Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Political Manipulation / Cover-Ups / False Flags
Register FAQ Chat Social Groups Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 13-03-2013, 05:35 AM   #1
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default Himmler's Posen Speech

Himmler's Posen speech is not something I have ever given much thought to. Up until today, I have always dismissed it outright and done little more than read Butz's argument. However, as boots brought it up and as I get the sense it is his last gasp evidence for an extermination policy existing I have decided to read the thing and delve deeper.

The Posen speech (PS-1919) is a talk that Himmler allegedly gave on 04/10/43 to a delegation of National Socialist officials detailing the recent events of the war, plans for how the Germans can effectively continue fighting the war and how the SS can progress. This talk was allegedly secret, though we are told a recording was made which then fell into the hands of Rosenberg who kept a copy that was then discovered by Allied investigators. What makes this speech interesting is that it briefly discusses the extermination of Jews and suggests there was a conclusive plan:

Quote:
I am now referring to the evacuation of the Jews, the eradication of the Jewish people. It's one of those things that is easily said: 'The Jewish people are being eradicated', says every party member, 'this is very obvious, it's in our program, elimination of the Jews, eradication, we're doing it, hah, a small matter.' [...] But of all those who talk this way, none had observed it, none had endured it. Most of you here know what it means when 100 corpses lie next to each other, when 500 lie there or when 1,000 are lined up. To have endured this and at the same time to have remained a decent person - with exceptions due to human weaknesses - had made us tough. This is a page of glory never mentioned and never to be mentioned. [...] We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us.
To begin my research I decided to look through what conventional historians have to say on the matter. From what I have seen so far I am very surprised by how they present the document.

In the holocaust texts by Landau, Niewyk and Nicosia, Longerich, Ehrenfreund, Friedlander and Bloxham discussion of the speech is limited. Some do not mention it, some do not quote it and some give it very little analysis. The key thing here is that none of these authors present it as having any key importance to the holocaust debate, which is very surprising given its implications if genuine.

Ian Kershaw in Hitler, the Germans and the Final Solution makes just one reference to it (p. 206). He neither gives the readers an overview of the speech or quotes the ausrottung line. He presents this speech to his audience as being fact of an extermination plan and only quotes the lines where Himmler asks for secrecy. For such a potentially important document this is astounding. (By the way, I wouldn't recommend the book. The level of thinking is very poor and it reminds me in many ways of Vincent Bugliosi's Helter Skelter in that he makes giant leaps to irrational conclusions.)

Browning in Origins of the Final Solution and Fischel in The Holocaust, again, do not present a full picture of the allegedly damning portion. The former follows Kershaw's path and the latter focuses on the corpses portion without analysing the rest of the text.

Lipstadt in her Denying the Holocaust is the only one to give the speech importance. Presenting it as key evidence for an extermination policy (pg. 111). Though she does not give a summary of the full text

From what I have currently studied, very little discussion or analysis of the Posen speech is available. For a document that allegedly proves a National Socialist extermination policy this should strike you as very odd. I can only speculate the reasons for this:


---- 1. While happy to use the speech's implications to further their own belief of an extermination program, they have doubts about the text and are unwilling to present it directly to the reader.


---- 2. David Irving is right and conventional historians cannot be bothered to seek out and read primary sources. After all, none of them provide an explanation of the full speech past possibly quoting a few lines from a few paragraphs.


---- 3. Perhaps revisionists are correct and ausrottung is open to debate and by avoiding going into the speech in depth this is a way for them to downplay this element.

Last edited by crabhat; 13-03-2013 at 05:51 AM. Reason: Formatting
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:36 AM   #2
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

General comments on the text:

Here is an English translation: http://codoh.com/library/document/891

---- Firstly, the speech is a whopping 24,000 words long and while being the key evidence for those who believe an extermination policy occurred I would imagine it has been read by very few. We may all have seen the damning quote in the above post on Wikipedia or read extracts in books, but if the speech is authentic there are other especially damning portions elsewhere.

Quote:
For the SS Man, one principle must apply absolutely: we must be honest, decent, loyal, and comradely to members of our own blood, and to no one else. What happens to the Russians, the Czechs, is totally indifferent to me. Whatever is available to us in good blood of our type, we will take for ourselves, that is, we will steal their children and bring them up with us, if necessary. Whether other races live well or die of hunger is only of interest to me insofar as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise that doesn't interest me. Whether 10,000 Russian women fall down <umfallen> from exhaustion in building a tank ditch is of interest to me only insofar as the tank ditches are finished for Germany.

We will never be hard and heartless when it is not necessary; that is clear. We Germans, the only ones in the world with a decent attitude towards animals, will also adopt a decent attitude with regards to these human animals; but it is a sin against our own blood to worry about them and give them ideals, so that our sons and grandchildren will have a harder time with them. When somebody comes to me and says, "I can't build tank ditches with children <?> or women. That's inhumane, they'll die doing it." Then I must say: "You are a murderer of your own blood, since, if the tank ditches are not built, then German soldiers will die, and they are the sons of German mothers. That is our blood." That is how I would like to indoctrinate this SS, and, I believe, have indoctrinated, as one of the holiest laws of the future: our concern, our duty, is to our people, and to our blood. That is what we must care for and think about, work for and fight for, and nothing else. Everything else can be indifferent to us. I wish the SS to face the problem of all foreign, non-Germanic peoples, particularly the Russians, with this attitude. Everything else is moonshine, a fraud against our own people, and an obstacle to earlier victory in the war.
This, for instance, is very shocking. Why then are you unlikely to have never seen it before? I for one would raise questions that a portion such as this may reveal the speech's inauthenticity. Do you think Hitler, who treated the French under his occupation with the utmost consideration (compare with the rampage the British and Americans went on after arriving), would sign off on this attitude? One may argue this and claim that this is well within Hitler as he, allegedly, OK'd a scorched earth policy late in the war. However, the only evidence for this comes from two men and there is no documentation available confirming it being a reality. Speer, probably, in an attempt to save his own skin invented the Nero Decree. Additionally, the authenticity of this passage – and therefore all of it – should be questioned as there is not one bit of evidence that this plan (i.e. using women and children in the East as slave labour) was ever organised or put into place.

---- Secondly, this passage is worth studying:

Quote:
I now come to another aspect of this war, the domestic front. Some of the German people, namely the older men drafted, are now doing their second four-year world war. The German people were already very tense <nervous or excited: gespannt>, years before the war, because of the armaments, the Four Year Plan <?>, the recovery of Austria <?>, the Sudetenland <?>, and the occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. <Translator's note: why would they be nervous or tense about Austria or Sudetenland, for example? Bohemia and Moravia, yes.>
The translator is quite correct in asking why the Germans would be nervous or tense about Austria or the Sudetenland. What is the four year plan? (If anyone has a perspective, please answer.) It makes no sense. This makes me question again the authenticity of the speech. An error like this would be easy for an outsider to make and may explain why the full speech is widely unacknowledged. Someone who argues that it is an authentic document may argue that Himmler made an error, but if they state that they must then accept the potential for an error in the most incriminating of lines is there.

---- Thirdly, unknown to many there are misnumbered pages in the document, which is something that can seed doubts. (“Page 30 missing, but text continues apparently without interruption on page 31”, “page 32 missing; apparently misnumbered, since the ideas appear to follow”.)

---- Fourthly, the section for the lines that it is alleged confirm that an extermination plan was in effect are found in a section headed Judenevacuierung (The evacuation of the Jews – See documents here: forum.codoh.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=372&start=30#p56689). A serious question needs to be answered as to why he would head it as such? Surely, if Himmler was revealing his extermination plans he would label it 'the extermination of the Jews'? Additionally, the same link provides an account of the Allied removal of this heading when submitting their final document to the court. That should make anyone raise an eyebrow.

---- Fifthly, take a look at this passage that I find suspicious:

Quote:
"I don't believe that the Communists [in the Reich] will try anything, because their leaders, just like most other criminals in our country, are in concentration camps."
Can you spot it? I'll cut to the chase, most German communists would be Jews and especially the leadership. I think few would argue this point. Therefore, we should assume that they would have been exterminated by this point if an extermination plan was in effect. They would not be locked up and working in a concentration camp. This would be an easy error for someone to make, if the document is faked.

---- Sixthly, we have another passage that may show a lack of understanding of Germany at the time:

Quote:
This is a chapter of glory in our history which has never been written, and which never shall be written; since we know how hard it would be for us if we still had the Jews, as secret saboteurs, agitators, and slander-mongers, among us now, in every city — during the bombing raids, with the suffering and deprivations of the war. We would probably already be in the same situation as in 1916/17 if we still had the Jews in the body of the German people.
But hang on, if they has exterminated all German Jews, why did Rigg write the book Hitler's Jewish Soilders chronicling the 150,000 Jews in the wehrmacht and SS? Someone may argue that this means only Jews who were unwilling to assimilate. But, surely he would say those rather than the? Also, if this document is authentic, he lays out clearly that he means all Jews earlier - “The Jewish people are being eradicated.” Also keep in mind that while not all, some of these were fully Jewish.

Last edited by crabhat; 13-03-2013 at 01:09 PM. Reason: Editing errors
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:37 AM   #3
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

The criticisms of Butz

Butz's in his The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, tells the reader that "the evidence that Himmler actually made these remarks is very weak." He lists his reasons as follows:

"The manuscript of the speech, which bears no signature or other endorsement." http://nuremberg.law.harvard.edu/php...olor_setting=C – As can be seen here, this is true.

---- The document, in accompanying material, was said to have been found in Rosenberg's files. However, Rosenberg was never questioned regarding it, which we may suggest, if kosher, should have happened. Additionally, Rosenberg was asked about another document to which he denied was ever in his possession. (IMT, vol. 11, 561.)

---- He cites Berger who stated under examination that “Himmler had indeed delivered an “interminable” speech at Posen in 1943” (NMT, vol. 13, 457-487). Berger denied that the document 1919-PS was accurate as it dealt with other matters and

Quote:
“[…] that is not contained in the transcript. I can say with certainty that he
did not speak about the Ausrottung of the Jews, because the reason for this
meeting was to equalize and adjust these tremendous tensions between the
Waffen SS and the Police.”" NMT, vol. 13, 457-487.
After he was played a short portion of the opening of the speech Berger denied that it was Himmler's voice on the phonograph recording. However, upon being played the extract for a second time he did admit it “might be Himmler's voice.” His questioning of the matter ended here and the presiding Judge Powers passed it into evidence prima facie (at first appearance). Powers then added

Quote:
there is no evidence, however, that it was delivered at Poznan or any other particular place. The discs will be received in evidence as an indication of Himmler’s general attitude.”
Can we view this as enough for it to be passed as an authentic document?

---- Lastly, Butz raises the question that if the Pozen speech made by Himmler was what we are expected to take it as why would Himmler have a 'secret' conference recorded? This makes no logical sense.

Quote:
"it seems quite peculiar that Himmler would have allowed the recording of a speech containing material that he “will never speak of […] publicly,” and then, despite his control of the Gestapo, have seen these recordings fall into the hands of his political rival Rosenberg."
Butz's comment on this matter is quite correct.

Last edited by crabhat; 13-03-2013 at 12:37 PM. Reason: Formatting
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:38 AM   #4
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Do the recording methods of the Posen speech raise questions as to it's authenticity?

An individual writes into the CODOH:

Quote:
The so-called Posen speech of RFSS Heinrich Himmler from Oct. 4, 1943, is often regarded as a forgery by revisionist. I may add a technical aspect to this discussion not mentioned so far, which I would like to present for further discussion.

The speech played back to the audience at the Nuremberg Tribunal had been recorded with the so-called needle technology on a so-called shellac disc. Records made of PVC were introduced to the market only around 1950. A shellac disk had not more than 15 minutes of recording time. It appears that there was only one disk, which could, of course, only hold a small part of the entire speech.
During the years 1939-1940, the German electrical company AEG had perfected the magnet audio technique for market introduction, that is, a technology allowing the recording of spoken words or music on a plastic tape coated with ferro-magnetic particles. The decisive step was the invention of high frequency pre-magnetization by Braunmühl and Weber in 1940. This new method allowed a sound quality many dimensions superior to that of all prior methods. At the same time, the recording device was more robust, easier to handle and less sensitive. The new technology spread quickly. By the end of 1940 all German radio stations were equipped with it, and 70% to 80% of all German radio transmissions may well have been played back from such tapes. This figure rose to 90% around 1950. These high-value AEG tape recorders were also used as a supporting device to prepare verbal protocols during highly important conferences.
Nothing comparable existed during the war in England and the US. British radio stations had introduced the tape recording method by Blattner and Stille, which was vastly inferior to the AEG system. I do not know what was used during those years in the US. Perhaps another reader can help to find out.
Can one imagine in such a situation that a German sound technician in Posen, at that time a major German city, records a speech of an important National Socialist personality, after all the second most powerful man in the nation, with a technology that must have appeared prehistoric in his eyes? I cannot believe this.
The victorious powers, however, who played back Himmler’s alleged speech from a shellac disk, had no other choice. They could not handle the German tape technology yet; it was of course impossible to play an English sound tape. Thus, the shellac disk was the only option for them, since at that time it was still a mass product in Germany, because the consumers still had the playing devices for them. That the sound quality of the shellac disk was much inferior to the AEG tape, was very much welcome by the forgers. A voice imitator can simulate any person; only when it comes to the details, to the side frequencies, a forgery can be discovered. And these side frequencies can be established only from a high quality sound tape.
By the way: Despite its high sound quality, this AEG tape was not allowed as evidence in German courts of these days. Yet for the Nuremberg tribunal, the much inferior shellac disk sufficed.
A quick internet search shows that he may be correct.

For those unaware a shellac disc is one of those hard and easily breakable records that your grandmother may have owned. Think the HMV gramophone.

At this time, shellac discs were surpassed and not the standard for sound recording in Germany. AEG tapes recorded on a Magnetophon were (). This makes it highly unlikely that if the recording of the speech was authentic it would have been recorded onto a shellac disc. Additionally, a shellac disc has – at most – a recording time of five minutes to each side (http://www.lyricsvault.net/history/H...ellacDisk.html). As stated earlier, Himmler's speech was a long one. The transcript runs to 24,000 words. This is evidenced by Case 11 of the trial reporting that

Quote:
“the Rosenberg files were rescreened and 44 records were discovered to be a phonographic recording of Himmler’s Poznan speech of October 4, 1943.” (NMT, vol. 13, 318.)
Just think about this for a moment. If the speech filled the length of 44 records the individual recording the conference would have been required to change discs 44 times and turn discs at least 87 times during. This must have been an absolute nightmare for him to make! This and the practicalities of the endeavour suggest that it is unlikely the German's, if recording, would have used the format presented at the trial.

This leaves us with the suggestion that the recording may potentially be an Allied fake. Wikipedia suggests that this may be correct

Quote:
"American audio engineer Jack Mullin acquired two Magnetophon recorders and fifty reels of magnetic tape from a German radio station at Bad Nauheim near Frankfurt in 1945. [b]The allied forces were traveling through Germany during WWII when they first discovered the device.[b]"

What it suggested here is that the Allies had no knowledge or experience with this format until they invaded and this, if the recording of the speech is a forgery, may explain why American standard shellac disc's were entered as evidence rather than the German standard AEG tape.

Lastly let me point out that Breitman in The Architect of Genocite claims that tapes were entered (pg. 242.) However, the trial documents contradict him. (NMT, vol. 13, 318.)
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:39 AM   #5
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Criticisms of the revisionist perspective:

While Berger claims the transcript of the speech is incorrect and the voice on the recording might only be Himmler's, others disagree. Pohl claims that he was there and this is an accurate account of what was spoken at Posen (case 4). Additionally, Schneider alleges that he too was there, can verify the account and claims that he was forced to sign a document by Himmler under threat of his family being liquidated if he ever revealed the contents of the speech. (NMT NO-5033.) Conventional historians claim that this was done to complicit the National Socialist elite into the extermination program. We can think of this as a “burning all bridges” effect that would ensure that they fight to the last rather succumb and ever consider making peace, else they would be executed, without question, as war criminals. However, Karl Dönitz's actions at the end of the war and Himmler's overtures to the Allies while seeking to be established as head of state do not suggest this is a correct reading of events.

Additionally, there is evidence that Pohl may have been forced into giving his confession (www.codoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5330) Also, I cannot find anything on Schneider and only an English language copy of his affidavit appears to have been entered at the trial. Potentially suspect.

Lipstadt offers criticism of Butz in her book, but she offers nothing to add here.

Additional material of note:

---- The Posen speech and its recording have come under further criticism:

---- Himmler's handwritten notes do not appear to show any signs of ausrottung. This, of course, does not mean it was not said, but it suggests it may not have actually been a feature for discussion. http://www.codoh.info/forum/viewtopi...tart=30#p56689

---- As far as I am aware, a full recording of the speech and the 44 discs that comprise it have not been released to the public. Why not?

----The Posen speech transcript has also come under criticism for misrepresenting the key word that allegedly shows there was an extermination policy: ausrottung. According to commentators it can be taken a number of ways.

----The Posen speech's suggestion that Himmler headed and put into practice an extermination policy is contradicted by a total lack of written documentation and physical evidence supporting this.

-----------------------------


tl;dr --- It is unlikely that the Posen speech made by Himmler is evidence of a National Socialist policy of exterminating Jews.


[Please correct me if I am wrong anywhere.]

(Also, I posted over multiple posts because it was long and for readability. If mods want me to change this do not hesitate to ask.)

Last edited by crabhat; 13-03-2013 at 05:57 AM.
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 08:25 AM   #6
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 17,072
Default

Some time ago I concluded on this forum the Posen speech was fake, based on time of release and what I knew about contemporary sound engineering. You have added information that supports this.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 12:20 PM   #7
resistance
Senior Member
 
resistance's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,352
Default

Interesting, and thanks for posting. It's really nice to see people researching into this stuff in a non bias manner. I've always had my doubts about the authenticity of this speech. Again, you've reinforced them doubts in my mind. Isn't David Irving in the middle of writing a new book on Himmler? I respect Irwing, and as an historian he's probably done more than anybody else to expose Allied propaganda and lies involving the war and Germany. However, and as you may already have heard, there are various rumours floating around that Irwing may have become somewhat compromised on his latest book? We will have to wait and see what he says I guess. Apparently he was also slating the second ammendment recently, which if true, sounds rather strange coming from a man who highly values freedom of speech that the 1st ammendemnt guarantees him. There's a bit of a question mark hanging over David Irwing if these rumours are true IMO. Perhaps his comments against the 2nd ammendment were just a typical British knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting?
__________________
Individual choice and diversity should mean recognising and respecting our differences… it doesn't mean accepting predetermined/collective beliefs, where refusing to conform means you are labelled 'intolerant' and no longer respected for your own difference of opinion..

res

Last edited by resistance; 13-03-2013 at 12:39 PM.
resistance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 01:04 PM   #8
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Some time ago I concluded on this forum the Posen speech was fake, based on time of release and what I knew about contemporary sound engineering. You have added information that supports this.
Let this be a lesson to everyone, pay note to rodin. I remember opening up your nukes thread months ago thinking you were a nutter, but after sitting down and watching the clips for the first time I was sold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by resistance View Post
Interesting, and thanks for posting. It's really nice to see people researching into this stuff in a non bias manner. I've always had my doubts about the authenticity of this speech. Again, you've reinforced them doubts in my mind. Isn't David Irving in the middle of writing a new book on Himmler? I respect Irwing, and as an historian he's probably done more than anybody else to expose Allied propaganda and lies involving the war and Germany. However, and as you may already have heard, there are various rumours floating around that Irwing may have become somewhat compromised on his latest book? We will have to wait and see what he says I guess. Apparently he was also slating the second ammendment recently, which if true, sounds rather strange coming from a man who highly values freedom of speech that the 1st ammendemnt guarantees him. There's a bit of a question mark hanging over David Irwing if these rumours are true IMO. Perhaps his comments against the 2nd ammendment were just a typical British knee jerk reaction to the Sandy Hook shooting?
Glad you got something from it.

I believe Irving is at the final stages of writing his book and it should be out shortly. Keep your eyes peeled as he will likely release it as a free PDF on his website. Like you, I think he deserves a lot of respect, but he certainly does seem compromised. The Lipstadt trial close to bankrupted him and destroyed any chance he has of getting his work into the shops again. My perception is that he is downplaying the revisionism (though his revisionism and popular revisionist consensus has always been different) to try and salvage his legacy with the public. Also, he considers the Posen speech to be an authentic account of an extermination plan, Himmler was responsible for organising the holocaust, Hitler was kept in the dark, gassing took place with mass extermination taking place only at the Aktion Reinhardt camps and there was a death toll of 3m. That said, he is still a wonderful writer and you will find few historians better than him.

Upsetting and very unfortunate, I read on his website that there is another reason why he is anti-2nd. After getting a lot of stick he revealed that his schizophrenic daughter had taken her life with a gun. The worst thing? A Jewish group of some description sent him a wreath and the attached note gloated over her death. While I don't agree with him, I can see why he would view the gun ownership debate this way.

Last edited by crabhat; 13-03-2013 at 01:38 PM. Reason: I am too lazy to proof read.
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 04:56 PM   #9
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default

The Pozen speech is authentic and has been crossed checked with other recorded speeches given by Himmler.

The recorded speeches were crossed check with the typed up speech's given by Himmler.

Although Holocaust denier's would like people to believe these are forgeries, it is not the case, if there was ANY doubt to the authenticity of the speech's, then Holocaust denier's/revisionist would have been screaming from the roof top's for eon's and it would be a central point in denying the extermination of people. but they haven't and that is telling in it's self.

It's funny how holocaust denier's, especially on the David Icke forum agree with David Irving when it suits them but disagree with David Irving when he contradicts their pov.

A classic case of Cherry Picking.

David Irving at his trail in the UK had only the typed up speech of October 1934, however after hearing the speech himself, he then changed his mind, you could be sure that if Irving could have proven them a forgery he would have.

The 4th of October 1934 speech, isn't the only speech given by Himmler were he talk's about the extermination of the Jew's. The extermination of other people was going on as well, The intellectuals, POW's, Gypsies, Freemanson's, Jehovah witness, those that weren't fit to work, etc.

The Nazi's knew they were loosing the war, they wanted to make sure the Final Solution plan would be carried out as fast as possible.


Here are the other speech's given by Himmler talking about the Jewish question.

Quote:
Speech of 6 October 1943


Records, discovery and proceedings

Of the second Posen speech, Himmler's terse notes are available, as well as a version recorded via shorthand then typed up and corrected in detail, and the final version as authorised by Himmler himself. The speech in each of these stages resided in the files of the Personal Staff of the Reichsführer (Persönlichen Stabes Reichsführer-SS), which were seized in their entirety by U.S. authorities in 1945.
The text of the speech was recorded into microfilm by the U.S. and released to the Bundesarchiv. Analysis of these previously unavailable documents by historian Erich Goldhagen in 1970 in Koblenz revealed a speech hitherto unknown.[17] It was printed in its entireity for the first time in 1974 in Bradley Smith's and Agnes Peterson's book of selected Himmler speeches.[18]


Reason, intention and relevance

At the end of September 1943, the party chancellery invited all Reichsleiters and Gauleiters, the head of the Hitler Youth Artur Axmann and Reich ministers Albert Speer and Alfred Rosenberg to a conference. It began on 6 October at 9 o'clock in the morning with Speer's reports, his speakers, and four big industries for armament production. Talks from Karl Dönitz and Erhard Milch followed. Himmler held his speech from 17:30 to 19:00.[19]
The second speech is shorter than the first, but contains a slightly longer and more explicit passage regarding the genocide of the Jews.[20]


On the Jewish question

Himmler then reveals to "this most secret circle" his thoughts on the Jewish question, which he describes as "the most difficult decision of my life".[21]
I ask of you that that which I say to you in this circle be really only heard and not ever discussed. We were faced with the question: what about the women and children? – I decided to find a clear solution to this problem too. I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men - in other words, to kill them or have them killed and allow the avengers of our sons and grandsons in the form of their children to grow up. The difficult decision had to be made to have this people disappear from the earth. For the organisation which had to execute this task, it was the most difficult which we had ever had. [...] I felt obliged to you, as the most superior dignitary, as the most superior dignitary of the party, this political order, this political instrument of the Führer, to also speak about this question quite openly and to say how it has been. The Jewish question in the countries that we occupy will be solved by the end of this year. Only remainders of odd Jews that managed to find hiding places will be left over.
Quote:
Further speeches


Statements from five further secret speeches by Himmler confirm the sentiment he expressed in Posen on the "final solution to the Jewish question". On 16 December 1943, he said to Kriegsmarine commanders:[25]
[...] Thus I have basically given the order to also kill the wives and children of these partisans, and commissars. I would be a weakling and a criminal to our descendants if I allowed the hate-filled sons of the sub-humans we have liquidated in this struggle of humanity against subhumanity to grow up.
Quote:
A handwritten memo from Himmler's speech on 26 January 1944 in Posen to Generals of fighting troops reads:[25]
Largest stabilisation in the G.G. since the solution to the Jewish question. – Race war. Total solution. Not allowing avengers to rise against our children.
Quote:
On May 5, 1944, Himmler explained to Generals in Sonthofen that perseverance in the bombing war has only been possible because the Jews in Germany have been discarded.[26]
The Jewish question has been solved within Germany itself and in general within the countries occupied by Germany. [...] You can understand how difficult it was for me to carry out this military order which I was given and which I implemented out of a sense of obedience and absolute conviction. If you say: 'we can understand as far as the men are concerned but not about the children', then I must remind you of what I said at the beginning. [...] In my view, we as Germans, however deeply we may feel in our hearts, are not entitled to allow a generation of avengers filled with hatred to grow up with whom our children and grandchildren will have to deal because we, too weak and cowardly, left it to them.
Quote:
Applause can be heard on a recording of another speech given to Generals in Sonthofen on May 24, 1944, when Himmler says:[27]
Another question which was decisive for the inner security of the Reich and Europe, was the Jewish question. It was uncompromisingly solved after orders and rational recognition. I believe, gentleman, that you know me well enough to know that I am not a bloodthirsty person; I am not a man who takes pleasure or joy when something rough must be done. However on the other hand, I have such good nerves and such a developed sense of duty - I can say that much for myself - that when I recognise something as necessary I can implement it without compromise. I have not considered myself entitled - this concerns especially the Jewish women and children - to allow the children to grow into the avengers who will then murder our fathers and our grandchildren. That would have been cowardly. Consequently the question was uncompromisingly resolved.
Quote:
On June 21, 1944, Himmler spoke to Generals educated in the Nazi world view[28] in Sonthofen, mentioning the Jewish question again:[27]
It was the most terrible task and the most terrible order which could have been given to an organisation: the order to solve the Jewish question. In this circle, I may say it frankly with a few sentences. It is good that we had the severity to exterminate the Jews in our domain.


It's quite clear to anyone what Himmler's intentions were and the intentions of the Nazi Party.

All the number's in these quotes can be checked for references.

At least they are just opinion's of another forum.
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:07 PM   #10
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default

The question of the word has been raised again, it has already been explained in the Holocaust Denial thread already.

Crabhat hasn't chosen to debunk it there so brings it up here, fair enough, here we go again.

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

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

.ganz klar, steht in unserem Programm drin, Ausschaltung der Juden, Ausrottung, machen wir

.perfectly clear, it's part of our plans, we're eliminating the Jews, exterminating them...

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=146016

every good German dictionary confirms that "ausrotten," applied to living things, means killing, extermination, destruction. Here's Sprach-Brockhaus, 1972, defining the noun form "Ausrottung":

Der Sprach-Brockhaus deutsches Bildwörterbuch, 1972, F.A. Brockhaus, Wiesbaden, p. 49 die Ausrottung: völlige Vernichtung. "Völlige Vernichtung" means "complete annihilation."

__________________

There is no doubt in anyone's mind what the words mean.

A native German speak would laugh in your face if you said other wise.
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:08 PM   #11
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default


Here are its translations from 1906 and 1974:




Muret-Sanders enzyklopädisches Wörterbuch der englischen und deutschen Sprache, Teil II: Deutsch-english, 1906, Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin-Schöneberg, p. 213 ausrotten: I. 1. Unkraut [weeds]: to root out or up, to outroot, to uproot ... Volksstämme [races], Wölfe [wolves]: to exterminate.
2. fig. Mißbräuche [abuses]: to extirpate, eradicate, deracinate, auch: to weed out; (zerstören, vernichten) to destroy, annihilate.
II. das Ausrotten, die Ausrottung: rooting out, &c; fig. extirpation, extermination, deracination, destruction.
Ausrotter: extirpator, exterminator, &c; weeder-out; destroyer.
Ausrottungskrieg: war of extermination
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:24 PM   #12
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default

Forget to mention this.

Quote:
The unsparing portrayal of the genocide in Himmler's secret speech is thus interpreted as a means to formally render senior SS and Nazi functionaries as co-conspirators and accomplices in the perpetration of the Holocaust.[33] Joseph Goebbels alludes to this view in his diary entry of 2 March 1943:[34]
As always in the circles of the party, it is the duty of the Führer's closest friends to gather around him in such times of need [...] Above all with the Jewish question, we are so fixed on it that there is no longer any escape. And that's good. A movement and a people that have broken the bridges behind them fight from experience much more unreservedly than those that still have the possibility to retreat.
In an entry dated 9 October 1943, Goebbels commented on Himmler's second speech, at which he was present:[35]
Regarding the Jewish question, he [Himmler] gives a very unadorned and frank picture. He is of the conviction that the Jewish question can be solved by the end of this year. He advocates the most radical and most severe solution, namely to exterminate Jewry, bag and baggage. Of course, if brutal, this is a consistent solution. Because we must take on the responsibility of entirely solving this question in our time. Subsequent generations will doubtlessly no longer dare address this problem with the courage and obsession as we are able to do today.
From the same link two posts above.

This is more proof of what Himmler said was true and NOT a forgery, as is being claimed.

To try and claim that Goebbles writing in his diary, isn't his is absurd.
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 05:36 PM   #13
johnfb
Senior Member
 
johnfb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: on the other side of your monitor
Posts: 6,740
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by boots View Post
Forget to mention this.



From the same link two posts above.

This is more proof of what Himmler said was true and NOT a forgery, as is being claimed.

To try and claim that Goebbles writing in his diary, isn't his is absurd.
Boots, my man, you are like a big old firewall taking on viruses as they come along.....well done again.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bones: 04.03.2014
i can find no evidence that any jews were in camps pre 1939,

Quote:
Originally Posted by bones: 14.03.2014
some jews like many political prisioners were interned b4 1939
johnfb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 06:19 PM   #14
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default

Thank you johnfb

It's not that hard as this era of history has been studied more than anything else. revisionist/denier's have had their time to fully debunk it, but still haven't come up with conclusive evidence to support their claim's.

The Holocaust denier's/revisionist argument are like discussing different shades of red.

The whole event must be looked at in it's context, not just bit's and bob's.

There is testimony of people who worked at Auschwitz gas chamber's, there is dairies from the perpetrator's, there is film footage of mass shootings and the transport train's, there are statement's from the Nazi themselves.and speech's given in public.
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 06:58 PM   #15
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabhat View Post
Do the recording methods of the Posen speech raise questions as to it's authenticity?

An individual writes into the CODOH:

Quote:
The so-called Posen speech of RFSS Heinrich Himmler from Oct. 4, 1943, is often regarded as a forgery by revisionist. I may add a technical aspect to this discussion not mentioned so far, which I would like to present for further discussion.

The speech played back to the audience at the Nuremberg Tribunal had been recorded with the so-called needle technology on a so-called shellac disc. Records made of PVC were introduced to the market only around 1950. A shellac disk had not more than 15 minutes of recording time. It appears that there was only one disk, which could, of course, only hold a small part of the entire speech.
During the years 1939-1940, the German electrical company AEG had perfected the magnet audio technique for market introduction, that is, a technology allowing the recording of spoken words or music on a plastic tape coated with ferro-magnetic particles. The decisive step was the invention of high frequency pre-magnetization by Braunmühl and Weber in 1940. This new method allowed a sound quality many dimensions superior to that of all prior methods. At the same time, the recording device was more robust, easier to handle and less sensitive. The new technology spread quickly. By the end of 1940 all German radio stations were equipped with it, and 70% to 80% of all German radio transmissions may well have been played back from such tapes. This figure rose to 90% around 1950. These high-value AEG tape recorders were also used as a supporting device to prepare verbal protocols during highly important conferences.
Nothing comparable existed during the war in England and the US. British radio stations had introduced the tape recording method by Blattner and Stille, which was vastly inferior to the AEG system. I do not know what was used during those years in the US. Perhaps another reader can help to find out.
Can one imagine in such a situation that a German sound technician in Posen, at that time a major German city, records a speech of an important National Socialist personality, after all the second most powerful man in the nation, with a technology that must have appeared prehistoric in his eyes? I cannot believe this.
The victorious powers, however, who played back Himmler’s alleged speech from a shellac disk, had no other choice. They could not handle the German tape technology yet; it was of course impossible to play an English sound tape. Thus, the shellac disk was the only option for them, since at that time it was still a mass product in Germany, because the consumers still had the playing devices for them. That the sound quality of the shellac disk was much inferior to the AEG tape, was very much welcome by the forgers. A voice imitator can simulate any person; only when it comes to the details, to the side frequencies, a forgery can be discovered. And these side frequencies can be established only from a high quality sound tape.
By the way: Despite its high sound quality, this AEG tape was not allowed as evidence in German courts of these days. Yet for the Nuremberg tribunal, the much inferior shellac disk sufficed.
A quick internet search shows that he may be correct.

For those unaware a shellac disc is one of those hard and easily breakable records that your grandmother may have owned. Think the HMV gramophone.

At this time, shellac discs were surpassed and not the standard for sound recording in Germany. AEG tapes recorded on a Magnetophon were (). This makes it highly unlikely that if the recording of the speech was authentic it would have been recorded onto a shellac disc. Additionally, a shellac disc has – at most – a recording time of five minutes to each side (http://www.lyricsvault.net/history/H...ellacDisk.html). As stated earlier, Himmler's speech was a long one. The transcript runs to 24,000 words. This is evidenced by Case 11 of the trial reporting that



Just think about this for a moment. If the speech filled the length of 44 records the individual recording the conference would have been required to change discs 44 times and turn discs at least 87 times during. This must have been an absolute nightmare for him to make! This and the practicalities of the endeavour suggest that it is unlikely the German's, if recording, would have used the format presented at the trial.

This leaves us with the suggestion that the recording may potentially be an Allied fake. Wikipedia suggests that this may be correct
The shellac or wax master plates wasn't surpassed they were still in use, it's true radio station were using magnetic tapes but that doesn't mean the use of shellck wasn't used.


How do you not know there weren't a team of people recording the speech?

You are assuming there was just one person, that may not be the case.



Proposing that an allied voice imitator was copying Himmler's voice is clutching at straw's, this 'voice imitator' would have to have imitated over 135 speech's of Himmler for it to be true.

"They" would have to have spliced in that many words for the passage that Himmler spoke about in the extermination of the Jews and get it right. with the idiosyncrasies of Himmler's voice would also have be taken into account and fitted in, It would hard to fake, very hard.

The speech can be listen too and when you hear the speech you can also hear the coughing of people in the background.
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 08:13 PM   #16
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnfb View Post
Boots, my man, you are like a big old firewall taking on viruses as they come along.....well done again.
!!!

If I didn't find this so very funny I would surely drop down dead. We're in the Twilight Zone people!

You have celebrated a man who makes assertions without providing supplementary evidence, copy and pastes wholesale from wikipedia, where the vast majority of the citations are sourced from the same book (Smith, Peterson: Heinrich Himmler – which he will not have read), and addresses little of what is found in my posts.

However as I am a reasonable man who always enjoys having his perceptions shattered I will do some more reading, try to find the above book online and look into the second speech.

Boots, please address these topics:

1. “The Pozen speech is authentic and has been crossed checked with other recorded speeches given by Himmler.” Would you be kind enough to provide any and all analysis that you have discovered?

2. What is your take on the inconsistencies within the text? i.e. a. The willingness to treat Eastern Europeans as “human animals,” which is seemingly contradicted by the behaviour of National Socialists during the occupation of France. b. Why the Germans would be nervous or tense about Austria or the Sudetenland? What is the four year plan? c. Why would the famous extermination lines be found in a section subtitled Judenevacuierung? Why would the Allies withdraw the subtitle within the document presented to the court? d. The discussion of communists within the Reich that may contradict the argument that an extermination policy was in place. d. The text presenting Himmler as suggesting all Jewish peoples within Germany have been dealt with when Jews were to be found in the National Socialist armed forces and lived within the Reich as private citizens.

3. What is your take on the physical errors found within the document? i.e. a. The misnumbering of pages. b. No official signature or stamp to be found.

4. What is your take on the problems of the trial? i.e. a. We being told that the documents were found in Rosenberg's possession even though he was not questioned regarding them. b. Berger's doubt that the voice was Himmler's and his claim that what is found within the document was not what was presented at the speech. c. Judge Powers' claim that “there is no evidence, however, that it was delivered at Poznan or any other particular place” and the lack of analysis of the document. d. Why was only a short portion of the speech presented at the trial?


Also, I cannot see why you bring up Irving all the time unless you're working from a script. Irving is not a holocaust scholar, primarily, and he has little credibility in the revisionist community. I for one disagree with many of his assertions. You’d be better off getting your people to cough up the cash and damage the credibility of Robert Faurisson.

Quote:
The shellac or wax master plates wasn't surpassed they were still in use, it's true radio station were using magnetic tapes but that doesn't mean the use of shellck wasn't used.
True, though wikipedia has “many speeches ... were recorded.” Of course, wiki isn't the best source (though don't use that after how you post) but we could assume that if not National Socialist speeches then whose? Especially given how renowned they were for embracing new technology. To add, “Magnetophon recorders were widely used in German radio broadcasts during World War II, although they were a closely guarded secret at the time.” The National Socialists controlled the radio industry during this period and this may show that it is highly likely that AEG tapes would have been used over shellac discs. The "guarded secret" line suggests only National Socialists would be privy to the format. Where do you take the argument from here?

Quote:
How do you not know there weren't a team of people recording the speech?
We do not, but it doesn't seem likely. Take, for instance, the problem of changing the disc 44 times during a live speech. Either Himmler stopped and started during every change or it is reasonable to assume they would have skipped at least part of the talk. The potential for human error is high when dealing with 44 changes.

Also, on the subject of fakery in the recording; no one can make a conclusive claim until the recording has been released and analysed using modern methods. However, keep in mind that the Allies have been exposed for presenting shoddy documents at the trial (soap!) and editing recordings. Most famously, Churchill’s Hun speech. You can hear the differing versions here: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.b...-congress.html

Last edited by crabhat; 13-03-2013 at 08:25 PM.
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-2013, 08:24 PM   #17
kaito
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 702
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crabhat View Post
Let this be a lesson to everyone, pay note to rodin. I remember opening up your nukes thread months ago thinking you were a nutter, but after sitting down and watching the clips for the first time I was sold.
I agree regarding rodin and I have great respect for him. The same applies to your good self......

IMO he's right about many of the other Hoaxes he's highlighted on his threads and more importantly, who is responsible for them.

I'd also like to point out that I did most of the frame by frame analysis research showing the blatant fakery in the US Nuclear Test clips, much of which I did before joining DIF. (initially posted on the now defunct Nuke Lies Forum) More coming up shortly....
__________________
Meet the New Boss.....same as the Old Boss

Truth is Hate for those that Hate the Truth

Laugh and the World laughs with you...
Troll and the World laughs at you....promise...

Last edited by kaito; 13-03-2013 at 08:38 PM.
kaito is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-2013, 12:47 AM   #18
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Quote:
At the end of September 1943, the party chancellery invited all Reichsleiters and Gauleiters, the head of the Hitler Youth Artur Axmann and Reich ministers Albert Speer and Alfred Rosenberg to a conference. It began on 6 October at 9 o'clock in the morning with Speer's reports, his speakers, and four big industries for armament production. Talks from Karl Dönitz and Erhard Milch followed. Himmler held his speech from 17:30 to 19:00.[19]
This comes from a German translation of Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth

As I cannot find a copy of this, I dug out my copy of Inside the Third Reich: The Memoirs of” Albert Speer to try and confirm any details. Of note to this thread, I cannot find a single passage in the English translation that deals with Himmler's October 6 speech, let alone the time of it. Additionally, there is nothing relating to Himmler's extermination plans or the holocaust.

While I think Speer would have made the choice of omitting all mention of the above to present himself favourably – it is interesting. One would think he would have something to say about such a significant speech. Of course, he maintains he was never there, but this has been debunked by all and Sundry. (He also initiated Pogroms.)

Quote:

Himmler Quotes:

[The first one cannot be discussed as wikipedia does not provide a date.]

On 16 December 1943

26 January 1944

On May 5, 1944

May 24, 1944

On June 21, 1944:

“It was the most terrible task and the most terrible order which could have been given to an organisation: the order to solve the Jewish question. In this circle, I may say it frankly with a few sentences. It is good that we had the severity to exterminate the Jews in our domain.”
Firstly, let me begin by saying that (besides copying from wikipedia) it is very poor form to post quotes that come from just a single book to advance a case. (Smith, Peterson: Heinrich Himmler.) As shown in my first post, the same text or quote can be handled a myriad ways by differing authors, even if their end goal is the same.

Luckily, I have a copy of Himmler by Longerich to fill in the pieces that will hopefully provide a source for the quotes.

Longerich presents the June 21, 1944 speech as being an innocent one to generals and suggests no mention of such incriminating lines. (NS 19/4014 Bundesarchiv Berlin.) However, digging further shows wikipedia has got the date wrong. The date of a potentially incriminating speech was made the year before. (June 21, 1943.) However, nothing like what wikipedia claims actually was said is noted. While Longerich does not provide a transcript or reference of there being one, he does give us an order that came from from what was discussed:

Quote:
“Those ‘members of the Jewish ghetto not required’ were to be ‘evacuated to the east’, in other words, to be murdered” (Longerich, 667.)
This comes from a document numbered NO 2403. This is entirely different from what your source claims. Here Longerich makes implicit his beliefs that this means the murder of Jews, which tells an unthinking reader to treat it as such; but, as always, we have to consult the document for confirmation. The results may shock anyone new to the holocaust debate:

Quote:
Reichsfuehrer SS
Secret
To:
1. The Higher SS and Police Leader[ (Hoherer SS- und Polizeifuehrer) Ostland
2. Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (Chef des SS-Wirtschafts-Verwaltungshauptamtes)
 
1) I order that all Jews still remaining in ghettos in the Ostland area be collected in concentration camps.
2) I prohibit the withdrawal of Jews from concentration camps for [outside] work from August 1, 1943.
3) A concentration camp is to be built near Riga to which will be transferred the entire manufacture of clothing and equipment now operated by the Wehrmacht outside. All private firms will be eliminated. The workshops are to be solely concentration camp workshops. The Chief of the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office is requested to see to it that there will be no shortfall in the production required by the Wehrmacht as the result of this reorganization.
4) Inmates of the Jewish ghettos who are not required are to be evacuated to the East.
5) As many male Jews as possible are to be taken to the concentration camp in the oil-shale area for the mining of oil-shale.
6) The date set for the reorganization of the concentration camps is August 1, 1943.
 
signed H. Himmler.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...t/Ostland.html

Firstly, we can see Longerich COMPLETELY misrepresents the document to provide evidence of Himmler (let alone what your quote claims) as sending these poor men off to their deaths. If you read the above, it is very easy to see that the full text details they have a labour shortage and are confining Jews into concentration camps to solve this problem. This is clearly a huge problem at the time as Himmler is no longer outsourcing manufacture to private firms as a cost measure, instead passing production over to Jewish (effectively) slave labour. We can also see that Longerich is making a huge leap by suggesting “evacuated to the East” as meaning murdered. The document clearly states that they are being relocated to mine oil. It should also be noted that logical thinking would suggest that in a time of labour shortage the last thing Himmler would was to consider is liquidating anyone.

In short, Longerich has subverted Himmler's order to fit an extermination agenda. This, however, is all too common in holocaust literature. What is especially frightening about this is Longerich isn't a nobody - this book would have sold tens of thousands and he works for the University of London!



Boots, I was going to address all of your quotes, but doing so would be not worth anyone's time. Peterson Smith, your source, is error prone and manipulates/invents text - more so than most. In trying to confirm the accuracy of your source I looked to a well respected source and found that he too shamefully lies regarding sources. Unless you can provide transcripts of these speeches with the text you have posted I would recommend not continuing to promote them.

Also, please provide an English transcript of the second Posen speech. As far as I am aware one has never been made available to the public.

Lastly, please provide a source for the full recording of the first Posen speech. As far as I am aware only the five minute version that was played at the Nuremberg trial is in existence. Working with what we've got at the moment, five minutes of a speech would be manageable to fake outright. A lengthier recording would pose more problems for potential manipulators.




If anyone wants to have a listen to the five minute Posen extract or have a go at studying it technically they can find it here: http://www.holocaust-history.org/himmler-poznan/

Edit: Here is a speech of Himmler addressing a university for comparison:


Who would have thought the weedy geezer would have a gravely, Alpha-male voice? Not me.

Last edited by crabhat; 14-03-2013 at 01:07 AM. Reason: Editing errors in text
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2013, 06:19 AM   #19
boots
Senior Member
 
boots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 12,836
Default

Your desire to make the Nazi's and Hitler to be sweeter than candy doesn't work with me or anyone else with a critical mind.

The vid you posted representing Himmler's voice to be that different to the recording of the Pozen speech is a fallacy, as it's commonly accepted the Pozen speech was recorded on wax master plates, cheap vinyl, the one you posted above has been digitally remastered or recorded of magnetic tape there by giving it a clearer sound, that is obvious.

Longerich received his information from the national archives from the IMT which anyone can obtain also there have been many official SS publications.

OFFICIAL SS AND NAZI PARTY PUBLICATIONS
Werner Best, Die Deutsche Polizei (Darmstadt: L.C. Wittich, 1941). Library of Congress Call Number HV 8207 .B4 1941 (Library of Congress).
Günther D’Alquen, Die SS: Geschichte, Aufgabe und Organisation der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt Verlag, 1939). Click here for complete text online.
Richard Walter Darré, Neuadel aus Blut und Boden (München: Lehmann Verlag, 1935). Library of Congress Call Number CS 617 .D3 1939 (Library of Congress).
Richard Walter Darré, Das Bauerntum als Lebensquelle der nordischen Rasse (Munich: Lehmann, 1937). Library of Congress Call Number GN 549 .T4 D3 1937 (Library of Congress).
Das Schwarze Korps. Zeitung der Schutzstaffel der NSDAP, 1-11 (1935-1945). Complete collections are available at the library of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM Library) and the Library of Congress, Microfilm 0596, Microfilm Reading Room, Jefferson LJ139B (Library of Congress).
Die Schutzstaffel: Lieber Tot als Sklav (December, 1926). NARA, RG 242, T-580, Roll 87, Folder 425.
Reinhard Heydrich, Wandlungen unseres Kampfes (München, 1935). Library of Congress Call Number DD253.6 .H5 1936 (Library of Congress). Click here for complete text online.
NSDAP, Der 5. Reichsbauerntag Goslar: 25-28 November 1937 (Berlin: Reichsnährstand Verlags-Gesellschaft, 1937) Library of Congress Call Number S 231 .C5 1937 Third Reich Collection. (Library of Congress) Himmler appears to have spoken annually at this rally for German farmers. See our Himmler Speech List. Also see Axel Friedrichs, Deutschlands Weg zur Freiheit 1935 (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1937). Library of Congress Call Number DD 253 .A1 D6 Bd. 3. (Library of Congress).
NSDAP, Nationalpolitischer Lehrgang der Wehrmacht vom 15. bis 23. Januar 1937 (Berlin: Berliner Börsen-Zeitung Druckerei und Verlag, 1937). Library of Congress Microfilm 91/4954 (D) (Library of Congress). Contains the January 1937 Himmler speech "Wesen und Aufgabe der SS und Polizei."
Reichsorganisationsleiter der NSDAP (Hrsg.), "Die Schutzstaffeln der NSDAP," in Organisationsbuch der NSDAP (München, 1943). This document describes the purpose, membership selection system, and organization of the SS as of 1943. in Trials of the Major War Criminals (Nuremberg: IMT, 1947), Vol. XXXI, pp. 42-51. (Nuremberg Documents Online (Collection May Be Incomplete)).
SS-Leithefte. 11 vols. 1935-1945. One volume from 1943 available at the library of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM Library).
SS-Hauptamt (Hrsg.), Grenzkampf Ost (Berlin 1943). Bundesarchiv Koblenz, ZSg. 3/vorl. 941.
SS-Hauptamt (Hrsg), Lehrplan für zwölfwöchige Schulung (Berlin, no date).
SS-Hauptamt (Hrsg.), Der Weg der NSDAP: Entstehung, Kampf und Sieg (Berlin: 194?). Library of Congress Call Number DD 253 .N327 (Library of Congress).
SS-Hauptamt (Hrsg.), Die SS- und Polizeigerichtsbarkeit (Leipzig: F.A. Wordel, 1944). Library of Congress Call Number LAW <Europe West Germany 4 Schutzstaffel 1944> (Library of Congress).
SS-Hauptamt (Hrsg.), “Lehrplan für die weltanschauliche Erziehung in der SS und Polizei 1943-44.” Available in Hans-Adolf Jacobsen and Werner Jochmann (Hrsg.), Ausgewählte Dokumente zur Geschichte des Nationalsozialismus 1933-1945 (Bielefeld: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1961). Library of Congress Call Number DD 256.5 .J248 (Library of Congress).
Hans Volz, Von der Grossmacht zur Weltmacht (Berlin: Junker und Dünnhaupt, 1937). Library of Congress Call Number DD 253 .A1 D6 Bd. 5 1942 (Library of Congress). Contains the January 15, 1937 Himmler speech given on the "Day of the German Police."
It is your job to discredit them all.

To try and discredit the wiki link because it showed one author was a fail for longrech received his information from this.
__________________
It isn't Zionism it IS Rothschilds Zionism.

Originally Posted by bendoon
The white race is the only race that isn't racist.Originally Posted by bendoonall the most intelligent people in history have been racist .

boots is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-2013, 02:43 PM   #20
crabhat
Member
 
crabhat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 65
Default

Nice job skipping half the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boots View Post
Your desire to make the Nazi's and Hitler to be sweeter than candy doesn't work with me or anyone else with a critical mind.
You give readers dropping in too little credit. The words you utter will not sway anyone's mind. No one could possibly take that viewpoint. Christ, you're telling that to a man who has used orthodox ("it happened") holocaust history texts as his primary source in this thread.

I think few revisionists on this site look into the holocaust as a means to enhance Hitler. They look into it because the possibility of deceit exposes another case of wholesale political manipulation by the ruling class, which is, after all, the topic of this sub-forum. By the way boots, what is your take on 9/11? The answer may be telling.

Quote:
The vid you posted representing Himmler's voice to be that different to the recording of the Pozen speech is a fallacy, as it's commonly accepted the Pozen speech was recorded on wax master plates, cheap vinyl, the one you posted above has been digitally remastered or recorded of magnetic tape there by giving it a clearer sound, that is obvious.
You have shown a lack of reading comprehension. Nothing was represented that way.

Quote:
Longerich received his information from the national archives from the IMT which anyone can obtain also there have been many official SS publications.
I've been going through Longerich (to remind everyone - current staff member at the University of London) and have discovered numerous cases of manipulation of documents and sources in his book. His word cannot be trusted without checking against documents. Also, we have no idea if he has studied the documents. The example I have given in the post above shows a complete lack of comprehension at best and at worst manipulation.

The thing I have quickly noticed in my researching of the Posen speech is that all this information seems to be obscured from the public. Translations in English are not available for the vast, vast majority of potentially incriminating speeches. We have to ask ourselves why? Have sent an e-mail to both the National Archives and the Holocaust Memorial Museum (who have been given certain texts over the years) to see if access is actually available to the public at large.

Actually, right now I'm hoping they will reveal to me the holocaust happened as orthodox historians say. No book of Himmler speeches has ever been released. Think I could make a mint paying a German £6 an hour to translate them, repackaging it as horrifically as I can and then taking it to publishes for a mint.

Quote:
To try and discredit the wiki link because it showed one author was a fail for longrech received his information from this.
Longerich is a German speaker, so one would hope so. The trouble is - as anyone who has read a few history books on one topic can tell you - that the writing of history is incestuous. I.e. Writers prefer the quick and easy solution of looking a topic up in another's work rather than getting out there and doing actual research.

By the way, just been having a look at that book wikipedia cites as the key source for all of your Himmler quotes.

Bradley Smith's Heinrich Himmler was published in the 70s and looks like it has been long out of print and has very little web-presence. Besides this, it is not a book that is to be found on any university reading lists in the UK. One suspects the book may be a garbage history that is used on wikipedia as it presents the most shocking of quotes. Let's face it, the people editing know that few will ever pursue a source. Confusing to the search there is a revisionist called Bradley Smith who has found his way onto the ADL page under extremists.


http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffma...eches.htm#1943

Also of note, the 06/10/43 'Second' Speech has an incomplete audio recording available.

Busy for the next few days, but I will come back soon with anything else of note that I find.
crabhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:30 PM.