Only 95% of UK adults think the Holocaust occurred Watch

old_dude
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#61
Report 3 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by TheMcSame)
what makes those 6 million deaths more important than the other 43 million civilian deaths that occurred? While the events themselves may not be exaggerated, the importance of such events could be argued to be exaggerated.
Because they were specifically targeted and sent to death factories. There was an entire state apparatus exclusively focused on eradicating the Jews. You will not find another example of such advanced inhumanity in history.
0
reply
TheMcSame
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#62
Report 3 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by old_dude)
Because they were specifically targeted and sent to death factories. There was an entire state apparatus exclusively focused on eradicating the Jews. You will not find another example of such advanced inhumanity in history.
I have already argued this point.

The majority of people in concentration camps were NOT Jewish. 6M were Jewish (assuming all 6M Jews killed were sent to these camps), that leaves 9-14M more people that weren't Jewish.
Hitler was a Slavophobe and planned to exterminate the majority of Slavic people. Under the Generalplan Ost, a plan written by the Nazis in 1941, they planned to kill ~31M of 45M people of Slavonic heritage. The plan was partially put into effect, killing 9-11M Slavic people.
Poles were unwelcome in their own country while under German occupation.
49M civilians were killed, 6M were Jews. 43M were not.

But yeah, Jews were the only ones targeted, so let's forget about everyone else's meaningless deaths /s
0
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#63
Report 3 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by old_dude)
Because they were specifically targeted and sent to death factories. There was an entire state apparatus exclusively focused on eradicating the Jews. You will not find another example of such advanced inhumanity in history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

For reference.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#64
Report 3 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by Acsel)
The sample size is ridiculously small. 2000 people out of the UK's 66 million population is a mere 0.003% so I'd hardly consider it representative of the UK as a whole.
It is clear you have never studied statistics. For a population of 60 million, a sample size of under 1,850 is required to make sure the result is accurate to within a 3% error margin with a degree of certainty of 99%.

https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/

Of course, 5% is nothing to worry about, and likely to be accurate. More than that are of such low IQ that they are seen as mentally retarded. Far more people, as has been said, think Elvis is still alive, but none of them think he looks like an 83 year-old.
Last edited by Good bloke; 3 weeks ago
2
reply
old_dude
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#65
Report 3 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by TheMcSame)
I have already argued this point.

The majority of people in concentration camps were NOT Jewish. 6M were Jewish (assuming all 6M Jews killed were sent to these camps), that leaves 9-14M more people that weren't Jewish.
Hitler was a Slavophobe and planned to exterminate the majority of Slavic people. Under the Generalplan Ost, a plan written by the Nazis in 1941, they planned to kill ~31M of 45M people of Slavonic heritage. The plan was partially put into effect, killing 9-11M Slavic people.
Poles were unwelcome in their own country while under German occupation.
49M civilians were killed, 6M were Jews. 43M were not.

But yeah, Jews were the only ones targeted, so let's forget about everyone else's meaningless deaths /s
You're confusing extermination camps with concentration camps.

The Slavs were not supposed to be exterminated, only to be treated as slaves. For this reason, they were not sent to death camps like the Jews (where they were in majority). My point still stand.
0
reply
old_dude
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#66
Report 3 weeks ago
#66
How does it disprove my point?
0
reply
Eva.Gregoria
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#67
Report 3 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by Jebedee)
Maybe if the government didn't feel the need to criminalise dissenting opinion on the matter, that 5% would be lower.

The Holocaust is certainly not my area of expertise and I don't pretend to be informed. So from a neutral point of view, it's easy to see why someone would doubt the government enforced narrative.

You don't convince people with threats but with logic and evidence.
It’s not a crime to spread misinformation about the holocaust or to deny it happened, maybe in Germany but definitely not in the UK.

I think in any given population, about 5% of them are ignorant or choose to revel in their ignorance. Some people straight up REFUSE to learn or believe objective truths because we are now in an era of alternative facts. This trend will continue and will probably get worse.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
1
reply
Decahedron
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#68
Report 3 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by old_dude)
How does it disprove my point?
(Original post by old_dude)
You're confusing extermination camps with concentration camps.

The Slavs were not supposed to be exterminated, only to be treated as slaves. For this reason, they were not sent to death camps like the Jews (where they were in majority). My point still stand.
It was extermination, enslavement and deportation. Ethnic cleansing.

"In 1941 it was decided to destroy the Polish nation completely and the German leadership decided that in 15–20 years the Polish state under German occupation was to be fully cleared of any ethnic Poles and settled by German colonists."

That doesn't sound like enslavement to me, that sounds like extermination.
0
reply
old_dude
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#69
Report 3 weeks ago
#69
(Original post by Decahedron)
It was extermination, enslavement and deportation. Ethnic cleansing.

"In 1941 it was decided to destroy the Polish nation completely and the German leadership decided that in 15–20 years the Polish state under German occupation was to be fully cleared of any ethnic Poles and settled by German colonists."

That doesn't sound like enslavement to me, that sounds like extermination.
Difference is that GPO was never implemented fully. In effect, it resulted in the servitude of the Slavs, since the Nazis needed them for the war effort. The Jews were hunted and exterminated mercilessly; they could not escape their fate.
Of course, the Nazis' plans was to ultimately remove every non-Aryan from the Earth, but they never did that. Once again, the Holocaust is more talked about than the mass-killings of the Slavs because no other genocide has been more elaborated than the extermination of the Jews, while there are (many) other examples in history of mass-killing and ethnic cleansing. The Holocaust is unique.
0
reply
Jebedee
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report 3 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Eva.Gregoria)
It’s not a crime to spread misinformation about the holocaust or to deny it happened, maybe in Germany but definitely not in the UK.

I think in any given population, about 5% of them are ignorant or choose to revel in their ignorance. Some people straight up REFUSE to learn or believe objective truths because we are now in an era of alternative facts. This trend will continue and will probably get worse.
I don't see why it's a problem? We have freedom of religion which is just belief, so what's the difference?
0
reply
username4350740
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#71
Report 3 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Jebedee)
I don't see why it's a problem? We have freedom of religion which is just belief, so what's the difference?
Yes and how much harm did those beliefs cause? Religious beliefs have been responsible for untold harm over the generations.Even the holocaust actually.Afterall it was the Jews who crucified the messiah.

Holocaust denial is a problem because if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past then you are doomed to repeat it.Do you think it started with the gas chambers? It didnt.It starts with words and demonization of the "other".
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#72
Report 3 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by old_dude)
Difference is that GPO was never implemented fully. In effect, it resulted in the servitude of the Slavs, since the Nazis needed them for the war effort. The Jews were hunted and exterminated mercilessly; they could not escape their fate.
Of course, the Nazis' plans was to ultimately remove every non-Aryan from the Earth, but they never did that. Once again, the Holocaust is more talked about than the mass-killings of the Slavs because no other genocide has been more elaborated than the extermination of the Jews, while there are (many) other examples in history of mass-killing and ethnic cleansing. The Holocaust is unique.
the holocaust was never completed yet it resulted in many millions of deaths generalplan ost was never completed yet resulted in 11m+ deaths and this was not soldiers or the occasional civillian being shot this was a systematic plan, such as in the starvation plan where crops and grain were purpously denied to slavs or where slaves were forced to do manual labour untill they died, or shipped off to death/concentration camps exactly like the jews or even just shot on the side of the road. the holocaust is NOT unique
0
reply
AperfectBalance
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#73
Report 3 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Rs5644)
Yes and how much harm did those beliefs cause? Religious beliefs have been responsible for untold harm over the generations.Even the holocaust actually.Afterall it was the Jews who crucified the messiah.

Holocaust denial is a problem because if you don't learn from the mistakes of the past then you are doomed to repeat it.Do you think it started with the gas chambers? It didnt.It starts with words and demonization of the "other".
I think people fail to see that some bloke going "yeah I dont think it is real" is quiiiiiiite a big step from mass extermination, I dont agree with them but making it against the law is counterproductive
0
reply
Eva.Gregoria
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#74
Report 3 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Jebedee)
I don't see why it's a problem? We have freedom of religion which is just belief, so what's the difference?
We don’t learn history simply because of its fascinating nature, we learn it to make sure that the same mistakes don’t happen again. If a significant proportion of the population start denying that certain events even exist, this starts to become dangerous. I’m all for freedom of belief but if someone starts stating that the sky is polka dotted purple in the face of evidence saying otherwise, then that person will be regarded as an idiot, like others of similar intelligence.

Also it’s just plain moronic and disrespectful to the survivors and family members of survivors of the holocaust who must be tearing their hair out at the sheer idiocy.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 3 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Good bloke)
It is clear you have never studied statistics. For a population of 60 million, a sample size of under 1,850 is required to make sure the result is accurate to within a 3% error margin with a degree of certainty of 99%.

https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/

Of course, 5% is nothing to worry about, and likely to be accurate. More than that are of such low IQ that they are seen as mentally retarded. Far more people, as has been said, think Elvis is still alive, but none of them think he looks like an 83 year-old.
You're mostly correct, I've never studied statistics (at least not past A Level which is what's really relevant).

But I'll still say this sample doesn't sound particularly convincing. I don't see any source material, explaining how that sample was gathered. Fro all we know, they asked a larger than average proportion of people who are taught that the Holocaust was a myth. Maybe it is appropriate based purely on the definition but I find it difficult to believe it's representative of a much larger sample just because the article says so.

Even if absolutely everything is correct and the sample is perfectly represetnative, you're still going to get people like me who are going to call bs because it doesn't necessarily look right. To an outsider, the statistics don't actually follow common sense. It may be correct, but 2000 out of 66,000,000 doesn't sound convincing. And if your sample only sounds convincing to people who understand statistics, then the communication element is flawed. If you asked the average person whether 0.003% of a population can be used to represent a group, the vast majority would say no.

It'd be interesting to see how the value changes if a much larger sample size were used. I think it'd also be interesting to see how it changes when children and the elderly are included.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#76
Report 3 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by Acsel)
I find it difficult to believe it's representative of a much larger sample just because the article says so.

Even if absolutely everything is correct and the sample is perfectly represetnative, you're still going to get people like me who are going to call bs because it doesn't necessarily look right.

It'd be interesting to see how the value changes if a much larger sample size were used. I think it'd also be interesting to see how it changes when children and the elderly are included.
This is a well-respected polling organisation, not a bunch of shysters, and they claim the sample is representative of the whole adult population and suitably weighted, including the elderly. A larger sample size would only be more accurate if it were much, much larger. I'm sure they would supply more information iof you asked them but you may not have the knowledge to use what they tell you.

https://www.hmd.org.uk/news/we-relea...rial-day-2019/

That people uneducated in statistics describe the sample as ******** says more about them than the sampling. It's rather like the opinion of the 5% who don't believe in the holocaust - worthless.
0
reply
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 3 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Good bloke)
This is a well-respected polling organisation, not a bunch of shysters, and they claim the sample is representative of the whole adult population and suitably weighted, including the elderly. A larger sample size would only be more accurate if it were much, much larger. I'm sure they would supply more information iof you asked them but you may not have the knowledge to use what they tell you.

https://www.hmd.org.uk/news/we-relea...rial-day-2019/

That people uneducated in statistics describe the sample as ******** says more about them than the sampling. It's rather like the opinion of the 5% who don't believe in the holocaust - worthless.
Is there a reason you're being overly confrontational about this?
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#78
Report 3 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by Acsel)
Is there a reason you're being overly confrontational about this?
I am not being confrontational at all. I merely told you your initial statement was wrong, as a matter of information. It was you that chose to confront me about that. The relationships between margins of error, confidence intervals and sample sizes for given populations are a matter of statistical fact, not opinion, just as Pythagoras' Theorem is mathematically solid
0
reply
Acsel
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#79
Report 3 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by Good bloke)
I am not being confrontational at all. I merely told you your initial statement was wrong, as a matter of information.
You opened with "It's clear you've never studied statistics". You could have quite easily just said "Well actually this sample is fine because". Rather than just trying to correct me, you used it as an opportunity to make a sweeping judgment about my knowledge of statistics. That comes across as confrontational, whether you intended it or not.

The fact still remains. Those not versed in statistics are far less likely to see this as a problem because 0.003% is such a small value. You might say their opinion is worthless, but ultimately if we expect anything to be done about it the first step is actually making people realise there's a problem. To most, 2000 out of 66,000,000 isn't representative, whether it's mathematically sound or not. That should be evident from the fact I made my comment to begin with.
0
reply
ap.ferro
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#80
Report 3 weeks ago
#80
Only 95%. That's a hugely large number. Would be very different if 95% think it didn't happen.

We are taught about the holocaust, but what about thehe Armenian Genocide for example? And Turkey still denies that.

People are entitled to their own opinion, no matter how warped they may be. It still kind of amazes me how people can deny the holocaust despite all the evidence, but oh well
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have a food intolerance or allergy?

Yes - a food intolerance (39)
11.96%
Yes - a food allergy (36)
11.04%
Yes - an autoimmune disorder (i.e coeliac, colitis) (10)
3.07%
Yes - I have an intolerance and allergy (9)
2.76%
No (232)
71.17%

Watched Threads

View All