I was having a debate recently with Nessie and here is what I gave back to him.
Nessie finally got off his ass after a few pages in the recent topic mentioned above and posted this:http://www.phdn.org/archives/holocaust-history.org/wannseeprotocol/index.html
The thing is, I knew he would eventually because I had already read it a long time ago and laughed my ass off at it. I just wasn't going to do his homework for him. Nessie thinks he got me. Well read it and weep. Mentel doesn't even come close to touching Ney!
In, Area I: Transmission and Publication
, the point out differences nobody disputes. Mainly the true copy that exists out of the 30 made that is in the museum, and fascimile that was created for a book written by Kempner. They really make a good point comparing a photo of the true copy with a fascimile. How can these two have different texts, but same human handwriting? Simple. Someone took the copy of the original, and used some sort of eraser technique to clean up the typed text to leave only the human handwriting in place. However, it didn't work perfectly.
Image 6 (top) (showing a detail of image 4). Please pay attention to the position of the letter "ä" of "Auswärtiges Amt" (instance 1) and the position of the letter "u" in "Luther" (instance 2) both in relation to the respective hand-written notes on top.
Image 7 (bottom) (showing a detail of image 5). While the whole block of handwriting has been copied from the original document to the newly typed text inaccurately (note that the handwriting is moved a little bit up and further to the right compared to image 6), both instances 1 and 2 show imprecisely retouched remnants of the letters "ä" and "u" in the exact position that can be seen in image 6.
Kempner and his publisher deserve to be criticized for this procedure. First, because it is generally highly questionable to alter and manipulate historical documents. Second, because they did not comment in any way on the nature of the facsimiles and the various different reproduction techniques they employed. Thus, readers were indeed deceived when taking the facsimiles as an exact reproduction of the original documents. This lack of transparency is the starting point for revisionists; it offers them the possibility to undertake all kinds of comparisons and to question the authenticity and validity of the documents. Nevertheless, it has to be pointed out that revisionists only compare images of documents - and not documents themselves. Comparing master documents would be the procedure of choice for any serious historian, because only then can certain features be investigated and only then could reliable statements be made on the nature of the documents in question. Because there are no master documents available of the facsimiles in Kempner's book, all revisionist accusations are just unfounded claims.
That is why, revisionists don't waste time on Kempner's book too much. Thanks for showing the world why us revisionists don't and why we prefer to deal with the one known copy to exist out of the total 30 that were made. This isn't really a slam dunk or a homerun.
In Area II: Bureaucratic Formalities and Witness Reports
, Christian Mentel says that revisionists have a somewhat dishonest agenda when asking for things that are supposed to be on the document if it is real:
Pretending to investigate the features of the documents in a reasonable way, revisionists claim that the Protocol could not be authentic. According to them, crucial bureaucratic features that ought to be there are missing. They ask: Where is the rubber-stamp displaying the date when the document arrived at its destination? Where is the obligatory signature? Where is the obligatory reference number? Where is the name of the issuing authority and person and where is the date of issue?
These questions are exactly the questions any serious historians would ask themselves when dealing with any historical document. But the revisionists' intentions are of a different kind - they employ these perfectly legitimate and necessary questions to deceive their readership and to convince them that the Wannsee Protocol is of a somewhat dubious nature. What is suppressed by the revisionists is the simple fact that the Wannsee Protocol was not prepared and not sent out as an isolated document by itself. Instead, it was an attachment to a letter of invitation for a Wannsee follow-up conference. It is on this higher-ranking cover letter (dated February 26, 1942; cf. image 10), where all the features can be found that revisionists complained about on the Protocol. Image 10 (left): Click for an enlargement. Reinhard Heydrich's letter of invitation to Martin Luther, 26.2.1942, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 165. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... h-1942.pdf.)
Image 11 (right): Click for an enlargement. Wannsee Protocol, p. 1, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 166. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf.)
Isolating two documents that need to be seen in context is all there is to this both simple and striking act of sleight of hand. Many years ago, the then director of the memorial site House of the Wannsee Conference Gerhard Schoenberner and historian Peter Klein pointed out this manipulation. The revisionists' response to being debunked is worth mentioning here. While they admitted that all the bureaucratic formalities were indeed to be found on the cover letter, they claimed that the Protocol ought to also show these formalities. Only if this were the case, could one be sure that individual pages or all of them had not been replaced. Moreover, contemporary regulations concerning top secret documents called for such a procedure. To be clear: According to revisionists, an authentic Wannsee Protocol would have to display on every single one of its 15 pages all bureaucratic formalities: all rubber stamps, dates, signatures, reference numbers, names, etc. Some revisionists even claim that because the margin width was not correct and the line pitch were not as they should be, the whole Protocol was not sufficiently authorized, not effective legally, and thus worthless for historiography.
And what's the response?
It has to be stressed that all official regulations, norms, requirements and orders adduced by the revisionists against the Wannsee documents were never effective either for the issuing authority (Reich Security Main Office) or the receiving authority (Foreign Office). Again, this revisionist argument has to be considered as a crude attempt to damage the Wannsee documents by use of allegedly objective benchmarks - against the general assumption that Nazi bureaucracy had been perfect. Thus, even the slightest deviations from virtual norms are used as clear-cut "evidence" that the documents were forgeries, not one word is wasted on the question of how general requirements were put into real-life practice in respective areas of competency.
I don't see you gas chamber mongers wasting time on that question either so why don't you enlighten us and ease our concerns and make us drop our revisionism with convincing argument? Or can you maybe just shut up and quit throwing random shit to the wall hoping it will stick?
2. Recall what he said earlier about an excuse for missing features:
What is suppressed by the revisionists is the simple fact that the Wannsee Protocol was not prepared and not sent out as an isolated document by itself. Instead, it was an attachment to a letter of invitation for a Wannsee follow-up conference. It is on this higher-ranking cover letter (dated February 26, 1942; cf. image 10), where all the features can be found that revisionists complained about on the Protocol.
So Wansee was not really a government document worthy of putting forth the effort to put all those little things on it because it was an attachment letter. So why the hell did these sought after features even show up AT ALL on the high ranking cover letter? Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here? Are we supposed to see stamps, notes, numbers, etc or not? If you're going to stamp one, why not the other? Is Mentel arguing that in order to save time, the Nazi bureaucracy determined it was not necessary to stamp every single page every single time? That they couldn't do it at least just once to at least one page of Wannsee? What do revisionists think of this?
Getting back to the article...
To complement this, another striking pattern of revisionist argumentation is used. It goes like this: Even if all of the - as shown above: absurd - revisionist demands in terms of authenticity and bureaucratic formalities were met, the document in question might still constitute a forgery. Because, after the end of the war, the Allies had access to all papers, rubber-stamps, typewriters and files, therefore all kinds of forged documents are possible - forgeries that are undetectable. In short, while exonerating files were systematically destroyed, incriminating and perfectly fabricated documents were created. With this surprise coup, revisionists consider all German files as potential forgeries, even if these files meet their own demands in terms of authenticity. Using this rationale, there is no possibility to determine the authenticity of any document and historiography is made impossible. However, it is telling that the suspicion that all captured German documents might be forged is only applied to those which are "incriminating". In contrast, captured documents which count for the revisionists as "exonerating" are naturally considered authentic.
Nice conspiracy theory about revisionists. Now try proving it. If this is true, where are the revisionists denying the authenticity of these key markings that exist on this high ranking cover letter? I can't find them....
In Area III: Linguistics and Semantics
, Christian Mentel complains that revisionists of past have made too much about this.
Revisionists apparently also love to omit key phrases from the article:
Time and time again, revisionists quote Bauer's statement in the weekly "The Canadian Jewish News" covering a 1992 historians' conference: "The public still repeats, time after time, the silly story that at Wannsee the extermination of the Jews was arrived at." (Cf. image 12.) The newspaper's coverage is not only lurid, it is plain wrong, when it reports the sensation that Bauer, as the first (and maybe only) historian, rejected and debunked an opinion that until this moment was commonly held by historians. Bauer was far from the first scholar who has rejected the "Wannsee decision" - as already said, this was accepted by historians for decades. But for revisionists, the short newspaper article provides a bonanza: referring to a Jewish historian quoted in a Jewish newspaper, revisionists claim that these days even Bauer accepts the revisionist position that Wannsee was fairly marginal and a "silly story" in general. This, of course, is not what Bauer said, and it is hardly surprising that all revisionists keep silent about Bauer's next sentence: "Wannsee was but a stage in the unfolding of the process of mass murder".
Okay, one little quote mine perhaps by Udo Walendy in the 80's. If it was him. I don't know the revisionist who did such a hack job and left out a key phrase, if he/she at all did. So what? Let's get back on track and deal with some serious issues.
revisionists focus on the language of the Protocol itself. On the basis of style, vocabulary, syntax and figures of speech, revisionists try to argue that the Protocol could not have been written by a German native speaker. Or, if it was, the author surely must have been a German-Jewish emigrant out of touch with his mother tongue for some time. In other words: when investigating certain words and expressions which are allegedly uncommon in German, revisionists claim the Protocol is either a bad translation from American English, or it is influenced strongly by it. In any event, the Protocol's author could never be Eichmann or one of his staff, and therefore it can not be authentic.
Correct. That is but one section of the massive work that Ney wrote on Wansee years ago. Here is the original German
(long version) and here is a google translation
into English. Here is also a short version in English. https://codoh.com/library/document/934/
Why do I bring these sources up? For a couple of reasons. One, two let people have access to them in this topic. But also to let people observe how Christian Mentel sets up the stage as if he is going to show how revisionist concerns about language, expressions, punctuation are all for nothing. And yet he completely avoids mentioning one single thing that Ney pointed out back in the 90's when he wrote his paper. What does Christian do? First advance the Austrian versus German version of German conspiracy theory.
Furthermore, a figure of speech that is uncommon in German as it is spoken in Germany, is claimed to be a bad translation from American English - disregarding the fact, that this particular figure is a common, and even formal, expression in Austria's variation of German. The absurdity of the revisionist claim is revealed when noting the fact that the author of the Protocol - Adolf Eichmann - lived in Austria during his childhood and worked there for many years thereafter. Thus, from a linguistic point of view, phrasings and expressions here and there typical of Austrian German are evidence for Eichmann's authorship of the Protocol, not against it.
Funny how Adolf Hitler was also born and raised in Austria and nobody seemed to have a problem with the way he spoke and wrote. Furthermore, Christian OFFERS NOT ONE EXAMPLE to prove his point that there is any significance between an Austrian way of saying something and a Deutsch way of saying something regarding certain passages that revisionists have a problem with. Christian could have picked ANY PASSAGE that Ney had a problem with. HE CHOSE NOT DO. HE IGNORED IT. HE PRETENDED NEY AND NEY'S ARTICLE DIDN'T EVEN EXIST. THEY'RE NOT IN THE FOOTNOTES OF CHRISTIAN'S ARTICLE. Ney only shows up once in the article:
The goal is to provide an overview over decades of revisionist publications on Wannsee, brought forth mostly by German authors like Johannes Peter Ney, Roland Bohlinger, Udo Walendy and Germar Rudolf, but also elaborated by Robert Faurisson and David Irving.
Yeah, some overview indeed! A completely wasted opportunity to show why the passages Ney is concerned about are due to the German being too Austrian. It's not that Christian didn't have space, time, or opportunity. He did. He couldn't prove his Austrian versus German language conspiracy theory. Because it's not factual.
Now that this little twerp has been exposed as a dishonest person who lies by omission and obfuscation, let's get to the passage he sees fit to complain about.
A second revisionist line of argumentation in terms of language advances the notion that the Wannsee Protocol does not contain indicators of an intended genocide, but instead gives evidence that Heydrich had the same noble vision of establishing a Jewish state as the Zionists. The basis for this claim is the camouflage language the Nazis used: Instead of terms like "Ermordung" (murder), softer expressions were adopted: "natürliche Verminderung" (natural attrition), "entsprechende Behandlung" (suitable treatment), "Lösung von Problemen" (solution of problems) and not least "Endlösung der Judenfrage" (Final Solution of the Jewish Question). This technique can be observed best in the following paragraph (p. 7/8 of the Protocol, an English translation of the whole Protocol can be read here
In the course of the final solution and under approriate [sic] direction, the Jews are to be utilized for work in the East in a suitable manner. In large labor columns and separated by sexes, Jews capable of working will be dispatched to these regions to build roads, and in the process a large number of them will undoubtedly drop out by way of natural attrition. Those who ultimately should possibly get by will have to be given suitable treatment because they unquestionably represent the most resistant segments and therefore constitute a natural elite that, if allowed to go free, would turn into a germ cell of renewed Jewish revival. (Witness the experience of history.)Image 13: Clippings from the Wannsee Protocol, p. 7 and 8, PAAA, Akt. Inl. II g 177, l. 172 and 173. (A PDF can be downloaded here: http://www.ghwk.de/fileadmin/user_uploa ... ar1942.pdf)
This paragraph of the Protocol is essential and shows what Heydrich had in mind: not only deportation, but also forced labor as a method of murder. The survivors would be especially dangerous because they would be the most resistant. These would then have to be treated accordingly (meaning: killed), because if not, they would constitute the beginning of a new Jewish "super race".
Or simply moved out of the country. As in transited. Nice job putting the cart before the horse. Try not reading your previously established belief about gas chambers into the text lest you be accused of sneaky circular reasoning. You're supposed to be an academic who knows better. Leave that shit to idiot trolls like Nessie. The final paragraph is a nice little conspiracy theory again:
It is important to bear in mind that revisionists are anything but a homogeneous group. But the one thing they have in common, no matter how different their methods, political world views and backgrounds, is anti-Semitism. Without the traditional anti-Semitic construct of a Jewish world conspiracy, revisionist writings are not possible. Underlying all revisionist writings is the idea that this alleged conspiracy is using false allegations of all kinds against Germany to dominate it and to gain money for Israel and the Jews. The implicit or explicit claim of a conspiracy of "World Jewry", which has at its command immense power and all means imaginable to make up and fabricate vast quantities of documents (the Wannsee Protocol being just one), is as irrational as the other revisionist line of argumentation: namely that for decades this Jewish conspiracy managed to influence all historians so that they - intentionally or unintentionally - misinterpret the allegedly innocuous Wannsee Protocol as proof of an intended genocide. Thus, irrationality and anti-Semitism constitute the basis of this kind of historical falsification.
Not ONE LINGUISTIC CONCERN OF NEY'S WAS DIRECTLY ADDRESSED. The theory that all apparently bad German utterances were due to Austrian German instead of high Deutsch German was interesting but had no actual proof or evidence for it. In other words Ney's criticisms remain unscathed.