Wannsee megathread - Christian Mentel gets a thrashing!

[Werd]

Ney's take on Wansee has been mentioned briefly as of recent in this topic starting on page 3, but nothing of substance really came from it. Nessie just claimed Ney was making a fuss over nothing in Ney's section about the alleged linguistic problems. Wansee was discussed somewhat last year in this thread here.

Nessie finally got off his ass after a few pages in the recent topic mentioned above and posted this:
http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust- ... index.html

The thing is, I knew he would eventually because I had already read it a long time ago and laughed my ass off at it. I just wasn't going to do his homework for him. Nessie thinks he got me. Well read it and weep. Mentel doesn't even come close to touching Ney!

In, Area I: Transmission and Publication, the point out differences nobody disputes. Mainly the true copy that exists out of the 30 made that is in the museum, and fascimile that was created for a book written by Kempner. They really make a good point comparing a photo of the true copy of an invitation letter between Heydrich and Luther, with a fascimile of this invitation letter. How can these two have different texts, but same human handwriting? Simple. Someone took the copy of the original, and used some sort of eraser technique to clean up the typed text to leave only the human handwriting in place. However, it didn't work perfectly.

Image 6 (top) (showing a detail of image 4). Please pay attention to the position of the letter "ä" of "Auswärtiges Amt" (instance 1) and the position of the letter "u" in "Luther" (instance 2) both in relation to the respective hand-written notes on top.

Image 7 (bottom) (showing a detail of image 5). While the whole block of handwriting has been copied from the original document to the newly typed text inaccurately (note that the handwriting is moved a little bit up and further to the right compared to image 6), both instances 1 and 2 show imprecisely retouched remnants of the letters "ä" and "u" in the exact position that can be seen in image 6.

[...]

Kempner and his publisher deserve to be criticized for this procedure. First, because it is generally highly questionable to alter and manipulate historical documents. Second, because they did not comment in any way on the nature of the facsimiles and the various different reproduction techniques they employed. Thus, readers were indeed deceived when taking the facsimiles as an exact reproduction of the original documents. This lack of transparency is the starting point for revisionists; it offers them the possibility to undertake all kinds of comparisons and to question the authenticity and validity of the documents. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that revisionists only compare images of documents - and not documents themselves. Comparing master documents would be the procedure of choice for any serious historian, because only then can certain features be investigated and only then could reliable statements be made on the nature of the documents in question. Because there are no master documents available of the facsimiles in Kempner's book, all revisionist accusations are just unfounded claims.

That is why, revisionists don't waste time on Kempner's book too much. Thanks for showing the world why us revisionists don't and why we prefer to deal with the one known copy to exist out of the total 30 that were made. This isn't really a slam dunk or a homerun.

[Werd]

In Area II: Bureaucratic Formalities and Witness Reports, Christian Mentel says that have a somewhat dishonest agenda when asking for things that are supposed to be on the document if it is real:

Pretending to investigate the features of the documents in a reasonable way, revisionists claim that the Protocol could not be authentic. According to them, crucial bureaucratic features that ought to be there are missing. They ask: Where is the rubber-stamp displaying the date when the document arrived at its destination? Where is the obligatory signature? Where is the obligatory reference number? Where is the name of the issuing authority and person and where is the date of issue?

These questions are exactly the questions any serious historians would ask themselves when dealing with any historical document. But the revisionists' intentions are of a different kind - they employ these perfectly legitimate and necessary questions to deceive their readership and to convince them that the Wannsee Protocol is of a somewhat dubious nature. What is suppressed by the revisionists is the simple fact that the Wannsee Protocol was not prepared and not sent out as an isolated document by itself. Instead, it was an attachment to a letter of invitation for a Wannsee follow-up conference. It is on this higher-ranking cover letter (dated February 26, 1942; cf. image 10), where all the features can be found that revisionists complained about on the Protocol.


Image 10 (left): Click for an enlargement. Reinhard Heydrich's letter of invitation to Martin Luther, 26.2.1942, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 165. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... h-1942.pdf.)

Image 11 (right): Click for an enlargement. Wannsee Protocol, p. 1, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 166. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf.)

Isolating two documents that need to be seen in context is all there is to this both simple and striking act of sleight of hand. Many years ago, the then director of the memorial site House of the Wannsee Conference Gerhard Schoenberner and historian Peter Klein pointed out this manipulation. The revisionists' response to being debunked is worth mentioning here. While they admitted that all the bureaucratic formalities were indeed to be found on the cover letter, they claimed that the Protocol ought to also show these formalities. Only if this were the case, could one be sure that individual pages or all of them had not been replaced. Moreover, contemporary regulations concerning top secret documents called for such a procedure. To be clear: According to revisionists, an authentic Wannsee Protocol would have to display on every single one of its 15 pages all bureaucratic formalities: all rubber stamps, dates, signatures, reference numbers, names, etc. Some revisionists even claim that because the margin width was not correct and the line pitch were not as they should be, the whole Protocol was not sufficiently authorized, not effective legally, and thus worthless for historiography.

And what's the response?

It has to be stressed that all official regulations, norms, requirements and orders adduced by the revisionists against the Wannsee documents were never effective either for the issuing authority (Reich Security Main Office) or the receiving authority (Foreign Office). Again, this revisionist argument has to be considered as a crude attempt to damage the Wannsee documents by use of allegedly objective benchmarks - against the general assumption that Nazi bureaucracy had been perfect. Thus, even the slightest deviations from virtual norms are used as clear-cut "evidence" that the documents were forgeries, not one word is wasted on the question of how general requirements were put into real-life practice in respective areas of competency.

I don't see you gas chamber mongers wasting time on that question either so why don't you enlighten us and ease our concerns and make us drop our revisionism with convincing argument? Or can you maybe just shut up and quit throwing random shit to the wall hoping it will stick?
2. Recall what he said earlier about an excuse for missing features:

What is suppressed by the revisionists is the simple fact that the Wannsee Protocol was not prepared and not sent out as an isolated document by itself. Instead, it was an attachment to a letter of invitation for a Wannsee follow-up conference. It is on this higher-ranking cover letter (dated February 26, 1942; cf. image 10), where all the features can be found that revisionists complained about on the Protocol.

So Wansee was not really a government document worthy of putting forth the effort to put all those little things on it because it was an attachment letter. So why the hell did these sought after features even show up AT ALL on the high ranking cover letter? Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? Are we supposed to see stamps, notes, numbers, etc or not? If you're going to stamp one, why not the other? Is Mentel arguing that in order to save time, the Nazi bureaucracy determined it was not necessary to stamp every single page every single time? That they couldn't do it at least just once to at least one page of Wannsee? What do revisionists think of this?

Getting back to the article...

To complement this, another striking pattern of revisionist argumentation is used. It goes like this: Even if all of the - as shown above: absurd - revisionist demands in terms of authenticity and bureaucratic formalities were met, the document in question might still constitute a forgery. Because, after the end of the war, the Allies had access to all papers, rubber-stamps, typewriters and files, therefore all kinds of forged documents are possible - forgeries that are undetectable. In short, while exonerating files were systematically destroyed, incriminating and perfectly fabricated documents were created. With this surprise coup, revisionists consider all German files as potential forgeries, even if these files meet their own demands in terms of authenticity. Using this rationale, there is no possibility to determine the authenticity of any document and historiography is made impossible. However, it is telling that the suspicion that all captured German documents might be forged is only applied to those which are "incriminating". In contrast, captured documents which count for the revisionists as "exonerating" are naturally considered authentic.

Nice conspiracy theory about revisionists. Now try proving it. If this is true, where are the revisionists denying the authenticity of these key markings that exist on this high ranking cover letter? I can't find them....

[Werd]

In Area III: Linguistics and Semantics, Christian Mentel complains that revisionists of past have made too much about this.

Revisionists apparently also love to omit key phrases from the article:

Time and time again, revisionists quote Bauer's statement in the weekly "The Canadian Jewish News" covering a 1992 historians' conference: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." (Cf. image 12.) The newspaper's coverage is not only lurid, it is plain wrong, when it reports the sensation that Bauer, as the first (and maybe only) historian, rejected and debunked an opinion that until this moment was commonly held by historians. Bauer was far from the first scholar who has rejected the "Wannsee decision" - as already said, this was accepted by historians for decades. But for revisionists, the short newspaper article provides a bonanza: referring to a Jewish historian quoted in a Jewish newspaper, revisionists claim that these days even Bauer accepts the revisionist position that Wannsee was fairly marginal and a "silly story" in general. This, of course, is not what Bauer said, and it is hardly surprising that all revisionists keep silent about Bauer's next sentence: "Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder".

Okay, one little quote mine perhaps by Udo Walendy in the 80's. If it was him. I don't know the revisionist who did such a hack job and left out a key phrase, if he/she at all did. So what? Let's get back on track and deal with some serious issues.

revisionists focus on the language of the Protocol itself. On the basis of style, vocabulary, syntax and figures of speech, revisionists try to argue that the Protocol could not have been written by a German native speaker. Or, if it was, the author surely must have been a German-Jewish emigrant out of touch with his mother tongue for some time. In other words: when investigating certain words and expressions which are allegedly uncommon in German, revisionists claim the Protocol is either a bad translation from American English, or it is influenced strongly by it. In any event, the Protocol's author could never be Eichmann or one of his staff, and therefore it can not be authentic.

Correct. That is but one section of the massive work that Ney wrote on Wansee years ago. Here is the original German (long version) and here is a google translation into English. Here is also a short version in English.
https://codoh.com/library/document/934/
Why do I bring these sources up? For a couple of reasons. One, two let people have access to them in this topic. But also to let people observe how Christian Mentel sets up the stage as if he is going to show how revisionist concerns about language, expressions, punctuation are all for nothing. And yet he completely avoids mentioning one single thing that Ney pointed out back in the 90's when he wrote his paper. What does Christian do? First advance the Austrian versus German version of German conspiracy theory.

Furthermore, a figure of speech that is uncommon in German as it is spoken in Germany, is claimed to be a bad translation from American English - disregarding the fact, that this particular figure is a common, and even formal, expression in Austria's variation of German. The absurdity of the revisionist claim is revealed when noting the fact that the author of the Protocol - Adolf Eichmann - lived in Austria during his childhood and worked there for many years thereafter. Thus, from a linguistic point of view, phrasings and expressions here and there typical of Austrian German are evidence for Eichmann's authorship of the Protocol, not against it.

Funny how Adolf Hitler was also born and raised in Austria and nobody seemed to have a problem with the way he spoke and wrote. Furthermore, Christian OFFERS NOT ONE EXAMPLE to prove his point that there is any significance between an Austrian way of saying something and a Deutsch way of saying something regarding certain passages that revisionists have a problem with. Christian could have picked ANY PASSAGE that Ney had a problem with. HE CHOSE NOT DO. HE IGNORED IT. HE PRETENDED NEY AND NEY'S ARTICLE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. THEY'RE NOT IN THE FOOTNOTES OF CHRISTIAN'S ARTICLE. Ney only shows up once in the article:

The goal is to provide an overview over decades of revisionist publications on Wannsee, brought forth mostly by German authors like Johannes Peter Ney, Roland Bohlinger, Udo Walendy and Germar Rudolf, but also elaborated by Robert Faurisson and David Irving.

Yeah, some overview indeed! A completely wasted opportunity to show why the passages Ney is concerned about are due to the German being too Austrian. It's not that Christian didn't have space, time, or opportunity. He did. He couldn't prove his Austrian versus German language conspiracy theory. Because it's not factual.

Now that this little twerp has been exposed as a dishonest person who lies by omission and obfuscation, let's get to the passage he sees fit to complain about.

A second revisionist line of argumentation in terms of language advances the notion that the Wannsee Protocol does not contain indicators of an intended genocide, but instead gives evidence that Heydrich had the same noble vision of establishing a Jewish state as the Zionists. The basis for this claim is the camouflage language the Nazis used: Instead of terms like "Ermordung" (murder), softer expressions were adopted: "natürliche Verminderung" (natural attrition), "entsprechende Behandlung" (suitable treatment), "Lösung von Problemen" (solution of problems) and not least "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish Question). This technique can be observed best in the following paragraph (p. 7/8 of the Protocol, an English translation of the whole Protocol can be read here):

In the course of the final solution and under approriate [sic] direction, the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in a suitable manner. In large labor columns and separated by sexes, Jews capable of working will be dispatched to these regions to build roads, and in the process a large number of them will undoubtedly drop out by way of natural attrition. Those who ultimately should possibly get by will have to be given suitable treatment because they unquestionably represent the most resistant segments and therefore constitute a natural elite that, if allowed to go free, would turn into a germ cell of renewed Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)


Image 13: Clippings from the Wannsee Protocol, p. 7 and 8, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 172 and 173. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf)

This paragraph of the Protocol is essential and shows what Heydrich had in mind: not only deportation, but also forced labor as a method of murder. The survivors would be especially dangerous because they would be the most resistant. These would then have to be treated accordingly (meaning: killed), because if not, they would constitute the beginning of a new Jewish "super race".

Or simply moved out of the country. As in transited. Nice job putting the cart before the horse. Try not reading your previously established belief about gas chambers into the text lest you be accused of sneaky circular reasoning. You're supposed to be an academic who knows better. Leave that shit to idiot trolls like Nessie. The final paragraph is a nice little conspiracy theory again:

It is important to bear in mind that revisionists are anything but a homogeneous group. But the one thing they have in common, no matter how different their methods, political world views and backgrounds, is anti-Semitism. Without the traditional anti-Semitic construct of a Jewish world conspiracy, revisionist writings are not possible. Underlying all revisionist writings is the idea that this alleged conspiracy is using false allegations of all kinds against Germany to dominate it and to gain money for Israel and the Jews. The implicit or explicit claim of a conspiracy of "World Jewry", which has at its command immense power and all means imaginable to make up and fabricate vast quantities of documents (the Wannsee Protocol being just one), is as irrational as the other revisionist line of argumentation: namely that for decades this Jewish conspiracy managed to influence all historians so that they - intentionally or unintentionally - misinterpret the allegedly innocuous Wannsee Protocol as proof of an intended genocide. Thus, irrationality and anti-Semitism constitute the basis of this kind of historical falsification.

Not ONE LINGUISTIC CONCERN OF NEY'S WAS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED. The theory that all apparently bad German utterances were due to Austrian German instead of high Deutsch German was interesting but had no actual proof or evidence for it. In other words Ney's criticisms remain unscathed.

And this, lades and gentlemen, THIS PATHETIC ARTICLE, is what Nessie posted a link to in the other topic in Siberian Exile as a "refutation" of Ney.

[Werd]

But Ney doesn't even have to have his concerns addressed by this Christian Mentel. The fact that Mentel and many others have NOT put up a fuss about Ney's linguistic concerns mean that Ney is wrong on all concerns and that there is no problem with Wannsee.

Observe him on page 7 of the topic in Siberian exhile:

the absence of numerous German speakers pointing out that Wannsee was written as an American English speaker would write German and that numerous historians accept the authenticity of the minutes, is proof Ney (and Bohlinger) are unique in their belief.

Nessie needs to look up the words "redundancy" and "tautology" He truly is a moron. He's just saying the same thing over again. The absence of questions/critiques about the document among mainstream historians, means Ney is pretty much alone. yeah, no shit, dummy. I never denied that.

Yep. The fact that 99% of academics don't see a problem with Wannsee mean that 1% do.

Redundant.
adjective
(of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

Tautology.
noun
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession).

Tautologies are not arguments, Nessie.

The term tautology is originally used in rhetoric to refer to statements that are in-themselves redundant. For example, the phrase “unsolved mystery” is a rhetorical tautology because any mystery is unsolved — the adjective is unneccessary and adds no meaning to the phrase. The same thing commonly happens with acronyms. For example, the acronym ATM means “automatic teller machine”. So, the common phrase “ATM machine” is a rhetorical tautology, as they are essentially saying “automated teller machine machine”. The same thing happens with “PDF format”, “PIN number” and “UPC code”.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/t ... tology.php

[Werd]

Maybe Mentel has something more of substance to say in this German article where Ney's name at least shows up more than once.
http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... nismus.pdf

[Werd]

Slowly working on translating the relevant parts about Ney through google...

For example, in two publications from 1992, Johannes Peter Ney claims that not is known, "how, where, when, by whom and from which file area"
13 the Wannsee documentary -he was also found in a paper published in 1994, that the findings were unknown.14 In contrast, Ney, in a "report" prepared in collaboration with Roland Bohlinger, attacks Kempner because of alleged contradictions in now even more discovery reports. That "report", which leads the statements of the individual publications ad absurdum, appeared in 1992 and 1994 in two editions - in each case in parallel with two independent contributions Neys. 15 A correction consequently, not even a simple reference to Kempner's needs of his assertions Autobiography, where this describes the discovery in detail - it is sufficient a reference to Neys own publications.

[Werd]

These problematic facsimiles are used by revisionists for various comparisons with facsimiles of the original documents and subsequently for alleged proof of forgery. It is simply assumed that Kempners print template was created before the original document, so therefore a draft copy for a fake. For example, Ney argues that the facsimile of Kempner is a "too bumbling [it]" "concoction" which an improved version has been "pushed". For him, "[...] this apparent attempt to supplement the goodness of the forgery [...]" suspects "that both Protocols are counterfeits ".23 By this reversal of the development chronology will be consequently, the differences from the original document resulting from the transcription process presented as an elimination of deficiencies in an evolutionary counterfeiting process. One, if however, attempts are made only in a comprehensible way to justify it, but in vain in revisionist publications. The actual reason for the production of Kempner 's transcriptions and collages, on the other hand, are likely to be influenced by the printing constraints of
to be found in the early 1960s. Even a superficial comparison of the numerous facsimiles in Eichmann and accomplices shows that - depending on the nature of the respective archives - different reproduction methods were used, sometimes even for lay people easily recognizable photomontage was used and last but not least the transcripts are created consistently with the same typewriter type.

[...]

Thus, Bohlinger and Ney argue that the Wannsee Protocol lacks all those formalities "that would otherwise never be absent in a run-down bureaucracy",
28 including the date, the inbox stamp or the sign of the issuing office. In order to be able to make such allegations, however, Bohlinger and Nie tacitly separate the Wannsee minutes sent by attachment from the accompanying letter. With this simple trick, you can use the formals on the cover letter. - which also apply to the installation - on the protocol treated as independent complain. Despite such attempts at deception, revisionists behave as consistent critical and accuse historians, not according to the "principles of historical knowledge - "every student of history already in the first semesters of his Studies learn ". 29 The criticism of Gerhard Schoenberner and Peter Klein in the name of the memorial house of the Wannsee conference
30 The question of the impermissible separation of the Wannsee Protocol and the cover letter is therefore addressed as without formalities
the protocol "the possibility "could be ruled out beyond doubt" that a falsified specimen or a very different specimen was deferred as the original ". 31 In order to decrypt the documents as insufficiently authorized and consequently as questionable, they will become their own Ideas on the generally binding standard are explained, on which the Wannsee Protocol is to be measured, instead of using the actual office practice as a comprehensible standard of assessment.

[Werd]

The lack of reality of their demand that, for an authentic document, all formalities on cover letter and attachment or even on each of the 15 log pages should be completely present, Bohlinger and Ney obscure the reference to timely administrative regulations and rules on the handling of secret documentions allegedly infringed. There is no denying they that the regulations cited neither for the Reich Security Main Office nor for the Foreign Office possessed each validity. 32 Implicit as explicit is from a perfect bureaucracy in which errors or even minor deviations come from. Otherwise, Lachout could hardly a "Order No. 2 of the Reichsstelle for Paper and Packaging, R.A. z. No. 304 BC 31.12.1941 "against which by Deviating border width, line spacing and the like was allegedly infringed. According to Lachout, such rules would have been "given special attention" and a non-compliance he already refers to the prosecution as "evidence of forgery". 33 But even if it does would have been violated orders, so leads already Scheffler as reply to the revisionist arguments, they often act"Not at all about a form violation[...], but the usual handling of a normal process ". 34

[Werd]

Ney certified the Wannsee Protocol a "miserable un-German language" 53 and comments on the sentence found in the minutes "The objective task was to clean up the German habitat of Jews in a legal way."54 Here is, the American spattered New German anticipated by 49 years. Walendy wants from "un-German genitive nested in succession" which occurs in the executives of the German-speaking party, not more talk." 56 Misplaced opinions such as "This word soup is not German",57 "That's not how a German expresses himself, let alone a senior officer" 58 change off with unreasonable claims, such as that "In time", "state worker" and "private occupations" are Americanisms. 59 Also, according to Bohlinger and Ney in German the word "Heavy" is not used in the sense of "difficult". Such use points to a translation of "difficult" in American in both Meanings could be used. 60 That Bohlinger and Ney only three pages on it use "heavy" even in that supposedly wrong sense, then speak for itself.







Well it appears Christian Mentel doesn't like Ney's opinions but he does nothing to disprove them. He just takes note of them, says they are wrong and moves on. That's all I could find relating to Ney in that slightly expanded German version article. It's just as bad as the English version Nessie found and that I already had known about for some time. If the only "proof" of the genuine nature of this sole surviving copy of Wannsee that Mentel has is that

1. Wannsee didn't need all these official letterheads, insignia, page numbers, etc, because the document Wannsee was attached to contained all of that stuff that should satisfy revisionists.
2. The German utterances Ney has a problem with are of no consequence in Deutsch German, or they are colloquialisms in Austrian German

He has a long way to go considering all of the linguistic arguments from Ney he DID IGNORE. Simply saying, "There's no problem," or simply saying, "It's Austrian" and walking away is not proof of anything. Just because some revisionist may have made a tiny mistake about a fascimile in Kempner's book doesn't over-ride the tougher arguments that Mentel IGNORED.

[Nessie]

Ney certified the Wannsee Protocol a "miserable un-German language" 53 and comments on the sentence found in the minutes "The objective task was to clean up the German habitat of Jews in a legal way."54 Here is, the American spattered New German anticipated by 49 years. Walendy wants from "un-German genitive nested in succession" which occurs in the executives of the German-speaking party, not more talk." 56 Misplaced opinions such as "This word soup is not German",57 "That's not how a German expresses himself, let alone a senior officer" 58 change off with unreasonable claims, such as that "In time", "state worker" and "private occupations" are Americanisms. 59 Also, according to Bohlinger and Ney in German the word "Heavy" is not used in the sense of "difficult". Such use points to a translation of "difficult" in American in both Meanings could be used. 60 That Bohlinger and Ney only three pages on it use "heavy" even in that supposedly wrong sense, then speak for itself.

I take it you do not speak German, so you are entirely reliant on Ney and Bohlinger (N & B). It would be usual to determine something about the authors of an opinion, just to check who they are. You bang on about Ney being a native German speaker, so please give some back ground, with direct links and quotes to show who he is. Then do the same with Bohlinger.

As it stands you are in total acceptance of one source that is of an unknown origin. That is the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, where the authority has not even been established.

Well it appears Christian Mentel doesn't like Ney's opinions but he does nothing to disprove them. He just takes note of them, says they are wrong and moves on. That's all I could find relating to Ney in that slightly expanded German version article. It's just as bad as the English version Nessie found and that I already had known about for some time. If the only "proof" of the genuine nature of this sole surviving copy of Wannsee that Mentel has is that

1. Wannsee didn't need all these official letterheads, insignia, page numbers, etc, because the document Wannsee was attached to contained all of that stuff that should satisfy revisionists.
2. The German utterances Ney has a problem with are of no consequence in Deutsch German, or they are colloquialisms in Austrian German

He has a long way to go considering all of the linguistic arguments from Ney he DID IGNORE. Simply saying, "There's no problem," or simply saying, "It's Austrian" and walking away is not proof of anything. Just because some revisionist may have made a tiny mistake about a fascimile in Kempner's book doesn't over-ride the tougher arguments that Mentel IGNORED.

Suddenly, the level of evidencing takes a big jump and Mental (who we know is a historian and authority on Wannsee) has to disprove N & B's opinion. Note that Ney is not being required to disprove Mental's opinion. Clear double standards.

Both are giving an opinion. Only Ney and Bohlinger have the opinion that, the Wannsee language used is so bad it is obviously a fake written by an American. No historian has any problems with the document, no other German has published anything that agrees with N & B.

Does any German speaker here agree with N & B and has evidence to back them up?