I don’t suppose you could tell us more about this correspondant?

And just for future reference, this isn’t the Hoax section.

Was there a reason why you felt the need to start up a whole second topic on this same subject?

I’m not going to get into a debate on the morals of German soldiers; provide a dissertation on my reasons why I think this book is lacking substantiation or include a list of distortions. I just ask that you read the book and come to your own conclusions.

I don’t see any reason for separate threads on the same topic.  Threads merged.

Smerk - 07 June 2009 02:23 AM

Threads merged.

Confusion accomplished.

Smerkish stealth-strike is a success.

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:19 AM

I’m not going to get into a debate on the morals of German soldiers; provide a dissertation on my reasons why I think this book is lacking substantiation or include a list of distortions. I just ask that you read the book and come to your own conclusions.

How can I provide a dissertation on your reasons?

You made a statement with no backing. I have challenged your assumptions. If you make a statement like that, you ought to have at least a reason for making it.

Renquist - 07 June 2009 02:30 AM

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:19 AM

I’m not going to get into a debate on the morals of German soldiers; provide a dissertation on my reasons why I think this book is lacking substantiation or include a list of distortions. I just ask that you read the book and come to your own conclusions.

How can I provide a dissertation on your reasons?

You made a statement with no backing. I have challenged your assumptions. If you make a statement like that, you ought to have at least a reason for making it.

Congratulations on your challenge to me Renquist. Read the book and then come back on this blog and we can discuss the matter. You’re not in a position to engage in any kind of discussion with me until you have a familiarity of the issues.

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:43 AM

Renquist - 07 June 2009 02:30 AM

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:19 AM

I’m not going to get into a debate on the morals of German soldiers; provide a dissertation on my reasons why I think this book is lacking substantiation or include a list of distortions. I just ask that you read the book and come to your own conclusions.

How can I provide a dissertation on your reasons?

You made a statement with no backing. I have challenged your assumptions. If you make a statement like that, you ought to have at least a reason for making it.

Congratulations on your challenge to me Renquist. Read the book and then come back on this blog and we can discuss the matter. You’re not in a position to engage in any kind of discussion with me until you have a familiarity of the issues.

No, familiarity with the book is a moot issue. I ask why the concept of a german soldier taking pity on a Jewish boy, knowing he’s Jewish, is so preposterous in light of the various examples of German Wehrmacht soldiers helping Jews to escape or otherwise saving their lives.

Which is what you claimed, without giving any good reason for doing so. A perplexing statement. I merely ask you to clarify it.

Renquist - 07 June 2009 02:45 AM

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:43 AM

Renquist - 07 June 2009 02:30 AM

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:19 AM

I’m not going to get into a debate on the morals of German soldiers; provide a dissertation on my reasons why I think this book is lacking substantiation or include a list of distortions. I just ask that you read the book and come to your own conclusions.

How can I provide a dissertation on your reasons?

You made a statement with no backing. I have challenged your assumptions. If you make a statement like that, you ought to have at least a reason for making it.

Congratulations on your challenge to me Renquist. Read the book and then come back on this blog and we can discuss the matter. You’re not in a position to engage in any kind of discussion with me until you have a familiarity of the issues.

No, familiarity with the book is a moot issue. I ask why the concept of a german soldier taking pity on a Jewish boy, knowing he’s Jewish, is so preposterous in light of the various examples of German Wehrmacht soldiers helping Jews to escape or otherwise saving their lives.

Which is what you claimed, without giving any good reason for doing so. A perplexing statement. I merely ask you to clarify it.

As a minor point, I think the soldier was Latvian, not German. . .  😉

Accipiter - 07 June 2009 02:50 AM

Renquist - 07 June 2009 02:45 AM

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:43 AM

Renquist - 07 June 2009 02:30 AM

MuTheta - 07 June 2009 02:19 AM

I’m not going to get into a debate on the morals of German soldiers; provide a dissertation on my reasons why I think this book is lacking substantiation or include a list of distortions. I just ask that you read the book and come to your own conclusions.

How can I provide a dissertation on your reasons?

You made a statement with no backing. I have challenged your assumptions. If you make a statement like that, you ought to have at least a reason for making it.

Congratulations on your challenge to me Renquist. Read the book and then come back on this blog and we can discuss the matter. You’re not in a position to engage in any kind of discussion with me until you have a familiarity of the issues.

No, familiarity with the book is a moot issue. I ask why the concept of a german soldier taking pity on a Jewish boy, knowing he’s Jewish, is so preposterous in light of the various examples of German Wehrmacht soldiers helping Jews to escape or otherwise saving their lives.

Which is what you claimed, without giving any good reason for doing so. A perplexing statement. I merely ask you to clarify it.

As a minor point, I think the soldier was Latvian, not German. . .  😉

Which only makes the concept of the soldier taking the Jewish boy in more plausible.

I’m feeling kind of accomplished here. First time in my life I’ll go to bed after debating if a book is nonfiction or not. :/