Again, "mainstream" revisionists seem to have no problem accepting the authenticity of the speech. I don't think this is a reasonable argument until proof is offered to support it.
Butz does not (Hoax of the 20th cent.). Mattogno thinks the authenticity is "Doubtful" ("My Banned Holocaust Interview").
That hardly matters.
Proof needs to be offered for you to believe it isn't authentic? Honestly? What makes you think it is? This:
Judge Powers: Well, I think that there is enough evidence here, prima facie, that the voice is the voice of Himmler to justify receiving the document in evidence. There is no evidence, however, that it was delivered at Poznan or any other particular place. The discs will be received in evidence as an indication of Himmler's general attitude.
Where is the evidence that it is Himmler's voice? The claim by Berger that it "Might be" his?
Do you know of any voice authentication procedures? No?
I still see no evidence. I see insinuations (Yivo forged documents because it possibly was around said files), arguments of personal incredulity towards the speech and the recording ("secret" speech in front of large audience, and low-grade recorder technology), but no EVIDENCE.
That's not the point. It was never proven that it was, indeed, Himmler's voice. The "Evidence" given by Powers is, at best, a statement that it MIGHT be Himmler's voice, and that it MIGHT have been at Posen and that the transcript MIGHT be accurate.
That's too many 'Might's for me, sorry.
I think the tape should be tested by voice identification software, but I think as it sits now, the evidence from this speech and around it's date strongly suggest that the speech did occur, and that something nasty about the 'Judenevakuiereng' was said.
Do you have anything around this date where Himmler or another Nazi official claimed an "Extermination of Jews" or something similar?
The strongest thing fraud-allegers can rely on is a post-war testimony by a defendant, on trial for his life (every reason to deny), and whose thoughts differed within minutes (not Himmler >>> maybe Himmler, but different speech). Keep in mind that Himmler was giving many speeches during the war to various audiences. Another case of problematic witness memory?
Oh of course, it's so believable when we have such evidence as:
an unsigned transcript of
an unauthenticated voice recording
in primitive "Nadeltontechnologie"(Read the quote portion of Hannovers post)
that was magically 'found' in Rosenberg's files.
Rosenberg was not questioned about this specific transcript's authenticity, but when questioned about 3428-PS he denied connection to it.
I still can't see a reason why I should believe it to be authentic. Because some
revisionists do? Because a judge said it?