|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 1, 2022 19:04:07 GMT
The letter o with umlaut (ö) appears in the German alphabet. It represents the umlauted form of o, resulting in [œ]. The other german umlauts are ä and ü. It is noticed in this telegram that the umlauts ä and ü with some regularity but ö is missing. It is clear they are using a German typewriter as english ones do not have the umlaut keys as the German ones do. However, the engima device the Germans used did not bother about the niceties of the German language a simple A O or U would suffice. This is the engima keyboard, input and output. This means that the umlauts in the Hoefle telegram were put in by the typist and not a part of the actual intercept. Höfle would have been sent via enigma as Hofle, his name changed to Hoefle by the typist like the words with the umlauts. The figures could also easily be changed by the same typist as the inclusion of the umlauts. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,214
Member is Online
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 1, 2022 19:36:17 GMT
Go here: www.tnmoc.org/bh-4-the-y-intercept-stations to see how idiotic you are about the origin of the intercepts. An excerpt: So, you don't have the intercept and there's apparently nothing available except the traffic and the translation. OK, by intercept, you mean the original coded message as typed out by the intercept station, before it was decoded. How would that help you? Since the message was found amongst multiple other messages from Beltchely, its authenticity as a Bletchley intercept is assured. Irving said he was 80% sure it was genuine. Your doubts are irrelevant. The original intercept is pre decoding. How do you plan to read it? Since there are other documents recording mass transports to TII, along with numerous witnesses to mass transports to the camp, that hundreds of thousands were sent there is proven. |
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 1, 2022 20:00:18 GMT
Your doubts are irrelevant. You are irrelevant. No doubt these intercepts were "wire' recorded. It would be negligent not to have done this; this means they should be copied and accessible if declassified. This thread is to discuss the intercept not whether T was a death camp or a camp for Hitler Youth. Talking about other documents is off topic to this thread and deliberate. Stick to the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 1, 2022 20:01:36 GMT
The letter o with umlaut (ö) appears in the German alphabet. It represents the umlauted form of o, resulting in [œ]. The other german umlauts are and ü. It is noticed in this telegram that the umlauts ä and ü with some regularity but ö is missing. It is clear they are using a German typewriter as english ones do not have the umlaut keys as the German ones do. However, the engima device the Germans used did not bother about the niceties of the German language a simple A O or U would suffice... This means that the umlauts in the Höfle telegram were put in by the typist and not a part of the actual intercept. Höfle would have been sent via enigma as Hofle, his name changed to Hoefle by the typist like the words with the umlauts. The figures could also easily be changed by the same typist as the inclusion of the umlauts. Thanks for the info on the Enigma machine. But the issue of the non-German spelling of Hermann Höfle’s name remains the same. The Bletchley typists had German typewriters that had keys for the German letters with umlauts. This particular page demonstrates that is the case, as it has words with umlauts. E.g. Händen, tägige, führer, verfügung, etc. As you correctly point out, the Enigma message would have spelt HOFLE. So the German speaking interceptor at Bletchley would have EITHER typed that as Höfle or Hofle,. NOT as Hoefle, as the actual document does. Thus indicating that this is a mistake of a forger. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,214
Member is Online
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 1, 2022 20:14:36 GMT
The information on the Hofle Telegram is corroborated by other evidence. Its find in 2000 only added to existing evidence, by giving some extra detail to what was already known.
The argument that a Bletchley typist would not make mistakes, but a forger would, is a nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 1, 2022 20:22:48 GMT
The information on the Hofle Telegram is corroborated by other evidence. Its find in 2000 only added to existing evidence, by giving some extra detail to what was already known. The argument that a Bletchley typist would not make mistakes, but a forger would, is a nonsense. It could well be that the other evidence is the inspiration for this telegram. Hoefle is the English phoenetic spelling of Höfle; Germans do not have a need for this due to their umlauts. It is indeed strange that the operator uses umlauts for ä and ü but not for ö, when the keyboard is there for use. The Germans would have sent the name as Hofle. This error screams forgery. |
|
Nessie
🦕
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿 (Nessies forum)
Posts: 3,214
Member is Online
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 1, 2022 20:33:56 GMT
The information on the Hofle Telegram is corroborated by other evidence. Its find in 2000 only added to existing evidence, by giving some extra detail to what was already known. The argument that a Bletchley typist would not make mistakes, but a forger would, is a nonsense. It could well be that the other evidence is the inspiration for this telegram. Hoefle is the English phoenetic spelling of Höfle; Germans do not have a need for this due to their umlauts. It is indeed strange that the operator uses umlauts for ä and ü but not for ö, when the keyboard is there for use. The Germans would have sent the name as Hofle. This error screams forgery. Your argument is that Bletchley typists type better German than forgers is nonsense. There are other spellings used, such as Krakau and Warschau and obviously Reinhardt, which suggest the typists German spelling was not great. |
|
|
|
Post by Ulios on Feb 1, 2022 20:56:36 GMT
Your argument is that Bletchley typists type better German than forgers is nonsense. There are other spellings used, such as Krakau and Warschau and obviously Reinhardt, which suggest the typists German spelling was not great. There is only one spelling for Höfle which is represented as Hofle. The UK National Archives have corrected this in the following. It is not the spelling that is the issue but he knowledge that Germans do not use the English phoenetic spelling for the umlauts. If this was consistent then the telegram would have führer written as fuehrer or Händen as Henden;yet the umlauts stop the need for this. This is consistent through all the intercepts above and below the Höfle one. Interestingly in transcript 16 (below the Höfle one) SS Hauptsturmführer Körff is written as Korf and NOT Koerff as with Hoefle. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Feb 1, 2022 21:17:10 GMT
Your argument is that Bletchley typists type better German than forgers is nonsense. There are other spellings used, such as Krakau and Warschau and obviously Reinhardt, which suggest the typists German spelling was not great. There is only one spelling for Höfle which is represented as Hofle. The UK National Archives have corrected this in the following. <button disabled="" class="c-attachment-insert--linked o-btn--sm">Attachment Deleted</button> It is not the spelling that is the issue but he knowledge that Germans do not use the English phoenetic spelling for the umlauts. If this was consistent then the telegram would have führer written as fuehrer or Händen as Henden;yet the umlauts stop the need for this. This is consistent through all the intercepts above and below the Höfle one. Interestingly in transcript 16 (below the Höfle one) SS Hauptsturmführer Körff is written as Korf and NOT Koerff as with Hoefle. You can’t get Nessie to admit this about umlauts, as not only is he profoundly ignorant of the logistics and bizarre details of Shoah mythology, but he is impervious to reason, logic and indisputable facts where that contradicts his cherished ’holyco$t’ belief-system. |
|
Turnagain
✂️
𝗛𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝘀
Posts: 1,555
Member is Online
|
Post by Turnagain on Feb 1, 2022 21:35:48 GMT
been-there wrote: Anyone who can accept Wiernik and Rajchman as honest and truthful eyewitnesses isn't going to have a problem with umlauts or the lack of the original intercept document.
Nessie wrote:
Irving is a historian. Not an old intercept operator.
|
|
