tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post115145025919437936..comments2024-03-20T07:25:58.202+00:00Comments on Holocaust Controversies: How (Not) To Read A Document LiterallyNicholas Terryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151762458127616042006-07-01T15:00:00.000+01:002006-07-01T15:00:00.000+01:00The word for small arms ammo is the same in Afrika...The word for small arms ammo is the same in Afrikaans.<BR/><BR/>Thanks to the Dutch scholar for an interesting read.<BR/><BR/>As far as Ausrotten, there is a great thread on Wendel's site about the meaning. I think deracinate from one of Shakespeare's plays is translated into German as ausrotten.TimVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085467017252919443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151588707462225822006-06-29T14:45:00.000+01:002006-06-29T14:45:00.000+01:00This is a great site and you are doing a very wort...This is a great site and you are doing a very worthy job, keep it up!ModernityBloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06354254639321208955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151569991267047402006-06-29T09:33:00.000+01:002006-06-29T09:33:00.000+01:00Thanks, Jurjen, for these comments. The first time...Thanks, Jurjen, for these comments. <BR/><BR/>The first time I posted the shorter, initial excerpt, on a different forum, a native German speaker and Holocaust denier immediately cut to the chase and declared it a forgery. He recognised straight away that the document was horribly incriminating. <BR/><BR/>I found the Nutzi's desperate attempts to rationalise the document very indicative of the tactics adopted even by 'prominent' deniers such as Arthur Butz and Carlos Porter, both of whom have made a career out of hairsplitting German nouns.<BR/><BR/>Your point about composites is obvious to anyone with more than a few years' German lessons. In the original dispute, I actually pointed out that 'Grube' would generally only mean 'mine' if it was qualified, like Kiesgrube, Kohlengrube, etc.<BR/><BR/>When I posted the full version, which shut him up, I also posted a full transcript of an order for a genuine resettlement, by the Wehrmacht. The difference in detail and what was being prescribed is like chalk and cheese.<BR/><BR/>Finally, another point I made in the original dispute which I didn't include above: if there is a 'resettlement', then surely the order should specify the destination where the Jews are being resettled *to*. <BR/><BR/>It is perhaps unsurprising that when Umsiedlung or Evakuierung were used as euphemisms, they were used as a self-contained word, most often without a qualifying 'nach' and destination. This almost autistic use of the term is a big red flag to anyone with some of their marbles intact.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151546718181088622006-06-29T03:05:00.000+01:002006-06-29T03:05:00.000+01:00It continues to amaze me how so many Nazi apologis...It continues to amaze me how so many Nazi apologists, your interlocutor included, insist on a "literal reading" of documents despite lacking an adequate grasp of the German language and familiarity with military jargon of Germanic-speaking countries. I'm a Dutch national, with four years' schooling in German and plenty of practical experience speaking it; I'm also a former Dutch army conscript, and much of the (para)military lingo in the <I>Einsatzbefehl</I> is readily recognizable (partly due to the similarity between German and Dutch, but also because the Dutch army adopted a large number of German practices following the resounding Prussian victory over France in 1870-71, including order formats and terminology).<BR/><BR/>Any serious student of the period should also be familiar with the fact that both the <I>Allgemeine</I> and <I>Waffen-SS</I> had a parallel rank structure, in which the word <I>Führer</I> featured prominently. From this order alone, it is readily apparent that the SS used the word as any other (para)military formation (the <I>Wehrmacht</I> included) would use the word "officer." This is indicated, for instance, by the term <I>Unterführer</I>; literally, "sub-leader" but remarkably similar to <I>Unteroffizier</I>, the German for NCO. From context, it may thus also be divined that the phrase <I>"Führer und Männer"</I> should be read to mean "[commissioned and/or non-commissioned] officers and [enlisted] men."<BR/><BR/>Your Nutzi's "literal interpretation" of the excerpt read:<BR/><I>"These people were sent for forced labor to a relocation facility in 6 trucks. In this relocation facility, there are 2 workings. Of each of the workings, groups of 10 people work who for two hours after which they are relieved by another group."</I><BR/>This is plainly incorrect. The only mention of "labor" is in connection to the groups working the <I>Gruben</I>. These groups of ten are, however, to be composed of <I>Fuehrer und Männer</I>; "officers and men," i.e. SS personnel. This is further borne out by the group assignments contained in the order, naming the SS personnel who are to make up each 10-man group. The order makes no mention whatsoever of the "resettled" Jews being expected to perform any labor. That is what an <B>actual</B> literal reading bears out.<BR/><BR/>Then there's the Nutzi's equivocation with regards to the word <I>Patrone</I>.<BR/><I>"The proper translation would be "cartridge". Now, I don't happen to be an expert in mining or quarry labor, but I do tend to know that this word in English is used for many things from shotgun bullets to carriers of printer ink."</I><BR/>How the word "cartridge" is used <B>in English</B> is wholly irrelevant, as the order is <B>in German</B>. And in a German-language (para)military context, the default meaning of <I>Patrone</I> (as in <I>Platzpatrone</I>, blank round, and <I>scharfe Patrone</I>, live round) is small-arms ammunition. If anything other than small-arms ammunition were meant, this would be specified with one of those long composite nouns for which the German language is famous. Even without the preceding sentence which explicitly mentions <I>Munition</I>, it's pretty unambiguous.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line is, claiming that your interpretation is the correct one when you don't actually speak German properly is ridiculous beyond belief. It's pretty obvious why Anonymous here had to go the "it's a forgery" route; it's an admission that the order says exactly what Nick Terry says it does.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151488048072172592006-06-28T10:47:00.000+01:002006-06-28T10:47:00.000+01:00Our anonymous poster, whose original piece of spam...Our anonymous poster, whose original piece of spam will soon enough be deleted (we don't mind comments, we just think anonymous comments are cowardly, especially when they probably come from a known quantity elsewhere), continued:<BR/><BR/>"The document itself is interesting.<BR/>Standard Soviet black propaganda<BR/>was never direct...it<BR/>would be along the lines of-<BR/><BR/>Commander X (always a real name) reporting on the<BR/>resettlement of 12,435 Jews<BR/>from Slutsk on 2.11.43. What shall I do with the gold from the teeth?<BR/>Heil Hitler <BR/>Kommandeur der SS<BR/>Oberstrumbannfuehrer Terri"<BR/><BR/>Our anonymous poster skipped over the paragraph in which I pointed out that there was cross-confirmatory evidence from _western_ archives. So nope, this one doesn't fly, I'm afraid. <BR/><BR/>He went on:<BR/><BR/>"Any honest researcher should ask<BR/>the following questions.<BR/>Where did the directive come from?<BR/>ie. when and where was it<BR/>produced?"<BR/><BR/>Duh, it came from the Minsk HQ of the Kommandeur der Sicherheitspolizei. Sometimes you have to wonder whether deniers actually have any braincells to rub together.<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Why was it written?- ie. why would<BR/>the person report that groups of<BR/>men were relieved every two hours<BR/>with the times given?"<BR/><BR/>Except this isn't a _report_, it's an _order_. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"Of course determinative evidence <BR/>would be:<BR/>Were two pits contining thousands of bodies found at the town of Sluzk?" <BR/><BR/>Yes, they were. Again, muppet skipped over the explicit mention of this fact in my post. <BR/><BR/>"These are the type of evidence needed to review the validity<BR/>of the odd Document, not the<BR/>fact that it is, "well-known to the literature"."<BR/><BR/>Except the historians who have written about this have done precisely that, most especially Christian Gerlach. Going cheap in subsidised paperback!<BR/><BR/>"The recent admissions regarding<BR/>Majdanek and the Majdanek <BR/>showtrial of 1944 show that<BR/>Soviet creation of evidence was<BR/>massive and detailed. At Nuremberg the Soviets produced similar documents along with<BR/>physical evidence, eye witnesses,<BR/>and confessions proving that<BR/>1.5 million people were killed at<BR/>Majdanek (usually in gas chambers) <BR/>While similar Soviet<BR/>evidence regarding human soap<BR/>or German culpability for the Katyn<BR/>killings were fairly quickly <BR/>disregarded it has taken 60 years <BR/>for the Majdanek Myth to slowly <BR/>drift down to a still terrible but<BR/>"normal" reality.<BR/><BR/>However the Majdanek Myth, along with the Human Soap evidence, and<BR/>Katyn evidence show that there are<BR/>lots of bogus documents floating around, often created to discredit Baltic or Ukrainian nationalist groups."<BR/><BR/>Here we find that our anonymous poster is probably blowing his cover, and is most likely David Allen, troll extraordinaire at Skeptics Society Forum.<BR/><BR/>Our Troll friend forgets, once again, that there is documentary evidence found in _western_ archives about this action, so that if he wants to allege Conspiracy, he now has a much, much more complex task ahead of him. <BR/><BR/>Good luck!Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151484459348866602006-06-28T09:47:00.000+01:002006-06-28T09:47:00.000+01:00Anonymous above posted the following"In 1939, with...Anonymous above posted the following<BR/><BR/>"In 1939, with the founding of the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA), the Sicherheitspolizei as a functioning office ceased to exist. The term survived in common usage, however, and was most often used by local security force commanders who adopted the title Inspektor des Sicherheitspolizei und SD.<BR/>-end-<BR/><BR/>So you are waiving a memo from<BR/>an organization which ceased to<BR/>exist as of 1939. What was the<BR/>date of your "well known" memo?<BR/>1943....hmmm.<BR/><BR/>Not likely that the official<BR/>would use the title of a<BR/>nonexistent agency<BR/>but very likely that someone<BR/>who knew "common usage"<BR/>would incorrectly create a <BR/>forgery."<BR/><BR/>What anonymous has forgotten is that the Kommandeure der Sicherheitspolizei were differe tto the Inspektor, which was a higher position.<BR/><BR/>He also forgot that IdS survived as a term inside Germany whereas in the occupied territories these senior commanders were called BdS, Befehlshaber der Sicherheitspolizei.<BR/><BR/>BdS Ostland commanded KdS Weissruthenien<BR/><BR/>I'll deal with the rest of this flim-flam later.Nicholas Terryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14852758011968360596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24597325.post-1151455206994447892006-06-28T01:40:00.000+01:002006-06-28T01:40:00.000+01:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com