Here is that page in the AJC yearbook:Dommergue wrote: A Jewish publication famous in the United States, the American Jewish yearbook,
specifies to us in its issue number 43 on page 666 that in the German-occupied Europe
in 1941 there were 3,300,000 Jews.
Small detail, isn't it?
Notice that this is a table titled "Distribution of Jewish population in Europe prior to and following territorial changes resulting from Russian, German and Hungarian expansion, 1933-1941".
Also notice that it lists for Poland: 2.2 million Jews "Now under German Rule" and 1 million Jews "Now under Soviet Rule". Altogether it has in its table 3.3 million Jews "Now under German Rule" and 4.7 million Jews "Now under Soviet Rule".
So this table is obviously not taking into account Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union.
Why is Dommergue focusing on this "small detail" as he says? Is he trying to make it seem like Germany only ever had about 3.3 million Jews under its control - even though the table lists 1 million more Jews in the quickly overrun Soviet area of Poland?
Is this dishonesty or stupidity on this professor's part? Is this professor unaware of where the main bulk of Jews were and that Germany invaded into those areas in 1941 and later? If this isn't dishonesty this man is an utter idiot to speak in this manner in this video. The table itself shows 750,000 "Now under Hungarian Rule" - which the professor must know what is claimed for them in 1944. Pure chutzpah from this Jewish shyster!
Just taking the 1 million additional Polish Jews and the 750,000 Hungarian Jews and adding this to 3.3 million listed under German control gives 5 million right there. Just those 3 things. This man has balls to be so transparently dishonest about a single table which we can all plainly see for ourselves belies his dishonest (or irredeemably stupid) attitude.
So what do others think about this? Is this man dishonest or stupid as they come?
What is it with French "professors"? Do they hand out professorships to anyone who asks for one in France? We have Faurisson who interprets an emphatic "not explosive" as somehow meaning the opposite. And we have this "professor" ignorantly misrepresenting the contents of a pretty simple table that anyone could understand better just from a cursory look at it.
EDIT: Maybe he is dishonest AND stupid? Like Doctor Frederick Toben's Zyklon "experiment"? Keep those bottles of oxygen around ( ) in case that KILOGRAM ( ) of cyanide in that Zyklon might harm someone in that warm and tiny room!