Bismarck's use of "ausrotten"

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Postby Sailor » 22 Apr 2002 05:59

walterkaschner:

You said Bradley Smith co-authored your Secret Himmler Speech book. Bradley Smith is also the founder of CODOH, so I checked there a few times with a search engine about the book you referred to. Nothing.

The stuff posted by Herrn Mühlenkamp appearantly is a forged and invented snippet out of a lengthy ‘secret’ Himmler speech before a group of Gauleiters on Oct. 6 1943 in Posen that probably never happened anyways, Mr. Historian. I did hit paydirt about this book though. (No, not CODOH, but GOOGLE). appearantly there are different Bradley Smiths envolved.

The review of your book was devastating.

The meaning of ‘ausrotten’ still stands: Ethnic cleansing. Sorry Mr.Historian

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 22 Apr 2002 14:54

"walterkaschner", I am amused every time that one of your kind is confronted by an opposing view. You liberals think that you are better than the "right", and you act superior when it is unfounded. "meinungen" does the same thing. I do not know if you are just acting like you are better than others, or if you really think that you are superior, but either way, you need to get real. Your last two posts in this thread are quite pathetic in the ways that you try to demean others unjustly.


I’d say the difference between Mr. Kaschner and me on the one hand and your kind on the other is simply this: We have no problem with looking at the facts and following the evidence where it leads. You, on the other hand, fight with teeth and claws against it because it doesn’t fit into your ideological bubble, hiding behind feeble and transparent walls of nonsense in order to protect your Faith in what your would so badly like to believe. Which is why you’ll never cease being ridiculous. The greatest weakness of the “Revisionists” is that they can’t help being themselves.

walterkaschner wrote:
Where that leaves you in my esteem I will leave to your imagination.

If I am very low in your esteem, that means that I have done somthing right.

walterkaschner wrote:
And who, other than yourself and others of your uninformed persuasion, has "high doubts" about the authenticity of Himmler's Geheimnisreden?


Anybody with a critical brain that is capable of stringing together more than underhanded insults aimed at the opposition.


Really? Show us, my friend. No “Revisionist” True Believers, please. Just like yourself, they have no critical brain when it comes to what they would like to believe in.

walterkaschner wrote:
And who, other than yourself and others of your uninformed persuasion, has "high doubts" about the authenticity of Himmler's Geheimnisreden?


I am not uninformed,


For once, I agree with you, as you obviously are one of those people who know a lot without ever having learned anything. Didn’t your beloved Führer write something about such people in Mein Kampf?

but you like to say I am, because you think that I must be ignorant or stupid for not sharing you views; views that you think can be the only correct ones.


Well, they are supported by solid forensic and historical evidence, by five and a half decades of criminal investigation and historical research, which means they have a very good chance of being fully accurate. At the very least it means that challenges to these views should be based on a lot more than thin air and wishful thinking, which is all that “Revisionists” have got to offer.

You should know that the "secrets" came from the Americans. After the Americans stole these files, the "secrets" were all copied, and then they were returned.

Hollow assumptions. Any evidence?

The Americans had all the possiblility to forge or edit these "secrets"; especially the jews that worked for the USA would want to forge such a thing.


Hollow assumptions once again, this time with an instructive passage about them bloody Jews. Again, any evidence? The burden of proof is on the one who makes allegations of manipulation such as yours, you know.

Would you trust files that the Third Reich stole from America, and then returned after going over all of them?


Well, I certainly wouldn’t bluntly dismiss as “forgery” whatever I don’t like to read, but require evidence to any manipulation having occurred. And then, a constitutional state like the US and a totalitarian dictatorship like Nazi Germany are not exactly one and the same thing, are they?

Also, there is no way that the Third Reich would be openly talking about killing jews, in a speech, in the stated date of the documents.


How little Thorfinn imagines the Third Reich :lol: Has is occurred to him that Himmler was talking to selected audiences of insiders deemed absolutely loyal and reliable?

I like how you asked how Eberhard Jäckel is a forger, and then you named the forgery.


I didn’t see the forgery. Did I miss something?

I guess it is OK, and his forgeries were just little forgeries, and little forgeries are acceptable if the forger shares your views.


Forgeries are never acceptable, but I wouldn’t call a historian’s having been taken in by Kujau’s masterful forgery of Hitler’s diaries a “forgery” on the part of that historian.

I think that you might be sick in the brain. I am sure it is nothing that a lobotomy could not fix. Good luck with your future insults and diminishments; they show you for what you are.


Well, looks like Mr. Aryan Nations once again showed himself for what he is. Why so violent against people who don’t share your views, my friend?

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 22 Apr 2002 14:57

Sailor,

You said Bradley Smith co-authored your Secret Himmler Speech book. Bradley Smith is also the founder of CODOH, so I checked there a few times with a search engine about the book you referred to. Nothing.


How smart you are, old pal. Must be the CODOH-diet. Has it occurred to you that we may be talking about two different Bradley Smiths here?

There are a number of books available that describe this Trial in great detail and in a manner that can make the event understandable to all. We recommend any of the following books. While each was written from a slightly different perspective and each has its own strengths and weaknesses, any one of these books will give you a good understanding of the trial at Nuremberg.
 Robert E. Conot, Justice at Nuremberg, Harper & Row (1983)
 Whitney Harris, Tyranny on Trial, Southern Methodist University Press (1954)
 Joseph Persico, Nuremberg: Infamy on Trial, Viking Press (1994)
 Bradley F. Smith, Reaching Judgment at Nuremberg, Basic Books (1977)
 Bradley F. Smith, The Road to Nuremberg, Basic Books (1981)

 Telford Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, Little Brown (1992)
We highly recommend Justice at Nuremberg by Conot as the best place for a student to start researching. If that is not available we suggest The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials as a second choice.

Please note that Bradley F. Smith, the respected historian of the Second World War, is not related to Bradley R. Smith, the Holocaust-denier who co-founded CODOH.


Source of quote:

http://www.holocaust-history.org/short- ... berg.shtml

Emphasis is mine.

The stuff posted by Herrn Mühlenkamp appearantly is a forged and invented snippet out of a lengthy ‘secret’ Himmler speech before a group of Gauleiters on Oct. 6 1943 in Posen that probably never happened anyways, Mr. Historian.


On what basis is the True Believer writing the above? What arguments does he have to demonstrate that the document in question is a forgery? Some rabid rambling about Eberhard Jäckel is what I’ve seen so far. I don’t see in what way Jäckel is related to the document in question, and it is beyond me why anything that might be wrong about Jäckel’s curriculum would speak against the authenticity of the document. And then there’s an article by a “Revisionist” called Manfred Gerner, presumably a pseudonym for grand dragon Germar Rudolf, which is strictly for the birds due to the simple fact that, as everyone who has followed discussions on this forum knows, “Revisionists” decry as “forgery” every document they can’t explain away for no other reason than their being unable to explain it away. They act like the shepherd boy who kept crying “wolf”, and the day they stumble upon a real forgery, if they ever do, no one will believe them. You’ll have to do better, buddy.

Here’s what David Irving said about the records of Himmler’s speeches at the Zündel trial:

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

He obviously had not drawn any further conclusions from his “dicoveries” by the time he took on Mrs. Lipstadt in court, or then he considered them too obviously silly to even forward them.

I did hit paydirt about this book though. (No, not CODOH, but GOOGLE). appearantly there are different Bradley Smiths envolved.


Exactly. My friend is getting smarter by the hour. See above.

The review of your book was devastating.


The review of what book by whom? A review by Bradley R. Smith, the CODOH guru, by Germar Rudolf or by any other enlightened spirit who calls himself a “Revisionist” is good for wrapping up lettuce or making cigarettes, to put it so as not to offend.

The meaning of ‘ausrotten’ still stands: Ethnic cleansing.


Baloney. When related to a group of animals or people, the word means exterminating that group root and branch, killing every last member of it. Look up a dictionary, True Believer.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1469
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby walterkaschner » 23 Apr 2002 00:05

Thorfinn,

It seems I struck a nerve, but it was apparently not painful enough to induce you to furnish any evidence or source other than your own ipse dixit to support your views. I'll withhold any further comment until you do.

Sailor,

Yes, you figured it out! Bradley R. Smith, the founder of CODOH, is quite a different fellow from Bradley F. Smith, the compiler (with Agnes F. Peterson) of "Heinrich Himmler. Geheimreden".

I have been trying to locate the "devastating" review of the latter book which you referred to in your post, but all I have been able to locate so far is a section of Wilhelm Stäglich's book "Der Auschwitz-Mythos: Legende oder Wahrheit?" [The Myth of Auschwitz-Legend or Truth?], originally published I believe in 1979, which appears on the CODOH web site. ( A capsulated English translation, but which does not acknowledge Stäglich as the source, can be found on the site:
http://www.ciagents.com ). As far as I can ascertain, Stäglich book has obtained no scholarly recognition and indeed no recognition whatsoever apart from revisionist circles.

Wilhelm Stäglich, as you are probably aware, is one of CODOH's favorite sources. I am not sure if he is still among the living, but during the 70s and 80s he was a leading figure in certain of the neo-Nazi political parties in Germany. In the early 1970s the University of Göttingen officially revoked his PhD, although he nonetheless continued to use the title of Dr. in his publications and on the CODOH site. As a result of judicial proceedings, he was compulsorily retired from the civil service and his pension either reduced or revoked by the German government as a result of his publications and political activities (with which latter action I, as a believer in freedom of political speech, quite vigorously disagree.) But I have carefully read Stäglich's evaluation of the Geheimreden book, and they boil down to two: it was probably a forgery by the Americans, and it is inherently unlikely that Himmler would have made such a speech. Particularly given Stäglich's political activities and bias I remain unconvinced by either argument. Himmler was speaking to a group of high Nazi officials, and reiterates in his speech that he feels he can trust them to preserve his confidences. And as to the probable forgery, that is the typical revisionist response to any document contrary to their view.

If your "devastating review" was by anoither source I would be pleased to learn of it.

Regards, Kaschner

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Postby Sailor » 23 Apr 2002 01:56

Medorjurgen

Quote:
The stuff posted by Herrn Mühlenkamp appearantly is a forged and invented snippet out of a lengthy ‘secret’ Himmler speech before a group of Gauleiters on Oct. 6 1943 in Posen that probably never happened anyways, Mr. Historian.


On what basis is the True Believer writing the above? What arguments does he have to demonstrate that the document in question is a forgery?


Amigo mio, you first: Why is your snippet of the alleged Himmler speech of Oct.6 1943 not a forgery, what makes you so sure that it is the real thing?

And who on earth is Eberhard Jäckel? Never heard of him. A link to him may be interesting to me.

Quote:
The review of your book was devastating.


The review of what book by whom?


Ask Mr.Historian, he posted above a book by Bradley Smith about Himmler’s Secret Speeches or something like that.

“grand dragon Germar Rudolf” :this is a good one, doctor. I have to add it to my growing collection of ‘medorjurgens’. One has to like you for your sense of humor.

Baloney. When related to a group of animals or people, the word means exterminating that group root and branch, killing every last member of it. Look up a dictionary, True Believer.


We are talking about the time of the ‘Thousand Year Reich’, aren’t we? I already tried to explain this to you in above post, why not read it also sometimes. At the time of the ‘Thousand Year Reich’ ‘ausrotten’ meant ethnic cleansing, today the word’s meaning is changed to ‘kill all the Jews’.

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1469
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Postby walterkaschner » 23 Apr 2002 03:41

Roberto,

It seems obvious that there is no knowledge to be gained from these two characters on this topic, so I do not intend to further waste my time in a bootless debate with them.

However, I ran across an interesting site which (together with the Bismarck quote provided by Michael Mills above) inclines me to the thought that I may have been quite wrong in thinking that the term "ausrotten" changed its meaning somewhat after the Endlösung decision in late 1941. The site is:

http://www.phdm.org/negation/ausrotten.html

Unfortunately it is in French and lengthy, and I don't have the time or energy to translate it now, but it contains several citations to dictionaries going back as early as 1906 stating that "ausrotten" , when applied to wolves or humans, means "exterminer, anéantir" (exterminate, wipe out).

It also contains a very amusing commentary on the attempt of a French revisionist - Jean-Francois Beaulieu - to translate the term as "balayer en dehors" (sweep to the outside), and an equally amusing riddle regarding what Hitler might have meant other than "kill" by the term "ausrotten" in his radio speech on July 21, 1944, when he announced that a small clique of stupid, ambitious and unscrupulous officers had conspired to "AUSROTTEN" him, and that they would be "AUSGEROTTEN" without mercy.

Best regards, Kaschner

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

POSEN hit parade...

Postby Scott Smith » 23 Apr 2002 04:08

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. The audio recording of Himmler's boring three-hour address to the Gruppenführers is incomplete. And no audiotape from whence the records were cut has surfaced. Fortuitously, what we need is sandwiched in about half-way through the event, a little smoking-gun rhetoric, transcribed by the prosecution and judges at Nuremberg as 1919-PS.

Convenient that we have such golden nuggets, words that mean what the Allied prosecution says they mean.

I think it is reasonable for the historian to be skeptical of anything coming from the Nuremberg process.
:wink:

CLICK! Image

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 23 Apr 2002 10:45

Quote:

Quote:
The stuff posted by Herrn Mühlenkamp appearantly is a forged and invented snippet out of a lengthy ‘secret’ Himmler speech before a group of Gauleiters on Oct. 6 1943 in Posen that probably never happened anyways, Mr. Historian.

On what basis is the True Believer writing the above? What arguments does he have to demonstrate that the document in question is a forgery?


Amigo mio, you first: Why is your snippet of the alleged Himmler speech of Oct.6 1943 not a forgery, what makes you so sure that it is the real thing?


Let’s play by the rules of historiography, shall we? 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 to read and sound recordings of the speeches delivered by Himmler on 4 and 6 October 1943. They have been analyzed by historians of note, none of whom apparently found a reason to challenge the authenticity of the documents in question. Even David Irving, though mumbling something about some retyped and repaginated pages, obviously didn’t find enough indications to put the authenticity of the documents in general and the passages referred to in particular in doubt. Which means that I can expect anyone bleating “forgery” to substantiate his allegations and to provide evidence supporting them. So far I have seen nothing in that direction.

And who on earth is Eberhard Jäckel? Never heard of him.


Ask your friend Thorfinn.

A link to him may be interesting to me.


Hardly so. He’s what your kind calls an “establishment historian”, not one of your fellow True Believers.

Quote:

Quote:
The review of your book was devastating.


The review of what book by whom?


Ask Mr.Historian, he posted above a book by Bradley Smith about Himmler’s Secret Speeches or something like that.


I sure will. Mr. Kaschner is a fountain of knowledge as much as “Revisionists” like yourself are a fountain of nonsense.

“grand dragon Germar Rudolf” :this is a good one, doctor. I have to add it to my growing collection of ‘medorjurgens’. One has to like you for your sense of humor.


Humor can be very useful to convey facts.

Quote:

Baloney. When related to a group of animals or people, the word means exterminating that group root and branch, killing every last member of it. Look up a dictionary, True Believer.


We are talking about the time of the ‘Thousand Year Reich’, aren’t we?


Yeah, “ausrotten” meant something else then, is that what you’re trying to tell us? How about reading Bismarck’s speech at the beginning of this thread, where the terms “ausrotten” and “totschiessen” are used as equivalents of each other?

I already tried to explain this to you in above post, why not read it also sometimes.


I’ve read it an concluded that it’s strictly for the birds, like all products of "Revisionist" reasoning.

At the time of the ‘Thousand Year Reich’ ‘ausrotten’ meant ethnic cleansing, today the word’s meaning is changed to ‘kill all the Jews’.


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.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4372
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Postby Roberto » 23 Apr 2002 10:48

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 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.

And no audiotape from whence the records were cut has surfaced.


Who told you that, Reverend? And where are the existing records supposed to come from, then? I read that Yale Edeiken once challenged a “Revisionist” big mouth to have the authenticity of the recording assessed by a voice print analyst. The draft agreement for this purpose can be read under

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

It never came into being because the “Revisionist” truth-seeker got cold feet.

Fortuitously, what we need is sandwiched in about half-way through the event
,

Let’s put it more exactly:

"About two hours into the three-hour-and-ten-minute speech, Himmler decided to raise a weighty matter about which the SS could never speak publicly -- 'the evacuation of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish people.' It was necessary to speak about this once, Himmler said. It was one thing to put the phrase 'exclusion of the Jews' or 'extermination of the Jews' in the Nazi program and quite another to carry it out. In principle, Germans supported persecution, Himmler noted with some sarcasm, but then each of them tried to save the one good Jew that he knew. These people had no sense of what it was like to see one hundred or five hundred or a thousand bodies lying there. Himmler boasted that the SS had maintained this program, and apart from some exceptions brought about by human weakness, had remained respectable. It was 'an unwritten and never to be written page of glory in our history.' And as he spoke, the reel of tape continued to turn and to record. "If the Jews had not been dealt with, Himmler continued, Germany would then be in the situation of 1916 or 1917, where Jews had infected the German body politic. 'We had the moral right, we had the duty with regard to our people, to kill the race that wanted to kill us.' It was the future Himmler had sketched out in 1938, the day before Kristallnacht, with much the same audience and much the same justification; now the prediction was partially fulfilled. Then his voice rising to an angry snarl, Himmler continued: 'We do _not_ have the right to enrich ourselves even just with a fur or a watch or a Mark or with a cigarette!' It was the most strident and most emotional moment in the whole speech. The architect of mass murder remained in his own eyes a moralist to the end."


Source of quote:
Richard Breitman, The Architect of Genocide: Himmler and the Final Solution , Alfred A. Knopf, NY 1991
Excerpt transcribed on
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/h/ ... n-on-posen

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.

, transcribed by the prosecution and judges at Nuremberg as 1919-PS.


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

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 …

, words that mean what the Allied prosecution says they mean.


They sure do, as a native speaker of the German language willing and able to look at them without ideological glasses can confirm.

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.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

PHONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Postby Scott Smith » 24 Apr 2002 02:28

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. It is hearsay that would not be admissible in any court of law and as a lawyer you know that. Oh, but of course, Nuremberg had no rule-of-evidence. They can admit anything, real or fake, that they want. Being useful for the prosecution doesn't make it genuine, however.

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

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

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.

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. As always the words mean what the prosecution says they mean, or what neo-German say they mean. I guess Bismarck was secretly dreaming about diesel gas-vans and steam chambers, too.

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.[/quote]

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. One day I'll become a cremation expert and we'll see how well your 54 muffles hold out. I think a thousand cremations a day is generous.
:aliengray

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

PHONOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Postby Scott Smith » 24 Apr 2002 02:28

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. It is hearsay that would not be admissible in any court of law, and as a lawyer you know that. Oh, but of course, Nuremberg had no rules-of-evidence. They could admit anything, real or fake, that they wanted. Being useful for the prosecution doesn't make it genuine, however.

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

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 "take-no-prisoners" rhetoric to me. Himmler as CEO. But where you love smoking-guns, I ask questions as to whether diesel exhaust and murder-vans can work as claimed. To each his own.

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 had a strong investment in Axis culpability, supplies all the evidence. Yes, I think there is something wrong with that.

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. As always, the words mean what the prosecution says they mean, or what neo-Germans say they mean. I guess Bismarck was secretly dreaming about diesel gas-vans and steam-chambers, too.

Medo wrote:
Scott wrote: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. One day I'll become a cremation expert and we'll see how well your 54 muffles hold out. I think a thousand cremations a day is generous.
:aliengray
Last edited by Scott Smith on 24 Apr 2002 07:02, edited 1 time in total.

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Postby Sailor » 24 Apr 2002 04:01

Walterkaschner

I am sorry that you want to bail out of this thread. I am sure that I could have learned a lot from you. But I did have the impression that you came across a little ‘high on the horse’, with a little of a ‘chip on the shoulder’.

Concerning the link about the Secret Himmler’s Speeches, I heared too many times from socalled anti-revisionists labeling an belitteling anything that is not in line with their way of thinking. Please refer to your own post above concerning the CODOH site.

No more of this. I will use the information I find (aftere hours of searching) as if it were my own. I will not have this destroyed with 2 seconds review of youre kind and a klick of the mouse.

But here is a hint: Use “Himmler’s speeches” on Yahoo, Google, or any other search site. You will find plenty.

And please excuse me for not answering right away. My main occupation is with the CODOH Forum. I plan to post here only when there is nothing on TV.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 4753
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

54 Muffles And Nothing On...

Postby Scott Smith » 24 Apr 2002 04:13

Sailor wrote:I plan to post here only when there is nothing on TV.

Fortunately, that is most of the time.
:wink:

Sailor
Banned
Posts: 55
Joined: 20 Apr 2002 03:41
Location: Benicia, Ca, USA

Postby Sailor » 24 Apr 2002 05:10

Medorjurgen

Let’s play by the rules of historiography, shall we? 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 to read and sound recordings of the speeches delivered by Himmler on 4 and 6 October 1943. They have been analyzed by historians of note, none of whom apparently found a reason to challenge the authenticity of the documents in question. Even David Irving, though mumbling something about some retyped and repaginated pages, obviously didn’t find enough indications to put the authenticity of the documents in general and the passages referred to in particular in doubt. Which means that I can expect anyone bleating “forgery” to substantiate his allegations and to provide evidence supporting them. So far I have seen nothing in that direction.



Hi little buddy,

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

Yes, of course. Are youy familiar with those rules? Would this not be a little too difficult and unaccustomed for a believer like you, no?

“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?

‘They have been analyzed by historians of note”

Which ones? Which historians?

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

Appearantly? That is all? Does the enlightened believer maybe have any idea how the authenticity was verified?

“Even David Irving, though mumbling something…”

I don’t care what Irving mumbles or not mumbles. But what does our enlightend Medorjurgen mumble, that is of interest.

“…anyone bleating “forgery…”

I am not bleating yet, believer, 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’.

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’. These people were asked to leave Germany, which most did. The enlightened one is getting a little boring. At this time we are trying to check the authenticity of the speech snippet he posted.

Mein Gott is that difficult!

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

Charles Bunch
Member
Posts: 846
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:03
Location: USA

Ausrotten

Postby Charles Bunch » 24 Apr 2002 05:20

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


And exactly why should we care that you are either ignorant of the meaning of this word, or are lying about it?

Ausrotten, when the direct object is human, means kill. That's been the definition since the 19th century.


Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot]