Posen Speech

Discussions
User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:59 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:THE STORY OF WHY HISTORY BOOKS HAD TO BECOME 10'S OF 1000'S PAGES LONG
Monstrous wrote:. . . Except for the October 6 speech only some alleged excerpts from the "secret speeches" have been publicized. . . . they can be summarily dismissed
A monstrous new standard: historical documents must be "publicized" in their entirety or any findings of researchers are not to be considered. So, for instance, if several researchers study a document, but they don't "publicize" all of it, but only read it, analyze it, compare it to other documents, and then write about what they think most important to their topic, why then the researchers' findings must be summarily dismissed, without mercy, gone! Because they didn't publicize the whole document. Even if the document is available to other researchers, and its location is known, throw the research out! in fact, every history work must reprint every document referred to in full for each to be considered at all. That is just how it works - kill the trees!
Straw man, usually sources in books are publicly available. In other cases history books may indeed cite from archives only available to researches. But the book "Heinrich Himmler: Secret Speeches, 1933-1945" is no ordinary history book. It claims to reveal "secret speeches" that are often considered to be the best evidence for the Holocaust. But it often only reveals selected excerpts. The entire speeches (or whatever is left of them in the archives) should be made publicly available so that the context of speech statements may be studied. Considering that many of the speeches are argued to have been retyped or forged, the archives should release not just text transcripts but photos of the documents so independent researchers may study them. Today only Holocaust Believers are given access to these archives. Not releasing all details on these central documents gives the impression that something not right...

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:31 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:And why even bring up the women and the children if he has already just stated that the Jewish people should be exterminated?
Have you even read the speech? Himmler was explaining why the women and children had to be included in the extermination:
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.
Himmler's words. Himmler's clear explanation of his thought process and self-justification - bearing no relationship to the lies you are coughing up.
Monstrous wrote:There is some kind of coherence it Himmler is talking about men who were executed as partisans and then talks about what to do with their remaining relatives (who likely often provided support for their men), but there is no coherence in making a distinction for children/women if already talking about a genocide of people.
Ignoramus, he is telling the audience that he did not restrict the extermination to adult male Jews - and that he had women and children killed to prevent a future generation of Jews after the war from seeking revenge against Germany. I agree that the thinking is {!#%@} up - but it is coherent in Himmler's genocidal framework.
The whole section on Jews in the October 6 speech is incoherent. Himmler states in the first paragraph that the Jews are to be ausgerottet.

Then he starts the second paragraph by saying "I ask that you assembled here pay attention to what I have to say, but not repeat it. The question came up: Well, what about the women and children? — I came to a determinedly simple conclusion about that, too. I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out the men — rather I should say, kill them or have them killed — and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons. " Is it okay to repeat that men are genocided but not okay to repeat that women and children are genocided? Obviously not. So clearly the second paragraph is talking about a different topic than the first paragraph. Most likely the second paragraph in the not retyped original version spoke of killing partisan relatives just like Himmler did in later speeches. Then it makes sense. Killing partisan men was justified by international law. Killing their relatives was not which is why Himmler states that this should not be repeated.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:31 pm

Erich Von Dem Bach Zelewski, an SS Lieutenant General, Identified it as Himmler's voice.

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:33 pm

Is it okay to repeat that men are genocided but not okay to repeat that women and children are genocided? Obviously not.
Himmler was very squeamish, and obsessed with the notion of "decency". This statement is in line with his known sentiments.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:34 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:Erich Von Dem Bach Zelewski, an SS Lieutenant General, Identified it as Himmler's voice.
You have a habit of making claims without sources. Source?

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Jeff_36 » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:35 pm

See the judgment against Berger.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:57 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:See the judgment against Berger.
"The witness von dem Bach-Zelewski was called by the prosecu­
tion and testified that he was a Higher SS and Police leader
assigned to Russia Center in 1941, and he held that position up
to 1942. Early in 1943 he became a commander of First Motor­
ized SS Brigade and chief of the anti-partisan units. This posi­
tion he held during the year 1943.
He testified to having heard Himmler's infamous Poznan speech
in 1943, and that Berger was there and that [1919-PS, Prosecu­
tion] Exhibit 2368 is that speech."

That is the speech text and not the audio recording.

User avatar
Darren Wilshak
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1082
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 1:16 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Darren Wilshak » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:07 pm

Seeing as you think that "metapedia" has all the answers along with Germar Rudolf and Carlos Porter, I suggest that you ask them, as it is obvious that nothing anyone says to you otherwise is going to keep you happy.
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Do they owe us a living?
Of course they do, of course they do.
Do they owe us a living?
ev corse they xxxxxxx do.

Steve Ignorant and Penny Rimbaud.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:21 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:What problem? Himmler stated that "The Jewish question in the countries that we occupy will be solved by the end of this year." Hungary was not occupied!
Our exchange on Hungary was about whether Himmler was referring to "securing Jews in place" or to the extermination of the Jews - you replied to me that Himmler's statement that the Germans had the moral right to exterminate the Jews, a people whom he said wanted to kill Germans, didn't apply to Hungarian Jews. You've still not told me why.

Himmler didn't restrict his comment on extermination of the Jews to Jews in the occupied countries, he talked about the Jewish people - so I asked you about the Jews of Hungary, as one example. I am still waiting for an answer.

Frankly, I don't think you have one and that's why you're giving us a song and a dance.
The context was "The Jewish question in the countries that we occupy will be solved by the end of this year". Hungary was not occupied. Himmler may have believed it realistic to have confined all Jews in the occupied countries by the end of 1943. He would not have believed it realistic to have killed all Jews by the end of 1943.
Sorry, but no.
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:
Goebbel in his diary stated nothing not already stated in the October 4 speech. . . .
How to explain, then, that a few days after the speech Goebbels wrote in his diary exactly as the Reichsführer SS put it, that the Jewish question was to be solved by the end of this year, an unrealistic deadline btw?
solution = all Jews genocided by the end of 1943 = unrealistic that Himmler would have believed this
solution = all Jews secured in places where they could not "backstab" the war effort by the end of 1943 = realistic that Himmler would have believed this
Well, now you’re changing the subject – the question Jeff and I replied to was whether or not Goebbels’ diary entry referred to the Posen speech; it did, you seem to agree. And Goebbels wrote nothing about “secure places”; he wrote
[Himmler] advocates the most radical and toughest solution, namely to exterminate the Jews, the whole lot of them.
To your other points of confusion, Himmler would of course be the first person to make an unrealistic statement, right? And this statement would be the first time he'd ever said something unrealistic or had an unrealistic thought, is that what you're trying to tell us?

Himmler used some very strange expressions to describe the effort for "securing Jews in places" - like this one on the 6th:
I did not consider myself justified to exterminate the men – in other words, to kill them or have them killed
and this one on the 4th:
I am talking about the "Jewish evacuation": the extermination of the Jewish people

and this other one from the speech on the 4th:
We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us.

Can you explain to us how those concepts refer to "securing Jews in places" other than in graves?

And, no, "all Jews secured in places where they could not 'backstab' the war effort by the end of 1943" was no more realistic than all Jews exterminated? How in hell were the 100s of 1000s of Hungarian Jews to be "secured" in 10 or 12 weeks during late 1943 - just for one minor point?


Question for you: Were the Jews, in your opinion, "backstabbing" the German war effort?
Regarding the translation of the diary entry, I have already discussed that in another reply.

Regarding the quotes from the speeches, they seem to be covered here:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches

Obviously Goebbels did not think that Himmler was obviously unrealistic regarding a solution by the end of 1943. Difficult to fit with solution = genocide. Even assuming Himmler had a regular habit of fabulating in speeches.

Regarding the Hungarian Jews, they were in no position to "backstab" the German war effort. Unlike, say, Jews in Germany. Would some Jews have helped the Allies if given the chance? Very likely, considering the German hostility towards Jews. Let us also remember the treatment of the Japanese American and the Volga Germans based on the suspected possibility that some group member might help Japan and Germany.
You will see what I highlighted. Two references to the speech on the 4th, not the 6th.

Not a question about occupied countries here:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:Regarding the translation of the diary entry, I have already discussed that in another reply.
Well, you're free to believe that Goebbels meant "eradication" of their baggage. Your argument was so silly I didn't think you meant it seriously. Anyway, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mit_Kind_und_Kegel.
Monstrous wrote:Regarding the quotes from the speeches, they seem to be covered here:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Posen_speeches
Well, the WN piece makes a number of claims. Which ones do you credit? - and do tell us why.

By the way, Himmler compared the duty which the SS carried out in the Jewish question to the duty they'd carried out 30 June 1934. Were Rohm and the others then taken to "secure places" at that time? He also gave the example of his men having to face 1,000 bodies piled up - were these the Jews taken to "secure places"? Is that how evacuation and resettlement are achieved - by bodies in heaps?
Monstrous wrote:Obviously Goebbels did not think that Himmler was obviously unrealistic regarding a solution by the end of 1943. Difficult to fit with solution = genocide. Even assuming Himmler had a regular habit of fabulating in speeches.
Please don't misstate what I've posted. To be unrealistic, to express urgency, to use exaggeration, to over-promise are not fable telling. "Obviously" it "obviously" doesn't matter whether Goebbels saw a flaw in the RFSS's prediction or agreed with it - I see you're continuing to try to slide away from your original point that the diary entry didn't refer to the speech. Thanks for this concession.
Monstrous wrote:Regarding the Hungarian Jews, they were in no position to "backstab" the German war effort.

Really? Hungary was a solid ally of Germany? Without risk of wandering off the reservation? In a country without influential Jews? Germany did not press Hungary to solve the Jewish question? I see. You should perhaps read a book on the war and tell us about it.

Monstrous wrote:Unlike, say, Jews in Germany. Would some Jews have helped the Allies if given the chance? Very likely, considering the German hostility towards Jews.
So Himmler, when he said on 6 October, that "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," was referring to the Jewish danger in Germany? Really?

You might want to read Himmler's words: as to Germany he spoke on 4 October of the solution in the past tense, because the Jews in Germany had been by and large, mit Kind und Kegel, destroyed by late 1943. Or are you going to explain to us the powerful and influential situation of German Jews in fall 1943, giving us their numbers, describing their organizations, and citing examples of their effective undermining of the Reich?

Let's try again: I didn't ask if Jews might or could "backstab" the German war effort. I asked if, in your opinion, they'd done so. A simple, plain answer will suffice.
Monstrous wrote:Let us also remember the treatment of the Japanese American and the Volga Germans based on the suspected possibility that some group member might help Japan and Germany.
Totally irrelevant to understanding what Himmler said at Posen.

You evaded this: "So, are you going to tell us your view of the speeches?" And this: "Was Speer also threatened and tortured when he said he had in fact heard the speech?" And so on.
So are you going to keep dodging what I asked you? My money is on yes, you will.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:23 pm

Monstrous wrote:Returning to the audio recording. Has there ever been any kind of identification of the voice as Himmler's? Aside from Berger saying that the voice "might" be Himmler's?
Asked and answered. Your repetitions do you no good.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:28 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:Returning to the audio recording. Has there ever been any kind of identification of the voice as Himmler's? Aside from Berger saying that the voice "might" be Himmler's?
Asked and answered. Your repetitions do you no good.
I have received some answers but with no sourced or verifiable claims. Let me rephrase then: Is there any sourced claim for a voice identification of Himmler being the speaker aside from Berger stating "might"?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:31 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:THE STORY OF WHY HISTORY BOOKS HAD TO BECOME 10'S OF 1000'S PAGES LONG
Monstrous wrote:. . . Except for the October 6 speech only some alleged excerpts from the "secret speeches" have been publicized. . . . they can be summarily dismissed
A monstrous new standard: historical documents must be "publicized" in their entirety or any findings of researchers are not to be considered. So, for instance, if several researchers study a document, but they don't "publicize" all of it, but only read it, analyze it, compare it to other documents, and then write about what they think most important to their topic, why then the researchers' findings must be summarily dismissed, without mercy, gone! Because they didn't publicize the whole document. Even if the document is available to other researchers, and its location is known, throw the research out! in fact, every history work must reprint every document referred to in full for each to be considered at all. That is just how it works - kill the trees!
Monstrous wrote:Straw man, usually sources in books are publicly available.
You are insane. First, the speech is publicly available. Second, it is not true that sources are usually in books that are available publicly. You've clearly never done or engaged in historical research.

Third, you're the one who wrote that if full sources aren't "publicized," there can be summarily dismissed: no strawman at all, just following the implications of your claim through to their absurd conclusion.
Monstrous wrote:In other cases history books may indeed cite from archives only available to researches. But the book "Heinrich Himmler: Secret Speeches, 1933-1945" is no ordinary history book. It claims to reveal "secret speeches" that are often considered to be the best evidence for the Holocaust. But it often only reveals selected excerpts. The entire speeches (or whatever is left of them in the archives) should be made publicly available so that the context of speech statements may be studied. Considering that many of the speeches are argued to have been retyped or forged, the archives should release not just text transcripts but photos of the documents so independent researchers may study them. Today only Holocaust Believers are given access to these archives. Not releasing all details on these central documents gives the impression that something not right...
Who cares? The speech is available publicly - I gave you two links to it. And in my first reply in this thread I gave a citation for where the transcript and audio recording sit in NARA.

This is what you've got? LOL
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:31 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:Returning to the audio recording. Has there ever been any kind of identification of the voice as Himmler's? Aside from Berger saying that the voice "might" be Himmler's?
Asked and answered. Your repetitions do you no good.
I have received some answers but with no sourced or verifiable claims. Let me rephrase then: Is there any sourced claim for a voice identification of Himmler being the speaker aside from Berger stating "might"?
You were answered to the best of forum members' knowledge.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:And why even bring up the women and the children if he has already just stated that the Jewish people should be exterminated?
Have you even read the speech? Himmler was explaining why the women and children had to be included in the extermination:
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.
Himmler's words. Himmler's clear explanation of his thought process and self-justification - bearing no relationship to the lies you are coughing up.
Monstrous wrote:There is some kind of coherence it Himmler is talking about men who were executed as partisans and then talks about what to do with their remaining relatives (who likely often provided support for their men), but there is no coherence in making a distinction for children/women if already talking about a genocide of people.
Ignoramus, he is telling the audience that he did not restrict the extermination to adult male Jews - and that he had women and children killed to prevent a future generation of Jews after the war from seeking revenge against Germany. I agree that the thinking is {!#%@} up - but it is coherent in Himmler's genocidal framework.
The whole section on Jews in the October 6 speech is incoherent. Himmler states in the first paragraph that the Jews are to be ausgerottet.

Then he starts the second paragraph by saying "I ask that you assembled here pay attention to what I have to say, but not repeat it. The question came up: Well, what about the women and children? — I came to a determinedly simple conclusion about that, too. I did not believe that I had the right to wipe out the men — rather I should say, kill them or have them killed — and let their children grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons. " Is it okay to repeat that men are genocided but not okay to repeat that women and children are genocided? Obviously not. So clearly the second paragraph is talking about a different topic than the first paragraph. Most likely the second paragraph in the not retyped original version spoke of killing partisan relatives just like Himmler did in later speeches. Then it makes sense. Killing partisan men was justified by international law. Killing their relatives was not which is why Himmler states that this should not be repeated.
As I said, you're insane. You're just making things up and not paying attention to answers you're given or to the text itself. Try as you might to make this complex, it isn't. Himmler asks if, having killed the men, was it also justified to kill the women. He never says a word about partisans here and he ties the exterminations to the Jewish question and to the Führer. We see you trying to find partisans where there are none. That is fine, but you don't get to make things up.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote: [endless quote of old posts]
So are you going to keep dodging what I asked you? My money is on yes, you will.
Not sure exactly which question you are referring to in your quote but I will hazard a guess: You are confusing the deadline given in the October 6 speech regarding a solution in all occupied countries with statements in the October 4 speech regarding Jews in general. But the October 4 speech had no deadline (or rather, it stated that the Jews had already been killed, even stranger...).

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:42 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Re Engle not being there: Karl Donitz was present at the October 6th speech. It is reasonable to assume that Engel, his deputy, would be there as well.
Source? Donitz was a speaker but it seems he made the standard successful defense ("There was a Holocaust but I knew nothing") so he would have denied being present during Himmler's speech.
Dönitz was one of the friggin' speakers that day. It's covered on the Wikipedia page FWIW and in Gitty Sereny's book. IIRC she's cited on the Wikipedia page. There were others, including Rosenberg, present too who were neither Reichsleiters nor Gauleiters.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:43 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:THE STORY OF WHY HISTORY BOOKS HAD TO BECOME 10'S OF 1000'S PAGES LONG
Monstrous wrote:. . . Except for the October 6 speech only some alleged excerpts from the "secret speeches" have been publicized. . . . they can be summarily dismissed
A monstrous new standard: historical documents must be "publicized" in their entirety or any findings of researchers are not to be considered. So, for instance, if several researchers study a document, but they don't "publicize" all of it, but only read it, analyze it, compare it to other documents, and then write about what they think most important to their topic, why then the researchers' findings must be summarily dismissed, without mercy, gone! Because they didn't publicize the whole document. Even if the document is available to other researchers, and its location is known, throw the research out! in fact, every history work must reprint every document referred to in full for each to be considered at all. That is just how it works - kill the trees!
Monstrous wrote:Straw man, usually sources in books are publicly available.
You are insane. First, the speech is publicly available. Second, it is not true that sources are usually in books that are available publicly. You've clearly never done or engaged in historical research.

Third, you're the one who wrote that if full sources aren't "publicized," there can be summarily dismissed: no strawman at all, just following the implications of your claim through to their absurd conclusion.
Monstrous wrote:In other cases history books may indeed cite from archives only available to researches. But the book "Heinrich Himmler: Secret Speeches, 1933-1945" is no ordinary history book. It claims to reveal "secret speeches" that are often considered to be the best evidence for the Holocaust. But it often only reveals selected excerpts. The entire speeches (or whatever is left of them in the archives) should be made publicly available so that the context of speech statements may be studied. Considering that many of the speeches are argued to have been retyped or forged, the archives should release not just text transcripts but photos of the documents so independent researchers may study them. Today only Holocaust Believers are given access to these archives. Not releasing all details on these central documents gives the impression that something not right...
Who cares? The speech is available publicly - I gave you two links to it. And in my first reply in this thread I gave a citation for where the transcript and audio recording sit in NARA.

This is what you've got? LOL
Are you deliberately misleading? The October 4 and 6 speeches have been released to the public in transcript form. The other "secret speeches" have not (except as excerpts).

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:47 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Re Engle not being there: Karl Donitz was present at the October 6th speech. It is reasonable to assume that Engel, his deputy, would be there as well.
Source? Donitz was a speaker but it seems he made the standard successful defense ("There was a Holocaust but I knew nothing") so he would have denied being present during Himmler's speech.
Dönitz was one of the friggin' speakers that day. It's covered on the Wikipedia page FWIW and in Gitty Sereny's book. IIRC she's cited on the Wikipedia page. There were others, including Rosenberg, present too who were neither Reichsleiters nor Gauleiters.
That is not my point. Dönitz was there that day as a speaker but likely denied being present during Himmler's speech. Like Speer.

Engel had no reason for being there.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:48 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: [endless quote of old posts]
So are you going to keep dodging what I asked you? My money is on yes, you will.
Not sure exactly which question you are referring to in your quote but I will hazard a guess: You are confusing the deadline given in the October 6 speech regarding a solution in all occupied countries with statements in the October 4 speech regarding Jews in general. But the October 4 speech had no deadline (or rather, it stated that the Jews had already been killed, even stranger...).
You are full of {!#%@}. The endless quote was to show you what you were asked because you are lying about it. You weren't asked anything about the occupied countries - you were asked about Himmler's various statements about killing the Jews - and since you mischaracterized those statements as preventing Jews from backstabbing the Germans, as you put, you were asked about how that worked out for Hungary. Now, you can grow a pair and answer, or you can keep up this cowardly BS game. But if you keep playing games, play alone. Everyone reading this exchange can see that you're refusing to give me an answer to the question I asked you.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:50 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:THE STORY OF WHY HISTORY BOOKS HAD TO BECOME 10'S OF 1000'S PAGES LONG
Monstrous wrote:. . . Except for the October 6 speech only some alleged excerpts from the "secret speeches" have been publicized. . . . they can be summarily dismissed
A monstrous new standard: historical documents must be "publicized" in their entirety or any findings of researchers are not to be considered. So, for instance, if several researchers study a document, but they don't "publicize" all of it, but only read it, analyze it, compare it to other documents, and then write about what they think most important to their topic, why then the researchers' findings must be summarily dismissed, without mercy, gone! Because they didn't publicize the whole document. Even if the document is available to other researchers, and its location is known, throw the research out! in fact, every history work must reprint every document referred to in full for each to be considered at all. That is just how it works - kill the trees!
Monstrous wrote:Straw man, usually sources in books are publicly available.
You are insane. First, the speech is publicly available. Second, it is not true that sources are usually in books that are available publicly. You've clearly never done or engaged in historical research.

Third, you're the one who wrote that if full sources aren't "publicized," there can be summarily dismissed: no strawman at all, just following the implications of your claim through to their absurd conclusion.
Monstrous wrote:In other cases history books may indeed cite from archives only available to researches. But the book "Heinrich Himmler: Secret Speeches, 1933-1945" is no ordinary history book. It claims to reveal "secret speeches" that are often considered to be the best evidence for the Holocaust. But it often only reveals selected excerpts. The entire speeches (or whatever is left of them in the archives) should be made publicly available so that the context of speech statements may be studied. Considering that many of the speeches are argued to have been retyped or forged, the archives should release not just text transcripts but photos of the documents so independent researchers may study them. Today only Holocaust Believers are given access to these archives. Not releasing all details on these central documents gives the impression that something not right...
Who cares? The speech is available publicly - I gave you two links to it. And in my first reply in this thread I gave a citation for where the transcript and audio recording sit in NARA.

This is what you've got? LOL
Are you deliberately misleading? The October 4 and 6 speeches have been released to the public in transcript form. The other "secret speeches" have not (except as excerpts).
Well, that is not what you wrote, is it? You wrote “Except for the October 6 speech . . .” So I answered what you wrote.

NARA has scads of Himmler speeches, including at least one of the Sonthofen speeches (5 May IIRC). Other than this, your post makes a bunch of claims - so what?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:55 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Erich Von Dem Bach Zelewski, an SS Lieutenant General, Identified it as Himmler's voice.
You have a habit of making claims without sources. Source?
Said the clown who just rattled off a bunch of unsourced claims about archives being closed and whatnot. LOL.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:03 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:THE STORY OF WHY HISTORY BOOKS HAD TO BECOME 10'S OF 1000'S PAGES LONG
Monstrous wrote:. . . Except for the October 6 speech only some alleged excerpts from the "secret speeches" have been publicized. . . . they can be summarily dismissed
A monstrous new standard: historical documents must be "publicized" in their entirety or any findings of researchers are not to be considered. So, for instance, if several researchers study a document, but they don't "publicize" all of it, but only read it, analyze it, compare it to other documents, and then write about what they think most important to their topic, why then the researchers' findings must be summarily dismissed, without mercy, gone! Because they didn't publicize the whole document. Even if the document is available to other researchers, and its location is known, throw the research out! in fact, every history work must reprint every document referred to in full for each to be considered at all. That is just how it works - kill the trees!
Monstrous wrote:Straw man, usually sources in books are publicly available.
You are insane. First, the speech is publicly available. Second, it is not true that sources are usually in books that are available publicly. You've clearly never done or engaged in historical research.

Third, you're the one who wrote that if full sources aren't "publicized," there can be summarily dismissed: no strawman at all, just following the implications of your claim through to their absurd conclusion.
Monstrous wrote:In other cases history books may indeed cite from archives only available to researches. But the book "Heinrich Himmler: Secret Speeches, 1933-1945" is no ordinary history book. It claims to reveal "secret speeches" that are often considered to be the best evidence for the Holocaust. But it often only reveals selected excerpts. The entire speeches (or whatever is left of them in the archives) should be made publicly available so that the context of speech statements may be studied. Considering that many of the speeches are argued to have been retyped or forged, the archives should release not just text transcripts but photos of the documents so independent researchers may study them. Today only Holocaust Believers are given access to these archives. Not releasing all details on these central documents gives the impression that something not right...
Who cares? The speech is available publicly - I gave you two links to it. And in my first reply in this thread I gave a citation for where the transcript and audio recording sit in NARA.

This is what you've got? LOL
Are you deliberately misleading? The October 4 and 6 speeches have been released to the public in transcript form. The other "secret speeches" have not (except as excerpts).
Well, that is not what you wrote, is it? You wrote “Except for the October 6 speech . . .” So I answered what you wrote.

NARA has scads of Himmler speeches, including at least one of the Sonthofen speeches (5 May IIRC). Other than this, your post makes a bunch of claims - so what?
The October 4 speech is the original Posen speech that was "infamous" already during the Nuremberg trials and has been widely discussed. That should be obvious to anyone with a hint of knowledge. I was talking about the new revelations made in the 1974 books on "secret speeches".

My points stands. Even this thread describes the Himmler speeches as the "crown jewel" of Believer arguments. If there is nothing to hide, then they should all be completely released to the public - not just some selected excerpts.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:THE STORY OF WHY HISTORY BOOKS HAD TO BECOME 10'S OF 1000'S PAGES LONG
Monstrous wrote:. . . Except for the October 6 speech only some alleged excerpts from the "secret speeches" have been publicized. . . . they can be summarily dismissed
A monstrous new standard: historical documents must be "publicized" in their entirety or any findings of researchers are not to be considered. So, for instance, if several researchers study a document, but they don't "publicize" all of it, but only read it, analyze it, compare it to other documents, and then write about what they think most important to their topic, why then the researchers' findings must be summarily dismissed, without mercy, gone! Because they didn't publicize the whole document. Even if the document is available to other researchers, and its location is known, throw the research out! in fact, every history work must reprint every document referred to in full for each to be considered at all. That is just how it works - kill the trees!
Monstrous wrote:Straw man, usually sources in books are publicly available.
You are insane. First, the speech is publicly available. Second, it is not true that sources are usually in books that are available publicly. You've clearly never done or engaged in historical research.

Third, you're the one who wrote that if full sources aren't "publicized," there can be summarily dismissed: no strawman at all, just following the implications of your claim through to their absurd conclusion.
Monstrous wrote:In other cases history books may indeed cite from archives only available to researches. But the book "Heinrich Himmler: Secret Speeches, 1933-1945" is no ordinary history book. It claims to reveal "secret speeches" that are often considered to be the best evidence for the Holocaust. But it often only reveals selected excerpts. The entire speeches (or whatever is left of them in the archives) should be made publicly available so that the context of speech statements may be studied. Considering that many of the speeches are argued to have been retyped or forged, the archives should release not just text transcripts but photos of the documents so independent researchers may study them. Today only Holocaust Believers are given access to these archives. Not releasing all details on these central documents gives the impression that something not right...
Who cares? The speech is available publicly - I gave you two links to it. And in my first reply in this thread I gave a citation for where the transcript and audio recording sit in NARA.

This is what you've got? LOL
Are you deliberately misleading? The October 4 and 6 speeches have been released to the public in transcript form. The other "secret speeches" have not (except as excerpts).
Well, that is not what you wrote, is it? You wrote “Except for the October 6 speech . . .” So I answered what you wrote.

NARA has scads of Himmler speeches, including at least one of the Sonthofen speeches (5 May IIRC). Other than this, your post makes a bunch of claims - so what?
The October 4 speech is the original Posen speech that was "infamous" already during the Nuremberg trials and has been widely discussed. That should be obvious to anyone with a hint of knowledge.
No {!#%@}. Which is why your statement struck me as bonkers. But, you can understand, it is in line with everything else you post.
Monstrous wrote:I was talking about the new revelations made in the 1974 books on "secret speeches".
You were talking to yourself.
Monstrous wrote:My points stands. Even this thread describes the Himmler speeches as the "crown jewel" of Believer arguments. If there is nothing to hide, then they should all be completely released to the public - not just some selected excerpts.
The OP, with which I disagree, does nothing of the kind: it describes the Posen "speech" as the "coup de grace." I posted in reply that there were two Posen speeches and that they are not the coup de grace.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:21 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: [endless quote of old posts]
So are you going to keep dodging what I asked you? My money is on yes, you will.
Not sure exactly which question you are referring to in your quote but I will hazard a guess: You are confusing the deadline given in the October 6 speech regarding a solution in all occupied countries with statements in the October 4 speech regarding Jews in general. But the October 4 speech had no deadline (or rather, it stated that the Jews had already been killed, even stranger...).
You are full of {!#%@}. The endless quote was to show you what you were asked because you are lying about it. You weren't asked anything about the occupied countries - you were asked about Himmler's various statements about killing the Jews - and since you mischaracterized those statements as preventing Jews from backstabbing the Germans, as you put, you were asked about how that worked out for Hungary. Now, you can grow a pair and answer, or you can keep up this cowardly BS game. But if you keep playing games, play alone. Everyone reading this exchange can see that you're refusing to give me an answer to the question I asked you.
Worked out for Hungary? As already stated, the Hungarian Jews would have been deported elsewhere earlier if Hungary had been occupied territory and not an ally. Also, Hungary implemented forced labor for able Jews and deportations to Soviet areas as forced laborers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:43 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: [endless quote of old posts]
So are you going to keep dodging what I asked you? My money is on yes, you will.
Not sure exactly which question you are referring to in your quote but I will hazard a guess: You are confusing the deadline given in the October 6 speech regarding a solution in all occupied countries with statements in the October 4 speech regarding Jews in general. But the October 4 speech had no deadline (or rather, it stated that the Jews had already been killed, even stranger...).
You are full of {!#%@}. The endless quote was to show you what you were asked because you are lying about it. You weren't asked anything about the occupied countries - you were asked about Himmler's various statements about killing the Jews - and since you mischaracterized those statements as preventing Jews from backstabbing the Germans, as you put, you were asked about how that worked out for Hungary. Now, you can grow a pair and answer, or you can keep up this cowardly BS game. But if you keep playing games, play alone. Everyone reading this exchange can see that you're refusing to give me an answer to the question I asked you.
Worked out for Hungary?
Yeah, for Hungary, as in the example of Hungary.
Monstrous wrote:As already stated, the Hungarian Jews would have been deported elsewhere earlier if Hungary had been occupied territory and not an ally.
Not what I asked. I asked you about these 2 sentences you wrote:
Monstrous wrote:. . . Regarding the Hungarian Jews, they were in no position to "backstab" the German war effort. Unlike, say, Jews in Germany. . . .
About the Hungarian Jews supposedly not being in the position to "backstab" Germany . . . an answer requires an explanation of the backstabbing you went on about, btw.
Monstrous wrote:Also, Hungary implemented forced labor for able Jews and deportations to Soviet areas as forced laborers.
Again, this is what you wrote, and this is what I asked you about: Jews in Hungary in no position to backstab German war effort.

The labor battalions and labor service in Hungary are not germane to what I asked. You said that Hungarian Jews were in no position to "backstab" the Germans' war effort. I want to know what on god's green earth you are talking about?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 23, 2015 6:42 am

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Re Engle not being there: Karl Donitz was present at the October 6th speech. It is reasonable to assume that Engel, his deputy, would be there as well.
Source? Donitz was a speaker but it seems he made the standard successful defense ("There was a Holocaust but I knew nothing") so he would have denied being present during Himmler's speech.
Dönitz was one of the friggin' speakers that day. It's covered on the Wikipedia page FWIW and in Gitty Sereny's book. IIRC she's cited on the Wikipedia page. There were others, including Rosenberg, present too who were neither Reichsleiters nor Gauleiters.
That is not my point. Dönitz was there that day as a speaker but likely denied being present during Himmler's speech. Like Speer.

Engel had no reason for being there.
That is not my point: we can place Dönitz there, Speer denied being there and we see where that ended up for you, you say Dönitz probably denied being there too - so what? And - we don't have the full list of attendees - and Engel is on tape saying he was there and heard what was said.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:07 am

Monstrous wrote:. . . You are confusing the deadline given in the October 6 speech regarding a solution in all occupied countries with statements in the October 4 speech regarding Jews in general. But the October 4 speech had no deadline (or rather, it stated that the Jews had already been killed, even stranger...).
I'm well aware of the two speeches and what Himmler said in each. And you're well aware that I'm well aware, so stop the BS. Nor is it "strange" in the least for Himmler to have said on the 4th of the extermination of the Jews "that's what we're doing" and that the Jews in Germany had been finished off. By the end of 1943, of course, most of the Jews who perished in the Holocaust were already dead, so Himmler's speaking in the past tense is not strange at all.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Jeff_36 » Thu Jul 23, 2015 3:20 pm

^It is totally reasonable that Himmler would set an unrealistic deadline for himself and his organization IMO.

I have a new theory re: the retyping.

You do realize that you cannot backspace on a typewriter? once you type it, it's there.

So essentially, it is totally reasonable that Himmler was yarling along when a typist either sneezed or coughed and as a result {!#%@} up a word. Let's say "ausrottung" became "ausrtfibnl." When Himmler read over the copy of the speech, he demanded that the mistakes be changed. The page was then retyped on a new set of paper. Rampton, IIRC, pointed out to Irving that there were several retyped pages in the speech, most of which did not have anything to do with genocide.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:48 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: [endless quote of old posts]
So are you going to keep dodging what I asked you? My money is on yes, you will.
Not sure exactly which question you are referring to in your quote but I will hazard a guess: You are confusing the deadline given in the October 6 speech regarding a solution in all occupied countries with statements in the October 4 speech regarding Jews in general. But the October 4 speech had no deadline (or rather, it stated that the Jews had already been killed, even stranger...).
You are full of {!#%@}. The endless quote was to show you what you were asked because you are lying about it. You weren't asked anything about the occupied countries - you were asked about Himmler's various statements about killing the Jews - and since you mischaracterized those statements as preventing Jews from backstabbing the Germans, as you put, you were asked about how that worked out for Hungary. Now, you can grow a pair and answer, or you can keep up this cowardly BS game. But if you keep playing games, play alone. Everyone reading this exchange can see that you're refusing to give me an answer to the question I asked you.
Worked out for Hungary?
Yeah, for Hungary, as in the example of Hungary.
Monstrous wrote:As already stated, the Hungarian Jews would have been deported elsewhere earlier if Hungary had been occupied territory and not an ally.
Not what I asked. I asked you about these 2 sentences you wrote:
Monstrous wrote:. . . Regarding the Hungarian Jews, they were in no position to "backstab" the German war effort. Unlike, say, Jews in Germany. . . .
About the Hungarian Jews supposedly not being in the position to "backstab" Germany . . . an answer requires an explanation of the backstabbing you went on about, btw.
Monstrous wrote:Also, Hungary implemented forced labor for able Jews and deportations to Soviet areas as forced laborers.
Again, this is what you wrote, and this is what I asked you about: Jews in Hungary in no position to backstab German war effort.

The labor battalions and labor service in Hungary are not germane to what I asked. You said that Hungarian Jews were in no position to "backstab" the Germans' war effort. I want to know what on god's green earth you are talking about?
The Jews in Hungary were hardly in any position do anything considering the restrictions and forced labor of able persons enforced upon them. Anyhow irrelevant if talking about the October 6 speech and Himmler's deadline regarding Jews in occupied countries since Hungary was not occupied.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:53 pm

According to Irving, likely the only semi-revisionist who has ever been allowed to see the original documents, the 1943 October 4, the 1943 October 6, the 1944 May 5, and the 1944 May 25 speeches all have the critical parts retyped... These are the most damning speeches... Likely the "editor" missed to "correct" the 1943 December 16 speech where it is clear that the children and women Himmler is speaking about are the relatives of partisans.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:02 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Re Engle not being there: Karl Donitz was present at the October 6th speech. It is reasonable to assume that Engel, his deputy, would be there as well.
Source? Donitz was a speaker but it seems he made the standard successful defense ("There was a Holocaust but I knew nothing") so he would have denied being present during Himmler's speech.
Dönitz was one of the friggin' speakers that day. It's covered on the Wikipedia page FWIW and in Gitty Sereny's book. IIRC she's cited on the Wikipedia page. There were others, including Rosenberg, present too who were neither Reichsleiters nor Gauleiters.
That is not my point. Dönitz was there that day as a speaker but likely denied being present during Himmler's speech. Like Speer.

Engel had no reason for being there.
That is not my point: we can place Dönitz there, Speer denied being there and we see where that ended up for you, you say Dönitz probably denied being there too - so what? And - we don't have the full list of attendees - and Engel is on tape saying he was there and heard what was said.
Engel was gossiping and not testifying. As I said, he likely confabulated based on some gossip he had heard from someone else. He as an admiral had no reason for being present at the speeches. Anyhow, we seem to be going in circles now regarding this.

User avatar
Monstrous
Regular Poster
Posts: 745
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 6:05 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Monstrous » Sat Jul 25, 2015 4:12 pm

Let us turn to another witness: Baldur von Schirach. Here we have a person who had a reason for being present (Gautleiter) and who (despite likely denying this during the Nuremberg trials like Speer) in his memoirs stated that he was present. According his version "everyone was so depressed after Himmler's speech that "when Bormann offered us a snack after the end of the speech, we sat wordlessly, avoiding each other's eyes".
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 99234.html

So in this version the existence of the Holocaust was a complete surprise to most audience members. This does not fit very well with the claims earlier in this thread that the audience already knew of the Holocaust which would explain why no long discussion by Himmler was needed.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Balsamo » Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:Let us turn to another witness: Baldur von Schirach. Here we have a person who had a reason for being present (Gautleiter) and who (despite likely denying this during the Nuremberg trials like Speer) in his memoirs stated that he was present. According his version "everyone was so depressed after Himmler's speech that "when Bormann offered us a snack after the end of the speech, we sat wordlessly, avoiding each other's eyes".
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 99234.html

So in this version the existence of the Holocaust was a complete surprise to most audience members. This does not fit very well with the claims earlier in this thread that the audience already knew of the Holocaust which would explain why no long discussion by Himmler was needed.
I don´t know what has been written in this thread.
But it is very well possible that the full scale of the genocide came as a surprise for some. They all knew what took place in the USSR, the Baltic States, the Ukraine, most knew very well what happened in Poland, but I can agree that the European Scale, the systematic extermination through mass murder of most of the European Jews, that is that deportation meant certain death, could come as a surprise for people like von Schirach, even or even more so as he played his role in the deportation of Jews from Vienna.
I guess that the prospect of defeat which must have been obvious to some among the less idiot, who also realized the consequences that were pending on Germany and on themselves. There was no turning back at that point, and I guess that it was basically Himmler's idea. The situation became a WIN or DIE situation which might have affected some of those bastards.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:02 pm

Monstrous wrote:The Jews in Hungary were hardly in any position do anything considering the restrictions and forced labor of able persons enforced upon them. Anyhow irrelevant if talking about the October 6 speech and Himmler's deadline regarding Jews in occupied countries since Hungary was not occupied.
Which was not really what I asked you about, as I've explained - please try following along here - I asked you about a number of Himmler's statements including these two from the 4th: "I am talking about the 'Jewish evacuation': the extermination of the Jewish people" and "We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us."

So, again, if the Jews of Hungary were in no position to "do anything" why then did the Germans in 1943 press Hungary to take "decisive measures" against the Jews in Hungary - including deporting them? Why did Horthy tell the Germans that he'd opposed the "destructive attitude of the Jews" yet demur from shooting them or locking them in concentration camps?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:05 pm

Monstrous wrote:. . . the 1943 December 16 speech where it is clear that the children and women Himmler is speaking about are the relatives of partisans.
No, it isn't clear. You continue to assert and re-assert whatever you please without paying attention to the words the man used.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:10 pm

Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:
Jeff_36 wrote:Re Engle not being there: Karl Donitz was present at the October 6th speech. It is reasonable to assume that Engel, his deputy, would be there as well.
Source? Donitz was a speaker but it seems he made the standard successful defense ("There was a Holocaust but I knew nothing") so he would have denied being present during Himmler's speech.
Dönitz was one of the friggin' speakers that day. It's covered on the Wikipedia page FWIW and in Gitty Sereny's book. IIRC she's cited on the Wikipedia page. There were others, including Rosenberg, present too who were neither Reichsleiters nor Gauleiters.
That is not my point. Dönitz was there that day as a speaker but likely denied being present during Himmler's speech. Like Speer.

Engel had no reason for being there.
That is not my point: we can place Dönitz there, Speer denied being there and we see where that ended up for you, you say Dönitz probably denied being there too - so what? And - we don't have the full list of attendees - and Engel is on tape saying he was there and heard what was said.
Engel was gossiping and not testifying. As I said, he likely confabulated based on some gossip he had heard from someone else. He as an admiral had no reason for being present at the speeches. Anyhow, we seem to be going in circles now regarding this.
And so what if he was gossiping as you call it? He confabulated on the basis of gossip he heard elsewhere that he'd been present?!?!?! Give us a break: "We were there at Posen . . ." Engel is recorded saying. Engel {!#%@} heard he was there, you are telling us, and got confused? You are pathetic at this.

Yes, this thread reached a dead end when you refused to respond to quotations and evidence and went on repeating yourself. You never even showed us where in Speer's letter he wrote "Hitler" - etc etc. It's useless at this point. To paraphrase Barney Frank, discussing this with you is as worthwhile as trying to talk to a table.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:13 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Monstrous wrote:Let us turn to another witness: Baldur von Schirach. Here we have a person who had a reason for being present (Gautleiter) and who (despite likely denying this during the Nuremberg trials like Speer) in his memoirs stated that he was present. According his version "everyone was so depressed after Himmler's speech that "when Bormann offered us a snack after the end of the speech, we sat wordlessly, avoiding each other's eyes".
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 99234.html

So in this version the existence of the Holocaust was a complete surprise to most audience members. This does not fit very well with the claims earlier in this thread that the audience already knew of the Holocaust which would explain why no long discussion by Himmler was needed.
I don´t know what has been written in this thread.
But it is very well possible that the full scale of the genocide came as a surprise for some. They all knew what took place in the USSR, the Baltic States, the Ukraine, most knew very well what happened in Poland, but I can agree that the European Scale, the systematic extermination through mass murder of most of the European Jews, that is that deportation meant certain death, could come as a surprise for people like von Schirach, even or even more so as he played his role in the deportation of Jews from Vienna.
I guess that the prospect of defeat which must have been obvious to some among the less idiot, who also realized the consequences that were pending on Germany and on themselves. There was no turning back at that point, and I guess that it was basically Himmler's idea. The situation became a WIN or DIE situation which might have affected some of those bastards.
Some of those present, I agree, did not know about the full extent of the Final Solution, which goes back to one of Himmler's purposes for this portion of the speech.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Balsamo » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:20 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Monstrous wrote:. . . the 1943 December 16 speech where it is clear that the children and women Himmler is speaking about are the relatives of partisans.
No, it isn't clear. You continue to assert and re-assert whatever you please without paying attention to the words the man used.
This is maybe the most absurd argument, beside the fake and distorted recording one.
The war against Partisans, which was a great occasion to kill as many Jews as possible, was highly documented, and reported by the end of 1941. Some reports of the EG killing activities were published at 100 copies ( the last ones) and the general report covering the whole period was published at 65 copies.
So it is fair to conclude that everyone close enough to Himmler and attending his speeches were AWARE of that policy, which involved the Wehrmacht, the Police, the SS, and local collaborators. This was no secret that could be revealed by the end of 1943.


EDIT: I was replying to The monster argument, not Statmec's...

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 25571
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Jul 25, 2015 8:27 pm

Balsamo wrote:. . . EDIT: I was replying to The monster argument, not Statmec's...
LOL!!!!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5011
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Posen Speech

Post by Jeff_36 » Sun Jul 26, 2015 3:27 am

Engel was gossiping and not testifying. As I said, he likely confabulated based on some gossip he had heard from someone else. He as an admiral had no reason for being present at the speeches. Anyhow, we seem to be going in circles now regarding this.
Oy Gevalt!
Engels was the right hand man of Doenitz, he had every reason for being there.

As per your other arguments: The October 6th speech is irrefutably proven based on the reactions of Goebbles, Speer, and Engel.

You have neglected to mention the January Posen speech.

The June Speech is also without challenge, and is very damming.

Thanks for providing me with another credible witness by the way!