I'm still somewhat unsure about the holocaust question after about a week of 24/7 research. Let me say upfront that I am impartial in the debate and only interested in finding the truth, whatever it may be. I am at this point quite certain that at the very least, the holocaust could not possibly have happened quite the way we have been told. Zundel, Cole, Irving, Leuchter, Rudolf et al. demonstrate that quite clearly.
However, I came across the Posen speech today, which made me wonder again:
I have looked at the four threads about this topic that are in the archives of the CODOH forums, and it seems the main points revisionists use to refute the validity of this recording are:
1. "The recording is a fake, if this was really a secret meeting then why would they have recorded it?"
-> This argument seems plausible to me, but it is not proof. Has there been any analysis of this audio by an impartial party such as David Cole for example? I'm asking about an impartial analysis because some revisionists seem similarly fanatic as the exterminationists, in that they seem more interested in proving that the holocaust did not happen than they seem to be impartially interested in getting to the objective truth of the matter. What is required is a nonpartisan analysis of this recording.
I think it's important to remember that there are also recordings of Hitler where he mentions the "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa". Vernichtung definitely means extermination, not uprooting. This is a threat Hitler issued in 1939, in order to avert the allies from engaging in war with Germany, even though Hitler does not specify that the Jews will be exterminated by Germany. He only says that the extermination would be the result of a war. In other places he mentions that a second world war would cause a rise of antisemitism in every nation that got dragged into the war, so we might interpret that both ways.
2. "the German word 'ausrotten' means to uproot, not to exterminate"
This is false in the context of current-day German. "Ausrotten" definitely means (to) exterminate, "entwurzeln" would be the word for (to) uproot. That raises the question whether the German language could have evolved enough in the past 70 years to explain this difference in interpretation. I have my doubts for two reasons.
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. Click here for source.
2b. Himmler (if it is in fact him, and if the speech is in fact in its original unedited state) uses two other words to describe the treatment of the Jewish people: "ausschalten" und "umbringen". Ausschalten is somewhat ambiguous, but is also commonly associated with killing. Umbringen is unambiguous and always means (to) murder.
Quote from the speech:
Wir haben das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen.
Translation: We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us.
This sounds to me like Himmler definitely wanted the Jewish people to be completely exterminated, even though he saw this as an act of self defense in light of his view that the Jews were responsible for Germany's annihilation (WW1) and subsequent enslavement (Versailles) and furthermore responsible to the Bolshevik threat to Germany.
I'm especially puzzled why revisionists only debate the meaning of the word "ausrotten", when the word "umbringen" is also part of this speech - a word that unambiguously means (to) murder.
Unless, of course, the recording is either a fake (recorded by a voice actor) or has been meddled with (edited to make it sound like there was an extermination plan when in fact there wasn't and Himmler was speaking of something else).
Your thoughts, gentlemen?