Comment by _djo_
1 year ago
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.
You can call it 'extreme epistemological solipsism'. I call it not treating a unverified story as true. Especially when the hyperbole is rife throughout.
'Snatch squad' is just a term. 'Police arrest' is another term. 'Terrorist detention' is another. These terms provide all the context the casual reader needs to consider themselves informed.