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

From what I remember Johnson knew that Romania was a sovereign ally. I will try to get the book back from another apartment and will post something as soon as I do.

p.s. I reported a post on this thread.

Hi Imp,

Our opinions on this question are not equally valid, so it is not simply a matter of your opinion and mine differing with equal validity and splitting the difference down the middle. You are simply wrong on arguably the single most sensitive matter in modern Romanian history. This is too important to let slide.

You made two propositions, neither of which is correct. Romanians did not exterminate 90% of their Jews and you have produced no Western authors who say that they did.

The second error is particularly serious because you are passing off your own mistake as that of a body of scholarship in the West that says that the Romanians did exterminate 90% of their Jews. There is no such body of opinion in the West and you have produced not a shred of evidence that there is.

This being so, the only honourable course is to withdraw both the propositions.

I can see how you arrived through erroneous inference at your mistaken opinion, but the fact remains that the error is yours, not that of some Western authors. We all make such errors from time time, so that of itself is no big issue. What is not so easily overlooked is your repeated denial of not just the facts but your own evidence in a matter of fundamental historical importance.

There is simply no body of Western authors who claim that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews. None.

Cheers,

Sid.

"I have seldom seen such a truly astounding display of pig headed stupidity."

take care

This post has been edited by Imperialist on November 12, 2006 10:04 pm

Hi Guys,

As a footnote to this thread I would point out that Romania's record with its Jews was mixed. Quite apart from the awful events in Transnistria, for which Romania was responsible, within its pre-1918 borders Romania also preserved the largest community of Jews in Axis Europe to survive largely intact.

This second, more redeeming point would have been completely lost had the mistaken proposition that some Western authors claimed that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews gone unchallenged. That is why I have made such a big issue out of this.

This issue is now, I hope, ressolved. No Western authors claim that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews.

Cheers,

Sid.

Ressolved? How? By repeating over and over and over and over and over again your opinion?
Interesting way to "resolve" a discussion. Sounds more like the way an issue is "resolved" in a mental institution.
Like I already said, I understand your opinion, I disagree with it and I put forward mine. What I dont understand is your pig headed stupidity in saying the issue is resolved on your terms.

Hi Imp,

Yes, resolved.

If you had ever brought a shred of evidence to support your proposition, then we might have a genuine disputation here. But you didn't and we haven't.

If you actually do come across a Western author who claims that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews then we might, indeed, have to reopen this subject.

But until then this is resolved through lack of any evidence to support your proposition.

There are simply no Western authors who claim that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews, as you wrongly claim. If you knew of any you would have brought it up by now.

This is a history forum, not a fantasy forum. Let's try to keep it that way. OK?

Cheers,

Sid.

Yes, that's your opinion. I dont understand why you want to make this opinion of yours the final and absolute judgement of the thread. The facts are clear:

1. Johnson claims 750,000 jews were killed in Romania.
2. He inserts this statement in a descriptive quote that lists the number of jews killed in each country/territory and blames Hitler for this Holocaust.
3. Romania was sovereign, allied, member of the Axis, unoccupied.
4. The regime of the time is officially blamed for the Holocaust in Romania.
5. By saying 750,000 jews were killed in Romania, Johnson makes a clear statement on the jewish victims of the Holocaust in Romania.
6. Denying the blame of the romanian regime at the time and putting it on Hitler's shoulders is considered denial of the Holocaust.

As long as you ignore these facts, dont want to make logical connections between them and dishonestly deny the implications of Johnson's statement, you are not in the position to declare the issue "resolved" just because you are very good at repeating over and over again your opinion on it.

There are two explanations for your stubborness in not admitting the logical implications of his statement: either you deny the Holocaust in Romania by denying the role of the regime in it, either you accuse Johnson of doing it, there is no other way to interpret your stubborness in saying Hitler is the perpetrator of the Holocaust in Romania and one cannot connect the dots between J's figure and Romania's blame. So which is it?

p.s. your stubborness is even more astonishing since we already agreed J's figure is inflated and most likely wrong, so why are you holding back from admitting the obvious conclusions from J's quote? Admitting them is no harm for Romania or historical accuracy, since the figures are wrong. So? My impression is that you make an ego issue out of it and dont want to cede anything. Making an unrivaled show of intellectual dishonesty, trying to block others from drawing logical implications of a historian's statements.

take care

Hi Imp,

Your concluson based on Johnson is YOUR interpretation. It is not what YOU quoted him as saying. Yes, you "joined the dots", but you joined them wrongly!

The only "clear statement" Johnson appears to make in YOUR quote is that Hitler was responsible for 750,000 Jewish deaths in Romania and in this he is demonstrably wrong on two counts.

Until you actually bring forward a Western author who actually does say that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews, there is no case to answer.

Yes, I can see where you made your mistake, but it remains both a mistake and YOURS!

This matter is therefore resolved, if only because you appear never to have had a case in the first place!

Cheers,

Sid.

P.S. It may well be illegal to deny the Romanian role in the so-called Holocaust. Fortunately this I have not done.

But what about those who exaggerate and misrepresent the Romanian role in the so-called Holocaust, as you have done? I suppose that is OK in your mind because it isn't actually illegal? Sorry, but a lie is a lie, whether it is illegal or not.

This post has been edited by sid guttridge on November 16, 2006 03:15 pm

I see, so what interpretation would you give to his statement, having in mind the 6 facts I listed? I know. NO interpretation. Because what you want to do is ignore the implications of his claim, focus on the way he blames Hitler for the general Holocaust and avoid thinking, using only eye-sight no "brain-sight". What you want is intellectually dishonest and I dont understand why you hang on to it. But I accepted it as your opinion, and agreed to disagree. However, you were not satisfied with an agreement to disagree, you wanted to "resolve" the issue on your terms, ignoring my and repeating over and over again yours in final judgement form. No, the issue is not resolved.

Johnson exaggerates (750,000) and misrepresents the Holocaust in Romania (blaming Hitler for it). Not me.

take care

Hi Imp,

Why interpret? Johnson makes a bald statement that is demonstrably wrong. He says, according to you, Hitler was responsible for the deaths of 750,000 Jews in Romania. This is simply wrong. There is nothing more that needs to be said.

Why then, do YOU unilaterally decide that he states that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews?

Johnson doesn't say that, even according to your own quote. Nor has any other source said that.

This entire thing is your invention.

There is no debate here, because there is nothing of substance to debate. You simply have no case and no evidence.

You can lie, bluster, bluff, squirm, twist and turn all you want, but the fact is you have tried to perpetuate a slander against Romanian history and blamed it on others. It is a deeply gutless, dishonest performance and I shall be happy to go on point this out to you as long as is necessary.

The Romanians did not exterminate 90% of their Jews and no Western authors say that they did. Only you do.

Cheers,

Sid.

Maybe with evil intention, maybe from less professionalism, some authors count the Jewish population from Romania before this country had to abandon a half of Transylvania to Hungary, then count the Jews rounded by the Hungarian government of June 1944 for the German death camps, and consider these Jews as the responsibility of the Romanian government.

Hi Florin,

I think you need not worry about evil intention. Romanian history is the concern of few in the West and most of those are detached academics.

However, you are right, there is sloppiness in some Western sources because they do exactly what you suggest: they simply calculate the number of Romanian Jews based on estimates drawn from the early 1930s Romanian census and compare them with the number of Jews surviving in 1945 and assume that the shortfall is entirely the responsibility of the Romanian Government, without taking into account that Northern Transylvania, from where at least 100,000 Jews died, was not under Romanian jurisdiction at the time.

However, that is a different issue from this one.

Imperialist claimed two things:

1) That Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews. This is a great exaggeration and he now admits this.

2) That Western authors (plural) say that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews. In fact none do, but he will not admit this, even though his one source (single) contradicts him by specifically blaming Hitler and his other quoted source gives much lower figures that he chooses to ignore.

This is particularly serious because Imperialist is passing off his own mistake as that of a significant body of Western authors. This gives the proposition much more credibility than Imperialist's mistaken opinion on its own. It leads to the "no smoke without fire syndrome", when there is, in fact, no fire. It leads to posts on the internet saying "I seem to remember seeing somewhere on a Romanian historical website that Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews......", which, through Chinese whispers becomes "Romanians exterminated 90% of their Jews!". It leads to this forum being devalued as a source of accurate historical information on Romania. Even the heading of this thread with the sub-title "......according to some sources" gives this falsehood credibility, when there are no such sources. And it leaves an exaggerated smear on Romanian national reputation.

It also leads to posts like yours trying to find a rational middle way between right and wrong. On this occasion there is no middle way. Romanians did not exterminate 90% of their Jews and no Western authors claim that they did. Imperialist is simply wrong on both counts.

What you are witnessing is the process whereby a fiction in the real world becomes an alternative internet "fact". It extends the range of discussion of Jewish deaths in Romanian hands from a reasonable range of "up to 43%" to a completely unreasonable range of "up to 90%", despite the fact that nobody except Imperialist makes this claim and his claim is based on two sources that state complely different and contradictory things!

No right thinking rational person wants that.

Imperialist invented this whole damaging fiction but his ego is more important to him than correcting fictions that falsify the historical record and that reflect unjustifiably badly on Romania's national reputation.

There is no middle way on this. Sloppy as some Western authors are, none claim that Romania exterminated 90% of its Jews, as Imperialist claims. What was initially a mistake on his part has now become a blatant lie. He should put it right.

Cheers,

Sid.

I think you confuse me, I did not bluff, squirm, twist or turn. I clearly and openly put out the facts:

1. Johnson claims 750,000 jews were killed in Romania.
2. He inserts this statement in a descriptive quote that lists the number of jews killed in each country/territory and blames Hitler for this Holocaust.
3. Romania was sovereign, allied, member of the Axis, unoccupied.
4. The regime of the time is officially blamed for the Holocaust in Romania.
5. By saying 750,000 jews were killed in Romania, Johnson makes a clear statement on the jewish victims of the Holocaust in Romania.
6. Denying the blame of the romanian regime at the time and putting it on Hitler's shoulders is considered denial of the Holocaust.

Now do you want me to post these facts over and over and over again in your mental-institution style or do you agree to disagree with me and respect my point of view, without your egotistical efforts to impose yours?

I see you continue to attack me and not these facts. I already reported your "pig headed" insult to the forum administrators 1 week ago. They ignored my report, so I guess it's ok for you to insult me.

It's not my problem if you dont want to use your brain in understanding the implications of a statement. I already accepted your attitude in denying the intellectual function of the brain and embracing solely the function of the eyes. I said I disagree with it. Your continued insults and attacks on me and the cowardice of the moderators in restraining your attitude is not acceptable to me, so tone it down already, take your medication.

Let me ask you this:

Johnson claims Hitler exterminated 750,000 jews in Romania. What percentage of the jewish population would that be?

From what I know, "pigheaded" means something like "unnecessary stubborness". This is not an insult, especially since you really are stubborn beyond reason. It is not the first time you displayed your stuborness and probably not the last one. From my point of view, all this is senseless, since you will not bow to reason if it will mean admitting you were wrong. You will twist the situation and words to fit your needs.

Under these circumstances, talking about "facts" is superfluous, especially since they are only your interpretations, not actual facts. P. Johnson does not write that Romanians killed 750,000 Jews. Ofcourse you will bring forth the "brain-sight" argument, but since you haven't actually read the book, how can you know what Johnson insinuated or if he even insinuated anything at all?

I have become increasingly busy lately and my time on the forum is limited. Consequently, there will probably be some changes soon.