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

Hi Imp,

No problem.

YES, Johnson, according to you, does say that 750,000 Jews were killed in Romania. However, as I have pointed out several times before,

1) Johnson is demonstrably wrong

and

2) Johnson, according to you, says that Hitler did it, not that the Romanians did it, which was your original claim in blaming Johnson for your error.

You therefore cannot use Johnson in defence of your ridiculous 90% figure for those two reasons. He was wrong and didn't state what you originally claimed he stated. You drew false inferences of your own from a demonstrably flawed source. The fault is 100% yours.

YES, the Antonescu regime does carry the blame for the great majority of Jews that died in Romania (Einsatzgruppe D being responsible for the rest). Has anyone here claimed otherwise? No! However,

3) The Antonescu regime most definitely did NOT exterminate 90% of the country's Jewish population. No source, Western or otherwise, claims that. ONLY YOU!

You deliberately, for reasons I cannot understand, chose to put almost the worst possible spin on Jewish deaths in Romanian hands despite having much lower and more accurate figures available from Carp. This was YOUR choice. Nobody else's.

But what makes your selection of the ridiculous 90% figure even more poisonous is that even after I gave you a source of the sort you earlier asked for that gives more accurate figures, you have again chosen to ignore it completely.

That being so, I can only assume that you are on some sort of slanderous personal campaign against Romanians in which the facts are of no importance. Why?

If you do not come clean soon about your culpable error I am going to ask for you to be banned for falsifying the historical record. This reality-defying performance of yours is possibly the most despicable I have yet enountered on the internet.

Cheers,

Sid.

This post has been edited by sid guttridge on November 03, 2006 05:48 pm

Finally you admit the obvious! And what is that figure out of the whole jewish population in Romania, in percentages?

Why do you hang to this. The quote clearly doesnt go into details of blame by country, but lists the jewish deaths by country and assigns the general blame for the Holocaust to Hitler. It's obvious. That doesnt stop us from connecting the dots. You know, the obvious dots - 750,000 in Romania - Antonescu regime - sovereign ally etc.

About Einsatz D, it had a free hand to operate because Antonescu was Hitler's ally. It operated with Antonescu's knowledge and consent.

http://www.magazinistoric.itcnet.ro/?modul...=22&format=html

Johnson doesnt claim 90%. But it isnt hard to compare his 750,000 figure with the jewish population in Romania, IS IT? He could be wrong, he most definitely exaggerates, but he wrote that in his book. And lead me to use the 90% figure. Now you attack me and try to clean Johnson. Because you have an agenda against me.

You assume a lot. You were the one who asked me what western authors lead me to post the 90% figure, I answered.

Indeed, that is the goal of your whole effort. Your personal experiences on the net are not my problem, tone down your aggressivenes. Since this whole thing started you took personal shots at me. Asking me to be banned for "falsifying the historical record" (get a grip man, the one who has falsified the record is Johnson, not me, I'm not falsifying anything, I'm merely talking with a hard-headed brit) is hilarious.

take care

Stubborness can be a virtue, when put to good use, but when one decides to continue in error when even one knows one is wrong, stubborness is a sign of something else.

Now to adress the issues raised by you.

First of all "some" means more than one. The only one that could have done that is Johnson.

Second, it is very important if he is right or wrong, because when you claim that he led you to believe this figure, then you must have thought he was right.

1. You yourself provided other statistics: Matatias Carp, the report of the Wiesel Commission and Dennis Deletant's article in Magazin Istoric, none of which support Johnson's numbers.

2. Johnson is indeed wrong, but you can't put the blame on him because you yourself came to a conclusion that does not belong to him. You had knowledge of other sources with other figures and which directly blamed the Romanian government, unlike Johnson. It was your choice. The natural thing would be to admit you were wrong, but that's probably never going to happen.

No, you are wrong. The facts are: Johnson says that Hitler killed 750,000 Jews in Romania and Carp says that Romanians were responsible for the death of 400,000 Jews (in Romania and the Ukraine). This is the kind of "falsifying the historical record" that Sid is reffering to. You simply cannot twist the sources to say something they do not say. Historical study is based on sources (written or archaelogical).

This subject is a very serious one, because so many people were killed either directly or put into conditions in which they could not survive, so it should be treated accordingly.

The issue has 2 aspects:

1) he puts out the 750,000 number. You and Sid argue he is wrong. Very well. But reading Johnson would one be lead to believe (more than) 90% of the jewish population was exterminated in Romania? YES. You still havent disputed the fact that Johnson's claim has that effect. I remind you the thread is "90% of Romanian Jews killed during WW2? According to some sources". Until now you attacked me for pointing out that this source claims just that.

2) your stubborness in admitting that sticking a number of jewish deaths to Romania in that historical context means, even if in the opinion of some indirectly, blaming the regime in Romania for them.

You not only want to blame me for pointing out Johnson's 750,000 claim, but you want to "take my head" for making this obvious connection between the number he sticks to Romania and the historical situation of the regime in Romania in relation to Germany plus the conclusion that it was guilty for the Holocaust in Romania. Sticking that number to a country blamed for actively taking part in the Holocaust means putting the blame on it, even if you point Hitler as the ultimate guilty party. As long as you dont want to admit this obvious conclusion, I continue to think this thread is more about taking shots at me than discussing this source.

If you want me to admit that the source was wrong I will do it (since I already had doubts from the thread where I first posted the contradictory Johnson-Carp figures), but only as long as you also stop pretending you dont understand the implications of claiming X number of jews were killed in Romania in WW2 and try to blame Hitler for it.

Hi Imp,

This is arguably the single most sensitive subject in Romanian history.

It is therefore absolutely vital that accurate facts be presented on it.

Furthermore, this is a Romanian historical web site, not a personal blog. It is absolutely essential to its credibility that it carries accurate information properly arrived at.

At the moment you are obstructing both the facts and the reputation of a good web site.

There come times when we must all put our ego aside in favour of greater truths.

For you this time has now come.

Please do what is right.

What is needed is clear and unequivocal public recognition by you that Romanians did not exterminate 90% of their Jewish population and that no source anywhere else claims this either.

Those are the facts. It is not as if you are being asked to lie.

Cheers,

Sid.

Maybe you should tell that to Johnson.

It is a forum. Where members post things. Information is debated, opinions are debated. You are too stressed out and uptight and this creates tension.

Like I said, this is a forum. I am not obstructing anything. Can you debate something without levying pompous accusations on persons you dont like?

Your over inflated ego has started all this, now you want to play the ego-less guy. What a joke.

Why are you so desperate for me to recognise this? Maybe so you can then demand my banning for what was it "falsifying the historical record"?

Yes, Romanians did not kill 90% of the jews. But a source does (wrongly) pin on Romania a number of jews killed that goes even beyond 90%!!! As long as you want this obvious fact to be ignored and you want me to forcibly admit no source does that, I can safely say your agenda has nothing to do with truth and everything to do with your ego and aversion towards me.

http://www.ushmm.org/research/center/prese.../chapter_13.pdf

Now you can understand why hanging on to arguing the 750,000 are attributable to Hitler and not to the Romanian regime at the time is untenable. By saying 750,000 jews were exterminated in Romania Johnson logically puts the blame on the Romanian regime at the time, though he doesnt do it in this quote where he uses the enumeration to amplify Hitler's general guilt for the Final Solution.

Reread this topic. That was my first post in it, thus I fail to see whow was possible to keep attacking you before.

It is irrelevant what John Doe might understand from reading this Johnson, but what you claim you understood. You had access to many more sources on the subject than just this Johnson. You are an intelligent person. One would presume you can use that intelligence and it is unbelievable for me that you would choose to ignore other sources in favor of what you inferred.

Historical works are not "indirect" or "suggestive", because they are not art. Thus, if the author does not state something directly, one should try to search "secret meanings".

Calm down. You think yourself much more important than you are and you start sounding a little paranoid. The topic was started because you made a preposterous claim and were asked to back it up. If you don't believe the claim you initially made, why on Earth would you make it in the first place and then act stubbornly about it? I fail to see any reason in such a behavior.

He made a statement - 750,000 jews killed in Romania. That statement has clear implications whether or not he followed those implication in the given quote. This is what I am stubborn about, that's all, because otherwise I admitted his number is exaggerated and most likely wrong. I hereby say my claim that 90% jews were killed in Romania is based on a wrong source.

Yes, and I backed it up showing how an author puts up that preposterous number. Was he wrong? You showed he is. I have no problem with that, and I reconsidered my statement. My problem is that Sid uses far too many personal shots and accusations in his posts and hence makes any decent debate heated and any admiting of error or wrong sources a personal deafeat, a fall in disgrace, a glitch in "the record". I also think his point that the number of jews Johnson places as exterminated in Romania is not attributable to the regime of the time but to Hitler is wrong. By doing this he wants to show not that the source I used is wrong, but that I was inept in understanding the implication of the source's claim.

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 04, 2006 02:51 pm

Hi Imp,

Good. We are half way there. We now seem agreed that 90% is a greatly exaggerated figure.

Now all we have to do is clear up the mistaken proposition that there are Western authors who claim this.

Why is this important? Because unless challenged, this inaccurate proposition might give the uninformed lay reader the idea that there is a body of opinion that holds that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jewish population and thereby give this mistaken figure some respectability. There is no such body of opinion.

Neither of your sources say this. Johnson blames Hitler, not Romanians, and Carp gives a much lower figure.

Do you know of any Western source that states that Romanians killed 90% of their Jewish population?

Cheers,

Sid.

Can you explain the purpose of you posting this AGAIN?! I have already posted several messages that clearly address this, and yet you post this on and on and on without bringing any arguments and ignoring my arguments. Do you want a monologue or a dialogue? Go ahead and talk by yourself, I really have nothing to add because 1) I already did it and 2) you would ignore it anyway.

May I suggest that all the energy expended by both Sid and Imp could have been diverted to better use if you had joined to disprove Johnson's statements and write to him in order to have him recant his erroneous claims? You both seem to disagree with the veracity of Johnson's statements.

Just a suggestion...

Hi mabadesc,

One can only deal with issues when and where one comes to them. I have never encountered Johnson's book and so am currently working on the assumption that Imp quotes him accurately. I would have to read the book first before contacting Johnson.

None of my time on this thread has been wasted. We have corrected two serious errors here which, if left unchallenged, might have given any number of previously uninformed lay readers a false impression as regards the proportion of Romanian Jews who died at Romanian hands and the opinion of Western authors on this subject.

The facts are that Romanians killed nothing like 90% of their Jewish population and no Western authors claim that they did.

Surely this is a message well worth establishing clearly?

As I think Imp now agrees that both these propositions are correct I think this thread has just about run its course.

Cheers,

Sid.

Not only do you AGAIN repeat that, but now you claim I agree with both propositions! I dont know why you play this game.

Hi Imp,

So, let us get this right, do you still believe the following or not:

1) Romanians killed 90% of their Jewish population,

and

2) Western authors propound this idea.

If you do believe the above, please present at least a little evidence to support these propositions. So far you have presented nothing in support but something in contradiction (Carp).

Cheers,

A mystified Sid