'Keine Liquidierung' note debunked by Butz

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
jnovitz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 351
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 1:40 pm

Postby jnovitz » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:48 am)

Vlad, I admit I find Butz's argument peculiar

Anything that can indeed be liquidated. Trains you can't.


No but assets and property can. And the legal means to liquidate the financial assets of Jews who had been stripped of their citizenship had been promulgated just as this train was leaving Berlin. There may have been some grey area as to whether Jews being deported to Riga had immediately been stripped of their citizenship and if they fell under this new law vis a vis liquidation of assets. Jews on later transports most certainly did have their property liquidated.

As to the use of liquidation = to kill, I think the word would have acquired that meaning but only in relation to referring to Bolsheviks practices. Yet ironically, when the Soviets used the word it would not have meant to physically killed. Hence when Stalin published a pamphlet in 1929 "The Liquidation of the Kulak Class" he did not mean that he was publically announcing the physical killing of Kulaks. This usage was derived by anti-Soviets and anti-Bolsheviks in Western Europe to refer to Soviet practices - ie "they say liquidate but that is just a euphenism for killing".

As such we would expect to see Germans use liquidate in a negative sense to refer to Soviet practices such as in Goebbel's total war speech
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm
The German people, in any event, is unwilling to bow to this danger. Behind the oncoming Soviet divisions we see the Jewish liquidation commandos, and behind them terror, the specter of mass starvation and complete anarchy


But not to see it used in relation to their own policies, as they would differentiate themselves from Bolshevism. It was a new meaning to the word that had been developed in particular regard to Boshevism and Soviet terror.

Again, oddly, the Soviets would probably not have used the word Liquidate = to Kill, at all.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:26 pm)

jnovitz wrote:Vlad, I admit I find Butz's argument peculiar

Anything that can indeed be liquidated. Trains you can't.


No but assets and property can. And the legal means to liquidate the financial assets of Jews who had been stripped of their citizenship had been promulgated just as this train was leaving Berlin. There may have been some grey area as to whether Jews being deported to Riga had immediately been stripped of their citizenship and if they fell under this new law vis a vis liquidation of assets. Jews on later transports most certainly did have their property liquidated.

As to the use of liquidation = to kill, I think the word would have acquired that meaning but only in relation to referring to Bolsheviks practices. Yet ironically, when the Soviets used the word it would not have meant to physically killed. Hence when Stalin published a pamphlet in 1929 "The Liquidation of the Kulak Class" he did not mean that he was publically announcing the physical killing of Kulaks. This usage was derived by anti-Soviets and anti-Bolsheviks in Western Europe to refer to Soviet practices - ie "they say liquidate but that is just a euphenism for killing".

As such we would expect to see Germans use liquidate in a negative sense to refer to Soviet practices such as in Goebbel's total war speech
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb36.htm
The German people, in any event, is unwilling to bow to this danger. Behind the oncoming Soviet divisions we see the Jewish liquidation commandos, and behind them terror, the specter of mass starvation and complete anarchy


But not to see it used in relation to their own policies, as they would differentiate themselves from Bolshevism. It was a new meaning to the word that had been developed in particular regard to Boshevism and Soviet terror.

Again, oddly, the Soviets would probably not have used the word Liquidate = to Kill, at all.

jnovitz makes excellent points. Revisionists do not argue that Jews were not deported, relocated, and at times had their assets seized (assets that many felt were nefariously gained).

Butz's point is supported by dictionary information and jnovitz's point makes sense in lieu of my above statement about Jewish assets. Remember, Himmler was no Goethe, and his terminology may have had personal touches. However, I see no problem with Himmler writing 'no winding up of pending affairs / do not end' when making notes about a train. Clearly Butz and jnovitz both offer rational interpretations which debunk the unsupportable and silly 'extermination' canard that is often applied to this note.

jnovitz makes another nice point about the uses of words which Jewish supremacists twist to always mean 'extermination/murder' when applied to Germans, but are innocuous when applied to others. Recall the laughable claim of Germans using "code words". Such desperate claims occur when proof is lacking for 'the extermination of Jews'.

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

Vlad
Member
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 6:25 am

Postby Vlad » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:54 pm)

jnovitz wrote:As such we would expect to see Germans use liquidate in a negative sense to refer to Soviet practices such as in Goebbel[s]'s total war speech [...]

But not to see it used in relation to their own policies, as they would differentiate themselves from Bolshevism. It was a new meaning to the word that had been developed in particular regard to Boshevism and Soviet terror.

Maybe we would expect them not to, but there are examples to the contrary. And it's the actual usage that counts, not our abstract expectations. Cornelia Schmitz-Berning in her Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (p. 390) quotes a press directive, issued in November 1941, in which the replacement of standrechtliche Erschießung by liquidieren was censored as "highly inappropriate". Such a reminder wouldn't have been necessary if the term hadn't been used before.

Himmler obviously was above such directives. His note "Keine Liquidierung" may or may not refer to people, it may or may not refer to the line preceding it. We can only be sure that it doesn't refer to something that can't be liquidated, such as a train. Butz is on the wrong track, and it was wise of him to keep quiet in Irving's presence.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 7:17 pm)

Vlad says:
Cornelia Schmitz-Berning in her Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus (p. 390) quotes a press directive, issued in November 1941, in which the replacement of standrechtliche Erschießung by liquidieren was censored as "highly inappropriate". Such a reminder wouldn't have been necessary if the term hadn't been used before.

We can only be sure that it doesn't refer to something that can't be liquidated, such as a train

Ah yes, the 'codewords' canard as I referred to earlier.

A "press directive"?
From whom?
Can we see the context of this "directive"?
Can we see the actual "directive"
Why would it necessarily have been used before?
A more plausible explanation would be that 'liquidieren' is not a comparable term for 'standrechtliche Erschießung'.

I repeat, if Vlad and Wahrheit think trains can't be 'liquidierung' then their entire argument that claims 'this note proves the train was murdered (as in 'liquidated') is shot down. The note refers to a train and liquidierung. Do they think the note is bogus?

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

User avatar
Moderator
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 9:23 am

Postby Moderator » 1 decade 1 year ago (Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:44 pm)

Vlad,
Answer the questions, read the guidelines. You do not help yourself with evasive replies.
Only lies need to be shielded from debate, truth welcomes it.

Mannstein
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

Postby Mannstein » 1 decade 1 year ago (Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:20 pm)

I checked my Langenscheidt dictioanry first published in 1884 with additional updates in 1911, 1921, 1956, 1969, and 1970.

Liquidation in German is "winding up or charge" refered to in a financial sense.

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3438
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Postby Hektor » 1 decade 1 year ago (Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:21 am)

Image


There are other alternatives as well, for instance that the "Keine Liquidierung" doesn't relate to the "Judentransport" at all.
a) It is a point on its own.
b) It relates to the alleged son of Molotov.

Then we haven't even excluded that the "keine Liquidierung" has been inserted later. The distance to the next paragraph is closer then usual it seems.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 2 guests