Slimboyfat writes:
“It was talking about the account as a whole:
“There is of course a difference between confirming someone else's account and agreeing with all its details and viewpoints. As I mentioned, clearly Gertrude Poetzinger would not have agreed with Margarete Buber that Witnesses were "thirsting for martyrdom". In any case, apart from that interpretational gloss of Witness actions there seems little reason for Jehovah's Witnesses to dispute the account of the blood sausage incident.”
We have published material from a very contra-biased source (Watchtower) saying “[Buber’s] account is confirmed by Gertrude Poetzinger”. Poetzinger was very close to the Watchtower power center, being the then wife of a sitting governing body member. Poetzinger was actually in Ravensbrueck concentration camp as an eyewitness to what transpired among the Witness inmates. Poetzinger had also read the entirety of Buber's account, that is based on what she told me at the time.
And then we have you, Slimboyfat, who writes “clearly Gertrude Poetzinger would not have agreed with Margarete Buber that Witnesses were ‘thirsting for martyrdom’”. Please tell us, Slimboyfat, just how do you know what the now deceased Gertrude Poetzinger would or would not have agreed to in relation to Buber’s account? Are you some kind of clairvoyant?
Would you have readers accept what you transpose onto Poetzinger’s published statement? Or would you have readers accept what she actually said, and in particular given Watchtower’s bias running contrary to Buber’s observations about the Witnesses.
Tell me this: have you actually read the entirety of Buber’s account addressing Witnesses held in Ravensbrueck that you know what Poetzinger was confirming? Or, are you speaking from ignorance of Buber’s account?
Marvin Shilmer
