Bismarck's use of "ausrotten"

[Roberto]

medorjurgen wrote:
Scott wrote:
The record of Himmler's Posen speech comes from phonographic discs found in the executed Rosenberg's possessions. Since Alfred is not around to ask about this we take the Allies word for it.

Unless of course you can demonstrate that they tampered with the document, which is your encumbrance.

The record collection is incomplete and as far as I know what is available has never been authenticated by electronic engineers.

The Reverend is again getting smarter by the hour. Not only were there no “electronic engineers” back in 1945, there are also other ways of verifying the authenticity of a recording if it is in doubt, for which there was no reason in the case of Himmler’s speeches considering the coincidence of the recordings with various written records and the place or places where these collections had been found. One of these methods
is interrogating people who were present at the speeches and/or are familiar with the voice of the speaker, as were SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom, as the Reverend himself told us, confirmed the authenticity of the recordings. By the way, is there a chance that the Reverend will have the courtesy of providing a comprehensive quote of the statements of these two gentlemen for the benefit of our audience, or does he expect those interested to run to the library themselves?

It is hearsay that would not be admissible in any court of law and as a lawyer you know that.

I guess the Reverend needs a little briefing on the meaning of “hearsay”. The term designates someone’s perception of what someone else said. It is not admissible as evidence to the facts recalled by the original source, but it is admissible in regard to the fact that the original source said certain things in a certain way. Which is what we are talking about here. Eventual doubts about the authenticity of a tape recording used to be overcome by interrogating witnesses who were present when the recorded statements were made and/or familiar with the voice of the speaker, a method that can nowadays be complemented or replaced by voice print analysis. Which leads us back to Yale Edeiken’s offer to David Michael to have such a voice print analysis performed in regard to the recording of Himmler’s speech of 4 October 1943:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/ede ... ft-00.html

Any idea why the “Revisionist” True Believer got cold feet and let this unique chance to strike a major blow for the cause of Truth slip by?

Oh, but of course, Nuremberg had no rule-of-evidence.

Many judicial systems in the world, especially in continental Europe, do very nicely without such rules.

They can admit anything, real or fake, that they want.

No, it means that the court may “admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value” (Article 19 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal) without being bound to technical rules of admission. Whether that evidence is considered conclusive or whether it is dismissed due to doubts about its authenticity or for other reasons is for the court to decide after such admission.

Being useful for the prosecution doesn't make it genuine, however.

Being inconvenient for the defense doesn’t make it a fake, I would say. A substantiated challenge of the authenticity of the document by the defense is required, which is rather difficult to bring about where, as in this case, the prosecution can account for the origin of the document, has verified its consistency with other records and even interrogated witnesses about its authenticity.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
The audio recording of Himmler's boring three-hour address to the Gruppenführers is incomplete.

Is it? Well, incomplete or not, it still contains the interesting passages, doesn’t it? Very clearly, as a matter of fact. Ever listened to it? I have.

I just posted an audio link to the smoking-gun portion, above, wise guy.

Getting pissed again, Reverend? Nice phonograph at the end of your post, for sure. Did you listen to the recording? If so, did you understand anything of what the Reichsführer said?

If you know so much about it, perhaps you can tell us where the full three-hour version is, complete with English transcript.

National Archives, Maryland, most likely. How about asking your peer Carlos Porter? He produced a complete – though conveniently distorted - translation of the recording of Himmler’s speech on 4 October 1943, which can be found under the link

http://www.codoh.com/incon/inconhh.html

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
a little smoking-gun rhetoric

No rhetoric, Reverend. Himmler was speaking in a matter of fact – tone to audiences of insiders about an issue that he considered needed to be addressed.

It sounds like typical bureaucratic rhetoric to me.

How about cleaning the ideological wax out of your ears and minding the words of the speaker and the context and occasion in which the statements in question were made?

Where you love smoking-guns I ask questions as to why diesel exhaust and murder-vans can't work as claimed.

Translation: Where I follow the relevant evidence where it leads, the Reverend makes a big bloody fuss about the utterly irrelevant question whether the gassing engines at Treblinka and in some of the gas vans were or not diesel engines.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
Transcribed by the prosecution and judges at Nuremberg as 1919-PS.

From the original transcripts, of course. Anything wrong with that?

The Allied prosecution, which has a strong investment in Axis culpability, supplies all the evidence. Yes, I think there is something wrong with that.

Only to the extent you can demonstrate that they tampered with the evidence in question, which was neither necessary nor in their interest. For all supposed “strong investment in Axis culpability”, they carefully assessed every defendant’s individual guilt and acquitted every one of such charges regarding which his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Far from being out to demonstrate Axis culpability no matter what, they were committed to giving the defendants a fair trial:

IV. FAIR TRIAL FOR DEFENDANTS
Article 16.
In order to ensure fair trial for the Defendants, the following procedure shall be followed:
(a) The Indictment shall include full particulars specifying in detail the charges against the Defendants. A copy of the Indictment and of all the documents lodged with the Indictment, translated into a language which he understands, shall be furnished to the Defendant at reasonable time before the Trial.
(b) During any preliminary examination or trial of a Defendant he will have the right to give any explanation relevant to the charges made against him.
(c) A preliminary examination of a Defendant and his Trial shall be conducted in, or translated into, a language which the Defendant understands.
(d) A Defendant shall have the right to conduct his own defense before the Tribunal or to have the assistance of Counsel.
(e) A Defendant shall have the right through himself or through his Counsel to present evidence at the Trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witness called by the Prosecution.

From the Charter of the International Military Tribunal. Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm

Quote:
Convenient that we have such golden nuggets

Convenient? Highly inconvenient to True Believers like the Reverend, I would say. Another of those nasty challenges to Faith …

Medo wrote:
words that mean what the Allied prosecution says they mean.

I see little evidence that the word cannot have meant ethnic-cleansing in contemporary Nazi usage.

What Mr. Ostrich chooses to see or not to see is of no relevance. Contrary to his approach, it would be up to him to provide evidence that the term may have meant “ethnic cleansing” (that term is a novelty of the 1990’s, by the way) in contemporary Nazi usage. Especially in a passages such as the following from Himmler’s speech on 6 October 1943:

Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

My translation:

I ask you that what I tell you in this circle you will really only hear and never talk about it. The question came up to us: What do to with the women and children? – I decided to find a very clear solution also in this respect. This because I didn’t consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or to have them killed – and to let the children grow up as avengers against our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth.

“Auszurotten” = “umbringen oder umbringen zu lassen” = “dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen”.

Translation:

“to exterminate” = “to kill them or to have them killed” = “to make this people disappear from the earth”.

Rather easy to understand, isn’t it? Unless of course your mind is clouded by Faith.

As always the words mean what the prosecution says they mean

Why, were there no defense attorneys at Nuremberg to challenge the prosecution’s interpretation?

, or what neo-German say they mean.

No. What a native speaker of the German language like myself clearly understands them to mean.

I guess Bismarck was secretly dreaming about diesel gas-vans and steam chambers, too.

The Reverend obviously didn’t read the passage from Bismarck’s speech quoted by Michael Mills, otherwise he would know that Bismarck equated “ausrotten” with “totschiessen”, i.e. shooting dead, the Polish "wolves". Unlike Himmler’s above quoted statements, however, Birmarck’s words can be considered mere bloodthirsty bellicose rhetoric, as I explained in my first post on this thread.

Medo wrote:
[quote="Scott"I think it is reasonable for the historian to be skeptical of anything coming from the Nuremberg process.

Skepticism has been shown by historians to the extent that it is warranted, but the “skepticism” that Smith calls for has nothing to do with skepticism and everything to do with ideologically motivated propaganda.

I don't think I made any claims one way or the other. The murder-vans are slowly but surely proving to be poppycock, just as the steam and diesel gaschambers.

The Reverend’s dreams are getting wilder by the hour. Why, he hasn’t even demonstrated that the engines of the gas vans are assumed to have been diesel engines (remember the depositions of Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck that I quoted and translated, Reverend?), that diesel engines would have been an inadequate killing method or that, if they had been, this would mean anything other than that the engines in question were actually gasoline engines and the witnesses or those who assessed their statements were mistaken. His understandable frustration at not being able to sell his herrings becomes apparent in desperate tirades like the one quoted above.

One day I'll become a cremation expert and we'll see how well your 54 muffles hold out.

One day I’ll be big and strong and beat the shit out of you, my younger brothers used to say when we were kids. Smith is once again exposing his infantile mind.

I think a thousand cremations a day is generous.

What Smith thinks and the facts are usually the exact opposite of each other, and I see no reason to assume the cremation issue will be an exception.

According to the data of the British Cremation Society often invoked by “Revisionists”, it took 30 minutes for a dead body in a coffin to be reduced to the size of a rugby football. If we assume that the lack of a coffin at Auschwitz-Birkenau did not shorten this time (which it probably did), we could have one body completely cremated and the other reduced to the size of a football within 60 minutes. If the cremation load was 100 kilograms and this was made up by two bodies each time (e.g. and adult male weighing 70 kg and a child weighing 30 kg), we would have two bodies completely burned and two reduced to the size of a rugby football within 60 minutes, a total of four bodies per hour or 15 minutes per body. And if the load was composed of a woman weighing 50 kg and two children weighing 25 kg each, then 3 bodies would be completely cremated and three reduced to the size of a rugby football within an hour.

Is there anything wrong with my calculations, Reverend?

[Roberto]

“Let’s play by the rules of historiography, shall we?”

Yes, of course. Are youy familiar with those rules?

Basically, he who forwards a contention must substantiate it upon request, especially if the existing record speaks against this contention. The fact that the records of Himmler’s speeches were found with Nazi bigwigs, that criminal justice authorities and historians assessed them and that they found no reason to doubt their authenticity definitely speaks against the contention that the authenticity is to be doubted.

Would this not be a little too difficult and unaccustomed for a believer like you, no?

It takes nothing but a little common sense – something entirely foreign to a “Revisionist” True Believer, for sure.

“It seems that there are Himmler’s handwritten notes, typescript of the transcript made from the recording of the speeches, final copies made that have typescript in the special large typewriter face that was used for Adolf Hitler”

It seems? You mean you are not sure? You did not see them? Not look at them? Where are they? Any idea?

Well, for once I relied on your guru David Irving, who in the statement at the Zündel trial that you obviously did not read wrote the following:

I looked at Heinrich Himmler's handwritten notes on the basis of which he delivered those speeches, I looked at the typescript of the transcript made from the recording of the speeches, I looked at the final copy made that have typescript in the special large typewriter face that was used for Adolf Hitler to read, so the speeches exist in several copies and I understand that in the National Archives, there is also a sound recording of the two speeches.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/ ... posen-1988

I tend to rely on hoaxers like Irving when they grudgingly admit what they would rather not have to admit, as in this case. How about following the links I point you to before making a fool out of yourself, buddy?

‘They have been analyzed by historians of note”

Which ones? Which historians?

Richard Breitman, author of The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution,
and Bradley F. Smith, author of Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg, Basic Books (1977) and The Road to Nuremberg, Basic Books (1981), not to be confounded with Bradley R. Smith, one of the Keepers of the Faith and guru of Mr. Sailor and other “Revisionist” True Believers. Does my friend have such a short memory, or is he just too lazy to read previous posts on the thread he is discussing on?

“none of whom apparently found a reason to challenge the authenticity of the documents in question.”

Appearantly? That is all?

Otherwise we would have heard something from a serious source and not just from the “Revisionist” bullshit corner

Does the enlightened believer maybe have any idea how the authenticity was verified?

I presume the enlightened believer has none, as usual, but I have. There were several records available about the speech, so the logical thing would have been to compare them with each other for consistency. That provided, there could be little doubt as to the authenticity of the records considering the place where they had been found, unless there were any indications that they had been tampered with or “planted” at the place in question, which don’t seem to have existed. Any remaining doubts could be ruled out by questioning people familiar with the documents about the authenticity thereof. This was done in regard to the tape recording by interrogating former SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom confirmed the authenticity of the recording. Berger mumbled something that the speech had covered various topics and he didn’t remember anything about Jews having been said, but that’s an irrelevant objection – he may have wanted to protect himself or he may honestly have been dozing when, two hours into his speech of 4 October 1943, Himmler brought up the “Jewish question”.

“Even David Irving, though mumbling something…”

I don’t care what Irving mumbles or not mumbles.

Why, do you drop your own gurus when their statements don’t fit into your bubble, my friend?

But what does our enlightend Medorjurgen mumble, that is of interest.

Of much greater interest than the hollow crap produced by “Revisionist” True Believers, for sure.

“…anyone bleating “forgery…”

I am not bleating yet, believer,

Yes you are. Not only bleating, but actually squealing helplessly like a pig on the block. I consider that the appropriate term for wholly unsubstantiated allegations of “forgery” in regard to any document that does not fit into your belief system.

I ask why the enlightened one believes that the snippet of the Oct. 6 speech which he posted in order to prove his misunderstanding of the German word ‘ausrotten’.

Unlike “Revisionist” True Believers, I can read without ideological glasses, and Himmler’s words at his speech on 6 October 1943 are as clear and unmistakable as they can be:

Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

My translation:

I ask you that what I tell you in this circle you will really only hear and never talk about it. The question came up to us: What do to with the women and children? – I decided to find a very clear solution also in this respect. This because I didn’t consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or to have them killed – and to let the children grow up as avengers against our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth.

“Auszurotten” = “umbringen oder umbringen zu lassen” = “dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen”.

Translation:

“to exterminate” = “to kill them or to have them killed” = “to make this people disappear from the earth”.

Rather easy to understand, isn’t it? Unless of course Faith is clouding your mind.

Quote:
Something I would like you to demonstrate, which you are not able to do as your contention is based on what you would badly like to believe and nothing else. As used in Himmler’s speech of 6 October 1943 and on other occasions in regard to a group of people, it meant nothing other than physical annihilation of that group. You just have to read the words without ideological tomato slices in front of your eyes to see that.

I have posted above that ‘ausrotten’ as used by Hitler/Göbbels/Himmler in connection with Jews from the 1920’s on meant “ethnic cleansing’.

That’s what my friend has postulated, without demostrating it on hand of any concrete example. And the use of the word in Himmler’s speeches leaves him mute, for which reason he sees no other way out of his misery than to squeal “forgery”.

These people were asked to leave Germany, which most did.

Sure. And what happened to those who remained behind? Not to mention those in other countries, such as in Poland, where there were ca. 3,300,000 at the start of the war in 1939, of which 380,000 at most were still alive when it ended. Can our True Believer account for the difference?

The enlightened one is getting a little boring.

Boring as hell, as a matter of fact. The True Believer seems to be up to nothing better than trying to make believe that documents don’t say what they all to obviously do, and letting out unsubstantiated bleats (or shall I say squeals?) of “forgery” when that fails.

At this time we are trying to check the authenticity of the speech snippet he posted.

Are we? I must have missed something. Or is it that the True Believer hasn’t yet mentioned a single indication against the authenticity of the documents in question?

Mein Gott is that difficult!

Indeed it seems to be, judging by the fact that my friend keeps mumbling about “forgery” without telling us what is supposed to speak against the authenticity of the documents under discussion.

“Ausrotten hier, ausrotten da, ausrotten in Amerika!”

I see the True Believer is returning to infancy, which he never seems to have moved far beyond anyway.

[Scott Smith]

The record collection is incomplete and as far as I know what is available has never been authenticated by electronic engineers.

The Reverend is again getting smarter by the hour. Not only were there no “electronic engineers” back in 1945,

And Roberto’s nonsense is getting dumber, it seems. Electronic engineers have existed since 1906 with the invention of the vacuum tube; before that there were electrical engineers. Our legal ostrich probably cannot even remember vacuum tubes. But I never said anything about the IMT authenticating the recordings. It seems rather simple for the National Archives to do so today by comparing Himmler’s voice with all other known recordings of Himmler’s voice, including newsreel film.

there are also other ways of verifying the authenticity of a recording if it is in doubt, for which there was no reason in the case of Himmler’s speeches considering the coincidence of the recordings with various written records and the place or places where these collections had been found.

The only thing “coincident” about all of this is that a partial recording miraculously showed-up, as if to anonymously Bear-Witness to posterity, and that this was highly-convenient for the prosecution’s SHOW in some of the later trials.

One of these methods is interrogating people who were present at the speeches and/or are familiar with the voice of the speaker, as were SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom, as the Reverend himself told us, confirmed the authenticity of the recordings.

No, they equivocated and they were under the gun themselves, which makes anything they say suspect.

By the way, is there a chance that the Reverend will have the courtesy of providing a comprehensive quote of the statements of these two gentlemen for the benefit of our audience, or does he expect those interested to run to the library themselves?

No, Homey don’t play that game no more. You blew your chance at that courtesy when you accused me of holding out on you—I believe the word was LIAR—when I was still waiting for documents myself. Not everything is accessible instantly, contrary to the expectations of the MTV generation. I waited a long time to get the Krasnodar/Kharkov documentation, for example, not all of which has arrived even now, when my argument could have used the information directly. Anyway, I won’t be sending you anything and you have sent me not one thing.

It is hearsay that would not be admissible in any court of law and as a lawyer you know that.

I guess the Reverend needs a little briefing on the meaning of “hearsay”. The term designates someone’s perception of what someone else said.

Exactly.

It is not admissible as evidence to the facts recalled by the original source, but it is admissible in regard to the fact that the original source said certain things in a certain way. Which is what we are talking about here.

That seems to be in dispute as well. About all we know for sure is that there was a meeting of the Gruppenführers and that Himmler gave a three-hour speech, which was so unremarkable that nobody could remember what was said.

Eventual doubts about the authenticity of a tape recording used to be overcome by interrogating witnesses who were present when the recorded statements were made and/or familiar with the voice of the speaker,

Let’s see that analysis, then. There was none because the Nuremberg courts just recognized what they wanted to. Honest historians need a more critical eye.

a method that can nowadays be complemented or replaced by voice print analysis. Which leads us back to Yale Edeiken’s offer to David Michael to have such a voice print analysis performed in regard to the recording of Himmler’s speech of 4 October 1943

I have no objection to further technical analysis. You seem to think that Revisionists are some monolithic party-faithful or something. The curators and librarians at the National Archives should do it with their professional reputations on the line. Nobody is going to believe any electronic Leuchter Report anyway, or particularly not another rogue study conducted by some cipher at a government agency like the "JPL photoenhancement" of Birkenau showing “people marching to the gaschambers.”

Oh, but of course, Nuremberg had no rules-of-evidence.

Many judicial systems in the world, especially in continental Europe, do very nicely without such rules.

Yes, and I’m not impressed with your Thoughtcrimes laws either. For the historian who uses trials to determine historical fact the notion is doubly absurd.

They can admit anything, real or fake, that they want.

No, it means that the court may “admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value” (Article 19 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal) without being bound to technical rules of admission. Whether that evidence is considered conclusive or whether it is dismissed due to doubts about its authenticity or for other reasons is for the court to decide after such admission.

“Probative value” in this case means what is wanted by the Prosecution. The Defense didn’t have an army to smash-and-grab through Europe looking for documents of probative value to its case. And the defense were all German citizens at the mercy of the Allied occupational government.

Being useful for the prosecution doesn't make it genuine, however.

Being inconvenient for the defense doesn’t make it a fake, I would say. A substantiated challenge of the authenticity of the document by the defense is required, which is rather difficult to bring about where, as in this case, the prosecution can account for the origin of the document, has verified its consistency with other records and even interrogated witnesses about its authenticity.

Yawn. Kaltenbrunner denied the authenticity of many documents waved in front of him supposedly bearing his signature. When he asked to read them the court said NO. Whether the accused were guilty or not the prosecution were definitely legal bottom-feeders, particularly Jackson.

Did you listen to the recording? If so, did you understand anything of what the Reichsführer said?

Yes, and in the audio link that I posted, I heard the word “Ausrottung,” which we are disputing the meaning of, and its perception before a sleepy audience of Gruppenführers.

It sounds like typical bureaucratic rhetoric to me.

How about cleaning the ideological wax out of your ears and minding the words of the speaker and the context and occasion in which the statements in question were made?

You act like you’ve never heard bellicose rhetoric before, which was standard practice of the Nazis from their boisterous Beerhall revolutionary days. I’ve heard worse rhetoric in the Army myself, and I’m sure that the Gruppenführers hardly batted an eyelash. ZZZZZ

Where you love smoking-guns I ask questions as to why diesel exhaust and murder-vans can't work as claimed.

Translation: Where I follow the relevant evidence where it leads, the Reverend makes a big bloody fuss about the utterly irrelevant question whether the gassing engines at Treblinka and in some of the gas vans were or not diesel engines.

Yeah, I made a bloody fuss out of proving that the Soviets lied about Gas-Vans and that Fleming and Yad Vashem did not do their homework on their smoking-gun picture of one.

The Allied prosecution, which has a strong investment in Axis culpability, supplies all the evidence. Yes, I think there is something wrong with that.

Only to the extent you can demonstrate that they tampered with the evidence in question, which was neither necessary nor in their interest.

We don’t know that it is really Himmler. We don’t know if anything relevant has been left out since much of it is “lost.” We don’t know the chain of evidence. I might as well send a tape of my best impression of actor Robert Blake hiring a hitman to murder his wife. Of course, Blake was not a Nazi and he did not lose a war...

For all supposed “strong investment in Axis culpability”, they carefully assessed every defendant’s individual guilt and acquitted every one of such charges regarding which his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Far from being out to demonstrate Axis culpability no matter what, they were committed to giving the defendants a fair trial:

Utter crap. Empty words. Gilded codex crap. The Allies at Nuremberg had one goal and that was to make the defeated enemy regime look worse than their Soviet Allies, and thereby justifying their own excesses and their barbaric Unconditional Surrender policy.

Only the Judeocentric would think the Nazis worse than any other regime, particularly the Communists, because the Nazis were anti-Semitic, of course. And crimes against Jews, according to this worldview, trump all others.

Tell me, Roberto, can you trace your family tree to the Scholl family? I mean, that is what Germans do nowadays, isn't it? And that is what religious cults do. Any anti-Nazi prophets and martyrs in your woodpile?

The Reverend’s dreams are getting wilder by the hour. Why, he hasn’t even demonstrated that the engines of the gas vans are assumed to have been diesel engines (remember the depositions of Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck that I quoted and translated, Reverend?),

The Ostrich forgets that I work on one project at a time and I never said I was competed. I have examined the Soviet claims and the Fleming van. Both irrefutably diesel engines.

that diesel engines would have been an inadequate killing method

The Pattle experiments show this as Medo would admit if he were intellectually honest. And the Holtz experiments show that CO was not the culprit, which puts the Soviet autopsy report—if you can call it that—into question.

or that, if they had been, this would mean anything other than that the engines in question were actually gasoline engines and the witnesses or those who assessed their statements were mistaken.

That remains a possibility. We shall see, as I tick off one claim after another. And when/if there are none left, then what, Mr. Believer? Of course, if the claims are gasoline engines it only means that I cannot easily disprove them—not that they are real.

His understandable frustration at not being able to sell his herrings becomes apparent in desperate tirades like the one quoted above.

The space you devote to me instead of “more serious Revisionists” belies your own doubt—literally thousands of words, over a year intensely trying to prove the diesel story TRUE when all you had to do is say. I think you may be right, Scott; the witnesses were probably just mistaken about the diesels and it was actually just gasoline engines after all. If the Holocaust story relied upon flying-nuns to carry itself, Medorjurgen would be a Believer in flying-nuns. That is obvious to everyone but the thickest.

One day I'll become a cremation expert and we'll see how well your 54 muffles hold out.

One day I’ll be big and strong and beat the shit out of you, my younger brothers used to say when we were kids. Smith is once again exposing his infantile mind.

Careful, you will pop a gasket and that will be no fun at all. I’m sure the Big-H isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. You, however, have yet to admit that there is anything that you do not know.

I think a thousand cremations a day is generous.

Is there anything wrong with my calculations, Reverend?

Yawn. Like I said, a thousand corpses per day is a mighty generous figure (and the real number is probably half that). Medo has no technical knowledge sufficient to light a ballpark with a diesel engine let alone dabble in cremation physics. He thinks he knows but he is clueless. He knows what others tell him—if he agrees, that is. He knows what he can cut-and-paste from online sources that he agrees with. Yawn. But, no need for him to foam…


Best Regards,
Scott

[Roberto]

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
The record collection is incomplete and as far as I know what is available has never been authenticated by electronic engineers.

The Reverend is again getting smarter by the hour. Not only were there no “electronic engineers” back in 1945,

And Roberto’s nonsense is getting dumber, it seems.

Better thread lightly, Reverend. I may be wrong, but unlike you I never write nonsense, let alone dumb nonsense.

Electronic engineers have existed since 1906 with the invention of the vacuum tube; before that there were electrical engineers.

That’s good to know. Since when could they verify the authenticity of tape recordings by electronic means, oh Great Technician?

Our legal ostrich probably cannot even remember vacuum tubes.

I’m neither a technician nor an ostrich. I leave both to the Reverend.

But I never said anything about the IMT authenticating the recordings.

That seems to answer my previous question.

It seems rather simple for the National Archives to do so today by comparing Himmler’s voice with all other known recordings of Himmler’s voice, including newsreel film.

From what I remember having read in a post by Charles Bunch, that’s exactly what they’re doing these days – even though there is no need to do so, as there is no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the recordings.

Medo wrote:
there are also other ways of verifying the authenticity of a recording if it is in doubt, for which there was no reason in the case of Himmler’s speeches considering the coincidence of the recordings with various written records and the place or places where these collections had been found.

The only thing “coincident” about all of this is that a partial recording miraculously showed-up, as if to anonymously Bear-Witness to posterity, and that this was highly-convenient for the prosecution’s SHOW in some of the later trials.

I don’t see the rambling poet telling us anything. A partial recording found at the office of a Nazi big-wig together with written records coinciding with the tape-recorded passages – what more do you need? The partiality is likely to have been due to the fact that it took more than one carrier to record a three-hour speech and that the carriers containing the rest of it were not found, rather than to sinister doings of the kind the conspiracy-minded True Believer is hinting at.

Medo wrote:
One of these methods is interrogating people who were present at the speeches and/or are familiar with the voice of the speaker, as were SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom, as the Reverend himself told us, confirmed the authenticity of the recordings.

No, they equivocated and they were under the gun themselves, which makes anything they say suspect.

Ach so, when there were witnesses, they were lying. What reason would they have had to lie in such a way as to incriminate themselves, Reverend? And how about letting us have the transcriptions of their depositions so that we may assess their reliability for ourselves instead of having to rely on the Reverend’s rather dubious word?

Medo wrote:
By the way, is there a chance that the Reverend will have the courtesy of providing a comprehensive quote of the statements of these two gentlemen for the benefit of our audience, or does he expect those interested to run to the library themselves?

No, Homey don’t play that game no more.

Looks like the interrogation protocols contain something the Reverend doesn’t want our audience to see …

You blew your chance at that courtesy when you accused me of holding out on you—I believe the word was LIAR—when I was still waiting for documents myself.

It may have hurt, but I don’t think I was wrong. And while I can understand your being raving mad at me, how about thinking of our readers who may also want to see the text of those depositions and in whose eyes you will not exactly gain credibility by withholding it?

Not everything is accessible instantly, contrary to the expectations of the MTV generation.

The generation to which the Reverend counts himself seems to think little of the old fashioned debating principle that he who makes an assertion must provide backup for it upon request, however long and however much trouble it takes, lest he wants to be considered a charlatan.

I waited a long time to get the Krasnodar/Kharkov documentation, for example, not all of which has arrived even now, when my argument could have used the information directly.

I don’t see your argument having greatly benefited from the information. On the contrary, you cleverly managed to show our audience that those Soviet “show trials” were not as bad as you would like them to have been.

Anyway, I won’t be sending you anything and you have sent me not one thing.

I think you’re not getting the picture, Reverend. I’m not asking any favors of you. I’m just reminding you of what is your encumbrance if you want to retain a semblance of credibility on this forum.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
It is hearsay that would not be admissible in any court of law and as a lawyer you know that.

I guess the Reverend needs a little briefing on the meaning of “hearsay”. The term designates someone’s perception of what someone else said.

Exactly.

Medo wrote:
It is not admissible as evidence to the facts recalled by the original source, but it is admissible in regard to the fact that the original source said certain things in a certain way. Which is what we are talking about here.

That seems to be in dispute as well.

Why, Reverend? Berger and Pohl stated that they recognized the voice as being Himmler’s, didn’t they? And the recording also seems to have coincided with Himmler’s handwritten records and the transcriptions thereof, including the ones in specially big types for the far-sighted Führer to read.

About all we know for sure is that there was a meeting of the Gruppenführers and that Himmler gave a three-hour speech, which was so unremarkable that nobody could remember what was said.

Well, Berger seems to have said that he didn’t remember anything having been said about the Jews, which I would also have done in his situation. A rather irrelevant objection in the face of the contents of the recording and the typed transcriptions thereof as well as Himmler’s handwritten notes. As to the honesty of Berger’s objection, I will give him the benefit of assuming that he was dozing when, about two hours into the speech, Himmler addressed the “Jewish question”.

Medo wrote:
Eventual doubts about the authenticity of a tape recording used to be overcome by interrogating witnesses who were present when the recorded statements were made and/or familiar with the voice of the speaker,

Let’s see that analysis, then.

Exactly, Reverend. Show us Berger’s and Pohl’s depositions, which are what my quoted passage was referring to.

There was none because the Nuremberg courts just recognized what they wanted to.

In case you haven’t noticed, Reverend, you’re contradicting yourself. Didn’t you tell us yourself that Berger and Pohl were interrogated about the tape recording of Himmler’s speech on 4 October 1943?

Honest historians need a more critical eye.

… than Smith, one of the most dishonest historians I have ever run across, has when it comes to his Articles of Faith.

Medo wrote:
a method that can nowadays be complemented or replaced by voice print analysis. Which leads us back to Yale Edeiken’s offer to David Michael to have such a voice print analysis performed in regard to the recording of Himmler’s speech of 4 October 1943

I have no objection to further technical analysis.

That’s great. Then please contact Yale Edeiken and tell him that you accept the proposal that David Michael ran away from.

You seem to think that Revisionists are some monolithic party-faithful or something.

I have seen nothing so far that would lead me to conclude anything else. But I’m looking forward to Reverend Smith showing us that he’s a more daring “Revisionist” than Michael by having the tape recording assessed by a voice print analyst, as proposed by Yale Edeiken.

The curators and librarians at the National Archives should do it with their professional reputations on the line.

Why, are the reputations of those curators and librarians on the line because a bunch of wolf-crying ideologically blind morons come along with unsubstantiated accusations that they are hoarding a forgery? If there were any serious doubts, it would be a different story.

Nobody is going to believe any electronic Leuchter Report anyway, or particularly not another rogue study conducted by some cipher at a government agency like the "JPL photoenhancement" of Birkenau showing “people marching to the gaschambers.”

“Nobody” is something of an exaggeration. The “Revisionist” hoaxers, who systematically dismiss as “forgery” anything that doesn’t fit into their bubble and they can’t explain away, on grounds of nothing else than it’s not fitting into their bubble and their being unable to explain it away, cannot be so out of touch with reality as to think they are speaking for all mankind. Or can they?

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
Oh, but of course, Nuremberg had no rules-of-evidence.

Many judicial systems in the world, especially in continental Europe, do very nicely without such rules.

Yes, and I’m not impressed with your Thoughtcrimes laws either.

I don’t see what one thing could possibly have to do with the other, and I neither understand how someone can be so paranoid as to give some misguided laws against extremist hate speech an Orwellian dimension.

For the historian who uses trials to determine historical fact the notion is doubly absurd.

Why so, buddy? Criminal justice and historiography have different objectives, for sure, but the former can be very useful to the latter, especially as criminal justice has means of finding and assessing evidence at its disposal which are not available to historians. I’d say the historian who bluntly shuns the findings of criminal justice is taking a very unprofessional approach, to put it so as not to offend.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
They can admit anything, real or fake, that they want.

No, it means that the court may “admit any evidence which it deems to be of probative value” (Article 19 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal) without being bound to technical rules of admission. Whether that evidence is considered conclusive or whether it is dismissed due to doubts about its authenticity or for other reasons is for the court to decide after such admission.

“Probative value” in this case means what is wanted by the Prosecution.

No, Mister. It is what the court deemed to have probative value. Prosecution and defense could pronounce themselves about the court’s decision, but it was the court which had the last word.

The Defense didn’t have an army to smash-and-grab through Europe looking for documents of probative value to its case.

The defense usually has less means at its disposal than the prosecution. But as in every proper trial, it was entitled to receive copies of all documents produced by the defense, to examine and to challenge them, to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses and to present documents or call witnesses on behalf of the defendants. The number of defense witnesses actually exceeded by far the number of witnesses for the prosecution, and the time the defense was granted to make its case exceeded the time taken in court by the prosecution.

And the defense were all German citizens at the mercy of the Allied occupational government.

Hollow bunk. The defense were some of the most distinguished German lawyers, some of whom, if I well remember, gave the prosecution a lot of trouble without any of them suffering any disadvantages due to it.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
Being useful for the prosecution doesn't make it genuine, however.

Being inconvenient for the defense doesn’t make it a fake, I would say. A substantiated challenge of the authenticity of the document by the defense is required, which is rather difficult to bring about where, as in this case, the prosecution can account for the origin of the document, has verified its consistency with other records and even interrogated witnesses about its authenticity.

Yawn.

Bored by your own bullshit, Reverend?

Kaltenbrunner denied the authenticity of many documents waved in front of him supposedly bearing his signature.

Just what I would have expected of the yellow butcher trembling for his miserable life.

When he asked to read them the court said NO.

Did it? On what grounds? How did Kaltenbrunner’s attorney react? How was the authenticity of the documents challenged by Kaltenbrunner established? Could it be that his objections were so obviously puny attempts at protecting himself that the court didn’t consider them relevant, and that Kaltenbrunner’s attorney recognized this as well and refrained from making a fool of himself?

Whether the accused were guilty or not the prosecution were definitely legal bottom-feeders, particularly Jackson.

Sure. I guess that’s why most of the defendants were acquitted of all charges against them that could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt and some were acquitted entirely.

A Furiously-Backpedaling MedoMan wrote:

Grow up, buddy.

Did you listen to the recording? If so, did you understand anything of what the Reichsführer said?

Yes, and in the audio link that I posted, I heard the word “Ausrottung,” which we are disputing the meaning of,

Why, was that all you understood?

and its perception before a sleepy audience of Gruppenführers.

Which was the following, I presume:

[1:27] Ich meine die Judenevakuierung, die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes. Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. [quickly] "Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt Ihnen jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm drin, Aus...schaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir, pfah!, Kleinigkeit". [less quickly] Und dann kommen sie alle, alle die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. [mockingly] Sagt: alle anderen sind Schweine, und hier ist ein prima Jude. [a few people laugh] Und ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... zugesehen, es durchgestanden hat keiner. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Und ... dies ... durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei - abgesehen von menschlichen Ausnahmeschwächen - anständig geblieben zu sein, hat uns hart gemacht und ist ein niemals genanntes und niemals zu nennendes Ruhmesblatt, denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir uns täten, wenn wir heute noch in jeder Stadt bei den Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten des Krieges und bei den Entbehrungen, wenn wir da noch die Juden als geheime Saboteure, Agitatoren und Hetzer hätten. Wir würden wahrscheinlich in das Stadium des Jahres 16/17 jetzt gekommen sein, wenn die Juden noch im deutschen Volkskörper sässen.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/him ... izkor.html

Translation:

[1:27] I am talking about the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people[1]. It is one of those things that is easily said. [quickly] "The Jewish people is being exterminated[2]," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating[2] them, a small matter". [less quickly] And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. [mockingly] They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew. [a few people laugh] And ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000. And ... to have seen this through and -- with the exception of human weakness -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned. Because we know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and instigators. We would probably be at the same stage as 16/17, if the Jews still resided in the body of the German people.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/him ... izkor.html

If you understood anything differently, please let us know.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
It sounds like typical bureaucratic rhetoric to me.

How about cleaning the ideological wax out of your ears and minding the words of the speaker and the context and occasion in which the statements in question were made?

You act like you’ve never heard bellicose rhetoric before, which was standard practice of the Nazis from their boisterous Beerhall revolutionary days.

I have heard and read such rhetoric. But this was none of it.

I’ve heard worse rhetoric in the Army myself,

Really? The extermination of what people, men, women and children, was your commander talking about? And what heaps of 100, 500 or 1,000 dead bodies lying together did he refer to?

and I’m sure that the Gruppenführers hardly batted an eyelash.

So am I. After all, they were insiders who had witnessed or performed a lot of killing, as Himmler took care to point out:

And ... [audience cough] [carefully] ... none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when 500 are there or when there are 1000. And ... to have seen this through and -- with the exception of human weakness -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.

ZZZZZ

That was Berger, right?

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
Where you love smoking-guns I ask questions as to why diesel exhaust and murder-vans can't work as claimed.

Translation: Where I follow the relevant evidence where it leads, the Reverend makes a big bloody fuss about the utterly irrelevant question whether the gassing engines at Treblinka and in some of the gas vans were or not diesel engines.

Yeah, I made a bloody fuss out of proving that the Soviets lied about Gas-Vans and that Fleming and Yad Vashem did not do their homework on their smoking-gun picture of one.

Exactly, Reverend. Even if the Soviets had been wrong about the type of engine, this would not mean that they lied about the gas vans, considering the evidence. As to Fleming and Yad Vashem, serious and competent historians and institutions that they are, they don’t consider it their job to dig into something as irrelevant as the exact specifics of a murder weapon. They may have made mistakes in regard to unimportant minor details (something the Reverend still has to demonstrate), but then nobody is perfect – except maybe for the Reverend, who independently of the evidence seems to be omniscient as to what happened and what did not.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
The Allied prosecution, which has a strong investment in Axis culpability, supplies all the evidence. Yes, I think there is something wrong with that.

Only to the extent you can demonstrate that they tampered with the evidence in question, which was neither necessary nor in their interest.

We don’t know that it is really Himmler.

Oh yes we do. The recordings coincide with the notes and transcriptions, and Pohl and Berger expressly confirmed that the voice was Himmler’s. What indications does the Reverend have that it was not? None at all, I dare say.

We don’t know if anything relevant has been left out since much of it is “lost.”

What that may have been “left out” would have given the above quoted passages a different meaning, Reverend? Your statement suggests that you didn’t read the translation of the whole speech of 4 October 1943, prepared by your fellow True Believer Carlos Porter, by the way. How about paying a little more attention to what your peers write?

We don’t know the chain of evidence.

Apart from there being no imaginable “chain of evidence” that would give Himmler’s statements about the Jewish question a different meaning, we actually do know the "chain". Once again, have a look at Carlos Porter’s somewhat dishonest but obviously complete translation.

I might as well send a tape of my best impression of actor Robert Blake hiring a hitman to murder his wife.

And there would also be coincident handwritten notes and transcriptions incidentally found with an authority that would be expected to keep such things, and two people present when the statement was made identifyng the voice of the speaker, right? Try to achieve that with a voice imitator, Reverend, and keep us informed of the results. By the way “I might as well” or “it could have been” are irrelevant arguments. You have to provide evidence that it “was” or has a good chance of having been if you want to get anywhere.

Of course, Blake was not a Nazi and he did not lose a war...

Losing a war is to criminals at state level what getting caught is to common criminals.

Medo wrote:
For all supposed “strong investment in Axis culpability”, they carefully assessed every defendant’s individual guilt and acquitted every one of such charges regarding which his guilt could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Far from being out to demonstrate Axis culpability no matter what, they were committed to giving the defendants a fair trial:

Utter crap.

Sounds rather desperate. Is there anything you can demonstrate, or are you just letting off steam?

Empty words.

As above.

Gilded codex crap.

As above. Two “craps” in three short sentences, wow. Rage is getting the better of the Reverend’s linguistic elegance.

The Allies at Nuremberg had one goal and that was to make the defeated enemy regime look worse than their Soviet Allies,

Another Article of Faith with nothing but thin air and wishful thinking behind it. Or can you show us anything supporting your statement, Reverend?

and thereby justifying their own excesses and their barbaric Unconditional Surrender policy.

As above. I like the word “barbaric” for what it reveals about the mind of Reverend Smith. He calls a comparatively less harmful policy what he would never call the Nazis’ mass murder of millions of unarmed non-combatants – “barbaric”.

Only the Judeocentric would think the Nazis worse than any other regime, particularly the Communists, because the Nazis were anti-Semitic, of course.

Probably so. But the Reverend is crashing into open doors. Did I ever say that I consider Adolf to have been worse than Stalin or Mao? They were birds of a feather, as far as I’m concerned.

And crimes against Jews, according to this worldview, trump all others.

A rather deviated worldview, especially considering that the overwhelming majority of the victims of Nazi genocide and mass murder were Slavs, not Jews. But who is embracing it? What is more, Reverend: Who would be talking about the Nazis' crimes against the Jews on this forum if it were not for hoaxers like yourself? I only discuss it because I consider the denial of mass murder to be obscene bullshit, and I’m sure that applies to a great many of our more reasonable fellow posters.

Tell me, Roberto, can you trace your family tree to the Scholl family?

I wouldn't mind if I could, but I’m proud enough of the family I have.

I mean, that is what Germans do nowadays, isn't it?

In the minds of IHR/Codoh - educated morons who don’t know a damn thing about Germany, perhaps.

And that is what religious cults do.

What religious cults do is to blindly adhere to a Faith no matter to what extent it is at odds with the facts. The attitude of the “Revisionists”, in other words.

Any anti-Nazi prophets and martyrs in your woodpile?

No, but an honorable German infantryman that I have proudly told this forum about. See the threads

Interesting Revisionist Work
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =166.topic

A German soldier
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumth ... 3772.topic

of the old forum.

Medo wrote:
The Reverend’s dreams are getting wilder by the hour. Why, he hasn’t even demonstrated that the engines of the gas vans are assumed to have been diesel engines (remember the depositions of Burmeister, Piller and Levinbuck that I quoted and translated, Reverend?),

The Ostrich

An Ostrich buries its head in the sand to avoid seeing what it doesn’t want to see, which is obviously the attitude of the Reverend, not mine. Which in turn means that this insult isn’t exactly a very smart one, my friend. Just a piece of well-meaning advice.

forgets that I work on one project at a time and I never said I was competed.

Well, at this pace I doubt it ever will. The Reverend has been intensively and futilely boring the audience of this forum with his diesel nonsense for over a year, after all, without making any progress.

I have examined the Soviet claims and the Fleming van. Both irrefutably diesel engines.

Which would mean that they made a mistake about an irrelevant minor detail at worst and that the Reverend has been lying all this time at best.

Medo wrote:
that diesel engines would have been an inadequate killing method

The Pattle experiments show this as Medo would admit if he were intellectually honest.

I think Smith is the last one on this forum who should lecture anyone about intellectual honesty, considering i.a. how stubbornly he fails to acknowledge that the Pattle experiments disprove his “load” baloney and that a method which failed to produce lethal exhaust with a tiny 6 bhp engine may very well have resulted in highly lethal exhaust with a huge engine.

And the Holtz experiments show that CO was not the culprit

On the contrary. Together with the Pattle experiments, they show that CO could well have been the culprit, independently of a load, if the fuel supply was increased and/or the air intake restricted. Assuming that the engine in question was a diesel engine, that is.

which puts the Soviet autopsy report—if you can call it that—into question.

Which at worst meant that the engine of the gas van was actually a gasoline engine and that the findings which concluded on a diesel engine – not the autopsy report – were wrong in regard to this irrelevant minor detail.

Medo wrote:
or that, if they had been, this would mean anything other than that the engines in question were actually gasoline engines and the witnesses or those who assessed their statements were mistaken.

That remains a possibility.

Wow, a flicker of reason ….

We shall see, as I tick off one claim after another.

… which as usual goes out soon afterwards. I haven’t yet seen the Reverend “tick off” anything, and I don’t expect this to be the first time.

And when/if there are none left, then what, Mr. Believer?

That’s exactly the question the Reverend would be asking himself right now, if he were not so far removed from reality.

Of course, if the claims are gasoline engines

Not the “claims”, brother. The evidence.

it only means that I cannot easily disprove them—not that they are real.

Of course, three witnesses whose depositions at different times and places coincided in this and many other details, and the overall accuracy of which is corroborated by further evidence, may theoretically have lied. But it a rather thin possibility, don’t you think so, Reverend? Also one that is up to you to demonstrate.

Medo wrote:
His understandable frustration at not being able to sell his herrings becomes apparent in desperate tirades like the one quoted above.

The space you devote to me instead of “more serious Revisionists” belies your own doubt

No. It shows that most of the “more serious Revisionists” don’t have the balls to show up on this forum.

—literally thousands of words, over a year intensely trying to prove the diesel story TRUE when all you had
to do is say.

It seems you’re again turning the picture upside down, Reverend. Disproving the use of diesel engines was and is your baby, and for all your intensive attempts you haven’t succeeded. I just grant myself the amusement of asking critical questions about the Reverend’s baloney.

I think you may be right, Scott; the witnesses were probably just mistaken about the diesels and it was actually just gasoline engines after all.

Thanks for admitting to the utter irrelevance of your contentions, Reverend.

If the Holocaust story relied upon flying-nuns to carry itself, Medorjurgen would be a Believer in flying-nuns.

No, Mr. Baloney. I would say that it can’t have been flying nuns who killed all those people who disappeared from the face of the earth. Even if the murder weapons concluded upon had been totally preposterous – which they are not, however desperately the Reverend tries to make them look that way - , I wouldn’t let the preachers of the hook until they had plausibly accounted otherwise for the fate of all those people and provided conclusive evidence to support their contentions

That is obvious to everyone but the thickest.

Boy, this forum seems to be full of “thick” people. Everyone other than the “Revisionist” bullshit priests, as a matter of fact.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
One day I'll become a cremation expert and we'll see how well your 54 muffles hold out.

One day I’ll be big and strong and beat the shit out of you, my younger brothers used to say when we were kids. Smith is once again exposing his infantile mind.

Careful, you will pop a gasket and that will be no fun at all.

Is that supposed to be a threat, Reverend?

I’m sure the Big-H isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

Proven historical facts usually don’t go anywhere.

You, however, have yet to admit that there is anything that you do not know.

That was never my problem, but it seems to be yours. Why, I only follow the evidence where it leads, whereas the Reverend seems to know that what doesn’t fit into his ideological bubble never happened, regardless of the evidence.

medo wrote:
Scott wrote:
I think a thousand cremations a day is generous.

Is there anything wrong with my calculations, Reverend?

Yawn.

The Reverend is boring indeed. Fortunately I’ve learned to be patient.

Like I said, a thousand corpses per day is a mighty generous figure (and the real number is probably half that).

If I ask you to show me what is wrong with my calculations, I don’t consider “I said they are wrong” to be a constructive answer.

Medo has no technical knowledge sufficient to light a ballpark with a diesel engine let alone dabble in cremation physics.

And hollow insults don’t make it any better. Instead of that good old quack rambling about the technical ignorance of a layman who has seen through your quackery, how about explaining what you think is wrong with my reasoning about the cremation capacity?

He thinks he knows but he is clueless.

No, buddy. I observe and think. Something the Reverend should learn to do.

He knows what others tell him—if he agrees, that is.

If it makes sense to me, Reverend. The “others”, in this case, are a source often invoked by “Revisionists” – the British Cremation Society – and the reasoning is my own.

He knows what he can cut-and-paste from online sources that he agrees with.

Wrong again. I know what becomes apparent to me from the results of serious research featured on and off the web, and what my own common sense tells me. How about trying to match this instead of pouring out all that hollow frustrated bitching, Reverend?

Yawn.

The Truth is rather boring, isn’t it? What you call Truth, that is.

But, no need for him to foam…

Foaming is what the Reverend has obviously been doing throughout this furious screed of his. I hope the carpets at his place didn’t suffer too much. Let’s have some more enraged True Believer imbecility, Reverend. The more you foam the more I enjoy myself, as you well know.

[Sailor]

“Anything at all will be believed if it is charged to the Germans. Whether it's a question of gas chambers in which, to believe the figures of the accusers, the victims would have to have been crowded together thirty-two persons per square meter twenty-four hours a day; or whether a description is being given to you of the crematory furnaces which, if they had to burn up all the bodies assigned to them by the Jewish propaganda, would still be working at full capacity in the year 2050, or even 2080. When it's a matter of denigrating Germans, nothing need be verified."

And now my nightcap, my evening bonbon, praline, before turning in:

Medorjurgen

The fact that the records of Himmler’s speeches were found with Nazi bigwigs, that criminal justice authorities and historians assessed them and that they found no reason to doubt their authenticity definitely speaks against the contention that the authenticity is to be doubted.

“The fact that the records of Himmler’s speeches were found with Nazi bigwigs”

The speech snippet of Oct.6 1943 which you posted above is out of a book by Agnes F. Peterson and Bradley F. Smith under the rather sensational title HEINRICH HIMMLER: GEHEIMREDEN 1933 BIS 1945, as mentioned by Mr. Historian above.

I assume that you are familiar with the book. If not Mr.Historian above would not consider you qualified to discuss with him.

According to the book the transcript of this speech was found by a GI in the files of the "Personal Staff of the Reichsfuhrer-SS", and it was seized by the Americans as war booty. Nazi bigwigs??

“criminal justice authorities”

You are not referring to the IMT farce where prosecution and jury were the same, or are you?
And the ‘historians’ would of course be those holocaust horror authors, yes?

It takes nothing but a little common sense

Common sense is ‘verboten’ – not permitted in connection with certain holocaust aspects. The Jews could be insulted. There is in Germany that Par.130, with possibly up to 5 years in the slammer. So, be careful.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/ ... posen-1988

Once a nizkor man – always a nizkor man.
Kamerad, have you ever, ever produced on this forum anything on your own? Anything where you can proudly say: This thought, this idea I have created, it is mine!?
I checked through all your posts on this forum during the last 6 months. All Medorjurgen is producing, can produce, are cut and paste jobs from and references to McVay/nizkor and similar horror sites. And flailing with his arms like Don Quichote with the windmills.

There were several records available about the speech, so the logical thing would have been to compare them with each other for consistency. That provided, there could be little doubt as to the authenticity of the records considering the place where they had been found, unless there were any indications that they had been tampered with or “planted” at the place in question, which don’t seem to have existed. Any remaining doubts could be ruled out by questioning people familiar with the documents about the authenticity thereof. This was done in regard to the tape recording by interrogating former SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom confirmed the authenticity of the recording. Berger mumbled something that the speech had covered various topics and he didn’t remember anything about Jews having been said, but that’s an irrelevant objection – he may have wanted to protect himself or he may honestly have been dozing when, two hours into his speech of 4 October 1943, Himmler brought up the “Jewish question”.

Roberto, be careful now. How many records, what sort of records? To my recollection, all that was ‘found’ were Himmler’s handwritten notes, consisting of half a dozen or so phrases (for a 3 ½ hour speech!). If you are talking about audio-records,well if I have one record and copy it a few times with my tape recorder, they would be for all practical purposes identical, or not?

SS-Untersturmfuhrer Werner Alfred Venn was solely responsible for making and keeping the transcripts of Himmler's speeches. Is that about in line with what you know about this, great doctor? Venn appearantly recorded the speech and typed it out - even making "corrections" (!) in the text, but changing the meaning "barely or not at all". It isnot clear how he did the recording, I assume that he took stenogramms. I also don’t know wether he was ever cross-examined. He should have been, after all those Himmler speeches are of such importance to the believer gang. Or was that too risky?


Today the ‘transcripts’ are appearantly in the Bundesarchiv in Coblenz.. Could you take a look? No? But the Yanks microfilmed them before they were returned. And there seem to be some questions whether they are entirely genuine. Who knows.

In order to check the authenticity of this speech it seems to be reasonable to ask some of the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter to whom the speech was given, the ones that were alive and could be questioned, about this speech, would you not agree?

You mention Pohl and Berg,was this not the other speech of Oct. 4 1943?

Well, some Gauleiters were questioned, you know. No, not by Mr. Historian or his book authors.
They are all believers, that would be way too risky,the Gauleiters might have questioned that speech.

And they did not recollect such a speech at that date
(I know you would call their response, if they do not agree with your stance as selfserving or selfserving convenience or self-exculpatory arguments (I selected these from my list of ‘medorjurgens’)

Further down your post, my friend, you keep repeating your speech snippet and your understanding now, at this date, today, of the meaning of ‘ausrotten’. And it is totally unimportant how you today understand this word. What counts is what Hitler/Himmler understood under ‘ausrotten’ then. And your quoted speech snippets are questionable.

I have somewhere in my files a link to a site listed about this. I will try to find it and post it tomorrow.It is late.

[Scott Smith]

I think Smith is the last one on this forum who should lecture anyone about intellectual honesty, considering i.a. how stubbornly he fails to acknowledge that the Pattle experiments disprove his “load” baloney and that a method which failed to produce lethal exhaust with a tiny 6 bhp engine may very well have resulted in highly lethal exhaust with a huge engine.

The 1957 Pattle experiments, which I even had the courtesy to send to you, did not even arrive in my possession until later in our arguments. However, despite the prattle from you and the Musketeers at Nizkor, the Pattle experiments not only confirm my assertions but make my case.

Better just concede that one, Roberto. It would be the intellectually honest thing to do.


As long as diesel engines are alleged to have been a murder weapon the story has a problem.


A Steyr-Diesel Kastewagen: police paddy-wagon, ca. 1949...

[Sailor]

In a recent best-selling book by the first man to break the sound barrier, entitled Yeager: An Autobiography, the author described how in the Fall of 1944 his fighter group was . . .

“. . . assigned an area fifty miles by fifty miles and ordered to strafe anything that moved . . . We weren't asked how we felt zapping people. It was a miserable, dirty mission, but we all took off on time and did it . . . We were ordered to commit an atrocity, pure and simple, but the brass who approved this action probably felt justified because wartime Germany wasn't easily divided between "innocent civilians" and its military machine. The farmer tilling his potato field might have been feeding German troops."

Here is the link I mentioned in my post yesterday:

Einige Anmerkungen zur NS-Sprache gegenüber den Juden
(Comments about the NS(Nazi)-Language concerning the Jews)
by: Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf (the grand dragon)
http://vho.org/VffG/1997/4/RudAnm4.html

The stuff is in German language. (I could not find it in English).
And sorry, I have neither the time, desire nor energy to translate this into English.
Not that it would make a difference with the believer gang anyways.

Quote:
“Ausrotten hier, ausrotten da, ausrotten in Amerika!”


I see the True Believer is returning to infancy, which he never seems to have moved far beyond anyway.

You understood correctly, Roberto, this exchange here is getting childish.

I represented my point of view, I gave you the site and I listened to your side on this matter.

And this is as far as I want to go.

I have no more to add to this at this time.

(By the way: I like the message editor on this forum. Very 'user friendly')

[Charles Bunch]

>I have no more to add to this at this time.

Considering that you've provided nothing to convince anyone that the long time meaning of ausrotten is anything other than kill when applied to human beings, that is an understatement.

[Roberto]

Quote:
“Anything at all will be believed if it is charged to the Germans. Whether it's a question of gas chambers in which, to believe the figures of the accusers, the victims would have to have been crowded together thirty-two persons per square meter twenty-four hours a day; or whether a description is being given to you of the crematory furnaces which, if they had to burn up all the bodies assigned to them by the Jewish propaganda, would still be working at full capacity in the year 2050, or even 2080. When it's a matter of denigrating Germans, nothing need be verified."

What poor confused soul wrote that nonsense?

Medorjurgen

Quote:
The fact that the records of Himmler’s speeches were found with Nazi bigwigs, that criminal justice authorities and historians assessed them and that they found no reason to doubt their authenticity definitely speaks against the contention that the authenticity is to be doubted.

“The fact that the records of Himmler’s speeches were found with Nazi bigwigs”

The speech snippet of Oct.6 1943 which you posted above is out of a book by Agnes F. Peterson and Bradley F. Smith under the rather sensational title HEINRICH HIMMLER: GEHEIMREDEN 1933 BIS 1945, as mentioned by Mr. Historian above.

What’s so sensational about the title? A True Believer who reads stuff like “The Hoax of the 20th Century” or “Dissecting the Holocaust” should keep his big mouth shut tight in what concerns “sensationalism”, anyway.

Bradley F. Smith (the almost-namesake of the Codoh guru that my dear True Believer looks up to) is a historian of note, according to what I’ve read about him. Which means there’s every reason to assume that he did not suck the text out of his thumb, as his “Revisionist” almost-namesake would have done, but transcribed the files that, as Reverend Smith kindly volunteered, were found by the Allies in the office of Nazi big shot Rosenberg.

I assume that you are familiar with the book.

No. I’m familiar with the excerpt of the speech of 6 October 1943 transcribed in Märthesheimer/Frenzel, Im Kreuzfeuer: Der Fernsehfilm Holocaust. Eine Nation ist betroffen, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH Frankfurt am Main 1979, pages 112 to 114, which I transcribed and translated for the benefit of this forum’s audience.

If not Mr.Historian above would not consider you qualified to discuss with him.

Sounds like the understandable envy of a mediocre, ignorant True Believer.

According to the book the transcript of this speech was found by a GI in the files of the "Personal Staff of the Reichsfuhrer-SS",

Why, another set of records found in Himmler’s office? Interesting. Looks like your peer didn’t tell us the whole story.

and it was seized by the Americans as war booty.

So what?

Nazi bigwigs??

Well, I wouldn’t call Himmler and Rosenberg small fishes.

“criminal justice authorities”

You are not referring to the IMT farce where prosecution and jury were the same, or are you?

No, I’m referring to the IMT trial where the prosecution was one thing and the court of professional judges another, where the defendants benefited from presumption of innocence and had their choice of qualified defense attorneys who had the same rights and opportunities as the prosecution, actually being granted more time than the latter to make their case.

And the ‘historians’ would of course be those holocaust horror authors, yes?

Don’t know of any such, only of competent, objective researchers such as Reitlinger, Hilberg and Bradley F. Smith.

Quote:
It takes nothing but a little common sense

Common sense is ‘verboten’ – not permitted in connection with certain holocaust aspects.

No, my dear preacher. The only thing that is forbidden in certain countries is bullshit propaganda in support of an extremist stance. That shouldn’t be so, but forbidden nonsense is still nonsense.

The Jews could be insulted.

Why, are insults supposed to be demonstrations of common sense?

There is in Germany that Par.130, with possibly up to 5 years in the slammer.

Really? And what penalties were applied on your heroes under this awful paragraph (no irony: I do consider hate speech laws to be utterly inappropriate; “let idiots be idiots” is my position)? A few stiff fines and up to a year in prison, as far as I know, but Mr. True Believer is welcome to correct me.

Quote:
Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/ ... posen-1988


Once a nizkor man – always a nizkor man.

Which I would have no problem with, as they are infinitely better than the stink holes where Mr. True Believer hangs around. In case he hasn’t noticed, the link contains a statement by no other than his guru David Irving.

Kamerad, have you ever, ever produced on this forum anything on your own? Anything where you can proudly say: This thought, this idea I have created, it is mine!?

I do that all the time, as a matter of fact. Ever seen my calculations on the capacity of the Treblinka and Belzec burial pits or, more recently, the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria? Now to you, my dear friend: Ever done anything other than parrot whatever shit you read on IHR, Codoh, Zündelsite or some other enlightened website?

I checked through all your posts on this forum during the last 6 months. All Medorjurgen is producing, can produce, are cut and paste jobs from and references to McVay/nizkor and similar horror sites.

Well, I’m comfortable that a large part of our audience (everyone other than your blind, deaf and dumb peers, as a matter of fact) is likely to agree with me that your observation is as fallacious as your arguments.

And flailing with his arms like Don Quichote with the windmills.

Funny, I see things exactly the other way around. I’m the windmill, and your kind are the crazy wannabe knights who keep running against it and being knocked to the ground.

Quote:

There were several records available about the speech, so the logical thing would have been to compare them with each other for consistency. That provided, there could be little doubt as to the authenticity of the records considering the place where they had been found, unless there were any indications that they had been tampered with or “planted” at the place in question, which don’t seem to have existed. Any remaining doubts could be ruled out by questioning people familiar with the documents about the authenticity thereof. This was done in regard to the tape recording by interrogating former SS officers Berger and Pohl, both of whom confirmed the authenticity of the recording. Berger mumbled something that the speech had covered various topics and he didn’t remember anything about Jews having been said, but that’s an irrelevant objection – he may have wanted to protect himself or he may honestly have been dozing when, two hours into his speech of 4 October 1943, Himmler brought up the “Jewish question”.


Roberto, be careful now. How many records, what sort of records? To my recollection, all that was ‘found’ were Himmler’s handwritten notes, consisting of half a dozen or so phrases (for a 3 ½ hour speech!). If you are talking about audio-records,well if I have one record and copy it a few times with my tape recorder, they would be for all practical purposes identical, or not?

By “records” I mean tape-recorded or written records, in case you haven’t noticed. As to what the various types of records look like, your friend David Irving told us the following:

I looked at Heinrich Himmler's handwritten notes on the basis of which he delivered those speeches, I looked at the typescript of the transcript made from the recording of the speeches, I looked at the final copy made that have typescript in the special large typewriter face that was used for Adolf Hitler to read, so the speeches exist in several copies and I understand that in the National Archives, there is also a sound recording of the two speeches.

Source of quote:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/ ... posen-1988

SS-Untersturmfuhrer Werner Alfred Venn was solely responsible for making and keeping the transcripts of Himmler's speeches. Is that about in line with what you know about this, great doctor? Venn appearantly recorded the speech and typed it out - even making "corrections" (!) in the text, but changing the meaning "barely or not at all".

Interesting. Where did my friend read that? A comprehensive quote with a source reference would be appreciated. And it better not be some “Revisionist” screed if it is intended to be taken seriously.

It is not clear how he did the recording, I assume that he took stenogramms.

Why stenograms when he had tapes?

In October 1943 Himmler delivered a long speech at a meeting of the SS-Gruppenfuehrer at Posen. As usual, he spoke from notes, but he had begun the practice of recording some of his talks on a red oxide tape wider than what is used today. Early in the speech Himmler stopped and played the tape back to see if the recorder was picking up his voice properly. (50) He unquestionably knew that he was being recorded, but he was speaking to a very select audience, and he didn't think that there was any danger of the recording falling into the wrong hands. Even in the fall of 1943 Himmler was convinced that Nazi Germany would eventually win the war -- it was a law of nature, he said. (51)

Source of quote: Richard Breitman,

The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution

Excerpt transcribed on

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/ ... n-on-posen

I also don’t know wether he was ever cross-examined.

Why, was he available for that?

He should have been,

On what? On whether he had truly and faithfully transcribed the tape recordings onto paper? The investigators had both the tapes and the transcripts and could verify that for themselves.

after all those Himmler speeches are of such importance to the believer gang.

Himmler’s speeches are just one element among a vast array of evidence to the Nazis’ mass killings of the Jews, of less importance to criminal investigation and historiography than they obviously are to the “Revisionist” True Believers who keep squealing “forgery” because they can’t explain away the inconvenient passages of those speeches.

Or was that too risky?

Well, having the authenticity of the recordings verified by a voice print analyst seems to have been too risky for your fellow True Believer David Michael, who got cold feet when Yale Edeiken sent him a very fair proposal on how such verification should be done:

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/ede ... ft-00.html

Mr. Edeiken may still be open to offers. If you are really in doubt about the authenticity of the tape recording (even though you cannot plausibly explain why), how about contacting Edeiken and telling him that you would be prepared to accept the offer he made to Mr. Michael?

Today the ‘transcripts’ are appearantly in the Bundesarchiv in Coblenz.. Could you take a look?

Not so soon, a I live in Portugal and don’t pass through Coblenz all too often (never been there, as a matter of fact).

No? But the Yanks microfilmed them before they were returned. And there seem to be some questions whether they are entirely genuine.

Whose questions? Reasonable folks, or just IHR/Codoh True Believers who question anything that does not fit into their ideological bubble?

In order to check the authenticity of this speech it seems to be reasonable to ask some of the Gauleiter and Reichsleiter to whom the speech was given, the ones that were alive and could be questioned, about this speech, would you not agree?

To the extent that there is a reason to doubt the authenticity. I don’t see what reason there should be, however, if the tapes and written records were found at Rosenberg’s and/or Himmler’s office and coincided with each other.

You mention Pohl and Berg,was this not the other speech of Oct. 4 1943?

The latter fellow’s name was Berger, and the source of my information is no other than your friend Reverend Smith, who seems to have read their depositions in the Nuremberg records at some library. Ask him for the details.

Well, some Gauleiters were questioned, you know. No, not by Mr. Historian or his book authors.
They are all believers, that would be way too risky,the Gauleiters might have questioned that speech.

Well, daring “Revisionist”, let’s see if your confidence in your arguments is as big as your mouth. Contact Yale Edeiken about the voice print analysis. I presume that those who questioned the Gauleiters (or pretended to have done so) were “Revisionist” peers of yours. That being so, tell those folks to let us have the names and addresses of those they questioned. I may not be the only one on this forum who would like to have a chat with those old gentlemen.

And they did not recollect such a speech at that date

Considering who supposedly questioned them, that is not surprising at all. Once again: Please get the names and addresses of those they supposedly questioned from your friends.

(I know you would call their response, if they do not agree with your stance as selfserving or selfserving convenience or self-exculpatory arguments

Such fallacies usually affect recollections of this type. I have less of a problem with that than with the folks who allegedly questioned the ex-Gauleiter, however, if they are friends of yours.

Further down your post, my friend, you keep repeating your speech snippet and your understanding now, at this date, today, of the meaning of ‘ausrotten’. And it is totally unimportant how you today understand this word. What counts is what Hitler/Himmler understood under ‘ausrotten’ then.

Exactly. And to him it was quite obviously synonymous with “umbringen”, i.e. “bumping off”. The words “ausrotten”, by the way, seems to have meant “extermination” in the German language since the days of Martin Luther, as a recently learned from our fellow poster Charles Bunch on this forum. Have a look:

http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 1ab6825aba

And your quoted speech snippets are questionable.

Why so, True Believer? Because they don’t fit into your Wolkenkuckucksheim, or is there any more substantial reason?

Here’s the whole of my transcription once again, for your enjoyment:

Ich darf hier in diesem Zusammenhang und in diesem allerengsten Kreise auf eine Frage hinweisen, die Sie, meine Parteigenossen, alle als selbstverständlich hingenommen haben, die aber für mich die schwerste Frage meines Lebens geworden ist, die Judenfrage. Sie alle nehmen es als selbstverständlich und erfreulich hin, daß in Ihrem Gau keine Juden mehr sind. Alle deutschen Menschen – abgesehen von einzelnen Ausnahmen – sind sich auch darüber klar, daß wir den Bombenkrieg, die Belastungen des vierten und des vielleicht kommenden fünften und sechsten Kriegsjahres nicht ausgehalten hätten und nicht aushalten würden, wenn wir diese zersetzende Pest noch in unserem Volkskörper hätten. Der Satz >Die Juden müssen ausgerottet werden< mit seinen wenigen Worten, meine Herren, ist leicht ausgesprochen. Für den, der durchführen muß, was er fordert, ist es das Allerhärteste und Schwerste, was es gibt. Sehen Sie, natürlich sind es Juden, es ist ganz klar, es sind nur Juden, bedenken Sie aber selbst, wie viele – auch Parteigenossen – ihr berühmtes Gesuch an mich oder irgendeine Stelle gerichtet haben, in dem es hieß, daß alle Juden selbstverständlich Schweine seien, daß bloß der Soundso ein anständiger Jude sei, dem man nichts tun dürfe. Ich wage zu behaupten, daß es nach der Anzahl der Gesuche und der Anzahl der Meinungen in Deutschland mehr anständige Juden gegeben hat als überhaupt nominell vorhanden waren. In Deutschland haben wir nämlich so viele Millionen Menschen, die ihren einen berühmten anständigen Juden haben, daß diese Zahl bereits größer ist als die Zahl der Juden. Ich will das bloß ausführen, weil Sie aus dem Lebensbereich Ihres eigenen Gaues bei achtbaren und anständigen nationalsozialistischen Menschen feststellen können, daß auch von ihnen jeder einen anständigen Juden kennt.
Ich bitte Sie, das, was ich Ihnen in diesem Kreise sage, wirklich nur zu hören und nie darüber zu sprechen. Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? – Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Lösung zu finden. Ich hielt mich nämlich nicht für berechtigt, die Männer auszurotten – sprich also, umzubringen oder umbringen zu lassen – und die Rächer in Gestalt der Kinder für unsere Söhne und Enkel groß werden zu lassen. Es mußte der schwere Entschluß gefaßt werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen. Für die Organisation, die den Auftrag durchführen mußte, war es der schwerste, den wir bisher hatten. Er ist durchgeführt worden, ohne daß – wie ich glaube sagen zu können – unsere Männer und unsere Führer einen Schaden an Geist und Seele erlitten hätten. Der Weg zwischen den hier bestehenden Möglichkeiten, entweder roh zu werden, herzlos zu werden und menschliches Leben nicht mehr zu achten oder weich zu werden und durchzudrehen bis zu Nervenzusammenbrüchen – der Weg zwischen dieser Scylla und Charybdis ist entsetzlich schmal.
Wir haben das Vermögen, daß wir bei den Juden beschlagnahmten – es ging in unendliche Werte -, bis zum letzten Pfennig an den Reichswirtschaftsminister abgeführt. Ich habe mich immer auf den Standpunkt gestellt: Wir haben die Verpflichtung unserem Volke, unserer Rasse gegenüber, wenn wir den Krieg gewinnen wollen – wir haben die Verpflichtung unserem Führer gegenüber, der nun in 2000 Jahren unserem Volke einmal geschenkt worden ist, hier nicht klein zu sein und hier konsequent zu sein. Wir haben nicht das Recht, auch nur einen Pfennig von dem beschlagnahmten Judenvermögen zu nehmen. Ich habe von vornherein festgesetzt, daß SS-Männer, auch wenn sie nur eine Mark davon nehmen, des Todes sind. Ich habe in den letzten Tagen deswegen einige, ich kann es ruhig sagen, es sind etwa ein Dutzend – Todesurteile unterschrieben. Hier muß man hart sein, wenn nicht das Ganze darunter leiden soll. – Ich habe mich für verpflichtet gehalten, zu Ihnen als den obersten Willensträgern, als den obersten Würdenträgern der Partei, dieses politischen Ordens, dieses politischen Instruments des Führers, auch über diese Frage einmal ganz offen zu sprechen und zu sagen, wie es gewesen ist. –
Die Judenfrage in den von uns besetzten Ländern wird bis Ende dieses Jahres erledigt sein. Es werden nur Restbestände von einzelnen Juden übrig bleiben, die untergeschlüpft sind. Die Frage der mit nichtjüdischen Teilen verheirateten Juden und die Frage der Halbjuden werden sinngemäß und vernünftig untersucht, entschieden und dann gelöst.
Daß ich große Schwierigkeiten mit vielen wirtschaftlichen Einrichtungen hatte, werden Sie mir glauben. Ich habe in den Etappengebieten große Judengettos ausgeräumt. In Warschau haben wir in einem Judengetto vier Wochen Straßenkampf gehabt. Vier Wochen! Wir haben dort ungefähr 700 Bunker ausgehoben. Dieses ganze Getto machte also Pelzmäntel, Kleider und ähnliches. Wenn man früher dort hinlangen wollte, so hieß es: Halt! Sie stören die Kriegswirtschaft! Halt! Rüstungsbetrieb! – Natürlich hat das mit Parteigenossen Speer gar nichts zu tun, Sie können gar nichts dazu. Es ist der Teil von angeblichen Rüstungsbetrieben, die der Parteigenosse Speer und ich in den nächsten Wochen und Monaten gemeinsam reinigen wollen. Das werden wir genauso unsentimental machen, wie im fünften Kriegsjahr alle Dinge unsentimental, aber mit großem Herzen für Deutschland gemacht werden müssen.
Damit möchte ich die Judenfrage abschließen. Sie wissen nun Bescheid, und Sie behalten es für sich. Man wird vielleicht in ganz später Zeit sich einmal überlegen können, ob man dem deutschen Volke etwas mehr darüber sagt. Ich glaube, es ist besser, wir – wir insgesamt – haben das für unser Volk getragen, haben die Verantwortung auf uns genommen (die Verantwortung für eine Tat, nicht für eine Idee) und nehmen dann das Geheimnis mit uns ins Grab.

Source: Märthesheimer/Frenzel, Im Kreuzfeuer: Der Fernsehfilm Holocaust. Eine Nation ist betroffen, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH Frankfurt am Main 1979, pages 112 to 114. Reference of quote: Heinrich Himmler, Geheimreden 1933 bis 1945, edited by Bradley F. Smith and Agnes F. Peterson, Berlin 1974, pages 169 and following.

And this is my translation, for the benefit of our readers who don’t understand German:

I allow myself, in this context and in this most restricted circle, to point to an question that you, my fellow party members, have all taken for granted, but that for me has become the most difficult question of my life, the Jewish question. You all take it for granted and a pleasant fact that in your Gau there are no more Jews. All German people – apart from some exceptions – are also clearly aware that wouldn’t have withstood or withstand the bombing war, the hardships of the fourth and maybe the fifth and sixth war year, if we still had this disintegrating plague in our body popular. The sentence >The Jews must be exterminated< with its few words, my dear Sirs, is easily pronounced. For him who must carry out what is required it is the toughest and most difficult thing there is. You see, of course they are Jews, it is very clear, they are just Jews, but consider yourselves how many, – also party members – addressed their famous request to me or any other entity wherein it said that all Jews were swine of course, that only so-and-so was a decent Jew who was not to be harmed. I dare assert that by the number of requests and the number of opinions there have been more decent Jews in Germany than nominally existed at all. This because in Germany we have so many million people who had their famous one decent Jew that this number is already larger than the number of Jews. I only want to address this because you are able to observe in respectable and decent National Socialist individuals from the living area of your own Gau, that each of them also knows a decent Jew.
I ask you that what I tell you in this circle you will really only hear and never talk about it. The question came up to us: What do to with the women and children? – I decided to find a very clear solution also in this respect. This because I didn’t consider myself entitled to exterminate the men – that is, to kill them or to have them killed – and to let the children grow up as avengers against our sons and grandsons. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth. For the organization that had to carry out the task if was the most difficult we had so far. It has been carried out without – as I consider myself entitled to say – our men and our leaders having taken harm to their spirit and soul. The path between the possibilities existing here, to either become crude and heartless and no longer to respect human life or to become weak and collapse to the point of nervous breakdowns the path between this Scylla and Charybdis is horrendously narrow.
The patrimony that we confiscated from the Jews – it reached endless values – we have transferred to the last Pfennig to the Reich Minister of Economics. I have always held this position: We have the duty towards our people, our race, if we want to win the war – we have the duty towards our Führer, who has been given to our people this one time in 2000 years, not to be miserly and to be consequent in this respect. We don’t have the right to take even a Pfennig of the confiscated Jewish property. I have established from the very start that SS men will be punished by death if they take as much a one mark of it. In the last days I have thus, I have no problem saying this, signed about a dozen death sentences. In these things you must be tough lest the whole be affected by them. – I have considered myself under the obligation to once speak with all openness to you as the main carriers of the will, the main dignitaries of the party, this political order, this political instrument of the Führer, also about this question and to tell you how it has been. –
The Jewish question in the countries occupied by us will be solved until the end of this year. There will remain only a few individual hidden Jews. The question as to Jews married to non-Jewish partners and the question of the half-Jews will be correspondingly and reasonably examined, decided upon and then solved.
You will believe that I had great difficulties with economic institutions. I have cleared many Jewish ghettoes in the rear areas. In Warsaw we had four weeks of street fighting in one Jewish ghetto. Four weeks! We there took out about 700 bunker. So this whole ghetto made fur coats, clothes and similar things. If you formerly tried to get at it, someone said: Stop! You are disturbing the war economy! Stop! Armament factory! – Of course this have nothing to do with fellow party member Speer, you can do nothing about it. It the part of alleged armament factories that fellow party member Speer and I will jointly clean up in the next weeks and months. We will do that as unsentimentally as everything in the fifth year of the war has to be done unsentimentally, but with a great heart for Germany.
With this I want to conclude the Jewish question. You are now informed, and you will keep it to yourselves. Maybe a long time hereafter one may think about whether the German people is to be told more about it. I think it is better if we – we all together – have done this for our people, have taken the responsibility onto ourselves (the responsibility for a deed, not for an idea) and then take the secret with us to the grave.

Here is the link I mentioned in my post yesterday:

Einige Anmerkungen zur NS-Sprache gegenüber den Juden
(Comments about the NS(Nazi)-Language concerning the Jews)
by: Dipl.-Chem. Germar Rudolf (the grand dragon)
http://vho.org/VffG/1997/4/RudAnm4.html

The stuff is in German language. (I could not find it in English).

Well, the term “stuff” is quite appropriate. I’m sure you can count on a hoaxer like Rudolf to tell you all sorts of fairy tales about his own mother language.

And sorry, I have neither the time, desire nor energy to translate this into English.

Any idea what the hoaxer might pay for a translation?

Not that it would make a difference with the believer gang anyways.

Exactly, buddy. No reasonable poster on this forum takes Mr. Rudolf seriously. Only True Believers like yourself do.

Quote:

Quote:
“Ausrotten hier, ausrotten da, ausrotten in Amerika!”


I see the True Believer is returning to infancy, which he never seems to have moved far beyond anyway.


You understood correctly, Roberto, this exchange here is getting childish.

It has been so ever since you showed up, my friend. But relax, you are no worse than other True Believers – no different from any of them, as a matter of fact.

I represented my point of view,

I allow myself to doubt that it’s yours, my friend. It sounds to much like the IHR/Codoh party line. Once you’ve heard one, you’ve heard them all.

I gave you the site and I listened to your side on this matter.

The latter I also consider doubtful. If you had taken your hands off your ears, you might have realized that your “point of view” doesn’t make much sense.

And this is as far as I want to go.

I have no more to add to this at this time.

Well, as Charles aptly pointed out, you haven’t said anything at all. Maybe that’s what you sound so sad.

Bye, then. And please keep us informed about your contacts with Yale Edeiken.

[Roberto]

Roberto wrote:
I think Smith is the last one on this forum who should lecture anyone about intellectual honesty, considering i.a. how stubbornly he fails to acknowledge that the Pattle experiments disprove his “load” baloney and that a method which failed to produce lethal exhaust with a tiny 6 bhp engine may very well have resulted in highly lethal exhaust with a huge engine.

The 1957 Pattle experiments, which I even had the courtesy to send to you, did not even arrive in my possession until later in our arguments. However, despite the prattle from you and the Musketeers at Nizkor, the Pattle experiments not only confirm my assertions but make my case.

Why, is that beaten old piece of wishful thinking the only response to my long post that the Reverend could manage?

Better just concede that one, Roberto.

As soon as the Reverend has convincingly explained why it would not have been possible to make a huge engine’s exhaust reliably lethal by restricting the air intake and/or increasing the fuel supply. So far, no show, despite several furious and desperate attempts.

It would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Intellectual honesty, as I said, is the last thing the Reverend should be talking about. Admitting that his diesel fuss is much a do about nothing is what I would suggest to him, on the other hand, if he wants to slightly improve his badly depleted credibility.

As long as diesel engines are alleged to have been a murder weapon the story has a problem.

There’s no story (there's history), and there’s no problem. If the gassing engines at Treblinka and in some of the gas vans could not have been diesel engines – which the Reverend is far from having demonstrated – this would mean that they were gasoline engines burning diesel fuel or gasoline. Much a do about nothing, as I said.

[Scott Smith]

It is getting downright difficult to find all of your posts and respond to them, even when I want to reply to endless Is-Too/Is-Not.

Anymore, I just look for the word "Reverend," and then I know that I'm right-on-track!


Best Regards,
Scott

ZOOM!

[murx]

See it as you want but not having the "feeling" of a language, not knowing the hidden sub-sounds, especially in German, who like sarcasm in every second sentence. Sarcasm seems to be totally unknown in other countries (e.g. in France where I become more and more careful with sarcastic remarks after 100% were taken for serious until present).
Germans also form words which are constructed out of two contraries like "Hassliebe" (hate-love) or words expressing emotions like "mutterseelenallein (mother-soul-alone = very alone)" which do not indicate to love hate or to have stolen ones mother's soul.
"Hassliebe" is exactly what Bismarck said iin his words about the wolves and in parallel about the Poles. "We shoot them although they are God's creatures". That is simply an expression of "ambivalent" feelings towards an object which as I remember exist everywhere in anything.

Not trying to discuss unknown semantics at least avoids mishaps like Deborah Lipstedt writing that the word "vergasen" exclusively is used for Gas chambers and does not exist elsewhere. A look in any car manuaL would have trevealed that "Vergaser" means "carburator". But she 's agirl. How can she know what's under the hood.

[David Thompson]

murx -- You wrote:

Not trying to discuss unknown semantics at least avoids mishaps like Deborah Lipstedt writing that the word "vergasen" exclusively is used for Gas chambers and does not exist elsewhere.

Source, please, for our readers.

For interested readers, and from an earlier, somewhat related discussion http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 70#p461270

[Hanny]

http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/va ... en#page340

Which is from http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1

Search function with http://www.hdot.org/en/search/results?keyword=vergasen

Search function for http://www.hdot.org/en/search/results?keyword=ausrotten

[David Thompson]

Hanny -- The link works fine, but I'm not seeing the quote from Ms. Lipstadt.