Posen 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!
User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3303
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Re:

Postby Hektor » 6 years 6 months ago (Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:03 am)

Reviso wrote:
Hektor wrote:
What exactly did Gottlob Berger say?


You can read it here :
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... l-XIII.pdf

Here are the interesting passages :
"I learned there for the first time that a very considerable plan existed but that wasn't a plan for brutal extermination, it was a plan for the evacuation of all of the Jews from the German Reich." (p. 474)
About the Poznan speech, he says : "I can say with certainty that he did not speak about the extermination of the Jews, because the reason for this meeting was to equalize and adjust these tremendous tensions between the Waffen SS and the Police. " (p. 475).

Interestingly, I do not get this via google. Are the respective web sites displaying the Nuremberg documents not having this on them or did google's spider just neglect to list the relevant pages?

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Reviso » 6 years 6 months ago (Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:28 am)

Hektor wrote:Interestingly, I do not get this via google. Are the respective web sites displaying the Nuremberg documents not having this on them or did google's spider just neglect to list the relevant pages?


I presume it is "deep web" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3303
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Re:

Postby Hektor » 6 years 6 months ago (Mon Jan 14, 2013 12:54 pm)

Reviso wrote:...
I presume it is "deep web" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Web

You are probably right, but then one still should be able to find it, if one knows the date of the proceedings.

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Reviso » 6 years 6 months ago (Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:58 pm)

Hektor wrote:You are probably right, but then one still should be able to find it, if one knows the date of the proceedings.


Yes, it would be useful if detailed tables were available on Internet. I don't know if there exists anything better than this :

NMT : http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... inals.html
(See also http://www.mazal.org/nmt-home.htm )

IMT : http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... inals.html
(See also : http://www.mazal.org/imt-home.htm )

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re:

Postby Zulu » 6 years 6 months ago (Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:53 pm)

Hannover wrote:So johng, where's your voice authentication? Do tell.

And wow, a "secret" speech that was recorded. Sure, right.
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 Posen speech, that Himmler used the term, Judenevakuierung, or evacuation of the Jews, not extermination.

Oops.

- Hannover

The topic is well addressed by Vincent Reynouard in his video "Hitler, Himmler et l' "Holocauste" (2/2). Le discours de Posen le 4 octobre 1943"
Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAhSna80FUU
The issue is that the video is in French so, I'll try to develop hereafter the main points as well as I can. I reconstituted also the documents which don't appear entirely in a same frame of the video.
The speech was so "secret" that a transcription was elaborated afterwards and conserved. Eventually, the Allies captured it.
On the official transcription of the speech conserved in the Nuremberg archives (page 64) the title of the chapter is "Die Judenevacuierung", the genuine document received the 1919-PS.

Himmler Transcript p 64.jpg
Himmler Transcript p 64.jpg (36.37 KiB) Viewed 4322 times

Moreover, the Allies not only captured the transcription but also the personal notes of Himmler which were made for structuring his speech. The manuscript notes confirms on page 9 the title of the passage as "Judenevacuierung".

Himmler Notes 1.jpg
Notes p.1

Himmler Notes 9.jpg
Himmler Notes 9.jpg (16.08 KiB) Viewed 4322 times

That point is important and was considered as such by the IMT prosecutors. In fact, there is a first translation of the transcription made on October 29, 1945, for establishing an analysis of the Himmler's speech in order to help the prosecutors at the Nuremberg trial.
On point 3, the analysis mentions "Pages 64-67 are devoted to the "evacuation" of the Jews.
Later, on November 16, 1945 an official translation was issued where the title "Judenevacuierung" is correctly translated on page 64 by "The Evacuation of the Jews". That translation was certified by ?? Sheriff.

Himmlet Translation 1.jpg

However, 1 month later US lawyer Thomas Dodd pronounced his final submission by quoting Document 1919-PS ( Exhibit Number USA-170) as such
Himmler in 1943 indicated that use of the concentration camp against the Jews had been motivated not simply by Nazi racialism. Himmler indicated that this policy had been motivated by a fear that the Jews might have been an obstacle to aggression. There is no necessity to consider whether this fear was justified. The important consideration is that the fear existed; and with reference to it we refer to Document 1919-PS, which bears Exhibit Number USA-170. The document is a speech delivered by Himmler at the meeting of the SS major generals at Posen on 4 October 1943, in the course of which he sought to justify the Nazi anti-Jewish policy. We refer to a portion of this document or this speech, which is found on Page I, Paragraph 3, of the English translation, starting with the Words, "I mean the clearing out of the Jews":

"I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It's one of those things it is easy to talk about. 'The Jewish race is being exterminated', says one Party member, 'that's quite clear; it's in our program; elimination of the

500

13 Dec. 45

Jews, and we're doing it, exterminating them.' And then there come 80 million worthy Germans and each one has his decent Jew. Of course, the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Not one of all those who talk this way has witnessed it, not one of them has been through it. Most of you must know what it means when 100 corpses are lying side by side, or 500 or 1,000. To have stuck it out and at the same time-apart from exceptions caused by human weakness-to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written, for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if-with bombing raids, the burden and deprivations of war-we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators, and trouble mongers."
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/12-13-45.asp

The prosecution had thus falsified the text in order to make disappear the word "evacuation of the Jews". That fraud was not innocent; "the clearing out of the Jews" implies actually the "elimination of the Jews" and gives the following word Ausrotten a signification he didn't have in the speech...That falsification was deliberated as it can be proved. Soon in 1946, the USA published the American version of all the documents which were used at the Nuremberg trial. In the Volume IV figures the Document 1919-PS. It can be observed in it that the chapter has the title "Clearing out of the Jews" which is very different from that of the first "official translation": "The Evacuation of the Jews". Two years after, the very same falsified version was used by the Prosecution against the accused of the "Pohl case"
MR. MCHANEY: The systematic and relentless annihilation of the Jewish people by the Nazis constitutes one of the blackest pages in the history of the civilized world. This mad program of wholesale slaughter also included other groups considered racially inferior, such as the Poles, but the Jew was especially marked for destruction. This crime of genocide was part of the Nazi doctrine of total warfare, war waged against populations rather than against states and armed forces. One must search as far back as the massacres by Genghis Khan and by Tamerlane to find anything remotely comparable to the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis. Hans Frank, former Governor General of the occupied Polish territories and a defendant before the International Military Tribunal, spoke the truth when he testified: "A thousand years will pass and this guilt of Germany will still not be erased".

An introduction to this crime of mass murder and the part played in it by the WVHA and these defendants can perhaps best be given in the words of Reich Leader SS Himmler. On 4 October 1943, he said to a meeting of SS Gruppenfuehrers at Poznan:

"I also want to talk to you quite frankly on a very grave matter. Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly and yet we will never speak of it publicly. Just as we did not hesitate on 30 June 1934 to do the duty we were bidden and stand comrades who had lapsed, up against the wall and shoot them; so we have never spoken about it and will never speak of it. It was that tact which is a matter of course and which, I am glad to say, is inherent in us that made us never discuss it among ourselves, never speak of it. It appalled everyone, and yet everyone was certain that he would do it the next time if such orders are issued and if it is necessary."

"I mean the clearing out of the Jews, the extermination of the Jewish race. It's one of those things. It is easy to talk about 'the Jewish race is being exterminated,' says one Party member, 'that's quite clear, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews and we're doing it, exterminating them.' And then they come, 80 million worthy Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. Of course the others are vermin, but this one is an A-1 Jew. Not one of all those who talk this way has witnessed it, not one of them has been through it. Most of you must know what it means when one hundred corpses are lying side by side, or five hundred, or a thousand. To have stuck it out and at the same time apart from exceptions caused by human weakness to have remained decent fellows, that is what has made us hard. This is a page of glory in our history which has never been written, for we know how difficult we should have made it for ourselves, if with the bombing raids, the burdens, and the deprivations of war we still had Jews today in every town as secret saboteurs, agitators, and trouble-mongers. We would now probably have reached the 1916-17 stage when the Jews were still in the German national body.

"We have taken from them what wealth they had. I have issued a strict order, which SS Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl has carried out, that this wealth should, as a matter of course, be handed over to the Reich without reserve."

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/open4.asp ,

On the "Official" document corresponding to the "altered" translation it appears that the last page with the certification by ?? Sheriff is the same than on the first "genuine" one. However, one or several pages were evidently substituted in the document including the page containing the title "The Evacuation of the Jews" changed then by the page bearing "The clearing out of the Jews". The falsification was not only deliberated but also very organized in order to be masked.
That is a blatant proof that the expression "Judenevacuierung" was capital for the comprehension of the Himmler's speech. Hadn't been such word so important, the Prosecution wouldn't have performed such tricky manipulation of the transcription's translation. In his speech, Himmler talked about the evacuation of the Jews and not about their physical "extermination". Ausrotten understood as "eradication" is the logical complement of a drastic evacuation
The speech is real, the "interpretation" through a falsified translation used by the IMT is fraudulent.

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Reviso » 6 years 5 months ago (Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:31 am)

Zulu wrote:The prosecution had thus falsified the text in order to make disappear the word "evacuation of the Jews".


Interesting, Zulu, but I'm not sure that I understand your meaning perfectly.
Document 1919-PS (containing the Posen Speech) is integrally reproduced, in German, in vol. 29 of IMT, p. 110-173 :
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... l-XXIX.pdf

The passage about the "Judenevakuierung" is p. 145-146. Do you think that this passage is authentic ? Stäglich thinks that it is falsified.

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Re:

Postby Zulu » 6 years 5 months ago (Tue Jan 15, 2013 12:47 pm)

Reviso wrote:
Zulu wrote:The prosecution had thus falsified the text in order to make disappear the word "evacuation of the Jews".


Interesting, Zulu, but I'm not sure that I understand your meaning perfectly.
Document 1919-PS (containing the Posen Speech) is integrally reproduced, in German, in vol. 29 of IMT, p. 110-173 :
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... l-XXIX.pdf

The passage about the "Judenevakuierung" is p. 145-146. Do you think that this passage is authentic ? Stäglich thinks that it is falsified.

Well, I don't know really why it would be falsified. If it were, the title of the chapter wouldn't have been "Evacuation of the Jews" (Judenevakuierung) but "Clearing out of the Jews" (Vernichtung der Juden) as on the altered translation.
The manipulation of that text by the Prosecution is very indicative about the general policy of that Trial. Any mean was good to charge the Nazis. If they falsified the translation, it is because the primary source was too much innocent. In a context of "Evacuation of the Jews" (reinforced by the handwritten note of Himmler) the word Ausrotten is not criminal anymore as his translation MUST BE "eradication" and not "extermination". For instance, the policy of ethnic cleansing carried out by Israel against Palestinians since 1948 is a policy of "eradication" and not of "extermination" (for the moment).
In any case, as says Vincent Reynouard in the video, a speech is not a proof for anything. It is at least an indication of something with no value for supporting the reality of the extermination of 6 million people. Material proofs are needed.
Could we support the reality of an extermination of US citizens from Japanese origin by the exhibition of these speeches by US authorities ?
Concerns over the loyalty of ethnic Japanese seemed to stem as much from racial prejudice than evidence of actual malfeasance. Major Karl Bendetsen and Lieutenant General John L. DeWitt, head of the Western Command, each questioned Japanese American loyalty. DeWitt, who administered the internment program, repeatedly told newspapers that "A Jap's a Jap" and testified to Congress,

"I don't want any of them [persons of Japanese ancestry] here. They are a dangerous element. There is no way to determine their loyalty... It makes no difference whether he is an American citizen, he is still a Japanese. American citizenship does not necessarily determine loyalty... But we must worry about the Japanese all the time until he is wiped off the map".[21][22]

A viper is nonetheless a viper wherever the egg is hatched... So, a Japanese American born of Japanese parents, nurtured upon Japanese traditions, living in a transplanted Japanese atmosphere... notwithstanding his nominal brand of accidental citizenship almost inevitably and with the rarest exceptions grows up to be a Japanese, and not an American... Thus, while it might cause injustice to a few to treat them all as potential enemies, I cannot escape the conclusion... that such treatment... should be accorded to each and all of them while we are at war with their race."[33]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
21- Fred Mullen, "DeWitt Attitude on Japs Upsets Plans," Watsonville Register-Pajaronian, April 16, 1943. p.1, reproduced by Santa Cruz Public Library. Retrieved September 11, 2006.
22 - Testimony of John L. DeWitt, April 13, 1943, House Naval Affairs Subcommittee to Investigate Congested
Areas, Part 3, pp. 739-40 (78th Cong ., 1st Sess.), cited in Korematsu v. United States, footnote 2,
reproduced at findlaw.com. Retrieved September 11, 2006.
33 - Niiya, Brian. Japanese American History. 1993, page 54.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_A ... internment

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9778
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Hannover » 6 years 5 months ago (Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:04 pm)

Reviso wrote:The passage about the "Judenevakuierung" is p. 145-146. Do you think that this passage is authentic ? Stäglich thinks that it is falsified.

Are you referring to the entire "passage" being falsified or the word "Judenevakuierung"? There is a difference. Will you please quote what Staeglich says about this?

Thanks, Hannover
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Reviso » 6 years 5 months ago (Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:26 pm)

Hannover wrote:Are you referring to the entire "passage" being falsified or the word "Judenevakuierung"? There is a difference. Will you please quote what Staeglich says about this?


Note that if the "transcription" is authentic, Himmler said : "Wir hatten das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht gegenüber unserem Volk, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen.", which means "We had the moral right, we had the duty towards our people, to kill that people who wanted to kill us".
The book of Stäglich can be readen here :
http://www.nemw.net/pdf/jews/AUSCHWITZ- ... IDENCE.pdf

He writes (p. 38 of the pdf) : "There is considerable doubt as to whether the versions of the speeches that were presented to a horrified world after the fall
of the Third Reich were identical with speeches Himmler may actually have delivered."

P. 39 : "But those who are acquainted with the facts of this period in history will find it difficult to believe that Himmler made all these remarks, some of which are utterly
nonsensical. A fair guess is that certain passages necessary to the continuity of the document are missing, for no logical connection really exists between the things Himmler purportedly discussed in this speech."

Same p. 39 : "Let us examine some details of Himmler's alleged statements which not only indicate that the passage quoted above is
incomplete, but also add to the suspicion that it may be forged. Above all, it is astonishing that Himmier should have had no qualms about defining "evacuation of the Jews" as
"extermination of the Jewish people." Of course, one may claim that he was simply employing the "code-words" purportedly used by functionaries involved in the "extermination program," but, as we have noted, there is no proof that such a jargon existed. The audience for this speech was definitely not composed of those SS leaders who might have been involved in the "secret extermination of the Jews" -- assuming for a moment there was such a plan. If they had been, Himmler surely would have commented in greater detail on this subject, instead of limiting himself to generalities. All things considered, it is quite improbable that he would have suddeniy confronted an unprepared audience with the "real" meaning of the term "evacuation of the Jews." If the "extermination of the Jews" were, as is usually claimed, so highly
secret that Hitler personally communicated to Himmler the order to carry it out, would Himmler have discussed this matter before a large assembly of men who had little or nothing to do with it? Here one recalls that it is frequently alleged, on the basis of statements made by Rudolf Höß, that Himmler personally transmitted Hitler's "secret order" for the "extermination of the Jews" to Höß, the commandant of Auschwitz, instructing him to keep absolutely silent about it. If this were so, Himmler would not have enlarged the circle of initiates to any great extent, even without going into details. Hence this portion of the speech cannot be authentic."

P. 40 : "Just as incongruous is the statement in the second paragraph of the address: "We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us" ("Wir hatten das morahsche Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht gegenüber unserem Volk, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen"). Himmler allegedly said this when discussing the confiscation of the evacuated Jews' wealth. In that context, it stands out as a foreign body. Since the Jews still residing in Germany and German-occupied territory were -- considering that a war was going on -- undoubtedly a security risk, as Himmler pointed out, their evacuation and internment in camps or ghettos was perhaps necessary, but not their murder, which is what the word "umbringen" ("destroy," "kill") denotes. It may be argued that the Jews were
quarantined out of racial hatred, not for any logical reason. But that would not explain why Himmler had no reservations about discussing an "extermination plan" when the official line was that the Jews were simply being "evacuated" eastwards. To say that this was, after all, a "secret speech" is to beg the question."
Reviso

User avatar
Zulu
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 9:44 am

Re: Re:

Postby Zulu » 6 years 5 months ago (Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:12 pm)

Reviso wrote:
Hannover wrote:Are you referring to the entire "passage" being falsified or the word "Judenevakuierung"? There is a difference. Will you please quote what Staeglich says about this?


Note that if the "transcription" is authentic, Himmler said : "Wir hatten das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht gegenüber unserem Volk, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen.", which means "We had the moral right, we had the duty towards our people, to kill that people who wanted to kill us".
The book of Stäglich can be readen here :
http://www.nemw.net/pdf/jews/AUSCHWITZ- ... IDENCE.pdf

P. 40 : "Just as incongruous is the statement in the second paragraph of the address: "We had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us" ("Wir hatten das morahsche Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht gegenüber unserem Volk, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen"). Himmler allegedly said this when discussing the confiscation of the evacuated Jews' wealth. In that context, it stands out as a foreign body. Since the Jews still residing in Germany and German-occupied territory were -- considering that a war was going on -- undoubtedly a security risk, as Himmler pointed out, their evacuation and internment in camps or ghettos was perhaps necessary, but not their murder, which is what the word "umbringen" ("destroy," "kill") denotes. It may be argued that the Jews were
quarantined out of racial hatred, not for any logical reason. But that would not explain why Himmler had no reservations about discussing an "extermination plan" when the official line was that the Jews were simply being "evacuated" eastwards. To say that this was, after all, a "secret speech" is to beg the question."
Reviso

It is possible that in that speech, Himmler was not referring to Jewish people as individuals but as an ideological/racial entity which was of terribly bad influence for Germany. "Destroy this people" in that meaning is to destroy their power as an influent homogeneous entity and their corresponding ability of nuisance for the German people (moral duty). So, the way chosen for such destruction here was their eradication. To me, the title of "Evacuation of the Jews" gives the main meaning of the context. In the exterminationist interpretation if the Himmler's intention was the extermination of the Jews, that title is a nonsense. However, Himmler put "Evacuation of the Jews" on his notes as a milestone for that part of his speech. Hence, he actually meant "Evacuation of the Jews" and their complete eradication from III Reich. That was what was understood by the Prosecution. So, they altered the translation in order to change the meaning despite a primary correct analysis of the transcription which states on point 3: "Pages 64-67 are devoted to the "evacuation" of the Jews." Vincent Reynouard shows the document of this analysis in his video. It would be interesting to obtain a copy of it.

Reviso
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:21 pm

Re: Re:

Postby Reviso » 6 years 5 months ago (Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:57 am)

Thanks for your replies to my question, Zulu.
Reviso

User avatar
hermod
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2076
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:52 am

Re: Posen speech

Postby hermod » 4 years 10 months ago (Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:55 pm)

Just found this video: http://trutube.tv/video/16066/Heinrich- ... ion-Speech

In 1993, Robert Wolfe, the supervisory archivist for captured German records famous for saying that a more precise translation of "ausrottung" would be "extirpation" or "tearing up by the roots", stated: "The [handwritten] notes [byHimmler] give them (the transcripts) their authenticity." Waw! Such notes look like something so easy to fake. What kid or teen didn't try, with more or less success and credibility, to fake his parents' signature or handwritting after getting bad grades at school? Did Mr Wolfe imply that it was physically impossible to imitate Himmler's handwriting? Or were those notes just too convenient to consider that option?

Image
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 73,1403656

And there is a controversy about that, but it's said that some of Churchill's wartime speeches were delivered by a well-known radio actor named Norman Shelley (http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/O ... 91000.html). So there is nothing crazy in the assumption of a voice imitator having recorded the debated part of Himmler's Posen speech for Allied propagandistic purposes.
"But, however the world pretends to divide itself, there are ony two divisions in the world to-day - human beings and Germans. – Rudyard Kipling, The Morning Post (London), June 22, 1915

User avatar
fountainhead
Member
Member
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu May 19, 2011 8:46 pm

Re: Posen speech

Postby fountainhead » 4 years 10 months ago (Sat Sep 06, 2014 4:44 pm)

Anyone have a response to Johng's posting of the excerpt from the 6 October speech which purportedly defines the true meaning of ausrotten? I didn't see it addressed anywhere. I'll quote again below for convenience:
Es trat an uns die Frage heran: Wie ist es mit den Frauen und Kindern? - Ich habe mich entschlossen, auch hier eine ganz klare Loesung zu finden. Ich hielt mich naemlich nicht fuer berechtigt, die Maenner auszurotten - SPRICH ALSO UMZUBRINGEN ODER UMBRINGEN=20 ZU LASSEN - und die Raecher in Gestalt der Kinder fuer unsere Soehne und Enkel gross werden zu lassen. Es musste der schwere Entschluss gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen.

We were confronted with the question: what about the women and children? - I have decided to find here too an absolutely clear solution. That means, I considered myself not authorized to exterminate the men – (IN OTHER WORDS TO KILL THEM OR TO ORDER THEM TO BE KILLED) - and to allow the children to grow up as avengers on our sons and grandchildren. The very difficult decision had to be made to make this people vanish from the earth.

Wonder why everyone focuses on the 4 October speech. This one sounds more incriminating and yet Nizkor doesn't even seem to have this at their site. More incriminating specifically because of the very last phrase: "from the earth". Unless there is some problem with the translation, "make this people vanish" could still have meant make them vanish from the continent but the addition of "from the earth" sounds more like extermination.

Again, however, perhaps this is taken out of context as I can't find a transcript of the rest of the 6 October speech nor can I find a recording of it. For example, I have just read in another thread on the Sonthofen speeches a very similar sounding passage which refers specifically to partisans and commisars:
"[...] Thus I have basically given the order to also kill the wives and children of these partisans, and commissars. I would be a weakling and a criminal to our descendants if I allowed the hate-filled sons of the sub-humans we have liquidated in this struggle of humanity against subhumanity to grow up."


But at Posen he does say "dieses Volk"/"this people" which sounds equivalent to an entire race of people. The meaning would change if this is interpreted, instead, as "these people" as in "these particular partisans, commisars and their families".

Any thoughts? Do you think this excerpt too is an outright forgery?
Who controls the past controls the future.
Who controls the present controls the past.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3303
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re: Posen speech

Postby Hektor » 4 years 4 months ago (Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:49 am)

Interestingly Heinrich Himmler also held a speech on 18.11.1943 in front of SS-leaders of the generalgouvernment.
There he mentions:
"Juden, die ja jetzt ausgewandert sind, nach dem Osten verbracht wurden"

You can find that from ~33:00 and here the speech:
https://archive.org/details/HeinrichHim ... uvernement

Excerpt translates as:"Jews, which now have emigrated, were brought to the East."

There is no sarcasm in his voice, when he says this and it's a far more selective circle he's talking to.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests