Michael J. Totten: Learning Their Names

The half-century effort could not identify all the six million, Mr. Shalev said. In large parts of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, no documentation was kept by the squads who shot to death entire Jewish populations of some towns or by Nazi troops who dispatched ghetto inhabitants to death camps, where they were gassed upon arrival.

So how do they know there were six million jews killed? Hutton Gibson says there weren't.

Posted by: David at November 21, 2004 10:37 PM

Hutton Gibson says there weren't even 3 million Jews killed in the holocaust. Hutton Gibson thinks that Vatican II was an evil plot against Christ by us Jews. Hutton Gibson is a hateful and clinically paranoid person.

And if you're being ironic you should really say so for the record because, as someone who doesn't know you from past experience, it's not clear to me.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at November 21, 2004 11:25 PM

Can we add the victims of Rewanda, Bosnia, and sudan to the database as a reminder that we as a people still fail to stop genicide? It should be mark of shame that we say "never again", then pretend it's not that "again time" until it's allready over.

Derek

Posted by: Derek at November 22, 2004 12:47 AM

For that matter it's a mark of shame that we say we should do something about Sudan but nothing much is being done. Does that mean we should shut up about it (i.e. stop 'whining' about the holocaust, about Sudan, about Rwanda, etc.?). Does the fact that genocide continues to happen mean we should stop burying our dead or even bothering to remember them? Part of what's important about not forgetting, and about combatting holocaust denial or so-called 'revisionism' is to make it impossible for people to claim that genocide will be forgotten, that you can get away with it.

Hilter was emboldened by the fact no one seemed to care about the Armenian genocide not many years earlier (and indeed you still don't hear a lot about it, so I would applaud Armenians willing to devote decades to documenting the victims' names) and so he thought no one would be willing to go to war with Germany over the extermination of the Jews alone.

You can be sure that as the world fails to intervene in Darfur, there are present and future heads of state taking notes as to what one needs to do in order to have one's crimes against humanity tolerated.

Remembering history is not a zero sum game; it takes nothing away from acting responsibly in the present. And in fact it tends to fuel present-tense involvement for many people. I'm convinced that awareness of the holocaust, then still very recent, was what motivated so many American Jews to involve themselves in the civil rights movement in the fifties and sixties.

But here's another case where I may very well be misreading the intended meaning of a comment and if so, I apologize. Either way, I thought it was important to say something in response to people who are tired of all the holocaust remembrance.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at November 22, 2004 01:46 AM

Great job, Jeremy. Naming the murdered is a wonderful / terrible thing -- terrible only in the sense that it so powerfully captures the terribleness of the occurrence.

I do object to "6 million Jews" when, as I understand it, some 10 million people were murdered -- including millions of gypsies and hundreds of (mostly Catholic) priests, as well as others who disagreed.

You say Remembering history is not a zero sum game; it takes nothing away from acting responsibly in the present. But in fact, saying 6 million Jews DOES seem to take away from the unmentioned 4 million.

In stores it's called "shelf space". What IS talked about reduces the time available to talk about what is NOT talked about.

And, today, most mentions of the Shoah do seem to be INSTEAD of mentioning the Killing Fields of Cambodia (when the US followed Kerry's advice and stopped fighting evil), or that in Rwanda (when the Dem president ordered "genocide" not be used).

I wish that Bush would challenge Kofi and the silly UN to do something, more forcefully. (see my <a href="http://tomgrey.motime.com/post/314378#314378" Fantasy Bush speech on Sudan as Genocide )

3 million, 6 million, 10 million. They are all terrible. But I think of the Vietnam Memorial, some 50 000 names. Today, one of the most visited and moving memorials in DC, and rightfully so.
Could be a memorial for Sudan already, and maybe 20 more. Only 16 for Rwanda. (Only? Utter UN failure, but it can't be talked about because the Left wants to support the UN instead of the US.)

For Cambodia it would be 60 memorials; for the Holocaust some 200 memorials, 120 of which would be Jews.

I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that supporting Kerry would have led to more active opposition to genocidal evil than supporting Bush -- but I hope that those who did will now be pushing the US, AND the UN, to act. To intervene. To have sanctions, intrusive inspections, more aggressively defensive peacekeepers, and to STOP the genocide going on in Sudan.

Sudan today is making a mockery of any and all who say "never again" -- but oppose action to stop the evil.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 22, 2004 04:34 AM

Oh, I also have a secret fantasy that Iraq collects the names of all those murdered in the mass graves in Iraq. Some 300 000. And, um, charges the UN some $1 000 000 per person for accepting his "crimes against humanity".

A $300 billion charge to supporters of Saddam seems fair -- and THAT would send a big strong signal to those in the world who support dictators. (I thought you might like this idea.)

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 22, 2004 07:32 AM

This is a difficult subject. Not the condemnation of genocides,but the response pattern required.On the very specific issue of the Nazi efforts,I do not feel that it distorts the history of the era to concentrate on the Jewish aspect of the horror.Tom G says: 'I do object to "6 million Jews" when, as I understand it, some 10 million people were murdered -- including millions of gypsies and hundreds of (mostly Catholic) priests, as well as others who disagreed '.
From my readings(and I am more than happy to be corrected),the Jews were the central issue for the Nazis,and the whole program was set up to provide the 'final solution'to the Jewish Problem,not to the Polish Problem.Being technocratic monsters,of course,the regime had no problem dealing with all the untermenchen in the same facilities.But to complain because the Jews are getting too much shelf space seems somehow ungracious,at best.
Not to be difficult but I would NEVER support the US being the agent to prevent these atrocites UNLESS there were other geo-political reasons for involvement(see Iraq).Genocide can never be solved by 1 State spending itself into decay on behalf of everyone else who seem to be content to mill around aimlessly.If the EMPIRE is to do everything that is difficult,should it not then also call ALL THE SHOTS in the world as well?
If the world were serious about these things,the UN would have some credibility.But the UN is worse than nothing.It gives the appearance that something is to be done,whereas in fact,as we all know,nothing but self-serving verbiage will ever be directed at the guilty parties.It is an institution that succeeds mostly at adding'insult to injury' when hard decisions are required.Not only will it not save you from the headhunters;it will demean your existence by making you the focus of an hypocritical exercise in which creatures such as Chirac will make light of your reality while dining sumptiously on my tax dollars.

Posted by: dougf at November 22, 2004 08:01 AM

I do like that plan!

I can also imagine Iraqis spending many years collecting the names of all the disappeared, and of all the remains found in mass graves. I would imagine that will be on the agenda of a free Iraq. I almost think I even read something about such a plan, but I'm at work now and can't gooogle it.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at November 22, 2004 08:12 AM

And if you're being ironic you should really say so for the record because, as someone who doesn't know you from past experience, it's not clear to me.

Jeremy,

I asked a reasonable question, and then I made a statement of fact. What's to be ironic about? That you consider Hutton to be a vile person is irrelevant.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 08:26 AM

"And if you're being ironic you should really say so for the record because, as someone who doesn't know you from past experience, it's not clear to me.
Jeremy,
-------------------------------------------------
I asked a reasonable question, and then I made a statement of fact. What's to be ironic about? That you consider Hutton to be a vile person is irrelevant.--David

No comment. I think(and it's probably just me) that this is a quagmire like subject and can lead to no good results.

Posted by: dougf at November 22, 2004 08:35 AM

dougf,

I'd just like to know where the 6 million number came from. That could lead to a quagmire? I'm more than open about it, and I have no axe to grind.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 08:57 AM

dougf,
I'd just like to know where the 6 million number came from. That could lead to a quagmire? I'm more than open about it, and I have no axe to grind.---David

Well because I want to perfectly transparent and I NEVER have hidden agendas,I see this as a quagmire-like subject because it is at heart a fundamentally emotive subject,and not an empirical one.By that I mean,it matters little if you start out on the field of 'objective'knowledge in the truest spirit of historical research,sooner or later,you end up wandering around the 'death-camps' even if only vicariously and in a virtual sense.There is just too much THERE,there to be above the fray.It always ends up as black/white,probably because it is by definition not nuanced friendly.
Like I say,I don't know doodly,but I just never get into this particular area unless I am dealing with a LOON,in which case I don't have to worry about historical nuances.
Guess I am a little paranoid about this one.

Posted by: dougf at November 22, 2004 09:18 AM

dougf,

I think that if you want to discourage the loons, and potential loons, then empirical facts should be forthcoming. That's transparency, and the lack thereof only encourages loondom.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 09:43 AM

Well, its pretty easy to count the dead Jews from Prague. The names of all 600,000 are printed on the walls of the city's oldest synagogue.

Posted by: crionna at November 22, 2004 01:44 PM

For those who are genuinely interested in knowing where the six million number came from, go to the link and enter the database then go to the faq. Yad Vashem explains how the number was derived. For those who are pretending to be curious while really spewing holocaust denial, you know what you can do.

Posted by: Doug at November 22, 2004 07:02 PM

dougf,

you're right about one thing, the subject is toxic.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 08:48 PM

ps. but I guess they put the 6 million info in the FAQ for all those Holocaust deniers pretending to be curious.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 08:52 PM

David-

The subject is not toxic, but sensitive. I believe your question would have been better received had you not been so rude and boorish, citing as any kind of authority an avowed anti-semite and holocaust denier. Next time why not cite Joseph Goebbels?

Posted by: MarkC at November 22, 2004 09:36 PM

rude and boorish to state a fact? I guess I'm sticking to rude and boorish.

Yes it is sensitive, so sensitive poor dougf won't even talk about it. Pretty sad.

And like I said, if it was such a dumb question, it wouldn't have been in the FAQ.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 10:55 PM

Next time why not cite Joseph Goebbels?

Yad Vashem cites Adolf Eichman for the 6 million figure.

Posted by: David at November 22, 2004 11:11 PM

Two sources, not primary but can lead you in the right direction:

"Hitler and Stalin : Parallel Lives" by Alan Bullock

"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer

Why did you cite Hutton Gibson as a reliable source, David?

Posted by: Gary Rosen at November 23, 2004 01:07 AM

To elaborate on the Bullock source: Bullock takes estimates for the number of Jews killed from each country in Europe and gives a "lowest estimate" and "highest estimate".

Sum of the lowest estimates: 5,636,000
Sum of the highest estimates: 6,921,000

Posted by: Gary Rosen at November 23, 2004 01:16 AM

But to complain because the Jews are getting too much shelf space seems somehow ungracious,at best.

Well, if there is room for 100 books about ALL the genocides of mankind since 1900, and 99 of them are about Hitler and the Jews, that only leaves 1 book for the: Armenians, Ukrainians, Gypsies, Chinese (under Japs, under Mao), Cambodians, Congolese, Rwandans, Bosnians, and Sudanese, among others murdered.

Or call them percentages of documentary time on TV. I truly think an over focus on Hitler, now safely in the past, is used to avoid action against the current evils.

I don't think current, correctable evils DO get enough shelf space; especially Sudan, Congo, Zimbabwe, North Korea. Yes, partly because the Shoah and the creepy Holocaust-denial folk are focusing too much on 60 years ago.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at November 23, 2004 01:17 AM

>>>"Why did you cite Hutton Gibson as a reliable source, David?"

Oh, I see what's going on. You think I agree with Hutton and that's why I cited him as some kind of "authority".

In fact I don't agree with Hutton, and I used his name as a stand in for anybody who questions that number.

Posted by: David at November 23, 2004 07:43 AM

Tom,

I'm cool with the Holocaust getting about 85% of the shelf space.

Posted by: David at November 23, 2004 07:45 AM

"In fact I don't agree with Hutton"

That's the first time in this thread you have clarified that.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at November 23, 2004 08:06 AM

"If there is room for only 100 books on all the genocides since 1900 ..."

Last I looked, Amazon caries hundreds of thousands of books. As for the focus on the Holocaust in WWII, while millions of others were killed in WWII, it was only the Jews who were targeted for extermination with a deliberate, premeditated plan. Not the Poles, or Russians, or even Gypsies and homosexuals. Unless someone has the direct evidence we have, such as the minutes of the Wannsee Conference and speeches by Himmler, of the avowed intent to hunt down and kill every single last member of any other group, along with the evidence that such a plan was actually being carried out.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at November 23, 2004 08:13 AM

That's the first time in this thread you have clarified that.

I didn't realize that it needed to be clarified.

Posted by: David at November 23, 2004 12:13 PM

It did.

David, We'll make it really easy on you. Repeat after me:

"I beleive approximatly six million jews were brutally executed by Nazi Germany."

Posted by: FactCheck at November 23, 2004 12:20 PM

It did.

Why is that?

Posted by: David at November 23, 2004 02:53 PM

"I didn't realize it needed to be clarified."

In your first message, you said,

"So how do they know there were six million jews killed? Hutton Gibson says there weren't."

No indication of irony here. In your next post you said,

"I asked a reasonable question, and then I made a statement of fact. What's to be ironic about? That you consider Hutton to be a vile person is irrelevant."

Still no indication of irony - denying it in fact. No reason, in other words, to believe it was anything but a troll. And that's what I believe, in spite of David's too-little-too-late disclaimers.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at November 23, 2004 10:04 PM

David, I'm glad your question was not asked with an intent to put forth some sort of holocaust revisionism. But if you persist in claiming that you can't see why the question ruffled feathers, I think you're either being naive or you're being stubborn.

Of course people should be free to question received knowledge. But when you're dancing around a history involving the extermination of millions of people and you're asking a question and mentioning a name that many people commonly and reasonably associate with bigotry, you have to be more explicit about where you're coming from in asking the question. Or else you have to expect people to get their hackles up.

If you had said something like "I don't believe Hutton Gibson and am appalled by holocaust denial, but wouldn't it be wise to refute these kinds of claims with facts rather than just deferring to common wisdom?" Even then you might have been challenged to reiterate your intent and disavow any holocaust denying motive. But it would have shown that you are aware that you're venturing into dangerous water. I don't think this is just PC nonsense. This is the kind of humane social protocol that political correctness is a vacuous bastardization of.

People can't process raw data the way computers do, and thank heaven for small favors. A computer never says "I know what you're going to say about my answer to your database query, but just hear me out before you click the escape key." But people actually communicate factual information better when those kinds of cues are exchanged. Emotion is actually part of how we understand things. And so an emotionless exchange of questions about something like the holocaust doesn't result in a very effective exchange of knowledge.

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at November 23, 2004 10:22 PM

Jeremy,

quite right. Perhaps I was just being stubborn. I get like that when I'm attacked; and when I'm accused of being a Holocaust denier, I consider it an attack.

Gary,

not a disclaimer, a clarification, which came too late because of stubborness on my part. My apologies.

Posted by: David at November 23, 2004 10:54 PM

Apology accepted, David.

People need to know that while the exact number may never be known, the "6 million" was not just pulled out of thin air but has considerable historical evidence behind it. Reading Bullock's and Shirer's books are a start; if one wants more details they can follow the references therein.

Posted by: Gary Rosen at November 24, 2004 08:10 AM

Thanks, David, for coming clean on the stubbornness thing. I feel better now.

You see? We can all just get along.

And on that note...Happy Thanksgiving, everybody!

Posted by: Jeremy Brown at November 24, 2004 08:17 PM

O'Toole's Commentary on Murphy's Law:
Murphy was an optimist.
Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Loan at December 16, 2004 04:51 AM

Has everyone noticed that all the letters of the word database are
typed with the left hand? Now the layout of the QWERTYUIOP typewriter
keyboard was designed, among other things, to facilitate the even use
of both hands. It follows, therefore, that writing about databases is
not only unnatural, but a lot harder than it appears.
Payday Loan http://www.epaycash.com

Posted by: Payday Loan at December 16, 2004 11:51 AM