A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Sun Dec 22, 2013 7:32 pm

I see you've now edited your post Statistical Mechanic, originally you just posted the link.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Posts: 1972
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 3:24 am
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Dec 22, 2013 10:32 pm

Yes, I wanted to respond to a point I missed when I first posted. I don't see errors as plagiarism. People make them with the best intentions. I really don't know what else to say.
"the Germans had ample justifiable cause to oppose a minority within their society who worked AGAINST their county's interests" -- been-there, 24 April 2014

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Sun Jan 31, 2016 12:57 am

Thanks to a post by JH on HC:
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... ng-at.html

I was able to find another Nick Terry plagiarism, this time not in the Manifesto, but in his article "Conflicting Signals: British Intelligence on the ‘Final Solution’ through Radio Intercepts and Other Sources, 1941-1942", which was published in Yad Vashem Studies vol.32, 2004.
https://www.academia.edu/1193453/_Confl ... p._351-396


The following is a pending approval comment on HC's blog, with a few grammar errors corrected, and Irving's book this time correctly stated as vol. 2.

The part relating to Terry is in bold.

Nick Terry, plagiarising the Holocaust denier David Irving. Who would have guessed it!
The first person to mention the shooting of 4,200 Jews was Hinsley in British Intelligence in the Second War War Volume II (p.671) but he merely gives the figure as being the largest in the last week of August 1941.

I think that Hinsely took a lot of information regarding the decodes from G.C. & C.S. Air and Military History V.XIII: The German Police by Lt. E. D. Phillips, which, as you mentioned, is now available at Kew as HW 16/63. And it was from this previously "Top Secret 'Ultra'" volume that I learnt of this shooting (p.235). As I said to Hans Sortie yesterday, the ZIP/GPD codes are the important thing to cite. Asides from making the decodes easier to locate in the files, they were used as references in the Summaries and enabled me to track down the decode featuring this shooting.

Phillips noted after listing some shootings:
"The figures given above are selected from many more reports; some simply in general terms. It is probable that "Jews" and "Bolshevists" were convenient categories to account for any kind of execution." (p.236)
Which would please Hungover no end!

________________________________

J. Harrison wrote:Breitman takes it from NA RG 457, Box 1386
He doesn't mention the shooting of the 4,200 by Pol. Batl. 302 at Kamanets-Podolsk though, only the shooting of 914 Jews by Pol. Regt. S. (p.63), and if you re-check his book you'll see that you've quoted from the previous endnote; 51 instead of 52 (pp.270-271).

________________________________


There's a lot of strange things claimed about HW 1/62:

D. Irving (Churchill's War vol: 2 p.867 n.39), N. Terry (Conflicting Signals, p.365), R. Haynok (Eavesdropping on Hell, p.126) all claim it contains the note with the famous message:

The fact that the Police are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should be now sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specially, unless so requested.


But that note is actually in a different file in a bundle of papers sent to Churchill on 31.08.41, and it does mention the shooting of 4,200 Jews by Pol. Batl. 302 and 914 by Pol. Regt. S. on 27.08.41.

Strange all three authors should have made exactly the same mistake!!!!!

What is notable, is that N. Terry (who does discuss Irving's book in his paper: p.388 n.109) doesn't mention the shooting of the 4,200 Jews anywhere in his article. Which is very odd, considering that he claims to have seen this famous note, and those shooting are its main subject. He will no doubt claim it's a "coincidence" that he made the same mistake as Irving!


I made a complete copy of HW 1/62 on 20.03.13 and there is no longer a German police report in it. But there should be one: dated 11.09.41:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/9e86d784df9 ... fad4a0.jpg
but it's been lost, or stolen. I reported its absence to staff at Kew on 28.03.13, and their catalogue now notes its absence:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.u ... r/C4463290

C's 12.09.41 memo to Churchill in HW 1/62 states "Attached is a German Police Message, dated 11.9.41" so it seems improbable that it was a translation of ZIP/GPD 349 no.1, (i.e. the one inc. shooting of 4,200 Jews) as that was dated 27.08.41, and especially as C had already told Churchill about those shootings two weeks earlier.

________________________________


Terry reproduces (pp.363-364) a table of shootings from the Summary of August 15-31, 1941, ZIP/MSGP 28, in HW 16/6 Pt.1.

But he made a real pig's ear of it, with too many mistakes for me to bother to list. But the total printed on the Summary is 12,361 (which is correct for the figures listed). Terry quotes this total, but his figures total just 8,034 and he doesn't even acknowledge the massive discrepancy!

The reason why he is so far out, is because Terry's "42" shot by Pol. Batl. 360 on 27.08.41, should read "4200". The figure appears on the edge of the paper and the 00 has been ripped off or perished, so it does look like 42:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/7951ed899d8 ... 06df38.jpg

If only he'd reproduced the rest of the list correctly, he surely would have noticed the total was 4,158 less than 12,361, and perhaps he was once clever enough to have figured out why!
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26797
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by Nessie » Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:36 am

That passage suggest far more mistakes than it quotes. If three people make the same mistake, it is likely an easy mistake to make. There is a good explanation for the mistake regarding 4200 and 42.

I want to see BRoI write an error free history of the Holocaust.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:36 pm

Nessie wrote:If three people make the same mistake, it is likely an easy mistake to make.
But it's not an easy mistake to make, that's the entire point. The odds of three people all making the same mistake is statistically very low.

Add to that the fact that the document is about two shootings on August 27, 1941, one in which 4,200 Jews were reportedly shot, and N. Terry mentions nothing about that shooting in his article despite that fact that his paper is predominately about the British intercepting messages about mass shootings.
Nessie wrote:I want to see BRoI write an error free history of the Holocaust.
It's impossible to write a history of anything without leaving out many details, but it is possible to write one without plagarising sources from other historians.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26797
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by Nessie » Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:15 pm

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Nessie wrote:If three people make the same mistake, it is likely an easy mistake to make.
But it's not an easy mistake to make, that's the entire point. The odds of three people all making the same mistake is statistically very low.
Please evidence that claim. Please evidence that when three people make the same mistake that does not mean it is an easy mistake to make and only a few would spot it.
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:Add to that the fact that the document is about two shootings on August 27, 1941, one in which 4,200 Jews were reportedly shot, and N. Terry mentions nothing about that shooting in his article despite that fact that his paper is predominately about the British intercepting messages about mass shootings.
Nessie wrote:I want to see BRoI write an error free history of the Holocaust.
It's impossible to write a history of anything without leaving out many details, but it is possible to write one without plagarising sources from other historians.
Get on with it them. Stop sitting lazily at the side lines nitpicking at other's work and be brave and write your own. Please start by researching mass survival of the Jews the denier/revisionists say were not killed at the AR camps.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Sun Jan 31, 2016 4:51 pm

Nessie wrote:
theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:But it's not an easy mistake to make, that's the entire point. The odds of three people all making the same mistake is statistically very low.
Please evidence that claim. Please evidence that when three people make the same mistake that does not mean it is an easy mistake to make and only a few would spot it.
I've already evidenced it. You have no experience of archival research so you can't understand the issue. That's your shortcoming.

Stop shit posting on this thread if you're incapable of addressing the issue.
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 26797
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by Nessie » Sun Jan 31, 2016 5:03 pm

I do have experience of archival research from work at the National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh and study I did on the Clydebank Blitz. Please evidence that mistake was due to plagiarism and not just because it was an easy mistake to make.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:22 pm

Holocaust Controversies' Sergey Romanov is misrepresenting what Rudolf Hoess said during a dual Nuremberg interrogation of himself and Otto Moll:
https://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot ... heory.html

I posted the follow comment on their blog, but Romanov has already threatened to delete it, so I'm also posting it here:
You and Mattogno are unintentional comedians if either of you think for an instant that Hoess was referring to anything other than mass graves when he referred to the "so-called dug-outs". Perhaps you both need some English lessons; you can start by learning how this punctuation mark differs from a comma:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

From the dual interrogation of Rudolf Hoess and Otto Moll 16.04.46, 1415 to 1615 [pp. 8-9]:
BROOKHART: How many victims were exterminated in the camp from 1941 on?

MOLL: I don't know the number and I don't think I would be able to give you any number at all as far as the total number of victims goes. I believe Hoess might know that.

BROOKHART: The only thing we are interested in is what you have knowledge of.

MOLL: When I was in charge of these excavations, as I told you about before, together with another comrade, which was confirmed by Hoess today, we put between 30,000 and 40,000 people in those mass graves. It was the most terrible work that could be carried out by any human being.

BROOKHART: Stick to the figures.

MOLL: I don't know who those people were or how they got there. I only excavated the mass graves. I was responsible for burning the bodies right there.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO RUDOLF HOESS:

BROOKHART: How does that figure strike you, Hoess?

HOESS: It is impossible for him to know the exact figures, but they appear to me to be much too small as far as I can remember today. The people buried in the two big mass graves of the so—called dugouts; one and two, amounted to 106,000 or 107,000 people.

QUESTIONS ADDRESSED TO OTTO MOLL:

MOLL: I could not complete the excavation detail, which I mentioned before, I then got the attack of typhus.

BROOKHART: What do you estimate was the number of bodies you handled?

MOLL: It was later they went thru my crematory plant and I would say between 40,000 and 50,000, that is at the crematory where I was responsible. I was not responsible for the two large crematories, as they were two SS corps Mussfeld and also Foss, who were responsible for the two large cremations and Hoess will remember that.
It's as clear as crystal what Hoess meant. The so-called "dugouts" was the term given to the mass graves at Birkenau during their excavation. The largest ones, numbers "one" and "two", contained over a hundred thousands bodies between them.

When you first quoted the Hoess-Moll interrogation in your January 2010 post, you cut out all mention of the excavations which show that Hoess meant graves—the biggest ones: "one and two". Instead, armed with cherry-picked quotes, you claimed he was referring to Bunkers 1 & 2! A complete howler, or a complete fraud, of shocking proportions.
http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot. ... layer.html

SR: Hence, in context, it is obvious that originally Höss used the term "Bunker" which for an Englishman made sense as a dugout.
A. Your purported "context" is a complete distortion of the interrogation transcript.
B. There was no "Englishman" present at the Hoess-Moll interrogation, just Brookhart [interrogator], Richard B. Sonnenfelt [interpreter] and Alice Meehan [court reporter]. Draper didn't interrogate Hoess until two weeks later!

SR: The use of the word "bunker" (which is not a natural way to describe a generic gas chamber or a farmhouse) by Draper, which was immediately confirmed by Höss, is simply explained by Höss' mention of the term earlier (including the 16.04.1946 interrogation).
"Including"!? All you've presented is the now debunked *Bunker was translated dugouts* nonsense. You have no other "earlier" [i.e. prior to 30.04.46] Hoess mentions of the term.

Also, you neglected to inform your readers that Gerald Draper had heard the term "bunker" from Sigmund Bendel two months earlier during their exchange at the Tesch trial:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/4abe1efbec1 ... e3fe1a.jpg

Bendel also mentioned the "bunker" at the Belsen trial 01.10.45:
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/2e4ca45dfc9 ... 9269af.jpg

The transcripts for Belsen, Tesch and IG-F trials don't mention what language Bendel testified in, but seeing as he was fluent in German it's likely it was that—especially at the Tesch trial, which was a relatively small affair and didn't have the teams of translators present at the other two.

Both the Belsen and Tesch trial transcript recorded him as having said "B/bunker". The translators at these British-run trials didn't go with "dugout", scuppering your translation theory.

SR: "So there you have it. Höss did use the term "bunker" before his Polish captivity ..."
More precisely: Draper used it and Hoess *literally* parroted it. You also concocted a cock and bull story about the Hoess-Moll interrogation, but that's now been exposed.

SR: "... Mattogno's "scholarship" is once again shown to be nothing but a sloppy and dishonest mess."
He must be still wet behind the ears not to have seen through your complete distortion of the Hoess-Moll interrogation transcript, but the dishonesty, and boy—is it a mighty portion, is all yours.


[As this blog's recently gone full-CODOH and comments which expose the moderators' BS are now being deleted, I will also be posting this at RODOH]
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé » Mon Jun 13, 2016 7:39 pm

BRoI wrote:
SR: <i>Perhaps you need your eyes checked because the transcript clearly has a colon, not a semi-colon.

https://www.fold3.com/image/1/231914546</i>
Cheeky attempt, providing a link to a site people have to sign-up to to be able to check the document.

I on the other hand have nothing to hide. Here's two different versions of the document everyone can see instantly.
http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/2ebe046cd57 ... 88470e.jpg

You need [to] buy/steal a better monitor. It's clearly a semi-colon.

But at least we now know that your misrepresentation of Hoess was no mistake.

I'll respond to the rest when I've got more time.

[also posted at rodoh]
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 10 guests