100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun »

Okay, so apparently, Hoess' confession doesn't mean anything as he was allegedly torture, right? Well, in 1943, I doubt any German was tortured to make incriminating speeches. Our good friend, Heinrich Himmler, made this secret speech in which he exposed his evil, sadistic plan to murder the poor, little Jews who did nothing wrong.


Mr. Himmler, please speak:


"Wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen."


What's that you might ask?



"We had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us."


Ouch, looks like a straightforward admission, isn't it?


But wait, there is more!


"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."


Translation? No problem!

"We came to the question: How is it with the women and children? I decided to find a clear solution here as well. I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed – and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be taken to make this people disappear from the earth."



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



'Muh Sowjet Faelschung!'







Sounds the same to me.



And with that, Holocaust Denial is, EXPOSED!




MWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


Werd
Posts: 9593
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by Werd »

Date, time and place of speech please.
Full transcript of the speech please.
Original German please.
Source of translation please.

Werd
Posts: 9593
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by Werd »

make this people disappear from the earth
Oh it's one of the many Posen speeches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches

Werd
Posts: 9593
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by Werd »

Posen Speech Revisited
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278
Hannover wrote:This "speech" has been shredded repeatedly. Some points:

In 1993, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records at the National Archives admitted that a more precise translation of 'ausrottung' would be extirpation or tearing up by the roots. Wolfe also pointed out that in Himmler's handwritten notes for the speech, that Himmler used the term, 'judenevakuierung', or evacuation of the Jews, not 'extermination'.

Then we have some True Believers citing much later dictionaries claiming ausrotten as meaning 'extermination' (uprooting is it's real meaning) ... published in accordance with the propaganda about WWII. There's problems with that though:

- Here's something from a 1935 speech by Rudolf Hess:
National Socialist legislation has now introduced corrective measures against this over-alienization. I say corrective, because the proof that the Jews are not being ruthlessly rooted out [AUSGEROTTET] is that in Prussia alone 33,500 Jews are working in manufacturing and industry, and 89, 800 are engaged in trade and commerce; and that with only 1 per cent of the population Jewish, 17.5 per cent of our attorneys and in Berlin nearly half the registered doctors are still Jewish.
Ofcourse at this time (1935), the charge against the Nazis was not that they were ruthlessly exterminating the Jews.

- The 1936 anti-German book by Leon Feuchtwanger and others entitled DER GELBE FLECK: DIE AUSROTTUNG VON 500,000 DEUTSCHEN JUDEN.
I guess the absurd 'exterminations' started in 1936 then.

- Hitler in his Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1933:
den Marxismus und seine Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland AUSZUROTTEN" - "to eradicate Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany
.
How does one explain "from Germany", "out of Germany" if the "auszurotten" only possible meaning was the physical extermination of living beings? Was Hitler thinking of gassing "Marxism" itself? If so, no gassings of German Marxists has been alleged before the war.

- It should also be pointed out that if Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews was a secret plan that required the destruction of evidence at the end of the war, then why did he use the word ausrotten in so many of his public speeches prior to the war?'
Either way, the meaning of 'ausrotten' actually plays against the holocaust theory. If it did mean murder and the plan was public, then that means the Germans did not attempt to carry out a secret plan and did not attempt to destroy the evidence afterwards to conceal the plan. Clearly this has major implications reaching far beyond the meaning of one of Himmler's "secret" speeches. If the meaning of the word is figurative, then Himmler's speech is not proof of anything.

This alleged (recorded) speech, as German judge Staeglich has adroitly pointed out, is a hodgepodge of non-sequitors, nonsense, and re-worked text, see:
'Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence
By Wilhelm Stäglich'
http://codoh.com/library/document/230

- There are missing pages, retyped pages by different hands, even pages ahve been re-numbered..

- Then we have a so called "secret" speech in front of thousands. Frankly the assertions about it are laughable.

- Yivo (Yiddish Scientific Institute) of New York was very active in the Rosenberg Ministry to process documents for submittal to the Nuremberg trials.

- Members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all. I suggest reading: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487

- To have a speech with such alleged secret content recorded? Right. SS General Berger did not recognize Himmler’s voice listening to the tape.

- the complete lack of orders for the desperate assumptions made about it

onetruth asks:
How will you interpret this words from the speech :

"Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person — with exceptions due to human weaknesses — has made us tough, and is a glorious chapter that has not and will not be spoken of. "
I suggest a history lesson for onetruth concerning the genocidal terror bombing campaign waged by the "Allies" against innocent German civilians which the Allies still try to conceal, where the shattered remains were piled up like cord wood by the thousands, tens of thousands.

more here:
'Posen speech'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=372
and here:
http://codoh.com/library/document/891/
' Heinrich Himmler's Posen Speech from 04.10.1943
By Heinrich Himmler
Published: 1943-10-04
Given at Posen 4 October 1943
Translation of Document No. 1919-PS, Nuremberg Trial
by Carlos Porter'

Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
EtienneSC wrote:
CercaTrova wrote: 2a. I researched the etymology of the word "ausrotten", and it was indeed commonly used in the context of "uproot", but only in the context of plants, not in the context of people or peoples. In that latter context it has always meant (to) exterminate. Even for the former context, I was only able to find citations from the 17th century, nothing as recent as WWII.
The terms 'ausrotten' and 'vernichtung' are both used repeatedly in Hitler's Mein Kampf with reference to groups of people (armies, German-Austrians) where they do not refer to extermination. They refer to such things as military defeat and slavization. He also used 'vernichtung' in reference to abolishing political parties. Hence, 17th century usage does not seem to be decisive or particularly relevant.

It is true that one way of rooting out/uprooting/eradicating or nullifying/annihilating a group would be to kill every member of it, but not the only way. It is language in which a threat or warning of ambiguous scope is issued. I agree that 'umbringen' is unambiguous.

The genuineness of the speech and recording in whole or part has been debated. One such discussion is in Butz's Hoax of the 20th Century. Vincent Reynouard has devoted a video to it. The overall revisionist response is to accept that it is or may well be genuine and try to minimize the significance. Baldur von Schirach remembers having been present at such a speech in his memoirs.
Hannover wrote:
- The essential point about these speeches of Himmler's is that NONE of them contains any reference to "mass gassings" in "extermination camps."

again:
- Why are there: missing pages? retyped pages by different hands? re-numbered pages?

- Why use so many different words for murder if indeed murder is what was intended?

- And of course, an alleged 'secret plan of extermination' while at the same time supposedly using ausrotten publicly to mean extermination, is well, not very secret.

Why would Himmler give a "secret speech" in front of hundreds? Laughable.

- Why would the Germans "record" a supposedly "secret speech" which supposedly talks openly of enormous war crimes? Laughable.

More on ausrottung:
- Himmler talked about the "ausrottung" of degenerate music (Jazz - Swing-Jugend) on January 1st, 1942:
Meines Erachtens muß jetzt das ganze Übel radikal ausgerottet werden.
Frau X. turned on the radio to Berlin, and upon our horrified ears fell the frenzied accents of the Fuehrer, announcing his instant resolve to root out the Poles. "Ich bin fest entschlossen die Polen auszurotten. Sieg heil! Sieg heil!"
- The Scots Magazine, 1939, page 123
Nach weniger als Einem Menschenalter wurden auch noch die übrigen ausgerottet aus diesem Lande, verkauft, zerstreut in alle Welt.
"After less than a generation, even the remaining ones were uprooted out of this land, sold and scattered all over the world."
- Geschichte der Religion Jesu Christi, Friedrich Leopold, volume 2, 1818, page 93
Here's another quote, from a 2008 exhibition in the Digital Archives of Marburg, from a yet unfinished publication called "Die Verfolgung der Sinti und Roma in Hessen von der frühen Neuzeit bis nach dem II. Weltkrieg" by Dr. Udo Engbring-Romang:
dem Mittel der guten „Policey“ sollten schließlich die „Zigeuner" beseitigt oder "ausgerottet" werden, das heißt ihre Rotte, ihr Gruppenzusammenhalt, sollte zerstört werden. In Einzelfällen war der Begriff der „Ausrottung“ auch als Eliminierung der Individuen verstanden worden.
- http://www.digam.net/einfuehrung.php?lput=816
and:
MR. DODD: Then you have written into your speech remarks about the
extermination of Jews, haven't you? Answer that "yes" or "no."
ROSENBERG: I have said already that that word does not have the sense which you attribute to it. [!!!]

- Nuremberg Proceedings
- Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev said at the United Nations, directed toward the United States; "We will bury you".
Proof that the communists exterminated the people of the U.S.A.

book cover:
Image
much more at:
'"Ausrottung"/"ausrotten" explained'
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2249

again:
- Members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all. I suggest reading: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487

-SS General Berger did not recognize Himmler’s voice listening to the tape.

- the complete lack of orders for the desperate assumptions made about it

In spite of the LA Times usual distortions, what archivist Wolfe said is here:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-17/ ... ch-himmler
The German word Himmler uses that is translated as "extermination" is " Ausrottung ."
Wolfe said a more precise translation would be "extirpation" or "tearing up by the roots."
In his handwritten notes, Himmler used a euphemism, " Judenevakuierung ," or "evacuation of the Jews."
And the damning Schlegelberger Document:
Image
"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

Document's origins. Schlegelberger's undated minute on Lammer's reference to Hitler's ruling is in German Federal Archives (BA) file R.22/52. It was sent to Staatssekretär Freisler and two other officials (bottom left). This document has been published in facsimile in David Irving's books Hitler's War, Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich, and Nuremberg, the Last Battle. It was definitely dated March or April 1942. Lammers was in Berlin on April 26, 1942. See Scheel's report on a talk between Lammers and Meissner after the final Reichstag session that day (T175/139/7479 et seq.)

in support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum
A Response to Evans and Longerich
except:
"On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

"The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."
- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
hermod wrote:
EtienneSC wrote:
CercaTrova wrote: If an army is annihilated or exterminated, I think it is pretty safe to assume that every soldier is dead.

It is also possible that the command and control function is eliminated and the army is no longer able to function as an army.
Indeed, Etienne. Also true in English.

Here is an example of this:

Image
http://s25.postimg.org/yv22zm7j3/Annihi ... ptured.jpg

Capturing over 30,000 Russian soldiers annihilated the Soviet 6th Army.
CercaTrova wrote:Those are valid points. There are contradictions all over the place.

Yet Hitler did speak of "Vernichtung" and "Ausrottung", i.e. extermination and annihilation.

it also doesn't seem very plausible to just brush that away with the argument that "he may have spoken these harsh words but he really didn't mean it" or that he was only implying to deport them / to pass laws against their return to power?

That is a contradiction, too. So we have contradictions on both sides.
I fail to see the contradiction in Hitler saying the war was kicking Jewry out of power on a large scale.

Every time Hitler referred to his Vernichtung prophecy during the war, he mentioned the spread of anti-Semitism and he explained Jewry would finally be regarded as the universal enemy of Aryans in numerous countries (https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=9038 - blue parts), what would of course have made Jewry's domination over such countries impossible, what would have annihilated Jewry's power in large areas of this world.

When Zionist leader Max Nordau talked about "Juden auszurotten" in 1897 at the 1st World Zionist Congress, orthodox historians didn't translate these words as "to exterminate the Jews" but as "to get rid of the Jews" or "to eradicate the Jews".

Image
http://s25.postimg.org/xrzthumu7/Holoca ... dau_18.jpg

Image
http://s25.postimg.org/wqzksq5un/Holoca ... rdau_1.jpg
Breker wrote:
hermod wrote:Now Hannover has mentioned some of the oddities in the recording of Himmler's Posen speech, isn't it time to raise the possibility of a forgery performed by a voice impersonator? What president or prominent politician didn't have his cohort of impersonators imitating his voice in a way more or less convincing after all? Would the American people accept the guilt for the death of let's say 30 million Iraqis only because a talented voice impersonator recorded himself saying that with Obama's voice? C'mon. They would (or at least, they should) request physical evidence for that claim before believing it. As soon as most people hear the word 'Nazi', they just turn off their brain. Quite pathetic...
What we find really curious is that of the "recorded" speech only a few alleged passages are actually available for listening.
Why would they hide the entirety of the alleged recording?
Because it's much easier to forge a few contrived, impersonated passages and claim they are from the allgedly recorded speech rather than altering and impersonating the entire speech. Working over the entire speech would be too risky.
Well, as if the forged attempt under discussion hasn't been sniffed out by Revisionist researchers.
Of course, why would a "secret" speech be recorded in the first place?
It's really a microcosm of the "holocaust" fraud in general. A little effort causes the entire edifice to fall.

The following quotes are from Himmler's Posen Speech
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=238927
In the holocaust texts by Landau, Niewyk and Nicosia, Longerich, Ehrenfreund, Friedlander and Bloxham discussion of the speech is limited. Some do not mention it, some do not quote it and some give it very little analysis. The key thing here is that none of these authors present it as having any key importance to the holocaust debate, which is very surprising given its implications if genuine.
if they has exterminated all German Jews, why did Rigg write the book Hitler's Jewish Soilders chronicling the 150,000 Jews in the wehrmacht and SS?
The manuscript of the speech, which bears no signature or other endorsement.
This talk was allegedly secret, though we are told a recording was made which then fell into the hands of Rosenberg who kept a copy that was then discovered by Allied investigators.
The document, in accompanying material, was said to have been found in Rosenberg's files. However, Rosenberg was never questioned regarding it, which we may suggest, if kosher, should have happened. Additionally, Rosenberg was asked about another document to which he denied was ever in his possession. (IMT, vol. 11, 561.)
The so-called Posen speech of RFSS Heinrich Himmler from Oct. 4, 1943, is often regarded as a forgery by revisionist. I may add a technical aspect to this discussion not mentioned so far, which I would like to present for further discussion.

The speech played back to the audience at the Nuremberg Tribunal had been recorded with the so-called needle technology on a so-called shellac disc. Records made of PVC were introduced to the market only around 1950. A shellac disk had not more than 15 minutes of recording time. It appears that there was only one disk, which could, of course, only hold a small part of the entire speech.
During the years 1939-1940, the German electrical company AEG had perfected the magnet audio technique for market introduction, that is, a technology allowing the recording of spoken words or music on a plastic tape coated with ferro-magnetic particles. The decisive step was the invention of high frequency pre-magnetization by Braunmühl and Weber in 1940. This new method allowed a sound quality many dimensions superior to that of all prior methods. At the same time, the recording device was more robust, easier to handle and less sensitive. The new technology spread quickly. By the end of 1940 all German radio stations were equipped with it, and 70% to 80% of all German radio transmissions may well have been played back from such tapes. This figure rose to 90% around 1950. These high-value AEG tape recorders were also used as a supporting device to prepare verbal protocols during highly important conferences.
Nothing comparable existed during the war in England and the US. British radio stations had introduced the tape recording method by Blattner and Stille, which was vastly inferior to the AEG system. I do not know what was used during those years in the US. Perhaps another reader can help to find out.
Can one imagine in such a situation that a German sound technician in Posen, at that time a major German city, records a speech of an important National Socialist personality, after all the second most powerful man in the nation, with a technology that must have appeared prehistoric in his eyes? I cannot believe this.
The victorious powers, however, who played back Himmler’s alleged speech from a shellac disk, had no other choice. They could not handle the German tape technology yet; it was of course impossible to play an English sound tape. Thus, the shellac disk was the only option for them, since at that time it was still a mass product in Germany, because the consumers still had the playing devices for them. That the sound quality of the shellac disk was much inferior to the AEG tape, was very much welcome by the forgers. A voice imitator can simulate any person; only when it comes to the details, to the side frequencies, a forgery can be discovered. And these side frequencies can be established only from a high quality sound tape.
By the way: Despite its high sound quality, this AEG tape was not allowed as evidence in German courts of these days. Yet for the Nuremberg tribunal, the much inferior shellac disk sufficed.
B.
I suggest people also check this out regarding the disk problem.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.ph ... ostcount=4
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.ph ... stcount=16

We may in fact be dealing with a forgery. Even if none of the Posen speeches have been tampered with by anyone from the side of the Allies, how would this prove gas chambers? How do we know Himmler was talking about those and not just the Einsatzgruppen shootings on the Eastern front?

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun »

Werd wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:29 am
Posen Speech Revisited
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10278
Hannover wrote:This "speech" has been shredded repeatedly. Some points:

In 1993, Robert Wolfe, supervisory archivist for captured German records at the National Archives admitted that a more precise translation of 'ausrottung' would be extirpation or tearing up by the roots. Wolfe also pointed out that in Himmler's handwritten notes for the speech, that Himmler used the term, 'judenevakuierung', or evacuation of the Jews, not 'extermination'.

Then we have some True Believers citing much later dictionaries claiming ausrotten as meaning 'extermination' (uprooting is it's real meaning) ... published in accordance with the propaganda about WWII. There's problems with that though:

- Here's something from a 1935 speech by Rudolf Hess:
National Socialist legislation has now introduced corrective measures against this over-alienization. I say corrective, because the proof that the Jews are not being ruthlessly rooted out [AUSGEROTTET] is that in Prussia alone 33,500 Jews are working in manufacturing and industry, and 89, 800 are engaged in trade and commerce; and that with only 1 per cent of the population Jewish, 17.5 per cent of our attorneys and in Berlin nearly half the registered doctors are still Jewish.
Ofcourse at this time (1935), the charge against the Nazis was not that they were ruthlessly exterminating the Jews.

- The 1936 anti-German book by Leon Feuchtwanger and others entitled DER GELBE FLECK: DIE AUSROTTUNG VON 500,000 DEUTSCHEN JUDEN.
I guess the absurd 'exterminations' started in 1936 then.

- Hitler in his Berlin Sportpalast speech of February 1933:
den Marxismus und seine Begleiterscheinungen aus Deutschland AUSZUROTTEN" - "to eradicate Marxism and its accompanying phenomena from Germany
.
How does one explain "from Germany", "out of Germany" if the "auszurotten" only possible meaning was the physical extermination of living beings? Was Hitler thinking of gassing "Marxism" itself? If so, no gassings of German Marxists has been alleged before the war.

- It should also be pointed out that if Hitler's plan to exterminate the Jews was a secret plan that required the destruction of evidence at the end of the war, then why did he use the word ausrotten in so many of his public speeches prior to the war?'
Either way, the meaning of 'ausrotten' actually plays against the holocaust theory. If it did mean murder and the plan was public, then that means the Germans did not attempt to carry out a secret plan and did not attempt to destroy the evidence afterwards to conceal the plan. Clearly this has major implications reaching far beyond the meaning of one of Himmler's "secret" speeches. If the meaning of the word is figurative, then Himmler's speech is not proof of anything.

This alleged (recorded) speech, as German judge Staeglich has adroitly pointed out, is a hodgepodge of non-sequitors, nonsense, and re-worked text, see:
'Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence
By Wilhelm Stäglich'
http://codoh.com/library/document/230

- There are missing pages, retyped pages by different hands, even pages ahve been re-numbered..

- Then we have a so called "secret" speech in front of thousands. Frankly the assertions about it are laughable.

- Yivo (Yiddish Scientific Institute) of New York was very active in the Rosenberg Ministry to process documents for submittal to the Nuremberg trials.

- Members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all. I suggest reading: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487

- To have a speech with such alleged secret content recorded? Right. SS General Berger did not recognize Himmler’s voice listening to the tape.

- the complete lack of orders for the desperate assumptions made about it

onetruth asks:
How will you interpret this words from the speech :

"Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when there are 500 or when there are 1,000. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person — with exceptions due to human weaknesses — has made us tough, and is a glorious chapter that has not and will not be spoken of. "
I suggest a history lesson for onetruth concerning the genocidal terror bombing campaign waged by the "Allies" against innocent German civilians which the Allies still try to conceal, where the shattered remains were piled up like cord wood by the thousands, tens of thousands.

more here:
'Posen speech'
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=372
and here:
http://codoh.com/library/document/891/
' Heinrich Himmler's Posen Speech from 04.10.1943
By Heinrich Himmler
Published: 1943-10-04
Given at Posen 4 October 1943
Translation of Document No. 1919-PS, Nuremberg Trial
by Carlos Porter'

Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
EtienneSC wrote:
CercaTrova wrote: 2a. I researched the etymology of the word "ausrotten", and it was indeed commonly used in the context of "uproot", but only in the context of plants, not in the context of people or peoples. In that latter context it has always meant (to) exterminate. Even for the former context, I was only able to find citations from the 17th century, nothing as recent as WWII.
The terms 'ausrotten' and 'vernichtung' are both used repeatedly in Hitler's Mein Kampf with reference to groups of people (armies, German-Austrians) where they do not refer to extermination. They refer to such things as military defeat and slavization. He also used 'vernichtung' in reference to abolishing political parties. Hence, 17th century usage does not seem to be decisive or particularly relevant.

It is true that one way of rooting out/uprooting/eradicating or nullifying/annihilating a group would be to kill every member of it, but not the only way. It is language in which a threat or warning of ambiguous scope is issued. I agree that 'umbringen' is unambiguous.

The genuineness of the speech and recording in whole or part has been debated. One such discussion is in Butz's Hoax of the 20th Century. Vincent Reynouard has devoted a video to it. The overall revisionist response is to accept that it is or may well be genuine and try to minimize the significance. Baldur von Schirach remembers having been present at such a speech in his memoirs.
Hannover wrote:
- The essential point about these speeches of Himmler's is that NONE of them contains any reference to "mass gassings" in "extermination camps."

again:
- Why are there: missing pages? retyped pages by different hands? re-numbered pages?

- Why use so many different words for murder if indeed murder is what was intended?

- And of course, an alleged 'secret plan of extermination' while at the same time supposedly using ausrotten publicly to mean extermination, is well, not very secret.

Why would Himmler give a "secret speech" in front of hundreds? Laughable.

- Why would the Germans "record" a supposedly "secret speech" which supposedly talks openly of enormous war crimes? Laughable.

More on ausrottung:
- Himmler talked about the "ausrottung" of degenerate music (Jazz - Swing-Jugend) on January 1st, 1942:
Meines Erachtens muß jetzt das ganze Übel radikal ausgerottet werden.
Frau X. turned on the radio to Berlin, and upon our horrified ears fell the frenzied accents of the Fuehrer, announcing his instant resolve to root out the Poles. "Ich bin fest entschlossen die Polen auszurotten. Sieg heil! Sieg heil!"
- The Scots Magazine, 1939, page 123
Nach weniger als Einem Menschenalter wurden auch noch die übrigen ausgerottet aus diesem Lande, verkauft, zerstreut in alle Welt.
"After less than a generation, even the remaining ones were uprooted out of this land, sold and scattered all over the world."
- Geschichte der Religion Jesu Christi, Friedrich Leopold, volume 2, 1818, page 93
Here's another quote, from a 2008 exhibition in the Digital Archives of Marburg, from a yet unfinished publication called "Die Verfolgung der Sinti und Roma in Hessen von der frühen Neuzeit bis nach dem II. Weltkrieg" by Dr. Udo Engbring-Romang:
dem Mittel der guten „Policey“ sollten schließlich die „Zigeuner" beseitigt oder "ausgerottet" werden, das heißt ihre Rotte, ihr Gruppenzusammenhalt, sollte zerstört werden. In Einzelfällen war der Begriff der „Ausrottung“ auch als Eliminierung der Individuen verstanden worden.
- http://www.digam.net/einfuehrung.php?lput=816
and:
MR. DODD: Then you have written into your speech remarks about the
extermination of Jews, haven't you? Answer that "yes" or "no."
ROSENBERG: I have said already that that word does not have the sense which you attribute to it. [!!!]

- Nuremberg Proceedings
- Soviet Premiere Nikita Khrushchev said at the United Nations, directed toward the United States; "We will bury you".
Proof that the communists exterminated the people of the U.S.A.

book cover:
Image
much more at:
'"Ausrottung"/"ausrotten" explained'
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2249

again:
- Members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all. I suggest reading: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487

-SS General Berger did not recognize Himmler’s voice listening to the tape.

- the complete lack of orders for the desperate assumptions made about it

In spite of the LA Times usual distortions, what archivist Wolfe said is here:
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-04-17/ ... ch-himmler
The German word Himmler uses that is translated as "extermination" is " Ausrottung ."
Wolfe said a more precise translation would be "extirpation" or "tearing up by the roots."
In his handwritten notes, Himmler used a euphemism, " Judenevakuierung ," or "evacuation of the Jews."
And the damning Schlegelberger Document:
Image
"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

Document's origins. Schlegelberger's undated minute on Lammer's reference to Hitler's ruling is in German Federal Archives (BA) file R.22/52. It was sent to Staatssekretär Freisler and two other officials (bottom left). This document has been published in facsimile in David Irving's books Hitler's War, Goebbels. Mastermind of the Third Reich, and Nuremberg, the Last Battle. It was definitely dated March or April 1942. Lammers was in Berlin on April 26, 1942. See Scheel's report on a talk between Lammers and Meissner after the final Reichstag session that day (T175/139/7479 et seq.)

in support of the Schlegelberger Document see the Luther Memorandum:
http://www.codoh.com/library/document/154/
Hitler, the 'Final Solution,' and the Luther Memorandum
A Response to Evans and Longerich
except:
"On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

"The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."
- Hannover

The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

The tide is turning.
hermod wrote:
EtienneSC wrote:
CercaTrova wrote: If an army is annihilated or exterminated, I think it is pretty safe to assume that every soldier is dead.

It is also possible that the command and control function is eliminated and the army is no longer able to function as an army.
Indeed, Etienne. Also true in English.

Here is an example of this:

Image
http://s25.postimg.org/yv22zm7j3/Annihi ... ptured.jpg

Capturing over 30,000 Russian soldiers annihilated the Soviet 6th Army.
CercaTrova wrote:Those are valid points. There are contradictions all over the place.

Yet Hitler did speak of "Vernichtung" and "Ausrottung", i.e. extermination and annihilation.

it also doesn't seem very plausible to just brush that away with the argument that "he may have spoken these harsh words but he really didn't mean it" or that he was only implying to deport them / to pass laws against their return to power?

That is a contradiction, too. So we have contradictions on both sides.
I fail to see the contradiction in Hitler saying the war was kicking Jewry out of power on a large scale.

Every time Hitler referred to his Vernichtung prophecy during the war, he mentioned the spread of anti-Semitism and he explained Jewry would finally be regarded as the universal enemy of Aryans in numerous countries (https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=9038 - blue parts), what would of course have made Jewry's domination over such countries impossible, what would have annihilated Jewry's power in large areas of this world.

When Zionist leader Max Nordau talked about "Juden auszurotten" in 1897 at the 1st World Zionist Congress, orthodox historians didn't translate these words as "to exterminate the Jews" but as "to get rid of the Jews" or "to eradicate the Jews".

Image
http://s25.postimg.org/xrzthumu7/Holoca ... dau_18.jpg

Image
http://s25.postimg.org/wqzksq5un/Holoca ... rdau_1.jpg
Breker wrote:
hermod wrote:Now Hannover has mentioned some of the oddities in the recording of Himmler's Posen speech, isn't it time to raise the possibility of a forgery performed by a voice impersonator? What president or prominent politician didn't have his cohort of impersonators imitating his voice in a way more or less convincing after all? Would the American people accept the guilt for the death of let's say 30 million Iraqis only because a talented voice impersonator recorded himself saying that with Obama's voice? C'mon. They would (or at least, they should) request physical evidence for that claim before believing it. As soon as most people hear the word 'Nazi', they just turn off their brain. Quite pathetic...
What we find really curious is that of the "recorded" speech only a few alleged passages are actually available for listening.
Why would they hide the entirety of the alleged recording?
Because it's much easier to forge a few contrived, impersonated passages and claim they are from the allgedly recorded speech rather than altering and impersonating the entire speech. Working over the entire speech would be too risky.
Well, as if the forged attempt under discussion hasn't been sniffed out by Revisionist researchers.
Of course, why would a "secret" speech be recorded in the first place?
It's really a microcosm of the "holocaust" fraud in general. A little effort causes the entire edifice to fall.

The following quotes are from Himmler's Posen Speech
https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=238927
In the holocaust texts by Landau, Niewyk and Nicosia, Longerich, Ehrenfreund, Friedlander and Bloxham discussion of the speech is limited. Some do not mention it, some do not quote it and some give it very little analysis. The key thing here is that none of these authors present it as having any key importance to the holocaust debate, which is very surprising given its implications if genuine.
if they has exterminated all German Jews, why did Rigg write the book Hitler's Jewish Soilders chronicling the 150,000 Jews in the wehrmacht and SS?
The manuscript of the speech, which bears no signature or other endorsement.
This talk was allegedly secret, though we are told a recording was made which then fell into the hands of Rosenberg who kept a copy that was then discovered by Allied investigators.
The document, in accompanying material, was said to have been found in Rosenberg's files. However, Rosenberg was never questioned regarding it, which we may suggest, if kosher, should have happened. Additionally, Rosenberg was asked about another document to which he denied was ever in his possession. (IMT, vol. 11, 561.)
The so-called Posen speech of RFSS Heinrich Himmler from Oct. 4, 1943, is often regarded as a forgery by revisionist. I may add a technical aspect to this discussion not mentioned so far, which I would like to present for further discussion.

The speech played back to the audience at the Nuremberg Tribunal had been recorded with the so-called needle technology on a so-called shellac disc. Records made of PVC were introduced to the market only around 1950. A shellac disk had not more than 15 minutes of recording time. It appears that there was only one disk, which could, of course, only hold a small part of the entire speech.
During the years 1939-1940, the German electrical company AEG had perfected the magnet audio technique for market introduction, that is, a technology allowing the recording of spoken words or music on a plastic tape coated with ferro-magnetic particles. The decisive step was the invention of high frequency pre-magnetization by Braunmühl and Weber in 1940. This new method allowed a sound quality many dimensions superior to that of all prior methods. At the same time, the recording device was more robust, easier to handle and less sensitive. The new technology spread quickly. By the end of 1940 all German radio stations were equipped with it, and 70% to 80% of all German radio transmissions may well have been played back from such tapes. This figure rose to 90% around 1950. These high-value AEG tape recorders were also used as a supporting device to prepare verbal protocols during highly important conferences.
Nothing comparable existed during the war in England and the US. British radio stations had introduced the tape recording method by Blattner and Stille, which was vastly inferior to the AEG system. I do not know what was used during those years in the US. Perhaps another reader can help to find out.
Can one imagine in such a situation that a German sound technician in Posen, at that time a major German city, records a speech of an important National Socialist personality, after all the second most powerful man in the nation, with a technology that must have appeared prehistoric in his eyes? I cannot believe this.
The victorious powers, however, who played back Himmler’s alleged speech from a shellac disk, had no other choice. They could not handle the German tape technology yet; it was of course impossible to play an English sound tape. Thus, the shellac disk was the only option for them, since at that time it was still a mass product in Germany, because the consumers still had the playing devices for them. That the sound quality of the shellac disk was much inferior to the AEG tape, was very much welcome by the forgers. A voice imitator can simulate any person; only when it comes to the details, to the side frequencies, a forgery can be discovered. And these side frequencies can be established only from a high quality sound tape.
By the way: Despite its high sound quality, this AEG tape was not allowed as evidence in German courts of these days. Yet for the Nuremberg tribunal, the much inferior shellac disk sufficed.
B.
I suggest people also check this out regarding the disk problem.

https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.ph ... ostcount=4
https://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.ph ... stcount=16

We may in fact be dealing with a forgery. Even if none of the Posen speeches have been tampered with by anyone from the side of the Allies, how would this prove gas chambers? How do we know Himmler was talking about those and not just the Einsatzgruppen shootings on the Eastern front?


Too bad you completely missed the word 'umbringen' right next to 'Ausrottung,' which explains the latter's meaning.


Too bad I never said this proves gas chambers, only an Holocaust.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

Werd
Posts: 9593
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by Werd »

Too bad you completely missed the word 'umbringen' right next to 'Ausrottung,' which explains the latter's meaning.
Allegedly. I'll look into this more.
Too bad I never said this proves gas chambers, only an Holocaust.
If you lose the gas chambers, you lose the holocaust.
:lol:

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun »

Werd wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 12:33 pm
Too bad you completely missed the word 'umbringen' right next to 'Ausrottung,' which explains the latter's meaning.
Allegedly. I'll look into this more.
Too bad I never said this proves gas chambers, only an Holocaust.
If you lose the gas chambers, you lose the holocaust.
:lol:

Not allegedly, there is a video recording along with notes as well. Umbringen quite literally means 'killed.'



Not really, shootings took place, too, mass shootings at that. If you accept the Nazis had a policy of mass murder, then the camps' purposes was that of murder.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

Werd
Posts: 9593
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by Werd »

DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:16 pm
there is a video recording along with notes as well. Umbringen quite literally means 'killed.'
There is a video of Himmler's Posen speeches? That's news to me.
If you accept the Nazis had a policy of mass murder, then the camps' purposes was that of murder.
Nice attempt at circular reasoning. Try proving gas chambers first. The Einsatzgruppen shootings don't prove gas chambers.

User avatar
DabbingIsSoMuchFun
Posts: 591
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:19 pm
Location: Controlling the World by virtue of my existence.
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by DabbingIsSoMuchFun »

Werd wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:24 pm
DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:16 pm
there is a video recording along with notes as well. Umbringen quite literally means 'killed.'
There is a video of Himmler's Posen speeches? That's news to me.
If you accept the Nazis had a policy of mass murder, then the camps' purposes was that of murder.
Nice attempt at circular reasoning. Try proving gas chambers first. The Einsatzgruppen shootings don't prove gas chambers.
Video recording of Himmler, not video of Himmler talking. Semantics. Don't dodge 'umbringen' though.


I don't need to, if I first prove that the Nazis had a policy of mass murder. It doesn't take of genius to realize that if the Nazis did have such policy, then the camps' purposes wasn't that of mere resettlement. The gas chambers become proven, although not by the speech itself, but by logic.
Holocaust-Leugnung ist keine Geschichte!

Werd
Posts: 9593
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: 100% Proof the Nazis Killed Jews

Post by Werd »

DabbingIsSoMuchFun wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:26 pm
Video recording of Himmler, not video of Himmler talking. Semantics.
Allow me to refute DISMF using his own method of argumentation.

I ask for proof and he tells me about a youtube video that someone played a clip of the audio recording in. Dude, if all you have is links, then you have no evidence.

See I just refuted your Posen claim. :lol:
if I first prove that the Nazis had a policy of mass murder. It doesn't take of genius to realize that if the Nazis did have such policy, then the camps' purposes wasn't that of mere resettlement.
Circular reasoning once again. He's trying to prove the gas chambers a priori. Sorry, you need science for that. You're like St. Anselm with an ontological argument trying to define God into existence. Word play and fallacies aren't science.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 14 guests