From: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au (Brendan McKay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.german
Subject: SUMMARY: Translation Help.
Date: 16 Nov 1992 08:30:44 GMT
Organization: Australian National University
Distribution: world
Reply-To: bdm@cs.anu.edu.au
NNTP-Posting-Host: 150.203.23.70

Some time ago, I asked for help concerning the sentence

    Das deutsche Ziel w\"urde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des
    im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht
    lebenden Judentums sein.

Many thanks to the 33 kind people who replied.  I hope you will
understand that I can't response individually to everyone.  
A complete catalogue of all replies is appended below.  Since 
I can't keep track of who gave permission for use of their name,
I separated the names from the texts (except for some public 
postings) and put the names at the end in a different order.

For your information, the sentence comes from a record of a meeting
on Nov 28, 1941, between Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Husseini, Grand 
Mufti of Jerusalem.  The notes were taken by Hitler's interpreter
Paul Otto Schmidt.  The sentence above was spoken by Hitler.

Schmidt's full record in German can be found in these places:
* Akten zur Deutschen Auswartigen Politik 1918-1945, Serie D, 
  Bd. XIII/2, S. 718ff.
* Ursachen und Folgen Vom deutschen Zusammenbruch 1918 und 1945 ...,
  Bd. 18, S. 137ff.
* G. Fleming, Hitler und die Endlosung (Wiesbaden : Limes, c1982).

English translations can be found in
* Documents on German Foreign Policy (US State Dept), Series D, 
  Vol 13, p881ff.
* G. Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution (Univ of California 
  Press, 1984) p101ff. 

These two sources provided translations (a) and (b), repsectively.
Here is some more of the second translation (typed by Danny Keren):

   The Grand Mufti first thanked the Feuhrer for the great honor of
   a personal reception.  He further wished to take the opportunity
   to express his gratitude on behalf of the entire Arab world...
 
   The Arabs were, moreover, natural allies of Germany, as could be
   seen by their mutual enemies: the British, the Jews, and the
   Communists.  As a result, the Arabs were prepared to collaborate
   wholeheartedly with Germany and to lend support to the war
   effort, not only through perpetrating acts of sabotage and
   political destabilizations, but materially, by forming an Arab
   Legion...

   The Mufti then recalled a document he had received from the German
   government, which stated that Germany had occupied no Arab land,
   that it recognized and sympathized with the Arab struggles for
   independence and liberation, and that it would support the
   elimination of a national Jewish homeland.  A public declaration
   to this same effect would be of immense propagandistic value in
   the campaign to mobilize the Arab nations...
   ...
   The Fuehrer then made the following declaration, requesting
   the Mufti to lock it deep in his heart:

   1) He (the Fuehrer) would carry on the fight until the last
      traces of the Jewish-Communist European hegemony had been
      obliterated.
   2) In the course of this fight, the German army would - at a
      time that could not yet be specified, but in any case in
      the clearly foreseeable future - gain the southern exit of
      Caucasus.
   3) As soon as this breakthrough was made, the Fuehrer would
      offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour
      of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany's only
      remaining objective in the region would be limited to the
      annihilation of the Jews [?] living under British
      protection in Arab lands...

This matter is of considerable importance for several reasons.
One is that it might be one of the very few known clear statements
of Nazi intention to exterminate non-European Jews.  The other
is its relevance to Middle East history.  Unfortunately, the
latter has hampered its proper study.  As Philip Mattar says:

   "Neither Zionist accusations nor Arab justifications have 
    enhanced our understanding of the extent of the Mufti's
    cooperation with the Nazis, largely because the apparent
    purpose for studies about his years in Germany are an
    extension of the Arab-Israeli propaganda war."
    [P. Mattar, The Mufti of Jerusalem (Columbia U. P.) p107]

Mattar's book gives an overview which attempts to be balanced
(though I'm sure many would say it fails).  An account in German 
which I haven't read is in B. P. Schroder, Deutschland und der 
Mittlere Osten im Zweiten Weltkrieg (Gottingen : Musterschmidt, 
c1975).  Otherwise, I would not recommend any of the many books
I know that mention the subject.

Some respondents asked me to tell them what the "answer" is.
I think they will agree that this is not so simple a matter,
as the replies below indicate.  Perhaps a valid conclusion
is that the matter is unresolvable from this evidence alone;
though some respondents claimed otherwise, I think the
diversity of considered opinion proves it.  Complicating the
matter (as Danny correctly pointed out) is the probability 
that Hitler's words were first translated by Schmidt into
another language (I think French).  So all we need is 
to figure out what the Mufti understood from the French 
translation of Schmidt's interpretation of what Hitler 
said!  

Thanks again for your help.

Brendan McKay.

***Replies******************************************************
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 23:46:20 PST
================ Your posting =================================
In the course of some research into Middle East history, I need
to interpret the following sentence from German Foreign Ministry
archives (1941):

    Das deutsche Ziel w\"urde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des
    im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht
    lebenden Judentums sein.

I have two professional translations, namely:

(a) Germany's only objective would then be solely the destruction
    of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the
    protection of British power.
(b) Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region
    would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under
    British protection in Arab lands.

My knowledge of German is insufficient to choose between "destruction
of the Jewish element" and "annihilation of the Jews", even though
those phrases could perhaps have substantially different meaning.
================= Cut here =====================================

There is no doubt that in 1941 the intention and true meaning
of this sentence
was the meaning represented by translation (b). Those who knew
the intention in 1941, must have known the meaning.

An unbiased interpretor (hence, without the benefit of
hindsight or without knowing the intentions behind this
statement) cannot translate it like (b).

The question centers around the translation of "Judentum".
Today, I would say, that this word includes the meaning of
"the jewish
culture", "the jewish element" as well as the  "the jews".
However, the meaning of that word is not confined to "the jews".
To make this point, for example a German with only on jewish
grandparent and not ties to jewish culture since one generation
would clearly not be considered belonging to the "Judentum".

Therefore, the English sentence (a) CAN be translated into
its German original, the sentence (b) CANNOT. A translation
of sentence (b) back into German would result in a German
sentence which must be qualitatively different from the
1941 sentence cited above.

Please, as a courtesy to the net, give a follow-up of the
responses.

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 9:20:34 MET

I think the first one is closer to the original.
"Judentum" means not only "the jews" but everything
that is jewish in one way or the other.

I hope you are no racist and no antisemit. I'm not.

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 10:12:46 +0100

  Note: I'm not German, but German is a fairly transparent language
from the point of view of Swedish. Perhaps my remarks will be of
some help.

       Das deutsche Ziel w\"urde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des
       im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht
       lebenden Judentums sein.

   (a) Germany's only objective would then be solely the destruction
       of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the
       protection of British power.
   (b) Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region
       would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under
       British protection in Arab lands.

  In my opinion, translation (b) makes a bit too much of "lediglich",
expanding it into "only remaining .. limited to" (although this may
of course be justified by the context).  However, "annihilation
of the Jews" seems to me a better translation than "destruction of
the Jewish element". It's easy to imagine Nazis speaking of "the
destruction of the Jewish element", but "Vernichtung des..Judentums"
is quite ordinary German for "annihilation of the Jews/the Jewish
community/the Jewish religion".

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:05:41 GMT

Solution b.) is the prefarable, cause in a.) only and sole don't fit
that much to lediglich

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 10:25:55 GMT

I would say "annihilation of the Jewish element" myself.

It is typical of the Nazi style of writing to use abstract nouns and refer to
killing by inexplicit paraphrases. How one best translates such expressions is a
very difficult question. It depends what you want to use the translation for, but
since such a style is also possible in English I would think it better to retain
the style and not translate the abstract singular noun "Judentum" into
the concrete plural nouns "Jews".

A similar example is the verb "abhaken", literally "tick off", which in the
appropriate Nazi context could mean "kill". However translating it into English
it would be better to use an expression such as "deal with" or "see to", making a
similar implication in English rather than adding too much additional
interpretation to the text.

Of course such a way of referring to murder is by no means restricted to Nazi
history. I seem to remember that American generals used very similar expressions
for referring inexplicitly to the burning alive of hundreds of thousands of human
beings during the recent Gulf War.

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 11:41:06 +0100

Without knowing the context of the original German text I'd say that
translation (a) is the better one.

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 13:43:42 +0200

OK, if we skip the part about Arab land and British power we get:

    Das deutsche Ziel w\"urde dann lediglich die Vernichtung
    des Judentums sein.

And after some more simplification (only/solely):

    Das deutsche Ziel w\"urde die Vernichtung des Judentums sein.

My native language is neither English nor German, but I would interpret
the sentence as ``destruction of Judaism''. Now what is that? I'm leaning
towards alternative a (destruction of the Jewish element).

The original text doesn't explicitly talk about the [Jewish] people, so
alternative b (annihilation of the Jews) sounds a bit strong.

The word ``Vernichtung'', on the other hand, is in my view stronger
(or more complete) than ``destruction''. To destroy is simply to destroy.
It can always be reconstructed. To ``vernichten'' is to annihilate or
wipe out (make to nothing, zu nichts). It's a true ``Endl\"osung'', as
Adolf H. used to say.

So, I really can't say. Maybe you've got some other documents that support
either view.

It's an interesting question, though. Please tell me what the result is.

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:47:23 +0100

"Vernichtung" is approximately "annihilation", I'd say (German
"nichts" is equivalent to Latin "nihil").

"Judentum" could mean either "Jews (collectively)" or "Jewish religion;
Jewish culture; Jewish way of life". All taken into consideration,
I think translation (b) is probably preferable .

******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:49:37 -0500

"The German goal would then only be the annihilation of the Jewry living
under British protection in the Arab lands."

is a literal translation of the phrase above.

******************************************************************
Date: 10 Nov 1992 15:24:06 -0400 (EDT)

Your question brings up a good point...
As a translator might make the mistake of mistranslating the word 'Vernichtung'
is easily identifiable.  'Vernichtung' does in fact correspond to our word
'destruction,' however, the usage is much more limited.  'Die Vernichtung' used
here is not at all figurative as in "bring to their knees" or "demoralize them
to the point that they pose no threat," rather it is literally the destruction,
both spiritually and physically, of the Jews living in the Arab regions in
question.

Don't take my word on it, as you will receive many mails regarding this.
Thanks for the opportunity...

******************************************************************
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:46:22 +0100

Phew ... it IS a tough one.
I'll give you a "naive" translation of the phrase above - pretty literal, but
then I don't have the context where it came from:

The german objective would then be solely (or merely, which makes it more
cynical, but "lediglich" carries that meaning, two ...) the annihilation of the
jewry living in the Arab area  under the protection of the British power (where
the "under the protection..." part pertains to the jewry, not the Arab area...)

Which basically makes it (b) if you want to use decent english.
With the slight difference that the jews are not spoken about as single human
beings, but as an abstract "jewry", which was mostly used as a derogative term
in germany at that time ("Verschwoerung des Weltjudentums", "conspiracy of the
world jewry").
I'd say, anybody writing this in 1941 should already have known the attitude of
nazi germany towards jews ... it had been more than 2 years since the first
organized pogrom ...

>My knowledge of German is insufficient to choose between "destruction
>of the Jewish element" and "annihilation of the Jews", even though
>those phrases could perhaps have substantially different meaning.

Well, to me it doesn't sound like a little suppression of culture (though that's
bad enough). But then ... if you didn't WANT to hear it, you could try to
interpret it long enough to overlook the announcement of more planned murder.

Hope this is of any help at all ...

******************************************************************
Date: 10 November 1992 21:53:08 CST

"Destruction of the jewish element" and "annihilation of the jews"
mean the same even in English, namely killing everybody that is a
jew, looks like a jew, has jewish relatives or whose nose a nazi
would dislike. It was just a nazi-way of speaking to avoid words
like killing and rather use euphemisms like "solving the Jew-problem".
Even in 1941 it was well-known to "reasonable" people what these
expressions meant - some just did not want to understand.
   But even if you are looking at the words I cannot see such a
big difference between the two expressions - unless you understand
"destruction of the jewish element" to be an erasure of their
whole culture. This was in fact intended by the nazis, and that
is probably one of the causes why people with jewish relatives
were considered jews, but the term "Judentum" just refers to
the people - as usually, they were only concerned with the
technical problems of killing a lot of people (after the
"Fuehrer" decreed that "the Jews" must be erased, they did it
without worrying why - very few fully understood his ideology
or even carried it further, like Goebbels).

If you have problems with my explanation, please write.
******************************************************************
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 22:37:54 -0600

Judentum is a word which is certainly difficult to translate.
Although it is certainly not an uncommon word, I did not find it in
my German-English dictionary. It might perhaps be translates by words
like Jewry, Jewdom, or Jewishness. It has its counterpart in the word
'Christentum' which is usually translated as Christianity. However,
Christentum does not refer to the religion itself, but more to the
culture connected with it. In a book entitled, e.g., "Das Christentum
in Afrika", I would expect to read about how Christians are organised
in Africa, how they practise their religion, how they relate to other
groups, what challenges they are faced with, etc. In this way, I
would tend towards 'jewish element' as the better translation of
Judentum.

But you are very right to point out that meanings of word change with
time. My approach to check what was referred to by that word at that
time would be to try to find out how contemporaries interpreted it in
1941. It might be difficult, but if you could find this phrase cited
in some English text of that time, may be a newspaper report or a
note written by an emissary to his government, this might be helpful.
Of course, in that case one would also take into account what the
person intended to do with this report, whether he wanted to alarm or
reassure the readers.

I hope you find these comments useful.
******************************************************************
Date:   Tue, 10 Nov 1992 22:23:00 -0500

I think you could have gotten both, even in 1941. And - are you sure
that they would have been interpreted differently, even in the
English versions you have? One comment: the translation of "dann"
as "thereafter" can only be verifed by looking at the context. "dann"
is not necessarily temporal, and could mean "under these cirsumstances"
or something like that.

******************************************************************
Date:         11 Nov 92 09:32:50 GMT+0100

I would also prefer the solution b.), but I've think I should point it
out that this is merly my opinion than an fact.

******************************************************************
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 09:31:50 +0100

Well, I think 'annihilation of the Jews'fits best. Esp. in 1941 and
afterwards the 'official speech' is full of euphemism concerning the
murdering of Jews.
In german, 'Vernichtung des Judentums' can't be misunderstood, it means a
physically wipe-out of humans, nevvertheless in *sounds* a bit more like
a technically process, in which no human beings get involved.

I think, if you look closer to such phrases, you'll find alot of stuff which
*can't* be misunderstood, but is in a way 'camouflaged'.

BTW: Even in 'modern' german bureaucratic language there is a lot of
telling-the-truth-without-saying-the-name. Certainly not about the above,
but worse enough.

******************************************************************
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 12:32:20 +0100

It is a sentence and should be translated the same with or without hindsight.
This is how I would translate it:

        z) The German goal would then merely be the annihilation
           of "living" Judaism in the Arab area under the protection
           of British power.

Note: the original text uses the word "Judentums" -"Judaism" and not
      "Juden" -"Jews"  so, the emphasis is on getting rid of Judaism.
      From the sentence alone, it is NOT stated that Jews would be
      annihilated.  As far as "living" (direct translation) goes, maybe
      "existing" would be a better substitute.

      For "professional" translations I don't see how they could use
      "Jewish element" or "Jews".  As far as translations go, the only
      discrepancies should be things like:  "Destruction" or "Annihilation",
      "Goal" or "Objective"  "Space" or "Area", etc.  I don't think that
      there is a difference between "Annihilation" or "Destruction",
      both mean "to get rid of" and likewise for the other mentioned
      words.

That is my opinion.

******************************************************************
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 13:27:06 +0100

the first translation feels better to me.
<I'd translate "Vernichtung des Judentums"
  "destruction of the Jewry" (living in the Arab region)

you can also drop the solely since you already have only
in there.

but since I'm a native speaker of German, maybe you should point out
(to the newsgroup) what you feel the differnce between the
english senetnces make to you.

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:08:03 EST

"Vernichtung des Judentums" clearly (to me) means physical destruction,
or annihilation, of the Jews.  Though I don't see another interpretation of
"destruction of the Jewish element".

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:08:30 EST

The problem is, roughly speaking, that the literal translation is more
of (a), while the desired goal of the Nazi regime was (b).

To what extent this fact has been known back then to the general
public is subject of endless debates. Most official statements from
the Nazi government have handled words very carefully, stating phrases
like 'Vernichtung des Judentums' (destruction of the Jewish element)
instead of 'Vernichtung der Juden' (annihilation of the Jews), while
the desired objective has clearly been the latter.

So the choice of the proper translation depends on *what* you want to
translate - more the words or more the meaning.

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:08:44 EST

Well, as you can see, it's almost impossible to talk about the
meanings of German terms from the Nazi era without talking about
the subjects they embody, although that is NOT what I intend to
do.

What I do intend to do is to throw in my $.02 worth as a native
speaker of English, since you've heard from a couple of
(presumably) native German speakers.

The key phrase is clearly "Vernichtung des Judentums."
"Vernichtung," we all seem to agree, means "destruction" or
"annihilation."  I don't see too much of a substantive
distinction between these words in English -- "annihilation" is
certainly more dramatic in tone, but both imply complete removal
by violence.

The crux of the matter, then: how to translate "Judentum"?
Although I learned German in 1989 and not 1941, I don't think the
translation "Jewish element" is adequate in the context of your
document.  To my mind, that merely singles out an ethnic group
within a particular larger group: "the Jewish element in show
business," for example.  Such a phrase, or rather the racist
thinking which it represents, is repulsive enough, but I believe
the word "Judentum" is broader than "Jewish element."  A better
word might be "Jewry," but it is hopelessly old fashioned.  If
"the destruction (or annihilation) of Jewry" is too quaint for
your taste, I'd go with "the destruction (or annihilation) of all
Jews."

I dunno if all this helps or not.  In any case, caveat emptor
when it comes to translation services.

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:09:19 EST

As a former professional translator (mostly German-Spanish) and
throwing a grain of salt as inspired by the Italian wisdom expressed
in "Traduttore. tradittore", I would suggest that b) is a better
translation.  As someone suggested in another comment, "Judentum"
is best rendered as "Jewry", which is in fact a collective term for
"the Jews" or "all Jews".   In addition "annihilation" appears, in
my opinion, to be closer to "Vernichtung" than "destruction",
given that both convey the idea of reducing to "nothing".

An interesting observation is that both translations are redundant
with respect to the idea rendered in German by the word "lediglich".
In a) we find "only" and "solely"; in b), "only " and "limited".

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 01:24:44 EST

rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes) writes:
> As a former professional translator (mostly German-Spanish) and
> throwing a grain of salt as inspired by the Italian wisdom expressed
> in "Traduttore. tradittore"

        cute!  valid!!  :-))

> I would suggest that b) is a better translation.

        agreed  ("annihilation" is the most important term to get right)

> As someone suggested in another comment, "Judentum" is best rendered as
> "Jewry", which is in fact a collective term for "the Jews" or "all Jews".
> In addition "annihilation" appears, in my opinion, to be closer to
> "Vernichtung" than "destruction", given that both convey the idea of
> reducing to "nothing".

        given the indicated origin, I would judge that "the Jewish
        element" is more likely hitting the note of "diplomatic speak"
        to be suspected present in this communication.

> An interesting observation is that both translations are redundant
> with respect to the idea rendered in German by the word "lediglich".
> In a) we find "only" and "solely"; in b), "only " and "limited".

        I don't think of this as "redundant" but rather result of the
        lack of "context" of the phrase.  I missed having been provided
        with "context", some paragraphs before and after the sentence
        in question, as without context any translation must be questioned
        (and questionable).

        when I read "lediglich" immediately the question came to mind
        (for proper interpretation of meaning):  "what was this message
        directed to?  and by whom?  what were the prior communications
        on this topic between the parties?"

                "The (total) annihilation of the Jewish element living
                 under British protection on Arab lands would consequently
                 be the only German objective."

        this would be MY translation, given my assumptions on "context".

        btw, I judge "deficient" (many such) translations (I sometimes get
        to proof-read) where the translator tries to stick to sentence
        structure and word order of the original, and thus misses some of
        "the sentiment" which would be much better brought ought by
        rearranging the sentence components.

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 10:27:10 GMT

Strictly speaking, "Judentum" denotes everything that relates to the
Jewish culture: the people, their traditions; it might even cover
materials and beliefs (or influence on non-Jewish people!). This would
mean that "Jewish element" was an appropriate translation.

Given the context of NS language, however, "Judentum" is, in my
experience, more related to the people themselves. Some sort of
inflated buzzword, perhaps. I presume that the Foreign Ministry
people only cared about the destruction/annihilation of the Jewish
population, not worrying much about related cultural material.

But then, why didn't they write "Vernichtung der im arabischen Raum
... lebenden Juden"? My guess is: "Judentum" sounds 'better'; it has
been a German tradition (which is still alive and kicking) to inflate
words unnecessarily and make simple things sound awesome and impressive.

Well, I'm giving an interpretation rather than a translation, and you
didn't want that. Sorry ...

For an exact translation, "Jewish element" would be preferred IMHO.
But the reader should be aware that there may be a lot of "NS hype"
in it.

BTW, translation (a) seems to be more precise and literal anyway;
(b) sacrifices some precision for a better style (am I right?) and
adds a bit of interpretation (adding "in the region"; leaving "Macht"
untranslated; ...).

******************************************************************
Date: 12 Nov 1992 10:44:04 GMT

In article <1dt277INNh50@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>In article 1dn6tjINNcie@manuel.anu.edu.au, I wrote:
>
>...
>(b) The speaker (S) is a top Nazi (I will identify him later.).
>(c) The listener (L) is a foreigner who wants German support for
>    his own nationalist aims.  (I will also identify him later.)
>    He is definitely NOT a confidant of the Nazi leadership; i.e.,

Then I would suggest you take the first translation...

>My problem is NOT "what did the Nazi S actually mean?"  It is:
>  ** What did the foreigner L believe he was being promised? **

...for this reason. Even Nazi diplomats were diplomats and took a lot
of care about what they said, to not reveal too much of their true
intentions.

>To elaborate a little, would L have come away with a clear belief
>that the Nazis would kill every Jew in Arab lands, or might he
>have reasonably interpretted those words as just a more forceful
>way to promise "Beseitigung der nationalj\"udischen Heimat"?

I think he would have done the latter, as this was likely what S
wanted him to believe.

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:11:44 GMT

#My problem is NOT "what did the Nazi S actually mean?"  It is:
#
#  ** What did the foreigner L believe he was being promised? **

To know that for sure, we would have to know what was told to L
in his own language (which was not German). Unfortunately, it is
hard to believe anyone kept a record of that.

******************************************************************
Date: 12 Nov 1992 09:41:12 -0600

>(b) The speaker (S) is a top Nazi (I will identify him later.).
>    He knows everything there is to know about Hitler's intentions
>    at the time (late 1941).
>
>(c) The listener (L) is a foreigner who wants German support for
>    his own nationalist aims.  (I will also identify him later.)
>    He is definitely NOT a confidant of the Nazi leadership; i.e.,
>    he does NOT have previous "inside knowledge" of Nazi intentions.
>    As far as is known, this is the first time anyone has promised
>    him something so strong as "Vernichtung des..Judentums".
>
>(d) Earlier in the same conversation, L had asked S for "Beseitigung
>    der nationalj\"udischen Heimat" (abolition of the Jewish national
>    home).

        the translation I had offered was making the assumptions (b) and
        (c) and from the phrasing I suspected "something like" (d)...

>My problem is NOT "what did the Nazi S actually mean?"  It is:
>
>  ** What did the foreigner L believe he was being promised? **

        well, quite honestly, that is asking too much for anyone to
        say who is not an intimate confidant of L...  (and even then,
        I would wonder...)

>To elaborate a little, would L have come away with a clear belief
>that the Nazis would kill every Jew in Arab lands, or might he
>have reasonably interpretted those words as just a more forceful
>way to promise "Beseitigung der nationalj\"udischen Heimat"?

        I simply do not believe that *ANYONE* would have anticipated
        the holocaust, and that only with hindsight (or insight at
        the time) could one have guessed at "extermination" - and I
        doubt that L had any such insight or expectation.  Heck, the
        Nazis didn't trust their own foreign service with "insight"
        in their plans and actions...  without proof, I am unwilling to
        believe that L was ever presented with proof of Nazi extermination
        activities...

        think of it this way:
        I would suspect that upon digging around a little, one might find
        one or the other "communication" or plan by the Allies which might
        have talked of "the annihilation of Japanese forces/pressence/...
        ...in <insert a Pacific island>...";  what was one to assume?
        would anyone have believed in a My-Lay massacre, a illegal war
        in Laos, without proof and benefit of hindsight?  At the time
        those you publicly suggested that this was going on were called
        lunatics....

>(I would consider this to be a feasible interpretation of the
>English phrase "destruction of the Jewish element" in the context.)
>Remember: L was NOT a member of the Nazi inner circle.

        I would assume it to be VERY difficult to establish what the
        knowledge and/or assumptions of L were, nor even if he ever
        gave much thought to the specific details of what behavior (and
        extent of cruelty) the Nazis might display 'in the event'...

>I apologise if anyone finds this subject matter offensive.  Please
>understand that I am seriously interested in the study of history,
>not with pushing any particular political line.

        I find it important to explore and establish what collaboration
        and encouragement the Nazis received EVERYWHERE - and not just
        in Germany;  too much has been conveniently swept under the
        carpet', not only in countries occupied by the Nazis (France,
        Austria, Poland and all the eastern countries come to mind, not
        least the parts of former Yugoslavia) but also, and ESPECIALLY
        important is it to explore what countries like England, the USA,
        and others could (and should) have done (and actually did) to
        prevent it all from happening...  There is an urgent need to
        recognize "early signs" (as experiences in Iraq, Yugoslavia, and
        the (once Soviet) USSR-puzzle-pieces currently remind us...),
        not to forget the lessons "we" apparently never wanted to learn,
        from events in countries of Latin America (Chile, Argentina, Brazil,
        Uruguay, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala,...), Africa
        (too many to name), Asia (Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Sri Lanka,
        Burma, ...)

        *I* look forward to learn more about details of your research
        (I'm somewhat of a student of both history and cultures, but have
        never actually read into this particular area; on one hand because
        so few records are readily available, on the other hand because
        "more present concerns" tended to attract my attention - and the
        Vietnam conflict and life in Latin America "mattered personally"
        to me (during the last 25 years)...

        But without ever having become knowledgable in details of the
        Arab and Islamic culture, over the years I have developed a
        sincere appreciation of how well it seems to compare over the
        centuries with the Christian/Western cultures....

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:14:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.172406.7589@wam.umd.edu>, wltaylor@wam.umd.edu (William L. Taylor) writes:
>
> The crux of the matter, then: how to translate "Judentum"?
> Although I learned German in 1989 and not 1941, I don't think the
> translation "Jewish element" is adequate in the context of your
> document.  To my mind, that merely singles out an ethnic group
> within a particular larger group: "the Jewish element in show
> business," for example.  Such a phrase, or rather the racist
> thinking which it represents, is repulsive enough, but I believe
> the word "Judentum" is broader than "Jewish element."  A better
> word might be "Jewry," but it is hopelessly old fashioned.

That isn't too bad -- "Judentum" is also hopelessly old fashioned.
Well, to be honest: was also... We're moving back to the spirit of the
19th century.

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:20:13 GMT

In article <1dtchkINNb5u@iraul1.ira.uka.de> s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
>In article <1dt277INNh50@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
>>In article 1dn6tjINNcie@manuel.anu.edu.au, I wrote:

>>(b) The speaker (S) is a top Nazi (I will identify him later.).
>>(c) The listener (L) is a foreigner who wants German support for
>>    his own nationalist aims.  (I will also identify him later.)
>>    He is definitely NOT a confidant of the Nazi leadership; i.e.,

>Then I would suggest you take the first translation...

I wouldn't suggest that in any case.  The translation is erroneous,
or very free -- including elements from sentences not given here.

How do we get *only* and *solely* into the sentence, for one thing?
"Lediglich" means "simply" or "merely."  In this case, the former
makes more sense.  Worse, "Jewish element" is simply wrong for "Judentum,"
which means, plainly and simply, "Jewry."  One might say "the Jews"
as in (b); but "element" has no place here.

What does "dann" mean?  "In that case"?  "Then"?  Can't quite tell from
the sentence, but the former is suggested by the subjunctive.

My translation:

"In that case, the German goal [Germany's goal] would simply be the
annihilation [etc. as in (b)]

>>...
>>My problem is NOT "what did the Nazi S actually mean?"  It is:

>>  ** What did the foreigner L believe he was being promised? **

Can't tell.  What does "dann" mean here? What does it refer to?
Whoever is speaking is saying that, in some circumstance, the Germans
would act toward (or support or encourage -- "das Ziel" can be taken
several ways) the annihilation of Jews living in British-controlled
Arab lands.

>...for this reason. Even Nazi diplomats were diplomats and took a lot
>of care about what they said, to not reveal too much of their true
>intentions.

What has this to do with it?  I don't follow.  The speaker is saying
that, under some circumstance, the Germans would aim for annihilation
of these Jews.  What they'd do toward that aim is not clear, but the
aim is.

>>To elaborate a little, would L have come away with a clear belief
>>that the Nazis would kill every Jew in Arab lands, or might he
>>have reasonably interpretted those words as just a more forceful
>>way to promise "Beseitigung der nationalj\"udischen Heimat"?

False dichotomy.  Certainly not the latter, but not necessarily
the former: the Nazis might try to get someone else to do the killing.
or decide that the goal was not worth pursuing right away.  However, the
death of the Jews -- one way or another -- would be their aim.

>I think he would have done the latter, as this was likely what S
>wanted him to believe.

How can you tell?  Are you deriving this from that one sentence?  How?
******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:35:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.111441.26284@news.th-darmstadt.de> schrod@iti.
informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod) writes:

   >That isn't too bad -- "Judentum" is also hopelessly old fashioned.
   >Well, to be honest: was also... We're moving back to the spirit of the
   >19th century.

  But the essential point, surely, is that "Judentum" was not at the time
any peculiar bureaucratic-sounding term like "the Jewish element", but
an ordinary collective term, "the Jews", or "Jewry"?

******************************************************************
Date: 12 Nov 1992 16:43:20 -0600

 roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>How do we get *only* and *solely* into the sentence, for one thing?
>"Lediglich" means "simply" or "merely."  In this case, the former
>makes more sense.  Worse, "Jewish element" is simply wrong for "Judentum,"
>which means, plainly and simply, "Jewry."  One might say "the Jews"
>as in (b); but "element" has no place here.
>
>What does "dann" mean?  "In that case"?  "Then"?  Can't quite tell from
>the sentence, but the former is suggested by the subjunctive.

        "dann" in this context means "consequently" (as what appears to
        be presented here is an assurance by some German to some Arab
        that (my guess) the Germans want to kick out the British and
        then wipe out all that's Jewish - but without interfering with
        whatever population is under Arab control, and with a hint that
        the Germans might relinquish the lands to the Arabs afterwards.
        Clearly, what we are looking at here seems to be an appeal for
        Arabs to look favorably on the German intentions...)

        did you read my translation, Roger?

>My translation: "In that case, the German goal [Germany's goal] would
                   simply be the annihilation [etc. as in (b)]

        depending on the context of what was being said before and afterwards
        between the parties, it could be either "consequently" (if a temporal
        chain of events is being described) or "in that case" (if a conditional
        sequence of events is hinted at).  It all depends how much the translater
        cares to "verbalize" likely hidden meanings ...

        this kind of translation is difficult to do justice: should the
        tranlator "explain" or be satisfied with leaving the meaning obscure?
        it really depends on the level of cooperation (and shared confidences)
        between translator and the dialogue participants.....

        in my case, I try to "help understand" rather than to provide
        a translation which is open to interpretation by the reader...

******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:28:22 GMT

Moment mal, liebe Netniks --

Speaking as a former diplomat, I find this mysterious Nazi
official to be surprisingly transparent, compared to the mealy-
mouthed Quatsch that emanates so regularly from Washington, (and
Bonn, and everywhere else) -- not to mention the double-speak
customary from his own government at that time.  I do agree that
his use of "Ziel" is typically diplomatic: goals cost nothing to
set, they cost effort, money and time to achieve.

But how could anyone, regardless of the year, the context, or the
sandstorm outside, hear the phrase "Vernichtung des im arabischen
Raum ... lebenden Judentums" and not understand it to mean the
destruction of all Jews, their culture, synagogues, property,
etc. in this particular geographic area?  Maybe I'm being obtuse,
but I just don't see much room for misinterpretation.

Also, I think we've overlooked a clue in the original text:
"Vernichtung des ... (dort) LEBENDEN Judentums."  To me, the use
of "lebenden" indicates unambiguously that what's being promised
is the destruction of people, rather than the much vaguer
"Beseitigung des nationaljuedischen Heimats."

In closing, I'd like to second the motion for more
Vergangenheitsbewaeltigung here in the U.S. -- and everywhere
else, for that matter.

******************************************************************
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 00:50:33 GMT

In article <1dr9etINNs67@iraul1.ira.uka.de> s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz) writes:
   In article <1dn6tjINNcie@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
   >
   >...
   The problem is, roughly speaking, that the literal translation is more
   of (a), while the desired goal of the Nazi regime was (b).

Since the original question was without 20/20 vision (aka hindsight),
so I would go with comparable double-talk...

The German objective would then solely [I don't know, but I think it
reflect 'lediglich' better, even though 'only' does sound better] be
the destruction of the Jewry living under the protection of the
British power (or without really distorting the meaning: under the
protection of Britain) in the Arab lands.

The key to the translation of Judentum is to translate it as jewry -
jewry comes close in meaning to the connotations Judentum has in
German:
* the people as such
* its culture, the religion
* the conspiracy (as in Weltjudentum, or the Protocol of the Elders of
Zion)
[the English 'jewry' does not seem to reflect the conspiracy theory,
but its the closest you can get in English]

******************************************************************
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:27:55 -0600

 wltaylor@wam.umd.edu (William L. Taylor) writes:

>Speaking as a former diplomat, I find this mysterious Nazi
>official to be surprisingly transparent, compared to the mealy-
>mouthed Quatsch that emanates so regularly from ...

        sometimes overstating and posturing is chosen, sometimes
        ambiguity; as a former diplomat you probably know that
        you can't trust either to mean anything reliably ...


>But how could anyone, regardless of the year, the context, or the
>sandstorm outside, hear the phrase "Vernichtung des im arabischen
>Raum ... lebenden Judentums" and not understand it to mean the
>destruction of all Jews, their culture, synagogues, property,
>etc. in this particular geographic area?  Maybe I'm being obtuse,
>but I just don't see much room for misinterpretation.

        with that said, why did anyone deal with "the little dictator"
        after he spelled out in his book "Mein Kampf" what he had in
        mind and demonstrated with actions in Germany, Spain and Austria
        in the 30s that his mind was made up?
        Why the appeasement policy (and closed eyes) in Munich in 1938
        (and after as well as before?)

        That said, why did our (German and US) governments deal at
        all with more recent figures, such as the dictators in Chile,
        Argentina, Brazil, Nicaragua, Honduras, Rumania, Iraq, etc..
        when the diplomats knew quite well (from their spooks if not
        from the horse's mouth) that they were killing people left and
        right?

>Also, I think we've overlooked a clue in the original text:
>"Vernichtung des ... (dort) LEBENDEN Judentums."  To me, the use
>of "lebenden" indicates unambiguously that what's being promised
>is the destruction of people, rather than the much vaguer
>"Beseitigung des nationaljuedischen Heimats."

        no, I disagree.  I see the emphasis as "DORT lebende..."
        as I suspect that the writer was trying to downplay any
        concerns by the reader as to German plans or intentions
        to control the fate of "ANDERSWO lendende..." (i.e. in Arab
        lands NOT controlled by the British); on the other hand, it
        would appear implicitly clear (if the German annihilation policy
        was ever spelled out in any detail) that the Germans would
        favour (and delight in assisting) the Arabs taking a decidedly
        "nasty" attitude (and actions) also...

> In closing, I'd like to second the motion for more Vergangenheits-
> bewaeltigung here in the U.S. -- and everywhere else, for that matter.

        isn't that the truth!  let's see if we can get the low-down of
        what Mr. Bush "knew and when he knew it" (regarding dictators and
        activities of dictators in Panama, Iraq, Honduras, Nicaragua, and
        spooks in the employ of the US-govmt here, there, and everywhere)

        I also wonder if we'll ever REALLY learn "the dirt" on F.J. Strauss,
        the Mexicon ongoing revolution (it truely is a revolution in how
        a country and people is cheated and robbed, all in the name of a
        people's revolution) - and I am particularly interested in those
        two case, because of the importance of the US role in both cases.
******************************************************************
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 06:29:21 -0500

It's an intriguing question that you ask--not really so much an
issue of translation as of interpretation. Both of your
"professional" translations are correct--in the sense that they
are consistent with the original. A purist would probably prefer
the one that renders "Vernichtung" as "annihilation" just on
linguistic grounds, but I think that's beside the point. If I
take your meaning correctly, the real issue is: what was in the
mind of the writer? To put it very bluntly, is Germany's
objective to kill the Jews, or are other, less drastic,
"solutions" intended?

Going strictly by the language of the original text, I would say
that either reading is possible. And this, to me, is the key to
the riddle. A careful writer, trying to express that Germany's
goal is limited to "freeing the Arab lands of Jews, removing the
Jewish presence, eliminating any traces of 'Jewishness', etc."--
perhaps by forced migration and resettlement--would scarcely have
used such ominously ambiguous language!

In my opinion, "a reasonable (German-speaking) person in 1941"
would not have missed the implication that there are no limits--
that a final solution involving genocide is NOT being excluded.

I'd be glad to discuss this further if you have any questions.

******************************************************************
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:53:45 -0500 (EST)

>    Das deutsche Ziel w\"urde dann lediglich die Vernichtung des
>    im arabischen Raum unter der Protektion der britischen Macht
>    lebenden Judentums sein.

Then the German objective would merely be the annihilation of all Jews
living in Arab lands under British protection.

I chose "all Jews" because of the sense of the context:  the strength of the
term "vernichten", and the use of "Judentum" instead of "Juden".  It more
accurately conveys the intent.  "Britische Macht" is actually close to
"British might", but not exactly the same, and we wouldn't tend to say it
that way in English.

>I have two professional translations, namely:
>
>(a) Germany's only objective would then be solely the destruction
>    of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the
>    protection of British power.
>(b) Thereafter, Germany's only remaining objective in the region
>    would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under
>    British protection in Arab lands.

Of the two, (b) is better.  "Only remaining objective" is more accurate than
"solely the destruction", but "in the region" is an addition; it isn't
in the German, although it may be a reasonable inference.

>My knowledge of German is insufficient to choose between "destruction
>of the Jewish element" and "annihilation of the Jews", even though
>those phrases could perhaps have substantially different meaning.

It's really talking about wiping out every last one of them, and I don't
think "Jewish element" is a good way to put it (it also isn't really what
the German says).

>Therefore, my question is: How would a reasonable person in 1941
>WITHOUT BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT have translated that sentence?

Well, how well would this theoretical person have known German *and* English?

A better question would be:  What would it have meant to a German?  And the
best question is:  What did the writer mean by it?

******************************************************************
Date:    Thu, 12 Nov 92 14:35:46 EST

the second translation seems slightly more adequate.
Without hindsight?  - I don't know!

******************************************************************
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 08:32:23 +0200

In article <1dt277INNh50@manuel.anu.edu.au> you write:
>
>  ** What did the foreigner L believe he was being promised? **

> [ ... ] just a more forceful
> way to promise "Beseitigung der nationalj\"udischen Heimat"?
> (I would consider this to be a feasible interpretation of the
> English phrase "destruction of the Jewish element" in the context.)

If I had been L, I'd have interpreted the statement to mean the above
(alternative a in the original question).

******************************************************************
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 06:40:16 GMT

In article <lg5ng8INN6tm@dimebox.cs.utexas.edu> werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig) writes:
> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>>What does "dann" mean?  "In that case"?  "Then"?  Can't quite tell from
>>the sentence, but the former is suggested by the subjunctive.

>       "dann" in this context means "consequently" (as what appears to
>       be presented here is an assurance by some German to some Arab
>       that (my guess) the Germans want to kick out the British and
>       then wipe out all that's Jewish - but without interfering with
>       whatever population is under Arab control, and with a hint that
>       the Germans might relinquish the lands to the Arabs afterwards.
>       Clearly, what we are looking at here seems to be an appeal for
>       Arabs to look favorably on the German intentions...)

Not clear to me.  I wouldn't want to make a definitive translation of
the sentence without seeing the actual passage that surrounds it.

>       did you read my translation, Roger?

No, sorry.

>>My translation: "In that case, the German goal [Germany's goal] would
>                  simply be the annihilation [etc. as in (b)]

>       depending on the context of what was being said before and afterwards
>       between the parties, it could be either "consequently" (if a temporal
>       chain of events is being described) or "in that case" (if a conditional
>       sequence of events is hinted at).  It all depends how much the translater
>       cares to "verbalize" likely hidden meanings ...

On reflection, I'd duck the issue entirely as translator and give *all*
possible meanings, the sentence having several when taken out of context.

>       this kind of translation is difficult to do justice: should the
>       tranlator "explain" or be satisfied with leaving the meaning obscure?

Both!

>       it really depends on the level of cooperation (and shared confidences)
>       between translator and the dialogue participants.....

>       in my case, I try to "help understand" rather than to provide
>       a translation which is open to interpretation by the reader...

In my case, I'd point out that the sentence is ambiguoug when taken out of
context.   For one thing, it has no meaning per se, there being no
resolution to the "dann" problem.

******************************************************************
Date: 13 Nov 1992 18:46:55 GMT

In article <1dt277INNh50@manuel.anu.edu.au> bdm@cs.anu.edu.au writes:
...
>
>To elaborate a little, would L have come away with a clear belief
>that the Nazis would kill every Jew in Arab lands, or might he
>have reasonably interpretted those words as just a more forceful
>way to promise "Beseitigung der nationalj\"udischen Heimat"?
>(I would consider this to be a feasible interpretation of the
>English phrase "destruction of the Jewish element" in the context.)
>Remember: L was NOT a member of the Nazi inner circle.

    The German text must be interpreted with attention
    to the historical context in which it was written.
    It is clear that the text conveys the intention
    to commit Vo"lkermord.  The text is merely the translation
    (spatial sense, not linguistic sense)
    into the Middle East region of adolf's well publicized
    rantings about ,,die Vernichtung der ju"dischen Rasse
    in Europa''.

******************************************************************
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 19:52:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.222822.18913@wam.umd.edu> wltaylor@wam.umd.edu (William L. Taylor) writes:

   Also, I think we've overlooked a clue in the original text:
   "Vernichtung des ... (dort) LEBENDEN Judentums."  To me, the use
   of "lebenden" indicates unambiguously that what's being promised
   is the destruction of people, rather than the much vaguer
   "Beseitigung des nationaljuedischen Heimats."

The destruction of the Jewry living there could also be accomplished
by deportation or forced assimiliation (not that these were the Nazis
plans...), so I am not sure whether the destruction of people is
really promised.

******************************************************************
Date: 13 Nov 92 22:00:37 GMT

In article <lg7u0vINN9gr@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:

>    The German text must be interpreted with attention
>    to the historical context in which it was written.

And also to the specific context of the document from which it is
taken.  As I have pointed out, the text is impossible to make complete
sense of, as we do not know what "dann" refers to.

>    It is clear that the text conveys the intention
>    to commit Vo"lkermord.

Not clear at all.  The text states that under some contingency (unstated
within the sentence in question) the German goal would be the destruction
of  a particular subset of Jewry.  Whether this means that the Nazis
themselves intended to do this, or that they hoped someone else would do
it for them, is not addressed at all.

Note that the sentence is cast in the subjunctives.  Intentions are
not generally expressed this way.

>The text is merely the translation
>    (spatial sense, not linguistic sense)
>    into the Middle East region of adolf's well publicized
>    rantings about ,,die Vernichtung der ju"dischen Rasse
>    in Europa''.

No.  It is not "merely" that.  It is a statement of a contingency
policy regarding a particular political entity.  In the interest of
precision -- I note that you or someone else changed the subject
line -- please take into account what we know of the context of the
document itself.

To be sure, this would never have been written except for the influence
of Hitler's ideas and his control of Germany; but it is not "merely"
an extention of his speeches and writings.  It is far more than that,
by being a policy statement, and is far less than that, in not addressing
global or philosophical goals and by its qualification via the unresolved
"dann" and the subjunctive.

=====================================================================
77305@novell1.rz.fht-mannheim.de (Klaus Ziegler)
btiffany@pbs.org (Bruce Tiffany)
dzk@cs.brown.edu (Danny Keren)
edmund.Grimley-Evans@cl.cam.ac.uk
f0358@desire.wright.edu (Andrew Livingston)
flegel@jeeves.UCSD.EDU (Willy Flegel)
georg@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de (Georg Schwarz)
io92114@MAINE.maine.edu (Christian)
jennrich@kastor.itp.uni-hannover.de (Oliver Jennrich)
kring@efes.physik.uni-kl.de (Thomas Kettenring)
kurrer@lisboa.ks.uiuc.edu (Christian Kurrer)
lbs@tkmhp4.physik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Lech Borkowski)
leschack@world.std.com (Richard LeSchack)
mike@vlsivie.tuwien.ac.at (Michael Gschwind)
mxsst1+@pitt.edu (MS)
o.m.selberg@easteur-orient.uio.no (Ole Michael Selberg)
psima01@convex.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de (M. Maisack)
rjv@a2.cim.cdc.com (Rene Valdes)
roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
s_titz@ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
smuench@ira.uka.de (Stefan)
sverre@rc.nokia.fi (Sverre Slotte Jr.)
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
tsos@uni-duesseldorf.de (Detlef Lannert)
u60019@uicvm.uic.edu (Volker Kleinschmidt)
wehn@informatik.tu-muenchen.de (Charlotte Wehn)
werner@cs.utexas.edu (Werner Uhrig)
wido@isgtec.com (Wido Menhardt)
wltaylor@wam.umd.edu (William L. Taylor)
y41@ix.urz.uni-heidelberg.de (Jeffrey Hazelwood)



Newsgroups: soc.culture.german