9/11-investigator explains the Holocaust

[Simon39759]

.
I've seen stupid kids in their black and silver Gothic suits with "ausrotten" embroidered on them, at the Mall.
After pointing these out to Mall Security, they are told to leave and not return, by Security.

Any chance they did not know the meaning of it? I had to Wiki it myself.

 

[Emerson Street]

Any chance they did not know the meaning of it? I had to Wiki it myself.

If memory serves correct it is the name of some crappy goth band.

 

[Simon39759]

Is the band neo-nazi?

That's obscure enough for a poorly informed rebellious teenager to get confused.

 

[I Ratant]

When displayed with other trinkets of the SS, I think they knew exactly what it means.
One of them sported a teeny Hitler mustache.
As I recall, the Poznan speech was recorded, and had something to do with the conversion of a rabid Nazi (on Compuserve's forum devoted to discussions of religion) back to humanity when he heard it, as he'd long believed there was nothing to anything anti-Jew in the bizarre world of the 3rd Reich.

 

[I Ratant]

duplicate..

 

[headscratcher4]

When displayed with other trinkets of the SS, I think they knew exactly what it means.
One of them sported a teeny Hitler mustache.
As I recall, the Poznan speech was recorded, and had something to do with the conversion of a rabid Nazi (on Compuserve's forum devoted to discussions of religion) back to humanity when he heard it, as he'd long believed there was nothing to anything anti-Jew in the bizarre world of the 3rd Reich.

Himmler talked in the starkest terms of the heroic struggle of the SS to rid the world of jews...herioc but likely to be unrecognized because they woudn't be able to talk about it and have the public understand, but some future public would be able to look back and be thankful that the true "knights" of the SS had removed the Jews from the world. He sympathized with the rank and file, that mass murder was a bad business for their moral, but that they were doing noble work and would be better for it in the end.

Speer was there...he just forgot.

http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/speech-text.shtml

From the speech:

Wie wir darüber niemals gesprochen haben und sprechen werden.

Das war so eine Gottseidank in uns wohnende Takt, Selbstverständlichkeit des Taktes, dass wir uns untereinander nie darüber unterhalten haben, nie darüber sprachen, es hat jeden geschauert und jeder war sich klar, dass er es das nächste Mal wieder tun würde, wenn es befohlen wird und wenn es notwendig ist.

About which we have never spoken, and never will speak.

That was, thank God, a kind of tact natural to us, a foregone conclusion of that tact, that we have never conversed about it amongst ourselves, never spoken about it, everyone shuddered, and everyone was clear that the next time, he would do the same thing again, if it were commanded and necessary.


Ich meine die "Judenevakuierung": die Ausrottung des jüdischen Volkes.

Es gehört zu den Dingen, die man leicht ausspricht. "Das jüdische Volk wird ausgerottet", sagt Ihnen jeder Parteigenosse, "ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm drin, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir, pfah!, Kleinigkeit".

Und dann kommen sie alle, alle die braven 80 Millionen Deutschen, und jeder hat seinen anständigen Juden. Sagt: alle anderen sind Schweine, und hier ist ein prima Jude.

I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people.

It is one of those things that is easily said. "The Jewish people is being exterminated," every Party member will tell you, "perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them, ha!, a small matter."

And then along they all come, all the 80 million upright Germans, and each one has his decent Jew. They say: all the others are swine, but here is a first-class Jew.


Und zugesehen, es durchgestanden hat keiner. Von Euch werden die meisten wissen, was es heisst, wenn 100 Leichen beisammen liegen, wenn 500 daliegen oder wenn 1000 daliegen. Und dies durchgehalten zu haben, und dabei -- abgesehen von menschlichen Ausnahmeschwächen -- anständig geblieben zu sein, hat uns hart gemacht und ist ein niemals genanntes und niemals zu nennendes Ruhmesblatt.

And none of them has seen it, has endured it. Most of you will know what it means when 100 bodies lie together, when there are 500, or when there are 1000. And to have seen this through, and -- with the exception of human weaknesses -- to have remained decent, has made us hard and is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned.

Denn wir wissen, wie schwer wir uns täten, wenn wir heute noch in jeder Stadt bei den Bombenangriffen, bei den Lasten des Krieges und bei den Entbehrungen, wenn wir da noch die Juden als geheime Saboteure, Agitatoren und Hetzer hätten. Wir würden wahrscheinlich in das Stadium des Jahres 16/17 jetzt gekommen sein, wenn die Juden noch im deutschen Volkskörper sässen.

Because we know how difficult things would be, if today in every city during the bomb attacks, the burdens of war and the privations, we still had Jews as secret saboteurs, agitators and instigators. We would probably be at the same stage as 1916-17, if the Jews still resided in the body of the German people.

Die Reichtümer, die sie hatten, haben wir ihnen abgenommen, und ich habe einen strikten Befehl gegeben, den Obergruppenführer Pohl durchgeführt hat, wir haben diese Reichtümer restlos dem Reich, dem Staat abgeführt. Wir haben uns nichts davon genommen. Einzelne, die sich verfehlt haben, die werden gemäss einem von mir gegebenen Befehl, den ich am Anfang gab: Wer sich auch nur eine Mark davon nimmt, ist des Todes.

We have taken away the riches that they had, and I have given a strict order, which Obergruppenführer Pohl has carried out, we have delivered these riches completely to the Reich, to the State. We have taken nothing from them for ourselves. A few, who have offended against this, will be [judged] in accordance with an order, that I gave at the beginning: He who takes even one Mark of this is a dead man.

Eine Anzahl SS-Männer haben sich dagegen verfehlt. Es sind nicht sehr viele, und sie werden des Todes sein - GNADENLOS! Wir haben das moralische Recht, wir hatten die Pflicht unserem Volk gegenüber das zu tun, dieses Volk, das uns umbringen wollte, umzubringen. Wir haben aber nicht das Recht, uns auch nur mit einem Pelz, mit einer Mark, mit einer Zigarette, mit einer Uhr, mit sonst etwas zu bereichern. Das haben wir nicht. Denn wir wollen nicht am Schluss, weil wir den Bazillus ausrotten, an dem Bazillus krank werden und sterben.

A number of SS men have offended against this order. There are not very many, and they will be dead men - WITHOUT MERCY! We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us. But we do not have the right to enrich ourselves with even one fur, with one Mark, with one cigarette, with one watch, with anything. That we do not have. Because at the end of this, we don't want, because we exterminated the bacillus, to become sick and die from the same bacillus.

Da werde ich niemals zusehen, dass so etwas überhaupt nur auch ein kleine Fäulnisstelle bei uns eintritt oder sich festsetzt. Sondern, wo sich eine festsetzen sollte, werden wir sie gemeinsam ausbrennen. Insgesamt aber können wir sagen: Wir haben diese schwerste Aufgabe in Liebe zu unserem Volk getan. Und wir haben keinen Schaden in unserem Innern, in unserer Seele, in unserem Charakter daran genommen.

I will never see it happen, that even one bit of putrefaction comes in contact with us, or takes root in us. On the contrary, where it might try to take root, we will burn it out together. But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have taken on no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character."

It was recorded... the deniers say it was doctored.

 

[9/11-investigator]

As I recall, the Poznan speech was recorded, and had something to do with the conversion of a rabid Nazi (on Compuserve's forum devoted to discussions of religion) back to humanity when he heard it, as he'd long believed there was nothing to anything anti-Jew in the bizarre world of the 3rd Reich.

It took you guys quit a few pages in this thread to finally come up with one of the more difficult to explain material, the infamous Himmler Posen speech, October 4, 1943:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_XS3Xra0Xs

Let me reassure you that I will not bring up the subject of speech synthesis this time. The Germans were technologically advanced but it was 1943 we are speaking of.

Nevertheless, it remains strange that Himmler would allow making a recording of such an incriminating speech.

Just as a reminder: several of Churchill's most famous speeches were spoken by a stand-in (Norman Shelley), including the 'We shall fight them on the beaches' one (Churchill was often too drunk to do it himself):

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Observer291000.html

So, in this light producing a 'recording' of a condamning speech does not necessarily belong to the realm of the impossible.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/himmler-heinrich/posen/oct-04-43/

That recording, along with Himmler's notes for the speech, was found after the war by the Western Allies and transcribed for the International Nuremberg Trial.

(thoughts about the fake bin Laden videos impose themselves)

 

[Nogbad]

(thoughts about the fake bin Laden videos impose themselves)

They do?

 

[headscratcher4]

That recording, along with Himmler's notes for the speech, was found after the war by the Western Allies and transcribed for the International Nuremberg Trial.

I love the italics. It makes it so much more convincing and authoritative.

Clearly, the real Poznan speech was so inocent and meaningless that Speer desperately tried to assert he wasn't there because he was worried about being seen as wasting valuable time that afternoon listening to Himmler's reflections on the dietary habit of domestic poultry. The whole idea that if he was there it would undermine his claim of not knowing of the treatment of the jews was just something to say to spice up his presence at an otherwise boring SS meeting

 

[Simon39759]

It took you guys quit a few pages in this thread to finally come up with one of the more difficult to explain material, the infamous Himmler Posen speech, October 4, 1943:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_XS3Xra0Xs

Let me reassure you that I will not bring up the subject of speech synthesis this time. The Germans were technologically advanced but it was 1943 we are speaking of.

Nevertheless, it remains strange that Himmler would allow making a recording of such an incriminating speech.

Just as a reminder: several of Churchill's most famous speeches were spoken by a stand-in (Norman Shelley), including the 'We shall fight them on the beaches' one (Churchill was often too drunk to do it himself):

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/Observer291000.html

So, in this light producing a 'recording' of a condamning speech does not necessarily belong to the realm of the impossible.

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/himmler-heinrich/posen/oct-04-43/

That recording, along with Himmler's notes for the speech, was found after the war by the Western Allies and transcribed for the International Nuremberg Trial.

(thoughts about the fake bin Laden videos impose themselves)

Maybe Himmler did not know the recording was happening. Or he did not expect it to come out. He was not too mistaken either, after all, the recording did not come out until after the war.

As for Churchil, well, I suspect you got the rumour the good old David Irving.
There is little evidence that it is true. Let alone that your insulting explanation of Churchill being 'too drunk to record it himself'.
Once again you previous statement of 'innocent until proven guilty' shows itself in all its hypocrisy.
For you, the Nazis are innocent until after being proven guilty by a weight of evidences, including their own account, while the allies and victims are guilty, of lies and tortures, even in the absence of any evidence of such.

 

[Dave Rogers]

His taste in music was not bad, but as far as art and literature go.....

"Hitler - the more you learn about him, the less there is to love."

- David Mitchell

 

[Chaos]

what about successful poets?

Successful poets and writers usually have too much fun being poets and writers to start moonlighting as something else - particularly as something as time-consuming and poorly paid as revolutionary.

 

[9/11-investigator]

As for Churchil, well, I suspect you got the rumour the good old David Irving.

I got it from Irving's site as you can see with your own eyes rather than having to fall back on dark 'suspicions'. Irving quotes from the Observer. Not that it was really necessary to quote the Observer, because none other then Shelley himself confided as much during an interview with Irving.

Case closed.

Once again you previous statement of 'innocent until proven guilty' shows itself in all its hypocrisy.
For you, the Nazis are innocent until after being proven guilty by a weight of evidences, including their own account, while the allies and victims are guilty, of lies and tortures, even in the absence of any evidence of such.

The idea that everybody is innocent until proven otherwise is true for the Nazi's, the Hottentots, the Jena6, Lee Harvey Oswald, and heck, even the American government, as I explicitly say in my theory about 9/11 (search for 'disclaimer').

Here is the story of one of the most consequential tortures in the history of mankind, that of Rudolf Hoess, the commandant of labor camp Auschwitz, where 'less people died in the gas chambers then on the back seat of Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick':

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p389_Faurisson.html

Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a "Nazi." Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain "a coherent statement." They do not realize that the alleged "coherent statement" is nothing other than the lunatic confession, signed by their quivering victim on the l4th or l5th of March 1946, at 2:30 in the morning, which was to seal Höss' fate definitely, a confession which would also give definitive shape to the myth. The confession would also shape decisively the myth of Auschwitz, the supposed high-point of the extermination of the Jews, above all due to the alleged use of homicidal gas chambers.

And the holocaust was born and with it the seeds of destruction of the European world (Europe and Anglosphere).

 

[Trojan]

Without reading this entire thread I would like to point to one obvious strawman you built at the beginning.

Six million Jews were not gassed - it is not claimed by historians that this is so.

Gas was one method by which Jews and others were killed, it was not the only method, nor were a majority of Jews killed by this method.



And no, no Jews were autopsied to prove they died of bug spray (Zklon B) -- in every camp in which gas was used, there were either crematoriums or other means to incinerate the bodies. No camps were liberated while gassing operations were undertaken, in every instance the camps ceased gassing operations months or years before the camp was liberated by the allies.

You may continue now -Just wanted to set the record strait.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Without reading this entire thread I would like to point to one obvious strawman you built at the beginning.

Six million Jews were not gassed - it is not claimed by historians that this is so.

Gas was one method by which Jews and others were killed, it was not the only method, nor were a majority of Jews killed by this method.



And no, no Jews were autopsied to prove they died of bug spray (Zklon B) -- in every camp in which gas was used, there were either crematoriums or other means to incinerate the bodies. No camps were liberated while gassing operations were undertaken, in every instance the camps ceased gassing operations months or years before the camp was liberated by the allies.

You may continue now -Just wanted to set the record strait.

You are right on all accounts Trojan. It should have been '6 million jews where systematically murdered' in various ways.

Is this OK with you?

Meet Trojan. He is meine ständige Begleiter during my virtual stay here in America. He was the first to welcome me during my little provocation at ThePhora back in November 2008.

 

[Nick Terry]

As 9/11-investigator has not exactly excelled himself in cogent reasoning or coherence on this thread, I expect his response to these points to consist of changing the subject and/or irrelevant ad hominem, but let's try this, shall we?

Himmler's Posen Speech
1. The Posen speech is hardly the only example of Himmler confessing all to a select audience of Nazi regime leaders. There is also the Sonthofen speech to military officers in the spring of 1944, to name but one further example.
2. The Posen speech was described and paraphrased by Goebbels in his diaries, and ol' Josef was pretty clear he was hearing a justification for what we now call genocide.
3. There are also independent sources recording the reactions of military officers to the Sonthofen speech

There. I have just increased the number of sources to consider to two primary Himmler speeches plus at least two pieces of corroborative evidence.

Cue the post hoc rationalisations so ably described by Michael Shermer in Denying History.

Hoess's Interrogations
1. The 'sources' for Faurisson's babble about torture are dubious. One is a piece of trashy warnography by Rupert Butler without proper referencing. Another is a statement by a Nazi with an obvious ideological motive to lie.
2. It is extremely improbable that torture of the physical type alleged can be used to force a confession as detailed as Hoess gave.
3. About 30 SS officers from Auschwitz had already confessed before he was captured. Thus, Hoess's statement was not needed, and if he had not been captured then other statements would have been placed centre stage, e.g. those of Grabner, Wirths and other officers 9/11-investigator has probably never heard of.
4. Hoess was NOT interrogated about Auschwitz on the first night of his capture, according to the arresting officer, but simply for the whereabouts of other WVHA SS officers.
5. Hoess's own claim of maltreatment made in his memoirs pertains only to the first night of capture, not to the subsequent interrogation in Minden ('Tomato').
6. Hoess was subsequently interrogated almost continuously through his time in Nuremberg by a different set of interrogators, with clearly timed and transcribed transcripts of the interrogations. They are available at mazal.org and do not read like the conversations of a man who was forced to say anything. It is beyond improbable that the alleged beating could have kept his story straight, yet Hoess sticks to his story virtually throughout, right through to his trial in Poland.
7. Hoess also gave voluntary statements to a psychologist and a psychiatrist at Nuremberg, G.M. Gilbert and Leon Goldensohn. Neither of these statements/interviews reads like the words of a man who had been coerced violently. By his own admission to Goldensohn, he was not treated ideally, but this consisted of having his shoes taken away from him, which caused problems with his feet due to the cold. That would be a novel means of getting someone to lie against their better instincts.
8. The alleged 'torture' enabled Hoess to write detailed memoirs repeatedly describing different aspects of the extermination process, a whole eight to eleven months later in November 1946 and February 1947 while in Polish captivity awaiting trial. It is utterly improbable that an alleged beating in March 1946 could be enough to make him do this.

As usual, deniers pluck out 'clues' in the form of alleged contradictions and anomalies that only they think have any significance.

I wouldn't be surprised if we hear babble about how Hoess supposedly described the Sonderkommandos eating and smoking while dragging corpses out of the gas chambers, as if this related to the moment immediately after the doors were opened, when in fact this is a quote-mine first dug by Rassinier and ripped off by his disciple, Faurisson. Or how Hoess supposedly got the date of his momentous meeting with Himmler wrong, when in fact he gets practically all his dates wrong, even things that deniers supposedly don't deny.

The latter is the big problem for them, as it is for all CTs. Travis opined on the Stundies thread recently that "it seems like the understanding of analogies is located in the same region of the brain that needs to be damaged to become a Conspiranoid Loon in the first place". This can be extended to include all forms of comparison, context or controls.

Deniers are stupid enough to pick out as examples of why witnesses aren't to be trusted, errors that witnesses (or even worse, hearsay witnesses) make about things deniers don't regard as contentious. That's true lunacy.

 

[leftysergeant]

Bernard Clarke shows no remorse. On the contrary, he exhibits a certain pride in having tortured a "Nazi." Rupert Butler, likewise, finds nothing to criticize in that. Neither of them understands the importance of their revelations. They say that Höss was arrested on 11 March, 1946, and that it took three days of torture to obtain "a coherent statement.".

Excuse me if I do not believe this until I see it from a site not hosted by a sub-human. Got a legitimate source for that?

 

[timhau]

Nevertheless, it remains strange that Himmler would allow making a recording of such an incriminating speech.

Yeah. Reeeally strange. If the Nazis document their intentions, it's suspicious. If they don't, nothing happened.

 

[Trojan]

You are right on all accounts Trojan. It should have been '6 million jews where systematically murdered' in various ways.

Is this OK with you?

Much better ...

Now, best pay attention to those points from Nick Terry -- think he pretty much just owned your ass.

 

[Simon39759]

Everything a negationist says and does, always has the implicit postposition: 'but better luck next time'.
And, it's there, always. In the vile vile maliciousness of a David Irving or the slithering hypocrisy of a Robert Faurisson, it's there.
And this is the reason of the emergency in stamping its lies wherever they rise their head. More than our duties to the memories of the victims past, our need to prevent the beast to feed again.


[/pompous grandiloquence]