Nat Geo's 'Nazi Scrapbooks from Hell' on Sunday, April 27

mikeApr 28th, 2008 - 22:35:10

It was a very moving documentary, very well researched. However there was a very large lapse in reviewing some very obvious evidence in the comparison of the photo suspected to be Hoecker on the ramp.

Why was no mentioned made that the soldier on the ramp with his back to the camera is clearly wearing the collar tress and shoulder insignis of a SS NCO? a much lower rank and one Hoecker never held.

It seeems thay would have refered such photos to true experts on the subject.

Report this comment

DaveDec 7th, 2008 - 18:14:29

I also just watched this on NatGeo.
I agree with the earlier statement that the man in question is an NCO and NOT an officer. The 'research' that was done in regards to height and dimensions is flawed based upon rank.

'Why was no mentioned made that the soldier on the ramp with his back to the camera is clearly wearing the collar tress and shoulder insignis of a SS NCO? a much lower rank and one Hoecker never held.'

Report this comment

Bob JohnstonApr 20th, 2009 - 04:17:01

But, very typical of what NGC and Discovery have been doing in the past few years. They seem to be more interested in the 'reality' tv end of things. Take a scrap of an idea, with limited scope but sensational possibilites, sprinkle some 'facts' from dubious 'experts' and run the show for an hour.

They seem to revel in using fancy computer graphics to explain forensic 'evidence' and re-enactments of pointless items. Oh well.

Report this comment

MarkJun 29th, 2009 - 17:29:50

Saw it for the first time last evening (June 28) and was really disappointed with the 'spin' that was put on the show to create a storyline...

As others noted already, the shows producers really had to stretch to create something that wasn't there by ignoring uniform issues, the physical differences between the larger SS NCO on the ramp and Hoecker and then there is Hoecker's position as the Adjutant.

Shoddy research and/or manipulating or witholding facts to suit the needs of a story line undermines the credibility of NatGeo. What a shame.

Report this comment

FrankJun 29th, 2009 - 18:58:54

I noticed the discrepency with the uniform immediately and couldn't understand why the researchers didn't take this into account. While he stands as a war criminal for the very act of having participated in the management and organization of a death camp, it would be irresponsible to 'make the facts fit the science' for the sake of viewer interest in the program.

Report this comment

SharonJul 4th, 2009 - 03:22:10

I just saw the video, and what most impressed me was the point of the inhumane treatment by humans to other humans, the obvious question asked over the last 60 years. The importance was not in identifying who the individual was in the pictures, even though that was the focus of the documentary. As an instructor in a class on human development, the subject of 'why' and 'how' humans are capable of unspeakable cruelty comes up again and again. This documentary begs the questions, and I am thankful for that. We want to ensure that all of us continue to ask why, as one woman did in the video. It is such a simple, yet profound question. The distraction of identifying a man who may or may not have been punished for war crimes allows one to escape the bigger question and focus on the epaulets on a uniform. Again, we want that distraction rather than deal with how and why this could happen in a civilized world. To loosely quote a recent celebrity, 'Come on, people!' What is the true issue here? It is only in the understanding of ourselves that we will find the real answers. Let's keep searching together.

Report this comment

g.m.Jul 4th, 2009 - 07:19:52

Very powerful content. I think the 'comparison' research is flawed and superfluous. These 'people' murdered millions, and partied while they were doing it!!! Perhaps the research should lean more toward how and why a cultered, educated society would willingly participate in genocide on an epic scale. I love N.G., and most of this documentary meets their high standards of excellence. However, in my opinion, the 'conclusions' drawn and the time wasted speculating on who was on the ramp was a mindless, contrived effort to manipulate the audience and of little significance. Please, N.G., stick to what you're good at. Report facts and follow up with RELEVANT speculation, not sensationalistic filler!!! (P.S.) Your 'researchers' lose credibility by dismissing the obvious discrepancy of the rank of each subject in question. A third grade student could figure that out!

Report this comment