Comment by verisimi
1 year ago
Let's accept your defence of the article:
> While the article did use very dramatic language, that the Nazi snatch squads in Denmark existed, were about to strike, and indeed did end up arresting many Danish Jews just a few days later over the Jewish New Year is very well documented history.
But contrast this with the article author says:
> As they slipped out of the back of their house a Nazi snatch squad was already on its way.
It's not the same thing.
What you said was:
> How could we possibly know the such things as 'Nazi snatch squads' even existed
Now you’re pretending you were only questioning the imminence of the arrest as described in the article, rather than the existence of the Nazi snatch squads themselves. That’s dishonest.
No - its not dishonest.
I don't know those squads existed. And neither do you. Neither of us were there. We only have secondary information on the whole affair.
What I do know is that those 2 bits of information do NOT match up. I do know that your defence + the statement in the article are NOT compatible. In your own terms, you have not found something that indicates what the author of the article expressed - that a death squad was on its way as they left their house. Maybe one would have come along a few days later. This is - at the least - a hyperbole.
If you were being honest you should have said, imo, that the article is NOT supported by the documented history. Ie that you agreed with my point that the story is exaggerated beyond anything historically plausible.
If you wanted to argue in favour of such extreme epistemological solipsism, you should have just said so rather than specifically questioning the existence of Nazi snatch squads in Denmark, or their well-documented arrests of many Jews just a few days after Bohr fled.
If all you had questioned was the article's hyperbole around imminence then I could accept your argument. That you're questioning whether the snatch squads existed at all is just bizarre.
1 reply →