Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

Roberto:

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feel free to provide a better one and offer it to THHP. They may gratefully accept it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wash your mouth!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example, in the last paragraph it says "einzigste", however this form of "einzig" does not exist. But it's a common mistake. Although linguistically incorrect, "einzigste" is frequently used by native German speakers. Even Goethe wrote about his "einzigste" girl!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used the word einzigst myself as a young student. And the German teacher returned it with a big red sechs! (Not sex, Roberto!). Sechs or 6 stands in German school gradings for the equivalent of F in the US.

---

Quote:

---

Original German and English translation in Kogon et al, Nazi Mass Murder, 228-235 and THHP

Holocaust denier Ingrid Weckert has claimed that this document is a forgery. The Gas Vans: A Critical Assessment of the Evidence pp 24-29, discussed in note 13 herein. She offers three proofs. The document contains the word einzigste. Weckert notes that this form of the word einzig not exist in German, thereby suggesting the forger did not really know German. Mr. Jrgen Langowski, a native German speaker who lives in Germany, has had his name in 100 books because he is a professional translator. He informed me that the word is a common oral and written mistake made by many Germans. He writes in a communication to me dated April 1, 1999: ...Weckert assumes that German officials always and under all circumstances produced absolutely flawless documents. This is ludicrous. Ingrid Weckert has published a few books and articles, and since there is no book without mistakes, Im prepared to prove that Ingrid Weckert herself is a forgery and doesnt exist.[my emphasis]
Weckert also claimed that there are three versions of this document which differ from each other in text underlining and in handwritten additions ... In fact, this only means that the authors of the two books which reproduced the original from the Koblenz archives made comments and underlinings on the document. Interestingly, Weckert did not claim that any of these three versions differed as to text or content, which should have alerted her to the fact that she was looking at one and the same document in all three instances.
Her most important claim about this document, dated June 5, 1942, being a forgery is that it was written after a letter dated June 23, 1942. She claimed that the June 23 letter mentions a conversation that took place on June 16 and this same conversation is mentioned in the June 5 letter, eleven days before it took place. The context in which both of these letters place the subject matter does not preclude the fact that the June 5 letter was merely mentioning something that was spoken of again eleven days later. I have not had access to the June 23 letter. However, Stephane Bruchfeld of the Holocaust and Genocide Studies program at Uppsale University in Sweden has examined both letters. In a communication to me dated February 14, 1999, he writes:
... it is quite obvious that there is no necessary connection between the two events referred to in the letters, i.e. there is no reason that the two events would be identical.
The June 5 letter is a letter from Just to Rauff. Under item of that letter Just refers to a discussion with the manufacturer about the unwanted effects of shortening the van. There is no indication of who spoke to whom. The June 23 document is, as far as I understand, a memo to the RSHA [Reich Main Security Agency] and the SD chief about the construction of vans which speaks about letting the company Gaubschat continue building them despite the difficulties of the company ... There is no specific information about precisely what [the participants at the June 16 meeting] spoke about ... but the impression I get is that it concerned several of the problems connected to the new construction of the vans. Why the 16 June talk would preclude another one prior to 5 June is beyond me.
In fact, a memo by Just on June 16, 1942 gives no information about the nature of the discussions. It only states: For further action and immediate start of repairs. I request to be informed about arrival of vans.

PS 501 See the discussion in note 13 herein.

---