Sulla the Dictator wrote:Scott Smith wrote:
That is the point. We have only snippets and no way to authenticate that Himmler spoke the words and not some Hollywood actor for the IMT.
Well, since Himmler has made quite a few speeches and everyone accepts that it is his voice on the recording, I simply think that you are passing 'skepticism' into the realm of 'blind faith' if you don't accept the recording. Even David Irving, who is perhaps one of the most accomplished Holocaust Deniers out there, accepts the Posen speech as real.
I could care less. When I have seen electronic evidence from professional sources comparing Himmler's voice on the Posen phonograph record with samples of his voice from newsreels, for instance, then I'll believe it.
Until then, this smoking-gun is too good for the Holocaust Industry to be true. However, I never said it wasn't genuine; and besides, I am not too impressed by the rhetoric anyway. Change the context a little and "Himmler" might have been some doltish Allied official blandly talking about swatting Japs like locust.
In a real trial this "evidence" would not have been admitted on account of authenticity. It was a three-hour speech recorded on tape.
So now audio recordings arn't 'real evidence'?
All evidence accepted by a real court is subject to certain procedures to determine authenticity. One cannot simply show-up with some goods and call it "evidence" for any real court.
Were the Nixon tapes also made in a Hollywood studios?
Nixon never contested their authenticity (and he is the primary source) and some of the individuals on the tape were available to confirm this. Like I said, Rosenberg had already been executed so he was not available to tell the court (if you can legitimately call the IMT a court) to confirm where the evidence came from. Actually, I think this was the AMT in the Pohl case but you get the idea. And nothing was presented to determine the chain-of-evidence so far as I know other than perhaps some military signatures which are typically unreadable.
For example, I recently obtained the documents from the National Archives on the Human Soap claims from the IMT that were submitted by Colonel Smirnov as USSR exhibits--what you would call evidence, and what I would call hearsay. For the first time even the Neely and Witton affidavits are now online at this site--which Nizkor says corroborate the Mazur affidavit, the smoking-gun of Human Soap--so now anyone can judge this for themselves. Anyway, Smirnov gave the court a recipe and three affidavits and said the Nazis were making Human Soap and presented something (USSR-393) looking like homemade soap, which nobody tested and nobody can seem to find to test today. The newsmedia to this day has interpreted this to mean that the Nazis were making Human Soap out of Jews. When questioned on evidence it always goes back to the IMT "evidence," just postwar Greuelpropaganda for wide broadcast. None of this crap would have even been submitted to a real court without sufficient foundation, and nobody was ever charged for this "crime." A notarized affidiavit will not even be admitted in a small claims court over a used-car dispute because the person is not available for cross-examination.
So what historians need to do is find the phonograph disk and compare the voice electronically with any other samples of Himmler's voice on newsreels or whether that can be confirmed as being his.
Well, why don't you ask the IHR to do that? It seems strange to me that Carlos Porter, et al accept that the speech is authentic but you do not.
Why is the IHR and CWP the authority? If the Holocaust Industry can prove electronically that their snippet is Himmler's voice I will believe it. I still find it no more a smoking-gun than newsreels now mostly in the Memory Hole talking about smoking the Japs out like vermin.
Ernie Pyle wrote:
In Europe, we felt that our enemies, horrible and deadly as they were, were still people. But out here I soon gathered that the Japanese were looked upon as something subhuman or repulsive; the way some people feel about cockroaches or mice.
Most of the speech is not available electronically, contrary to popular belief, just the smoking-gun part, which I have linked to many times on the forum. This is suspicious, especially given the motives of the IMT to lie outright and generate propaganda.
Why is it suspicious? The audio recordings are put online to debunk Holocaust Deniers. The relevant portions to that issue are what are of interest and what are posted. Who is interested in Himmler listing the virtues of the SS ranker?
It is not suspicious because it is partially online but because it purports to be a smoking-gun. It debunks nothing. Yes, the Nazis hated Jews. I see the light. Big deal. The working class WWII generation that I grew up with and remember quite well hated Japs worse than lice over Pearl Harbor. When I was growing up, WWII was only as far removed as the TV miniseries
Holocaust is today, and I remember the personalities that lived WWII and their attitudes very well.
The bottom line is that even if genuine I wouldn't give the Posen speech too much credence. It is easy to take politicians' words out of context.
Except that the context is right there:
In 1941 the Fuehrer attacked Russia. That was, as we can well see now, shortly,-perhaps 3 to 6 months-before Stalin prepared to embark on his great penetration into Central and Western Europe. I can give a picture of this first year in a few words. The attacking forces cut their way through. The Russian Army was herded together in great pockets, ground down, taken prisoner. At that time we did not value the mass of humanity as we value it today, as raw material, as labour. What after all, thinking in terms of generations, is not to be regretted, but is now deplorable by reason of the loss of labour, is that the prisoners died in tens and hundreds of thousands of exhaustion and hunger [p. 3]
It is basically wrong for us to infuse all our inoffensive soul and spirit, our good-nature, and our idealism into foreign peoples [p. 22]. This is true since the time of Herder who clearly wrote "Voices of the Nations" [Stimmen der Voelker], in a state of drunkenness, thereby bringing [p. 23] on us, who come after him, such immeasurable sorrow and misery. This is true for instance, of the Czechs and the Slovenes to whom we gave their consciousness of nationality. They were just not capable of it themselves; we had to discover it for them.
One basic principle must be the absolute rule for the SS man: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood and to nobody else. What happens to a Russian, to a Czech does not interest me in the slightest. What the nations can offer in the way of good blood of our type, we will take, if necessary by kidnapping their children and raising them here with us. Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death [verrecken-to die-used of cattle] interests me only in so far as we need them as slaves for our Kultur; otherwise, it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the anti-tank ditch for Germany is finished. We shall never be rough and heartless when it is not necessary, that is clear. We Germans, who [p. 24] are the only people in the world who have a decent attitude towards animals, will also assume a decent attitude towards these human animals. But it is a crime against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, thus causing our sons and grandsons to have a more difficult time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, "I cannot dig the anti-tank ditch with women and children, it is inhuman, for it would kill them," then I have to say, "You are a murderer of your own blood because if the anti-tank ditch is not dug, German soldiers will die, and they are sons of German mothers. They are our own blood." That is what I want to instil into the SS and what I believe have instilled into them as one of the most sacred laws of the future, Our concern, our duty is our people and our blood. It is for them that we must provide and plan, work and fight, nothing else.
http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/SS2.htm
So what? I have read the text of Himmler's Posen speech from the IMT colored "Seuss" books. I'm not sure why it would take Himmler three-hours to read what the IMT preserved; it looked like one phonograph disk's worth to me, most of which was boring. Nevertheless, I was not particularly shocked by the laughably short snippet of rhetoric. Big deal. War is brutal. Why is this a surprise?
and the Nazis were know for bellicose rhetoric as much as Democracy-Capitalist politicians are known for dissemblement.
I prefer rambling to the foaming-at-the-mouth threats of the Reich leadership.
Increasingly, modern politicians are finding they get more stock out of threats and self-righteous piety than mealy deceit. I'm not sure this is a good trend though because at least intellectuals could read between the lines and this counted for something. But how do you argue with "I'm Proud to be an American" or any other flag-waving that conditions people for going on Crusade? Nowadays we don't even have to declare war to have our war, and they are over with before the people even have time to get bored as they did with Vietnam.