A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

[friedrichjansson]

"Statistical Mechanic" has recently asked for examples of the plagiarism carried out by the bloggers of Holocaust Controversies in their December 2011 "white paper". Were he really interested in such examples he could find more than enough to satisfy anyone in a recently published book. There is no point in repeating those cases here.

There are, however, even more cases of plagiarism by the bloggers, one of which I will examine here. On page 50 of the "white paper", Nick Terry refers to a report which he introduces as follows:

A second report came from two Belgian POWs, who had observed hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction and returning empty. Those who died on the way or were shot trying to escape were dumped unceremoniously onto the side of the tracks.

He then quotes the report:

What made the most impression on them was the extermination of the Jews. They had both witnessed atrocities. One of the Belgians saw truck loads of Jews carried off into a wood and the trucks returning a few hours later – empty. Bodies of Jewish children and women were left lying in ditches and along the railways. The Germans themselves, they added, boasted that they had constructed gas chambers where Jews were systematically killed and buried.

and offers the following citation

PRB Stockholm to PID London, 18.5.43, PRO FO 371/34430; cf. Bankier, p.110

Nick has explained his citation system: this form of reference means that he has seen the original document:

Where we have seen the documents ourselves, but it is already known in the literature, we have written Kommandant in Weissruthenien Ia, Befehl Nr. 24, 24.11.41, gez. v. Bechtolsheim, NARB 378-1-698, p. 32; cf. Browning, Origins, p. 289.

and added that

where we have cited archival documents, they were seen in their original context.

so we know that he is claiming to have seen the document himself - and in its proper file context to boot.

Now, let's take a look at the relevant passage of the document from PRO FO 371/34430



Notice a couple of differences: first, in the document the gas chambers are located in Lemberg, whereas in Nick Terry's version their location isn't given. Perhaps I'd better point out that Belzec and Lemberg are in opposite directions from Rawa Ruska. There's no way anyone in Rawa Ruska would have confused Lemberg with Belzec.

Second, the bit about seeing "hundreds of wagons passing through the Rawa Ruska rail junction" is not supported by the document in any way.

On the other hand, here is the relevant page from the book by Bankier:



Bankier's rendition is identical to Nick Terry's version.

Conclusions:

1. Nick Terry took his text of this document from David Bankier without examining the source. He then falsely claimed he had seen the document.

2. David Bankier published a severely altered quotation which actually went so far as to reverse the order of sentences - and than claimed that he was using "the words of the British agent who spoke to [the Belgians]". His altered quotation omitted the key fact that the reported gas chambers were located in Lemberg, not Belzec. This is very poor behavior on the part of the onetime head of the International Institute for Holocaust Research at Yad Vashem.

3. The document is not evidence about the "discovery process" of extermination in gas chambers at Belzec, but rather a nice illustration the prevalence of false wartime rumors about gas chambers.

[Statistical Mechanic]

Thanks so much for your long reply. Sadly I was in fact inquiring about Charles Traynor's facility with this, as I'd come across other instances of his bombast and wondered if he were able to support it in the instance. Mine was first and foremost a question directed at Mr Traynor's competence.

As to your competence, alas, I am sorry that we've somehow had a misunderstanding. I had asked about plagiarism, which your reply doesn't even mention. English is perhaps not your native language?

[theblackrabbitofinlé]

Thanks so much for your long reply. Sadly I was in fact inquiring about Charles Traynor's facility with this, as I'd come across other instances of his bombast and wondered if he were able to support it in the instance. Mine was first and foremost a question directed at Mr Traynor's competence.

As to your competence, alas, I am sorry that we've somehow had a misunderstanding. I had asked about plagiarism, which your reply doesn't even mention. English is perhaps not your native language?

Would you consider this particular example of academic misconduct from N. Terry a 'fabrication' opposed to a 'plagiarism?'

Fabrication

Fabrication is the use of invented information or the falsification of research or other findings. Fabrication includes, but is not limited to:

i The false citation or acknowledgment of a direct or secondary source, including the incorrect documentation of a source;

http://www.udel.edu/stuguide/13-14/code.html

[Statistical Mechanic]

Clearly then not plagiarism as charged; I would guess that it's an error - errors happen, like the erroneous chart of plagiarism here.

[theblackrabbitofinlé]

Clearly then not plagiarism as charged; I would guess that it's an error - errors happen, like the erroneous chart of plagiarism here.

It is plagiarism, according to Nick Terry's book's definition of plagiarism anyway.

while one file purportedly cited from the National Archives of Belarus is seemingly plagiarised from secondary sources.

- The "white paper" p.28.

[friedrichjansson]

Odd that "Statistical Mechanic" now seems unwilling to defend his claims about plagiarism.

In fact, Nick Terry's misuse of sources doesn't stop at the citation of archival sources he hasn't used, but also extends to citing books he hasn't truly read.

Tell me, "Statistical Mechanic" - or any of the other HC-affiliated trolls now in attendance - how shall this particular case be classified? Is "incompetence" the right word, or does the inaccurate use of sources that have been merely browsed, for the sole purpose of creating a facade of extensive scholarship, merit the word "fraud"?

[Statistical Mechanic]

I already stated what I think. Instead of beating dead horses, I moved on from what I considered a settled matter.

[theblackrabbitofinlé]

I already stated what I think. Instead of beating dead horses, I moved on from what I considered a settled matter.

Where did you state what you think? Is there an older thread on Terry's Wagenaar howler?

[Statistical Mechanic]

http://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 297#p28082 responding to the first point. I have nothing to say about the rest of the post, because I haven't read the book mentioned, except to say that it doesn't come off like plagiarism or much of anything.

[theblackrabbitofinlé]

I had suspected that it must be that post to which you were referring, but anyone with a reasonable grasp of the English language can clearly see that there you were making excuses for Nick Terry's (by his very own definition) plagiarism of David Bankie's immensely dishonest rendering of a document found in Kew, a document which FJ has provided a photograph of.

This of course means that you have so far shied away from commenting on the most recent example of Terry's scholastic impropriety that FJ has brought to notice.