90% of Romanian Jews killed during WW2?, according to some sources

Are there 2 different persons using your account here or did you have a hard week-end and forgot everything posted here? No offence but I am baffled as to why you start this all over again!

I already addressed the number 2) issue in several posts of mine on this thread. You ignored them. Went on repeating again and again your idea, then said I agree with the point and the "thread run its course" when I did no such thing. Now you start all over again adding that I presented nothing in support of my claim, when in fact I did bring arguments in the posts you chose to ignore. You act trollish....

How many posts do you want us to make chasing our tails? Is this about the number of posts, you want to post a lot? If you want to add something, address the posts where I bring arguments for number 2). Review the thread.

take care,

a mystified Imperialist

Hi imp,

If concocting convoluted pseudo-justifications as a smoke screen count, then yes, you have addressed these questions.

The problem is that you haven't actually answered them.

So let's try again, one at a time:

My impression is that you now accept that Romanians did not exterminate 90% of their Jewsh population and that this is a much exaggerated statistic.

Is my impression correct?

Cheers,

Sid.

Hi Moderators,

Might I suggest that the subtitle of this thread ".....according to some sources" be altered.

It is apparent that there are no such sources.

A question mark (?) might be added.

Or the text might be changed to "according to no sources".

Or the title as a whole might be changed to "Did Romanians really exterminate 90% of their Jews according to some Western sources?"

Cheers,

Sid.

You call my arguments "convoluted pseudo-justifications". Since when is this a counter-argument? This is an insult, and I expect the moderators to give you a warning.

Says you. You still havent brought any logical counter-arguments to what I've said, you only kept saying Johnson doesnt literarly say "the Romanians killed...". That is obvious for any one that can read, my point was that for any logical person that knows the historical context (Antonescu, Romania sovereign ally and axis member etc.) and the contemporary one (Romania blamed for active participation in the Holocaust), saying 750,000 jews were killed IN Romania means putting that number on romanian's account. And you have no way to argue with this since it's pretty obvious. But you want to play games and you're not satisfied with us meeting half way through this issue (no 90% killed, Johnson wrong admitted by me), you want the 100% "game set and match".

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 08, 2006 11:38 pm

Hi Imp,

Very true. Johnson didn't literally say the Romanians did it. How do we know? Because he literally said Hitler did it. Now unless Hitler was a Romanian, this means that Johnson offered no opinion on Romanian guilt at all, let alone 90%.

Why, if you are demonstrably wrong on both the original statistic and the supposed Western sources, should I meet you half way? You were 100% wrong. Not 50% wrong.

Anyone reading your propostion would initially have thought that (1) Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews, (which we now agree was a considerable exaggeration), and (2) that a body of Western authors believe the 90% figure to be true. This second is completely untrue. I know of no Western author who says this and you have produced nobody who says so either.

What I don't understand is why, if you agree that the 90% figure is a considerable exaggeration, you seem to want it to live on in the public mind associated with mythical Western authors?

Cheers,

Sid.

I see, so you blame the Holocaust in Romania on Hitler?! And romanians have no guilt?
Interesting claims. Maybe you are unaware you are officially denying the Holocaust in Romania:

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...indpost&p=55911

I demand you to be banned because you're falsifying the historical record.

Stop morphing your opinions and arguments into established well known demonstrated facts. You havent demonstrated me being wrong on the second issue.

In fact you are wrong on the second issue. And that is demonstrably undeniably absolutely true, to use the Sid tactic of intimidating others with big words.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 09, 2006 12:17 am

Hi Imp,

Nope. I didn't say any of that or imply any of that. You are now doing with my posts exactly what you did with your own quote from Johnston. Inventing things that simply aren't there. This is deeply dishonest.

Your wrong proposition that there are ""estern authors" who state that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jewish population is much more damaging than simply you stating this incorrectly as fact. It implies that there is a considerable body of opinion of far more authority than you yourself that actually believes that Romanians did exterminate 90% of their Jewish population. It is simply not true.

You musty stop putting your personal ego ahead of wider historical truth. Because you are too weak to admit your error, you are prepared to saddle the Romanians with an accusation that is simply untrue. Worse than that, as the truth has been pointed out to you repeatedly and you still persist in denying it, you are now engaged in an outright lie.

Please lift this slur on Romanian history and Western scholarship.

Cheers,

Sid.

You did say:

You continue to avoid admitting the implications of Johnson's claim that 750,000 jews were exterminated in Romania. You first hanged on to the fact that he blames Hitler. It was intellectually dishonest for you to do so. You only needlessly prolongued the discussion.
Faced with the historical context of the time and the fact that blaming Hitler for the general Holocaust does not erase Romania's guilt for the Holocaust, you backed down.
Now you claim Johnson doesnt offer an opinion on Romanian guilt at all!!! By saying 750,000 jews were exterminated in Romania, he does blame Romania, and it is obvious for any person that knows something about that historical period and is able to draw logical implications from a statement. Again, it is intellectually dishonest for you to do this, and given these 2 cases I have no intention to be lectured by you.

take care

Hi Imp,

I have changed on nothing. I contradicted you on two points at the start and I still do:

1) The Romanians did not exterminate 90% of their Jewish population. This is correct and you now admit this.

2) Neither of the two Western authors you quoted contend that they did. One blames someone else and the other gives different figures which you chose to ignore. Again I am right but on this you still argue, regardless of the fact that you can offer not a single example, your own sources contradict you and it is damaging both to Romania's national reputation and the reputation of honest history.

What you are asking everyone to believe is that their eyesight is wrong and that when they read your Johnston quote as saying "Hitler" did something we should actually see the word "Romanians" in its place. Johnston was both wrong and did not write what you claim. It is there in black and white. According to you, he wrote "Hitler", not "Romanians".

I have seldom seen such a truly astounding display of pig headed stupidity and outright dishonesty in my life!

Cheers,

Sid.

Do you have a brain or only eye-sight? I never said Johnson didnt write Hitler, but I did say it is a quote in which he obvioulsy assigns the blame for the whole Holocaust to Hitler, listing the numbers of all exterminated jews by territory. I also said Romania was a sovereign country, not an occupied territory, and it is officially blamed for the Holocaust IN IT. Hence, for any intellectually honest person, by saying 750,000 jews were killed IN Romania Johnson puts the blame, even if indirectly in this quote, on the Romanian regime. 750,000 means at least 90% of the jewish population IN Romania.

"Pig headed stupidity"? This is a second insult, after ""convoluted pseudo-justifications". Is this the way you know to debate an issue? Are these your arguments? I hope the moderators will take some measure with you at least this time.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 10, 2006 11:07 am

Hi Imp,

Progress, I think.

So, I take it from your last post that you agree that there are no "Western authors" who contend that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews. That is only your interpretation of what one of them wrote incorrectly?

Cheers,

Sid.

Stop talking with me. I'm pig headed, remember. Go talk with someone that would put up with your BS.

Hi Imp,

This is not about you. It is about something rather more important. Accuracy.

It is about a mistaken impression you have been perpetuating that there are some Western authors who contend that Romanians killed 90% of their Jews. There aren't and they didn't.

Cheers,

Sid.

I already understood this opinion of yours and I disagree with it. I already presented my reasons, over and over again. I understand you disagree with them. Fine, we agree to disagree. Now if this isnt about me and your ego you should leave the issue be, and allow others to make their own minds. We obviously will not convince eachother. Besides, I really think you went over the board with your insults.

take care

You base your argument on the fact since Romania was not an occupied country during WW2, P. Johnson implies indirectly that Romnians are responsible for the killing of 750,000 Jews, which in the quoted paragraph he says were killed by Hitler.

It may come as a surprise to you, but the fact that Romania was not an occupied country (like Poland, the Czech Republic, Belgium, France etc.) is not basic knowledge. P. Johnson wrote a book on the general history of the world in the 20th century, not on the Holocaust or even on WW2. If we are to infer based on that paragraph, we could easily come to the conclusion that he didn't really have any idea on the status of the countries he listed in relation with the Third Reich.

It really depends on the conclusion you want to draw. Thus, before one goes as far as to pin indirect insinuations on him or lack of knowledge regarding this part of Europe during WW2, one would better read his book and then decide which one is it.

My advice is to concentrate on more serious authors, who have studied this particular subject, not general history books.