This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm going to try and separate the rhetorical flair and the numbers, just for my own sake.
For starters, saying that it's "Sanning's numbers" when he quotes a source for said numbers obfuscates things quite a bit. Especially when it is present throughout the entire text. As an example, “Opinion of the Institute for Contemporary History” is not Sanning. They say 100k per year emigrating from Poland between a certain time period. Sanning repeats the claim made. You reference other sources, which give a lower estimate. This is not a competition between your sources and Sanning, which is how you frame things. This is a discrepancy between different sources.
Another example of this sort of thing being that the Polish government can matter of factly undercount the numbers of jewish births by up to 60-some percent and that's completely normal. But to consider they undercount the numbers of jewish emigrants by 80% is somehow very obviously in the realm of absurdity. If it is incompetent enough to do one why not another? For every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story reason for the opposite.
I'm sure Faulk and friends do this as well. But there's an obvious point to be made that everyone is transparently working towards separate finish lines through motivated reasoning.
To make a long story short, if the sources cited by Sanning are closer to reality than the sources cited by you, there is a matter of degree to which the question of 'where did the jews go' is answered. To that end I think the revisionist side has an obvious case that is based on sources and assumptions that are no greater or lesser than the ones used by exterminationists.
I fail to see how laymen can come to an obvious conclusion that the revisionist citations are not 'persuasive' in revising the holocaust narrative considering that, even if wrong to a degree, they would still exist as revisions to the total count and by extension cast aspersions on other claims made that rely on a minimum amount of jews present in the area Germany had access to.
I didn't think there was much rhetoric.
Not all sources are created equal. I presented several sources to counter Sanning's single source (which is a huge outlier numerically, while the rest of the sources are in the same ballpark, which casts some doubt on it from the start). If 100,000 Jews left Poland each year, this would be reflected in the growth of the Jewish populations of Palestine and the US, but it isn't. Emigration from Poland also dropped sharply after the onset of the Great Depression.
But actually that's all besides the point: since I wrote that piece, someone let me know where Sanning's source got the "100,000 per year" figure. It apparently comes from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia of 1942, which refers to 100,000 emigrants per year from the Jewish "zone of suffering" which consisted of central and eastern Europe in general, not Poland specifically. So actually Sanning is just lying about his sources again.
It is much easier to be born in a Jewish shtetl unnoticed than to get on a ship to Palestine or the US unnoticed.
If your standard for history is "well this source says one thing but this source says another," without any attempt to discriminate between the quality of various sources, you can't do history at all.
I pointed out where you employed rhetoric and how. Maybe I should have pointed out how repeatedly accusing people of lying isn't productive to anything either so you could have dropped that as well. Otherwise I feel you are on a fast track towards the endpoint of all Holocaust arguments, especially for those who put a lot of time into the game, where both parties default to accusing one another of insanity.
I don't think all sources are created equal. Especially with regards to history. Which is why I said that there is not an obvious conclusion to be drawn. For starters I don't think the practice of looking at estimates like this is all that valid to begin with considering the error margins and the chaotic nature of events. All that is sufficient, from my point of view, is that the error margin for the discrepancy of 'missing' jews can exist as an alternative hypothesis to the question of 'where they went'. Which would also hinge on taking whatever estimates of the total number of jews to begin with as being valid. Keeping in mind that the question is open ended. To whatever extent jews went missing, there exists no baseline that necessitates they went into a camp and not somewhere else.
Any revisions downward seem to pose a rather obvious problem. Which prompts, in my view, a completely unwarranted confidence in any estimates that maintain a sufficient number of jews to fuel the holocaust narrative from the exterminationist side.
Like I said, for every 'just so' story reason there is a 'just so' story for another. What was being pointed out is the aforementioned unwarranted confidence in any estimates that fuel the holocaust narrative. 80% is 'absurd' not because you have any knowledge of actual events, but because it breaks too far from the baseline you need to maintain.
My standard for history is that historical evidence can be extremely bad. Battles and assaults during the war could go overlooked or misreported for decades despite them involving entire frontlines and death tolls in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. The largest tank battle of the war only existed as an anomaly for most of recorded history. To stand up with any degree of confidence and say that they know for sure, down to the 100k is the hallmark of someone who should reconsider their disposition towards what they are doing.
I accuse Sanning of lying because he lies, as the example I gave in my first response to you pretty clearly shows.
Just saying "it was chaotic" is hand-waving. Where, specifically, was the chaos? What chaos would have caused the British authorities of Mandate Palestine or the US immigration authorities, both quite severe in the restriction of immigration, to underestimate the number of Jews entering their borders by the hundreds of thousands?
Thankfully that's not what I 'just' said. As my point pertained to the general inaccuracies of demographic data collection in general confounded by the tumultuous times, where people were moving in great numbers. And not just via boats to Palestine and the US, as your reply suggests. This was said by me to further the broader point that claims of confident certainty, to a degree that the holocaust narrative seems to require to fill its minimum baseline of jews, are unwarranted. Admitting to a certain level of uncertainty with regards to the data in general seems much more prudent. But, again, prudence is not something exterminationists can afford.
Can I just chalk this misrepresentation of yours up to you being a liar? I say this half jokingly.
The 1930s were actually not really a time when people were moving in great numbers. Emigration from Poland dropped sharply in this period.
Palestine, US, and France absorbed almost the entirety of Polish-Jewish emigration, any other destinations are rounding errors.
Never said otherwise. Degrees of uncertainty exist. Degrees of uncertainty do not exist on the order of millions, which is what you need for this argument to go through.
Not comparable to inserting the word "Jewish" into a citation when the original source explicitly notes that the persons in question were majority non-Jewish.
I've already made my point, you misrepresenting it again isn't very interesting to me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link