The Turner Letter is Fake

[curioussoul]

Spelling and grammar mistakes are not definite proof of forgery.

But if they are odd and cumulative, they are certainly an indication.

You're right, but this isn't really apt to describe the situation with the Turner letter. The spelling and grammar is so wrong that an educated German man could not possibly make such errors, particularly when we have numerous other letters from the same man in which these errors are completely non-existant. The grammatical errors aren't even what one would expect a native German to make when writing in their own language, these are errors which native English speakers would make in writing German.

I guess Turner - an educated man with a PhD in law - in this one letter written on U.S. stationery just so happened to write like an English speaker who doesn't fully understand the correct grammatical structure of the German language... Sorry, but this is just ridiculous to me. In any other historical circumstance a letter with such a dubious provenance would've been panned.

The HC blog claims that some of the errors are common and hard to spot even for native German speakers such as Turner. They also claim that similar minor errors are present in other letters by Turner.

They don't seem to have an explanation for the paper size difference, other than to point out that Alvarez has "no evidence" for the idea that this paper format was unavailable in Europe. But even if it was available, why would that paper size be used by Turner? I think the paper size is probably the biggest give-away here, coupled with the spelling of Canada (they claim it was also used widely, but clearly that isn't really the case).

[Otium]

The HC blog claims that some of the errors are common and hard to spot even for native German speakers such as Turner. They also claim that similar minor errors are present in other letters by Turner.

They don't seem to have an explanation for the paper size difference, other than to point out that Alvarez has "no evidence" for the idea that this paper format was unavailable in Europe. But even if it was available, why would that paper size be used by Turner? I think the paper size is probably the biggest give-away here, coupled with the spelling of Canada (they claim it was also used widely, but clearly that isn't really the case).

Errors being common or hard to spot is vague to say the least. Alvarez doesn't provide trivial examples of grammatical errors, but the structure of the sentences themselves which don't align with other letters. The expectation that Turner must have exhibited unique errors is nonsense, for the errors he made could also be made by a forger.

Like you said, whether it was unavailable or not - which it may well have been due to the blockades - doesn't mean he would've had it, moreover it certainly makes no sense for him to have been using it. If Turner's other letters are in the standard DIN A4 size (8.27x11.69 inches) used officially by Germany since 1922 and not in the standard US letter size (8.5x11 inches) then there's a clear discrepancy not only in the writing quality (as it concerns the uses of German characters, spelling and grammar) but also in the actual paper used.

This compounding of suspicious errors cannot be handwaved away with alleged plausiblity, because at this point it has become much less plausible when all these factors are considered and the bloggers aren't constructing arbitrary standards of uniqueness.

As to the letter itself it says nothing about gassing anybody. It mentions a 'delousing van' but this could very well have been - as it most likely was - quite innocent. If we're supposed to believe that "delousing van" is a "code word" then it means actual delousing vans existed, and in that case - much like what they used to do on Ellis Island - they'd delouse prisoners. So there's nothing necessarily homocidal about the letter, other than the line about shootings.

[Hektor]

The HC blog claims that some of the errors are common and hard to spot even for native German speakers such as Turner. They also claim that similar minor errors are present in other letters by Turner.

They don't seem to have an explanation for the paper size difference, other than to point out that Alvarez has "no evidence" for the idea that this paper format was unavailable in Europe. But even if it was available, why would that paper size be used by Turner? I think the paper size is probably the biggest give-away here, coupled with the spelling of Canada (they claim it was also used widely, but clearly that isn't really the case).

Errors being common or hard to spot is vague to say the least. Alvarez doesn't provide trivial examples of grammatical errors, but the structure of the sentences themselves which don't align with other letters. The expectation that Turner must have exhibited unique errors is nonsense, for the errors he made could also be made by a forger. ....

With that position it is to be expected that he would have had a proof-reader as well.
Especially since he is writing to a person with a high profile. Don't want to look to bad there. So any letter going there must be and look perfect.

One can always appeal to exception, but in this case it is a highly unlikely one. The letter is false 10.000 to 1 on those grounds alone.

Turner was a Jurist.. But there was something technical he'd to write on, he'd asked somebody with the competence. Also the ugly SS letters are a give away. In that case rather use the 'Roman' letters and live that type of exercise.

It seems the forgers weren't the brightest sparks and maybe in a hurry.

The counter-argument is that it is "crazy to believe that all those documents are forged". That's not what is claimed. Millions of German documents from World War Two are probably genuine. They happen to contain information that is usually benign administrative records and reports. No need to forge them all. Of those documents are contradictory with the narrative, but they usually don't get that much attention. There is of course they love to pick, if pressed for evidence. Just that they often don't' say what they claim to say. And there is cases that are fishy on first sight. Others have grammar, semantical and other errors. Do not have signatures, etc. Some look of course more convincing. Believing in the authenticity on face value of documents that were in hostile hands for decades isn't reasonable at all. One actually has to expect that at least hundreds of documents are forgeries for political gains. And that's why I ask whether main stream historians have ever identified a suppose NS-Document as a forgery. Did they or didn't they? If yes, did they ever enlighten a bigger part of the public about this.

[hermod]

Now what the "delousing van" is, isn't entirely clear. But many people want to say it's a gas van.

The delousing vans were the special vans Sd. Kfz. 92 & Sd. Kfz. 93 used by German mobile delousing squads for the anti-typhus decontamination of lice-infested people and clothing on the Eastern front. Most probably the source of the notorious gas-van atrocity story.

https://postimg.cc/G8w907Xr

https://postimg.cc/1gZmwTnb

https://postimg.cc/ygK321ZG

https://postimg.cc/KKng1mRm

[hermod]

More about delousing vans...

https://postimg.cc/NyVgcKkz

https://postimg.cc/fJ4fb5bw

https://postimg.cc/YjFQTgzT

[fireofice]

This book is what the HC bloggers cite to compare the other letters Turner had written:

Die zwei intellektuellen SS-Generäle die verantwortlich waren für die Ermordung der Juden in Jugoslawien und in Danzig, 1941-1943: eine dokumentarische Sammlung von SS-Dokumenten by Towiah Friedman
https://books.google.de/books/about/Die ... edir_esc=y

Anyone who knows German can check that book to see if what they are saying holds up. That is, if it is publicly available.

[Otium]

This book is what the HC bloggers cite to compare the other letters Turner had written:

Die zwei intellektuellen SS-Generäle die verantwortlich waren für die Ermordung der Juden in Jugoslawien und in Danzig, 1941-1943: eine dokumentarische Sammlung von SS-Dokumenten by Towiah Friedman
https://books.google.de/books/about/Die ... edir_esc=y

Anyone who knows German can check that book to see if what they are saying holds up. That is, if it is publicly available.

All I can think is "so what?". Are there any examples of the US letter paper size being used? Of the misspellings and overall grammatical errors? If not, then it's a moot point.

Alvarez used a different source for his comparison's of Turner's letters.

Nobody here can be expected to trawl through volunimous links containing information on a variety of claims. If you'd like to present examples from their site, then do so. But ensure it's in line with the points already made. Pointing out the strange SS runes were apparently used by Turner in other letters and that it's merely "possible" for Germans to spell Canada with a C and not a K as is customary has been addressed.

Why rehash the same stuff and go around in circles?

The bloggers haven't proven the Turner letter is unable to have been forged by accounting for ALL the same idiosyncracies in other documents. Because such a conglomerate of mistakes do not exist in Turner's other letters (so far as I know), there is no reason to believe in the authenticity of the Turner letter regarding "Gas vans". There is then quite a good reason to suspect it's inauthentic.