Scrapbookpages Blog

April 12, 2018

The “actual number” of Jews killed in the Holocaust is around 6 million

Filed under: Auschwitz, Holocaust — furtherglory @ 9:52 am

Yes, it is true. The “actual number” of Jews killed in the Holocaust is around 6 million, according to this news article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/12/us/holocaust-education.html

The following quote is from the news article:

Begin quote

For seven decades, “never forget” has been a rallying cry of the Holocaust remembrance movement.

But a survey released Thursday, on Holocaust Remembrance Day, found that many adults lack basic knowledge of what happened — and this lack of knowledge is more pronounced among millennials, whom the survey defined as people ages 18 to 34.

Thirty-one percent of Americans, and 41 percent of millennials, believe that two million or fewer Jews were killed in the Holocaust; the actual number is around six million. Forty-one percent of Americans, and 66 percent of millennials, cannot say what Auschwitz was. Only 39 percent of Americans know that Hitler was democratically elected.

“As we get farther away from the actual events, 70-plus years now, it becomes less forefront of what people are talking about or thinking about or discussing or learning,” said Matthew Bronfman, a board member of the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany

End quote

You can read all about Auschwitz on my kosher website at http://www.scrapbookpages.com/AuschwitzScrapbook/Tour/Auschwitz1/Auschwitz02.html

15 Comments »

  1. Awhile back,somewhere here on your site,the number 1.8 mill popped. Told you. These figures need to be traded on the CME like a commodity. People could make a fortune if they follow this shit close enough. They trade the weather as a commodity. Why not number of dead Jews as a commodity

    Comment by Tim — April 16, 2018 @ 3:40 pm

  2. A bogus survey shows: “Forty-one percent of Americans, and 66 percent of millennials, cannot say what Auschwitz was.”

    Complete BS only intended to legitimize a coming enhancement of state-sponsored Zionist indoctrination through Holohoax atrocity propaganda in America. Very expensive social engineering. But also a very lucrative and politically profitable scam…

    Comment by hermie — April 13, 2018 @ 7:14 am

  3. Hitler was never “democratically elected” to anything. As leader of the NSDAP which was the largest elected party in the Reichstag in 1933 (37.4%), he was appointed Reich Chancellor by President Hindenburg. Not too long after that the Reichstag fire occurred, parties were essentially abolished and Hitler ruled as dictator. So much for Hitlers being “democratically elected”. 😀

    Comment by blake121666 — April 12, 2018 @ 6:30 pm

    • Blake wrote: ” As leader of the NSDAP which was the largest elected party in the Reichstag in 1933 (37.4%), he was appointed Reich Chancellor by President Hindenburg.”

      That’s how politicians are/were democratically elected in parliamentary democracies such as that running Germany in the 1920’s and early 1930’s. Bipartisan election is only one sort of electoral investiture among a variety of others. Angela Merkel became Germany’s chancellor again in September 2017 after being elected by “only” 32.9% of German voters.

      The morons saying that “Hitler was not democratically elected because he didn’t gather more than 50% of German voters in 1933,” just show their own crass ignorance…

      Comment by hermie — April 13, 2018 @ 6:36 am

      • I didn’t say that. I said he was appointed by Hindenburg because his party was in the plurality. To say a particular person was “democratically elected” misleads one to think that person was specifically voted for and elected. Such was not the case with Hitler.

        I suppose the whole point of saying that Hitler was “democratically elected” is to say that Germany elected to dismantle democracy. That was, more or less, the case. They voted out democracy for a Führerprinzip.

        Comment by blake121666 — April 14, 2018 @ 12:52 pm

        • Blake wrote: “I didn’t say that. I said he was appointed by Hindenburg because his party was in the plurality. To say a particular person was “democratically elected” misleads one to think that person was specifically voted for and elected. Such was not the case with Hitler.”

          All the German political parties were in the plurality at that time.

          And you’ll hardly find a single political party that was/is more embodied by, and more tightly linked to, its leader as Hitler and the NSDAP were. You’re talking in bad faith. Hard to claim that a German voter had anyone else but Hitler in his/her mind when he/she voted for the NSDAP in the early 1930’s.

          Blake wrote: “I suppose the whole point of saying that Hitler was “democratically elected” is to say that Germany elected to dismantle democracy. That was, more or less, the case. They voted out democracy for a Führerprinzip.”

          True. Democracy was, and still is, so un-German that it can be said the Germans opted for the right choice when they did that. The ludicrous governance system called democracy had sufficiently demonstrated its obvious inefficiency, great instability ( around 30 successive federal governments in 15 years if memory serves me right) and complete inability to deal with Germany’s catastrophic situation during the previous 15 years to make the political choice of many Germans at that time 100% understandable and logical. There is a good reason for democracy to be Jewry’s favorite tool for the control and subjugation of the Gentile masses. The average Goy is so easily “molded” and duped after all…

          Comment by hermie — April 15, 2018 @ 7:35 am

          • By “plurality” I meant the largest party. Only one party can be the plurality at any one time. The NSDAP overtook the communist parties.

            Germans did opt for the right choice if they wanted to go down in flames of defeat to their enemies fighting – with the very real possibility of complete annihilation as the ultimate outcome. Such is what they chose. Any country can choose likewise if it so wishes.

            Mexico could announce its contempt for the inferior races around it and look for lebensraum from military (or other) conquest. If and when it does, we’d probably bomb it to smithereens as well. Such was Germany’s position. 😉

            Comment by blake121666 — April 15, 2018 @ 2:46 pm

            • Blake wrote: “Germans did opt for the right choice if they wanted to go down in flames of defeat to their enemies fighting – with the very real possibility of complete annihilation as the ultimate outcome. Such is what they chose. Any country can choose likewise if it so wishes.”

              And the Syrians shouldn’t have opted for Bashar Al-Assad (now better known as “Animal Assad”) if they didn’t want to go down in flames of defeat to the Oded Yinon Plan, should they?

              And Saddam shouldn’t have opted for Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction if he didn’t want to be marched to a gallow and see the demolition of his country by the Forces of Good and Liberty, should he?

              Victors’ pretexts and lies are magic, aren’t they?!?

              Even war-loving Germanophobes such as Winston Churchill openly admitted that the infamous Versailles Treaty needed to be revised. The choice to meet such a revision with war was the choice of Jewry and its main puppet states, not the choice of Hitler and the German people as the victors’ narrative (aka mainstream history) asserts.

              Blake wrote: “Mexico could announce its contempt for the inferior races around it and look for lebensraum from military (or other) conquest.”

              Sure contempt for the inferior races was unknown among the White Lords of the British Empire and the privileged progeny of the American planters. I wonder why the US negroes were still fighting to be treated as humans in egalitarian America 2 decades after the end of WW2.

              And for info, the German-Polish war of 1939 didn’t break out for Lebensraum as state-sponsored storytellers (aka academic historians) and their parrots often assert. Hitler rather tried for years to find a peaceful way out of the German-Polish differences. But FDR gave the military junta then heading Poland (the Polish “Colonels’ regime”) a secret blank check for more living space at the expense of Germany, what of course abruptly stopped any negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the German-Polish differences.

              Blake wrote: ” If and when it does, we’d probably bomb it to smithereens as well.”

              No doubt your home propagandists would provide such a story to you if the obliteration of Mexico was decided by some US leaders for a reason or another. They have vastly demonstrated their great talents in this field on many occasions in the past.

              “He who wants his dog killed has only to say he’s mad.” – Principle number one of Allied propagandists

              Blake wrote: ” Such was Germany’s position.”

              Such is the childish story fabricated and told by the victors of 1945 to legitimize the enormous destruction of WW2 and their redrawing of the postwar maps.

              Comment by hermie — April 15, 2018 @ 6:54 pm

              • I think you probably misunderstand my opinion and my posts. I believe that Germany did indeed have enemies. Germany did indeed find itself in very difficult positions. Germany’s leaders before the rise of the Third Reich did indeed do terrible damage to Germans (killing the middle class with its self-inflicted hyper-inflation for one thing). German patriots could rightly take the positions that were taken. The consequences just so happened to have been such that they were.

                Hitler and his party undoubtedly prepared his country for war. They quite intended to eventually get their lebensraum. Don’t kid yourself on these points. Only an idiot would NOT act like he wished for peace from the powers in the world who threatened his plans. Germany’s enemies took a hard-line to the formerly vanquished Germany of WWI – resulting in WWII. And probably later than they had wished – given how tough a nut Germany turned out to be to crack. But don;t kid yourself that the Germans were some peace-loving hippies who just so happened to have been quite massively building up their war machine when the REAL bad guys (Germany’s enemies) caused trouble for no reason whatever. Germany played a risky game and lost. They were manly enough about it though. And I quite genuinely mean it when I say that they, or anyone, can choose a route that risks being suicidal.

                The whole peace-loving Hitler crap is utter bullshit. Just as much as they were not wimpy pushovers, neither were their enemies. You kid yourself with this peaceful Germany being picked on by bad guys delusion. The whole effing world is made up of bad guys FYI.

                Comment by blake121666 — April 15, 2018 @ 7:50 pm

                • Blake wrote: “Hitler and his party undoubtedly prepared his country for war.”

                  Preparing your country for a potential war and wanting a war are 2 distinct things. As any responsible leader would do, Hitler rearmed his country in order to make it able to resist a joint a aggression of the surrounding countries. He first requested that the European powers disarm themselves as they had promised to do in the Versailles Treaty. According to the Versailles Treaty, the German disarmament was supposed to be the first step of a general disarmament. But the hypocritical [but obvious] refusal of the other powers to fulfill their commitment several years after the German disarmament had been completed, left Hitler with only 2 options: 1) rely on luck and just hope that no surrounding power would attack his disarmed country in the future, or 2) to make his country able to resist a military threat from a coalition of hostile countries through a sensible rearmament.

                  Blake wrote: “They quite intended to eventually get their lebensraum.”

                  The Lebensraum thing is a gross distortion. Writing in 1924 that Germany was about to easily get some territories from the dislocation of the Soviet Union (because the Soviet Union was in the hands of Jewish Bolsheviks and [according to Mein Kampf] “the Jew is no element of organization but a ferment of decomposition”) and getting involved 15 years later in a war you tried to prevent from breaking out, are 2 distinct things. And the former doesn’t prove the latter as the advocates of the Soviet-Allied narrative claim. Hitler was, of course, aware in 1939 that the Soviet Union was not on the verge of dislocation. And interpreting his choices and activities in 1939 and the following years in the light of his 1924 expectations for the Soviet Union, is a big deception. The state-sponsored storytellers (aka academic historians) who quote Mein Kampf in order to “prove” their Lebensraum theory, unsurprising always “omit” to quote more recent statement such as the one below.

                  “My Deputies, Men of the First Greater German Reichstag. As I conclude my explanations today, the years of struggle and fulfillment lying behind us now pass once more before my mind’s eyes. To many these meant the sense and purpose of their entire existence. We know that greater things cannot be granted to our Volk and our lives. Without shedding a drop of blood we succeeded in raising up this Great Reich of the German Volk. It was nearly two thousand years before the scattered Germanic tribes emerged as one people, before the countless lands and states forged one Reich. We may now consider this process of the formation of the German nation as having reached its conclusion. The creation of the Greater German Reich represents the culmination of our Volk’s thousand-year struggle for existence. […] Let’s thank the Lord Almighty for bestowing on our generation the great blessing to be alive at this time and this hour!” – Adolf Hitler, January 1939.

                  Blake wrote: ” Only an idiot would NOT act like he wished for peace from the powers in the world who threatened his plans.”

                  And only an idiotic democratic leader would not act like he wished for peace from everybody in the world when he’s in fact conspiring and planning a war of aggression. Such a guy would be kicked out of office by the mob without delay if he failed to do that. But we nevertheless know that democratic leaders often plan and start wars they allegedly never wanted. They’ve been doing this on many occasions in recent [and less recent] decades. You’re entitled to believe in their words of peace and to disbelieve in Hitler’s ones. But such a choice is purely ideological and political, not factual. The huge gap between the words of peace and the actions of war of numerous democratic leaders was fully demonstrated many times, even if those leaders rather blamed their bellicose actions on some information blunders and similar things afterwards for obvious reasons.

                  Blake wrote: “You kid yourself with this peaceful Germany being picked on by bad guys delusion.”

                  Fortunately, I’m a French-speaking guy. So I’m able to read the diplomatic messages of late August and early September 1939 between the French ambassador to London and the French government in Paris. And those messages unambiguously show that the leaders of British foreign policy at that time wanted both to have a war against Germany AND look like if they wanted peace. From August 29 to September 2, 1939, Mussolini offered an armistice and a peace conference. Germany said “yes,” but Britain said “impossible; no peace conference until Germany has withdrawn all her troops form Polish territory.” The British leaders who did that, knew that their offer was intolerable and that it would make Mussolini’s conciliation attempt fail. That’s indeed what happened and the warmongering side in Britain got its war.

                  YOU are the one kidding yourself with this “peaceful Britain and America” delusion. As the events have demonstrated on so many occasions, the isolationist side is systematically defeated in England and America. Its only purpose is to preserve the multi-debunked “Western democracies’ love for peace” delusion. Nothing but comforting self-revering BS for the democratic mobs and a deceptive smoke screen for more democratic wars…

                  Comment by hermie — April 16, 2018 @ 4:36 am

      • And the plurality was weak – being only 37.4%. Moron.

        Comment by blake121666 — April 14, 2018 @ 12:55 pm

        • No surprise. Plurality is division and so weakness. Idiot.

          Comment by hermie — April 15, 2018 @ 7:37 am

  4. Jurgen Graf gives some facts and figures….

    JR

    Comment by Jim Rizoli — April 12, 2018 @ 9:54 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: