We are fully aware that this war can end either in the extermination of the Aryan people or in the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. I said as much before the German Reichstag on September 1, 1939. I wish to avoid making hasty prophesies, but this war will not end as the Jews imagine, namely, in the extermination of the European-Aryan people; instead, the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” will obtain.
February 24, 1942 [source and source]:
Today the idea of our National Socialist, and that of the fascist revolution, have conquered great and powerful states, and my prophecy will find its fulfillment, that through this war Aryan humankind will not be annihilated, but the Jew will be exterminated. Whatever the struggle may bring with it or however long it may last, this will be its final result. And only then, with the removal of these parasites, will a long period of understanding between nations, and with it true peace, come upon the suffering world
November 8, 1942 [source and source]:
There is only one thing left, that is to fight. Just as I said at a certain moment to the internal enemies: "It is not possible to come to an understanding with you peacefully; you want force, so now you'll get it." And these internal enemies have been taken care of.German originals of these speeches are also on-line such as here and here .
Another power, too, which was very strong in Germany has meanwhile been able to learn from experience that the National Socialist prophecies are no mere phrases; it is the main power to which we owe all this misfortune-international Jewry. You will recall the Reichstag session at which I declared: "If Judaism imagines by any chance that it can bring about an international world war for the extermination of the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of the Jews in Europe."
EDIT July 12th 2014: I am grateful to Gackt Sama for this comment, which I am adding to the main text of this post for information:
As deniers often attempts to claim that Hitler merely speaks of "ausrottung des Judentums", thus attempting to make it seem as Hitler merely meant annihilation of Judaism as a power and not annihilation of the Jewish people, I thought I would attach the following videoclip containing a collection of these very threats made by Hitler against Jewry, including a threat which deniers, understandably, steadfastly ignores all they can.
The threat in question contains a very explicit promise of "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa" - Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKA4Ru9LX8M
Once, a very angry denier I confronted with these materials, tried to claim that "Vernichtung" means "move/remove" as in deportation, and not annihilation; a interpretation that any fluent speaker of the German language not only finds laughable and can attest is for a fact a direct lie, but also further demonstrates the outright dishonesty of the methods deniers use.
The word "Vernichtung" simply means 'extinction', annihilation', extermination, et cetera, as can be seen here.
The reader is free to look it up in any Encyclopedia and check for him/herself or ask any native German speaker.
In addition with the fact that the word 'Rasse' means "Race", the listener can hopefully add 2+2 together what it means when Hitler threatens with "vernichtung der jüdischen rasse in Europa".
These translations are a joke. Words like "complete" are simply added in without ever appearing in the speech and "allein verbluten" becomes "bleed other people to death"? And that's just a few examples.
ReplyDeleteDon't you ever check your sources?
That's a fair point on "allein verbluten". However a corrected translation of "For once all the others will not bleed to death alone" doesn't reduce the murderous meaning of the passage: Hitler will make Jews bleed to death.
ReplyDelete*A* fair point? The translation is a mess from start to finish.
ReplyDeleteHere is audio of the speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikH12zSxmUs
The text from your own, German source:
"Ich habe am 1. September
1939 im Deutschen Reichstag es schon ausgesprochen" becomes "They have already spoken of the breaking up of the German Reich by next September" ?
"und ich hüte mich vor voreiligen
Prophezeiungen" becomes "and with the help of this advance prophesy"?
"die Vernichtung des Judentums ist" <--- again, there is no "complete" in there.
This one is particularly senseless. "in jeder Familie.. die aufgeklärt wird,
warum sie letzten Endes ihre Opfer zu bringen hat" becomes "in every family, which will understand that its sacrifices are because of this antisemitism"? It's completely twisted.
If you can't get this short translation right, then one can't expect you to get your conclusions right either. Hitler speaks of Jewry "aus Europa verschwindet", clearly implying their removal from Europe, not from the face of the earth. And the translation interestingly has "ausrottung" translated as "uprooting". I guess that was a mistake on your part?
Here's the Domarus translation which was also linked to in the original post:
ReplyDelete"We are fully aware that this war can end either in the extermination of the Aryan people or in the disappearance of Jewry from Europe. I said as much before the German Reichstag on September 1, 1939.43 I wish to avoid making hasty prophesies, but this war will not end as the Jews imagine, namely, in the extermination of the European-Aryan people; instead, the result of this war will be the annihilation of Jewry. For the first time, the old, truly Jewish rule of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” will obtain.
And the more the fighting expands, the more anti-Semitism will spread—let that be said to world Jewry. Anti-Semitism will be fed in every prisoner-of-war camp, in every family enlightened to the reason why, in the end, it has to make this sacrifice. And the hour will come when the most evil enemy of the world of all time will at least be finished with for the next millennium."
If you want to pretend that this just means expulsion from Europe, carry on and make yourself look an idiot.
Yeah, I'm sure I'm the one looking like an idiot for correcting your mess of a translation.
ReplyDeleteIt appears to me that you either don't know German too well or just don't care about quality and accuracy when you post junk like that.
It strikes me that you're whining about translations because you want to avoid the elephant in the room, which is what Hitler clearly intends to convey with the overall passage. That meaning comes across in all translations, mangled or otherwise, which you would prefer to lie about and/or deflect from.
ReplyDeleteMy original post offered links to two English translations and to the original German so it is all there and checkable, as indeed you were able to do from the sources I provided.
No, there is nothing in this speech that would indicate mass-murder of all Jews in gas chambers concealed as shower rooms. That assertion becomes especially ridiculous considering that
ReplyDelete1. The genocide of Jews was supposedly a top secret operation. So how can Hitler "*clearly* intend to convey" something like that in a public speech? Your interpretation of this speech makes no sense in light of the mainstream hypothesis (unless you are more in line with the view presented by authors such as Daniel Goldhagen, who is denounced as unscientific, even by his own peers)
2. Hitler made remarks about the "Ausrottung" and "Vernichtung" of Jews/Jewry in many speeches, starting already in 1938. However, most "holocaust historians" agree that the decision to mass murder Jews in gas chambers came in 1942 - so either "Ausrottung" had a double meaning, one before and one after 1942, in which case it is impossible to ascertain what Hitler actually meant, or the meaning was of the same, non-murderous nature all the time; in both cases your interpretation must be false.
It wasn't me who dodged this - I was making a point about the lack of quality on this site, a point which you seem to react to with nonchalance (I see you still haven't corrected the garbled "translation" you posted).
Mass murder was intended well before 1942. It was just the means that changed, as I have pointed out many times in my articles.
ReplyDeleteSecrecy was applied about the mechanisms of murder but Hitler did not hide his intentions. He was consistent from Jan 39 that if there was a world war the Jews would die out, one way or another. Ausrottung/Vernichtung could be death via pogroms, death via deportation to Siberia (which Rosenberg called 'murder' when Stalin did it to Volga Germans), or gassing in chambers. The end result is still an intent to make the Jews die off.
I have put the Domaris translation in.
ReplyDelete«No, there is nothing in this speech that would indicate mass-murder of all Jews in gas chambers concealed as shower rooms.»
ReplyDeleteNo, one shouldn't expect the head of state to mention details of the program in a public speech. He probably didn't bother much with the details at all but left that to Himmler et al.
«That assertion becomes especially ridiculous considering that
1. The genocide of Jews was supposedly a top secret operation. So how can Hitler "*clearly* intend to convey" something like that in a public speech?»
There's no contradiction between conveying the general idea that Jewry will be/is being made to pay "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" for supposedly having undertaken "the extermination of the European-Aryan people", and discretion about the means whereby this will be/is being achieved.
«Your interpretation of this speech makes no sense in light of the mainstream hypothesis (unless you are more in line with the view presented by authors such as Daniel Goldhagen, who is denounced as unscientific, even by his own peers)»
What "mainstream hypothesis" exactly did you have in mind?
«2. Hitler made remarks about the "Ausrottung" and "Vernichtung" of Jews/Jewry in many speeches, starting already in 1938.»
At which time they were mere threats, IIRC of what would happen if Jewry should again (in Hitler's view) bring about a world war. Already in 1938, you say? Quote that speech please, I'm curious.
«However, most "holocaust historians" agree that the decision to mass murder Jews in gas chambers came in 1942 - so either "Ausrottung" had a double meaning, one before and one after 1942, in which case it is impossible to ascertain what Hitler actually meant, or the meaning was of the same, non-murderous nature all the time; in both cases your interpretation must be false.»
No, it's just that "Ausrottung" as mentioned by Hitler had by 1942 moved from a threat to implementation, after the Jews had (in Hitler's view) done what he had "warned" them to refrain from, which was to bring about another world war.
«It wasn't me who dodged this - I was making a point about the lack of quality on this site, a point which you seem to react to with nonchalance (I see you still haven't corrected the garbled "translation" you posted).»
Nonchalance is the proper reaction to a hysterical fanatic's hollering. Get used to the idea.
Apparently, ends and means are too complex a subject for this idiot to understand.
ReplyDelete"Secrecy was applied about the mechanisms of murder but Hitler did not hide his intentions. He was consistent from Jan 39 that if there was a world war the Jews would die out, one way or another. Ausrottung/Vernichtung could be death via pogroms, death via deportation to Siberia (which Rosenberg called 'murder' when Stalin did it to Volga Germans), or gassing in chambers. The end result is still an intent to make the Jews die off.."
ReplyDeleteThere exists zero speeches of Hitler mentioning Jews being gassed in gas chambers. Zero. Not even speeches that allude to this in the slightest way.
The idea that the intention to kill the Jews came "well before" 1942 is at odds with mainstream "historiography", so I don't know if I should take this seriously or dismiss it as some random blogger's attempt to make the facts fit his conceptions. In any case your points are not an answer to the point that it's senseless to make murdering of millions of Jews a top-secret operation and then announce it through a speech(or even in Mein Kampf as some "scholars" claim, but you're not *there*, are you?)
"No, one shouldn't expect the head of state to mention details of the program in a public speech. He probably didn't bother much with the details at all but left that to Himmler et al."
ReplyDeleteI wrote "indicate", didn't I? Mr. Harrison's assertions about Hitler's speeches are really just what he thinks are implications of it. That's the level we are debating on here - nothing substantial, just interpretations.
"There's no contradiction between conveying the general idea that Jewry will be/is being made to pay "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" for supposedly having undertaken "the extermination of the European-Aryan people", and discretion about the means whereby this will be/is being achieved. "
This is yet another senseless attempt to make the facts fit your theory, and it isn't what you and other "exterminationists" usually claim. What you usually claim is that the Nazis made every attempt to cover up their crimes, not that they made every attempt to cover up the means of which those crimes were committed with.
Adding to that, to hide the murder of 6+6(5) million people would be impossible in the first place.
Again the fanatic here seems to be you, as making illogical assertions to make the terrain fit the ideological agenda is very typical of fanatics.
«"No, one shouldn't expect the head of state to mention details of the program in a public speech. He probably didn't bother much with the details at all but left that to Himmler et al."
ReplyDeleteI wrote "indicate", didn't I?»
Yeah, and so?
«Mr. Harrison's assertions about Hitler's speeches are really just what he thinks are implications of it.»
Don't know what the poet is trying to tell us, but the argument is that Hitler was publicly stating on 30 January 1942 that Jewry was being/would be called to reckoning on an "eye for eye" basis for its supposed attempt to exterminate the Aryan peoples by bringing about a world war.
«That's the level we are debating on here - nothing substantial, just interpretations.»
Reasonable interpretations, against which our wisecracker hasn't got much to offer.
«"There's no contradiction between conveying the general idea that Jewry will be/is being made to pay "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" for supposedly having undertaken "the extermination of the European-Aryan people", and discretion about the means whereby this will be/is being achieved. "
This is yet another senseless attempt to make the facts fit your theory, and it isn't what you and other "exterminationists" usually claim.»
Was that supposed to be an argument, or is it just the usual hollow rhetoric that "Revisionists" hope might be mistaken for an argument?
«What you usually claim is that the Nazis made every attempt to cover up their crimes, not that they made every attempt to cover up the means of which those crimes were committed with.»
Who is "you" here, first of all?
And who exactly is claiming that the Nazis tried to cover up their crimes as early as January 1942? Cover-up attempts started when the Nazis realized that they were losing the war, IIRC. Throughout the second half of 1941 explicit reports mentioning the number of Jews bumped off reached the RSHA, and the killing in the occupied Soviet territories was being done without much of an attempt to conceal it from the Wehrmacht or the local population.
«Adding to that, to hide the murder of 6+6(5) million people would be impossible in the first place.»
Which is why the Nazis' later attempts to conceal their mass murder of Jews (as concerns non-Jews, mostly killed by subjecting them to privation as was done re the inhabitants of Leningrad and Soviet POWs, there wasn't much in the way of cover-up attempts) by destroying incriminating documentation and burning bodies was a rather pointless effort, unless all they meant to achieve was to make it more difficult to reconstruct the scale of the crime and the particulars of (especially the degree of participants' responsibility for) its planning and execution.
«Again the fanatic here seems to be you, as making illogical assertions to make the terrain fit the ideological agenda is very typical of fanatics.»
What exactly is supposed to be "illogical" about my assertions (except that they may be at odds with the kindergarten version of "logic" that "Revisionists" approach complex historical developments with), our self-projecting friend cannot explain. Hence he dishes up some more rhetorical blather, which he hopes someone might mistake for an argument.
PS regarding our guest's «6+6(5)» remark: readers may be interested in this article.
ReplyDelete« "Secrecy was applied about the mechanisms of murder but Hitler did not hide his intentions. He was consistent from Jan 39 that if there was a world war the Jews would die out, one way or another. Ausrottung/Vernichtung could be death via pogroms, death via deportation to Siberia (which Rosenberg called 'murder' when Stalin did it to Volga Germans), or gassing in chambers. The end result is still an intent to make the Jews die off.."
ReplyDeleteThere exists zero speeches of Hitler mentioning Jews being gassed in gas chambers. Zero. Not even speeches that allude to this in the slightest way.»
Did JH say anything to the contrary of that, genius? Maybe you forgot to read before writing.
«The idea that the intention to kill the Jews came "well before" 1942 is at odds with mainstream "historiography", so I don't know if I should take this seriously or dismiss it as some random blogger's attempt to make the facts fit his conceptions.»
Why, weren't Jews being bumped of en masse in the USSR in 1941 already? And didn't Chelmno extermination camp open business already on 8 December 1941, a few days before Hitler's "go ahead" for a Europe-wide solution at meeting with high-ranking party officials on 12 December 1941?
«In any case your points are not an answer to the point that it's senseless to make murdering of millions of Jews a top-secret operation and then announce it through a speech(or even in Mein Kampf as some "scholars" claim, but you're not *there*, are you?)»
The speech was referring to the operation in very general terms, which could be explained away as rhetorical bluster if required. And as Himmler said in his later speeches on 4 and 6 October 1943, it's one thing to talk about exterminating the Jews and another to be confronted with the grisly details of how that is done. Which is why there was a certain interest in concealing the details at least from those whose opinion mattered to the executors, such as the German people. And in referring to the program in the ominous but vague terms used by Hitler, instead of calling mass murder by its proper name.
"Apparently, ends and means are too complex a subject for this idiot to understand."
ReplyDeleteI guess you're one of those anonymous cowards Roberto is talking about.
"Did JH say anything to the contrary of that, genius? Maybe you forgot to read before writing. "
ReplyDeleteSo when are you going to start debating without all the name-calling, Roberto? When are you going to follow your own rules? Let's see if you can do it. And why are there suddenly three of you trying to defend your case(I'm counting the poster standing on the sideline cheering and calling me an idiot)?
"And who exactly is claiming that the Nazis tried to cover up their crimes as early as January 1942? Cover-up attempts started when the Nazis realized that they were losing the war, IIRC."
I have never ever heard anyone claim the Holocaust was a secret operation only after the turning point. If you're going to add yet another ad-hoc explanation to your lousy theory, then be aware that the more you add, the more problems you are going to have trying to defend it. And knowing Mattogno et al., they are going to use it against you later. That's the hallmark of a bad theory you know - lot's of ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away the empirical mismatch. In this sense I guess you're like the criminal who doesn't understand why it's important to remain silent.
"What exactly is supposed to be "illogical" about my assertions"
I think I've explained it to you many times already. Top secret Holocaust => Hitler doesn't *clearly* talk about the mass-murder of all Jews in his speeches. You can't have it both ways, Roberto.
«"Did JH say anything to the contrary of that, genius? Maybe you forgot to read before writing. "
ReplyDeleteSo when are you going to start debating without all the name-calling, Roberto? When are you going to follow your own rules?»
Did I set up any rules against name-calling? Not that I remember. I do have an aversion to anonymous name-calling, that’s a fact. It smacks of cowardice and lack of character, you see.
And where in the above-quoted remark does our sensitive flower see name-calling?
And how about admitting that your «gas chamber» comment was the result of inattentive reading at best, sensitive flower?
«Let's see if you can do it. And why are there suddenly three of you trying to defend your case(I'm counting the poster standing on the sideline cheering and calling me an idiot)?»
The three write independently of each other, each of them presumably out of contempt for your rubbish. At least that’s my motivation.
«"And who exactly is claiming that the Nazis tried to cover up their crimes as early as January 1942? Cover-up attempts started when the Nazis realized that they were losing the war, IIRC."
I have never ever heard anyone claim the Holocaust was a secret operation only after the turning point.»
Nice attempt to shift the goalposts. I was referring to cover-up attempts such as burning bodies and destroying incriminating documents, not to the basic discretion, mainly guided by considerations of practicality, that the Einsatzgruppen showed when, say, herding their victims to a place outside town and bumping them off there, instead of killing them at their doorsteps. After which they sent explicit reports to the RSHA. Know about anything in the way of cover-up attempts in that period?
«If you're going to add yet another ad-hoc explanation to your lousy theory, then be aware that the more you add, the more problems you are going to have trying to defend it. And knowing Mattogno et al., they are going to use it against you later. That's the hallmark of a bad theory you know - lot's of ad-hoc hypotheses to explain away the empirical mismatch. In this sense I guess you're like the criminal who doesn't understand why it's important to remain silent.»
Looks like our friend is out of arguments and thus increasingly reduced to filling his posts with empty rhetorical blather, which he apparently hopes one or the other sucker to be impressed by. Mattogno et al, you say? They are a joke, trying to hide deplorable quality behind excessive quantity.
«"What exactly is supposed to be "illogical" about my assertions"
I think I've explained it to you many times already. Top secret Holocaust => Hitler doesn't *clearly* talk about the mass-murder of all Jews in his speeches.»
No, he isn’t doing it clearly (in the sense of explicitly) indeed. He’s doing it enigmatically, with a metaphorical reference to the Jewish «an eye for an eye» principle. He’s expressing his intentions in a way that listeners may take as the announcement of a merciless "reckoning" it is meant to be, or as mere rhetoric. Those involved or to be involved in carrying out the program will recognize the former, whereas outsiders are likelier to suppose the latter. You might have a point if your beloved Führer had been as explicit as, say, Himmler at his speech to high-ranking SS officers in Posen on 6 October 1943, of which you can read an excerpt here. But that was not how Hitler expressed himself on 30 January 1942, was it?
«You can't have it both ways, Roberto.»
That was never my intention, as my esteemed interlocutor well knows.
«"Apparently, ends and means are too complex a subject for this idiot to understand."
ReplyDeleteI guess you're one of those anonymous cowards Roberto is talking about.»
If you think so, how about asking your critic to identify himself?
I guess he will do so - provided of course that you do the same.
"Did I set up any rules against name-calling? Not that I remember. I do have an aversion to anonymous name-calling, that’s a fact. It smacks of cowardice and lack of character, you see."
ReplyDeleteUnlike you I don't have the freedom to express my views without fear of persecution, but if you think namecalling is going to help your case, then please go ahead. Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.
"And where in the above-quoted remark does our sensitive flower see name-calling?"
You called me a genius, so unless I'm totally mistaken, that was an example of irony and the meaning of it was the opposite: that I am stupid. But please continue with your denial - next thing we know you're going to deny you're even here discussing on this blog.
"He’s doing it enigmatically,"
Okay, well, "Enigmatically", from "enigma": "a person, thing, or situation that is mysterious, puzzling, or ambiguous".
That was my point to poster Harrison from the beginning - that there wasn't anything *clearly* said in that speech at all - it is all rather ambigious. So you've actually managed to "debate" yourself to the point that we actually agree. Well, I can only rest my case then.
"He’s expressing his intentions in a way that listeners may take as the announcement of a merciless "reckoning" it is meant to be, or as mere rhetoric. Those involved or to be involved in carrying out the program will recognize the former, whereas outsiders are likelier to suppose the latter."
This is pure conjecture from your side. And it's adding to your already voluminous bag of explanations.
"If you think so, how about asking your critic to identify himself?"
ReplyDeleteMy *critic*? Wow, talk about showing what level you're on.
«"If you think so, how about asking your critic to identify himself?"
ReplyDeleteMy *critic*? Wow, talk about showing what level you're on.»
Wow, look who's talking about levels.
«"Did I set up any rules against name-calling? Not that I remember. I do have an aversion to anonymous name-calling, that’s a fact. It smacks of cowardice and lack of character, you see."
ReplyDeleteUnlike you I don't have the freedom to express my views without fear of persecution,»
Why, our friend is afraid of "persecution". Another of those brave defenders of the "Revisionist" faith, who dare not show the face behind the rubbish they produce.
Talk about "persecution", how about trying to do something about, instead of gratefully using it as a handy pretext for hiding in anonymity and feeding your self-importance? Do you think anyone is going to "persecute" you for putting your name under my petition text?
«but if you think namecalling is going to help your case, then please go ahead. Insult is the last refuge of the out-argued.»
In your case that may be so, in mine it's just a reaction to verbiage from the other side and/or an expression of heartfelt contempt.
«"And where in the above-quoted remark does our sensitive flower see name-calling?"
You called me a genius, so unless I'm totally mistaken, that was an example of irony and the meaning of it was the opposite: that I am stupid.»
Actually the "genius" was a reference to your know-it-all behavior, but as you mention it, you haven't exactly shown to be the sharpest tool in the shed.
«But please continue with your denial - next thing we know you're going to deny you're even here discussing on this blog.»
Look who's talking about "denial".
"He’s doing it enigmatically,"
«Okay, well, "Enigmatically", from "enigma": "a person, thing, or situation that is mysterious, puzzling, or ambiguous".
That was my point to poster Harrison from the beginning - that there wasn't anything *clearly* said in that speech at all - it is all rather ambigious.»
From the speaker's point of view, there was nothing ambiguous in what he was saying. He was just political enough to stop short of calling his spade (a mass extermination program) a spade in public.
«So you've actually managed to "debate" yourself to the point that we actually agree. Well, I can only rest my case then.»
I don't think we can agree, unless you accept that what Hitler was talking about with his "an eye for an eye" imagery was mass extermination.
«"He’s expressing his intentions in a way that listeners may take as the announcement of a merciless "reckoning" it is meant to be, or as mere rhetoric. Those involved or to be involved in carrying out the program will recognize the former, whereas outsiders are likelier to suppose the latter."
This is pure conjecture from your side.»
No, this is a reasonable interpretation, which reduces you to lamely babbling "pure conjecture" ...
«And it's adding to your already voluminous bag of explanations.»
... and some more of your hollow rhetoric.
PS:
ReplyDeleteReaders may have noticed that my interlocutor dodged the sentences in my previous post following the one he last quoted.
There was nothing ambiguous about an "eye for an eye" for those insiders who were versed in Nazi language.
ReplyDeleteIt could only be ambiguous if you think that mere deportation would be "an eye for an eye" for plotting to biologically exterminate Germans and for starting a war in which hundreds of thousands of Germans had already died.
If some outsiders interpreted it as rhetoric, they were not paying attention to the facts that were already circulating in Germany such as the contents of letters sent home from troops in the USSR describing shootings of Jews. This inattention could of course have been deliberate, to psychologically distance themselves from the murder being done in their names.
So it was enigmatically said, but "there was nothing ambiguous in what he was saying". Okay, good luck with convincing anyone of that.
ReplyDelete"... and some more of your hollow rhetoric."
This whole thread is filled with your voluminous rhetoric, trying to make sense of the senseless. The "insider/outsider"-explanation is just more of that.
«So it was enigmatically said, but "there was nothing ambiguous in what he was saying".»
ReplyDeleteNot from the speaker's point of view, as I said. And also not from the point of view of those familiar with the way the speaker expressed his intentions.
«Okay, good luck with convincing anyone of that.»
My interlocutor shouldn't think he's speaking for anyone other than himself.
«"... and some more of your hollow rhetoric."
This whole thread is filled with your voluminous rhetoric, trying to make sense of the senseless. The "insider/outsider"-explanation is just more of that.»
Which is why my interlocutor is reduced to an inappropriate and self-projecting accusation of "voluminous rhetoric", I guess.
I prefer short, precise arguments that cut to the chase, not your rhetorical nit-picking on every sentence. Maybe you just don't understand what is meant by "rhetorics".
ReplyDelete«I prefer short, precise arguments that cut to the chase,»
ReplyDeleteThen start presenting some arguments that fulfill all these criteria.
«not your rhetorical nit-picking on every sentence.»
My commenting your remarks is neither rhetorical or nit-picking, but the above period qualifies as the former. And so arguably does its predecessor.
«Maybe you just don't understand what is meant by "rhetorics".»
I use the term for the hollow blather that you increasingly produce as a substitute for arguments you don't have. Maybe I'm being too polite.
"Hollow blather", "hollow blather", "hollow blather". Must be the fifth or so time you attack me with that.
ReplyDeleteWhich means the discussion is probably coming to an end.
«"Hollow blather", "hollow blather", "hollow blather". Must be the fifth or so time you attack me with that.»
ReplyDeleteI found the word "blather" only three times in this discussion and the expression "hollow blather" only once. But even if I had used it more often, that would have been entirely justified because you have produced little else.
«Which means the discussion is probably coming to an end.»
Yeah, you better step out and cut your losses.
Yet you need page after page of longwinded explanations to attack what is supposedly just hollow blather.
ReplyDelete"Yeah, you better step out and cut your losses."
I don't even think anyone bothers to read your posts - they all seem to fall in the "tl;dr" category. Good luck building your esteem on Internet debates.
«Yet you need page after page of longwinded explanations to attack what is supposedly just hollow blather.»
ReplyDeleteNo, the "longwinded explanations" addressed what little you produced by way of arguments before being reduced to just hollow blather.
«"Yeah, you better step out and cut your losses."
I don't even think anyone bothers to read your posts - they all seem to fall in the "tl;dr" category.»
Don't know what that category is supposed to be, and from what I've seen of my friend here, I don't think I'm missing something.
«Good luck building your esteem on Internet debates.»
You shouldn't project your own needs, and I'm actually not that interested in internet debates. It's just that when folks like you start throwing their garbage around, my aversion to such garbage sometimes gets the better of me.
"I'm actually not that interested in internet debates"
ReplyDeleteUhm, right.
Greetings, Mr. Muehlenkamp.
ReplyDeleteAs deniers often attempts to claim that Hitler merely speaks of "ausrottung des Judentums", thus attempting to make it seem as Hitler merely meant annihilation of Judaism as a power and not annihilation of the Jewish people, I thought I would attach the following videoclip containing a collection of these very threats made by Hitler against Jewry, including a threat which deniers, understandably, steadfastly ignores all they can.
The threat in question contains a very explicit promise of "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa" - Here is the clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKA4Ru9LX8M
(I do not know if the links in this post will be automatically bluemarked and clickable when uploaded, but if not, perhaps some moderator or admin can fix it)
Once, a very angry denier I confronted with these materials, tried to claim that "Vernichtung" means "move/remove" as in deportation, and not annihilation; a interpretation that any fluent speaker of the German language not only finds laughable and can attest is for a fact a direct lie, but also further demonstrates the outright dishonesty of the methods deniers use.
The word "Vernichtung" simply means 'extinction', annihilation', extermination, et cetera, as can be seen here: https://www.google.se/search?q=vernichtung+english&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb&gfe_rd=cr&ei=0bq8U87JAoqA8QfEq4HoCg#channel=fflb&q=vernichtung+translation&rls=org.mozilla:sv-SE:officia
The reader is free to look it up in any Encyclopedia and check for him/herself or ask any native German speaker.
In addition with the fact that the word 'Rasse' means "Race", the listener can hopefully add 2+2 together what it means when Hitler threatens with "vernichtung der jüdischen rasse in Europa".
Keep up the good work, Mr. Muehlenkamp
P.S.
Perhaps the provided clip could be added into the main entry-post with an attached explanation of the word Vernichtung?
D.S.
Thanks. I have amended the main post accordingly.
ReplyDeleteGlad I could be of assistance, Mr. Harrisson, and I apoligize for my embarassing mistake of misnaming you as Herr Muehlenkamp.:D
ReplyDeleteCheers:)
/G.S
"I thought I would attach the following videoclip containing a collection of these very threats made by Hitler against Jewry, including a threat which deniers, understandably, steadfastly ignores all they can.
ReplyDeleteThe threat in question contains a very explicit promise of "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa""
That clip has been debated many times on various fora - there is nothing special about it. It's just the same rhetoric about wiping out the Jews, but this phrasing also happens to use the wording "in Europa". In another speech, Hitler uses the wording "played out its role" (in Europe) and "disappear from Europe". Doesn't necessarily sound like killing of all Jews to me.
Who said your beloved Führer wanted to kill all Jews throughout the world?
ReplyDeleteMaking Europe judenrein, through the "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa", was sufficient to him.
"Who said your beloved Führer wanted to kill all Jews throughout the world?"
ReplyDeleteI think it would be fair to say that if Hitler wanted to kill all Jews in Europe, he would also have wanted to, if he could, kill all the Jews in the rest of the world also. Seems to be a very odd argument on your part.
"Making Europe judenrein, through the "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa", was sufficient to him."
Yes, by deportation. That's one way to "vernicht" - turn something into nothing (in Europe).
«"Who said your beloved Führer wanted to kill all Jews throughout the world?"
ReplyDeleteI think it would be fair to say that if Hitler wanted to kill all Jews in Europe, he would also have wanted to, if he could, kill all the Jews in the rest of the world also. Seems to be a very odd argument on your part.»
Nope, it just means that the Führer's ambitions did not extend beyond the European continent, as opposed to the notion that he strove for world domination.
«"Making Europe judenrein, through the "Vernichtung der jüdischen Rasse in Europa", was sufficient to him."
Yes, by deportation. That's one way to "vernicht" - turn something into nothing (in Europe).»
Your linguistic arguments are as poor in German as they are in English. You don’t vernichten (destroy) a race (or the part thereof inhabiting a certain territorial unit, in this case Europe) by deporting it. Unless, of course, the deportation is carried out in such a way that and/or to a destination where the deportees are bound to perish.
@Roberto Modern historiography (in particular some work of Mallmann, Cüppers, and others) that Hitler's ambitions also extended to North Africa and West Asia.
ReplyDeletehere is another quote from 30 september 1942. I think is better because Hitler is more brief...or short.
ReplyDeleteshould Jewry instigate an international world
war in order to exterminate the Aryan people of Europe, then not the Aryan people will be
exterminated, but the Jews..
In this case, the deportation meaning is imposible (but the jews)