Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Post Reply
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#91

Post by michael mills » 16 Jan 2018, 10:46

I have never seen the word "Porajmos" used in an English text before. It is certainly not English in origin and is equally certainly not in general usage, unlike "Holocaust".

http://www.paveepoint.ie/porajmos-the-f ... holocaust/
Under the rule of Nazi Germany, the Roma were persecuted, detained and executed as part of the Holocaust. Roma call the Holocaust the Porajmos, which means the ‘Devouring’ in Romani language.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... rajmos.htm
Porrajmos (Porajmos) "the Devouring"
The period of totalitarian regimes marked the most tragic episode in the history of the Roma: the Holocaust (Pojramos, 'the devouring' in Rromani language), which saw the death of more than half of the Roma population in Europe. The Porrajmos, literally "the Devouring," is the term that the Roma use to describe the Nazi regime's attempt to wipe their people off the face of the Earth; for the genocidal wave of terror known to most of the world as the Holocaust.

Yuli
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 12:26
Location: Israel

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#92

Post by Yuli » 16 Jan 2018, 14:54

Michael mills wrote:
"The story of Germans forcibly taking blood from prisoners and the population of occupied countries was an invention of Soviet propaganda that circulated widely during the war, even in the West. The most common form of this propaganda invention was that the Germans rounded up large numbers of children in occupied Soviet territory and drained the blood from them, to the point where the children died. I remember seeing many years ago a British-made wartime film called "The Boy from Stalingrad", which included a scene of children having the blood drained from them"
Propaganda or not, I have no tools to judge. Richards Plavnieks, a historian from University of Central Florida, provides, albeit critically, some citations that it did happen : Nazi Collaborators on Trial During the Cold War: Viktors Arājs and the Latvian Auxiliary Security Police. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. ISBN: 978-3319576718.
https://www.palgrave.com/de/book/9783319576718

https://books.google.co.il/books?id=hT0 ... od&f=false

See also the clip in yutube for a supposedly first-hand evidence of this ordeal (at about 12:00):
https://www.rt.com/news/249021-survivor ... salaspils/
Last edited by Yuli on 16 Jan 2018, 15:02, edited 1 time in total.


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#93

Post by Sid Guttridge » 16 Jan 2018, 15:00

Hi Michael,

Thanks. I have already checked out the so-called "Porajmos". I already knew that the Gypsies were part of the Nazi extermination campaign, without ever needing a special word for it.

Interestingly, your first link has to explain it in a heading thus: "Porajmos, the forgotten Roma Holocaust."

The second and third link have it as part of the so-called "Holocaust".

The Nazis waged campaigns of mass murder against a number of targets - Jews, Gypsies, Jehova's Witnesses, Polish inteligentsia, Red Army POWs, etc., etc..

What next? Are these all to have their own word in English for the same event? Or the disabled? Or homosexuals? Who else?

All these specialist words are divisive of the victims and superfluous outside their own communities.

"Holocaust" was not in general use at the time to describe the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis and is not used in their own language by Jews themselves today. It is a superfluous, post facto introduction to the English language.

Mass murder is mass murder. My feeling is that it doesn't need divisive, unnecessary and obscurantist jargon.

Cheers,

Sid

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#94

Post by Gorque » 16 Jan 2018, 15:15

Hi Sid:

I see your point, but think about all the unemployed Wordsmiths and the extra type that would be needed if we just used generalized terms appended with distinctions. I'll quickly slink away now.

BTW, great discussion by all. :thumbsup:

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#95

Post by michael mills » 16 Jan 2018, 23:42

"Holocaust" was not in general use at the time to describe the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis and is not used in their own language by Jews themselves today. It is a superfluous, post facto introduction to the English language.
I agree absolutely. I do not use the word "Holocaust" myself, and even some Jewish historians such as Walter Laqueur have labelled the use of that word to denote the mass killing of Jews by the German Government during the Second World War as "singularly inappropriate".

The reason why they consider it inappropriate is because the first use in Jewish literature of that word was in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, where it was used to denote a "burnt offering" made to Yahveh, ie it had a religious or ritualistic connotation, the idea of placating Yahveh for having sinned against him. Accordingly, for those historians, the use of a term suggesting a "burnt offering" implies that the mass killing of Jews was a sort of punishment for some offence committed against Yahveh, a belief that is in fact held by some Jewish religious extremist sects, for whom the offence was Jewish secularism. Since the mass killing was not perpetrated for a religious reason, ie for having failed to uphold the Judaic law and to serve Yahveh properly, but rather for purely political reasons, the use of the word "Holocaust" to denote it is inappropriate and misleading.

The Hebrew word used to denote the mass killing, "Shoah", does not have any connotation of a sacrifice to Yahveh; it simply means "catastrophe" or "destruction". The word used in Yiddish accounts of the killing, "Churbn", also just means "destruction" and has no religious connotation. It is noteworthy that the earliest Israeli publications in English about the mass killing of Jews during the Second World War always used the word "catastrophe" to denote it, ie a literal translation of "Shoah".

It was not the Israeli Government that decided to use the word "holocaust" as a name for the mass killing of European Jewry, but rather Jewish organisations in the United States, and there can be little doubt that the reason for choosing that name was precisely because of its prime connotation in Jewish religious literature, namely that of "burnt offering". The fact that the name "Holocaust" has gained general acceptance, and almost the nature of a trademark, not only in English but also in many other languages, reflects the cultural dominance of United States Jewry over the other centre of the Jewish people located in Israel.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8999
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 13:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#96

Post by michael mills » 17 Jan 2018, 00:22

Richards Plavnieks, a historian from University of Central Florida, provides, albeit critically, some citations that it did happen :
The story about blood being drained from Soviet children occurs under the chapter heading "Gratuitous Sensationalist Claims".

Under that heading, Plavnieks lists a number of untrue claims made in the Soviet reports on German crimes in Latvia, eg that victims were forced into the boilers of a navy cruiser in Riga harbour and pressure-cooked alive. He goes on to bemoan the fact that these erroneous claims appear in the reports together with historically accurate ones, eg that the Germans killed psychiatric patients in Latvia.

It is quite obvious that Plavnieks considers the story of blood being drained from children at Salaspils camp as being one of the gratuitous sensationalist claims in the reports of the Soviet Extraordinary Commission, rather than as one of the historically accurate statements.

User avatar
Sergey Romanov
Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 28 Dec 2003, 02:52
Location: World
Contact:

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#97

Post by Sergey Romanov » 17 Jan 2018, 09:12

> Are these all to have their own word in English for the same event? Or the disabled?

"Euthanasia".

Sid, Sid, Sid...

User avatar
seaburn
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 11 Apr 2013, 12:03
Location: Europe

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#98

Post by seaburn » 17 Jan 2018, 09:27

It's disheartening to see how this interesting thread has been hi-jacked despite the faux declaration to desist from veering it off topic. Can I ask those who have posted evidence pertaining to the title of the thread to keep doing so and not get side tracked.

Yuli
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 12:26
Location: Israel

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#99

Post by Yuli » 17 Jan 2018, 11:47

To stay on track (although all discussions are extremely interesting).
Thank you, Yuli. Does the book say where Kitty Hart's train originated? Would it be possible for you to photograph the relevant pages and upload them here?
Here are the relevant pages.
DC page 469.pdf
(34.8 KiB) Downloaded 48 times

Yuli
Member
Posts: 117
Joined: 30 Nov 2016, 12:26
Location: Israel

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#100

Post by Yuli » 17 Jan 2018, 11:48

DC page 366.pdf
(77.72 KiB) Downloaded 49 times

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#101

Post by Sid Guttridge » 17 Jan 2018, 13:55

Hi Sergey Romanov,

You do know "euthanasia" means "good death"?

It doesn't strike me that "good death" applies to anyone in Nazi custody, including the disabled, who was done to death without consulting them or their families.

Cheers,

Sid.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#102

Post by Sid Guttridge » 17 Jan 2018, 13:57

Hi Seaburn,

Fair comment.

I would quibble with the "faux" bit, as my intent was sincere. However, as you rightly point out, I failed in my intent.

I will try to do better, but no promises.

Sid.

David Green
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Jan 2018, 20:35
Location: London

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#103

Post by David Green » 17 Jan 2018, 17:07

Sergey Romanov wrote:
David Green wrote:
Brumbar wrote:
4) No, she was in Auschwitz and it's easily proven.
How is it easily proven?
For one, both she and her mother survived and had the tattoos.
Hello Sergey and Brumbar, I'm sure you'd both agree it is always best to have corroborating evidence to support one's arguments. This is particularly important when dealing with Kitty Hart-Moxon as she has frequently contradicted herself over the years in her many books and television documentaries.

Examining the evidence for the existence of Kitty Hart-Moxon's Auschwitz tattoo is important because unlike other Holocaust survivors it is not actually physically attached to her body. She keeps it, alongside her mother's tattoo, in a small container in her living room. I believe Kitty's story about having her mother's tattoo cut from her dead body and I also believe Kitty had her own tattoo surgically removed. I do so because there is an Allied document evidencing the existence of Rosa Felix's Auschwitz number dated 1946. Please note Rosa Felix was classified as a political prisoner.


Image

Image

Rosa: 39933
Kitty: 39934

Image
The tattoos as a living room ornament

Image
At Auschwitz Another Journey by Train (1993)
Last edited by David Green on 17 Jan 2018, 17:31, edited 1 time in total.

David Green
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Jan 2018, 20:35
Location: London

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#104

Post by David Green » 17 Jan 2018, 17:18

Yuli wrote:DC page 366.pdf
Thank you very much, Yuli. Your source which classifies as scholarly confirms Kitty Hart-Moxon was not sent to Auschwitz because she was Jewish. I suggest KHM like Zywulska kept her Jewish identity secret and was held in Auschwitz as an ordinary Polish political prisoner. It would be very interesting to learn the true story behind KHM's deportation.

Image
Auschwitz Chronicle, Danuta Czech, p.366

Please note that as far as the Germans were aware only five Jews arrived at Auschwitz on KHM's RSHA transport. 1x male (No. 112272) and 4x females (Nos. 39837-39839 and 39852).

David Green
Member
Posts: 34
Joined: 06 Jan 2018, 20:35
Location: London

Re: Is Kitty Hart-Moxon a plagiarist?

#105

Post by David Green » 17 Jan 2018, 17:29

seaburn wrote:It's disheartening to see how this interesting thread has been hi-jacked despite the faux declaration to desist from veering it off topic. Can I ask those who have posted evidence pertaining to the title of the thread to keep doing so and not get side tracked.
Thank you for voicing your concerns, seaburn. I agree it is disappointing to witness an individual openly engaging in behaviour directly opposed to the spirit of AHF. Please everybody, stay on topic.

Post Reply

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”