SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby Hektor » 5 months 8 minutes ago (Thu Jun 14, 2018 7:30 am)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:You cited a German text which reads as follows
Wegen der Judenaktionen als solcher soll der Angeklagte nicht bestraft werden..... Wirklicher Judenhass ist der treibende Beweggrund für den Angeklagten gewesen. Er hat sich dabei allerdings in
According to http://www.online-translator.com, this translates to
The defendant should ....Real anti-Semitism has been the propelling motive for the defendant. However, besides, he has himself in
I have read this entire document. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp. It was very mudane, and nothing close to that quotation came up even once, even if this document which you cited is authentic.

Who is the you, you are citing?

To my knowledge nobody was citing the document in Nuremberg, and nobody claimed that until now. For the Nuremberg trial they however cherry picked documents sifting through the German records in their hands. Sometimes it is however a translation of a certified copy of a copy whose originals unfortunately lost.

There is no real reason to hide the originals of the document, unless of course that you want to prevent that critical observers themselves take a look into them.



User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Thu Jun 14, 2018 8:15 am)

Who is the you, you are citing?

To my knowledge nobody was citing the document in Nuremberg, and nobody claimed that until now. For the Nuremberg trial they however cherry picked documents sifting through the German records in their hands. Sometimes it is however a translation of a certified copy of a copy whose originals unfortunately lost.

There is no real reason to hide the originals of the document, unless of course that you want to prevent that critical observers themselves take a look into them.

Hektor, I was referring to EtienneSC. He said
Clearly Reinecke existed. He gave evidence at the Nuremberg Trial and is the author of Münchner Privatrecht im Mittelalter (Munich: Beck, 1936). Here is part of his testimony:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp
Here are a couple of extracts from the case:

He then gave us these photos.
Image
Image
This is what I was referring to. My point was that he cited a photo of the German text, and pulled out a lengthy English translation of an alleged court case. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp I looked into both of them, and I found his claims to be false. That is the "you" to whom I was referring.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.

avatar
EtienneSC
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby EtienneSC » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Fri Jun 15, 2018 3:47 pm)

JLAD Prove Me Wrong wrote:You cited a German text which reads as follows
Wegen der Judenaktionen als solcher soll der Angeklagte nicht bestraft werden. Die Juden mussen vernichtet werden, es ist um keinen der getöteten Juden schade. Wenn sich auch der Angeklagte hatte sagen mussen, daß die Vernichtung der Juden Aufgaben besonders hierfür eingerichteter kommandos ist, soll ihm zugute gehalten werden, daß er sich befugt gehalten haben mag, auch seinerseits an der Vernichtung des Judentums teilzunehmen. Wirklicher Judenhass ist der treibende Beweggrund für den Angeklagten gewesen. Er hat sich dabei allerdings in
According to http://www.online-translator.com, this translates to
The defendant should not be punished for the Jew's actions as such. The Jews leisure are destroyed, it is a pity around none of the killed Jews. If himself also the defendant had leisure says that the destruction of the Jews is duties especially for this of furnished commands, should be held to him that he might have kept himself authorised to take part also on his part in the destruction of the Judaism. Real anti-Semitism has been the propelling motive for the defendant. However, besides, he has himself in
I have read this entire document. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/08-07-46.asp. It was very mudane, and nothing close to that quotation came up even once, even if this document which you cited is authentic.
Google translate is pretty poor for German, as this example abundantly demonstrates. I see nothing wrong with the translation in the Good Old Days book. I agree that Reinecke's testimony at Nuremberg was "mundane" - i.e. not incriminating as a whole. However, my point was simply that it was evidence that he existed and was a real person, which you (or someone else in this thread) seemed to be casting doubt on. The document cited above is not from the Nuremberg trial, but evidence from the trial of Reinecke by the German legal profession in the 1960s which cited a judgement he (allegedly) gave in the trial of Taubner during the war.

User avatar
JLAD Prove Me Wrong
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:35 pm

Re: SS-Untersturmführer Max Taubner's Court Decision

Postby JLAD Prove Me Wrong » 4 months 4 weeks ago (Fri Jun 15, 2018 4:15 pm)

Google translate is pretty poor for German, as this example abundantly demonstrates.
First, I understand that "Google Translate" has issues. That's why I used http://www.online-translator.com/.
I see nothing wrong with the translation in the Good Old Days book.
I have no idea which translation the book, "The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders" used.
I agree that Reinecke's testimony at Nuremberg was "mundane" - i.e. not incriminating as a whole. However, my point was simply that it was evidence that he existed and was a real person, which you (or someone else in this thread) seemed to be casting doubt on.
Whether or not Reinbecke existed is irrelevant. His existence doesn't really prove that the document is authentic.
The document cited above is not from the Nuremberg trial, but evidence from the trial of Reinecke by the German legal profession in the 1960s which cited a judgement he (allegedly) gave in the trial of Taubner during the war.
I never claimed it was from the Nuremberg trial.
If your beliefs cannot stand up to your own sincere scrutiny and skeptical evaluation, they are not worth having.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests