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
Blue 88
Member
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:20 pm

Postby Blue 88 » 1 decade 6 years ago (Wed Jul 02, 2003 7:10 pm)

Is it Himmler's voice on the tape?

arkheinor
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 7:36 pm

Postby arkheinor » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:07 pm)

Hi,

I dont understand to who Himmler was refering when he says:
"We had the moral right, we had the duty to our own people, to kill this people which wanted to kill us"

User avatar
Ajax
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 300
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:27 pm
Location: The Real World

Postby Ajax » 1 decade 4 years ago (Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:03 pm)

Excellent comments so far. However when I read of the Posen speech one thing hits me first - Himmler talks of (whatever it may be) being "a page of glory in our history which has never been written and shall never be written". But then he goes and has it recorded.

I think the hack who penned this garbage must have been very confused.
Scour the surface throughly until it is glistening...

Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:38 am)

Porter has translated the entire speech but without the handwritten notes. According to him there are apparently no missing pages. Porter considers the speech an altered speech on the military situation, but as it stands it cannot possibly be authentic because it contains entire paragraphs which simply do not make sense. Such as:

"HIMMLER"
"The German people were already very tense ["gespannt" -- nervous or excited], years before the war, because of the armaments, the Four Year Plan [?], the recovery of Austria [?], the Sudetenland [?], and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia."

[Translator's note: why would they be nervous or tense about Austria or Sudetenland, for example? Bohemia and Moravia, yes.]

"HIMMLER"
"In addition to what I've already said, however, confusion arises with regard to this question because of the misery in which we have been living since 1936-1937 [!?]. Since that time, we no longer have all the necessary consumer goods which the human heart desires, and which we would like to have, such as silk, stockings, chocolate, or coffee."

--



See also famous forgery Document L-3, in which Germany's economic problems (in 1939!) were to be solved by attacking poverty-stricken Poland.

User avatar
Hotzenplotz
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 148
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:09 pm

Postby Hotzenplotz » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:14 am)

axolotl888 wrote:"The German people were already very tense ["gespannt" -- nervous or excited], years before the war, because of the armaments, the Four Year Plan [?], the recovery of Austria [?], the Sudetenland [?], and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia."

[Translator's note: why would they be nervous or tense about Austria or Sudetenland, for example? Bohemia and Moravia, yes.]

But what about "excited"? Seems to make sense to me.

\"HIMMLER\" wrote:"In addition to what I've already said, however, confusion arises with regard to this question because of the misery in which we have been living since 1936-1937 [!?].

Perhaps there was a trade boycott then?

Also I think we can't except a speech to be flawless always. Sometimes people do utter nonsense.

Daniel Saez Lorente
Member
Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 6:26 am

Postby Daniel Saez Lorente » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:41 am)

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...

Johng
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Wales

Postby Johng » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:21 pm)

For information the whole (4th October) speech is available from the The National Archives Trust Fund Board
Washington, DC 20408

It is interesting that deniers try to have their cake and eat it. IE It’s a false recording and it’s a mistranslation. Or a false mistranslation!!! The fact is of course that its authenticity is easily checked. Voice analysis, particularly with today’s technology would prove issue without a doubt. Given that every mainstream historian believes it is authentic it is up to deniers to prove otherwise. So far none of them have attempted such an analysis .. why not? You can’t argue forgery and mistranslation in the same breath. It is also a fact that a number of Himmler’s speeches were recorded.

We are, therefore left with the mistranslation claim that leads to many contradictions. In the speech Himmler is very clear about secrecy. He says.

I want to also mention a very difficult subject ... before you, with complete candor. It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public.


Hannover rubbishes this by claiming Himmler made this speech before ‘thousands’. This is UNTRUE. Himmler gave his speech in the Golden Hall in Posden Castle to 92 'Group Leaders' roughly equivalent to Major General. This raises another point. Given that the speech is authentic (and deniers have absolutely to evidence to say it isn’t) then any attempt to suggest that Himmler was only talking about the evacuation of the Jews to the East is laughable. The evacuation or forced emigration of the Jews is public policy and public knowledge. Why the secrecy. It is the concept of context and translation/interpretation that deniers ignore on purpose.

Hannover goes on to cite Robert Wolfe as agreeing with them. This is disingenuous as it takes his views completely out of context. Whilst he does say that he thinks the term Extirpate is more accurate, he does not say, therefore, that the meaning, in the context of the whole speech is benign. Deniers just want to create that impression. I would refer you to ‘Richard Brietman,Norman J. W. Goda, Timothy Naftali and Robert Wolfe entitled U.S. Intelligence and the Nazis (2004).

If you consult page 182 of Vol I of Langenscheidt's Encyclopaedic Dictionary (1974): "ausrotten 2.(Volk, Rasse, etc.)
exterminate, wipe out, extirpate; diese Krankheit rottete die ganze Bevoelkerung aus this disease wiped out the entire population; die Urbevoelkerung des Landes wurde ausgerottet the native population of the country was exterminated." Despite such authoritative quotations, the deniers who participated in the discussion attempted to insist that "aurotten" as used, for example, by Himmler in his speech at Posen, was really meaning something else, namely the ‘geographical’ removal of Jews from Germany.

German judge Staeglich who visited Auscwitz once in the summer of 44 may have a view but does he have evidence?
unfortunately this link doesn’t work. http://codoh.com/library/document/230 [corrected link - M1]
Hannover goes onto say
members of the audience like SS-OGruF Gottlob Berger denied that Himmler was talking about the extermination of the Jews at all.

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

Where is your source for this? As it contradicts Pohls view expressed at his trial.

Extracts From Testimony of Defendant Pohl, in Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10, United States v. Oswald Pohl, et. al. (Case 4: 'Pohl Case') US Government Printing Office, District of Columbia: 1950, Vol. 5: pp. 664-669.


Q. Did you ever do anything to find out why people were being gassed to death, or did you ever protest against that program?

A. On two occasions I discussed with Himmler the entire Jewish extermination program. The first time it was approximately in the spring of 1943. At that time I had discovered, on my trips to Oranienburg, that the Jews whom I always used to meet when they came out of the Schering Works in the afternoon in large numbers, and who worked there as laborers, suddenly did not appear any more. The streets were empty. This attracted my attention so much that I pointed out this fact to Himmler during my next discussion, and I asked him why the Jews had been taken away from there and he told me, "Well, all the Jews from Berlin are now being sent to Theresienstadt." I considered this statement to be true at the time. I discussed this matter the second time with Himmler after the speech at Poznan. That was in October 1943. That was the first time, at Poznan. He told the SS Leaders that the Jews were to be exterminated. This was the first official notification which came to my knowledge. After this speech I talked to Obergruppenfuehrer Schmidt, von Herff, and other comrades, and we discussed the thing over the table. Their concepts of this speech and their opinions were not uniform at all. To the contrary, we were rather surprised about the way in which the Jewish question was now to be solved in such a brutal manner. For this reason, on the occasion of our next meeting, I again talked to Himmler about this, because I had been assigned the labor allocation. Otherwise I wouldn't have talked to him at all. We discussed labor allocations. On that occasion I told him that I still considered it stupid now, at the time when all the labor was so valuable to us, that I considered it madness to exterminate these people now. He became very angry, then he pressed his lips together and told me, "Well, that is none of your business. You do not know anything about this, and furthermore, you are too soft." Then he went to the adjoining room. He left me standing there, and approximately after 5 minutes he returned, and then he dismissed me by saying, "I have nothing further for you." Besides this I had no discussion with him about that.


What most people, and certainly the "revisionist scholars" do not know is that Himmler held a very similar speech only 2 days later to the Reichs- and Gaufleiter. There he used nearly the same words about the "Ausrottung des juedischen Volkes" - with one remarkable exception: he defined the meaning of "Ausrottung".(The important passage is available at Nizkor ftp under people/h/himmler.heinrich/himmler-ausrotten-de). The reason why it is normally ignored is that it is available only in German.

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.

Thus we have it in Himmler's own words. "To exterminate" as he used it is too kill people, or to let them be killed. Men, women, children. Everyone is to be killed so that there is no one left. That is the "Endloesung", that is the way to "make this people vanish from the earth."




User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9864
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:21 pm)

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.

Great, we have johng citing a 1974 dictionary claiming ausrotten as meaning 'extermination' ... published in accordance with the propaganda about WWII. There's problems with that though:

- Here's something from a 1935 speech by Rudolf Hess:
"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 johng see: 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?

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

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2359
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:46 pm)

Hi Johng, you wrote
It is interesting that deniers try to have their cake and eat it.

What about you saying Himmler had the plan to exterminate the Jews, and yet so many Jews survived the camps? That sounds like you having your cake and eating it too. Was no one's machine gun working at the camp? And what a coincidence that the allies found a typhus epidemic at Dachau. And this idea that they didn't exterminate the Jews at the end because their labor was so essential? That makes no sense. Why not take the inhabitants of any occupied town and use them for labor and then kill the Jews? The Nazis even made a movie about their low opinion of Jews as a manual labor force. If Himmler's speech is real, and he's worried about Jewish revenge in his speech, why did so many Jews survive the camps? Again that's you having your cake and eating it too.

Also, if 6 milllion Jews had been killed there'd be a mountain of evidence. It wouldn't come down to a recorded speech being the smoking gun. Anyone who can wrap their head around how many people 6 million is, can see that.

Can you imagine the authenticity of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an atomic bomb coming down to the wording of a speech?

Johng: Here's a question for you: you wrote
In the speech Himmler is very clear about secrecy. He says.
I want to also mention a very difficult subject ... before you, with complete candor. It should be discussed amongst us, yet nevertheless, we will never speak about it in public.


So that explains digging up the bodies and cremating them at Treblinka. But how do you explain the giant pile of human hair at Auschwitz? The giant pile of hairbrushes at Auschwitz, and the giant pile of shoes and glasses? Just an oversight? Where is Himmler's secrecy in that? Especially considering that Auschwitz wasn't emergency evacuated. Again it looks like you're having your cake and eating it too.

My final question to you is this: do you think the British would be capable of faking a Himmler speech? Would that be within their realm of technical ability? I mean at the time the allies were saying that Dachau was a death camp where people were gassed and that turned out not to be true. The allies showed the world dead bodies which they knew were typhus and starvation victims and portrayed them as gassing victims. Considering that, is it outlandish to think they may have faked a Himmler speech?
Last edited by Carto's Cutlass Supreme on Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:55 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:56 pm)

Johng wrote: Given that every mainstream historian believes it is authentic

Historians better believe that the Posen speech and everything else that is Holocaust is authentic. Else they might as well change their vocation.

The fact is of course that its authenticity is easily checked. Voice analysis, particularly with today’s technology would prove issue without a doubt. it is up to deniers to prove otherwise.

Well, why don’t the hoaxers check the authenticity? They claim that the recorded speech is authentic, so why don’t they prove it? Scared? Could it put a dent into the Jewish pseudo religious holocaust wailing wall?

Hannover rubbishes this by claiming Himmler made this speech before ‘thousands’. This is UNTRUE. Himmler gave his speech in the Golden Hall in Posden Castle to 92 'Group Leaders' roughly equivalent to Major General.

If Himmler had the speech recorded on tape or disk, it was crtainly in a way held before ‘thousands’, if not millions.

The German term ‘ausrotten’ as used at that time in connection with Jews is better interpreted as ‘to ethnically cleans’.

Johng
Member
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: Wales

Postby Johng » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Jun 24, 2005 2:29 am)

I love you guys! I have had so many postings refused for not answering a direct question or going off thread its unbelievable yet you lot get away with murder!! (apt metaphor given topic).

I stand my ground. The tape of the speech is accepted by historians. If deniers wish to cast doubt then prove it. You have ducked the question. Why haven’t they. You have also ducked the question is it a fraud or a mis-translation?

He either made the speech or didn’t. !!!!!!!

In relation to the use of the term Judenevakuierung, in the notes. Again don’t you mean forged notes?, in which case it’s a non-argument. First point is that (and I make a lot of speeches) are they notes that you will read verbatim, or are they rough notes to structure out a more freely given speech. If the former, why did he change the term, if the latter, which makes more sense, was he struggling with a way to move smoothly from emigration/evacuation to extermination. This idea is reinforced when you look at the term ausrotten when applied to the concept of bacillus. Does he really mean the evacuation of the bacillus???????

‘Because we don't want, at the end of all this, to get sick and die from the same bacillus that we have exterminated’

‘Das haben wir nicht. Denn wir wollen nicht am Schluss, weil wir den Bazillus ausrotten, an dem Bazillus krank werden und sterben’

Similarly you duck the 6th of October speech which in Himmler's own words. "To exterminate" as he used it is too kill people, or to let them be killed. Men, women, children. Everyone is to be killed so that there is no one left. That is the "Endloesung", that is the way to "make this people vanish from the earth."


With regards using a 1974 dictionary. (a) I used it more in the sense of explaining that Wolfe’s preference for extirpate is consistent with extermination. (b) If you check out dictionaries contemporary with the Nazi era you will find the same definition. (c) are you honestly claiming that the conspiracy goes so far as to alter dictionary definitions to suit Himmler’s speech. But I note you ducked the Wolfe issue!

So has the meaning of Ausrotten changed over time (deliberately or naturally) No.
Check out the meaning in the following dictionaries.

Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildwörterbuch, 1972, F.A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden, p. 49 die Ausrottung: völlige Vernichtung

Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildwörterbuch, 1935, F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, p. 38

Muret-Sanders enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache, Teil II: Deutsch-english, 1906, Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin-Schöneberg, p. 213

The meaning remains the same
ausrotten: I. 1. Unkraut [weeds]: to root out or up, to outroot, to uproot ... Volksstämme [races], Wölfe [wolves]: to exterminate.
2. fig. Mißbräuche [abuses]: to extirpate, eradicate, deracinate, auch: to weed out; (zerstören, vernichten) to destroy, annihilate.
II. das Ausrotten, die Ausrottung: rooting out, &c; fig. extirpation, extermination, deracination, destruction.
Ausrotter: extirpator, exterminator, &c; weeder-out; destroyer.
Ausrottungskrieg: war of extermination

This detail confirms that the word means killing when discussing living things, such as Unkraut (weeds), Volksstämme, Volk, Rasse (a race), Wolfe (wolves), Tiere (animals), or Tumors (tumors).


Hannover says

As for SS general Gottlieb Berger's statements that he was at the Posen speech and Himmler said nothing about exterminating Jews, I suggest johng see: 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


I will of course check the source out but first reaction is well why did Pohl have a different defence strategy than Berger? Also this is the same old denier technique. Pohl say Himmler did mean extermination. You say Pohl is lying but offer no evidence. It is just…dismissed without any evidence!


As to why Himmler recorded the speech for his OWN PERSONAL archive I don’t know and you don’t know. Who can measure the vanity of man. But don’t forget he recorded many of his speeches.Could it be in 1943 Himmler felt safe to do so, that such things need to be recorded for his victorious memoirs. He was clearly not going to publish them?.. Who knows.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9864
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:23 am)

Now John, let's not get flustered here.

- Accepted by historians? Only historians that you wish to believe in. The new wave of Revisionist historians do not accept the standard interpretation at all and have utterly demolished these holocau$t' Industry spokemen. It's rather like you saying that 'those in the know' accepted witchcraft & sorcery as fact, which ofcourse they did, so we must believe them. Your appeal to authority does not serve you well. Got WMD?

- Himmler certainly made a speech, as SS General Berger pointed out, but what is claimed to have been said was not and is not supportable. You, nor anyone else can support the assertions made.

- Bacillus (Jews) evacuated? Well yes, exactly. As in, get the bacillus out of the way, deport the Jews eastward.

- We have shown you example after example of 'ausrotten' used in a non-homicidal ways, during the period, such that your argument is hollow. That is now your problem and something you'll need to get used to.
Let's face it, you're having a hard time dealing with:
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.


- The you present another claimed speech, which we can see no original, ofcourse. Can you show it to us so we can examine it ourselves to see what it really says? Nope. It appears you are enagaing in 'garbage in, garbage out' when you come to conclusions based upon, well, garbage.

- "Endloesung"? Yawn. It means 'final solution', which real German documents confirm as being deportation of Jews.

- Oh wow, now you expect Revisionists to be given a copy of this bizarre recording and have it analysed. Hey, we would if we could. The question remains, which you dodge, johng, .... why haven't you, or those of the immensely financed 'holocau$t' Industry? What are you afraid of?

I will of course check the source out but first reaction is well why did Pohl have a different defence strategy than Berger? Also this is the same old denier technique. Pohl say Himmler did mean extermination. You say Pohl is lying but offer no evidence. It is just…dismissed without any evidence!

I assume Berger's case was not same as Pohl's. Wasn't it?

Imagine in a real court of law if two people on the stand contradicted each other about the prosecutor's assertions:

1.'Himmler meant this' (even though I'm under great pressure to say it, and the fact that no evidence can be presented')

2. 'No he didn't, he didn't say that.'

Bye bye case.

Revisionist 'evidence' of Pohl's desperate attempt to save himself is that there is no evidence for what is alleged, simple. One cannot make claims which cannot be susbstantiated, unless you're the victorious Allies and judeo-supremacist Zionists. Again: garbage in, garbage out.

And now we get the heart of the matter. Show us the evidence for mass graves as claimed, show us the evidence for 'gas chambers'.

Come on johng, we expect threads from you on:

- gas chambers
- mass graves

Here's your chance.

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

Bergmann
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 382
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 4:29 pm

Postby Bergmann » 1 decade 4 years ago (Fri Jun 24, 2005 10:32 am)

Johng wrote: I stand my ground. The tape of the speech is accepted by historians. If deniers wish to cast doubt then prove it. You have ducked the question. Why haven’t they. You have also ducked the question is it a fraud or a mis-translation?
I assume that you are referring to Hannover in your post.
But for curiosity: What historian checked the authenticity of the speech, how did he do it, and what did he find?

User avatar
Hektor
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 3336
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:59 am

Re:

Postby Hektor » 6 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:01 am)

Hannover wrote:...
- As for SS general Gottlieb Berger's statements that he was at the Posen speech and Himmler said nothing about exterminating Jews, I suggest johng see: NMT, vol 13. p. 457-487
..
I think the first name is Gottlob.
What exactly did Gottlob Berger say?

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

Re: Re:

Postby Reviso » 6 years 8 months ago (Sat Jan 12, 2013 12:38 pm)

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).


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dresden, MSN [Bot] and 4 guests