Himmler's so called "Extermination of Jews" speech

[BelzeBob]

Yes, I've heard that "recently obtained" Himmler speech about exterminating the Jews.... Though I think it's made in a studio using modern voice-print technology. (Well, that's another story maybe.)

You have a theory for this?, if so please start a new thread, anything that undermines the myth is helpful.

A small mention of this on another forum:
http://www.outlawjournalism.com/forum/v ... ht=himmler

Bear with me, I don't know how to embed videos on this forum yet - please click here for the speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_XS3Xra0Xs

Himmler uses the word "ausruttung", which in my opinion (being Norwegian and having no doubt that this German word, which basically is the same in Norwegian and Swedish) really means exterminate .

I've seen others trying to explain this away by saying that Himmler really meant something else by arguing the semantics. But to me, there's nothing to argue about when it comes to the words of the speech; Himmler is really talking about exterminating the Jews.

But some questions are in order:

1. Why would Mr. Himmler decide to have his speech in a super-secret SS meeting recorded?

2. Why is it that this speech was "discovered" about half a century after it was (allegedly) made...?

3. My most important point here: voice-print technology:



Perhaps you saw Tom Hanks shake hands with Nixon in "Forrest Gump"? Well, this is one thing that can be done in a Hollywood studio today.

Another thing that I believe can be done, using modern technology, is replicating the voice of any historical person. Voice-prints. I believe it works like this:

1. Every single person has a unique voice print. With just a few speech samples it's possible to establish the "voice signature" (or voice pattern) of anybody. This signature shows up on a computer screen as a certain repeating pattern; a kind of wave.

2. In this case it's Himmler's voice we're interested in. Surely a whole lot of recordings of Himmler's voice are available. When all those recordings, or a sufficient variety of samples (vocabulary, various modes of speaking / various emotional shades in the speech) are fed into a computer with a voice print software program, it would then logically be possible to engineer a brand new speech based on the established voice print. The voice print incl. patterns of pausing between words, intonations, flow etc.

3. Conclusion: (my theory about this speech): it was made very recently in a modern studio. Himmler never gave that speech.

Well... (like I speculated on that other forum discussion I linked to) - it could also be that it was authentic. But in the light of everything else we know about the German Nazi organization and their program(s), it makes little sense. Why would Himmler give such an "order"? Wasn't Himmler the same guy that insisted on actually treating the concentration camp inmates well, and even punished some officer for having abused a Jewish inmate?

And, all our evidence definitely points in the direction that no "mass extermination" of Jews ever took place. So, was this just some personal "crazy idea" of Himmler? (Going behind Hitler's back, making this speech, and even recording it? Does it make sense?)

No. My belief is that the speech never took place.

...................................

Something more about voice-print technology. Do you remember the 4 or 5 "Bin Laden videos" of recent years? One Swiss institute applied this science there, and compared the voice print of Bin Laden's 100% confirmed speeches with the speech in one of those new (fake) videos, and found that the voice prints didn't match.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Fake_ ... audio_tape

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/ ... 99712.html

This could also be the case with the Himmler speech. ...Maybe it's not Himmler's voice at all. That's one more thought.

(anyone knows how to embed videos + use the italics/bold/color on words? Please PM me and tell me how. So I can improve my posts a little...)

[German]

To me, this is, or was, something that was unsolved.

First I would say that the word ausrotten, "get rid of/take away" is not so sinister if you consider the following analysis.
If you say that you will exterminate poverty, that doesn´t mean that you will kill every poor person you see, right?
What Hitler actually has said was that he wanted to exterminate "Judentum" "jewery", alias "the jewish style" from Europe.

Regarding faking the Himler Posen speeches, I agree that modern technique is the answer. There also seems to be a written version, that David Irving has exposed. The "sensitive" parts is written with a different typewriter/different style. If I remember correctly, there is also at least one SS-officer that was attending the meeting, which has stated that he does not recognize the part when Himler talks about killing jews.

[BelzeBob]

Hi German

Here from the "Holocausters":
http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmle ... tten.shtml

No, I wouldn't argue the meaning of "ausrotten". The meaning of this German/Scandinavian (utrydde/utrota) word is very clear; if you talk about "ausrotten" people, you mean killing them.

He also says "umbringen" which means "kill".

I think the problem is that Himmler never said those words. And I go with the speech-forgery / voice print theory.

From the "Holocausters"' article:

"First, they occasionally argue, the speech is a forgery.

This is simply not tenable -- the original recordings are in the possession of the United States National Archives in College Park, Maryland. Anyone who wishes can send a letter to the National Archives and Record Association, as this writer did, and obtain a cassette-tape copy. The voice is clearly Himmler's, the notes for the speech cover the whole three hours (this portion included), and there is not a single shred of evidence of any kind to suggest this tape is forged or edited."

Oki-doki. But do we have computers running voice print / voice replication technology in our homes? I don't... That'd be the only way we could come to the bottom of this matter I guess.

[German]

Hello Mr Norwegian "BelzeBob", from Swedish "German"


You wrote:
No, I wouldn't argue the meaning of "ausrotten". The meaning of this German/Scandinavian (utrydde/utrota) word is very clear; if you talk about "ausrotten" people, you mean killing them.

Yes, but he (Hitler) did not say "menchen ausrotten", he said "judentum ausrotten" meaning get rid of the jewery, or powerty. Same as getting rid of a political movement. Amadenejad has said getting rid of zionism, and was automatically accused of wanting to kill every jew, a second holocaust, bla-bla.

However, I agree that the word "umbringen", is similar to kill.

Regarding Himler, I have also heard the speech and also the silly break when people from the kitchen area is disturbing, and Himler was worried that they might have heard what he was saying. A little exiting extra to make it more Hollywoodish
But do you know if both his speeches are dokumented? I mean he gave 2, for different audiances.

Regards!

[BelzeBob]

Well... I simply don't buy it. I think the speech was fake. The "Holocausters" know their story is more and more under attack and that's why they need to come up with stuff like this (a fake speech).

[Hektor]

While "Extermination" isn't a one on one translation of "Ausrottung", in the context of the speech "ausrotten" seems to clearly indicate killing people. It's however funny that Himmler seemst to assumet that this was in the programm of the NSDAP. And be adviced, THHP knows that this is nonsense, hence mistranslates this part:

"...ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm drin, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir..." which THHP deceptively translates to:"...perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them..."
http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmle ... tten.shtml

That "Himmler" is clearly talking about the party program of the NSDAP. THHP is aware that this is a problem and leaves away the following part, while quibbling about ausrotten:"...sagt Ihnen jeder Parteigenosse..." - Parteigenosse meaning member of the party, including those that certainly knew their program by heart (like Himmler) and hence wouldn't make such a silly statement claiming that "Extermination of Jews" would be part of the NSDAP's program.

Given what I've pointed out above, please note that - of all people - THHP accuses "Holocaust Deniers" of "sophistry":
"Holocaust-deniers are no strangers to sweeping evidence under the rug with sophistry, and this speech is no exception. "
That while they swept an important part of the excerpt they quote under the rug themselves.

Now that's what I call Chuzpa.

I'm talking under correction, but this "Himmler" speech recording has been around for quite a while. So while it may be manipulated, it will not have been done with the most modern techniques by our standards.

[Hannover]

Another yawner long since demolished by research.

This alleged (recorded) speech, as German judge Staeglich has adroitly pointed out, is a hodgepodge of non-sequitors, nonsense, and re-worked text.
see: http://www.codoh.com/trials/tristagch2.html

- There are missing pages, retyped pages by different hands, even repaginated.

- 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.

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

- 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'.

- the complete lack of physical evidence to support the false assertions

- the complete lack of orders for the assumptions being made

Like so much else about this so called holocau$t, the Posen speech when scrutinized doesn't hold up.

forum participant Daniel Saez Lorente states:

Germar Rudolf has recently pointed out the the "sound recording" of the "secret speech" used a very primitive technology ["Nadeltontechnologie"] which was no longer commonly used in Germany. The Americans had no mastery of the lastest developments in German sound recording technology, so they presumably faked their recording using the only German technology available to them.

As for "Himmler's voice", well, ever listen to American movies dubbed into foreign languages? Let me tell you something, Gary Cooper or Humphrey Bogart in German or Italian sounds just like Gary Cooper or HUmphrey Bogart. They've got it down absolutely perfect. Voice imitators are a dime a dozen. All you need is a German Jew with some acting ability and... sounds like the story of the 911 "cell phones".... pull the other one.
As for "gespannt" in a happy sense, well...

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:
Quote:

"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.
Oops. I guess the silly '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.

- As for SS general Gottlieb Berger's statements that he was at the Posen speech and Himmler said nothing about exterminating Jews, I suggest: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487

- As for the desperate Pohl, his defense strategy was the same as others who were bound by the 'judicial notice' that gassings were fact even though there was no evidence. He had no choice but to play along. I suggest a different thread for Nuremberg and post war trials. Remember there was 'evidence' presented at Nuremberg for 'human soap' and homicidal 'steam chambers' which no one attempted to refute. Also, no one attempted to refute the allegations of German guilt at the Katyn mass murder site, we now know the Soviets did it.

- And it always comes down to claims of mass muder where there is no evidence to support it. The gas chambers are scientifically impossible as alleged and have been debunked ad nauseum by Revisionists, and the alleged 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 supposed mass shootings of thousands at a time in claimed known sites have produced no mass graves at those sites. Why is that?

more on the Posen speech:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=372

This is too easy.

- Hannover

[Älghuvud]

Now I have seen Attila's text from 2003 for the first time. One thing that struck me is the following passage:

"Some uncommon interpretations may be legitimate (e.g. the line that "we know what it is to see a hundred corpses" need not refer to gassing victims as commonly assumed, but to German military victims of an enemy war effort for which "the Jews" were somehow deemed responsible, so that this refers to Jews as culprits rather than as victims), but not all."

I read Himmler's Posen Speech for the first time about one year ago. Since the passage about the "hundred corpses" is generally looked upon as a proof for the Nazis' extermination purposes I undertook the effort to read it and came to the conclusion that this did not at all refer to the killing of Jews ... but rather the opposite.

At some point I put my complaint about this (very obvious) Wikipedia-misunderstanding onto their discussion page. They apparently didn't know what to reply and became very aggressive. Now it seems that this error has been already discovered much longer ago - but the holohoaxers will never admit it. At least I now know that I am not insane. Thanks to all of you.

[BelzeBob]

Hektor

Oh yes, I see. Instead of actually producing the speech on a computer, it may simply have been cut up.

Hannover

I agree with all your points too.

I think I'm quite satisfied with this "speech problem" now.

[Hektor]

...
- members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all.

- To have a speech with such alleged secret content recorded? Right. SS General Berger did not recognize Himmler’s voice listening to the tape.
...
- As for SS general Gottlieb Berger's statements that he was at the Posen speech and Himmler said nothing about exterminating Jews, I suggest: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487
....

What exactly did Berger say?

@Belzecbob - Yes, there are alternative means of manipulation available to secret services in the 40s.

[Drew J]

Time for a bump I believe. Just so the rodoh boys can see this.

[Lamprecht]

What exactly did Berger say?

"I can say with certainty that he did not speak about the Ausrottung of the Jews, because the reason for this meeting was to equalize and adjust these tremendous tensions between the Waffen SS and the Police."
Also see
http://vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/10.html#_Toc49588792

[Wahrheit]

Why is the consensus here that the tapes were forged when other revisionists (Paul Grubach, David Irving, Sam Crowell, Carlos Porter) seem fine with the speech's authenticity?

What is the positive evidence that we have to suggest the tape/speech was forged? Mention is made of YIVO, but were they in contact with the text and recordings?

In contrast, there are the different statements made by Himmler himself which show a similarity toward the remarks ascribed to him (to the Grand Mufti and Posen again, all within this general timeframe), on top of the evidence of Goebbels' Tagebuecher 9.10.43 entry, and the secretly recorded remark by Admiral Engel prior to the end of the war (April 1945) by the British. These seem like much stronger sources to rely on than a post-war statement made by Berger, who was on the trial of his life, and who had, IIRC, already changed his story on the tape (Berger had earlier said that the voice was NOT that of Himmler, but appears to have flipped judging by Lamprecht's quote).

[Lamprecht]

Wahrheit:

(Berger had earlier said that the voice was NOT that of Himmler, but appears to have flipped judging by Lamprecht's quote).

This is not what I said.

When the tape was first played, Berger immediately said it was not Himmler's.
Later, he said it might be Himmler's. This is, apparently, "enough evidence" to "justify receiving the document in evidence"
That is an entirely separate issue from it actually being a speech delivered in Posen.

The speech may be a transcript from another speech by Himmler, or a transcript from another speech not by Himmler. (Berger's position is one of these)

There's not one bit of evidence that the voice is Himmler's besides testimony claiming it "might be Heinrich Himmler's voice"
This was said during the first lines of the speech though.
When the rest of the speech was played to Berger (The extermination part) he was not questioned further and excused immediately.

Another odd thing is that we don't know the origin of this speech. Where was it found? Supposedly in Rosenburgs files.
Where's the signature? Nowhere to be found...

[Wahrheit]

The speech may be a transcript from another speech by Himmler, or a transcript from another speech not by Himmler. (Berger's position is one of these)

There's not one bit of evidence that the voice is Himmler's besides testimony claiming it "might be Heinrich Himmler's voice"

Lamprecht, so is the speech authentic Himmler, or not? If not, what is the positive evidence that we have to suggest the tape/speech was forged?

You are throwing things in very different directions (another Himmler speech other than Posen 4.10.43, transcript for non-Himmler speech, forgery, etc.).