Hitler's "End of European Jewry" speech

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Hitler's "End of European Jewry" speech

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:56 pm)

I don't know if it's ever been talked about here.

Exterminationists use this speech for evidence a lot.

Actually one of the best commentaries on the speech, is Julius Streicher at Nuremberg. It might be the ONLY commentary on it by someone close to Hitler. What we have of it: Julius Streicher's attempts to explain the speech and Hitler's words were repeatedly cut off by the English judge.

Essentially it was a veiled implied threat. It wasn't defined, it was purposely nebulous. Hitler maybe didn't mean it to be nebulous as a threat to kill all the Jews, he might have meant it to be nebulous as a threat to expell all the Jews.

There is a real possibility that he might have meant it to be a veiled threat to kill all the Jews. In that case, as Streicher pointed out, you could paraphrase it as this:

"If International Jewry succeeds in plunging Europe into war where millions of Germans are killed, we're going to see to it, that millions of Jews are killed."

But what are threats for? It's to make people back down. Sometimes they are a bluff. Even if it was a threat, in whatever interpretation, the fact is is he didn't act on it in a genocide way, and he did act on it in an expulsion way.

If he had acted on it in a genocidal way, there would be evidence, and there isn't any.

You can't kill 6 million people and then have as your evidence a number of books written in a novelistic Harry Potter creative writing style. And yet that is what a bulk of the evidence is. From Alexander Donat's "Death Camp Treblinka" to Elie Wiesel's Night.

Can you imagine if you went to research in Japan what it was like when the Hiroshima bomb was dropped, and you were presented with 5 books written in novelistic Harry Potter creative writing style??

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:22 pm)

Where did you find that "translation"?

This I presume is the speech he gave in the new Reichstag, which is on the World at War series and is translated with subtitles as:

"If International Jewry succeeds in plunging Europe into another war, it will be the end of the Jews in Europe"

No-where does he mention or imply "kill" in the World at War translation. Maybe since the World at War series was first aired in the early Seventies, some certain types have seen fit to embellish the translation a touch.

I think the original footage with subtitled translation; can be seen on the first episode "A new Germany"

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:45 pm)

Yes, that's the speech.

I think any average person could see a possibility of an innuendo of death in Hitler's statement regardless of the translation, and regardless if the word "kill" is not there. That's my guess.

I think it's better for revisionists to accept the innuendo, the implication, rather than deny that statement implies death whatsoever. I think it clearly could imply death, but threats are threats. The holocaust never happened.

Malle
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:53 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Malle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:52 pm)

Turpitz wrote:Where did you find that "translation"?

This I presume is the speech he gave in the new Reichstag, which is on the World at War series and is translated with subtitles as:

"If International Jewry succeeds in plunging Europe into another war, it will be the end of the Jews in Europe"

No-where does he mention or imply "kill" in the World at War translation. Maybe since the World at War series was first aired in the early Seventies, some certain types have seen fit to embellish the translation a touch.

I think the original footage with subtitled translation; can be seen on the first episode "A new Germany"


Turpitz, can you tell us where this passage is on the part 1 of 'The World At War'? I have vacuum cleaned the first part and I can't find it. :shock:
I must be a mushroom - because everyone keeps me in the dark and feeds me with lots of bullshit.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:11 pm)

Oh, I don't. I think a speech without an explicit reference to "killing" is a different matter altogether, to a speech that does not mention "killing".

I also don't think the average person is very much capable of seeing much at all sadly.

I also do not feel a great urge to accept a fraudulent translation that has twisted the words to include "killing" when no such word was mentioned.


Turpitz, can you tell us where this passage is on the part 1 of 'The World At War'? I have vacuum cleaned the first part and I can't find it.


If it is not on that episode try either "Distant War" or either of the last two episodes, I know it is there. I cannot tell you myself, though I still have the tapes somewhere, but I removed my Zionist mind narrower a long time ago, so I cannot play them nowadays. But I assure you it is on one of these episodes. Goering is sat at the back with a huge curtain draped behind him with a collosal eagle fronting it. Hitler is at a soap box in front.

Malle
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 6:53 pm
Location: Sweden

Postby Malle » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:19 pm)

Like you, I’m convinced that we can find it in some episode, but which? I will try some more. 8)
I must be a mushroom - because everyone keeps me in the dark and feeds me with lots of bullshit.

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Reinhard » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:33 pm)

The original German text of this part of Hitler's speech at the Reichstag on January 30th, 1939 is:

"Wenn es dem internationalen Finanzjudentum innerhalb und außerhalb Europas gelingen sollte, die Völker noch einmal in einen Weltkrieg zu stürzen, dann wird das Ergebnis nicht die Bolschewisierung der Erde und damit der Sieg des Judentums sein, sondern die Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa.
Denn die Zeit der propagandistischen Wehrlosigkeit der nichtjüdischen Völker ist zu Ende. Das nationalsozialistische Deutschland und das faschistische Italien besitzen jene Einrichtungen, die es gestatten, wenn notwendig, die Welt über das Wesen einer Frage aufzuklären, die vielen Völkern instinktiv bewußt, nur wissenschaftlich unklar ist.
Augenblicklich mag das Judentum in gewissen Staaten seine Hetze betreiben unter dem Schutz einer dort in seinen Händen befindlichen Presse, des Films, der Rundfunkpropaganda, der Theater, der Literatur usw. Wenn es diesem Volk aber noch einmal gelingen sollte, die Millionenmassen der Völker in einen für diese gänzlich sinnlosen und nur jüdischen Interessen dienenden Kampf zu hetzen, dann wird sich die Wirksamkeit einer Aufklärung äußern, der in Deutschland allein schon in wenigen Jahren das Judentum restlos erlegen ist."

English translation (I have to apologize for my bad English):

"If International Financial Jewry within and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once again into a world war, then the result will not be the bolshevisation of earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the destruction of the jewish race in Europe.
For the time of propagandistic defencelessness of the non-jewish nations has come to an end. National-socialist Germany and facist Italy have those institutions which allow, if necessary, to enlighten the world about the nature of a question which many nations are instinctively aware of, but is scientifically not clear to them.
For the moment being Jewry may in certain states conduct its agitation under protection of the press, movies, radiopropaganda, theatre, literature, etc. which are in their hands in those countries. But if this people should once again succeed to agitate the masses of the millions [of individuals] of the nations into a fight which is entirely useless for them and serves only jewish interests, the effectiveness of an enlightenment will occur which has brought down Jewry in Germany within only a few years completely."
[Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, "Der Auschwitz-Mythos. Legende oder Wirklichkeit? Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme", Historical Review Press, Brighton ²1984, p. 86/87]

Dr. Stäglich comments on this speech as follows:
"That these words were nothing else than an answer to the permanent war threats of influential zionist circles is quite obvious. They were meant to be a warning to the address of the zionist war agitators. So Härtle writes [Heinrich Härtle, "Freispruch für Deutschland", Schütz-Verlag, Göttingen 1965, p. 164] that with this speech, if anything, Hitler's will to keep peace by all means can be proven; he didn't want to start a war in order to be able to exterminate the jews, but he did threaten with the destruction of the jews in order to prevent a war from being started."
[ Dr. Wilhelm Stäglich, up.cit.]

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Sun Mar 19, 2006 9:24 pm)

Thanks Reinhard and welcome to the forum!

Prophetic. But I'm not going to go off topic and mention that he said everything short of mentioning "Ben Hecht" by name.

If I had to paraphrase, I'd say Hitler is saying this: "We can get the message out there on what Jews are really about via our propaganda, if we have to; and once that happens, the masses aren't going to welcome Jews in their midst."

What supports that interpretation, is he said it had already happened in Germany: Jews were moving out. Some synagogues were burned. But not genocide. Genocide hadn't happened in Germany.

But keep in mind that "the destruction of the Jewish Race" is not the same as "the eviction of the Jewish Race" though he could have meant that. It's not clear. If someone said to me "He meant genocide!!" I'd reply "You might be right, but he never did do it. It was a threat. If he'd really done it, there'd be evidence."

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 20, 2006 5:42 am)

Thank you for a slightly more honest translation Reinhard.

but the destruction of the jewish race in Europe


Exactly what it says if you can utilize the whole sentence.

The charade of Jews acting as a race of Europe will be destroyed, they will no longer be recognized as part of Europe,

"the effectiveness of an enlightenment will occur which has brought down Jewry in Germany within only a few years completely."



"Brought down Jewry" Exactly what it says, no longer seen as part of Germany but as aliens and enemies of the state.


The very fact that someone from your first translation has thought it necessary to change the wording to "we're going to see to it, that millions of Jews are killed." only goes to highlight the worthless nature of this speech and to give it a more sinister meaning. The Wannsee nonsense is the same, another load of worthless tripe that has to be misenterpreted in order to fit their lies.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:53 am)

"the effectiveness of an enlightenment will occur which has brought down Jewry in Germany within only a few years completely."


Also whatever Hitler is thinking it has already taken place in Germany going by this paragraph, because it is past tense. He is suggesting what has already happened in Germany "within only a few years completely" will hopefully happen all across Europe. So what had happened in Germany to the Jews up until January 1939?

Some synagogues were burned.


Yes, but in light of more recent events where these types have been caught red-handed on numerous occasions defiling their own property, one must be very wary of just who might have burnt these synagogues and smashed the glass.....Ahemm!

Reinhard
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 238
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 1:30 pm

Postby Reinhard » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:57 am)

Turpitz wrote: The Wannsee nonsense is the same, another load of worthless tripe that has to be misenterpreted in order to fit their lies.


There is very strong evidence that the "Wannsee-Protokoll" is fake. I don't want to go too much into detail here, because I think it's a bit off topic in this thread, but there are many very strange things about that "document", beginning with the two invitations to the conference of Nov 29th, 1941 and - for the conference had been postponed - January 8th, 1942 which both invite to a conference at noon (12 o'clock) "mit anschließendem Frühstück" ("with subsequent breakfast")!!
Moreover Heydrich who allegedly presided the conference, doesn't even show up in the list of participants in the "protocoll" which also doesn't contain the time (beginning and end) of the conference or the name of the person who wrote down that protocoll.
Furthermore, Heydrich seems not to have been in Berlin at all on January 20th, 1942, he was in Prague at 5 p.m. and attended the swearing of the new Czech cabinet by President Hacha [Günther Deschner, "Reinhard Heydrich. Statthalter der totalen Macht", Bechtle, Esslingen ³1992, p. 248 - Deschner's source: "Amtsblatt des Protektorats Böhmen und Mähren, Januar 1942", pp. 557-561].

The two German revisionist authors Roland Bohlinger and Johannes P. Ney have the exposed "Wannsee-Protokoll" to be fake. Their book is can be downloaded in pdf-format at:
http://vho.org/dl/DEU/gutachten.pdf

It contains facsimiles of the different versions of the protocoll, the invitations and the accompanying letter which was sent with the protocoll (all exist in two versions: one with SS-runes, one without those. One version has been published by the Jew Robert M.W. Kempner, but both are supposed to be "genuine").

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:06 pm)

Turpitz wrote, regarding what Hitler meant:
The charade of Jews acting as a race of Europe will be destroyed, they will no longer be recognized as part of Europe,

But Hitler never thought the "race" part was a charade. He thought the "religion" part was more of a charade. He believed in thinking of them as a race and not so much as a religion.

That the phrase "destruction of European Jewry" doesn't have the word "kill" in it, and thus doesn't really mean "kill the Jews" is a weak position I think. From reading the whole thing one could have different interpretations.

But keep in mind that a close friend of Hitler's, Julius Streicher, implied in Der Stürmer that Hitler was killing the Jews, and it was a fulfillment of "the speech." But here it gets complicated, because Streicher also sent photographers to the Warsaw ghettos, and the photos don't support the genocide story. And here's Streicher at Nuremberg, in spite of being held in prison, you can maybe glean something from this interaction:

STREICHER: No. I declare that whoever got to know the Fuehrer's deepest emotions and his soul, as I have personally, and

368

29 April 46

then later had to learn from his testament that he, in full possession of his faculties, consciously gave the order for mass extermination, is confronted with a riddle. I state here...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We really don't want another long speech about the Fuehrer. Just turn over the page and look at what is being said on the 26th of March:

http://yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm



They cut him off, as they so often do at Nuremberg, but you could sort of see where he was going.

It's also important to know that the allied interrogators had partially convinced Streicher that there was a genocide. Notice how he mentions "consciously gave the order" and of course we know now there's no evidence of that. Raul Hilberg even had to retract saying this in later editions of his book.

Turpitz
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 978
Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 12:57 pm

Postby Turpitz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:06 pm)

I know Hitler knew they were a race, whoever mentioned that he didn’t?

My position is weak!?!

Okay then, even though I cannot find in the speech any reference to 'killing', we will for the sake of argument suppose Hitler is saying he is going to 'kill' all the Jews in this speech.

Explain to me then how and where this killing took place?

End of the story!

Once you are drawn from the confines of the paper and pie-chart sphere, and taken outside into the realms of physical and practical issues, the industry self implodes. That is the very reason why the industry has had to desperately try and misinterpret a speech from 1939 and use it as evidence for the physical murder of the eternal “six million”. Surely that must be seen as the biggest sign of weakness?

Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Dec 03, 2006 7:07 pm)

Carto's Cutlass Supreme wrote:Turpitz wrote, regarding what Hitler meant:
The charade of Jews acting as a race of Europe will be destroyed, they will no longer be recognized as part of Europe,

But Hitler never thought the "race" part was a charade. He thought the "religion" part was more of a charade. He believed in thinking of them as a race and not so much as a religion.

That the phrase "destruction of European Jewry" doesn't have the word "kill" in it, and thus doesn't really mean "kill the Jews" is a weak position I think. From reading the whole thing one could have different interpretations.

But keep in mind that a close friend of Hitler's, Julius Streicher, implied in Der Stürmer that Hitler was killing the Jews, and it was a fulfillment of "the speech." But here it gets complicated, because Streicher also sent photographers to the Warsaw ghettos, and the photos don't support the genocide story. And here's Streicher at Nuremberg, in spite of being held in prison, you can maybe glean something from this interaction:

STREICHER: No. I declare that whoever got to know the Fuehrer's deepest emotions and his soul, as I have personally, and

368

29 April 46

then later had to learn from his testament that he, in full possession of his faculties, consciously gave the order for mass extermination, is confronted with a riddle. I state here...

LT. COL. GRIFFITH-JONES: We really don't want another long speech about the Fuehrer. Just turn over the page and look at what is being said on the 26th of March:

http://yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/04-29-46.htm



They cut him off, as they so often do at Nuremberg, but you could sort of see where he was going.

It's also important to know that the allied interrogators had partially convinced Streicher that there was a genocide. Notice how he mentions "consciously gave the order" and of course we know now there's no evidence of that. Raul Hilberg even had to retract saying this in later editions of his book.


Streicher is not referring to the January 30 1939 speech here, he is referring to another document, a "Hitler last will and testament" which was never introduced into evidence and which nobody has ever seen. It's not the document later published under that name, which David Irving says is a fake. It's something that simply appeared and disappeared. It's a "confession" by Hitler just before he kills himself. If this document was convincing enough to fool Streicher why didn't they introduce it into evidence?

driansmith
Member
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 8:10 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Postby driansmith » 1 decade 3 years ago (Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:56 pm)

Wow, I didn't know that Irving believes that the last will and testament were fake. I had come to that conclusion entirely from my own research over the last few days, and thought I was being original!

To summarise my research, the mains points are:

1) no copy of the so-called 'last will and testament' ever reached the intended recipients (if, indeed, Hitler ever wrote a 'last will and testament')

2) all three copies fell into the hands of the Americans!

What a coincidence!


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests