Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:15 pm)

Reviso wrote:
Pia Kahn wrote:What is the grammatical function of "strassenbauend", if it is not an adverb? You keep dodging my questions. I want to know.


Well, it is a "prädikatives Attribut", more precisely a "depiktives Prädikativ".
Here are some examples.

https://d-nb.info/1022011448/34

Zur Klassifizierung der Prädikative
Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades eines Doctor philosophiae (Dr. Phil.)
vorgelegt dem Rat der Philosophischen Fakultät der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
von Justyna Dolińska
(...)

p. 9

Die Adjektive (...) in folgenden Fügungen: (...)
(40) Die Kinder schlafen zufrieden ein. (d.h. zufriedene Kinder)
(...) nennen die Autoren (HEIDOLPH u.a. 1981: 618, 582) prädikative Attribute

(...)
p. 14
(71) a. Das Mädchen kommt fröhlich nach Hause. (= prädikatives Attribut)
b. Es ist (zu diesem Zeitpunkt) fröhlich.
(72) a. Das fröhliche Mädchen kommt nach Hause. (= normales Attribut)
b. Das Mädchen kommt nach Hause. Es ist (immer) fröhlich.

(...)
p. 16
(96) Die Kinder kamen gesund an.

(...)
p. 23
(154) Die Muscheln lagen ''ungeöffnet'' auf dem Teller.

(...)
p. 35
(236) Der Gefreite wurde (vom Offizier) wach gebrüllt.
[Note (Reviso) : according to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/br%C3%BCllen , "brüllen" is transitive and intransitive. This example is a "resultatives Prädikativ, not a "depiktives Prädikativ" as in the Protocol.]

p. 36
(248) Das Kind kam hungrig nach Hause.

p. 45
(266) Karl befindet sich stehend/liegend/kniend im Zimmer
p. 115

6 Depiktive Prädikative
Im vorliegenden Kapitel werden die kursiv gesetzten Ausdrücke behandelt:
(545) Er isst die Karotten ''roh''
(...)
Es liegt hier ein depiktives Prädikativ (DUDEN-GRAMMATIK 2005), ein
prädikatives Attribut (HEIDOLPH u.a. 1981; HELBIG/BUSCHA 2001 – betrifft nur das Adjektiv), ein Verbgruppenadverbial (VG-Adverbial) mit Komplementbezug (ZIFONUN u.a. 1997),
[Note (Reviso) : Verbgruppenadverbial is not the same thing as adverb.]
ein Disjunkt (ENGEL 2004) oder ein freies Prädikativ (ERBEN 1980; EISENBERG 2006) vor. Hier soll des Weiteren zentral von depiktivem Prädikativ gesprochen werden.

[Note (Reviso) : if "roh" is a "prädikatives Attribut" in the phrase "Er isst die Karotten roh", there is no reason that it doesn't remain a "prädikatives Attribut" in the passive form : "die Karotten werden roh gegessen". Compare with "Die Juden werden strassenbauend geführt".]



avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Breker » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:25 pm)

Reviso, Pia Kahn is a native German speaker, you are not.
Besides, as Borjastick & Hannover have commented, if the Wannsee Conference was anything like it is claimed by some, there would be no need to engage in tortured debates like 'it depends upon what the definition of is is'.
Give it up, this line of argument is pointless.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:44 pm)

Breker wrote:Reviso, Pia Kahn is a native German speaker, you are not.
Besides, as Borjastick & Hannover have commented, if the Wannsee Conference was anything like it is claimed by some, there would be no need to engage in tortured debates like 'it depends upon what the definition of is is'.
Give it up, this line of argument is pointless.
B.


Breker, you are not a moderator, that I know, I'm waiting for Pia Kahn's answer. If I am wrong, Pia Kahn can easily prove it by quoting grammatical authorities, as I did.
R.

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Breker » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:34 pm)

Reviso wrote:
Breker wrote:Reviso, Pia Kahn is a native German speaker, you are not.
Besides, as Borjastick & Hannover have commented, if the Wannsee Conference was anything like it is claimed by some, there would be no need to engage in tortured debates like 'it depends upon what the definition of is is'.
Give it up, this line of argument is pointless.
B.


Breker, you are not a moderator, that I know, I'm waiting for Pia Kahn's answer. If I am wrong, Pia Kahn can easily prove it by quoting grammatical authorities, as I did.
R.

Let us review then. What is your position on the versions of the Wannsee Conference minutes? In your opinion, do they or do they not substantiate the claims of "Holocaust"? Certainly, that is what we are supposed to be talking about here.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:03 pm)

Breker wrote:Let us review then. What is your position on the versions of the Wannsee Conference minutes? In your opinion, do they or do they not substantiate the claims of "Holocaust"? Certainly, that is what we are supposed to be talking about here.
B.

I wrote (p. 3) "As you know, Kempner lived in Germany from his birth (1899) to 1935. He was a lawyer. He was also an archive thief. Thus, we can expect that the Wannsee Protocol is written in the German of a German lawyer."
There were many "fresh Americans" with a German background among the prosecution staff in the postwar trials. Why should we expect that Kempner and his likes wrote a much worse German than Eichmann ?
R.

avatar
Breker
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 671
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:39 pm
Location: Europa

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Breker » 6 months 3 days ago (Wed Jan 10, 2018 6:08 pm)

Reviso wrote:
Breker wrote:Let us review then. What is your position on the versions of the Wannsee Conference minutes? In your opinion, do they or do they not substantiate the claims of "Holocaust"? Certainly, that is what we are supposed to be talking about here.
B.

I wrote (p. 3) "As you know, Kempner lived in Germany from his birth (1899) to 1935. He was a lawyer. He was also an archive thief. Thus, we can expect that the Wannsee Protocol is written in the German of a German lawyer."
There were many "fresh Americans" with a German background among the prosecution staff in the postwar trials. Why should we expect that Kempner and his likes wrote a much worse German than Eichmann ?
R.

Reviso, to repeat, my questions to you are:
What is your position on the versions of the Wannsee Conference minutes? In your opinion, do they or do they not substantiate the claims of "Holocaust"?
Please answer those questions.
B.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the impossibility of the "Holocaust" narrative is the message.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Werd » 6 months 2 days ago (Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:33 am)

Can we at least lower the rhetorical questions and get straight to the meat and bones around here? Just say what we mean? For someone like me who doesn't speak German and is having to start from page 4 all over again to try and figure out which part of Ney/Bohlinger is being taken issue with and why and for how long and in what posts, this is all becoming very convoluted.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 6 months 2 days ago (Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:31 am)

Werd wrote:Can we at least lower the rhetorical questions and get straight to the meat and bones around here? Just say what we mean? For someone like me who doesn't speak German and is having to start from page 4 all over again to try and figure out which part of Ney/Bohlinger is being taken issue with and why and for how long and in what posts, this is all becoming very convoluted.


Pia Kahn pretended that the phrase "Die Juden werden strassenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt" is bad German. Among his/her arguments : "strassenbauend" is here an adverb. (I don't see the relevance, but Pia Kahn finds this fact very important.) Read the long quotation I made yesterday from a grammatical book and you will see that, in this construction, "strassenbauend" is not an adverb but a "prädikatives Attribut", more precisely a "depiktives Prädikativ". Apparently, Pia Kahn became mute after I made this quotation.
I asked why, according to Pia Kahn, the phrase "Der Mann wurde betrunken zur Polizei geführt" is correct and the phrase "Die Juden werden strassenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt" is incorrect, but I got no answer.
R.

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1511
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Moderator » 6 months 2 days ago (Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:23 pm)

Reviso:
You were asked twice, politely, your position on the claimed Wannsee minutes.
What is your position on the versions of the Wannsee Conference minutes? In your opinion, do they or do they not substantiate the claims of "Holocaust"? Certainly, that is what we are supposed to be talking about here.
You have dodged both times.
With the second dodge (post deleted) you claimed that you cannot answer because of legal authorities in your country, you claim you would be 'compromised'. That seems reasonable until one realizes that you have made other comments here which could also be considered 'compromising'. And, of course, you do use a pseudonym.

It's no sin here to disagree with Revisionists. We welcome disagreement, there are huge numbers of posts to attest to that fact. However, guidelines are guidelines for everyone. You must answer the mentioned questions / challenges if you wish to continue posting to this thread.
Please review those simple, fair guidelines.
Thanks, M1
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 6 months 2 days ago (Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:23 am)

The Protocol doesn't substantiate the extermination thesis.
R.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 6 months 17 minutes ago (Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:00 am)

It seems that the grammatical discussion is closed. (I retracted a mistake I had made about "Private Berufe" and Pia Khan remained silent after I quoted an academic dissertation.)

I now give my opinion about the Protocol.
The exterminationist historian Christopher Browning says :
One notable Nazi leader had not sent a representative to the Wannsee Conference, namely Heydrich and Himmler's disliked rival, Josef Goebbels of the Propaganda Ministry. It would appear that Goebbels received an expurgated version of the protocol only much later. He noted in his diary entry of March 7, 1942, concerning a report "from the SD and police regarding the final solution of the Jewish question." He noted the Wannsee Conference figure of 11 million Jews in Europe and then wrote: "They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar can be assigned to them after the war." In reality, of course, the Jews were neither going to be concentrated "later," nor sent to Madagascar after the war. The Jews of the Warthegau were already being gassed at this moment, and the gassing of Serbian Jews in the Semlin camp outside Belgrade was imminent. Moreover, the "concentration" of the Jews of Poland in the three tiny villages of Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka was about to begin.


It is here : https://www.hdot.org/browning/#

For me, it is unlikely that an expurgated version of the Protocol was sent to Goebbels. Thus Kempner or a Kempner boy replaced a Madagascar thing by the "entsprechend behandeld" thing. It was not necessary to rewrite the whole Protocol.

The exterminationist author Mark Roseman, in his acclaimed book "The Wannsee Conference and the Final Solution, A Reconsideration", 2002, p. 98, says :

When the participants received it [= the Protocol], they learned what it was he [= Heydrich] wished them to know, whether or not it accorded with their own memory of what had been discussed. For this reason, some of the civil servants' postwar denials that murder had been discussed at the meeting are beside the point. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one dared submit criticisms or amendments to Heydrich, though internal memos in the ministries suggested that on at least one matter the discussion had been less conclusive than the protocol indicated.


Thus Mark Roseman tells us that somebody introduced in the Protocol a false version of the content of the Conference, in order to make this content appear more bloody than it was. He thinks that the falsifier was Heydrich. I think that it was Kempner or a Kempner boy.
R.

avatar
Werd
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1026
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 2:23 am

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Werd » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:18 pm)

Let's recall what we are dealing with. As shown back on page 3, where I broke down the English article from Christian Mentel, we saw in Area I: Transmission and Publication how one facsimile of the letter between Heydrich and Luther was reproduced in a sneaky, underhanded way by Kemper for the purposes of publishing a book. It included using an eraser technique to get the handwritten part isolated and then put THAT onto a facsimile of the Heydrich-Luther letter. We also have to focus on the one surviving copy of the Wannsee protocol out of the 30 that were supposed to be made. Again, in Area I: Transmission and Publication, we see the sole surviving copy juxtaposed to a facsimile of the Wannsee protocol that was put in Kempner's book.

Facsimiles are not important. The sole surviving copy out of 30 are. And if it is THIS one that we find questionable language, THEN we should be concerned.

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:36 am)

Werd wrote:Let's recall what we are dealing with. As shown back on page 3, where I broke down the English article from Christian Mentel, we saw in Area I: Transmission and Publication how one facsimile of the letter between Heydrich and Luther was reproduced in a sneaky, underhanded way by Kemper for the purposes of publishing a book. It included using an eraser technique to get the handwritten part isolated and then put THAT onto a facsimile of the Heydrich-Luther letter. We also have to focus on the one surviving copy of the Wannsee protocol out of the 30 that were supposed to be made. Again, in Area I: Transmission and Publication, we see the sole surviving copy juxtaposed to a facsimile of the Wannsee protocol that was put in Kempner's book.

Facsimiles are not important. The sole surviving copy out of 30 are. And if it is THIS one that we find questionable language, THEN we should be concerned.


I don't understand this. For me, Muehlenkamp argued convincingly against Ney's grammatical objections, with perhaps one exception : "Private Berufe" is used in the sense of "Freie Berufe". If it was impossible that a German made this mistake, it is a proof against the authenticity, but are there reasons to believe that Eichmann or a German stenographer wrote a perfect German ? One real mistake in this long text is not so unbelievable from a German.
I'm surprised that my own arguments against the authenticity don't seem to interest anybody.
R.

avatar
Elroy
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:15 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Elroy » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:26 am)

This thread is really confusing...

I don't really understand it...

The exterminationists use the Wansee protocol's as evidence for the Holocaust..

(a) are they authentic yes or no? conclusively yes or no? (revisionists only answer)
(b) even "if" they are authentic- do they credit the exterminationist cause?

Could anybody in a nutshell post in plain language too the main reasons why they are forged or why they do not strengthen the case?

^To recap...

avatar
Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Wannsee Conference minutes debunked

Postby Reviso » 5 months 4 weeks ago (Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:28 am)

Elroy wrote:This thread is really confusing...

I don't really understand it...

The exterminationists use the Wansee protocol's as evidence for the Holocaust..

(a) are they authentic yes or no? conclusively yes or no? (revisionists only answer)
(b) even "if" they are authentic- do they credit the exterminationist cause?

Could anybody in a nutshell post in plain language too the main reasons why they are forged or why they do not strengthen the case?

^To recap...

In my post from Jan 14, I explained why I think the Protocol was falsified by making its content more murderous than it was really. Is there anything that you don't understand in this post ?
R.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests