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 » Mon Jun 13, 2016 8:04 pm

For anyone who doesn't have access to Fold3, here is the part of the 16.04.46 1415-1615 Hoess-Moll interrogation that Romanov cherry-picked from and totally misrepresented what Hoess was saying.

click image to enlarge
Image

click image to enlarge
Image
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 » Thu Jun 16, 2016 3:29 am

BRoI wrote:Time to admit you were wrong Sergey.

From Draper's interrogation of Hoess 30.04.46, p.1 & 2 [you even quote from page 2 of this document!]:
DRAPER: The subject is upon the statement of Otto Wilhelm Moll, dated April 29, 1946.

(Rudolf Hoess read the statement thru and makes the following reservations.)

1. Hoess first detailed Moll to work on exhuming mass graves in the winter of 1941 and Moll worked worked on this task for several months.

2. Approximately 105,000 to 106,000 bodies were exhumed and burned from these mass graves in Auschwitz.

3. The order of the burning of these bodies came in two parts:

(a) A general order from the burning from the Reichfueherer himself.

(b) A special order from Obersturmbannfuehrer Eichmann from the Jews Ampt. 4. RSHA

4. The detail included the following classes:

(a) Russian P.W.'s.

(b) Ordinary prisoners from the K-3

(c) Gassed prisoners

5. Professor Grawitz, the head S.S. Director for the Reich was there at the burning on one occasion, but he never gave orders for the burning.
"Approximately 105,000 to 106,000", virtually the same figures Hoess mentioned two weeks earlier during the joint interrogation when responding to a Moll comment on his task of exhuming bodies from mass graves and burning them:
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.
Sergey wrote:Excavations are completely irrelevant,
No, excavations are what Hoess was talking about. "Dugouts" was clearly the term given to the excavated mass graves during the action; "one" and "two" being the largest of them.

You've quoted-mined and misrepresented the text. Do the decent thing and admit your error.

[also posted on 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
DasPrussian
Posts: 3257
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by DasPrussian » Fri Jun 17, 2016 3:52 pm

I thought I'd better continue relaying the rest of the debate , as the Rabbit appears to have given up :

Sergey responds :
It is in fact pretty astonishing that a native speaker would fail to understand the meaning of two such simple sentences.

"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."
"Moll, in my opinion, cannot possibly have any idea of the number of killings in the dugouts where he was working and responsible."

What does "one and two" refer to?

1. Is it a stand-in for "two big mass graves" in an independent clause separated by a semicolon? Was it "one and two" that "amounted" to 100K people?

Clearly no, since a) the part separated by the semicolon does not work as an indepedent clause (and neither does the first part of the sentence, which then simply "hangs in the air"), so the semicolon is a mistake.
b) Moreover, :amounted" is separated from "one and two" by a comma, so it cannot refer to "one and two".

2. Does it refer to "the two big mass graves", as in "The people buried in the two big mass graves one and two amounted to..."?

Clearly no, since we can't simply ignore that there's quite a distance between "one and two" and "graves", a distance of "of the so—called dugouts". That's simply not a natural way to name the graves' numbers.
The only natural way would be this: "The people buried in the two big mass graves one and two of the so-called dugouts".

Moreover, "two big mass graves ... one and two" is quite a superfluous sentence and there is no evidence whatsoever that the graves had even been assigned any numbers, not a single testimony supports this, whereas the bunkers were assigned numbers one and two.

It follows then that "one and two" could only have referred to the word "dugouts". There was dugout one and dugout two.

3. The dugouts were the places in which killings took place: "killings in the dugouts". They were thus, in context, not mass graves, since Hoess never alleged that killings took place inside the mass graves. He did however allege that they took place inside bunkers one and two.

4. The mass graves were "of the so-called dugouts", i.e. belonged to the dugouts, i.e. were not the dugouts.

5. "Dugout" was never used to refer to mass graves in Auschwitz, whereas "dugout" is one of the direct translations of the German "Bunker", which was used to refer to gas chambers, specifically to the bunker one and two.

All of these points are intiutively clear to any knowledgeable sane person reading this testimony.
One then has to presume Rabbit surrenders to Sergey's common sense lecture , as a further 2 posts are hurled out the rabbit-hole without any of the above being addressed !!
All I want for Christmas is a Dukla Prague away kit

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 » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:20 pm

DasPrussian wrote:I thought I'd better continue relaying the rest of the debate , as the Rabbit appears to have given up :

[...]

One then has to presume Rabbit surrenders to Sergey's common sense lecture , as a further 2 posts are hurled out the rabbit-hole without any of the above being addressed !!
There's no surrender DasBrum, just had better things to do.

Sergey sure is an accomplished waffler in English for someone who can't read it particularlly well.

I'll not be following down his diversion sideroads; I'll just stick to the facts:
Hoess interrogation by Draper 30.04.46:
1. Hoess first detailed Moll to work on exhuming mass graves in the winter of 1941 and Moll worked worked on this task for several months.

2. Approximately 105,000 to 106,000 bodies were exhumed and burned from these mass graves in Auschwitz.
As I pointed out previously, these are almost precisely the same figures mentioned in Hoess' contentious statement during the dual interrogation a fortnight earlier.

Now consider:

- Bunker 1 went into operation in Mar-May of 1942.
- Bunker 2 went into operation in June of 1942.

Yet according to Sergey and Nathan, Hoess said Moll was excavating the mass graves of Bunkers 1 & 2 several months before he had even converted the farmhouses and started gassing people in them!

Lay off the drugs fellas.

[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

User avatar
DasPrussian
Posts: 3257
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:14 pm
Contact:

Re: A case of shabby plagiarism from Holocaust Controversies

Post by DasPrussian » Fri Jun 17, 2016 4:35 pm

You should have stuck to that line of argument rather than the 'semi colon' business.
All I want for Christmas is a Dukla Prague away kit

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests