Genocidal Rants?

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Genocidal Rants?

Postby stefanob » 8 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:06 pm)

In a short debate on David Irving's Facebook profile a Hoaxer pointed out a link where quotations by Hitler and other Senior Nazis are supposed to denote a homicidal intent. The magnitude of hatred si frankly disturbing, I must say. But from a Holocaust point of view, it is the typical shoot in the foot.
It is extremely enlightening.

This is the link: http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/statements.htm

There are a few mentions of killing, destroying and hanging, all of them not to be intended literally, I think, but as hypes meant to excite the audience. On the other hand, there are plenty of mentions of removing and transferring and forcing emigration. This list of quotations clearly documents the will of the Nazi regime to throw the Jews out of Germany and her possessions.

If my spare time was not so short I would go into details, as these quotations are extremely interesting but I will just indicate a quotation by Hans Frank, Governor-General of the occupied Poland, 1941:

There are an estimated 2.5 million Jews in the General Government, perhaps…. 3.5 million. These 3.5 million Jews, we cannot shoot them, nor can we poison them. Even so, we can take steps which in some way or other will pave the way for [their] destruction, notably in connection with the grand measures to be discussed in the Reich. The General Government must become just as judenfrie [free of Jews] as the Reich.


Do you see? He says "destruction" and "the grand measures", which are ambiguous, while there is no ambiguity in the words "we cannot shoot them, nor can we poison them"! So, unless Frank was publicly displaying his madness, "destruction" is said in a statement where it clearly doesn't mean physical extermination.

I thanked the hoaxer for providing this useful link :)
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

Goethe
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 372
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:41 am

Re: Genocidal Rants?

Postby Goethe » 8 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:41 pm)

Those quotes are all in English. Did Nazis give speeches in English?
And in searching this site I found this concerning The Schlegelberger Document and the Luther Memo. So much for the speeches proving genocide.
Image

translation:
"Mr Reich Minister Lammers informed me that the Führer had repeatedly declared to him that he wants to hear that the Solution of the Jewish Problem has been postponed until after the war is over. That being so, the current discussions are of purely theoretical value, in Mr Reich Minister Lammers' opinion. He will moreover take pains to ensure that, whatever else happens, no fundamental decisions are taken without his knowledge in consequence of a surprise briefing by any third party."

Note that at a HQ dinner July 24, 1942 Hitler said he will tackle Jewish problem ...
"nach Beendigung des Krieges" (after the war's over)

The 'Luther Memo' actually confirms the contents of The Schlegelberger Document.
see:
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vppgluther.html

The Luther Memo is a document that provides a summary of German Jewish population policies as of August, 1942. It references, by enclosure, about a dozen other documents, including the July 1941 Goering letter and the Wannsee Conference minutes, and provides a connected narrative to that point.

It does not describe extermination, but rather ghettoization in the East and labor utilization. It describes the nature of what the official German policy actually was. Desperate True Believers reference it usually by claiming that is is all "code words / euphemisms"" ... laughable.

It was introduced, along with the other documents, during Military Tribunal IV, Case 11 (NMT 11). AKA U.S. vs. Weizaecker (Ministries, or Wilhelmstrasse, Case). This was the last, or second to last NMT trial, and the documentation provided for this trial represented the "last chance" at the story by the American prosecutors. Therefore it is a goldmine of information.

Hitler, the "Final Solution," and the Luther Memorandum:
A Response to Evans and Longerich

by Paul Grubach
http://www.codoh.com/viewpoints/vppgluther.html

In the recent British High Court libel action of historian David Irving against Deborah Lipstadt, one of the most interesting aspects of the trial was the debate about the famous "Schlegelberger Document." This March 1942, memorandum of State Secretary Franz Schlegelberger noted that Hitler's Chief of Chancellery, Dr. Hans Lammers, had informed him: "...The Fuehrer has repeatedly declared to him [Lammers] that he wants to see the solution of the Jewish problem postponed until after the war."

Irving argued this document shows that Hitler had no plans to exterminate European Jewry. British Professor Richard Evans and German Professor Peter Longerich, testifying in behalf of Dr. Lipstadt, both attempted to downplay the memo's significance. While Longerich simply dismissed it as "insignificant," Evans attempted to "explain it away."

In paragraphs 5.155 and 5.161 of Justice Gray's decision, it is noted that Professor Evans expressed the opinion that the subject matter of the "Schlegelberger note" was probably not the Jewish question generally, but rather the narrower issue of mixed marriages between Jews and Gentiles and the children of such marriages. Consequently, this document cannot be used by revisionist historians to prove there was no Nazi policy to exterminate the Jews, because it does not refer to all Jews, only to a small category of Jews.

In volume 13 of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal (NMT) publications, there is a discussion of Nazi Jewish policy. One part, NG-2586-J, a memo written by Nazi official Martin Luther, dated August 21, 1942, is a summary of this policy.1 Under point number 8 it contains this most telling statement: "On the occasion of a reception by the Reich Foreign Minister on 26 November 1941 the Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff touched on the problem of according like treatment to the Jews of European nationalities and pointed out the difficulties that the Bulgarians had in the application of their Jewish laws to Jews of foreign nationality."

"The Reich Foreign Minister answered that he thought this question brought by Mr. Popoff not uninteresting. Even now he could say one thing to him, that at the end of the war all Jews would have to leave Europe. This was the unalterable decision of the Fuehrer and also the only way to master this problem, as only a global and comprehensive solution could be applied and individual measures would not help very much."

Clearly, this passage supports the Irving thesis and undermines the rival thesis of Evans and Longerich. Hitler's orders are perfectly clear. Referring to Jews in general (thus contradicting Evan's claim), the German dictator stated they will still be around after the war is over (as he had no plans to exterminate them en masse), and they will have to emigrate to a new land outside Europe. This decision was "unalterable," that is, not subject to change. And, this Luther memo gives no indication that there was any change in policy during the time between the enunciation of Hitler's Jewish policy to Bulgarian Foreign Minister Popoff in November 1941, and the creation of said memo in August 1942.

Nor can one fall back on Longerich's view that the "Schlegelberger memo" is insignificant, for here we have an important August 1942 memorandum underscoring the Hitler orders of the "Schlegelberger note" of March 1942.
NOTES

1. The document is also published in Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Institute for Historical Review, 1976), pp.205-206, 208-210.
"The coward threatens when he is safe".
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

stefanob
Member
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Genocidal Rants?

Postby stefanob » 8 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:53 pm)

Thanks Goethe. Yes, I was well aware of the possible fraudulent translations, even if I don't speak german. I read about the false translation of "ausrottung" in Himmler's Posen Speech as well as "das lager der vernichtung" in the diary of Josef Kremer.

Anyway, you see, even so the territorial nature of te Nazi Final Solution emerges clearly!

Thank you very much for this Schlegelberger Document. It is especially interesting to note that this also refutes the Wansee Conference which was SUPPOSED to have been held in january 1942.
I am not a native english speaker, so please forgive errors and weird syntax

Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Genocidal Rants?

Postby Kageki » 8 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:16 pm)

You know that we have to exterminate these vermin if we and our families are to live ... We must go on to the end if civilization is to survive. We must exterminate the Japanese.
General Blarney, in a speech to his Australian troops, January 1943

...a good solution to the Jap problem would be to send them all back to Japan, then sink the island. They live like rats, breed like rats and act like rats.
The governor of Idaho, on better alternative than to build internment camps for U.S. Japanese in his state

There is a bunch more quotes here:
http://www.socialist.nu/citat/japan.html

I consider it war-time rhetoric.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10002
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Genocidal Rants?

Postby Hannover » 8 years 9 months ago (Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:50 pm)

The USSR's Khrushchev said to the US in a speech at the UN:
We will bury you!

So, us Yanks are all dead then.

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

Kageki
Member
Member
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:39 pm

Re: Genocidal Rants?

Postby Kageki » 8 years 9 months ago (Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:55 am)

stefanob wrote:
There are an estimated 2.5 million Jews in the General Government, perhaps…. 3.5 million. These 3.5 million Jews, we cannot shoot them, nor can we poison them. Even so, we can take steps which in some way or other will pave the way for [their] destruction, notably in connection with the grand measures to be discussed in the Reich. The General Government must become just as judenfrie [free of Jews] as the Reich.


Do you see? He says "destruction" and "the grand measures", which are ambiguous, while there is no ambiguity in the words "we cannot shoot them, nor can we poison them"! So, unless Frank was publicly displaying his madness, "destruction" is said in a statement where it clearly doesn't mean physical extermination.

I thanked the hoaxer for providing this useful link :)


This particular quote was discussed during Irving's trial with Christopher Browning. Here is an excerpt:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... day017.htm
Q. "In the General Government we have got an estimated 2.5 million, with the Jewish next of kin and all the rest that depends on them, now 3.5 million Jews", is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. Then a significant sentence follows: "We cannot shoot these 3.5 million Jews. We cannot poison them". Then you continue with the passage about: "Nonetheless, we will take some kind of action"?

A. Yes.

Q. I do not want to get into the content of this particular paragraph. I just want to ask for your motivation for leaving out that opening sentence, unless his Lordship

P-132

feels it is irrelevant?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not feel it is irrelevant at all. No.

A. Well, I do not know that it was a specific motivation. I do not see why one concluded or not concluded. What I did is, he rejects certain kinds of or when he says, "We cannot do this or cannot do that", I simply summarised that as ----

MR IRVING: He effectively says: "We cannot shoot them. We cannot poison them."

A. Yes.

Q. Is he suggesting we should strangle them?

A. What he is suggesting is he does not know how they are going to do it.

Q. Would you not agree that if another historian had omitted sentences like that at the beginning of a paragraph, without any even any indication of an omission, he would be held up to opprobrium and obloquy?

A. I mean by putting precedents, you know, switching out of direct quotes I do not think I indicated that there was nothing that I was continuing directly on.

Q. Unless of course the part that was being omitted substantially altered the sense of the gist that you were trying to convey?

A. I do not think it substantially alters the gist.

Q. If the man who is speaking says "We cannot kill them" ----

A. No, he does not say we cannot kill them. He says, "We

P-133

cannot shoot them or we cannot poison them".

Q. Which is another way of saying, in my submission, that we cannot kill them?

A. No, I do not accept that.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Apart from gas what are the alternatives?

A. Well, the alternatives are that one can starve them. One can keep them in conditions where they will perish. Of course Frank does not know yet, I think, that in fact they were working on ways to poison them. This would indicate Frank has not yet been initiated into the fact that indeed they will be poisoning them. What he does say, and what I think is important, is the fact that he is told there is going to be a big meeting to sort this out, and when they go, when Buhle then is sent to the Wannsee conference he is going to get some answers to this.

MR IRVING: But did they discuss methods of killing at the Wannsee conference?

A. According to Eichmann it is not literally in the protocol. They use the euphemism we talked about, solutional possibilities or possible solutions when Eichmann was asked ----

Q. Which could mean anything, could it not?

A. When Eichmann was asked what did that mean, he said it was ways of killing or something to that effect.

Q. When Eichmann was asked in Israel during these interrogations we were talking about a few minutes ago,

P-134

right?

A. Yes.

Q. And he agreed it could have meant killing?

A. Yes. He did not agree that it could have meant. He said that is what it did mean. When he did not want to agree to such things such as Auschwitz, he denied it vigorously, which would indicate that he could say no when he wanted to.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests