Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
Depth Charge
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:32 pm

Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Depth Charge » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:44 pm)

An entry from March 27th, 1942 by Goebbels - taken from the Irving/Lipstadt transcripts.

The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East. A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik], who is carrying out this action, is doing it pretty prudently and with a procedure that doesn’t work too conspicuously. The Jews are being punished barbarically, to be sure, but they have fully deserved it. The prophesy that the Fuhrer issued to them on the way, for the eventuality that they started a new world war, is beginning to realise itself in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities to rule in these matters. If we did not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would annihilate us. It is a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of the question. Here too the Fuhrer is the persistent pioneer and spokesman of a radical solution, which is demanded by the way things are and thus appears to be unavoidable. Thank God during the war we have a whole lot of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here. Jewry has nothing to laugh about …


The bold print looks bad on paper, and is surely a believers wet dream on paper. Can anyone elaborate on what Goebbels is talking about here?

gasto
Valued contributor
Valued contributor
Posts: 247
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 11:40 am
Location: Argentina

Postby gasto » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:30 pm)

It has already been covered. See: http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... liquidated

Regards.
If Human Soap rumour was fake, why can´t all the other absurd claims be too??

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Postby Hannover » 1 decade 3 years ago (Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:44 pm)

I assume that is a correct translation from the German, which is rarely the case.

Goebbels answers the question himself:
Thank God during the war we have a whole lot of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them. The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here. Jewry has nothing to laugh about …

Jews were being sent to ghettos (controlled areas), said plain and simple.

The use of 'liquidated' is no different than liquidating a warehouse of goods; they aren't destroyed, they are cleared out. Moving people around in wartime is not fun to be sure, but no different (and usually more humane) than what the Allies were doing.

If Goebbels meant that they were to be murdered, there would be no reason for him not to say it specifically. He doesn't, in fact he says the opposite.

Of course, it's all so silly because there is no supporting evidence for the fraudulent interpretation that millions of Jews were murdered. None.

for much more see:
http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=2219

- 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 3 years ago (Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:06 am)

Jordan wrote: The bold print looks bad on paper, and is surely a believers wet dream on paper. Can anyone elaborate on what Goebbels is talking about here?

Does the word ‘to liquidate’ mean in German always ‘to execute’?

The word 'liquidate' can have in the German language various meanings. To choose the meaning as “to execute” is arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Its interpretations are as diverse as the phantasy of man.
'To liquidate' in German can also mean ‘to solve a conflicting situation’, ‘to solve’. Interpretations are meaningless, until the exact context is clarfied, which is not the case here:

Given the fact that the remains of the 1.4 million Jews who were allegedly gassed with diesel engine exhaust fumes in the death camps (Treblinka, Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno) cannot be found, the word ‘to liquidate’ in this Goebbels entry may not mean to execute.

For example from Joseh Schöner’s “Wiener Tagebuch 1944/1945”, (Vienna Diary 1944/1945) (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für Neuere Geschichte Österreichs, Bd. 83, Böhlau Verlag, Wien/Köln/Weimar 1992):

20.10.1944:
»In Ungarn werden die restlichen Juden, die sich den Provinzmassakern durch Flucht nach Budapest entziehen konnten, derzeit liquidiert.«
My translation:
»The remaining Jews in Hungary, who could escape the massacres in the provinces by fleeing to Budapest, are presently liquidated.«

Since according to the established historiography there were no further mass destructions in Auschwitz or elsewhere in October 1944(http://www.vho.org/VffG/2001/4/Mattogno381-395.html), ‘to liquidate’ could mean therefore in this case the deportation of the Jews.

Carto's Cutlass Supreme
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2430
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:42 am
Location: Northern California

Postby Carto's Cutlass Supreme » 1 decade 3 years ago (Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:38 am)

Something is wrong. Forgeries are not out of the question. Hess was presented with incriminating documents which he wrote, and he had to point out to the allies that he signs his name "HeB" not "Hess."

Not to mention that in March 1942, how many Soviet POW's did the Germans have? Millions. Yet they're talking about 40 percent of Jews for work. Why? if their plan is to exterminate them.

Plus, Goebbels mentions pushing them to the East, and holocaust historians as much as they talk about delousing. In other words almost never.

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Goebbels diary entries with "liquidation" or "liquidate"

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 6 months ago (Sun Apr 14, 2019 11:02 pm)

This is an old thread, but this entry was brought up in another discussion I was having. I said that "Liquidation" did not necessarily mean killing at that time. Metapedia had some information on this: https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Meanings_ ... quidierung
also here: https://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Go ... quidate.22

Then later, I decided to look more into the word "Liquidate" being used by Goebbels himself, so I consulted his full diaries.

Here is the text of his diaries:
The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943
https://archive.is/Cyb4q or https://archive.is/xwcE4

It seems as though when you search "Liquidat" it appears 14 times in total in the text, including comments by the author. I will quote the instances here, so we can see how it is used. There is a lot of text here; I tried to make it so there was context, and Goebbels seemed to ramble on quite a bit. I did put every sentence with "Liquidate" in bold and underline however, so you can find those easily. Also, text within brackets is comments by the author.

March 6, 1942

There is a lot of sub rosa talk in the neutral countries about the possibilities of a separate peace with the Soviet Union. In London they are already scared about it. Such fear, however, is unwarranted. The Soviet Union will and must be knocked out, no matter how long that may take. The situation is right for putting an end to Bolshevism in all Europe, and considering our position we can't give up on that aim.

A frontal attack on black markets was made in the House of Commons. No bones are made about the fact that Jews were chiefly implicated in profiteering in the food market. Heading the procession were the Jewish immigrants who went from Germany to England. Jews always remain the same. You must either stigmatize them with a yellow star, or put them in concentration camps, or shoot them, or else let them saturate all public life with corruption, especially during a war. There is no halfway measure.

An SD report informed me about the situation in occupied Russia. It is, after all, more unstable that was generally assumed. The Partisan danger is increasing week by week. The Partisans are in command of large area in occupied Russian and are conducting a regime of terror there. The national movements, too, have become more insolent than was at first imagined. That applies as well to the Baltic States as to the Ukraine. Everywhere the Jews are busy inciting and stirring up trouble. It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it. The Jews are Europe's misfortune. They must somehow be eliminated, otherwise we are in danger of being eliminated by them.



March (?) 1942

Goering also addressed a sharp letter to Bishops Galen of Muenster and Berning of Osnabrueck. He reminded them of their oath, pledged to him,, of fidelity to the state and reprimanded them severely for their treasonable attitude.
[Comment from text: Bishop- Count Clemens von Galen of Muenster belonged to one of the oldest families in Germany, whose title of nobility dated from the ninth century. He was a bold opponent of Nazism and one of the most colorful men in the Catholic hierarchy of Germany. H« received the cardinal's, hat in 1946, but died of exhaustion on his way home from Rome. His colleague, Bishop Berning of Osnabrueck, was another doughty fighter against Nazism.]
While I was with him, the answers to this letter happened to arrive. They are relatively meek. The bishops try to alibi and with involved turns of speech to. prove that they kept their oath. Goering naturally won't accept that. I suggest to Goering that he write another letter, especially to Galen, charging him to his face with having created the greatest unrest in the Reich by his claim that seriously wounded soldiers were being liquidated, and pointing out that his utterances: are being used by the English propaganda services against the National Socialist regime. On the one hand it can't be denied that certain measures of the Party, especially the decree about crucifixes, have made it altogether too easy for the bishops to rant against the state. Goering, too, is very much put out about it. His whole attitude toward the Christian denominations is quite open and aboveboard. He sees through them, and has no intention whatever of taking them under his protection. On the other hand he agrees with me completely that it won't do to get started now, in wartime, on so difficult and far-reaching a problem.


Next instance is the "60% of them must be liquidated" quote in the OP

April 29, 1942

Thirty demolition and one thousand incendiary bombs (according to other reports fifty demolition and several thousand incendiary bombs) were dropped on Cologne. . . . The fires started within the municipal area of Cologne, and spread rapidly because of the strong wind. Some residential sections were burned out completely. About one hundred fires were started, among them twenty of great magnitude. They included fires in the Finance Office in the old part of the city, in the harbor, the city hall, a bank, five churches, two hospitals, and one chassis factory. One factory was completely destroyed. The political scene is still dominated by the Fuehrer's Reichstag speech.

... All lies of the past, dating back to times of peace and war, are warmed up again and adorned with new arabesques. The conclusion arrived at is that the Fuehrer's speech represents, as it were, the cry of a drowning man. To think what the enemy countries can make of a turn of speech that in itself is harmless! For instance, the dressing down which Justice received is exaggerated into a gigantic internal revolution. As though the judges had the ambition and the ability to start a revolution in the Reich! Ten per cent of the lowest officials of the NSV would be sufficient to quell it. [The National-Sozialistische Volkswohlfahrt (NSV), or National Socialist People's Welfare, was an institution which collected vast sums of money for welfare purposes, a large part of which, however, was diverted to war purposes.]

Molotov issued a new atrocity note to the world powers. In it there has been gathered together about everything that can be said about us in the way of lies. It is very comprehensive and is intended especially for the populations in the areas occupied by us. I received a report on the situation in Finland. Things there are anything but satisfactory. But the fighting morale of the Finns is entirely unbroken. The Finns are determined, under all circumstances, to continue the war with their accustomed vigor. Their losses of men are enormous. It is especially regrettable that, when an entire Finnish regiment is liquidated, this usually means that the entire male population of villages or even cities is eliminated. The Finns are a very courageous and heroic people. Roosevelt addressed a message to Congress. It is rather colorless and deals mainly with economic problems. But in contrast to his pompous speeches before the entry of the United States into the war he, too, must now admit the seriousness of the situation. There is no longer any indication of rosy optimism.

The SD gave me a police report on conditions in the East. The danger of the Partisans continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The Partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties during the winter, and these difficulties have by no means ceased with the beginning of spring. Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated. The new slogan, "Land for the Peasants!" appealed especially strongly to the rural population. We could have achieved this success much earlier if we had been cleverer and more farsighted. But we were geared altogether too much to a brief campaign and saw victory so close to our very eyes that we thought it unnecessary to bother about psychological questions of this sort. What we then missed we must now attempt to catch up with the hard way. I received a new report about the effect of the Fuehrer's speech on the German people. There has, after all, been some objection. Although the trust in the Fuehrer continues undiminished, nevertheless the German people are asking, surprised, why new plenary powers had to be granted to the Fuehrer and what reasons might have guided him to castigate and criticize domestic conditions thus publicly. Unfortunately one cannot very well explain these reasons in public. There is also some skepticism in judging the military situation.

Above all, since the Fuehrer spoke of a second winter campaign in the East, people believe that he, too, is not convinced that the war against the Soviet Union can be finished during the coming summer. The questions raised by the Fuehrer's speech are very numerous. In a certain sense the address has spread a feeling of insecurity. The people want especially to know what the Fuehrer now intends to do in order to improve the conditions he criticized and to call to account the people responsible for them. Undoubtedly speeches frequently draw such psychological consequences in their wake. The main thing is that the people have been alerted to the seriousness of the situation and on the whole are aware that it is now a question of to be or not to be.

A report from the Reich Health Office goes into elaborate detail to prove that the food rations authorized at present are not sufficient for maintaining a normal state of health. We know that! I notice it in my own case. But there is no other choice. If we lost the war the rations at our disposal would suffice even less to keep up the health of the German people. During the Ministerial Conference I objected strenuously to the increasing craze for the primitive in some departments of my ministry. It is nonsense, without any compelling reasons, to want to cut out things belonging to normal civilian life. Thus, for instance, the Schwarze Korps recently wrote an article against the barbers. Now, after all, we cannot run about with apostles' hair! Nor is it a crime if the ladies have their fingernails attended to so long as there is sufficient personnel for that purpose! Waechter presented his plans for a great anti-Soviet exposition in the Berlin Lustgarten. It promises to become an exhibition event of first magnitude and to show the justification for our war against the Soviet Union. Of course I am going to see to it that nothing is exhibited that might in any way be an advertisement for Bolshevism. [The Lustgarten was a gigantic square at the eastern end of the Avenue Unter den Linden.]


May 15, 1942

For certain reasons we launched an "unauthorized" article in the Frankfurter Zeitung which discusses the economic and operational possibilities of an attack on Moscow. With this article we are trying to divert the attention of the enemy to a different sector from the one on which we actually intend to attack. Whether we shall succeed in getting the Bolsheviks to fall for this [auf diesen Leim zu locken] is very doubtful. [The Frankfurter Zeitung was chosen as the medium for this Goebbels swindle because it was still considered abroad to be somewhat liberal. Until the advent of Nazism it had been truly liberal and was read all over the world. The Nazis, realizing its importance as a possible medium for veiled propaganda, continued to give it an appearance of liberalism when in fact it was regimented, as was every other newspaper in Germany. Under date of May 20 Goebbels described what he did when the article appeared.] Our victory at Kerch has impressed the neutral press very much. As a matter of fact, more is expected of it than we intended for the moment.

The Fuehrer has now given orders for stern measures to be applied in the treatment of French prisoners of war as an answer to the escape of General Giraud. The French PWs may thank their general for having all joy taken out of life. They are no longer to be allowed to leave their compound, they are to be placed under strong guard, and the French generals who are in our hands are to be put into solitary confinement. A report from Paris informs me that a number of those who staged the last acts of terror have been found. About 99 per cent of them are eastern Jews [Ostjuden]. A more rigorous regime is now to be applied to these Jews. As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated or liquidated all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris. By nature and race they will always be our natural enemies anyway. [By eastern Jews (Ostjudcn) are chiefly meant the Jews from Galicia and Poland.! The situation in the East, according to reports of men on furlough and letters from the front, is being interpreted very favorably by the people. Of course all the elements of hope in our military position are somewhat neutralized by the extraordinarily strained food situation. Most people can't satisfy their hunger any longer, and a hungry stomach always inclines somewhat toward subversiveness. Unfortunately the prospects for an improvement of the food position are very un-favorable for the moment. The weather is about as bad as one could have it for a good harvest.

In the evening we viewed a new motion picture produced by our Continental-Gesellschaft in Paris after a scenario written around the life and activity of Hector Berlioz. The film is of excellent quality and amounts to a first-class national fanfare. I shall unfortunately not be able to release it for public showing. I am very angry to think that our own offices in Paris are teaching the French how to represent nationalism in pictures. This lack of political instinct can hardly be beaten. But that's the way we Germans are. Whenever we go into another country, be it ever so strange to us or even an enemy, our first task seems to consist in getting order into that country regardless of the fact that perhaps in several years or decades it may go to war against us. The lack of political instinct among the Germans is the result of their passion for work and of their idealistic enthusiasm. You have to put on the brakes constantly so that evil and damaging consequences may not result.



MAY 8 1943

After luncheon the Fuehrer called together the entire leadership of the Party, that is, the Party, the SA, the SS, and the HJ [Hitler Youth], to warn them in very impressive words against speeding such as has been the vogue within the Party. The Fuehrer was extremely outspoken and was not sparing in reproaches. The lesson he drew from Lutze's motor accident is that all cars of Party members must cut speed down to fifty miles. I consider this a very sensible measure. In no other way can the Party be brought to its senses. The conference of the Reichsleiters and Gauleiters followed. The Fuehrer honored his Party sub-leaders by giving them a detailed survey of the situation. He began with the fact that in this war bourgeois and revolutionary states are facing each other. It has been an easy thing for us to knock out the bourgeois states, for they were quite inferior to us in their upbringing and attitude.

Countries with an ideology have an edge on bourgeois states, in that they rest upon a firm spiritual foundation. The superiority resulting from this fact was of extraordinary advantage to us until we began the campaign in the East. There we met an opponent who also sponsors an ideology, even though a wrong one. The Fuehrer recalled the case of Tuchachevsky and expressed the opinion that we were entirely wrong then in believing that Stalin would ruin the Red Army by the way he handled it. The opposite was true: Stalin got rid of all opposition in the Red Army and thereby brought an end to defeatism. The introduction of political commissars, too, has greatly enhanced the striking power of the Red Army. When one takes into account that the primitive human material of the East can be taught discipline only by strictness, one can imagine what purpose Stalin had in mind when he introduced political commissars and what he has actually accomplished thereby. . . . [Goebbels here refers to the great purge of the Soviet Army and Communist party leadership in 1936 and 1937, one of the most famous victims of which was the commander in chief himself, Marshal Tuchachevsky, who was always regarded as pro-German and hoped to bring about an alliance of the military leaders of Germany and Russia. Commentators the world over predicted that the Russian Army would not survive the purge; Hitler claimed it was a healthy cleansing process. Curiously enough Hitler Degan instituting a system of political commissars just about the time Stalin discarded it.]

Stalin enjoys the further advantage over us of being opposed by no "high society/' He rid himself of this opposition by liquidations during the past twenty-five years. Although the opposition of our "high society" constitutes no danger, it can create all sorts of petty annoyances. It gripes and complains without having any knowledge of the facts and thereby greatly reduces our driving power. Bolshevism rid itself of this danger in time and can therefore devote all energy to fighting the enemy. There is virtually no opposition left within the country. [Goebbels always distrusted German "high society." At the same time he, like other Nazis, liked to have blue bloods as personal aides. His adjutant was a scion of one of the minor German reigning houses, Prince Stephan of Schaumburg- Lippe.] Opposition by the churches, which is giving us such an awful lot of trouble, no longer exists under Bolshevism. If there is talk today of a Metropolitan of Moscow, that is naturally just a Jewish swindle. The Fuehrer rightly points out that a few months ago this Metropolitan was possibly still a furniture mover. In that respect Stalin has a much easier time of it than we. His people have all been placed in one groove. They are subjected either to Bolshevik education or the Bolshevik whip; in any case no other opinion prevails in the Soviet Union save that of the bosses of the Kremlin. ... It is evident [the Fuehrer said] that lasting resistance to the Soviet Union can be offered in Europe only by the Germans.

...
The Fuehrer argued that the anti-Semitism which formerly animated the Party and was advocated by it must again become the focal point of our spiritual struggle. He thinks a great deal of the anti-Semitic movement in England, although he is naturally aware that it lacks organization and therefore cannot constitute a political factor. Nevertheless this anti-Semitism is most embarrassing to the Churchill Government. It is comparable to the anti-Semitic endeavors of certain bourgeois organizations in Germany in the old days. These, too, would never have achieved their end had not the revolutionary National Socialist movement taken up the campaign. . . . The Jewish question is being solved least satisfactorily by the Hungarians. The Hungarian state is permeated with Jews, and the Fuehrer did not succeed during his talk with Horthy in convincing the latter of the necessity of more stringent measures. Horthy himself, of course, is badly tangled up with the Jews through his family, and will continue to resist every effort to tackle the Jewish problem aggressively. He gave a number of humanitarian counterarguments which of course don't apply at all to this situation. You just cannot talk humanitarianism when dealing with Jews. Jews must be defeated.

The Fuehrer made every effort to win Horthy over to his standpoint but succeeded only partially. From all this the Fuehrer deduced that all the rubbish of small nations [Kleinstaaten-Geruempel] still existing in Europe must be liquidated as fast as possible. The aim of our struggle must be to create a unified Europe. The Germans alone can really organize Europe. There is practically no other leading power left. In this connection the Fuehrer re-emphasized how happy we can be that there are no Japanese on the European continent. Even though the Italians today give us many a headache and create many a difficulty, we must nevertheless consider ourselves lucky that they cannot be serious competitors in the future organization of Europe. If the Japanese were settled on the European continent the situation would be quite different. Today we are practically the only power on the European mainland with a capacity for leadership. The Fuehrer sometimes asks himself in a worried sort of way whether the white man is going to be able in the long run to maintain his supremacy over the tremendous reservoir of human beings in the East.
...
The press section of the High Command, which has always created a lot of trouble for me, is now to be transferred to the Propaganda Ministry. Keitel and Jodl are opposing this with every means at their disposal but the Fuehrer asked me to send him a report on this question, whereupon he will issue the necessary decree. Propaganda, he said, is a function of the Propaganda Ministry and not of the Wehrmacht. Our propaganda in the East, too, is to be joined more closely to the Propaganda Ministry. It isn't Rosenberg's business to engage in propaganda of which, as the Fuehrer rightly observes, he knows notoriously nothing. Here, too, the Fuehrer agrees completely with me. Unfortunately my views did not prevail in the question of continuing the Frankfurter Zeitung. The Fuehrer gave a number of reasons why the Frankfurter Zeitung should be eliminated.

. . . Personally I believe the reasons for retaining the Frankfurter Zeitung are stronger than the Fuehrer realizes, but he is stubbornly of the opinion that it would be better to do away with it. I shall now carry out his wish and bring about the liquidation of the newspaper. . . . The Fuehrer has no intention of following the Japanese procedure of court-martialing aviators shot down over German soil and having them executed. He fears the English have too many possibilities for reprisals and that we may stumble into a situation about which we know where it begins but not where it is likely to end. I must see to it that, while we let our press mention the strong language employed by the Japanese and also more recently by the Italians, we do not suggest to the German public that we should indulge in similar practices. Turning now to the theme of total war, on the whole the Fuehrer was satisfied with the measures hitherto taken.


July 27,1943

I arrived at the Tempelhof airdrome early. Dr. Dietrich flew with me to GHQ. He, too, was tremendously distressed about events in Italy. He developed a series of theories that seemed somewhat farfetched and unconvincing. As long as we have no more exact information about what actually happened in Rome than what has come through thus far, we can venture no opinion. At the moment we don't even know what the revolution was all about. In any case, following my instinct and my sound common sense, I believe we may assume that the Roman camarilla has the intention of getting out of the war in some elegant manner. Before I could speak to the Fuehrer I had a talk at GHQ with Himmler and Bormann. They don't believe Mussolini resigned voluntarily. I, too, regard it as out of the question. I believe the crisis developed in the following manner: As a curtain raiser the radical Fascists of the type of Farinacci were sent forward to criticize the Duce. That started things rolling. Badoglio and his henchmen used this occasion to trip up Mussolini. Presumably he was then called to the Quirinal, where he was arrested stante pede and compelled to resign.

It is simply shocking to think that in this manner a revolutionary movement that has been in power for twenty-one years could be liquidated. But this isn't the end yet. I believe there are still some possibilities left for directing things into a different channel. Both Himmler and Bormann indulge in the most varied theories. But these are of no real value, as they are based upon suppositions and not on facts. I look at the situation somewhat more realistically. According to the reports thus far available, I believe I can assume that the Duce actually had lost most of his authority with the Italian people. It is always true that as soon as a dictator has fallen, the man in the street is heard from. I suppose, therefore, we won't have to wait long before this happens in Italy. At ten o'clock, together with Goering, I had my first talk with the Fuehrer. The Fuehrer impressed us with his quiet self-assurance and his sovereign superiority. Although the events in Italy made a deep impression upon him, they in nowise succeeded in throwing him off his equilibrium. On the contrary, his brain was already at work feverishly formulating and preparing new decisions.

...

The insignia of Fascism were publicly removed; a Mussolini Street was rechristened Matteotti Street. The masses moved through the streets of the Italian capital, hailed the King and Badoglio, and "tormily demanded peace. That is a development we welcome heartily. The more things are at sixes and sevens in Italy, the better it is for the measures we are planning. The fact that the demonstrations are in favor of Badoglio is a sign that in all likelihood he himself arranged them. Of course he will have to see to it that they don't get out of hand and that he does not experience the truth of the proverb that spirits once called up often can't be recalled. Undoubtedly the Italian people have a deep yearning for peace. It now depends on how you talk to them. If an austere and manly appeal were addressed to the Italian public, it would undoubtedly have the same effect as an appeal to defeatism and compromise. That the official insignia [Liktorenbuendel] have been torn down and that the mob is storming the Fascist party offices are proof that Badoglio intends to liquidate everything connected with the Fascist revolution. Aside from his hostility to Fascism he is undoubtedly trying to curry favor with the enemy. That proves that one must not pay too much attention to his statement that the war will continue. This whole episode is the greatest example of perfidy in modern history. The Fuehrer is firmly determined to see to it that Italy does not betray the German Reich a second time. [Hitler here refers to Italy's abandoning the Austro-German-Italian alliance during World War I and joining the Allies. Despite Hitler's efforts the Italians finally declared war on Germany again.]

...

The situation in southern Tyrol is very critical. Quite gratuitously there was a day raid of two hundred enemy planes on Hanover with very damaging results, owing chiefly to the fact that the fire department had just been loaned to Hamburg. There was therefore almost nothing that could be done about the heavy conflagration that started. I ordered the Hanover fire department back from Hamburg immediately. It is quite obvious that the German people are uneasy and deeply distressed because we can't tell them anything at present about the background of the Italian crisis. What are we to tell them, anyway? We can't say, much less write, what we think personally. Anything we can write will fail to explain the Italian crisis to our people. We must therefore be satisfied for the present with publishing the momentous news without telling the people that the question at issue in Rome is not only Mussolini's resignation but a very profound organic and ideological crisis of Fascism, perhaps even its liquidation. Knowledge of these events might conceivably encourage some subversive elements in Germany to think they could put over the same thing here that Badoglio and his henchmen accomplished in Rome. The Fuehrer ordered Himmler to see to it that most severe police measures be applied in case such a danger seemed imminent here. He doesn't believe, however, that much is to be expected along that line. The German people are much too hostile to the Italians to regard the crisis in Rome as a precedent. And anyway, the common people have long anticipated and expected what is now happening in Rome.


(The next instance of "Liquidate" in this book is actually within brackets, so a comment by the author. So I will not include this one)

SEPTEMBER (?) 1943

After his twenty minutes' talk Mussolini was arrested in the hall by Cara- binicri and hustled into an ambulance. At first they tried to deceive him, saying he was being taken into custody because of a plot against his life from which he must be protected; but he was pretty soon aware that he was under arrest. The royal house and Badoglio then had the Duce dragged from one place to another. . . . Churchill evidently wanted to await the liquidation of the Italian question, the English and American advance to the Brenner, the extradition of the Duce and his public exhibition in New York. This was prevented only by our stroke of genius. The Duce told the Fuehrer very happily that he had always believed in his liberation by the Germans and had firmly counted on it. On the other hand he had always been fully determined never to surrender to his enemies but rather to put an end to his life with a pistol. . . .


The following entries are not from the above book (which is only 1942-43) but also include the term "Liquidate" in some form:
Mar 19, 1941
Early flight to Posen. … Here, all sorts have been liquidated (liquidiert), above all the Jewish trash. This has to be. I explain the situation to Greiser.

Aug 7, 1941
In the Warsaw ghetto there was some increase in typhus; although provisions have been made to ensure that it will not leave the ghetto. The Jews have always been carriers of infectious diseases. They must either be cooped up in a ghetto and left to themselves, or liquidated (liquidieren); otherwise they will always infect the healthy population of the civilized nations.
From:
Goebbels on the Jews, Part 1
https://codoh.com/library/document/1918/

See also part 2: https://codoh.com/library/document/3109/


I would also like to point out that we are assuming here that in every case of "liquidate" or "liquidation" the author was specifically translating the German word "liquidieren" -- After the "60% of them will be liquidated..." entry, the author commented in brackets: "By General Government is meant German-occupied Poland. It is obvious from *his entry that Goebbels knew of the gas-chamber atrocities, but it is significant that there was any form of human depravity which he would recognize as barbaric when resorted to by Nazis."
Yet, as pointed out, nothing in that entry suggests gas chambers or anything of that sort. It seems he was understanding "liquidate" to only mean "exterminate" which is clearly incorrect.

Regardless, it seems quite clear that "Liquidated" did not necessarily mean killed when Goebbles used that word.
In fact, in most instances it can not have that meaning. However, the quote about the Finns seems to suggest that it may have had that meaning in some instances. Of course, it must also be pointed out that Goebbel's personal opinions on how Jews should be treated (after hearing of atrocities committed against Germans on a weekly basis) is not be construed as actual National Socialist policy.



EDIT:

I have also found the 1945 entries:

PDF: ftp://d157-115-35.home4.cgocable.net/vo ... 20Days.pdf
or https://archive.is/FNCgz (the formatting may be a bit off)


10 MARCH 1945
I am vexed most of all by the behaviour of the people in my home town of Rheydt. The Americans have struck up a real triumphal chorus about it. A certian Herr Vogelsang, known to me from the early days as a downright National-Socialist philistine, has placed himself at the disposal of the American occupation authorities as Oberbürgermeister. In doing so he stated that he had only joined the Party on compulsion from me and otherwise had had nothing to do with it. I am going to draw a bead on this gentleman. I am preparing an operation to liquidate him at the first favourable opportunity. It will be carried out by Party members from Berlin who have been trained for actions of this type. I discussed it in full detail with Schach. I do not want to rush the matter but to make careful preparations to ensure that it succeeds whatever happens. I believe that it will not fail to have its effect both on the enemy occupation authorities and also on the population beyond the Rhine.

11 MARCH 1945
As far as the West is concerned the Führer inclines to my view that the whole thing is a complete mess. Rundstedt has not been up to commanding the battle in the West. He is too old, and moreover comes of a school unsuited to modern warfare. The Führer has therefore relieved him and replaced him by Kesselring. He is due to receive Rundstedt this very evening to tell him so. Rundstedt is of course a highly respectable officer who has done us great service, particularly in the liquidation of 20 July. The Führer therefore wants — I impressed this on him forcibly — Rundstedt's relief to be carried out in the most decorous manner.

18 MARCH 1945
Life in the enemy-occupied areas of the West is pictured as real hell. The French people must now pay dearly for their government's folly in declaring war on us in September 1939. They deserve all they get. Equally the Poles are now going round with lamenting that they have so far lost ten million men from death, starvation, deportation and liquidation. That is the punishment for Polish arrogance in August 1939. Had the Poles accepted our extraordinarily generous proposals at that time, they would have got off without even a scratch. As they are now, they run the risk of slowly losing their people by a sort of creeping death.

30 MARCH 1945
Otherwise the Führer is convinced that in eight to ten days' time the holes in the West will have been plugged in some way. The "Adolf Hitler Free Corps" can then slowly make its appearance. I promise him to get partisan activity in the occupied western districts to a peak in a very short time.Now that the Burgomaster of Aachen has been liquidated it is now the turn of the Jewish Police President in Köln and the Burgomaster of Rheydt. In any case I am convinced that in the not too distant future we shall succeed in laying low every German traitor among our enemies in the West.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Lamprecht » 1 year 2 weeks ago (Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:07 pm)

This Goebbels diary entry is handled quite well in the book by Mattogno, Graf, and Kues; a refutation of the HC Bloggers.

The "Extermination Camps" of "Aktion Reinhardt"
PDF: https://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/28-tecoar.pdf
TXT: https://archive.is/FQyxU

[123] "On March 27, 1942, Goebbels revealed the fate of the non-working Jews, whilst also repeating The Wannsee Protocol 's formulation for the workers:

"The Jews are now being pushed out of the General Government, beginning near Lublin, to the East. A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail, and not much is left of the Jews themselves. In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work. The former Gauleiter of Vienna [Globocnik] , who is carrying out this action, is doing it pretty prudently and with a procedure that doesn't work too conspicuously." (pp. 132-133)

I assume that here as well Harrison refers to a source which he has never seen: "TBJG II/3, p. 561 (27.3.1942)" (footnote 199 on p. 133). The quotation is most likely taken from the expert report of Evans, 731 who in his footnote 72 indicates as source "E. Frohlich (ed.), Die Tagebiicher von Joseph Goebbels, Teil II, Vol. 3 (Munich, New Providence, London, Paris, 1994), p. 56 1." 732

First of all I present the German text, transcribed from Evans in the above mentioned footnote: 733

"Aus dem Generalgouvernement werden jetzt, bei Lublin beginnend, die Juden nach dem Osten abgeschoben. Es wird hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht ndher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel ubrig. Im grofien kann man wohl feststellen, dafi 60% davon liquidiert werden miissen, wdhrend nur noch 40 % in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden konnen. Der ehemalige Gauleiter von Wien, der diese Aktion durchFührt, tut das mit ziemlicher Umsicht und auch mit einem Verfahren, das nicht allzu auffallig wirkt. An den Juden wird ein Strafgericht vollzogen, das zwar barbarisch ist, das sie aber vollauf verdient haben"

Translated:

"Starting with Lublin, the Jews are now being deported from the General Government to the East. A rather barbaric method which needs not to be described further is applied, and not much is left over of the Jews. Overall one can ascertain that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be deployed for labor deployment. The former Gauleiter of Vienna, who performs this action, does this with a good deal of circumspection and also using a procedure which is not all too conspicuous. Against the Jews a penal judgment is carried out which, although barbaric, is fully deserved."

The Goebbels diary entry quoted by Evans contains two other important passages, which Harrison does not mention. The first passage consists in the umpteenth reference to Hitler's "prophecy," which had become a stereotypical Leitmotif 'in Goebbels's comments:

"Die Prophezeiung, die der Führer ihnen fur die Herbeifuhrung eines neuen Weltkriegs mit auf den Weg gegeben hat, beginnt sich in der furchtbarsten Weise zu verwirklichen."

"The prophecy which the Führer issued to them for the case they started a new world war is beginning to come true in the most terrible fashion."

The other passage is this:

"Die in den Stadten des Generalgouvernements freiwerdenden Ghettos werden jetzt mit den aus dem Reich abgeschobenen Juden gefullt, und hier soil sich dann nach einer gewissen Zeit der Prozefi erneuern."

"The ghettos which are cleared in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews deported from the Reich, and after a certain span of time the procedure is then to renew itself here."

I demonstrated above that the documents perfectly match the NS policy of emigration/evacuation/resettlement and that they do not contain even the faintest trace of a Hitler "decision" to exterminate the Jews. On the contrary, they abundantly negate it. We have also seen how Goebbels himself summarized what he understood about the Wannsee conference, noting that the Jews had first of all to be "concentrated in the East [im Osten konzentriert werden]," then, finally, after the war, an island, "for instance Madagascar [etwa Madagaskar],"could be allocated for them. Therefore it is legitimate to ask: who took the "decision" to "liquidate" 60% of the deportees, and when did that happen?

Since this statement stands in stark contrast to all contemporary documentation which I proffered above, and if an extermination order for Jews unfit for work cannot be deduced, then the term "liquidation" must be intended in the sense of Fritz Reuter's Vermerk (note) of 27 March 1942 - to which I will return in chapter 6 - which is to say that the Jews unfit for work had to cross the border at Belzec and never again return to the General Government, i.e. a territorial "liquidation," not a physical one.

...

For point (4) Terry refers to a long excerpt of an entry in Goebbels's diary dated 27 March 1942, giving this reference: "TBJG II/3, p. 561 (27.3.1942)" (footnote 271 on p. 198). With this he only confirms his status as a bungler. The text quoted by him is another plagiarism, as its text is in fact identical, word for word (with exception of "Führer" being substituted for "Feuhrer"), with what appears on the site The Nizkor Project, 1119 which reproduces the text as published in Louis P. Lochner, ed., The Goebbels Diaries. Doubleday & Company, New York, 1948, pp. 147-148, a book never quoted in the "Cut and Paste Manifesto."What further gives away the plagiarism is the fact that the Englishman Terry here uses the American-English spellings "labor" and "judgment," although elsewhere in his own text and (supposed) translations he employs British-English spellings.

Regarding his vapid criticism, I assert again what I wrote in my essay about Hilberg as mentioned by him (footnote 272, p. 198) and which I explained in chapter 5, point 123. Here I will add some additional considerations.

Leaving aside Harrison's various misrepresentations, Goebbels's remarks here appears to constitute the only clue in favor of an alleged National Socialist homicidal intention toward Jews unable to work. This issue has therefore to be examined and solved within the context of Goebbels's diary. On 7 March 1942, in commenting the decisions taken at the Wannsee conference, he stated: 1120

"Die Judenfrage mufi jetzt im gesamt europdischen Rahmen geldst werden. Es gibt in Europa noch iiber 11 Millionen Juden. Sie miissen spdter einmal zuerst im Osten konzentriert werden. Eventuell kann man ihnen nach dem Kriege eine Insel, etwa Madagaskar, zuweisen."

"The Jewish question has to be solved now within a framework for the whole of Europe. There are still more than 11 million Jews in Europe. Later they must be at first concentrated in the East. Maybe after the war an island, like Madagascar, can be assigned for them."

Since this is fully congruent with the National Socialist policy towards the Jews followed until then, one must ask: what happened between 7 and 27 March? What decision established that 60% of these 11 million Jews had to be "liquidated"? If there is no answer to this question, the "liquidation" fades and dissolves into a sheer expression of Goebbels's grim rhetoric. The question is too embarrassing for Terry, who constantly accuses me of "omissions," yet he omits every reference to the diary entry of 7 March. If, as he pretends based on his farcical "chain of documents," the decision to exterminate unfit Jews in the Lublin district was taken already on 17 October 1941, inasmuch as "two weeks later, construction work began on Belzec." (p. 167), how can Goebbels's diary entry of 7 March 1942 be explained? And there is more to explain. Terry states that "in all likelihood, Goebbels learned of the plans for the Lublin district from the governor, Zorner, an old acquaintance of his. Cf. Czeslaw Madajczyk, 'Hitler's Direct Influence on Decisions Affecting Jews During World War II,' YVS 20, 1990, pp.53- 68, here p. 59" (footnote 271, p. 198). He limits himself to report almost literally Madajczyk's words: 1121

"In all likelihood, he was informed about it by the governor of that district, his old friend, E. Zorner."

It is therefore a simple conjecture.

On the previous page Madajczyk reports i.a. Goebbels's diary entry of 14 February 1942: 1122

"The Führer again expressed his position, saying that he was determined to remove the Jews from Europe /mit den Juden in Europa aufzuraumen/ without any consideration. Here one cannot afford to succumb to fits of sentimentality. The Jews deserve the catastrophe which they are undergoing at present.
Together with the destruction of our enemies they will experience their own destruction. We must hasten this process with cold inconsideration, and in doing so we are rendering an inestimable service to humanity which has been tormented by Jewry for thousand of years. This clear attitude of enmity toward the Jews must be instilled also among all recalcitrant and unwilling circles of our own people. The Führer emphasizes this in explicit terms and he reiterated it to officer circles who should know it off by heart."

This is another example of a planned deportation of the Jews out of Europe 1123 embellished by Goebbels's cruel rhetoric. In a puerile vicious circle Terry claims therefore that the "liquidation" mentioned by Goebbels would be the proof of the Jewish extermination in Belzec and that the Jewish extermination in Belzec would be the proof that the "liquidation" mentioned by Goebbels would be a real extermination.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Lamprecht » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:26 pm)

More Goebbels diary entries supporting the resettlement/deportation/evacuation position of the "Final Solution":

18 December 1941:
"I speak with the Führer regarding the Jewish Question. He is determined to take consistent action and not be deterred by bourgeois sentimentality. Above all, the Jews must leave the Reich (aus…heraus)... The Jews should all be pushed off (abgeschoben) to the East. We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that."

7 March 1942 (probably referencing the 20 January 1942 Wannsee conference/protocols):
"I read a detailed report from the SD and police regarding a final solution of the Jewish Question. Any final solution involves a tremendous number of new viewpoints. The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war. In any case there can be no peace in Europe until the last Jews are shut off from (ausgeschaltet) the continent."

27 April 1942:
"I talked to the Führer once more in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude is unrelenting. He wants, under all circumstances, to push the Jews out (herausdrängen) of Europe. That is right. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the severest punishment meted out to them is still too mild. Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement (Umseidlung) of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos."

30 May 1942:
"Therefore the Führer does not at all wish that the Jews should be evacuated (evakuiert) to Siberia. There, under the harshest living conditions, they would undoubtedly develop again a strong life-element. He would much prefer to resettle (aussiedeln) them in central Africa. There they would live in a climate that would certainly not make them strong and resistant. In any case, it is the Führer's goal to make Western Europe completely Jew-free. Here they may no longer have their homeland."

21 August 1942:
"The Jews are now in large part evacuated (evakuiert) and established in the East. This is quite generous to them. Here the Jewish Question is tackled in the right place, without sentimentality and without much consideration. Only in this way can the Jewish problem be solved."

1 October 1942:
"I drive back to the Chancellery with the Führer. Once again we talk through the Jewish Question. Here the Führer takes the same radical standpoint I do. He is also of the opinion that we must completely deport the Jews out of the Reich (restlos herausschaffen), and above all from Berlin."

3 January 1943 (on the Führer Reichstag prophecy):
"It's amazing how shortsightedly the Jews all over the world operate. They seem to have learned nothing from the example in Germany. Apparently the hemorrhaging of them by us yielded very little fruit. They should expect this frivolous playing with fire to continue until they are completely wiped out (gänzlich vernichtet). This also corresponds to the Führer's prophecy, when he explained at the beginning of the war that it would not end with the destruction (Vernichtung) of the Aryan race, but with the expulsion (Austreibung) of Jewry from Europe."

23 January 1943:
"The Führer is of the opinion that the Jewish Question in Berlin must be solved as soon as possible. As long as one still finds Jews in Berlin, we cannot speak of internal security. Also the Jews must be removed from Vienna (aus…heraus) as fast as possible."

2 March 1943:
"We are now definitely pushing the Jews out (aus…hinaus) of Berlin. They were suddenly rounded up last Saturday, and are to be carted off (abgeschoben) to the East as quickly as possible."

15 March 1943:
"You just can’t trust the Jews across the street. I therefore told the Führer emphatically once more that I deemed it essential to force the Jews out (herauszubringen) of the entire Reich as fast as possible. He approved, and ordered me not to cease or pause until no Jew is left anywhere in Germany."

18 April 1943:
"I believe I shall have completed one of the greatest political achievements of my career once Berlin is free of Jews. When I consider how Berlin looked in 1926 when I came here, and how it looks now in 1943 when the Jews are being evacuated (evakuiert) completely, I get a feeling of what has been achieved in this sector."

25 April 1943:
"From a report from the occupied areas I gather that a truly grotesque situation obtains in Warsaw. The Jews tried to leave the ghetto by subterranean passages. Thereupon these underground passages were flooded. The ghetto is now under artillery fire. When such conditions prevail in an occupied city, it certainly can’t be said to be pacified. It is high time that we remove (aus…entfernen) the Jews just as quickly as possible from the General Government. The Führer would like to talk to me before I go on leave, especially to discuss the next measures in the Jewish Question, of which he has very great expectations."

8 May 1943:
"The East will forever regard Europe as an attractive jewel. The East will again and again try to break into this continent in order to dominate it. Our constant, untiring effort must therefore center upon taking the necessary measures for our security. If it be true today that the Bolshevism of the East is mainly under Jewish leadership and that the Jews are also the dominant influence in the Western plutocracies, then our anti-Semitic propaganda must begin at this point. The Jews must therefore be thrown out (aus…heraus) of Europe."

7 October 1943:
"As to the Jewish Question, [Himmler] gives a very frank and candid picture. He is of the opinion that we can solve the Jewish Question for all of Europe by the end of this year. He advocates the most radical and harshest solution, namely, that the whole of Jewry will be rooted out (auszurotten). This is surely a consistent, if brutal, solution. We must accept the responsibility to completely solve this question in our time. Later generations will surely no longer have the courage or dedication to address this problem, as we do today."

16 March 1944:
"Six thousand Jews are still living in Berlin, partly privileged, and partly tolerated. I’m keeping an eye on them, and will still try to deport them (abzuschieben) at the earliest opportunity."

Also suggested:
War-time German documents & writings mentioning the "Final Solution"
viewtopic.php?t=12296



There is actually one specific instance in his diary where Goebbels calls for killing Jews (as an opinion, not a description of policy)

14 March 1945:
"The Jews are reemerging. Their spokesman is the well-known and notorious Leopold Schwarzschild; he is now arguing in the American press that under no circumstances should Germany be given lenient treatment. Anyone in a position to do so should kill these Jews like rats (wie die Ratten totschlagen). In Germany, thank God, we have already thoroughly attended to this. I hope that the world will take this as an example."

Something I posted in another thread, here: viewtopic.php?p=95475#p95475
Lamprecht wrote:The opinion of one person on what to do about a specific group during a war is not the same as actual government policy. It likely is the case that many Germans did want to kill all Jews, just as it was the case that most would have found such a thing abhorrent. And the same could be said for Jews, some of which openly advocated for genocide of Germans. In a December 1944 poll in the United States, 13% supported "killing off" the Japanese after the war
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Hannover » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Tue Feb 04, 2020 12:06 am)

"Liquidation":
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=liquidation&t=h_&ia=web
images:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=liquidation&t ... http%3A%2F
examples:

Image Image

- Hannover

‘O, what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive.’
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

NFrNJ
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:10 am

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby NFrNJ » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:10 pm)

Lamprecht says above that " it seems quite clear that "Liquidated" did not necessarily mean killed when Goebbels used that word.
In fact, in most instances it can not have that meaning."

Would he care to go back through the quotes he has so kindly given and show us which ones he refers to?

In earlier discussions it was suggested that “liquidate” was used as it is in business – but they then gave interpretation which were not the actual meaning of the term in business or accountancy. It was suggested that it meant “to move about” (warehouse stock is moved after liquidation sale) or to made mobile like a liquid. But this isn't what it means.

Liquidation in business terms refers to assets that are turned from “non liquid”, I.e. non fungible, hard-to-exchange valuables (like old stock) to "liquid" assets - ones easy to exchange or use to pay off liabilities, like cash. The stock may never be moved at all, if the purchaser buys the entire warehouse... "liquidation" does not mean the goods are moved, it means the value is released in a more easily exchangeable form. A business that is “liquidated” ceases to exist. The value of its assets is converted to liquid cash, and the debts paid off, - but the business does not go anywhere else. It stops being a business.

In any case the 6th March 42 use cannot mean merely moved around? "It is therefore desirable that many of them must pay with their lives for this. Anyway, I am of the opinion that the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war. One must have no mistaken sentimentality about it. The Jews are Europe's misfortune. They must somehow be eliminated,"

“many of them pay with their lives?” Killed. “Eliminated” - surely killed, in this context, not merely deported.

And it does not mean that are to be sold off for cash either. It means killed.


the March ? 1942 entry " I suggest to Goering that he write another letter, especially to Galen, charging him to his face with having created the greatest unrest in the Reich by his claim that seriously wounded soldiers were being liquidated, and pointing out that his utterances: are being used by the English propaganda services against the National Socialist regime. "
This cannot be parsed by changing "liquidated" to "moved". Clearly and obviously, the only reason great unrest would be caused would be if it meant killed. It means killed.

The April 29th 1942 entry is clearly about the elimination of an entire regiment, with enormous loss of life - both Finnish military and civilian.
"Their losses of men are enormous. It is especially regrettable that, when an entire Finnish regiment is liquidated, this usually means that the entire male population of villages or even cities is eliminated."
Lamprecht is good enough to agree that in this case “liquidate” and “eliminate” mean killed or destroyed. Because this cannot be simply about moving them. It means killed.

But later in that diary entry Goebbels says "Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated." The same term, within two paragraphs - is it really plausible to think he meant two entirely different things (especially since he was clearly talking about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, and their reports of mass shootings)? It means killed

the May 15th 1942 entry says "A more rigorous regime is now to be applied to these Jews. As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated or liquidated all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris. By nature and race they will always be our natural enemies anyway."

Here "evacuated" (moved) is used in contrast to "liquidated". Clearly, unarguably, "liquidated” does not mean "moved". Or solved, or any other meaning but killed. To suggest otherwise is surely perverse. It means killed

The May 8th 1943 entry "Stalin enjoys the further advantage over us of being opposed by no "high society.' He rid himself of this opposition by liquidations during the past twenty-five years."

I think anyone pretending this means "moving" people about rather than the well known mass murder committed during the purges, would have to be called up for that. It means killed.

A little later in the same entry Goebbels discusses Hitler's conversations with Horthy - in which Hitler is recorded as saying those who cannot be used for labour must be shot, and trying to convince Horthy to enslave and kill the jews, or hand them over to be enslaved or killed. In this context Goebbels talks of "The Jewish question is being solved least satisfactorily by the Hungarians. The Hungarian state is permeated with Jews, and the Fuehrer did not succeed during his talk with Horthy in convincing the latter of the necessity of more stringent measures. Horthy himself, of course, is badly tangled up with the Jews through his family, and will continue to resist every effort to tackle the Jewish problem aggressively. He gave a number of humanitarian counterarguments which of course don't apply at all to this situation. You just cannot talk humanitarianism when dealing with Jews. Jews must be defeated. The Fuehrer made every effort to win Horthy over to his standpoint but succeeded only partially. From all this the Fuehrer deduced that all the rubbish of small nations [Kleinstaaten-Geruempel] still existing in Europe must be liquidated as fast as possible."

I will allow that one might stretch this to mean that the rubbish should be moved, but liquidate does not mean move, in any language, so that is silly. Given the earlier use of the term “solved” it would be odd for Goebbels (or Hitler who he is quoting) to use the term “liquidate” in its metaphorical technical, chemical, “to forma solution” sense. Given the fact that Hitler had talked about no humanitarian solution being needed, and that he had talked of shooting jews that could not work, it is far more plausible to say that in the context of Hitlers demands that he means shooting. “liquidated” here means “killed”. It means killed.

But interestingly, a little later , "it would be better to do away with it. I shall now carry out his wish and bring about the liquidation of the newspaper. . ."

Here at last we have a use that could plausibly be a normal business style use - to liquidate a business. Sell off its assets and close it down. But from the remark “to do away with it” it is also clear that he means to destroy the business utterly.

So that is one non lethal use. Out of seven so far. But a use that still refers to absolute destruction, and is only a non lethal use because it is referring to a business, not a person. Had he said he would “liquidate” the journalists...

NFrNJ
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:10 am

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby NFrNJ » 8 months 2 weeks ago (Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:11 pm)

The 27th of July 1943 use "It is simply shocking to think that in this manner a revolutionary movement that has been in power for twenty-one years could be liquidated."
Is again non lethal, because it is referring to a movement, an idea, not a person. It is however clearly also not being used to mean "moved". It is being used to mean "utterly destroyed". Not shifted around (just as "Ausrotten" means "uprooted, destroyed, exterminated" not "transplanted carefully.") So while it is not directly saying murdered, it is not saying merely relocated, and it is in a sense indicating total destruction.

This is the repeated use in this entry " That the official insignia [Liktorenbuendel] have been torn down and that the mob is storming the Fascist party offices are proof that Badoglio intends to liquidate everything connected with the Fascist revolution."
Again non lethal, because not about a person, but not meaning “moved” or a problem solved or a solution made. It is meaning total destruction of all traces of the party. And then we have another similar use:
" We must therefore be satisfied for the present with publishing the momentous news without telling the people that the question at issue in Rome is not only Mussolini's resignation but a very profound organic and ideological crisis of Fascism, perhaps even its liquidation."
Goebbels cannot bring himself to tell the people that Italian Fascism may be entirely destroyed - utterly wiped away. Metaphorically the movement will be killed; it may not just be in crisis but about to die.

Whatever he means he does not mean it is being sold off, or relocated. He means utterly destroyed.

September (?) 1943. "Churchill evidently wanted to await the liquidation of the Italian question, the English and American advance to the Brenner, the extradition of the Duce and his public exhibition in New York."

Again it is utterly unreasonable to suggest that "liquidation" here means "moved" or removed, or relocated or any other movement related term. It does not mean sold off either. While it is a little peculiar, the usage could be the obscure technical scientific meaning of "make a solution" being used in a metaphorical sense, to suggest finding a solution to a problem. (Churchill wanted to await the solution of the Italian question). The sense is again clearly indicating "the Italian question" would be “liquidated” by the advance to the Alps, and the extradition of Mussolini - so the "question," the problem, would be solved - destroyed, nullified or made to be no longer a problem by these means. It is a non lethal use, because it is not referring to a person, but a more general problem, but it clearly means destroyed, ended, no longer extant in any way.


The March 19 1941 entry "Early flight to Posen. … Here, all sorts have been liquidated (liquidiert), above all the Jewish trash. This has to be. I explain the situation to Greiser."
I have not been able to find out what was meant by "all sorts" being "liquidated". Who were the "all sorts" apart from the jews? So it is difficult to understand this one. By that date the couple of thousand jews of Poznan had been rounded up, some killed, the rest sent to ghettos, their businesses (and luggage) stolen, the majority ending up killed in Sobibor, by most historical accounts (or from Sobibor transported to the East, to places unknown, and never returned, never heard of again, although the fact that the Einsatzgruppen were killing the jews int eh East and proudly declaring their territories Jew free does suggest that wan't a happy ending). So liquidate here could merely mean a few killed, the rest of the community completely destroyed, the people sent to die elsewhere. We might just allow that this was a figurative use - not homicidal, but merely meaning total destruction of the community as a community (and few killed). So One use so far of the term referring to people that might not be entirely homicidal. Ambiguous. Might not. But not clearly. It could still be about mass killings.

Aug 7, 1941
"In the Warsaw ghetto there was some increase in typhus; although provisions have been made to ensure that it will not leave the ghetto. The Jews have always been carriers of infectious diseases. They must either be cooped up in a ghetto and left to themselves, or liquidated (liquidieren); otherwise they will always infect the healthy population of the civilized nations."

So here we have a contrast between cooped up and liquidated. So we can reasonably assume that being ghettoised, locked up, isolated, kept separate is not "liquidation". And we saw above in the May 15th 1942 entry about Paris jews, that “Liquidation" and "evacuation" were contrasted. So what does it mean here? Evacuation, moving them, putting them somewhere else, would still leave them free to infect the healthy, unless when they were deported they were again cooped up. So if Liquidation does not just mean deported, but means “deported and cooped up” it isn't much of a contrast with “cooped up”.

Why move them then? (ok, to shift the problem out of Warsaw, perhaps) but is “deport and coop up” really a plausible meaning for “Liquidated”? If so it is a novel meaning. And “liquidated” does not appear to mean evacuated, nor sold off, nor a solution to a problem. It really does not leave many plausible alternatives. Indeed it really only leaves one plausible and very common meaning for the term, unless you want to do some really interesting semantic gymnastics. It means killed.


so given this, how can Lamprecht claim that
"it seems quite clear that "Liquidated" did not necessarily mean killed when Goebbles used that word.
In fact, in most instances it can not have that meaning."

In all cases not about inanimate objects (movements or problems) it clearly can have that meaning.

Indeed in all but one case it clearly can have no other meaning.

It means destroy, when used of a movement or an inanimate object. In all the cases of referring to people it means killed. Or it makes perfect sense if it means killed, and really peculiar sense of it is redefined to mean anything else. In no usual sense does it ever mean "move" despite what Hannover claimed. In some uses it is contrasted with "evacuate" and "coop up".

So how can anyone claim “ in most instances it can not have that meaning. (killed)"?

Especially if you then add in the other instances of use Lamprecht then cites.

March 10th 1945 Goebbels writes of an assassination plot “ I am preparing an operation to liquidate him at the first favourable opportunity. It will be carried out by Party members from Berlin who have been trained for actions of this type.”

It means killed

and then
March 30th 1945
“.Now that the Burgomaster of Aachen has been liquidated it is now the turn of the Jewish Police President in Köln and the Burgomaster of Rheydt. In any case I am convinced that in the not too distant future we shall succeed in laying low every German traitor among our enemies in the West.”

obviously it means killed.

The 20 March 45 entry “ Rundstedt is of course a highly respectable officer who has done us great service, particularly in the liquidation of 20 July.” is interesting. I presume it refers to the Staffenberg plot and the subsequent round up and killing of the plotters. It seems to me to be fairly clear that it does not mean selling them off, moving them or solving the problem by non lethal means. It means killing.

18th March 1945
“ Equally the Poles are now going round with lamenting that they have so far lost ten million men from death, starvation, deportation and liquidation.”
So liquidation is again contrasted with deportation. So not movement. These “liquidated” men have not been taken out of Poland, but they are still “lost” - so they are dead by some means. It is also contrasted with Starvation – which would fit if the term “liquidation” meant deliberate killing by active means. But there is also the term “death” in there. So is it in contrast with death? Death and liquidation are not the same? Well, what do we know of the treatment of the Polish by the Germans? The program of killing intellectuals and political dissidents, and mass executions, burning of towns and the destruction of cities. Which would all have involved mass killing. It really is hard to see how the word in this context can have any other meaning. In common with the other uses it means total destruction, and killing.

Can any other reasonable interpretation actually be made?

I would like to see the word replaced in each of these sentences with a term other than killing (which makes sense in all of those sentences) that makes sense.

And given that we have 12 cases of it clearly meaning killing, one slightly ambiguous case when it could easily mean killing, and the rest are about inanimate objects or things that are being totally destroyed... can we really support the interpretation of the original Post? Neither Hannover's “clear out” (which is not a meaning of the term in any case) nor the hand-waving of saying that all meaning is arbitrary and we need context – the context is clear – really stand. If all other uses of the term either mean killing for people or total destruction, and the context of use is in a paragraph that uses this type of language.
“A pretty barbaric procedure is being applied here, and it is not to be described in any more detail (why not?) …. not much is left of the Jews themselves.... 60% of them must be liquidated, [Globocnik].. is carrying out this action... with a procedure that doesn’t work too conspicuously. (so this is secret, not public expulsion, not transporting people to another settlement which would be conspicuous) … The Jews are being punished barbarically... in the most terrible manner. One must not allow any sentimentalities … It is a struggle for life and death between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. ...a radical solution...during the war we have a whole lot of possibilities which were barred to us in peacetime. We must exploit them... Jewry has nothing to laugh about …”

Is this just hyperbolic rhetoric? The jews are actually being kindly transported to new homes? What are these opportunities that war gave that peace didn't allow?
And what of this sentence “ The ghettos which are becoming available in the General Government are now being filled with the Jews who are being pushed out of the Reich, and after a certain time the process is then to renew itself here.”?

So the ghettos cleared of jews in Poland will then be filled with jews from germany and the occupied territories, and then they will be cleared again. But no mention of where they are being sent? Because that part of the “ pretty barbaric procedure”... “is not to be described in any more detail.”

In this context, really, does it make any sense at all to replace the word “liquidated” with anything but “killed”? Can anyone honestly say that “Killed” (because they are unfit for work, useless eaters, unneeded and a burden on the economy, as well as enemy aliens, potential saboteurs and enemies of the state) does not fit in this context? Or that “cleared out” fits better?

This is of course not to say that this represents any admission about gas chambers or the rest – but mass shootings are not disputed to have happened.

That aside, again I ask, how cam Lamprecht claim that in this case, or “In fact, in most instances it can not have that meaning.”? Of course it can.

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 10146
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Hannover » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:02 pm)

NFrNJ:

Please show the alleged huge mass graves that would necessarily exist, which are in fact claimed to exist in known locations.

You'd get nowhere in a real court of law with your unverified claims.

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

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Lamprecht » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:24 pm)

NFrNJ wrote:Would he care to go back through the quotes he has so kindly given and show us which ones he refers to?

All of the instances of the term were bolded and underlined in the texts, please read them.
Your post is extremely lengthy and I may respond more in depth later, but right this moment I do not care to even read it all.

The word can certainly mean to murder, there's no question about it. It can also mean other things. That's exactly what I said: it is a word that certainly can, but does not always, mean "murder."

It is very dishonest for you to attack this strawman where I claimed it can never mean to kill, and that in every cited instance I insinuated that it doesn't have that meaning.

The word itself is vague and can have different meanings, really it should be understood as "get rid of" which quite obviously can mean "kill" but also other things. Selectively quoting the instances when it means to kill and ignoring the rest is not an honest or reasonable approach. That is why I posted every single instance of the term rather than selectively choosing the ones where it obviously does not mean to kill.

But later in that diary entry Goebbels says "Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated." The same term, within two paragraphs - is it really plausible to think he meant two entirely different things (especially since he was clearly talking about the activities of the Einsatzgruppen, and their reports of mass shootings)? It means killed

Unfortunately there is an error in the translation from the book I was citing. The word "Liquidated" was used by the author but not in the original text, instead "müssen daran glauben" (bite the dust) was written.

For 29 April 1942, what was provided from the book:
"The SD gave me a police report on conditions in the East. The danger of the Partisans continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The Partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties during the winter, and these difficulties have by no means ceased with the beginning of spring. Short shrift is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands of them are liquidated."

The correct translation:
"The SD gave me a police report on conditions in the East. The danger of the Partisans continues to exist in unmitigated intensity in the occupied areas. The Partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties during the winter, and these difficulties have by no means ceased with the beginning of spring. Short shrift (kurzen Prozess) is made of the Jews in all eastern occupied areas. Tens of thousands bite the dust (dran glauben müssen), and on them is fulfilled the Führer's prophecy that Jewry will have to pay for inciting a new World War with the extirpation (Ausrottung) of their race."

For the relevant portion:
"Zehntausend müssen daran glauben, und an ihnen erfüllt sich die Prophezeiung des Führers, dass das Judentum einen von ihm entfachten neuen Weltkrieg mit der Ausrottung seiner Rasse wird bezahlen müssen."

Tens of thousands of jews being shot in the East is accepted as fact by revisionists. He states earlier in the same paragraph "The Partisans have, after all, caused us very great difficulties."

Note also that 2 days prior (27 April 1942) Goebbels wrote:
"I talked to the Führer once more in detail about the Jewish Question. His attitude is unrelenting. He wants, under all circumstances, to push the Jews out (herausdrängen) of Europe. That is right. The Jews have brought so much misery to our continent that the severest punishment meted out to them is still too mild. Himmler is presently implementing a large resettlement (Umseidlung) of Jews from German cities to the eastern ghettos."

So yes, here Goebbels explains that the "Final Solution" is the mass removal of Jews out of Europe, a "resettlement". And he thinks that is "too mild" (his personal opinion) which means, obviously, that Goebbels himself would have been happy to write about Jews being systematically exterminated solely based on their jewishness... if they were. But he didn't. He only speaks of the very well known and understood reprisal actions in the east (Which weren't even illegal, even if you consider them immoral) that he claims resulted in tens of thousands of Jewish deaths, whereas revisionists generally estimate hundreds of thousands.

Mostly you are just repeating the same nonsense strawman argument, quoting for example: "As far as I am concerned, it would be best if we either evacuated or liquidated all eastern Jews still remaining in Paris."

Somehow you think I implied that doesn't mean to kill, which I never once did. And again, I never claimed that Goebbels was against killing Jews. Nor did I ever claim that Jews weren't killed in WWII. And as for the author injecting "liquidation" here in this instance when that was not the term used, that is quite an annoyance to say the least. I wonder if he did that in any other cases? :roll:

Really, there is nothing in the Goebbels diaries that prove "Holocaust denial" wrong. Even in the case of the 60% / 40% quote:
"In general one may conclude that 60% of them must be liquidated, while only 40% can be put to work"

In general one may conclude? That just means "in my personal opinion..."
Same as "As far as I am concerned"

In no instance does Goebbels claim that "Final Solution" evacuation applied only to able-bodied Jews to the east for the purpose of labor. Those who are needed for labor go wherever the labor is needed. Those who are to be evacuated in general are to be evacuated to a specific place. The fact that this sort of nonsense is used as "proof" of a mass extermination policy of Jews -- when the document trail suggests otherwise -- is quite ridiculous. It's clear that Goebbels had no issues cheering when Jews were killed. I think you're right anyway about the term meaning "kill" in that specific entry (and the majority of the rest) but Goebbels is just expressing his opinion, not policy. Later, in his diaries when he refers to the "Final Solution" policy, he explains that it is evacuation in every instance.
Please refer to: viewtopic.php?p=95512#p95512

As for:
So the ghettos cleared of jews in Poland will then be filled with jews from germany and the occupied territories, and then they will be cleared again. But no mention of where they are being sent? Because that part of the “ pretty barbaric procedure”... “is not to be described in any more detail.”

In this context, really, does it make any sense at all to replace the word “liquidated” with anything but “killed”?

No mention of where they will be sent? Perhaps in a selective 1-sentence quote. What does the entire entry say?
Something being "barbaric" and not to be described doesn't necessarily mean to kill all of them, which is what you're implying. Mass resettlement was a dirty thing and in the process many people were killed. What do you think happened when they say "no, we are not getting on those trains!" hm? This was during a war, remember.

Please again refer to:
Lamprecht wrote:The opinion of one person on what to do about a specific group during a war is not the same as actual government policy. It likely is the case that many Germans did want to kill all Jews, just as it was the case that most would have found such a thing abhorrent. And the same could be said for Jews, some of which openly advocated for genocide of Germans. In a December 1944 poll in the United States, 13% supported "killing off" the Japanese after the war


And also the many diary entries where Goebbels specifically refers to the "Final Solution" as an evacuation policy. Your own position is that he was very happy to talk about killing Jews, that he celebrated it. Then why call "Final Solution" evacuation And consistently at that. Do you think it was extermination? Then why didn't he describe it as such?

This is of course in agreement with all of the documents:

War-time German documents & writings mentioning the "Final Solution"
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12296

Challenge to NFrNJ:
Which Goebbels diary entry do you think actually proves the "Holocaust" happened -- meaning, that "Holocaust denial" is wrong?


Let's see what you have, NFrNJ :)
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 2098
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby Lamprecht » 8 months 1 week ago (Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:48 pm)

NFrNJ wrote:Is this just hyperbolic rhetoric? The jews are actually being kindly transported to new homes?

I saw this and it very much annoyed me.

Why is there only black and white here? Either you believe that:
the Nazis exterminated every Jew they could get their hands on
or you must think:
they treated them like angels and either sent them to an all-expense paid vacation summer camp, or transported them on fancy trains to a brand new house with all of the latest amenities.

I don't think you're that dumb, so I can only assume you're deliberately invoking this nonsense, fallacious argument.
I will refer here to this thread, where you can read some reports about what the actual position is, and see if this sounds like "kindly transported" to you:
Prisoners dying in transit to the AR camps (Sobibor, Belzec, Treblinka) / other deaths / expected death tolls
viewtopic.php?t=12910

For a short summary:
"So according to these reports, the "Resettlement train" to Belzec of about 8,200 Jews to be ended up with 2,000 of them dead on arrival due to disease. In addition, some 300 Jews were executed due to being incurably sick/ill... This specific transport was an anomaly: the death very high death rate was likely to be one of the highest of any transports, if not these highest. And this was not due to homicidal intent, but logistical difficulties."
I am not sure where "kindly transported" came from exactly? :roll:

NFrNJ:
YES or NO -- does that Kolomea "Resettlement train" story sound "barbaric" to you or not?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
— Herbert Spencer

NFrNJ
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2019 6:10 am

Re: Goebbels diary entry, March 1942.

Postby NFrNJ » 8 months 1 week ago (Sat Feb 08, 2020 7:09 am)

Lamprecht wrote:
It is very dishonest for you to attack this strawman where I claimed it can never mean to kill, and that in every cited instance I insinuated that it doesn't have that meaning.

But I did not do that. If we are talking about building straw men, then you should avoid doing it yourself.

I quoted you as having said
Lamprecht wrote:
Regardless, it seems quite clear that "Liquidated" did not necessarily mean killed when Goebbles used that word.
In fact, in most instances it can not have that meaning.


I went through each entry and showed that in every entry where it referred to a human being it could have that meaning.

which obviously is in total contradiction to what you said, and what I quoted.

I further showed that in only two or possibly three it might possibly at a stretch, be read to have another meaning, but tht it made perfect sense if read as killing, and not very convincing if read otherwise.

I also showed that in every case (bar the closure of the newspaper) where it was an inanimate object being liquidated - a community, a political movement - the term clearly and unambiguously meant totally destroyed. One could of course also use that meaning for the human beings, but that is just another way of saying killed.

So I showed that your claim - that it could not mean killing in most instances, is entirely wrong when the term was used about human beings, and I hope you would agree that the use about inanimate objects as totally destroyed is consistent with a consistent meaning of the term. It never means moved or sold off, or relocated, or anything else except perhaps in one particular case - the closure of the newspaper. Even there is is the destruction of the paper itself, the end of its existence.

The only challenge I made to you was to justify the exact thing you said. Kindly stick to the point.


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests