, the one you're so desperate to duck and dodge in your ceaseless need to be garner attention for yourself, even should the cost of the attention be the most besic concept of human decency, is that SEVERAL MILLION PEOPLE (that is LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS) were murdered, in some of the most barbaric and horrific ways imaginable, and the only argument YOU can make is to piss and moan about the exactness of the counting of these formerly LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS. Even if we discount the official figures and drop it to the levels you revisionists would like us to use, you still end up with, what 2-3 MILLION LIVING, BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS murdered, in cold blood. And not just murdered, but tortured and murdered in horrible ways dreamt up by men, the depths of whose depravity would make some of our worst modern day murderers look almost angelic.
This is equivalent of systematically torturing and murdering the populations of, say Houston, TX. We aren't talking about one or two people horribly murdered, though that would have been bad enough. This is MILLIONS of MEN, WOMEN, and CHILDREN horribly murdered. But to you, the need to stake a controversial claim because that's the only way you can get attention for yourself far exceeds any consideration for the fact that people were murdered en masse.
Your childish need for attention has run completely over whatever human decency you had left in you, I'm afraid. Not that that comes as a complete shock, the morals you demonstrate here have been swirling around the lip of the drain for some time so it was only a matter of time before they fell in.
So I put it to you: Let's say that, at some point in the past, some country instituted a program of exterminating all people named Larry in ways we don't even allow for those who have murdered dozens. Afterwards, when the surviving Larry's of the world started taking stock of the human costs and decided to make sure that those costs were never forgotten, what do you think would be the reaction, from the world and the surviving Larrys, when some air-headed revisionist, much like yourself, started running around declaring that the "Larrycaust" wasn't really all that bad because they estimate that "only" 1.1 Million Larrys died as opposed to the 1.5 Million counted by people who have actually spent time going over the records maintained by the murderers in question? That is exactly what you are doing.
As is your usual habit, your exact style of "research" is to run around to websites populated by cretins who "think" (not really the appropriate word for what you lot do, but close enough for TV) basically along the same lines you do. You reference a few works that, if they haven't been completely discredited by people with actual knowledge, don't actually say what you would like to have us believe they say, because you were so busy quote-mining that you forgot to actually do the work of reading the articles you quote from. And if that wasn't enough, you always seem to fall back on polls and a variety of supposed experts you claim to have spoken to but who you are singularly unable to actually name (most likely because they don't exist). You are a shoddy excuse for a researcher and I'm afraid that what you try to pass of as "debate" is beyond laughable. You throw around words for which you do not know the definition (tell me again what ad hominem means). I don't think there is a logical fallacy in which you have not engaged.
So I go back to a suggestion I gave earlier. Get off your lazy butt, take a class or otherwise LEARN something, and, as your latest work shows you need to do, DEVELOP A FREAKING CONSCIENCE. It may not be too late for you to actually become a real person again, instead of this caricature of humanity that seeks justification for itself by diminishing the pain of others.
> That's begging the question. How do we know if a person's mother was Jewish? And how did the Nazis know? <
You pathetic ignoramus. The point that nearly everyone in the world besides you is that it really did not matter. Even you have admitted to what the intent of the Nazis was.
> What bothers me is that any questioning of official holocaust history is considered to be off-limits. <
You rattlebrained dimwit. There is no such thing as "official" holocaust history.
> You can go to jail in a lot of countries for questioning the holocaust. <
Questioning if it happened at all, not questiong the accuracy of the numbers.
> I have a lot of questions <
You don't answer ours. Why should we answer yours?
> Why has the critical issue of Jew identification been largely ignored for so long? <
Because the sane can see that it is barely relevant, let alone critical.
> Why has there not been a lot of controversy about the book "IBM and the Holocaust"? <
Because it is of no consequence whether the Nazis used IBM Hollerith machines were ever used to target individual Jews for deportation.
> How could the Nazis trace people's genealogy, even if they tried to do so? <
Probably the same way you would trace anyone else's genealogy.
> Why weren't non-Jews worried about being mistaken for Jews? If I saw some group of people who looked a lot like me being rounded up, I would be afraid of being mistaken for one of them. <
Since your father and mother are Jews, I would say that you should look like them. In fact, you do.
> And how come we haven't heard complaints from a lot of victims who claimed that they were mistaken for Jews? <
Because few victims survived.
> Look at ADL's Abraham Foxman ... The TV program did not even question the official numbers. <
Perhaps because there are no "official" numbers and any numbers are irrelevant to his point.
ViU,
You are right. The asshole seems to be unable to understand that the exact number is of no importance at all. Neither is the percentage of the victims who are Jews, nor the number of Jews who may have escaped, nor the number who were misidentifies.
The truth of those facts is so obvious that we would think even someone with as little brain left as Larry(?) would understand. I think that he knows he is full of shit on this issue but just wants to keep the controversy going.
Stop me if I have said this before, but he reminds me of the character played by Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live. He was supposed to be the host of a talk show with ten phones sitting in front of him. He would propose a question and wait for the phones to ring. After a minute with no calls he would change the question a little to make it more controversial. With another minute looking at the silent phones he would change it further, eventually making the question quite outrageous.
I don't think that even Larry(?) believes what he is saying now. Nobody could be that stupid. Not even Larry(?). He is just keeping it up to stir the pot and we are buying into it.
We can go on debating the holocaust till doomsday, but to me the big issue here is that even just questioning official holocaust history is regarded as taboo in most places and even illegal in some places. It is just political correctness and I detest political correctness -- I believe in objectivity in the study of history.
Just look at the ADL's Foxman -- he thinks that it is OK for the ADL to claim that Hitler needed Jesus but wrong for others to claim that Hitler needed or even just merely used Darwin.
Post a Comment
<< Home