German for "Uprooting"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 08:27

German for "Uprooting"

Post by GFM2000 » 11 Apr 2002 02:29

Many revisionists like to translate the German word "austrotten" as "uprooting". For native German speakers, can you please let me know what the real German word for "uprooting" actually is?

Thanks!

michael mills
Member
Posts: 9000
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

"Uprooting"

Post by michael mills » 11 Apr 2002 03:00

My Langenscheidt's Concise German Dictionary gives:

uproot v[erb]/t[ransitive]: 1. ausreissen; Baum etc, entwurzeln (a[nd] fig[urative].); 2. fig. herausreissen (from aus); fig. ausmerzen, -rotten.

So Langenscheidt's does equate "ausrotten" to "uproot" in the figurativem but not literal sense.

However, the same dictionary gives for "ausrotten":

v/t. Pflanze, a. fig.: root out; fig. extirpate, eradicate, stamp out; Volk: exterminate.

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 11 Apr 2002 03:00

Maybe my German is different from the original translator’s of that article but there is NO way that you could translate ausrotten into uproot. Impossible. If anything uproot is entwurzeln or ausreißen. Ausrotten means to make extinct.

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 11 Apr 2002 03:29

How many of you guys speak German? Austrotten translated to English most closely means "extirpate". It is pretty vague, but it can easily mean uproot. The initial question is interesting, because it asks "what the real German word for 'uprooting'" is. The question should be the meaning of austrotten, not the German synonyms for uprooting. For the word "uproot" translated to German, one could say "nehmen sie heraus", "entnahme", and yes, even "roden".

User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 08:27

Post by GFM2000 » 11 Apr 2002 04:19

Hello all, and thanks for replying my post.

I have seen quite a few translations, and most of them translates "austrotten" into "exterminate" ; this has been confirmed by some of my friends whose native tongue is German. So that suggests to me that in no way can Hitler's and Himmler's Reichstag and Posen speech respectively, be translated as "uproot".

However, I have seen the odd one or two articles that translated "austrotten" into "uproot". Thus, I would like to ask the question, "what is the German word for "uproot""? Are these articles used to merely deflect the possibility that Hitler and Himmler wanted to exterminate the Jewish people (as was my original hypothesis), or was it simply a mistake?

Thanks again!

Dan
Member
Posts: 8429
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:06
Location: California

Post by Dan » 11 Apr 2002 04:32

As a member who's German is rusty, allow me to remind you that a language can change dramatically in a half century. A "fag" in today's English means something totally different that what it meant in 1945.

Ausrotten (where did the third "t" come from?) sometimes meant "route" which is something I read today about Israel's policy of getting rid of the Palestinians by chasing out. Sometimes it meant "deracinate" which is an uncommon English word which means uproot.

I understand from Roberto that the archaic meaning is to exterminate a pack of wolves, or at least drive them out from your district. That's where the "rotten" part comes in.

Very best to the board
Dan

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 11 Apr 2002 04:54

Dan wrote:Ausrotten (where did the third "t" come from?)
Look at the following thread. There are probably more, but this is the only one I have on hand.
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... =103.topic

Austrotten comes from the GFM2000/GFM2001 school of German. :)

Dan, the "rotten" part comes from where I mentioned before; "roden". It is often used to refer to animals, rodents, general pests, ect.

People always try to twist around translations to fit their own view, so you should have a translator that you trust. I do think that "ausrotten" was used by the Third Reich to refer to "uprooting".

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 11 Apr 2002 06:07

>>>I do think that "ausrotten" was used by the Third Reich to refer to "uprooting".<<<

So let’s get clear about you mean. When you are talking about uproot, what do you exactly think it means in this case? ‘Displace (a person) from an accustomed location? Or, ‘eradicate, destroy’?

User avatar
GFM2000
Member
Posts: 303
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 08:27

ausrotten / austrotten

Post by GFM2000 » 11 Apr 2002 06:08

My spelling errors....

my bad... and my apologies.... :oops:

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Re: ausrotten / austrotten

Post by Thorfinn » 11 Apr 2002 06:44

GFM2000 wrote:My spelling errors....

my bad... and my apologies.... :oops:
No problem; I just remembered you spelling it that way before, and I thought that it was funny.

GFM2000 wrote:However, I have seen the odd one or two articles that translated "austrotten" into "uproot". Thus, I would like to ask the question, "what is the German word for "uproot""?
I answered this before.

Karl wrote:So let’s get clear about you mean. When you are talking about uproot, what do you exactly think it means in this case? ‘Displace (a person) from an accustomed location? Or, ‘eradicate, destroy’?
I do not think that Ausrottung, ausrotten, ect., when used by the Third Reich, were meant to mean killing. I feel the same way about Sonderbehandlung, with the exception of a few times that a man did use the word in reference to killing. When Sonderbehandlung was used to mean killing in the Third Reich, this was the exception to the rule, but some people claim the opposite. People have taken advantage of the translation of words to make their points too often in relation to the Third Reich. Some people want the world to think that the Third Reich used these fairly common words to mean "kill". This is just semantics that are made to mislead nonGermans, and Germans alike. If the USA said "we are going to get rid of the Taliban", the words "get rid of" are like the word "ausrotten". Does it mean kill? If necessary. Does it mean remove from their position, so they can not perpetrate more terror? Yes.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 11 Apr 2002 12:12

I do not think that Ausrottung, ausrotten, ect., when used by the Third Reich, were meant to mean killing.
Really? Then tell us, genius, what Heinrich Himmler was talking about when he said the following at his Posen speech on 6 October 1943:
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.
If you think there anything wrong with my translation of the quoted passage:
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.


please let me know. Emphases in the above are mine, of course.
I feel the same way about Sonderbehandlung, with the exception of a few times that a man did use the word in reference to killing. When Sonderbehandlung was used to mean killing in the Third Reich, this was the exception to the rule, but some people claim the opposite.
Blah, blah, blah. As Mr. Aryan Nations well knows, I can show him a number of examples of statements regarding the handling of Jews and other “undesirables” where the term “Sonderbehandlung” clearly refers to homicidal killing. I strongly doubt, however, that my friend can show me a single example where the term was used in this context with an innocuous or even positive meaning.
People have taken advantage of the translation of words to make their points too often in relation to the Third Reich. Some people want the world to think that the Third Reich used these fairly common words to mean "kill". This is just semantics that are made to mislead nonGermans, and Germans alike. If the USA said "we are going to get rid of the Taliban", the words "get rid of" are like the word "ausrotten". Does it mean kill? If necessary. Does it mean remove from their position, so they can not perpetrate more terror? Yes.
No, buddy, to “get rid of” does not mean the same as “to exterminate”, or “ausrotten” in German. The latter term, if referred to a group of animals or people, necessarily implies the physical annihilation of every last member of that group. As to “fairly common words” such as “Sonderbehandlung”, the True Believer is reminded of the questions I asked him in my post of Mon Apr 01, 2002 9:56 pm on the thread

Mr. Webmaster's definition of "Holocaust denial"
http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 147ed678d0

which he has not yet answered. Care to give it another try?

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 11 Apr 2002 18:25

medorjurgen wrote:Really? Then tell us, genius, what Heinrich Himmler was talking about when he said the following at his Posen speech on 6 October 1943:
I see that it is clear that your mind is now in submission. You seem to be panicstricken in your quest. Let me break it down, and show all of the errors in your last message.

First of all, why are you the only on that ever speaks of the speech of 6 October 1943? Please tell me what book this is in, as there is a good possibility that I have the book. I am familiar with the Posen speech of 4 October 1943, but not the speech that you cite, so please give me some references. I will state outright that I doubt the authenticity of this "speech", and especially the sentence "Die Juden müssen ausgerottet werden" makes this seem like something that would not be from 1943.

Secondly, your translations are exactly what I talking about when I was warning nonGerman speakers to have a trustworthy translator. You purposely (or accidentially?) mislead, and try to make things seem more harsh than reality.

The word "umbringen", in this case, means "destroy". You translate it to "kill", and I feel that your translation is very incorrect, and misleading. Maybe it was an accident on your part, and maybe not.

The words "Ausrottung", "ausrotten", ect., do mean the same thing as "get rid of", especially in the context that has been cited by me. You clearly do not want to be serious, or honest, about this matter.

medorjurgen wrote:As to “fairly common words” such as “Sonderbehandlung”, the True Believer is reminded of the questions I asked him in my post of Mon Apr 01, 2002 9:56 pm on the thread...which he has not yet answered. Care to give it another try?
Which questions would those be? You believe what you want to, but when something shatters your illusions, you say (for instance) that it is a "fairy tale Kaltenbrunner made up". You just call somebody a liar when you disagree with them. It has been shown that Sonderbehandlung meant champagne and French lessons in certain instances, but you disregard those, and you continue with your delusions. In the document that you reference in the noted post, you try to make something out of nothing. Sonderbehandlung in that document could have meant the handling of dead bodies. It could have meant the corpse lifts, or any number of things, but for you, it is convenient to say it means "killing" in this document, even when there is no solid evidence for your assumption.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 11 Apr 2002 19:32

I see that it is clear that your mind is now in submission. You seem to be panicstricken in your quest.
I have no doubt that you would like your dumbfounded mind and chattering teeth to be mine, but that’s just wishful thinking, buddy.
Let me break it down, and show all of the errors in your last message.
Why, Mr. Aryan Nations thinks he spotted errors of mine! Now I’m definitely curious.
First of all, why are you the only on that ever speaks of the speech of 6 October 1943? Please tell me what book this is in, as there is a good possibility that I have the book. I am familiar with the Posen speech of 4 October 1943, but not the speech that you cite, so please give me some references.
My friend should definitely do some reading, ‘cause if he did he would know that Heini held two speeches in Posen, one on 04.10.1943 to higher SS officers and one on 06.10.1943 to the Reichsleiter and Gauleiter of the NSDAP. My source is:

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.
I will state outright that I doubt the authenticity of this "speech", and especially the sentence "Die Juden müssen ausgerottet werden" makes this seem like something that would not be from 1943.
Yeah, buddy, better squeal “forgery” right away, ‘cause that’s your only chance – provided of course that you can show us any evidence against the authenticity of the pertinent documents.
Secondly, your translations are exactly what I talking about when I was warning nonGerman speakers to have a trustworthy translator. You purposely (or accidentially?) mislead, and try to make things seem more harsh than reality.
Better cut out the crap, 'cause you are talking to a native speaker of the German language who earns good many doing translations in many fields of human endeavor. So don’t try to bullshit me, because there is no chance you can succeed. I trust that many in our esteemed audience also know better than to take you seriously.
The word "umbringen", in this case, means "destroy". You translate it to "kill", and I feel that your translation is very incorrect, and misleading.
Tell me, buddy, what can the word “umbringen” possibly mean when used in regard to human beings, other than killing? And in what other context is it used? If I seriously threaten you: “Ich bring Dich um”, just how are you expecting that I intend to destroy you?
Maybe it was an accident on your part, and maybe not.
Maybe that’s a joke on your part. I sure hope so for your sanity, man. But you are kindly invited to provide dictionary backup for a translation that would get you kicked out of any language school as a hopeless case.
The words "Ausrottung", "ausrotten", ect., do mean the same thing as "get rid of", especially in the context that has been cited by me.
On your funny Norwegian island, maybe, but not in Germany. As Michael Mills tells us, Langenscheidt's dictionary gives for "ausrotten":
v/t. Pflanze, a. fig.: root out; fig. extirpate, eradicate, stamp out; Volk: exterminate.
Emphasis is mine.

“Volk” means a people, doesn’t it? Imagine your Jewish World Conspiracy stating: “Wir werden dieses Nazivolk ausrotten und zuallererst den Herrn Thorfinn umbringen." You would be worried about your own survival and that of the Aryan race if any organization with the power to put it into practice seriously uttered such a threat, wouldn’t you?
You clearly do not want to be serious, or honest, about this matter.
That’s what I’m telling you, my friend. The alternative possibility being that you are in serious need of some German lessons, of course. Good old Goethe would be rotating in his grave if he knew of the bunk you just wrote.
Which questions would those be?
How about reading them, pal? I’ve told you where to find them, and the more of our readers have looked them up in the meantime, the more foolish you are looking on account of that silly question.
You believe what you want to, but when something shatters your illusions, you say (for instance) that it is a "fairy tale Kaltenbrunner made up".
Illusions is what your mind is full of, whereas I have no problem with looking at the facts. And you obviously also have a very short memory. As I already told you in my post that you don’t care to look up, good old Ernie made up a nice story when he was read the contents of a conversation he had had with an SS officer attached to Himmler, where “special treatment” had been mentioned. He was simply trying to cover for himself because the conversation said nothing about luxury hotels. However, before Kaltenbrunner had been presented with this document he had been asked if he knew what was meant by the term “special treatment”. He replied that it was “an order from Himmler – I am referring to Himmler’s order of 1941, therefore also an order from Hitler – that executions should be carried out without legal procedure. (John Zimmermann, Holocaust Denial, page 94).

Got that into your thick Aryan skull now, pal?
You just call somebody a liar when you disagree with them.
No, my friend, just when I catch him lying, things like trying to tell me that “umbringen” is not a slangy German term for “to kill”, that “ausrotten” does not mean “to exterminate”, and similar cattle manure.
It has been shown that Sonderbehandlung meant champagne and French lessons in certain instances,
Where has it been shown? I must have missed something. Tell me, boy, were those “certain instances” instances related to the handling of them bloody Jews and other sub-humans who might mongrelize the Aryan race, by any chance?
but you disregard those, and you continue with your delusions. In the document that you reference in the noted post, you try to make something out of nothing. Sonderbehandlung in that document could have meant the handling of dead bodies.
And this guy accuses me of harboring “delusions”. :lol: What document are you referring to, my friend? If it is this one from page 223 of Kogon/Langbein/Rückerl et al, Nationalsozialistische Massentötungen durch Giftgas:
Quote:
Stärkemeldung des Frauenlagers Birkenau vom 8 Oktober 1944

Stärke am 7.10.1944 38 792 Häftlinge

Zugänge am 7.10.1944
Einlieferungen 7
Überstellung 1
8

Abgänge am 7.10.1944
Gestorben nat. Todes 7
S.B. 1 229
Entlassungen 8
Überstellungen 1 150

2 394

SA 36 406 Häftl.

then we can get down to business right away. According to this document, on 7.10.1944 8 new inmates arrived (“Zugänge”) and 2 394 went off (“Abgänge”). Of the latter 7 died a “natural death”, 8 were released,
1 150 were tranferred and 1 229 were submitted to “SB” (= “Sonderbehandlung”). What could this “SB”, which was neither natural death nor release nor transfer but nevertheless led to the inmates having to be written off, possibly have been?
It could have meant the corpse lifts, or any number of things, but for you, it is convenient to say it means "killing" in this document, even when there is no solid evidence for your assumption.
Ah, now I get it. You’re talking about this passage from the AB Bauleitung memorandum of 29.01.1943:
Diese Inbetriebsetzung kann sich jedoch nur auf beschränkten Gebrauch der vorhandenen Maschinen erstrecken (wobei eine Verbrennung mit gleichzeitiger Sonderbehandlung möglich gemacht wird) da die zum Krematorium führende Zuleitung für dessen Leistungsverbrauch zu schwach ist.
which van Pelt accurately translated as follows:
This operation can only involve a limited use of the available machines (whereby is made possible burning with simultaneous Special Treatment),because the main electricity supply to the crematorium is not capable to carry its power consumption.
OK, Mr. True Believer, then please explain what reason there would have been to give something as innocuous and banal in a crematorium installation as the handling of the corpses or the operation of the corpse lifts the ominous designation “special treatment”, which term i) suggests something special, not banal, out of the ordinary and ii) was currently used as a euphemism for mass murder in the context of the handling of sub-human scum?

And why would the electricity supply of the crematorium have been required for carrying out the handling of the corpses/operation of the corpse lifts “simultaneously” with the cremation of the dead bodies?

Let’s see some more Aryan mental gymnastics.

Let’s have something more to laugh about.

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 11 Apr 2002 21:03

You have boundless energy Medo. You even dug up the Posen speech. I couldn’t bring myself to argue over this and went to sleep instead.

Sonderbehandlung is champagne and French lessons…hehehe, Thorfinn you are a funny guy.

Yawn.

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 11 Apr 2002 21:44

You are working yourself into a frenzy, as you often do, "medorjurgen". You really can not communicate in a civil manner, as you have demonstrated in numerous posts. It makes one not wish to conversate with you.

medorjurgen wrote: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.
So I see that you use the FORGER, Eberhard Jäckel as a source. What else would I expect? I think that many of his essays can be used for toilet paper. Oh yes, and the Secret Speech. I hope you know that there are high doubts as to the authenticity of these "secrets", that are supposedly in the Bundesarchiv in Coblenz. In short, your sources may be interesting reading, but they are not evidence of proof, no matter how much you would like them to be.

medorjurgen wrote:Yeah, buddy, better squeal “forgery” right away, ‘cause that’s your only chance – provided of course that you can show us any evidence against the authenticity of the pertinent documents.
I amn't "squeeling" anything. I am bringing up a very valid doubt. The evidence against the authenticity was addressed above. One of your sources is a know forger, and the other source has always been doubted since it came out, due to the way that the "secrets" came about.

medorjurgen wrote:Better cut out the crap, 'cause you are talking to a native speaker of the German language who earns good many doing translations in many fields of human endeavor. So don’t try to bullshit me, because there is no chance you can succeed. I trust that many in our esteemed audience also know better than to take you seriously...Maybe that’s a joke on your part. I sure hope so for your sanity, man. But you are kindly invited to provide dictionary backup for a translation that would get you kicked out of any language school as a hopeless case...On your funny Norwegian island, maybe, but not in Germany. As Michael Mills tells us, Langenscheidt's dictionary gives for "ausrotten"...That’s what I’m telling you, my friend. The alternative possibility being that you are in serious need of some German lessons, of course. Good old Goethe would be rotating in his grave if he knew of the bunk you just wrote.
Just stop misleading people with your so called "translations". You are being foolish to accuse me of a mistranslation. I stand by what I said earlier, and you do not know what you are talking about when you say "that would get you kicked out of any language school as a hopeless case". You are also mistaken when you say that I "need of some German lessons". Your excited attempts at discreditization are childish, and unnecessary. You can use all of the profanity in your vocabulary, but there is no arguing about this. If you are not willing to give the true and honest meaning of words that others do not understand, you should not give a translation at all. I put "ausrotten" in a way that Americans, and others, could understand its true meaning, and you are clearly blinded by bias if you will not even admit that.

medorjurgen wrote:As I already told you in my post that you don’t care to look up, good old Ernie made up a nice story when he was read the contents of a conversation he had had with an SS officer attached to Himmler, where “special treatment” had been mentioned.
Oh. Since "medorjurgen" said it, it is fact? How do you know that he made up the story? Were you there for the instances? Why don't you say that jews who talk about the camps "made up a nice story"? You are so biased, one sided, and hypocritical. All you do is "spin" the facts, and it is quite tiresome. Also, how can you rely on such questionable information from forgers, ect.? Why don't you take a step back from your ideology?

medorjurgen wrote:Where has it been shown? I must have missed something. Tell me, boy, were those “certain instances” instances related to the handling of them bloody Jews and other sub-humans who might mongrelize the Aryan race, by any chance?
Karl wrote:Sonderbehandlung is champagne and French lessons…hehehe, Thorfinn you are a funny guy.
Karl, and "medorjurgen", have you ne'er seen the following?
"Sonderbehandlung" (special treatment) is an example of the ugly jargon used in all bureaucracies, and is probably best translated as "treatment on a case by case basis". Kaltenbrunner was able to show that it meant, in the context of one document, the right to drink champagne and take French lessons. The prosecution got a winter resort mixed up with a concentration camp (XI 338-339 <<374-375>>); (XI 232-386 <<259-427>>; XVIII 40-68 <<49-80>>). (The winter resort document is Document 3839-PS, XXXIII 197-199, an "affidavit").

In those two deluxe hotels [for special treatment] were lodged some of the best people such as M. Poncet, M. Herriot, etc. They received rations triple those normal for a diplomat; that is to say, nine times the wartime rations of a German. Every day each received a bottle of champagne; they corresponded freely with their families, they could receive parcels from their families left behind in France. These internees received frequent visits, and we would inquire about all their desires. That is what we called "special treatment."

Look here : http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-12-46.htm

medorjurgen wrote:And why would the electricity supply of the crematorium have been required for carrying out the handling of the corpses/operation of the corpse lifts “simultaneously” with the cremation of the dead bodies?
First, the simultaneous operation of electrical materials may refer to the fact that the forced air blowers and the electrically operated corpse lift to the basement might put too much of a strain on the system. This interpretation at least combines two electical appliances, the upstairs (ovens) and the downstairs (the corpse lift), and gives us a scenario where simultaneous operation would in fact occur and would also slow down efficiency. Under this case, "Sonderbehandlung" would refer to the handling of the corpses.
From : http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/Auschw290143.html


People come here to get information, "medorjurgen". "GFM2000" was just asking about austrotten, and he deserves an honest reply. Your word games will do nothing to help him, or anybody else, and they will just confuse people, which may be what you want. You should also think about proper etiquette for future postings. There is no reason to be so rude.

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”